Transcript Slide 1

COMMUNITY PROFILE 2012
EARLY CHILDHOOD INDICATORS OF
KAY, NOBLE AND OSAGE COUNTIES
Commissioned by …….
Prepared by the Community Service Council
February 2012
KAY, NOBLE, AND OSAGE COUNTIES
Demographic Trends
 Economics and Employment
 Child Indicators

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Population change--migration to suburban
areas of Tulsa and Oklahoma City MSA with an
overall decrease in new births
 Age--aging population
 Race and ethnicity--more culturally diverse
 Living arrangements--transitional for family
living arrangement

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population Trends for Total Population
Kay, Noble, & Osage Counties, 1980 through 2030
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Osage County
Noble County
Kay County
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
(proj.)
2030
(proj.)
39,327
11,573
49,852
41,603
11,045
48,056
44,437
11,411
48,080
47,517
11,989
49,123
50,864
12,585
50,788
53,369
13,014
52,106
Source: US Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010 Censuses; Population Estimates Program.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population Trends for Population under Age 5
Kay, Noble, & Osage Counties, 1980 through 2030
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Osage County
Noble County
Kay County
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
(proj.)
2030
(proj.)
3,098
902
3,776
2,913
773
3,406
2,748
731
3,289
3,033
767
3,306
3,311
814
3,430
3,165
774
3,241
Source: US Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010 Censuses; Population Estimates Program.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Race for Total Population and Children under 18
Oklahoma and Kay County, 2010
Oklahoma
Kay County
13.4%
0.3%
17.0%
1.7%
15.0%
11.6%
Under 18
2.2%
61.3%
8.5%
69.0%
Hispanic
14.3%
N = 929,666
N = 11,781
7.6%
10.1%
1.7%
8.6%
Total
Population
Hispanic
11.1%
0.5%
9.6%
2.1%
7.4%
72.2%
N = 3,751,351
White
Hispanic
8.9%
Black
American Indian
80.2%
N = 46,562
Asian
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Hispanic
6.4%
Other/2+ races
Race for Total Population and Children under 18
Noble and Osage Counties, 2010
Noble County
Osage County
8.9%
0.4%
13.1%
0.2%
13.3%
54.4%
Under 18
20.3%
1.7%
75.7%
N = 2,855
Hispanic
4.6%
N = 11,553
12.0% Hispanic
4.8%
7.9%
0.3%
5.1%
0.4%
14.4%
8.5%
Total
Population
1.8%
66.0%
84.2%
11.4%
N = 11,561
White
Hispanic
2.6%
Black
American Indian
N = 47,472
Asian
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Other/2+ races
Hispanic
2.9%
Types of Families with Ow n Children Under 6,
by Race & Hispanic Origin
Kay County, 2010
Total
White
Black
13.3%
13.3%
12.6%
63.4%
61.1%
30.0%
56.7%
25.5%
24.0%
15.6%
15.3%
14.3%
53.2%
71.4%
63.0%
American Indian
Married couple
21.8%
14.3%
31.2%
Asian
Female-headed
Hispanic
Male-headed
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010 Census Summary File
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Types of Families with Ow n Children Under 6,
by Race & Hispanic Origin
Noble County, 2010
Total
White
Black
25.0%
7.3%
6.5%
16.5%
14.8%
78.7%
37.5%
76.2%
37.5%
6.8%
14.3%
66.1%
71.4%
27.1%
14.3%
100.0%
American Indian
Married couple
Asian
Female-headed
Hispanic
Male-headed
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010 Census Summary File
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Types of Families with Ow n Children Under 6,
by Race & Hispanic Origin
Osage County, 2010
Total
White
Black
7.4%
10.3%
9.3%
73.5%
59.4%
65.4%
33.2%
24.4%
17.2%
33.3%
63.8%
11.0%
13.9%
64.4%
66.7%
24.7%
22.3%
American Indian
Married couple
Asian
Female-headed
Hispanic
Male-headed
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010 Census Summary File
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
ECONOMICS AND EMPLOYMENT
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Wage to
Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family
Kay County, 2012
One
person
Two
persons
Three
persons
Four
persons
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$16,904
$11,170
$5,734
151%
($8.00 per hour)
($5.29 per hour)
$26,630
$15,130
$11,500
176%
($12.61 per hour)
($7.16 per hour)
$31,214
$19,090
$12,124
164%
($14.78 per hour)
($9.04 per hour)
$38,869
$23,050
$15,819
169%
($9.20 per hour per adult)
($5.46 per hour per adult)
Notes: For the self-sufficiency wages shown in table, family of two consists of one adult and one preschooler; family of three consists of one adult, one
preschooler and one schoolage child; family of four consists of two adults, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Hourly wages given assume full-time,
year-round employment.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009; 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 17, January 26, 2012, p. 4034-4035; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Wage to
Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family
Noble County, 2012
One
person
Two
persons
Three
persons
Four
persons
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$16,935
$11,170
$5,765
152%
($8.02 per hour)
($5.29 per hour)
$26,162
$15,130
$11,032
173%
($12.39 per hour)
($7.16 per hour)
$30,743
$19,090
$11,653
161%
($14.56 per hour)
($9.04 per hour)
$38,372
$23,050
$15,322
166%
($9.08 per hour per adult)
($5.46 per hour per adult)
Notes: For the self-sufficiency wages shown in table, family of two consists of one adult and one preschooler; family of three consists of one adult, one
preschooler and one schoolage child; family of four consists of two adults, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Hourly wages given assume full-time,
year-round employment.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009; 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 17, January 26, 2012, p. 4034-4035; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Wage to
Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family
Osage County, 2012
One
person
Two
persons
Three
persons
Four
persons
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$16,721
$11,170
$5,551
150%
($7.92 per hour)
($5.29 per hour)
$26,031
$15,130
$10,901
172%
($12.33 per hour)
($7.16 per hour)
$30,619
$19,090
$11,529
160%
($14.50 per hour)
($9.04 per hour)
$38,326
$23,050
$15,276
166%
($9.07 per hour per adult)
($5.46 per hour per adult)
Notes: For the self-sufficiency wages shown in table, family of two consists of one adult and one preschooler; family of three consists of one adult, one
preschooler and one schoolage child; family of four consists of two adults, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Hourly wages given assume full-time,
year-round employment.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009; 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 17, January 26, 2012, p. 4034-4035; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, Minimum,
Poverty, 185% of Poverty, and Median Family Income
Family of Three, Kay County, 2012
Annual Wage
$60,000
$50,000
($27.91/hr)
Married-couple
families w/
children <18
$43,065
All families w/
children <18
$58,946
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $31,214
($14.78/hr)
$40,000
($20.39/hr)
$35,317
$30,000
$32,801
($15.53/hr)
$20,000
$10,000
$0
$15,312
$19,090
$18,597
($8.81/hr)
$10,800
($5.12/hr)
($7.25/hr)
($9.04/hr)
($16.73/hr)
Welfare
Wage
Minimum
Wage
Poverty
Wage
185% Poverty
Wage
Male-headed
families w/
children <18
Female-headed
families w/
children <18
Estimated
Median Family
Income*
(2006-10 ACS)
Notes: For the self-sufficiency wage, family of three consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Hourly wages given assume full-time,
year-round employment. Welfare wage is the combined value of TANF, SNAP, & WIC. Values shown for median family income are midpoint estimates within a
90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/- 10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009; 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 17, January 26, 2012, p. 4034-4035; Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, Minimum,
Poverty, 185% of Poverty, and Median Family Income
Family of Three, Noble County, 2012
Annual Wage
$66,106
$60,000
$50,000
($31.30/hr)
$52,740
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $30,743
($24.97/hr)
($14.56/hr)
$40,000
$40,917
$35,317
$30,000
$0
$15,312
Male-headed
families w/
children <18
$19,090
$14,479
$10,800
All families w/
children <18
($19.37/hr)
$20,000
$10,000
Married-couple
families w/
children <18
Female-headed
families w/
children <18
($6.86/hr)
($5.12/hr)
($7.25/hr)
($9.04/hr)
($16.73/hr)
Welfare
Wage
Minimum
Wage
Poverty
Wage
185% Poverty
Wage
Estimated
Median Family
Income*
(2006-10 ACS)
Notes: For the self-sufficiency wage, family of three consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Hourly wages given assume full-time,
year-round employment. Welfare wage is the combined value of TANF, SNAP, & WIC. Values shown for median family income are midpoint estimates within a
90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/- 10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009; 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 17, January 26, 2012, p. 4034-4035; Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, Minimum,
Poverty, 185% of Poverty, and Median Family Income
Family of Three, Osage County, 2012
Annual Wage
$75,000
$71,384
($33.80/hr)
$50,000
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $30,619
$52,044
($14.50/hr)
$25,000
$0
$32,786
($15.52/hr)
$10,800
All families w/
children <18
($24.64/hr)
$35,317
$15,312
Married-couple
families w/
children <18
$19,090
$18,784
Male-headed
families w/
children <18
Female-headed
families w/
children <18
($8.89/hr)
($5.12/hr)
($7.25/hr)
($9.04/hr)
($16.73/hr)
Welfare
Wage
Minimum
Wage
Poverty
Wage
185% Poverty
Wage
Estimated
Median Family
Income*
(2006-10 ACS)
Notes: For the self-sufficiency wage, family of three consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Hourly wages given assume full-time,
year-round employment. Welfare wage is the combined value of TANF, SNAP, & WIC. Values shown for median family income are midpoint estimates within a
90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/- 10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009; 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 17, January 26, 2012, p. 4034-4035; Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services;
U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Monthly Budget Distribution for Typical Family of Three
Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Kay County, 2012
Housing
$610
Self -suf f iciency
wage = $2,601
per month.
Tax credit
Miscellaneous
$119
$247
22%
9%
15%
Health Care
$410
25%
Child Care
$676
10%
19%
Transportation
$263
Food
$514
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Monthly Budget Distribution for Typical Family of Three
Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Noble County, 2012
Housing
$597
Self -suf f iciency
wage = $2,562
per month.
Tax credit
Miscellaneous
$130
$245
22%
9%
15%
Health Care
$410
25%
Child Care
$676
10%
19%
Transportation
$263
Food
$502
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Monthly Budget Distribution for Typical Family of Three
Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Osage County, 2012
Housing
$587
Self -suf f iciency
wage = $2,552
per month.
Tax credit
Miscellaneous
$134
$244
22%
9%
15%
Health Care
$410
25%
Child Care
$676
10%
19%
Transportation
$268
Food
$502
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.
Source: Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies and the Oklahoma Asset Building Coalition, December 2009, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma 2009.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Participation in Public Assistance Programs
Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Kay County, 2011
Soonercare Total (185%/100%) (12/11)
24.4%
11,355
58.5%
7,285
Soonercare <19 (185%) (12/11)
23.2%
767
WIC age 1-5 (185%) (11/11)
7.2%
240
Child Care Subsidy <5 (185%) 10/11)
SNAP Total (130%) (10/11)
50.4%
341
WIC Infants (185%) (11/11)
22.4%
10,433
231
TANF <18 (50%) (10/11)
Elem. School Free Lunch (130%)
(SY 2010-11)
2%
65.8%
2,728
Elem. School Reduced Lunch (185%)
(SY 2010-11)
9.5%
393
15,000
10,000
5,000
Number of Participants
0%
0
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of Population
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Statistical Bulletin, Oct. 2011; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2010-11; US Census Bureau,
2010 Census; Oklahoma State Department of Health-WIC Service, Caseload Report, Nov. 2011; Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Fast Facts, Dec. 2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Participation in Public Assistance Programs
Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Noble County, 2011
18%
2,078
Soonercare Total (185%/100%) (12/11)
41.7%
1,255
Soonercare <19 (185%) (12/11)
36.4%
63
WIC Infants (185%) (11/11)
19.6%
150
WIC age 1-5 (185%) (11/11)
28
Child Care Subsidy <5 (185%) 10/11)
3.4%
12.6%
1,460
SNAP Total (130%) (10/11)
16
TANF <18 (50%) (10/11)
Elem. School Free Lunch (130%)
(SY 2010-11)
0.6%
55%
727
Elem. School Reduced Lunch (185%)
(SY 2010-11)
9.8%
130
3,000
2,000
1,000
Number of Participants
0%
0
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of Population
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Statistical Bulletin, Oct. 2011; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2010-11; US Census Bureau,
2010 Census; Oklahoma State Department of Health-WIC Service, Caseload Report, Nov. 2011; Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Fast Facts, Dec. 2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Participation in Public Assistance Programs
Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Osage County, 2011
11.1%
5,270
Soonercare Total (185%/100%) (12/11)
24.2%
2,947
Soonercare <19 (185%) (12/11)
WIC Infants (185%) (11/11)
0
0%
WIC age 1-5 (185%) (11/11)
0
0%
125
Child Care Subsidy <5 (185%) 10/11)
SNAP Total (130%) (10/11)
4.3%
13.2%
6,257
99
TANF <18 (50%) (10/11)
Elem. School Free Lunch (130%)
(SY 2010-11)
0.9%
61.4%
1,649
Elem. School Reduced Lunch (185%)
(SY 2010-11)
11.5%
309
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Number of Participants
0%
0
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of Population
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Statistical Bulletin, Oct. 2011; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2010-11; US Census Bureau,
2010 Census; Oklahoma State Department of Health-WIC Service, Caseload Report, Nov. 2011; Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Fast Facts, Dec. 2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Percentage of Total Population and Children
State of Oklahoma and Kay , Noble and Osage Counties, 2006-10
Percentage of population
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Noble
Osage
Oklahoma
Kay
Noble
Osage
Oklahoma
Kay
Noble
Osage
13.5%
12.6%
23.1%
27.6%
16.6%
17.4%
27.1%
39.7%
19.9%
23.1%
21.1%
21.4%
14.8%
14.9%
Below 185%
34.8%
38.5%
30.2%
34.3%
45.4%
52.1%
36.7%
45.7%
51.2%
63.2%
45.2%
48.7%
42.5%
46.5%
32.1%
44.4%
Below 200%
37.9%
42.2%
34%
36.9%
48.9%
56.2%
38.9%
47.9%
54.9%
67.2%
48.7%
51%
45.9%
50.5%
33.6%
46.6%
Total
Oklahoma
17.9%
Osage
16.2%
Noble
Below 100%
Oklahoma
Kay
0%
Kay
10%
Under 18
Under 6
6 to 17
American Community Survey data are midpoint estimates within a 90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Number of Persons: Total Population and Children
State of Oklahoma and Kay, Noble and Osage Counties, 2006-10
Oklahoma
Kay Co.
Noble Co.
Osage Co.
Population
Cohort
All Income
Lev els
100% of
pov erty
lev el
185% of
pov erty lev el
200% of
pov erty lev el
Total population
3,559,437
577,247
1,238,511
1,349,831
Under 18 years
Under 6 years
6-17 years
895,872
301,806
594,066
207,039
81,792
125,247
406,823
154,557
252,266
438,327
165,696
272,631
Total population
45,598
8,142
17,567
19,261
Under 18 years
Under 6 years
6-17 years
11,602
3,943
7,659
3,204
1,564
1,640
6,050
2,492
3,558
6,516
2,650
3,866
Total population
11,359
1,535
3,427
3,864
Under 18 years
Under 6 years
6-17 years
2,723
958
1,765
452
191
261
999
433
566
1,060
467
593
Total population
45,449
5,718
15,585
16,763
Under 18 years
11,458
1,989
5,233
5,493
Under 6 years
3,429
792
1,669
1,748
6-17 years
8,029
1,197
3,564
3,745
American Community Survey data are midpoint estimates within a 90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Total Population
Kay, Noble and Osage Counties, 1989, 1999 & 2006-10
Below 100%
Below 185%
Below 200%
Percentage of population
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Kay
Noble Osage
Kay
Noble Osage
Noble Osage
Kay
Below 100%
12.9%
16.9%
15.8%
16%
12.8%
13.2%
17.9%
13.5%
12.6%
Below 185%
32.5%
35.4%
35.4%
36.5%
30%
32.1%
38.5%
30.2%
34.3%
Below 200%
35.2%
38.4%
39.4%
39.5%
33.6%
35.5%
42.2%
34%
36.9%
1989
1999
2006-10
American Community Survey data are midpoint estimates within a 90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Total Population
Kay, Noble and Osage Counties, 1989, 1999 and 2006-10
Kay Co.
Noble Co.
Osage Co.
Year
All Income
Lev els
100% of
185% of
200% of
pov erty lev el pov erty lev el pov erty lev el
1,989
46,998
6,083
15,253
16,555
1,999
47,069
7,531
17,173
18,615
2006-10
45,598
8,142
17,567
19,261
1,989
10,718
1,815
3,798
4,121
1,999
11,108
1,423
3,334
3,736
2006-10
11,359
1,535
3,427
3,864
1,989
40,388
6,362
14,302
15,911
1,999
42,735
5,651
13,721
15,160
2006-10
45,449
5,718
15,585
16,763
American Community Survey data are midpoint estimates within a 90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family Income
By Family Type and Presence of Children under 18
State of Oklahoma, Kay, Noble and Osage Counties, 2006-10
Oklahoma
All families
$49,458
Married-couple
$56,733
$64,992
$61,951
Female-headed
$20,070
Male-headed
$35,872
$33,728
$42,333
Kay Co.
All families
$43,065
Married-couple
$53,398
$58,946
$55,291
$18,597
Female-headed
$34,228
$32,801
Male-headed
$53,125
Noble Co.
$52,740
All families
$51,129
$66,106
Married-couple
$52,890
$14,479
Female-headed
$40,917
Male-headed
$45,163
$31,250
Osage Co.
$52,044
All families
Married-couple
$51,029
$71,384
$59,132
$18,784
Female-headed
$32,786
Male-headed
$75,000
$33,920
$50,000
$25,000
Families WITH children
$26,685
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
Families WITHOUT children
American Community Survey data are midpoint estimates within a 90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older
Kay, Noble and Osage Counties, 2006-10
50%
Kay Co.
Noble Co.
Osage Co.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Less than
high school
14.4%
High school
graduate
36.1%
Some
college
21.3%
Noble Co.
11.5%
39.8%
24.2%
7%
12.9%
Osage Co.
12.7%
39%
22%
8.4%
12.3%
Kay Co.
Associate
degree
8.3%
Bachelor's
degree
13.7%
Master's
degree
4.4%
Professional
school degree
1%
Doctorate
degree
0.8%
4%
0.4%
0.2%
4.1%
1%
0.5%
American Community Survey data are midpoint estimates within a 90% confidence range, which can be very wide. Estimates with margins of error exceeding +/10% of estimate are shown in italics.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment
United States, 1973-2007
Real hourly wage (2007 dollars)
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
3
7
19
75 977 979 981 983 985 987 989 991 993 995 997 999 001 003 005 007
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Less than high school
College degree
High school
Advanced degree
Source: The State of Working America 2008-10, table 3.15.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Some college
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for Men
United States, 1973-2007
Real hourly wage (2007 dollars)
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
3
7
19
75 977 979 981 983 985 987 989 991 993 995 997 999 001 003 005 007
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Less than high school
College degree
High school
Advanced degree
Source: The State of Working America 2008-10, table 3.16.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Some college
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for Women
United States, 1973-2007
Real hourly wage (2007 dollars)
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
3
7
19
75 977 979 981 983 985 987 989 991 993 995 997 999 001 003 005 007
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Less than high school
College degree
High school
Advanced degree
Source: The State of Working America 2008-10, table 3.17.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Some college
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment, by Sex
United States, 2007
Real hourly wage (2007 dollars)
$40.00
Both sexes
Men
Women
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
Less than high school
Both sexes
$11.38
Men
$12.32
Women
$9.43
High school
$15.01
$16.68
$13.10
College degree
$26.51
$30.36
$22.63
Source: The State of Working America 2008-10, tables 3.15 through 3.17.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Advanced degree
$33.57
$38.10
$28.77
Unemployment Rates
Kay, Noble and Osage Counties, 1990 - 2011
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Kay Co.
Osage Co.
Noble Co.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Nov.
2011
5.4 5.4 6.2 8.4 9.1 7.2 6.4 7.1 7.4 6.8 4.3 4.1 5.8 6.9 6.2 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.5 7.7 8.7 6.9
4.6 4.8 5.1 5.5 4.9 3.8 3.6 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.2 3.4 5.2 6.3 5.4 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.1 7.8 8.5 7.3
4.1 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.4 2.5 2.3 3.9 4.6 4.4 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2 8.0 6.3 4.4
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
CHILD INDICATORS
THE ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES (ACE)
STUDY PYRAMID
Death
Early Death
Disease,
Disability and
Social Problems
Adoption of Health-risk
Behaviors
Social, Emotional and Cognitive
Impairment
Disrupted Neurodevelopment
Adverse Childhood Experiences
Conception
Mechanisms by which Adverse Childhood Experiences Influence
Health and Well-being throughout the Lifespan
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “About the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study.”
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES…
…GROWING UP IN A HOUSEHOLD WITH:





Recurrent physical abuse
Recurrent emotional
abuse
Sexual abuse
An alcohol or drug
abuser
An incarcerated
household member




Someone who is
chronically depressed,
suicidal, institutionalized
or mentally ill
Mother being treated
violently
One or no parents
Emotional or physical
neglect
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “What are Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE’s).”
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
…LEAD TO HEALTH-RISK BEHAVIORS…






Smoking
Overeating
Physical inactivity
Heavy alcohol use
Drug use
Promiscuity
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
…WHICH CAUSE DISEASE, DISABILITY AND SOCIAL
PROBLEMS IN ADULTHOOD








Nicotine addiction
Alcoholism
Drug addiction
Obesity
Depression
Suicide
Injuries
Unintentional pregnancy






Heart disease
Cancer
Chronic lung and liver
disease
Stroke
Diabetes
Sexually transmitted
diseases
Source: Felitti, Vincent J., “The Relationship of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adult Health: Turning gold into lead;” CDC Media Relations, May 14, 1998,
“Adult Health Problems Linked to Traumatic Childhood Experiences.”
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Summary of Risk Factors for Infants
Kay & Noble Counties, 2008
21.6%
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
16%
54.4%
Unmarried mother
36.5%
15.3%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
5.8%
27.6%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
14.7%
Kay County
Noble County
6.4%
5.8%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
2.3%
1.3%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
1.8%
0.6%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
1.8%
0.6%
Kay County births: 704
Noble County births: 156
13.5%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
8.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
50%
60%
70%
Summary of Risk Factors for Infants
Osage County and State of Oklahoma, 2008
14.9%
13.7%
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
40.4%
42.2%
Unmarried mother
5.1%
5.3%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
14.9%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
21.3%
Osage County
Oklahoma
6.1%
6.9%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
0.8%
1.4%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
1%
1.5%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
1%
1.5%
Osage County births: 510
Oklahoma births: 54,753
12.2%
11%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
0%
10%
20%
30%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
Characteristics of Births to Teen Mothers (Age 15-19)
Kay & Noble Counties, 2008
82.9%
84%
Unmarried
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
13.8%
0%
59.2%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
48%
4.6%
0%
Kay County
Noble County
2.6%
0%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
0.7%
0%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
0.7%
0%
Kay County births to teens: 152
Kay County teen birth rate: 95.3
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
Noble County births to teens: 25
Noble County teen birth rate: 68.7
14.5%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
4%
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
25.7%
1+ previous births
2+ previous births
16%
5.9%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Percent of Teen Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
Characteristics of Births to Teen Mothers (Age 15-19)
Osage County and State of Oklahoma, 2008
76.3%
81.6%
Unmarried
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
5.3%
7%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
39.5%
53.8%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
9.2%
7.8%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
1.3%
1.8%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
1.3%
0.7%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
1.3%
0.7%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
Osage County
Oklahoma
Osage County births to teens: 76
Osage County teen birth rate: 52.2
19.7%
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
11.6%
Oklahoma births to teens:
Oklahoma teen birth rate:
18.4%
20.8%
1+ previous births
7,492
61.7
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
1.3%
3.6%
2+ previous births
0%
20%
40%
60%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
Distribution of Resident Births by Trimester of Entry into Care
Kay, Noble, & Osage Counties, 1980 through 2008
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Unknown
No care
3rd trimester
2nd trimester
1st trimester
1980
5
20
36
120
670
1990
5
11
31
144
497
2000
30
5
35
100
511
2008
31
12
96
154
411
1980
3
2
17
32
153
2000
6
1
1
27
106
2008
9
2
7
24
114
1980
0
0
31
110
389
2nd trimester
3rd trimester
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
1990
6
2
19
112
367
2000
20
7
16
81
399
2008
1
8
18
93
390
Osage County
Noble County
Kay County
1st trimester
1990
13
2
7
23
98
No care
Unknown
Distribution of Resident Births by Marital Status of Mother
Kay, Noble, & Osage Counties, 1980 through 2008
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
% Married
Married
% Single
Single
1980
90.8
773
9.2
78
1990
78.2
538
21.8
150
2000
63.1
430
36.9
251
2008
45.6
321
54.4
383
1980
89.9
186
10.1
21
1990
80.4
115
19.6
28
2000
75.9
107
24.1
34
2008
63.5
99
36.5
57
Noble County
Kay County
Single
Married
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
1980
90.1
482
9.9
53
1990
76.7
388
23.3
118
2000
68.5
358
31.5
165
Osage County
2008
59.6
304
40.4
206
Resident Births to Teens Age 15-17 and 18-19
Kay County, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2008
Number of births
Specif ic birth rate
160

160

120
120


80
80


40

40

0
0
Births 15-17
Births 18-19
Birth rate 15-17
Birth rate 18-19


1980
1990
2000
2008
43
96
35
119.1
31
61
33.1
100.8
30
71
25.5
94.8
57
95
57.2
158.9
Note: Specific birth rate is the number of births to females in specified age group per 1,000 females in age group.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Resident Births to Teens Age 15-17 and 18-19
Noble County, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2008
Number of births
Specif ic birth rate
160

40

30

120

80
20
10




0
0
Births 15-17
Births 18-19
Birth rate 15-17
Birth rate 18-19
40


1980
1990
2000
2008
8
23
26.5
123
3
16
12.7
128
5
14
19.8
106.9
8
17
31.5
154.5
Note: Specific birth rate is the number of births to females in specified age group per 1,000 females in age group.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Resident Births to Teens Age 15-17 and 18-19
Osage County, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2008
Number of births
Specif ic birth rate
80

60


160
120

80
40
20

40



0
0
Births 15-17
Births 18-19
Birth rate 15-17
Birth rate 18-19


1980
1990
2000
2008
29
59
28.2
113.2
24
48
26.4
98.2
26
61
25.5
112.1
17
59
17.5
122.2
Note: Specific birth rate is the number of births to females in specified age group per 1,000 females in age group.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Infant Mortality Rates (5-year averages)
Kay County and Oklahoma, 1980 through 2007
20
Number of inf ant deaths per 1,000 liv e births
Kay Co.
From 2003 through 2007, there was an
average of 5 infant deaths per year in Kay
County, for a rate of 6.6 per 1,000 live
births. In Oklahoma, the average was 425
infant deaths, for a rate of 8.1.
15
Oklahoma
10
5
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
8.5
7.8
2003-07
2001-05
6.6 7.4
8 7.9
2002-06
2000-04
1996-2000
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
6.9 8.3
8 8.1
1999-2003
1995-99
6.5
8.3
1998-2002
1994-98
8.5
8.2
1997-2001
1993-97
9.2
8.2
1992-96
9.5 11.1 11.4 10.1 9.6
8.7 8.7 8.6 8.4 8.2
1991-95
7.9
8.7
1990-94
1988-92
8.8 8.4
9 8.9
1989-93
1987-91
Kay Co. 11.5 11.9 13.3 11.9 10.2 8.5
Oklahoma 11.2 10.9 10.6 10.1 9.8 9.3
1986-90
1985-89
1984-88
1983-87
1982-86
1981-85
1980-84
0
“Healthy People 2020”
goal = 4.5 per 1,000
7.8 6.6
8 8.1
Infant Mortality Rates (5-year averages)
Noble County and Oklahoma, 1980 through 2007
20
Number of inf ant deaths per 1,000 liv e births
Noble Co.
From 2003 through 2007, there was an
average of 2 infant deaths per year in Noble
County, for a rate of 12.6 per 1,000 live
births. In Oklahoma, the average was 425
infant deaths, for a rate of 8.1.
15
Oklahoma
10
5
1995-99
1996-2000
4.4
8.2
2.8
8.2
4.2
8.2
4.3
8.3
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2.8 1.4
8 8.1
2.8 4.1
8 7.9
4.1
7.8
2003-07
1994-98
4.5
8.4
2002-06
1993-97
6.1
8.6
2001-05
1992-96
7.7
8.7
2000-04
1991-95
7.7
8.7
1999-2003
1990-94
5.8
8.7
1998-2002
1989-93
2.7 5.5
9 8.9
1997-2001
1988-92
6.4
9.3
1987-91
1985-89
Noble Co. 11 14.4 11.6 11.1 9.2
Oklahoma 11.2 10.9 10.6 10.1 9.8
1986-90
1984-88
1983-87
1982-86
1981-85
1980-84
0
“Healthy People 2020”
goal = 4.5 per 1,000
5.6 12.6
8 8.1
Infant Mortality Rates (5-year averages)
Osage County and Oklahoma, 1980 through 2007
20
Number of inf ant deaths per 1,000 liv e births
Osage Co.
From 2003 through 2007, there was an
average of 4 infant deaths per year in
Osage County, for a rate of 8.8 per 1,000
live births. In Oklahoma, the average was
425 infant deaths, for a rate of 8.1.
15
Oklahoma
10
5
1995-99
1996-2000
4.9
8.2
5.5
8.2
5.4
8.2
5.1
8.3
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
4.4 5.2
8 8.1
6.5 6.4
8 7.9
9.8
7.8
2003-07
1994-98
5.8
8.4
2002-06
1993-97
4.6
8.6
2001-05
1992-96
5.3
8.7
2000-04
1991-95
5.1
8.7
1999-2003
1990-94
5.4
8.7
1998-2002
1989-93
5.1 4.1
9 8.9
1997-2001
1988-92
4.5
9.3
1987-91
1985-89
Osage Co. 8.8 7.2 6.8 5.9 5.8
Oklahoma 11.2 10.9 10.6 10.1 9.8
1986-90
1984-88
1983-87
1982-86
1981-85
1980-84
0
“Healthy People 2020”
goal = 4.5 per 1,000
8.8 8.8
8 8.1
Enrollment and Percentage of Children Enrolled
in Special Education, by School District
Kay County, School Year 2009-10
Enrollment
Percent in Special Education
6,000
Enrollment
% Spec. Ed.
25%
Kay County total enrollment
= 8,490; percentage in
special education = 16.6%
5,000
30%
20%
4,000
15%
3,000
10%
2,000
5%
1,000
0%
0
Enrollment
% Spec. Ed.
Blackwell
1,579
17.1%
Braman
94
18.1%
Kildare
70
11.4%
Newkirk
735
17.4%
Peckham
76
27.6%
Ponca City
5,157
16.8%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Special Education Services, “District Data Profile, 2009-10 -- Web Version”
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Tonkawa
779
12.3%
Enrollment and Percentage of Children Enrolled
in Special Education, by School District
Noble County, School Year 2009-10
Enrollment
Percent in Special Education
1,250
Enrollment
25%
% Spec. Ed.
20%
1,000
750
Noble County total
enrollment = 2,143;
percentage in special
education = 15.7%
15%
10%
500
5%
250
0%
0
Enrollment
% Spec. Ed.
Billings
108
23.1%
Frontier
325
17.8%
Morrison
543
16.8%
Perry
1,167
14%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Special Education Services, “District Data Profile, 2009-10 -- Web Version”
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Enrollment and Percentage of Children Enrolled
in Special Education, by School District
Osage County, School Year 2009-10
Enrollment
Percent in Special Education
1,200
Enrollment
1,000
Osage County total enrollment
= 4,010; percentage in special
education = 18.7%
30%
% Spec. Ed.
25%
20%
800
15%
600
10%
400
5%
200
0%
0
Anderson
Avant
Barnsdall
Bowring
Hominy
McCord
Osage
Hills
Pawhuska
Prue
Shidler
Woodland
Wynona
Enrollment
305
97
451
69
647
237
190
906
290
248
440
130
% Spec. Ed. 16.4% 22.7% 19.5% 20.3% 15.9% 13.5% 16.3% 18.2% 27.9% 22.2% 18.6% 21.5%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Special Education Services, “District Data Profile, 2009-10 -- Web Version”
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
DHS Licensed Child Care Services
Provided to Children Under Age 5, by Age
Kay County, 2001, 2006 & 2010
140
2001
112
120
2006
2011
110
98
95
100
84
74
80
82
79
62
60
40
50 48
67
48
29
27
20
0
< Age 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletins.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age 4
DHS Licensed Child Care Services
Provided to Children Under Age 5, by Age
Noble County, 2001, 2006 & 2010
10
2001
8
2006
2011
8
8
8
7
7
6
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
0
< Age 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletins.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age 4
DHS Licensed Child Care Services
Provided to Children Under Age 5, by Age
Osage County, 2001, 2006 & 2010
70
2001
2006
2011
57
60
50
45 44
42
44
40
39
40
37
38
32
30
20
22
18
20
17
11
10
0
< Age 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletins.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age 4
DHS Child Care Licensed Facilities and Subsidized Care, by Stars
Kay County, October 2011
1 Star
23
35
1+ Star
46
1
2 Star
196
25
3 Star
78
2
50
40
30
20
10
Facilities
0
50
100
150
Subsidized Care
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletin.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
200
DHS Child Care Licensed Facilities and Subsidized Care, by Stars
Noble County, October 2011
1 Star
0
18
1+ Star
0
0
2 Star
23
4
3 Star
0
0
25
20
15
10
5
Facilities
0
10
20
30
Subsidized Care
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletin.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40
50
DHS Child Care Licensed Facilities and Subsidized Care, by Stars
Osage County, October 2011
1 Star
18
32
1+ Star
18
0
2 Star
130
28
3 Star
13
1
50
40
30
20
10
Facilities
0
50
100
150
Subsidized Care
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletin.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
200
DHS Child Care Licensed Facilities and Capacity, by Type
Kay County, October 2011
Total
1,347
63
DHS Contract Total
1,003
43
Total Centers
976
17
DHS Contract Centers
752
12
Total Homes
371
46
DHS Contract Homes
251
31
80
60
40
20
0
Facilities
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletin.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
500
1,000
Capacity
1,500
DHS Child Care Licensed Facilities and Capacity, by Type
Noble County, October 2011
Total
357
22
DHS Contract Total
121
5
Total Centers
252
7
DHS Contract Centers
107
3
Total Homes
105
15
DHS Contract Homes
14
2
30
20
10
0
100
Facilities
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletin.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
200
300
Capacity
400
500
DHS Child Care Licensed Facilities and Capacity, by Type
Osage County, October 2011
Total
1,438
61
DHS Contract Total
738
36
Total Centers
1,047
20
DHS Contract Centers
460
9
Total Homes
391
41
DHS Contract Homes
278
27
80
60
40
20
0
Facilities
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletin.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
500
1,000
Capacity
1,500
Early Childhood (Pre-K) Enrollment, by School District
Kay County, October 2003
4 year old half day
3 year old half day
Peckham
Kay County total 4 year
old half day pre-K =
231; full day = 305.
Kildare
Kaw City
4 year old full day
3 year old full day
0
7
0
8
0
11
Braman
0
8
Newkirk
40
0
Blackwell
31
69
Ponca City
219
83
Tonkawa
0
60
100
75
50
25
0
100
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Accreditation and Data Processing/Research Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
200
300
400
Early Childhood (Pre-K) Enrollment, by School District
Kay County, October 2011
4 year old half day
3 year old half day
Peckham
4 year old full day
3 year old full day
18
0
Kay County total 4 year
old half day pre-K = 107;
full day = 442; 3 year old
half day pre-K = 15; full
day = 1.
Kildare
Kaw City
0
0
Braman
0
Newkirk
0
Blackwell
7
0
8
46
43
61
Ponca City
321
11
Tonkawa
0
50
100
75
50
25
0
100
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Accreditation and Data Processing/Research Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
200
300
400
Early Childhood (Pre-K) Enrollment, by School District
Noble County, October 2003
4 year old half day
3 year old half day
Perry
4 year old full day
3 year old full day
Billings
5
0
Frontier
0
23
Morrison
0
29
100
75
Noble County total 4
year old half day pre-K
= 126; full day = 5.
0
74
50
25
0
100
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Accreditation and Data Processing/Research Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
200
300
Early Childhood (Pre-K) Enrollment, by School District
Noble County, October 2011
4 year old half day
3 year old half day
Perry
4 year old full day
3 year old full day
19
78
Billings
4
0
Frontier
2
23
Morrison
33
0
100
75
50
25
Noble County total 4 year
old half day pre-K = 100;
full day = 58; 3 year old
half day pre-K = 1; full
day = 0.
0
100
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Accreditation and Data Processing/Research Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
200
300
Early Childhood (Pre-K) Enrollment, by School District
Osage County, October 2003
4 year old half day
3 year old half day
Osage Hills
4 year old full day
3 year old full day
20
0
Osage County total 4
year old half day pre-K
= 69; full day = 125.
Bowring
Avant
0
Anderson
0
McCord
8
0
10
30
0
16
Pawhuska
0
Barnsdall
0
Wynona
0
Hominy
19
20
18
0
26
Prue
0
27
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Accreditation and Data Processing/Research Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
20
30
40
50
Early Childhood (Pre-K) Enrollment, by School District
Osage County, October 2011
4 year old half day
3 year old half day
Osage Hills
4 year old full day
3 year old full day
17
0
Osage County total 4
year old half day pre-K =
0; full day = 219; 3 year
old half day pre-K = 12;
full day = 13.
Bowring
Avant
Anderson
5
0
29
0
McCord
0
Pawhuska
0
Barnsdall
0
Wynona
0
Hominy
6
0
26
31
22
7
38
10
Prue
16
0
Shidler
20
2
Woodland
15
0
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Accreditation and Data Processing/Research Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
20
30
40
50
Child Deaths Due to Abuse
Oklahoma, Fiscal Years 1978 - 2009
60
52
51
50
45
47 48
42
38
40
38
31
31
24
21
18
20
16 16
23
25
39
41
35
34
30
40
32
29
27
23
18
20
12 13
0
7
5
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
10
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Child Deaths Due to Abuse, by Age of Child
Oklahoma, FY 2009
Under 1
27 (51.9%)
7-11
4 (7.7%)
3-6
7 (13.5%)
1-2
14 (26.9%)
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics Addendum: Child Deaths and Near Deaths, State FY 2009.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age of Children of Confirmed Abuse and Neglect
Oklahoma, FY 2010
1-2
1,272 (17.5%)
Under 1
1,313 (18.1%)
3-6
1,889 (26.1%)
12 & older
1,180 (16.3%)
7-11
1,594 (22.0%)
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics, State FY 2010.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Perpetrators of Confirmed Abuse and Neglect
Oklahoma, FY 2010
Mother
5,661 (46.4%)
All other categories
978 (8.0%)
Grandparent
335 (2.7%)
Stepparent
657 (5.4%)
No relation
853 (7.0%)
Father
3,722 (30.5%)
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics, State FY 2010.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT

In Kay County in FY 2010, there were 357 reports of child abuse and/or neglect
accepted for investigation or assessment. 586 children were involved in these
reports (duplicated count).

Eighty-five children were confirmed victims of child abuse and/or neglect. Ten
were abused, 63 were neglected, 12 were victims of both abuse and neglect.

Seven of every 1,000 children in Kay County are victims of abuse and/or
neglect. In Oklahoma, the rate is eight of every 1,000 children.

In Oklahoma, parents make up 77% of all perpetrators, followed by “no relation”
at 7%, step-parents at 50%, and grandparents at 3%.

Substance abuse is a major contributing factor to child neglect.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics, State FY 2010.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Reports and Confirmations of Child Abuse and Neglect
Kay County, Fiscal Year 2002 - 2010
1,500
Number of reports and confirmations
Acceptance and confirmation rates
1,000
50%
500






25%



0
Reports received
Reports accepted
Confirmations
Confirmation rate
Report acceptance rate

75%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1,125
711
210
16%
63%
1,148
715
161
14%
62%
1,188
826
281
22%
70%
1,228
817
245
17%
67%
1,406
892
364
22%
63%
1,335
821
262
20%
61%
1,196
680
293
22%
57%
1,078
455
120
15%
42%
968
357
85
15%
37%
Notes: Each “report” of child abuse and/or neglect “received” and “accepted” may involve multiple children. Each “confirmation” of child abuse and/or
neglect indicates one child. Since a child may be confirmed abused and/or neglected multiple times in a year, “confirmations” is not an unduplicated
count of children. “Confirmation rate” is the number of children confirmed abused and/or neglected per 100 children investigated or assessed.
“Acceptance rate” is the number of reports accepted for investigation or assessment per 100 reports received.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT

In Noble County in FY 2010, there were 101 reports of child abuse and/or
neglect accepted for investigation or assessment. 132 children were involved in
these reports (duplicated count).

Nineteen children were confirmed victims of child abuse and/or neglect. Two
were abused, 15 were neglected, 2 were victims of both abuse and neglect.

Seven of every 1,000 children in Noble County are victims of abuse and/or
neglect. In Oklahoma, the rate is eight of every 1,000 children.

In Oklahoma, parents make up 77% of all perpetrators, followed by “no relation”
at 7%, step-parents at 50%, and grandparents at 3%.

Substance abuse is a major contributing factor to child neglect.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics, State FY 2010.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Reports and Confirmations of Child Abuse and Neglect
Noble County, Fiscal Year 2002 - 2010
250
Number of reports and confirmations
Acceptance and confirmation rates
100%
200
80%
150
60%

100

50

40%






0
Reports received
Reports accepted
Confirmations
Confirmation rate
Report acceptance rate

20%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
190
159
34
13%
84%
186
124
47
22%
67%
177
85
39
27%
48%
157
91
41
23%
58%
150
82
49
35%
55%
113
62
55
50%
55%
152
69
30
32%
45%
160
63
8
9%
39%
217
101
19
14%
47%
Notes: Each “report” of child abuse and/or neglect “received” and “accepted” may involve multiple children. Each “confirmation” of child abuse and/or
neglect indicates one child. Since a child may be confirmed abused and/or neglected multiple times in a year, “confirmations” is not an unduplicated
count of children. “Confirmation rate” is the number of children confirmed abused and/or neglected per 100 children investigated or assessed.
“Acceptance rate” is the number of reports accepted for investigation or assessment per 100 reports received.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT

In Osage County in FY 2010, there were 260 reports of child abuse and/or
neglect accepted for investigation or assessment. 442 children were involved
in these reports (duplicated count).

123 children were confirmed victims of child abuse and/or neglect. Fifteen
were abused, 92 were neglected, 16 were victims of both abuse and neglect.

Eleven of every 1,000 children in Osage County are victims of abuse and/or
neglect. In Oklahoma, the rate is eight of every 1,000 children.

In Oklahoma, parents make up 77% of all perpetrators, followed by “no relation”
at 7%, step-parents at 50%, and grandparents at 3%.

Substance abuse is a major contributing factor to child neglect.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics, State FY 2010.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Reports and Confirmations of Child Abuse and Neglect
Osage County, Fiscal Year 2002 - 2010
750
Number of reports and confirmations
Acceptance and confirmation rates
500
250
50%









25%

0
Reports received
Reports accepted
Confirmations
Confirmation rate
Report acceptance rate
75%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
597
392
156
22%
66%
694
421
108
14%
61%
689
397
122
17%
58%
642
388
135
20%
60%
644
369
116
18%
57%
589
340
106
17%
58%
650
389
49
9%
60%
650
280
68
14%
43%
724
260
123
28%
36%
Notes: Each “report” of child abuse and/or neglect “received” and “accepted” may involve multiple children. Each “confirmation” of child abuse and/or
neglect indicates one child. Since a child may be confirmed abused and/or neglected multiple times in a year, “confirmations” is not an unduplicated
count of children. “Confirmation rate” is the number of children confirmed abused and/or neglected per 100 children investigated or assessed.
“Acceptance rate” is the number of reports accepted for investigation or assessment per 100 reports received.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and
Reduced Lunch Program
By School District, Kay County, 2010-2011 School Year
Kay Co.
Total
66%
9.4%
Free
80.9%
Peckham
6.4%
70.7%
Blackwell
8.7%
Newkirk
64.5%
12.7%
Ponca City
65.1%
9.4%
Tonkawa
59.7%
10.4%
Braman
59.7%
9%
Kildare
60%
0%
20%
60%
Percent of Students Eligible
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2010-2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Free lunch eligibility
requirement: annual
household income
below 130% of
poverty, which
currently is $24,817
for a family of three.
Reduced lunch
eligibility requirement:
annual household
income below 185%
of poverty, which
currently is $35,317
for a family of three.
3.6%
40%
Reduced
80%
100%
Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and
Reduced Lunch Program
By School District, Noble County, 2010-2011 School Year
Noble Co.
Total
55%
9.8%
69.5%
Billings
11.9%
63.3%
Frontier
12.9%
52.8%
Perry
0%
20%
Reduced lunch
eligibility requirement:
annual household
income below 185%
of poverty, which
currently is $35,317
for a family of three.
8.4%
50.2%
Morrison
10.2%
40%
60%
Percent of Students Eligible
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2010-2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Free lunch eligibility
requirement: annual
household income
below 130% of
poverty, which
currently is $24,817
for a family of three.
Free
80%
Reduced
100%
Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and
Reduced Lunch Program
By School District, Osage County, 2010-2011 School Year
Osage Co.
Total
Prue
61.4%
11.5%
83.3%
Woodland
71.7%
Avant
71.3%
4.2%
12.5%
7.5%
64.4%
Pawhuska
12.7%
67.7%
Bowring
Shidler
63%
Hominy
65.2%
9.2%
13.4%
17.5%
54.7%
McCord
11.4%
50%
Barnsdall
13.8%
42.5%
Osage Hills
18.2%
49.5%
Anderson
0%
20%
Reduced lunch
eligibility requirement:
annual household
income below 185%
of poverty, which
currently is $35,317
for a family of three.
9%
56.7%
Wynona
Free lunch eligibility
requirement: annual
household income
below 130% of
poverty, which
currently is $24,817
for a family of three.
9.6%
40%
60%
Percent of Students Eligible
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2010-2011.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Free
80%
Reduced
100%
Juvenile Arrests, by Type of Crime
Kay County, 2001 through 2010
Number of arrests
1,000
800
600
2001
2006
2002
2007
2003
2008
2004
2009
2005
2010
A total of 647 juvenile arrests were
made in Kay County in 2010, for a
rate of 121.8 per 1,000 juveniles age
10-17, down from 1,286 arrests for a
rate of 224.9 in 2001.
400
200
0
Index crimes
Includes murder, rape,
robbery aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny,
and motor vehicle theft.
Drug related
Includes sale/
manufacturing
and possession
of drugs.
Alcohol related
Includes driving under
the influence, liquor
law violations, and
drunkenness.
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Other crimes
Includes other assaults,
disorderly conduct, curfew
& loitering, runaway and all
other non-traffic offenses
Juvenile Arrests, by Type of Crime
Noble County, 2001 through 2010
Number of arrests
25
20
A total of 29 juvenile arrests were
made in Noble County in 2010, for a
rate of 23.2 per 1,000 juveniles age
10-17, down from 36 arrests for a rate
of 26.8 in 2001.
2001
2006
2002
2007
2003
2008
2004
2009
2005
2010
15
10
5
0
Index crimes
Includes murder, rape,
robbery aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny,
and motor vehicle theft.
Drug related
Alcohol related
Other crimes
Includes sale/
manufacturing
and possession
of drugs.
Includes driving under
the influence, liquor
law violations, and
drunkenness.
Includes other assaults,
disorderly conduct, curfew
& loitering, runaway and all
other non-traffic offenses
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Juvenile Arrests, by Type of Crime
Osage County, 2001 through 2010
Number of arrests
60
50
40
30
2001
2006
2002
2007
2003
2008
2004
2009
2005
2010
A total of 29 juvenile arrests were
made in Osage County in 2010, for a
rate of 5.4 per 1,000 juveniles age
10-17, down from 52 arrests for a rate
of 9.2 in 2001.
20
10
0
Index crimes
Includes murder, rape,
robbery aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny,
and motor vehicle theft.
Drug related
Alcohol related
Other crimes
Includes sale/
manufacturing
and possession
of drugs.
Includes driving under
the influence, liquor
law violations, and
drunkenness.
Includes other assaults,
disorderly conduct, curfew
& loitering, runaway and all
other non-traffic offenses
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Youth Risk Behavior Survey:
Summary of Alcohol, Other Drug & Tobacco Use
High School Students, Oklahoma, 2003 through 2009, and U.S., 2007
47.8%
40.5%
43.1%
39%
44.7%
Alcohol
Used once or
more during
past 30 days...
Ever
used...
22%
18.7%
15.9%
17.2%
19.7%
Marijuana
9.9%
7.1%
5.5%
4.8%
4.4%
Methamphetamine
22.2%
18.4%
19.1%
16.8%
22.3%
26.5%
28.6%
23.2%
22.6%
20%
17.5%
12.3%
13.3%
11%
10.5%
30.6%
25.8%
26.8%
23.1%
29.1%
Offered/sold/given
illegal drugs at school
Smoked cigarettes
during past month
Drove after drinking
alcohol in past month
Rode with drinking
driver in past month
0%
20%
40%
2003 Oklahoma
2005 Oklahoma
2007 Oklahoma
2009 Oklahoma
2007 US
60%
Note: National 2009 YRBSS data have not yet been released.
Source: Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System; Oklahoma State Department of Health, OK2SHARE.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
Youth Risk Behavior Survey:
Summary of Sexual Behaviors, Suicide & Physical Health
High School Students, Oklahoma, 2003 through 2009, and U.S., 2007
50%
49.3%
50.9%
51.1%
47.8%
Ever had
sexual intercourse
5.8%
6.5%
5.8%
4.7%
7.1%
Had sex before age 13
64.3%
61.7%
59.6%
56.7%
61.5%
Used condom last time
17.7%
16.4%
16.7%
22.7%
16%
Used birth control
pills last time
7%
7.9%
5.9%
7%
6.9%
Attempted suicide
in past year
Overweight
(according to BMI)
Physical activity for
60 min/day 5 of past 7 days
2003 Oklahoma
2005 Oklahoma
2007 Oklahoma
2009 Oklahoma
2007 US
14.2%
15.9%
15.2%
16.4%
15.8%
na
38.2%
34.7%
0%
20%
40%
49.6%
47.4%
60%
Note: National 2009 YRBSS data have not yet been released.
Source: Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System; Oklahoma State Department of Health, OK2SHARE.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
HEALTH INDICATORS
Health Status
25%
50
Oklahoma
Rank
US
20%
40
15%
30
10%
20
5%
10
0%
0
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11
US 12.9% 12.9% 12.8% 12.6% 13% 13.9% 14% 14.7% 14.7% 14.9% 14.8% 14.7% 14.9% 14.4% 14.5% 14.7%
Rank
26
32
28
25
42
34
45
41
41
44
42
46
43
42
42
45
Oklahoma 13.1% 14% 13.4% 12.6% 17.4% 15.3% 19.6% 17.7% 17.8% 19.7% 18.7% 20.2% 19.2% 18.7% 19.6% 20.5%
Source: United Health Foundation, “America’s Health Rankings.“
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
State rank
Percent adults reporting fair or poor health
Oklahoma and United States, 1996 - 2011
Prevalence of Obesity
35%
50
Oklahoma
Rank
US
30%
40
25%
30
20%
15%
20
10%
10
5%
0%
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11
US 11.6% 11.6% 12.6% 12.6% 13.7% 14.4% 15.9% 16.8% 16.5% 18.3% 19.6% 20% 20.9% 21.9% 22.9% 23.2% 24.4% 25.1% 26.3% 26.7% 26.9% 27.5%
Rank
23
23
22
37
14
14
12
27
14
35
37
22
38
29
37
37
38
44
43
46
46
40
Oklahoma 11.6% 11.6% 11.9% 14.1% 12.1% 13.2% 13.5% 16.8% 15.1% 19.5% 21.1% 19.7% 22.6% 22.9% 24.4% 24.9% 26.8% 28.8% 28.8% 30.9% 32% 31.3%
Source: United Health Foundation, “America’s Health Rankings.“
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
0
State rank
Percent of population estimated to be obese
Oklahoma and United States, 1990 - 2011
Prevalence of Smoking
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%

Oklahoma
Rank

60
US
50



 
 


       40



 









  



30
20

5%
10
0%
0
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11
US 29.5% 25.2% 25.2% 22.7% 23% 22.2% 22.7% 23.5% 23.2% 22.9% 22.8% 23.2% 23.2% 23.2% 22%20.9% 20.6% 20.1% 19.8% 18.3% 17.9% 17.3%
Rank
44
42
42
40 37
45
15
28
36
32
41
27
49
42
36
47
46
47
48
46
48
48
Oklahoma 33%28.7% 28.7% 26.6% 25% 26.1% 21.7% 24.1% 24.6% 23.9% 25.2% 23.3% 28.7% 26.6% 25.1% 26.1% 25.1% 25.1% 25.8% 24.7% 25.5% 23.7%
Source: United Health Foundation, “America’s Health Rankings.“
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
State rank
Percent of population over 18 that smoke regularly
Oklahoma and United States, 1990 - 2011
Oklahoma's Rankings in Health Determinants,
2011 (part 1)
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
1991
Personal Behav iors
2011
Prevalence of smoking
#48
Prevalence of Binge Drinking
#12
Prevalence of obesity
#40
Community & Env ironment
High school graduation
#21
Violent crime
#39
Occupational fatalities
#44
Infectious disease
#10
Children in poverty
#42
Air pollution
#29
#0
#10
#20
#30
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Source: United Health Foundation, “America’s Health Rankings.“
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
#40
#50
Oklahoma's Rankings in Health Determinants,
2011 (part 2)
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
1991
Public & Health Policies
2011
Lack of health insurance
#39
Public health funding (per capita)
#11
Immunization coverage
#46
Clinical Care
Early prenatal care
#47
Primary Care Physicians
#49
Preventable Hospitalizations
#44
All Determinants
#47
#0
#10
#20
#30
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Source: United Health Foundation, “America’s Health Rankings.“
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
#40
#50
Oklahoma's Rankings in Health Outcomes,
2011
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Oklahoma’s overall health ranking for 2011 is
1991
Poor mental health days
# 48
2011
#48
Poor physical health days
#46
Geographic disparity
#19
Infant mortality
#41
Cardiovascular deaths
#48
Cancer deaths
#42
Premature death
#47
All Health Outcomes
#46
#0
#10
#20
#30
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Source: United Health Foundation, “America’s Health Rankings.“
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
#40
#50
Health Insurance Status, by Age
Oklahoma, 2009-10
Total Population
Under Age 19
Age 19-64
511,900
(23.8%)
124,300
(12.9%)
638,500
(17.6%)
80,100
(2.2%)
106,600
(5.0%)
423,100
(43.9%)
1,707,200
(47.0%)
142,500
(6.6%)
505,400
(13.9%)
133,500
(3.7%)
Employer
383,700
(39.8%)
569,800
(15.7%)
32,400
(3.4%)
Individual
Medicaid
Medicare
97,600
(4.5%)
1,291,800
(60.1%)
Other public
Uninsured
Estimated uninsured non-elderly population, 2008
(Oklahoma Health Care Authority, May 2009):
~ Kay County: 17.1%
~ Noble County: 17.1%
~ Osage County: 19.3%
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, StateHealthFacts.org; Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Oklahoma County Chartbook, May 2009.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
KAY COUNTY RANKINGS
Parental separation or divorce
63
Incarcerated household member
71
Mentally ill household member
30*
Substance abusing household member
31*
Violence against mother
25
Psychological, physical & sexual abuse
33
Emotional & physical neglect
46
Overall ranking
48
Rankings: 1 = best, 77 = worst
*Indicates a tie with at least one other county
Source: Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Factbook, 2006-2007, Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
NOBLE COUNTY RANKINGS
Parental separation or divorce
24
Incarcerated household member
15
Mentally ill household member
30*
Substance abusing household member
31*
Violence against mother
28
Psychological, physical & sexual abuse
22
Emotional & physical neglect
34
Overall ranking
14
Rankings: 1 = best, 77 = worst
*Indicates a tie with at least one other county
Source: Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Factbook, 2006-2007, Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
OSAGE COUNTY RANKINGS
Parental separation or divorce
9
Incarcerated household member
21
Mentally ill household member
30*
Substance abusing household member
31*
Violence against mother
49
Psychological, physical & sexual abuse
20
Emotional & physical neglect
15
Overall ranking
10
Rankings: 1 = best, 77 = worst
*Indicates a tie with at least one other county
Source: Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Factbook, 2006-2007, Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
…IN SUMMARY
BEST PRACTICES STRATEGIES


Outcome performance measures
Community coalitions







Collaborative, public-private partnerships
Consumer/client investments
Successful outreach and recruitment
Case management/Care coordination
Strong social marketing
Risk reduction education
Access to services and care



Child care
Transportation
Translation
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
COMMUNITY PROFILE 2012
EARLY CHILDHOOD INDICATORS OF
KAY, NOBLE AND OSAGE COUNTIES
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
February 2012
…is available on our website:
www.csctulsa.org