Transcript Slide 1

Community Profile 2007
Human Development
Prepared for the Tulsa Area United Way Community Investments Process
By the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
January, 2007
Community Profile 2007
Demographic Trends
 Human Development

Demographic Trends in Tulsa County





Population growth in Tulsa County twice the pace
of the City of Tulsa between 1990 and 2000; the
city has actually lost population since 2000
Bixby was fastest growing place in Oklahoma
between 2000 and 2005 with an increase of 39%
to 18,600
Growing cultural diversity, particularly among the
population <25
Hispanic population continues to expand; since
1991, number of births to Hispanic women have
increased 400% to 1,486 in 2005
Population 65+ projected to make up 20% of
population by 2030 (up from 12% in 2000)
Demographic Trends in Tulsa County
(cont.)






Population <18 projected to account for 23% of
population by 2030 (down from 26% in 2000)
As working age population’s share declines, the
2030 projected dependency ratio climbs to 75 per
100, up from 62 per 100 in 2000
Living arrangements are changing significantly
with more children living with a single parent,
especially the mother, and living with other
relatives, especially grandparents
Larger number of people over 65 years of age are
living alone, especially women
Median family income varies by race
Large population of mobile renters
Tulsa’s Human Development Industry
What is it?

Independent and collective action of efforts to
address the education, health, housing, family
support, emergency financial, and transportation
needs of families and individuals in Tulsa County.

Increasingly these efforts seek to prevent needs
through promoting increased self-sufficiency
among Tulsa's people while still intervening to
respond to crises and other concerns
The Roots of the Challenge
Thirty Year of Economic and Social Changes

Emergence of new persistent poor in late 1960's
and early 1970's
 Massive loss of low skill/high pay jobs
 Sharp rise in working poor
 Decline in young male workers' wages
 Increase in female headed families
 Impact of substance abuse
All trends disproportionately affected:
~African-Americans
~young children & young families
Human Development:
Key Points
Middle class is disappearing
 Many households lack adequate
income
 Stress of inadequate income and
related conditions is widespread
 Starting life in Tulsa for many is risky
business

Human Development:
Key Points…continued
Populations of aging and persons
with disabilities are large and
growing
 Health challenges are critical to
individual and community well-being
 Poor human conditions impact crime
and growing incarcerations
 Overall progress in human
development is tied to educational
success

The Middle Class is Disappearing
~Lower income groups greatly expand,
middle shrinks,
highest income group increases
dramatically
The Ove rall Dominant Tre nd...
The Shrinking Middle Class
100%
80%
Rich - 5%
Rich - 10%
Middle - 20%
Rich - 20%
Middle - 60%
60%
Middle - 80%
40%
Poor - 75%
20%
Poor - 20%
Poor - 10%
0%
1900 - 1940
1940 - 1990
1990 - ?
The trend: housing patterns and income mirror the job structure, with
more rich, more poor, and fewer in the middle -- the "hourglass effect"
Source: Hodgkinson, Harold, "The Client," Education Demographer, 1988.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Distribution of We alth: House hold Income
U.S., Oklahoma, Tulsa MSA and Tulsa County, 2005 Estimates
100%
16.3%
9.4%
12%
12.7%
80%
37.5%
60%
38.6%
40.1%
38.5%
1% of U.S.
households have
39.3% of the
assets, making
the U.S. the #1
country in the
world in inequality
of income.
40%
20%
43.5%
53.1%
49.4%
48.8%
Oklahoma
TAUW
Tulsa Co.
0%
U.S.
$100,000+/year
$40,000-$99,999
/year
<$40,000/year
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Income disparity be twe e n rich and poor grows
wide r be yond 1993
Mean Family Income by Quintile and Top 5% (2003 dollars)
United States, 1966-2003
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
6
19
6
6
19
8
7
19
0
7
19
2
7
19
4
7
19
Lowest
6
7
19
8
8
19
0
Second
8
19
2
8
19
4
8
19
Middle
6
8
19
8
9
19
Fourth
0
9
19
2
9
19
4
Highest
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
9
19
6
9
19
8
0
20
Top 5%
0
0
20
2
Many Households Lack
Adequate Income
~More and more households
lack adequate income to meet
living needs
The Self-Sufficiency Standard
…The level of income required for a family
to meet its own needs

Customized by specific family composition
 Customized by geographic location
 Based on all expense categories
 Updated annually using consumer price index
Comparison of Se lf-Sufficie ncy Wage to
Pove rty Guide line s, by Size of Family
Tulsa County, 2006
One
person
Two
persons
Three
persons
Four
persons
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$18,219
$9,800
$8,419
186%
($8.76 per hour)
($4.71 per hour)
$32,470
$13,200
$19,270
246%
($15.61 per hour)
($6.35 per hour)
$37,762
$16,600
$21,162
227%
($18.15 per hour)
($7.98 per hour)
$45,840
$20,000
$25,840
229%
($22.04 per hour)
($9.62 per hour)
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. Per hour wages given assume pay
for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma;" 2006 HHS
Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November
2006.
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, Tulsa County, 2006
Annual Wage
$60,000
$50,000
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $37,762
($18.15/hr.)
All families with
children <18
$40,000
$30,710
$30,000
($21.76/hr.)
($14.76/hr.)
$16,600
$20,000
$10,000
$45,268
$8,400
($4.04/hr.)
$10,712
($7.98/hr.)
($5.15/hr.)
$0
Welfare
Wage
Minimum
Wage
Poverty
Wage
185% Poverty
Wage
Median
Family Income
(2005 est.)
Note: For the self-sufficiency wage, family of three consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child. The hourly wages given assume
employment at 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma;" 2006 HHS
Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November
2006. Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Monthly Budge t Distribution for Typical Family of
Thre e Earning Se lf-Sufficie ncy Wage
Tulsa County, 2006
Taxes
$441
Housing
$724
Self -suf f iciency
wage = $3,147
per month.
23%
Miscellaneous
$252
14%
8%
9%
24%
8%
Health Care
$283
14%
Child Care
$755
Transportation
$252
Food
$441
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma;" Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November 2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Pove rty Le ve l
Percentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Tulsa County, 1999
Percentage of population
Below 100%
50%
Below 130%
Below 185%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Under 5
population
Below 100%
Below 130%
Below 185%
11.6%
16.8%
27.7%
18.9%
26.3%
40.5%
5-17
Under 18
18-64
65 & older
15%
21.3%
34.4%
16.1%
22.7%
36.1%
10.3%
14.9%
24.5%
8.3%
13.8%
25.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Many familie s e xpe rie nce lack of ade quate income
Ratio of Income to Poverty for Families by Family Type and Age of Children
Tulsa County, 1999
Pov erty rate
100%
% below 100%
%below 185%
80%
79.9%
64%
60%
50.6%
40%
49.5%
41.6%
34.5%
26.7%
20%
23.6%
19.9%
17.8%
0%
# below 100%
# below 185%
8.2%
5.6%
Marriedcouple
Maleheaded
Femaleheaded
Marriedcouple
Maleheaded
Femaleheaded
3,033
10,828
996
2,325
6,537
12,123
1,935
6,317
476
1,021
3,322
5,358
Families with children <18
Families with children <5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64
Tulsa County, 2005 Estimates
16,251 (6.1% )
70,396
20.8%
NOT in
labor force
In labor
force
268,213
79.2%
251,470 (93.8% )
492 (0.2% )
Unemployed
Employed
In armed forces
Unemployment rate (all ages) for October 2006 = 3.5%.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Une mployme nt Rate s
Tulsa MSA, 1991 - 2006
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Oct.
2006
Rate
5.9
5.3
6.3
5.8
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.2
2.8
3.4
4.9
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
6.5
5.0
4.4
3.5
Many familie s in pove rty have e mploye d worke r(s)
Families in Poverty by Family Type and Employment Status
Tulsa County, 1999
Percent of impov erished f amilies
100%
31.6
26.2
33.4
34.7
51.1
48.8
15.5
16.4
Male-headed
families in poverty
Female-headed
families in poverty
80%
46.8
60%
48.3
40%
20%
27
20.1
0%
All families
in poverty
Married-couple
families in poverty
Employment Status of Householder or Spouse
Full-time
Part-time
Did not work
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population Living in Pove rty, by Age
Tulsa County, 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999 & 2005 Estimates
Percentage of population
Total
30%
<18
18-64
65+
25%
<18
20%
Total
18-64
15%
65+
10%
5%
0%
Total
<18
18-64
65+
1969
1979
1989
1999
2005 (est.)
11.6%
13.8%
8.2%
25.5%
9.9%
12.8%
8.1%
13.1%
13.2%
18.2%
11.2%
12.8%
11.6%
16.1%
10.3%
8.3%
14.5%
22.2%
12.7%
7.8%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Pove rty Rate s by Race and Hispanic Origin
Total Population and Under Age 5, Tulsa County, 1999
Percentage of population
Total population
50%
Under 5
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total population
Under 5
Total
White
Black
American
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
11.6%
18.9%
8%
11.6%
30.2%
48.2%
15.1%
18.6%
12.2%
19%
22.5%
27.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Re al Hourly Wage by Educational Attainme nt
United States, 1973-2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
3
7
19
75 977 979 981 983 985 987 989 991 993 995 997 999 001 003 005
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Less than high school
High school
College degree
Advanced degree
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared
Community
Service
Council
of Greater
Prepared
by by
thethe
Community
Service
Council
of Greater
Tulsa Tulsa
Re al Hourly Wage by Educational Attainme nt, by Se x
United States, 2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
$40
Both sexes
Men
Women
$36
$30
$31
$28
$27
$25
$20
$21
$16
$14
$10
$12
$11 $11
$9
$0
Less than high school
High school
College degree
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Advanced degree
Stress of Inadequate Income and Related
Conditions is Widespread
~Based on following key indicators:

Poverty
 Families with children headed by women
 Youth 16-19 not in school or high school
graduates
 Men 16-64 not employed or in labor force
Additional Indicators of Economic
Distress
Public assistance programs
 Free & reduced school lunch
program
 Homeless shelters
 Helpline and Babyline referrals

Participation in Public Assistance Programs
Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Tulsa County, August, 2006
Medicaid Total
13.7%
78,641
Medicaid <18
36.5%
52,892
8%
5,530
Medicaid 65+
51.4%
4,606
WIC Infants
19.9%
8,647
WIC age 1-5
11.5%
5,146
Child Care Subsidy <5
Food Stamps Total
47.4%
21,228
Medicaid <5
10.5%
60,205
1.7%
2,468
TANF <18
Elem. School Free Lunch
(2005-06)
Elem. School Reduced Lunch
(2005-06)
44.5%
24,755
10%
5,538
100,000 75,000
50,000
25,000
Number of Participants
0%
0
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Population
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, County Profiles August, 2006; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2005-2006;
US Census Bureau, Pop. Estimates Division, 2005 Estimates; Oklahoma State Department of Health-WIC Service, Caseload Report, August, 2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Public Support for Families
Tulsa County, December, 1996-2005
Recipients
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Child Care
Subsidies (<5)
TANF (persons)
Medicaid (<5)
Food Stamps
(persons)
3,539
4,014
4,263
13,742
11,174
42,265
36,848
7,439
7,877
32,733
4,774
12,002
29,276
3,828
14,097
27,563
4,794
5,087
5,101
5,231
5,169
4,014
15,273
34,295
4,539
15,963
49,226
5,444
16,724
56,316
4,593
16,946
58,748
3,467
18,442
60,438
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ele me ntary School Stude nts Eligible for Fre e and
Re duce d Lunch Program
By School District, Tulsa County, 2005-2006 School Year
Tulsa County Total
Tulsa
Sand Springs
Leonard
Keystone
Glenpool
Liberty
Skiatook
Sperry
Union
Broken Arrow
Collinsville
Bixby
Jenks
Berryhill
Owasso
0%
44.5%
10%
70.7%
11.7%
52.1%
15.2%
52.9%
13.2%
47.3%
11.4%
34.8%
13.2%
39.6%
6.1%
34.8%
31.6%
12.1%
30.8%
7.8%
23.5%
10.3%
22.1%
10%
16.8%
7.3%
17.9%
6%
17.2%
6.3%
14.7%
Reduced
Free lunch eligibility requirement:
annual household income below
130% of poverty, which currently is
$21,580 for a family of three.
Reduced lunch eligibility
requirement: annual household
income below 185% of poverty,
which currently is $30,710 for a
family of three.
6.2%
20%
Free
8.8%
40%
60%
Percent of Students Eligible
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2005-2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
Total Units of Se rvice Provide d by Tulsa She lte rs
By Age and Se x of Clie nt
January - December, 2006
Units of serv ice
200,000
183,489
Shelters:
Day Center for the Homeless
DaySpring Villa
DVIS
John 3:16 Mission
Salvation Army
Tulsa County Shelter
Youth Services
(100%)
150,000
101,346
100,000
(55%)
46,680
50,000
17,414
(25%)
(10%)
(9%)
0
Total
Male Adults
Male Children
18,049
Female Adults Female Children
Note: One "unit of service" represents one person staying at a shelter one day. The numbers shown do not
represent an unduplicated count of clients served.
Source: Helpline/Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Se le cte d He lpline Se rvice Re que sts, by Type of Se rvice
2001 through 2005
Number of Serv ice Requests
Total incoming
calls to Helpline
rose to 49,952 in
2005, up from
28,741 in 2004
(74% increase);
while
assessments of
caller needs and
referrals rose to
101,180 in 2005,
up from 50,784
in 2004 (99%
increase).
20,000
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1,945
2,688
12,376
1,913
2,852
12,173
2,152
3,404
13,269
2,019
4,074
12,035
3,339
7,720
17,847
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Babyline and Planline Appointme nts Sche dule d
Tulsa MSA and Surrounding Counties, 1990 through 2006
5,000
Number of Appointments Scheduled


4,604
 
4,692
4,795
4,423

4,000
 
4,355
4,219
3,998

3,525

3,000
3,004

 2,212
2,000 1,997
2,107

2,605


2,369 2,342


2,767
2,662



1,409
1,000


 872
1,789

1,432 1,345

1,193
1,704

1,500

1,333
858


909
631
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Prenatal Appointments
Family Planning Appointments
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Starting Life in Tulsa for Many
is Risky Business
~Combination of many risk factors
takes heavy toll and early
screening for risk level is
inadequate
Summary of Risk Factors for Infants
Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 2005
11.6%
12.9%
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
41%
39.1%
Unmarried mother
7%
5.6%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
24.6%
22.4%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
Tulsa Co.
Oklahoma
6.3%
6.6%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
1.6%
1.4%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
33.5%
32.8%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
19.2%
19.1%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
11%
10.6%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
0%
10%
20%
Tulsa County births: 9,297
Oklahoma births:
51,775
30%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
Childre n unde r thre e incre asingly live with one
pare nt or othe r re lative s
Living Arrangements of Children Under Age 3
Tulsa County, 1990 & 2000
Percent of children liv ing in each f amily ty pe
100%
1990
2000
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1990
2000
Married Couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
Other relativ es
77.6%
67.4%
2.9%
4.6%
11.4%
17.8%
8.1%
10.2%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Adequate Early Screening Essential for All
Children to Assess Impact of Risk Factors


Some evidence indicates only small
portion of children receive needed
screening
Sufficient data do not exist to clearly
indicate extent and nature of
problem
What is early intervention?

Early intervention applies to children of school age
or younger who are discovered to have or be at risk
of developing a handicapping condition or other
special need that may effect their development.

Early intervention consists of the provision of
services such children and their families need for
the purpose of lessening the effects of the
condition. Early intervention can be remedial or
preventive in nature – premeditating existing
developmental problems or preventing their
occurrence.
Small proportion of spe cial e ducation
stude nts re ce ive d e arly inte rve ntion
Special Education Students and Students who Received Early Intervention
Oklahoma Public Schools, 2003-04
Early
interv ention
2.2%
Special
education
15%
Not
special
education
85%
Total Oklahoma Public
School Students
No early
interv ention
97.8%
Total Oklahoma Public
School Students
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Populations of Aging and Persons with
Disabilities are Large and Growing
~These populations will
significantly test the capacity of
resources needed to enable them
to be most self-sufficient
Population Tre nds and Proje ctions by Age Group
Projections
Tulsa County, 1970 - 2030
2030
6.3
16.6
2020
6.6
17.1
9.7
2010
6.8
18.2
10.1
2000
7.4
18.9
10
1990
7.7
18.4
10.1
1980
7.7
19.8
1970
8.5
0%
9.2
47.8
17.5
50.5
14.1
52.5
1.9
51.9
10.4
1.4
52.2
10.4
1.2
9
.9
8.1
.6
49.1
10.7
20%
40%
46.2
60%
80%
Percent of population
0-4
5-17
18-24
2.1
10.6
13.5
25.9
2.5
25-64
65-84
85+
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division,
Population Projections, 2000 - 2030.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
100%
Living Arrange me nts of Pe rsons Age 65 & Olde r
Tulsa County, 2000
15,846 women age 65 and older
live alone in Tulsa County,
acounting for 78% of the total 65+
population living alone.
Liv e alone
20,205 (30.3%)
Other
1,152 (1.7%)
Group quarters
4,223 (6.3%)
Family households
41,155 (61.7%)
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Disability Pre vale nce by Age and Le ve l of Disability
Oklahoma, 1997
Age Group
2%
0 to 2
Level of disability
Any
Severe
3.4%
3 to 5
11.2%
6 to 14
4.8%
10.7%
5.3%
13.4%
8.1%
15-24
25-44
22.6%
45-54
13.9%
35.7%
55-64
24.2%
49%
65-79
31.8%
73.6%
80+
57.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent with Specif ied Lev el of Disability
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 (Aug.-Nov. 1997 data from Survey of Income
and Program Participation).
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Health Challenges are Critical to
Individual and Community Well-being
~Inadequate income, high risks of
starting life and poor lifestyle
choices contribute to major health
concerns
Age -Adjuste d De ath Rate s
Tulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 1980 - 2002
Death rates
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
Tulsa Co
OK
US
800
8
19
0
2
8
19
4
8
19
8
19
6
8
19
8
0
9
19
2
9
19
4
9
19
6
9
19
Source: CDC Wonder.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
98
9
1
0
0
20
02
0
2
Pe rce ntage of the Population that is Obe se
Oklahoma and US, 1990 - 2002
Percent obese
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Oklahoma
US
0%
9
9
1
0
1
9
9
1
2
9
9
1
9
9
1
3
9
9
1
4
5
9
9
1
6
9
9
1
7
9
9
1
9
9
1
8
9
9
9
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
Source: Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development,
OUCPH, 2005; NCHS, CDC; THD;
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Pe rce ntage of Adults who Smoke
Tulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 2003
Percent adult smokers
30%
25%
20%
25.1%
22.7%
22%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Tulsa Co.
Oklahoma
Source: NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
US
He alth Insurance Status, by Age
Oklahoma, 2004-2005
Total Population
Under Age 19
130,780 (14.5%)
23,450 (2.6%)
659,370 (19.2%)
424,880 (47.2%)
1,648,530 (47.9%)
553,150 (16.1%)
283,680 (31.5%)
444,630 (12.9%)
137,050 (4.0%)
524,320 (25.4%)
36,520 (4.1%)
439,280 (91.0%)
90,420 (4.4%)
1,222,600 (59.3%)
123,040 (6.0%)
100,090 (4.9%)
Age 19-64
Employer
Individual
Age 65 &
Medicaid
Medicare/Other Public
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
37,910 (7.8%)
440 (0.1%)
(0.2%)
over 1,050
4,270 (0.9%)
Uninsured
Poor health conditions create huge inefficient
demand on resources - Misuse of Hospitals
and Emergency Rooms

Tulsa’s uninsured and Medicaid beneficiaries seek primary care in
Tulsa hospital ERs. ER visits by Medicaid recipients actually
exceeded uninsured visits by 25%.

Tulsa hospital ER patient survey found that 73% were not true
emergencies: 30% treated for non-emergency conditions – another
43% could have been treated in non-emergency facilities within 48
hours.

Using hospital ERs for non-emergency care is a costly and inefficient.

Non-emergency ER use is a major contributor to overload and
frequent divert status of Tulsa hospital ERs — especially in the last 2
years.
Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development, OUCPH, 2005; THD CAP
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Poor Human Conditions Impact
Crime and Growing
Incarcerations
~Trends greatly affected by
substance abuse
Oklahoma’s prison population was relatively stable
until 1980 when laws passed to curb illegal drug use
came into effect
Oklahoma’s Prison Population
1950-2005
25,000
22,500
20,000
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000
2,500
'04
'02
'00
'98
'96
'94
'92
'90
'88
'86
'84
'82
'80
'78
'76
'74
'72
'70
'68
'66
'64
'62
'60
'58
'56
'54
'52
'50
0
Note: Number of inmates in Oklahoma prisons, data as of June 30 of each year
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Corrections,
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa for the Metropolitan Human Services Commission in Tulsa.
Me thamphe tamine Labs Se ize d by Authoritie s
Oklahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2005
Number of labs discov ered
Oklahoma
Tulsa
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Oklahoma
Tulsa
10
0
34
0
125
6
241
13
275
47
781
132
946
150
1,193 1,254 1,235
124 178 214
812
131
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Website, Tulsa Police Department Website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
274
51
Overall Progress in Human
Development is Tied to
Educational Success
~From preschool through post
secondary education
Educational Attainme nt for Pe rsons Age 25 & Olde r
Tulsa County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates
Less than
high school
High school
graduate
Some
college
Associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Master's
degree
Professional
school degree
2000
2005 (est.)
Doctorate
degree
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percent of persons 25+
Less than
high school
2000
14.9%
2005 (est.)
12.5%
High school
graduate
26.5%
25.7%
Some
college
24.7%
23%
Associate's
degree
6.9%
8.8%
Bachelor's
degree
18.5%
21.2%
Master's
degree
5.4%
5.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Professional Doctorate
school degree
degree
2.2%
0.8%
2.1%
0.8%
Education Success:
Preschool
Childre n Unde r Age 5 in Working Pare nt House holds
Re lying on Care Outside of Pare nts, by Age
Tulsa County, 2005 (est.)
Of the 26,863 children <5 living in
working parent households.....
Under 1 Year Olds
2,858 (14.0%)
1 Year Olds
4,083 (20.0%)
6,447
(24.0%)
Do NOT rely
on care
outside of
parents
20,416
(76.0%)
Rely on care
outside of
parents
2 Year Olds
4,492 (22.0%)
3 Year Olds
4,492 (22.0%)
4 Year Olds
4,492 (22.0%)
Notes: "Working parent household:" all parents in family in labor force. Percent distribution by age is an estimate
based on that of children receiving DHS child care subsidies.
Sources: National Survey of American Families, Urban Institute, 1997;
US Census Bureau, American Community
Survey 2005; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Many young childre n care d for in unknown arrange me nts
Estimated Number of Children Under Age 5 in Working Parent Households Relying on
Care Outside of Parents, Using Licensed vs. Unlicensed Care
Tulsa County, October 2006
Of the 26,863 children <5 living in
working parent households.....
Unlicensed
8,333 (40.8% )
6,447
(24.0%)
Do NOT rely on
care outside of
parents
20,416
(76.0%)
Rely on care
outside of
parents
Licensed
12,084 (59.2% )
Notes: "Working parent household:" all parents in family in labor force. The estimate for children in licensed care
is based on the assumptions that the number of children receiving DHS subsidy is 40% of total number in licensed
care for children under 1, and 38% for 1 & 2 year olds, and that 90% of children <3 in licensed care live in working
parent households. Given recent local research study on “non-parental care,“ many children in licensed care also
regularly spend time in unlicensed care.
Sources: National Survey of American Families, Urban Institute, 1997; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey
2005; DHS Statistical Bulletin, October 2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Almost two-thirds of all Tulsa County four-year olds are enrolled in
public pre-K, as emphasis increasingly turns to assuring quality
Enrollment in Public Pre-K Programs, by Full and Half Day
Tulsa County, October 2005
Full-day
26%
Tulsa Co.
0%
Half-day
Not enrolled
36%
20%
40%
Total four
year olds
= 8,954
38%
60%
80%
100%
Percent of all four year olds
Tulsa Public Schools had 2,795 children enrolled in pre-K programs in October
2005. Of these, 2,132 were in f ull-day and 663 were in half -day pre-K.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2005 Estimates.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Education Success:
th
Kindergarten – 12 Grade
ADM in Tulsa County public schools has grown about 1%
annually be twe e n 1997 and 2004
Average Daily Membership (ADM), Tulsa County, 1997-2005
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Tulsa Co.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
99,957
101,216
103,950
105,693
106,126
105,518
106,112
106,141
106,070
Note: Average daily membership is the average number of students enrolled on any given day during the school year.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services; Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability:
Profiles State Reports
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Public School Ave rage Daily Me mbe rship
Tulsa County School Districts, 2005
1,140
Berryhill
4,009
Bixby
14,899
Broken Arrow
Collinsville
2,094
Glenpool
2,170
9,162
Jenks
481
Keystone
75
Leonard
588
Liberty
7,882
Owasso
5,112
Sand Springs
2,322
Skiatook
1,258
Sperry
41,091
Tulsa
13,789
Union
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services; Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability: Profiles
State Reports
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Percent growth in area school districts varies greatly
Percent Change in Average Daily Membership
Tulsa County School Districts, 1997-2005
12.5%
Berryhill
30.5%
Bixby
2.9%
Broken Arrow
33.9%
Collinsville
2.5%
4.2%
7.7%
Glenpool
Jenks
Keystone
-19.2%
Leonard
7.7%
Liberty
33%
Owasso
-3.6%
Sand Springs
16.8%
12.8%
Skiatook
Sperry
0.2%
Tulsa
16.3%
Union
6.8%
Tulsa County
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services; Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability:
Profiles State Reports
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
Growth in Hispanic students greatly contributes to
changes in enrollment
Percent Change in Enrollment of Students of Hispanic Origin from 1998 to 2004
Tulsa County School Districts
Hispanic enrollment
60%
44.6%
Berryhill
Bixby
570
-25%
15
43.5%
Glenpool
99
138.5%
Jenks
Keystone
162
151.1%
Broken Arrow
Collinsville
2004:
24
570
-57.1%
6
0
0%
Leonard
133.3%
80.9%
57.5%
27.3%
Liberty
Owasso
Sand Springs
Skiatook
21
284
137
42
450% 55
Sperry
149.9%
146.1%
137%
Tulsa
Union
Tulsa County
-200%
-100%
0%
100%
200%
6,023
1,506
9,514
300%
400%
500%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services; Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability:
Profiles State Reports
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Enrollme nt in full-day kinde rgarte n growing
Public School Full and Half Day Kindergarten Enrollment
Tulsa County School Districts, 2005-06
Berryhill
Half day
39
28
Full day
Bixby
0
287
Broken Arrow
1,166
10
Collinsville
44
143
Glenpool
176
1
Jenks
556
55
Keystone
0
32
Leonard
7
0
Liberty
37
0
Owasso
0
512
Sand Springs
0
Skiatook
0
Sperry
0
Tulsa
0
Union
373
184
109
3,888
77
796
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1,000
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services;
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2,000
3,000
4,000
Many 9th grade rs do not make it to graduation
Percent Change in Average Daily Membership
from 9th Grade to 2005 Graduating Class
Tulsa County School Districts
-2,137
-26%
Tulsa County
-22
-20.8%
Berryhill
-10.2%
Bixby
-29
-9.6%
Broken Arrow
-109
-8.5%
Collinsville
-12
-14.7%
Glenpool
-22
-8.5%
Jenks
-62
-24.7%
Liberty
-14
-18.5%
Owasso
-111
-23.7%
Sand Springs
-115
-11.9%
Skiatook
-30
-29%
Sperry
Tulsa
Number
change
in ADM
-29
-43.7%
-1,424
-15.9%
Union
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-159
-10%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services Alternative Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
0%
10%
Attrition rate s high for e ve ry race & Hispanic Origin
Attrition Rates from 9th Grade to 12th Grade for 2004 Graduating Class,
based on October 1 Enrollment Totals, by Race and Hispanic Origin
Tulsa County
0%
-10%
-20%
(-1,169)
(-177)
-21.2%
-21.3%
-30%
(-167)
-40%
-39.4%
(-655)
-44.2%
-50%
White
Black
Native American
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services Alternative Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Hispanic Origin
12th Grade ACT Participation Rates in Relation to 9th Grade
Average Daily M embership for Graduating Class of 2004
Tulsa County School Districts, 2004
Berryhill
Bixby
B. Arrow
Collinsville
Glenpool
Jenks
Liberty
Owasso
S. Springs
Skiatook
Sperry
Tulsa
Union
0
ACT
ADM
ACT %
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Berryhill
Bixby
B. Arrow
Collinsville
Glenpool
Jenks
Liberty
Owasso
S. Springs
Skiatook
Sperry
Tulsa
Union
74
107
69%
187
287
65%
725
1,138
64%
81
154
52%
68
174
39%
548
754
73%
27
47
58%
430
617
70%
282
500
56%
94
205
46%
53
103
51%
1,208
3,254
37%
663
1,094
61%
Note: Average daily membership is the average number of students enrolled on any given day during the school year.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Education Success:
Post-Secondary-Higher Education
Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment
Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003
70%
63.9%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
13.1%
9.4%
8%
10%
3.2%
2.4%
0%
TCC
RSU
OSU-Tulsa
NSU-BA
OU-Tulsa
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
LU-Tulsa
Public Colle ge He ad Count Enrollme nt of Tulsa
County 2002-03 HS Graduate s
By School District
1,200
1,000
933
800
600
454
430
343
400
241
162
200
157
44
65
74
44
31
13
0
S
TP
d
an
S
Sp
ri
s
ng
BA
xb
Bi
y
ks
ok
rry
ille
n
o
e
v
t
s
Je
ia
Sp
k
lin
l
S
o
C
U
o
ni
ll
n
r
Be
r
i
yh
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
O
s
as
w
l
o
G
le
n
o
po
Li
rty
e
b
Oklahoma Public Colle ge Going Rate of Tulsa County
2002-03 HS Graduate s
By School District
70%
60.1%
59.3%
60%
54.2%
51.4%
56.9%
56.7%
55.6%
52%
48.9%
49.4%
50%
39.7%
40%
35.1%
32.8%
30%
20%
10%
0%
S
TP
d
an
Sp
gs
ir n
BA
y
xb
Bi
ks
ok
ille
n
o
v
t
s
Je
ia
lin
l
Sk
o
C
Sp
ry
er
U
o
ni
n
Be
i
yh
rr
S
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
ll
l
o
s
as
O
w
G
le
n
o
po
ty
Li
r
be
Public Colle ge Re me diation Rate s Among HS Graduate s
Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 1999-2003
50%
40%
Tulsa County
37% 36.5%
32.4%
34.1%
35.1%
Oklahoma
36.5%
38.1%
36.2%
33.6%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2003
35%
Human Development:
Key Points
Middle class is disappearing
 Many households lack adequate
income
 Stress of inadequate income and
related conditions is widespread
 Starting life in Tulsa for many is
risky business

Human Development:
Key Points…continued

Populations of aging and persons with
disabilities are large and growing
 Health challenges are critical to individual
and community well-being
 Poor human conditions impact crime and
growing incarcerations
 Overall progress in human development is
tied to educational success
Community Profile is a product of the
Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
If you have questions or are interested in having
the Community Profile presented to your organization, please contact
Ginny Utter at the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa at
918-585-5551 or [email protected].
Please visit our website csctulsa.org for more presentations
and reports on a wide array of human services topics.