Transcript Slide 1

Community Profile 2009
Tulsa County
Human Development
Prepared for the Tulsa Area United Way Community Investments Process
By the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
January, 2009
Human Development
Tulsa Area 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 the Tulsa area.
Increasingly these efforts seek to prevent needs
through promoting increased self-sufficiency among
people in the Tulsa area while still intervening to
respond to crises and other concerns.
The Roots of the Challenge
Human Development
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
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
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 Overall Dominant Trend...
The Shrinking Middle Class
Disappearing Middle Class
100%
80%
Rich - 5%
Rich - 10%
Middle - 20%
Rich - 20%
Middle - 60%
60%
Middle - 80%
40%
Poor - 75%
20%
0%
1900 - 1940
(Pre-War)
Poor - 10%
Poor - 20%
1940 - 1990
(Post WWII)
1990 - ?
(New Millenia)
The trend: housing patterns and income mirror the job structure, with
more rich, more poor, and f ewer in the middle -- the "hourglass ef f ect"
Source: Hodgkinson, Harold, "The Client," Education Demographer, 1988.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Distribution of Wealth: Household Income
U.S., Oklahoma, TAUW Service Area and Tulsa County, 1999
100%
Disappearing Middle Class
12.3%
80%
6.6%
35%
40.3%
8.7%
38.6%
9.8%
38.2%
60%
40%
58.4%
20%
47.4%
52.7%
52%
TAUW
Tulsa Co.
0%
U.S.
Oklahoma
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
$100,000+/year
$40,000-$99,999
/year
<$40,000/year
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.
Distribution of Wealth: Household Income
U.S., Oklahoma, Tulsa MSA and Tulsa County, 2007 Estimates
Disappearing Middle Class
100%
19.7%
12.9%
16%
17.2%
$100,000+/year
$40,000-$99,999
/year
<$40,000/year
80%
39.1%
60%
40.3%
38.3%
48%
43.7%
44.5%
Oklahoma
Tulsa MSA
Tulsa Co.
40.6%
40%
20%
39.7%
0%
U.S.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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.
Annual Grow th Rates of Household Income
United States, 1947-1993
Annual growth rates of household income
Disappearing Middle Class
3%
1947-1973
1973-1993
2%
1%
0%
-1%
1
(poorest)
2
3
4
Income Quintiles
5
(richest)
1
(poorest)
2
3
4
Income Quintiles
Source: Cassidy, John, ‘Death of the Middle Class,’ New Internationalist 1996.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
5
(richest)
Mean Family Income by Quintile and Top 5%
in 2003 dollars
United States, 1966-2003
Disappearing Middle Class
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
Inadequate Income
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 Self-Sufficiency Wage to
Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family
Economics & Employment
Tulsa County, 2009
One
person
Two
persons
Three
persons
Four
persons
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$19,155
$10,830
$8,325
177%
($9.21 per hour)
($5.21 per hour)
$34,139
$14,570
$19,569
234%
($16.41 per hour)
($7.00 per hour)
$39,704
$18,310
$21,394
217%
($19.09 per hour)
($8.80 per hour)
$48,197
$22,050
$26,147
219%
($23.17 per hour)
($10.60 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;" 2009
HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 14, January 23, 2009, p. 4200; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index,
January 2009.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa (1/2004).
Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, Minimum,
Poverty, 185% of Poverty, and Median Family Income
Family of Three, Tulsa County, 2009
Annual Wage
Economics & Employment
$80,000
$70,711
$60,000
($34.00/hr)
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $39,704
Married-couple
families w/
children <18
($19.09/hr)
$50,344
($24.20/hr)
$40,000
$33,874
($16.29/hr)
$20,000
($4.04/hr)
$0
All families w/
children <18
$8,400
Welfare
Wage
($16.66/hr)
$21,257
$18,310
$12,168
$34,646
($10.22/hr)
($8.80/hr)
Male-headed
families w/
children <18
Female-headed
families w/
children <18
($5.85/hr)
Minimum
Wage
Poverty
Wage
185% Poverty
Wage
Median Family
Income
(2005-07 ACS)
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;" 2009
HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 14, January 23, 2009, pp. 4200; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index,
January 2009.Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-07 American Community Surveys.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa (1/2004).
Monthly Budget Distribution for Typical Family of Three
Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Tulsa County, 2009
Economics & Employment
Taxes
$468
Housing
$748
Miscellaneous
$258
14%
Self -suf f iciency
wage = $3,309
per month.
23%
8%
9%
Health Care
$313
8%
24%
14%
Child Care
$782
Transportation
$266
Food
$473
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, January 2009.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Percentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Tulsa County, 1999
Percentage of population
Below 100%
Inadequate Income
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
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Inadequate Income
Number of Persons: Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Tulsa County, 1999
All Income
Lev els
100% of
pov erty lev el
130% of
pov erty
lev el
185% of
pov erty
lev el
Total population
551,650
64,062
92,946
152,656
Under 5 y ears
40,620
7,680
10,670
16,452
5-17 y ears
104,506
15,633
22,308
35,942
Under 18 y ears
145,126
23,313
32,978
52,394
18-64 y ears
343,918
35,582
51,332
84,172
65 & older
62,606
5,167
8,636
16,090
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Total Population
Tulsa County, 1989, 1999 & 2005-07 Estimates
Percentage of population
Below 100%
40%
Below 185%
Below 200%
Inadequate Income
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Below 100%
Below 185%
Below 200%
1989
1999
2005-07 est.
13.2%
28.6%
31.5%
11.6%
27.7%
30.4%
15.2%
31.9%
34.7%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys 2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Total Population
Inadequate Income
Tulsa County, 1989, 1999, & 2005-07 Estimates
All Income
Levels
100% of
poverty
level
185% of
poverty
level
200% of
poverty
level
Year: 1989
492,941
64,959
141,074
155,184
Year: 1999
551,650
64,062
152,656
167,765
Years:
2005-07
est. avg.
564,231
85,791
179,948
195,689
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys 2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Per Capita, Median Household, and Median Family Income
Tulsa County, 1999 & 2007 Estimates
Annual Income
$60,000
2000
2007 est.
Inadequate Income
$57,247
$50,000
$47,489
$45,003
$40,000
$38,213
$30,000
$26,337
$20,000
$21,115
$10,000
$0
Per Capita Income
Median Household Income
Median Family Income
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Family Income Distribution
Tulsa County, 1999 & 2005-07 Estimates
40.7%
Inadequate Income
Less than $40,000
34.3%
46%
$40,000 - $99,999
44.1%
13.3%
$100,000 or more
1999 N=148,189
2005-07 avg N=147,984
21.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percentage of f amilies
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys 2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
50%
Ratio of Income to Poverty for Families by Family Type
and Age of Children
Tulsa County, 1999
Pov erty rate
Inadequate Income
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
Median Family Income
By Family Type and Presence of Children under 18
Tulsa County, 2005-07
$50,344
Inadequate Income
All families
Married-couple
families
$70,711
$67,342
Female-headed
families
$21,257
Male-headed
families
$80,000
$59,977
$34,646
$40,000
Families WITH children
$37,768
$44,168
$0
$40,000
$80,000
Families WITHOUT children
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys 2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64
Tulsa County, 2005-07 Estimates
Inadequate Income
14,653 (5.4% )
73,168
21.3%
NOT in
labor force
In labor
force
270,007
78.7%
254,946 (94.4% )
408 (0.2% )
Unemployed
Employed
In armed forces
Unemploy ment rate (all ages) f or August 2008 = 3.7%.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys 2005-07; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Unemployment Rates
Tulsa County and Tulsa MSA, 1990 - 2008
7.0
Inadequate Income
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Nov
2008
Tulsa MSA
Tulsa Co.
4.8 5.7 6.0 6.4 5.8 4.4 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 2.9 3.4 5.0 6.1 5.1 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.6
4.3 5.1 5.6 6.1 5.4 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4 2.8 3.3 5.0 6.0 4.9 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.4
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Families in Poverty by Family Type
and Employment Status
Tulsa County, 1999
Percent of impov erished f amilies
Inadequate Income
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 Poverty, by Age
Tulsa County, 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999 & 2005-07 Estimates
Percentage of population
Total
35%
<18
18-64
65+
<18
Inadequate Income
30%
25%
20%
18-64
15%
Total
65+
10%
5%
0%
Total
<18
18-64
65+
1969
1979
1989
1999
2005-07 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%
15.2%
31%
15.1%
8%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys
2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Persons in Poverty, by Age
Inadequate Income
Tulsa County, 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999, & 2005-07 Estimates
Total
Population
Under 18
18-64
65 & over
Year: 1969
46,641
18,769
18,917
8,955
Year: 1979
45,572
16,299
23,453
5,820
Year: 1989
64,959
23,488
34,465
7,006
Year: 1999
64,062
23,313
35,582
5,167
Year:
2005-07
est. avg.
85,791
34,855
46,076
4,860
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys
2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin
Total Population and Under Age 5, Tulsa County, 1999
Percentage of population
Total population
Inadequate Income
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
Poverty Rates for Families with Children by Education
Level of Family Head
United States, 1969 & 2000
1969
2000
60%
40%
All
10.6%
12.7%
College
or more
2.1%
2.7%
Some
college
5.1%
8.6%
High school
All
6.9%
15.1%
Less than
high school
College
or more
19.6%
33.3%
Twice
Poverty
Some
college
1969
2000
High school
0%
Less than
high school
20%
Poverty
Inadequate Income
80%
52.8%
66.8%
30.9%
39.6%
22.9%
26.5%
11.2%
8.2%
34.9%
31.8%
Source: The State of Working America: 2004-2005
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment
United States, 1973-2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
$35
Inadequate Income
$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
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for Men
United States, 1973-2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
Inadequate Income
$40
$30
$20
$10
$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
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Advanced degree
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for Women
United States, 1973-2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
$35
Inadequate Income
$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
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Advanced degree
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment, by Sex
United States, 2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
$40
Both sexes
Men
Women
Inadequate Income
$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
Inadequate Income
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
Economic Distress Indicators
“Severely Distressed” and “Distressed”
Neighborhoods Definitions
Census tracts with at least 3 of the 4 following characteristics:
1. Percentage of people living in poverty
Severely Distressed: 27.4% or more
Distressed: 14.2 to 27.3% (1 standard deviation below)
2. Percentage of families with related children headed by women with no husband present
Severely Distressed: 37.1% or more
Distressed: 21.6 to 37.0% (1 standard deviation below)
3. Percentage of 16-19 year olds who are not enrolled in school and not high school
graduates
Severely Distressed: 23.0% or more
Distressed: 11.5 to 22.9% (1 standard deviation below)
4. Percentage of civilian, non-institutionalized men ages 16-64 who are unemployed or
not in the labor force
Severely Distressed: 34.0% or more
Distressed: 21.8 to 33.9% (1 standard deviation below)
Taken from The Annie E. Casey Foundation and The Population Reference Bureau, 2003, “The Growing Number of Kids
in Severely Distressed Neighborhoods: Evidence from the 2000 Census;”
"Severely Distressed" and "Distressed" Neighborhoods
Qualifying Census Tracts, Tulsa County, 1990 and 2000
186th St. N.
58. 04
96th St. N.
Mingo
U.S. 75
56
57
31
32
35
43. 01
45
17
37
38
39
53
42
44 43. 02 41. 01
48
50. 02
7 6.0 8 6 8.0 1
47
5 0.0 1
49
67. 01
82
72
83
71. 01 71. 02
Adm iral Pl.
89
73. 09
73. 10
73. 08
68. 02
40
70
52
51
86
85. 02
31s t St.
76. 25
67. 05
67. 03
90. 04 90. 06
69. 05
76. 27
76. 21
76. 22
48
67. 01
74. 02 74. 08
74. 05
75. 09
75. 10 75. 03
75. 08
75. 07
35
33
36
43. 01
42
101s t St.
75. 11
76. 23
75. 13
75. 14
50. 02
68. 02
75. 15
131s t St.
75. 16
16
17
37
38
39
53
40
70
52
51
82
72
83
71. 01 71. 02
84
N
77. 02
73. 09
69. 05 69. 06
76. 25
67. 03
73. 08
31st St.
90. 04 90. 06
90. 07
90. 09
90. 08
76. 09 76. 11 76. 13 76. 15 76. 16 76. 17 74. 10
67. 05
73. 11
73. 10
90. 03
74. 09
74. 14
76. 33 76. 29 76. 30
75. 08
75. 07
75. 06
101 st S t.
75. 12
77. 01
61st St.
75. 10 75. 03
76. 31 76. 32 76. 39 76. 40 75. 17 75. 18 75. 19
76. 34
76. 38
67. 06
74. 07
74. 11 74. 12 74. 13 74. 15 74. 02 74. 08
76. 14 76. 20 76. 19 76. 18
75. 11
76. 37 76. 36 76. 35 75. 20
75. 13
75. 22
75. 15
75. 23
131 st S t.
76. 24
75. 16
78. 01
77. 02
181s t St.
78
Adm ira l Pl.
89
85. 01 73. 05 73. 06 73. 12
85. 02
Memorial
Qualifying Level
Does not qualify
"Severely Distressed"
"Distressed"
86
60
69. 01 69. 02 69. 03 69. 07
87
76. 10 76. 12
75. 06
76. 24
19 18
21
44 43. 02 41. 01
65. 07
61s t St.
Memorial
Harvard
Yale
Peoria
77. 01
74. 07
15
20
34
32
49
47
94. 02
74. 06
14
22
45
65. 06
75. 12
76. 28
13
3
94. 01
90. 03
74. 04
4
23
31
66
95
90. 07
69. 04
76. 14 76. 20 76. 19 76. 18
76. 26
92
90. 02
76. 09 76. 11 76. 13 76. 15 76. 16 76. 17
12
25
46
85. 01 73. 05 73. 06 73. 12
84
9 10
30
88
69. 01 69. 02 69. 03
87
76. 10 76. 12
67. 06
93
6
27
29
73. 11
41. 02
94
65. 01
60
36
33
46
16
19 18
21
34
66
15
20
36t h S t. N .
1
5
8 7
7 3.0 4
14
22
59
2
Yale
13
23
81
111
80. 01
62
Harvard
12
26 25
3
80. 02
6 8.0 1 5 0.0 1
9 10
4
33rd W. Av e.
Union
1
5
6
88
95
81st W. Ave.
2
62
30
92
36th St. N.
7 6.0 8
93
59
66t h S t. N .
57
79
61
80. 01
8 7
91. 04
Peoria
27
80. 02
7 3.0 4
33rd W. Ave.
Union
79
29
91. 01
66th St. N.
96t h S t. N .
58. 06
58. 01
58. 01
91. 01
126 th St. N.
58. 05
58. 03
91. 03
145th E. Ave.
126th St. N.
Peoria
Mingo
U.S. 75
Peoria
145th E. Ave.
58. 04
56
54
55
Garnett
2000
54
Garnett
55
81st W. Ave.
Economic Distress Indicators
1990
186 th St. N.
181 st S t.
78. 02
W
E
211 th St.
211th St.
S
Notes:
"Severely Distressed" neighborhoods are census tracts that have 3 or more qualifying indicators present.
"Distressed" neighborhoods are census tracts that have 3 or more indicators present at 1 standard deviation
below qualifying level.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa with support from the Metropolitan Hum an Services Commission
(October 2005)
Economic Distress Indicators
Additional Indicators of Economic
Distress
Public assistance programs
Free & reduced school lunch program
Homeless shelters
Helpline and Babyline referrals
Income Eligibility for Public Assistance Programs (part 1)
Maximum Income Levels as Percentage of Poverty
185%
Economic Distress Indicators
Medicaid
(children & preg. women)
185%
WIC
185%
Child care subsidy
185%
School reduced lunch
130%
School free lunch
130%
Food Stamps
100%
Medicaid
(aged, blind & disabled)
50%
TANF
0%
50%
100%
150%
Approximately 65%
of women giving
birth in Oklahoma
qualify for Medicaid.
200%
Income as a Percent of Pov erty
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
250%
Income Eligibility for Public Assistance Programs (part 2)
Economic Distress Indicators
Maximum Income Levels as Percentage of Median Family Income
80%
Public housing
50%
Section 8
rental assistance
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Income as a Percent of Median Family Income
Source: Tulsa Housing Authority
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
100%
Participation in Public Assistance Programs
Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Tulsa County, June 2008
Economics & Employment
Medicaid Total (185%/100%)
14.1%
82,365
Medicaid <18 (185%)
47%
22,240
Medicaid <5 (185%)
36.4%
55,637
Medicaid 65+ (100%)
5,694
WIC Infants (185%)
(9/2008)
4,680
WIC age 1-5 (185%)
(9/2008)
Elem. School Reduced Lunch (185%)
(2007-08)
16.5%
9%
4,275
9.7%
56,651
1.3%
2,025
TANF <18 (50%)
Elem. School Free Lunch (130%)
(2007-08)
49.5%
9,210
Child Care Subsidy <5 (185%)
Food Stamps Total (130%)
8.1%
40.4%
18,153
9.1%
4,079
100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000
Number of Participants
0%
0
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of Population
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Statistical Bulletin, June 2008; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for
2007-2008; US Census Bureau, Pop. Estimates Division, 2007 Estimates; Oklahoma State Department of Health-WIC Service, Caseload Report,
Sept. 2008.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Public Support for Families
Tulsa County, December, 1996-2007
Economic Distress Indicators
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 2006 2007
Child Care
Subsidies (<5)
TANF (persons)
Medicaid (<5)
Food Stamps
(persons)
3,539 4,014 4,263
4,794 5,087 5,101 5,231 5,169 4,850 4,447
13,742 11,174
7,439 4,774 3,828 4,014 4,539 5,444 4,593 3,467 2,824 2,473
7,877 12,002 14,097 15,273 15,963 16,724 16,946 18,442 22,424 22,121
42,265 36,848 32,733 29,276 27,563 34,295 49,226 56,316 58,748 60,438 59,550 56,996
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and
Reduced Lunch Program
Economic Distress Indicators
By School District, Tulsa County, 2007-2008 School Year
Tulsa County Total
Tulsa
Sand Springs
Keystone
Leonard
Sperry
Glenpool
Union
Liberty
Skiatook
Collinsville
Berryhill
Broken Arrow
Owasso
Jenks
Bixby
0%
40.4%
9.1%
79.3%
11.2%
55.1%
14.6%
47.6%
11.4%
43.5%
13%
42.7%
6.9%
35.2%
13.4%
39.4%
36.5%
9.1%
34.7%
27.5%
8.9%
24.5%
8.8%
17.5%
7.4%
18.8%
5.7%
16.3%
10.3%
10.2%
26.1%
Free lunch eligibility requirement:
annual household income below
130% of poverty, which currently is
$22,880 for a family of three.
Reduced lunch eligibility
requirement: annual household
income below 185% of poverty,
which currently is $32,560 for a
family of three.
6.2%
20%
Free
Reduced
8%
40%
60%
Percent of Students Eligible
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2007-2008.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
Tulsa Public Elementary Schools
Percent of Students Participating in Free Lunch Program
School Years 1984/85 through 2008/09
40%
66.6%
65.8%
64.7%
61%
57%
59.4%
NA
Eligibility requirement: annual
household income below 130%
of poverty, which is $22,880 for
a family of three.
School Year Ending
Source: Tulsa Public Schools, State and Federal Projects Office.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
2000
In school year 2008/09, 15,923
elementary school students in
Tulsa Public Schools were eligible
for the free lunch program; this
represents 70% of the total
elementary school population.
20%
0%
58%
56.2%
56.1%
56.5%
54.4%
53.1%
53.1%
49.6%
48.8%
43%
42.9%
41.4%
40%
36.4%
36.7%
39.9%
60%
1985
Economic Distress Indicators
80%
68%
69.9%
Percent of Students Participating
Unique Client Count of HMIS Shelters
in Tulsa, By Age, Sex, and Family Status of Client
Economic Distress Indicators
January to December, 2007
Total number of unique clients = 4,320
Clients by Age & Sex
Clients by Family Status
Adult female
1,105 (25.6%)
Child male
297 (6.9%)
Child female
259 (6.0%)
Individuals
3,418 (79.1%)
Adult male
2,659 (61.6%)
HMIS Shelters:
Day Center for the Homeless
John 3:16 Mission
Salvation Army Center of Hope
Tulsa County Emergency Shelter
Notes: The numbers shown represent an unduplicated count of clients served. HMIS stands for Homeless
Management Information System.
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Helpline.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Children in
families
556 (12.9%)
Adults in
families
346 (8.0%)
Daily Average Units of Service Provided by Tulsa Shelter
By Year, 1998 through 2007
Daily Av erage Units of Serv ice
Economic Distress Indicators
700
556
600
516
534
523
523
503
519
458
500
399
410
400
300
200
100
Shelters:
Day Center for the Homeless
Day Spring Villa
DVIS
John 3:16 Mission
Salvation Army Center of Hope
Tulsa County Emergency Shelter
Youth Services of Tulsa
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Note: One "unit of service" represents one person staying at a shelter one day.
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Helpline.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2005
2006
2007
Selected 2-1-1 Helpline Service Requests, by Type of Service
2003 through 2007*
Number of Service Requests
Distribution of 2-1-1
Caller Needs, 2007*
20,000
Economic Distress Indicators
13,793
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
3,501
33,909
4,815
15,000
10,000
Public launch of
2-1-1 in July 2005
25,129
15,516
5,642
Basic needs
Health & medical
Mental health
Contact info only
Gov't & pub. svs.
Legal
Other
5,000
Total call contacts to 2-1-1
Helpline rose to 85,169 in
2007*, up from 72,071 in
2006 (18% increase).
0
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007*
2,152
3,404
13,269
2,019
4,074
12,035
3,339
7,720
17,847
6,389
14,293
18,308
6,593
15,516
19,048
Notes: December 9-31, 2007 data were extrapolated from 2006 data due to the extremely high volume of calls during the
Decmeber ice storm. The actual number of calls during 2007, including disaster-related calls, was 92,971. “Call Contact”
refers to a call to 211 where the caller receives assistance (information, referral, advocacy, crisis intervention or problem
solving assistance).
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Helpline.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2-1-1 Helpline Disaster-Related Information and Recovery
Ice Storm, December 2007
Disasters disproportionately af f ect low income households
Economic Distress Indicators
Disaster-Related Caller Needs,
December 9-31, 2007
December 2007 calls
399 496
16,000
611
2,562
14,000
15,073
Actual calls
1,208
12,000
10,000
Of these calls,
12,839 were
disaster-related.
1,407
2,320
8,000
1,579
Shelter
Food
Power
Damage reporting
Debris removal
Weatherhead repair
Downed lines/roads blocked
Special needs
6,000
7,114
Expected calls
4,000
2,000
0
Notes: “Expected calls” represents an estimate of what the call volume in December would have been had the ice storm
not occurred, based on trends in 2006 and prior months of 2007.
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Helpline.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Babyline and Planline Appointments Scheduled
Tulsa MSA and Surrounding Counties, 1990 through 2008
Number of Appointments Scheduled
4,000
3,000
2,000
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
0
1991
1,000
1990
Economic Distress Indicators
5,000
Prenatal 1,997 2,107 2,212 3,004 2,605 2,369 2,342 2,662 2,767 3,525 3,998 4,423 4,604 4,795 4,692 4,355 4,219 3,329 2,932
Family planning
631 1,409 858 872 1,193 1,432 1,345 1,789 1,333 909 1,500 1,704 845 372
Prenatal
Family planning
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, 2007
11.9%
13.7%
Infants & Young Children at Risk
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
42.5%
41.3%
Unmarried mother
8.4%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
5.3%
23.8%
22.2%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
Tulsa Co.
Oklahoma
6.5%
6.7%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
1.8%
1.5%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
32%
34.1%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
18.3%
20.3%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
11.6%
10.6%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
0%
10%
20%
Tulsa County births: 9,764
Oklahoma births:
54,946
30%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
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
Starting Life
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%
Children living with 1 or both parents
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Starting Life
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
Starting Life
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.
Average Daily Membership and Percentage of Children
Enrolled in Special Education, by School District
Tulsa County, School Year 2006-07
ADM
Percent in Special Education
ADM
50,000
Starting Life
% Spec. Ed.
Tulsa County total
ADM = 109,802;
percentage in special
education = 13.9%
40,000
50%
40%
30%
30,000
20%
20,000
10%
10,000
0%
0
Berryhill
Bixby
Broken CollinsvilleGlenpool
Arrow
Jenks
Keystone Leonard
Liberty
Owasso
Sand Skiatook
Springs
Sperry
Tulsa
Union
ADM 1,240 4,297 15,625 2,303 2,342 9,670
491
33
604 8,447 5,293 2,488 1,259 41,457 14,253
% Spec. Ed.
9% 12.7% 14.8% 11.8% 13.5% 15.9% 21.6% 36% 16.7% 11.1% 15.3% 13.3% 12.6% 15.3% 9.9%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability, Profiles 2007 Reports.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Special Education Students and Students w ho
Received Early Intervention
Oklahoma Public Schools, 2003-04
Early
interv ention
2.2%
Starting Life
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 selfsufficient
Population Trends and Projections by Age Group
Projections
Aging & Persons with Disabilities
Tulsa County, 1970 - 2030
2030 6.3
16.6
2020
6.6
17.1
9.7
2010
6.8
18.2
10.1
52.5
10.6
1.9
2000
7.4
18.9
10
51.9
10.4
1.4
1990
7.7
18.4
10.1
52.2
10.4
1.2
1980
7.7
19.8
9
.9
1970
8.5
8.1
.6
0%
9.2
47.8
50.5
13.5
25.9
20%
17.5
2.1
14.1
49.1
10.7
40%
2.5
46.2
60%
80%
100%
Percent of population
0-4
5-17
18-24
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
Living Arrangements of Persons Age 65 & Older
Aging & Persons with Disabilities
Tulsa County, 2005-07 Estimates
15,815 women age 65 and older
live alone in Tulsa County,
acounting for 77% of the total 65+
population living alone.
Liv e alone
20,667 (29.9%)
Other
1,608 (2.3%)
Group quarters
3,380 (4.9%)
Family households
43,512 (62.9%)
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2005-07.
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
Disability Prevalence by Age and Level of Disability
Oklahoma, 1997
Age Group
2%
0 to 2
3.4%
3 to 5
Health Challenges
Level of disability
Any
Severe
11.2%
6 to 14
4.8%
10.7%
15-24
5.3%
13.4%
25-44
8.1%
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%
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); US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
100%
Disability Prevalence by Age
Non-institutionalized Population
Oklahoma & Tulsa County, 2005-07 Estimates
Percent of population
Health Challenges
50%
47.1%
Oklahoma %
Tulsa Co. %
41.9%
40%
30%
19.3%
20%
16.7%
16.6%
7.1%
10%
14.4%
7.4%
0%
Oklahoma #
Tulsa Co. #
5 & older
624,096
87,344
5-15
37,974
6,591
16-64
374,313
53,167
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys 2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
65 & older
211,809
27,586
Oklahoma's Rankings in Health Outcomes
1990, 2003 and 2008
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Oklahoma’s overall health
ranking for 2008 is #43
na
Poor mental health days
#47
Child Indicators
na
Poor physical health days
Geographic disparity
#45
na
na
#22
Infant mortality
Cardiovascular deaths
#39
na
#49
Cancer deaths
#36
Premature death
#45
All Health Outcomes
#45
#0
#10
#20
1990
#30
2003
Source: United Health Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
#40
2008
#50
Age-Adjusted Death Rates
Tulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 1980 - 2005
1,200
Death rates
Health Challenges
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
Tulsa Co.
Oklahoma
US
600
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
Source: CDC Wonder.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2000
2002
2004
Percentage of the Population that is Obese
Tulsa County, Tulsa MSA, Oklahoma and US, 1990 - 2007
35%
Percent obese
Health Challenges
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Tulsa County
Tulsa MSA
Oklahoma
US
0%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Source: Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and
Development, OUCPH, 2005; THD; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System Survey Data.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2006
Percentage of Adults w ho Smoke
Tulsa County, Tulsa MSA, Oklahoma and U.S., 1995, 2000, 2005 & 2007
Percent adult smokers
30%
Health Challenges
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1995
2000
2005
2007
Tulsa Co.
na
na
22.8%
24.9%
Tulsa MSA
na
na
24.1%
26%
Oklahoma
21.7%
23.3%
25.1%
25.8%
U.S.
22.7%
23.2%
20.6%
19.8%
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Health Insurance Status, by Age
Oklahoma, 2006-2007
Total Population
Under Age 19
129,420 (13.3%)
34,932 (3.6%)
646,363 (18.5%)
451,481 (46.5%)
1,672,318 (47.9%)
Child Indicators
560,426 (16.0%)
315,061 (32.4%)
470,767 (13.5%)
142,019 (4.1%)
511,440 (24.9%)
40,437 (4.2%)
4,297 (0.9%)
22,375 (4.8%)
5,708 (1.2%)
5,503 (1.2%)
100,394 (4.9%)
1,215,129 (59.1%)
133,331 (6.5%)
97,285 (4.7%)
Age 19-64
Employer
Individual
425,100 (91.8%)
Age 65 & ov er
Medicaid
Medicare/Other Public
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Uninsured
Health Challenges
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
Overall lack of health care resources
for indigent care
Health Challenges
No Local Traditional Safety Net
 Of the 80 largest US metro areas, only Tulsa and
Wichita lack ALL the components of a traditional
public healthcare safety net infrastructure for
indigent care.
No public or university hospital.
No comprehensive sponsorship of specialties/subspecialties at medical schools.
No hospital receiving Medicaid Disproportionate
Share Hospital (DSH) funds for indigent care served.
No hospital specifically organized and tasked to
provide indigent care.
No statewide support of Federally Qualified Health
Centers (FQHCs); only one fully functional FQHC in
Tulsa.
Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, OU Center for Health Policy, 2005
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Poor Human Conditions Impact
Crime and Growing
Incarcerations
~Trends greatly affected by
substance abuse
Oklahoma’s Prison Population
Fiscal Years 1950 - 2008
Prison population
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2008
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
0
1950
Crime & Incarceration
30,000
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Tulsa County Receptions by Sex
Fiscal Years 1998 - 2005
Tulsa County receptions
Crime & Incarceration
2,000
Male
Female
1,500
1,000
500
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2004
2005
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Tulsa County Receptions by Race & Hispanic Origin
Fiscal Years 1998 - 2005
Tulsa County receptions
Crime & Incarceration
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Other
Hispanic
Native American
Black
White
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
6
50
101
532
782
5
55
85
478
689
6
50
101
532
782
9
64
115
631
942
5
82
125
675
941
12
74
127
578
909
9
113
192
689
1,095
8
137
138
587
936
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment Comparison
Oklahoma Department of Corrections 2006 Receptions &
Oklahoma Residents Age 18+ in 2006
54.6%
34.2%
16.4%
1.2%
0.3%
3.7%
1.2%
19.9%
23.3%
6.2%
39.0%
Less than 12th grade
Some college
High school diploma/GED
Associates degree
Vo-tech
College degree
Note: Data on Vo-tech training not available from the American Community Survey.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Oklahoma Department of Corrections Receptions
Comparison of Drug Crimes to All Other Crimes
FY 1995 - 2005
Crime & Incarceration
6,000
5,000
Receptions















FY'04
8,738
5,434
3,304
FY'05
8,741
5,429
3,312
4,000
3,000
2,000



FY'96
7,383
5,276
2,107
FY'97
6,779
4,636
2,143


FY'98
7,273
4,882
2,391
FY'99
6,979
4,603
2,376


FY'00
7,579
4,749
2,830
FY'01
7,691
4,797
2,894
1,000
0
FY'95
Total
6,893
Other Crimes 4,963
Drug Crimes  1,930
FY'02
8,283
5,071
3,212
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
FY'03
8,247
5,170
3,077
Methamphetamine Labs Seized by Authorities
Oklahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2008
1,400
Crime & Incarceration
1,200
Number of labs discov ered
Oklahoma
Tulsa

1,000
 
Of the 812 labs in Oklahoma in
2004, 347 (43%) were seized
prior to HB 2176 taking effect in
April, 465 after passage.

800


600
400
200
0
 


 
  
1994
Oklahoma
10
Tulsa
0
1995
34
0
1996
125
6
1997
241
13

1998
275
47

1999
781
132






2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
946 1,193 1,254 1,235 812
150
124
178
214 131




2005
274
51
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; Tulsa Police Department Website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2006
194
na
2007
148
na
2008
213
Overall Progress in Human
Development is Tied to
Educational Success
~From preschool through post
secondary education
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older
Tulsa County, 2000
14.9%
Less than
high school
26.5%
Educational Success
High school
graduate
24.7%
Some
college
6.9%
Associate's
degree
18.5%
Bachelor's
degree
5.4%
Master's
degree
2.2%
Professional
school degree
0.8%
Doctorate
degree
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percent of persons 25+
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
25%
30%
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by Sex
Tulsa County, 2000
Percent of persons 25+
Educational Success
Less than
high school
15.3%
14.6%
High school
graduate
24.5%
Some
college
24.2%
28.3%
25.1%
Associate
degree
Bachelor's
degree
17.1%
20%
Master's
degree
5%
6%
Professional
school degree
1.4%
3.1%
Doctorate
degree
30%
7.3%
6.5%
0.5%
1.1%
20%
10%
0%
Males
10%
Females
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
20%
30%
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older
Tulsa County, 2005-07 Estimates
12.7%
Educational Success
Less than
high school
27.5%
High school
graduate
22.6%
Some
college
8.2%
Associate's
degree
20.1%
Bachelor's
degree
8.9%
Graduate or
professional degree
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percent of persons 25+
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
25%
30%
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by Sex
Tulsa County, 2005-07 Estimates
Percent of persons 25+
Educational Success
Less than
high school
High school
graduate
12.7%
12.7%
29%
25.8%
Some
college
23.1%
22%
Associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree
19%
21.2%
Graduate or
professional
degree
30%
8.7%
7.7%
7.5%
10.5%
20%
10%
0%
Males
10%
Females
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005-07.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
20%
30%
Education
Success:
Preschool
Estimated Number of Children Under Age 5 in Working Parent
Households Relying on Care Outside of Parents, by Age
Educational Success
Tulsa County, October 2006
Of the 27,934 children <5 living
in working parent households.....
Under 1 Year Olds
2,972 (14.0%)
1 Year Olds
4,246 (20.0%)
6,704
(24.0%)
Do NOT rely
on care
outside of
parents
21,230
(76.0%)
Rely on care
outside of
parents
2 Year Olds
4,671 (22.0%)
3 Year Olds
4,671 (22.0%)
4 Year Olds
4,671 (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 2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Enrollment in Public Pre-K Programs, by Full and Half Day
Tulsa County, October 2007
Educational Success
Full-day
Tulsa Co.
0%
27%
20%
Half-day
Not enrolled
32%
40%
Total f our
y ear olds =
9,454
41%
60%
80%
100%
Percent of all f our y ear olds
Tulsa Public Schools had 2,829 children enrolled in pre-K programs in October
2007. Of these, 2,527 were in full-day and 3,056 were in half-day pre-K.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2007 Estimates.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Enrollment in Public Pre-K Programs, by Full and Half Day
Creek, Osage, Rogers, Wagoner, Okmulgee and Pawnee Counties, October 2007
Full-day
32%
Creek Co.
Educational Success
Half-day
10%
24%
Rogers Co.
5%
855
59%
86%
Okmulgee Co.
14%
76%
Pawnee Co.
0%
20%
1,000
28%
19%
40%
2%
60%
860
466
52%
48%
22%
Wagoner Co.
Total four
year olds:
63%
38%
Osage Co.
Not enrolled
80%
521
206
22%
100%
Estimated percent of all four year olds
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2007 Estimates.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Education Success:
Kindergarten – 12th Grade
Average Daily Membership (ADM)
Tulsa County, School Years Ending (SYE) 1997-2007
Educational Success
110,000
105,000
100,000
95,000
90,000
1997
Tulsa Co.
99,957
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
101,216 103,950 105,693 106,126 105,518 106,112 106,142 106,640 108,010 109,196
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 Average Daily Membership
Tulsa County School Districts, SYE 2007
1,240
Berryhill
4,296
Bixby
15,625
Educational Success
Broken Arrow
Collinsville
2,303
Glenpool
2,342
9,670
Jenks
491
Keystone
33
Leonard
604
Liberty
8,447
Owasso
5,293
Sand Springs
2,488
Skiatook
1,259
Sperry
41,457
Tulsa
14,253
Union
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
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
Percent Change in October 1 Enrollment of Students of
Hispanic Origin from SYE 1998 to 2008
Tulsa County School Districts
Hispanic enrollment
SYE 2008:
235.5%
Tulsa County
80%
Berryhill
119.6%
Bixby
Educational Success
13,466
27
246
336.1%
Broken Arrow
990
180%
Collinsville
56
59.4%
Glenpool
110
197.5%
Jenks
711
7
Keystone -50%
0%
Leonard
0
277.8%
Liberty
34
246.5%
Owasso
544
119.5%
Sand Springs
191
81.8%
Skiatook
60
610%
Sperry
230.9%
Tulsa
7,974
299.5%
Union
0%
200%
71
400%
2,445
600%
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 Change in Average Daily Membership
from 9th Grade to 2007 Graduating Class
Tulsa County School Districts
Number
change
in ADM
-26.3%
Tulsa County
-2,266
-10.1%
Educational Success
Berryhill
-11
Bixby
-15.2%
-51
Broken Arrow
-15.6%
-185
-20.1%
Collinsville
-37
-17.1%
Glenpool
-8.7%
Jenks
Liberty
-31
-64
-43.9%
-26
-26.9%
Owasso
-13.7%
Sand Springs
-35
-15.6%
Sperry
-15
-39.7%
-1,273
-24.7%
Union
-50%
-63
-17.2%
Skiatook
Tulsa
-189
-40%
-30%
-287
-20%
-10%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services Alternative Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
0%
10%
Attrition Rates from 9th Grade to 12th Grade for
2008 Graduating Class, based on October 1 Enrollment Totals,
by Race and Hispanic Origin
Tulsa County
Educational Success
0%
-10%
-20%
-20.7%
-24.5%
(-1,059)
(-258)
-30%
-41%
-40%
(-316)
-47.1%
(-793)
-50%
-60%
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
Percent Change in Average Daily Membership, 1997-2007
Tulsa County School Districts, School Years Ending 1997-2007
9.8%
Tulsa County
22.3%
Berryhill
38.7%
Bixby
7.2%
Educational Success
Broken Arrow
46.1%
Collinsville
Glenpool
9.7%
Jenks
9.3%
6.8%
Keystone
Leonard
-64%
10%
Liberty
42%
Owasso
Sand Springs
-0.8%
24.6%
Skiatook
12.6%
Sperry
0.4%
Tulsa
19.8%
Union
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
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
60%
Public School Full and Half Day Kindergarten Enrollmen
Tulsa County School Districts, SYE 2008
Educational Success
Half day
Full day
82
Berryhill
0
Bixby
0
Broken Arrow
3
Collinsville
0
188
Glenpool
3
198
Jenks
4
Keystone
0
40
Leonard
2
0
Liberty
37
0
Owasso
1,189
685
9
506
Sand Springs
0
Skiatook
0
Sperry
0
Tulsa
0
Union
0
5,000
348
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
370
161
90
3,833
1,010
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
5,000
High School Graduates
By Tulsa County School Districts, SYE 2007
95
Berryhill
268
Bixby
842
Educational Success
Broken Arrow
Collinsville
146
Glenpool
141
649
Jenks
31
Liberty
510
Owasso
457
Sand Springs
188
Skiatook
83
Sperry
1,885
Tulsa
899
Union
0
500
1,000
1,500
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services Alternative Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2,000
2,500
Average Daily Number & Percent of Students Absent
By Tulsa County School Districts, SYE 2007
Educational Success
228
5.3%
Bixby
Broken Arrow
5.5%
Collinsville
5.6%
Glenpool
61
4.9%
Berryhill
866
130
149
6.4%
467
4.8%
Jenks
36
7.4%
Keystone
1
3.2%
Leonard
Liberty
4.8%
Owasso
4.9%
29
413
291
5.5%
Sand Springs
2,978
7.2%
803
5.6%
Union
10%
74
5.9%
Sperry
Tulsa
121
4.9%
Skiatook
8%
6%
4%
Percent absent
2%
0%
0
1,000
2,000
Number absent
Note: Average daily absent is the average daily membership minus the average daily attendance.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
3,000
Average Daily Number & Percent of Students Absent
Tulsa County, by Grade, SYE 2007
Pre-K full day
243
7.3%
Pre-K half day
213
9.5%
2nd
5%
3rd
4.8%
4th
4.7%
5th
4.6%
372
356
447
494
524
6.6%
658
7.6%
10th
6.8%
11th
6.9%
12th
393
6.1%
7th
9th
434
5.7%
6th
8th
483
5.5%
1st
Educational Success
557
6.3%
Kindergarten
518
477
453
7.1%
12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
0
Percent absent
200
400
600
Number absent
Note: Average daily absent is the average daily membership minus the average daily attendance.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
800
12th Grade ACT Participation Rates in Relation to 9th Grade
Average Daily Membership for Graduating Class of 2007
Tulsa County School Districts, SYE 2007
76.3%
239
Bixby
78%
854
Broken Arrow
Educational Success
76.9%
86
Berryhill
Collinsville
88
Glenpool
100
55.5%
71.4%
92.4%
655
Jenks
70.3%
33
Liberty
81.5%
521
Owasso
67.8%
306
Sand Springs
54%
50
Sperry
Tulsa
50.3%
102
Skiatook
62.7%
2,057
74.8%
783
Union
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Number of seniors taking ACT
0%
0
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent taking ACT*
Note: Percent taking ACT is the number of seniors who took the ACT as a percent of 9th grade ADM for the 2007 graduating class.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Education Success:
Post Secondary Higher Education
Growing importance of coordination among
higher education institutions to promote
system efficiency
Educational Success
System Overview
The State Regents prescribe academic standards of higher education,
determine functions and courses of study at state colleges and universities,
grant degrees, recommend to the state Legislature budget allocations for
each college and university, and recommend proposed fees within limits set
by the Legislature.
A primary goal for the State Regents is “System Efficiency” especially
focused on reduced program duplication.
Tulsa Community College provides the lower level (Freshman & Sophomore)
courses in Tulsa County and articulates agreements with all state supported
four-year colleges and universities in Oklahoma for students wishing to
pursue a bachelor’s degree.
Tulsa Community College provides educational opportunities that can lead to
Associate Degrees in Arts, Science, or Applied Science and to Certificates of
Achievement.
Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education
Enrollment
Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003
70%
63.9%
Educational Success
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
College Enrollment of 2004-05
Tulsa County High School Graduates
By School District
Educational Success
1,000
771
800
529
600
499
368
400
278
182
139
200
71
66
39
66
19
31
0
Be
rr
il l
h
y
B
by
ix
BA
n
Sa
d
Sp
gs
ir n
l
lin
ol
C
ille
v
s
G
le
n
o
po
J
ks
n
e
ty
o
s
as
Li
r
be
O
w
i
Sk
oo
t
a
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
ry
k
S
r
pe
l
Tu
sa
U
ni
on
Oklahoma College Going Rate of Tulsa County
2004-05 HS Graduates
By School District
70%
58.7%
56% 57.1%
60%
Educational Success
64.3%
63.3%
54.9%
51.2%
50%
51.1%
47.5%
50%
47.8%
42.5%
44.7%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Be
ll
hi
y
rr
by
x
Bi
BA
C
lin
ol
ille
v
s
G
n
le
o
po
l
ks
so
ok
gs
rty
s
n
o
n
e
t
a
ri
b
Je
ia
p
w
Li
k
S
O
S
d
n
a
S
ry
S
r
pe
sa
l
Tu
Note: These percentages include only students who attend college the fall following their high school graduation.
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
U
o
ni
n
Public College Remediation Rates Among HS Graduates
Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 1999-2005
40%
Educational Success














30%
20%
10%
0%
Tulsa County
Oklahoma


1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
37%
36.5%
32.4%
34.1%
35.1%
36.5%
38.1%
36.2%
33.6%
35%
34.1%
36.1%
35.6%
36.7%
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Human Development
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
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 2009
Tulsa County
…is available on our website:
www.csctulsa.org
Prepared for the Tulsa Area United Way Community Investments Process
By the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
March 2009