Slide 1

Transcript Slide 1

Community Profile 2007 Education and Economics

City of Tulsa

January 22, 2007

Prepared for the Tulsa Area United Way Community Investments Process By the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa January, 2007

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 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

Source: US Census 2000, American Community Survey, 2005

What is the Job Climate in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the US?



More jobs than qualified workers (Impending Crisis: Too Many Jobs, Too Few People, 2003)



80% of new jobs require a degree (The End of Work, 2002)



39.2% of Tulsans have a high school degree or less and 23% more have some college (US Census 2005 Estimates)

 

59% of the University of Oklahoma Bachelor’s degree graduates leave Oklahoma (1999, University of Oklahoma) The immigrant population….if all stay….will not be enough to fill the job demand

Top Risk Factors for Adults and Families for Poor Economic Success



Single-parent households



Low educational attainment



Illiteracy



Poor health and lack of health insurance



Substance abuse/addiction

Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older

Tulsa County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates Less than high school High school graduate Some college Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree Prof essional school degree Doctorate degree 0% 2000 2005 (est.) 5% 2000 2005 (est.) Less than high school 14.9% 12.5% High school graduate 26.5% 25.7% 10% 15% 20% Percent of persons 25+ Some college Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree 24.7% 23% 6.9% 8.8% 18.5% 21.2% 5.4% 5.9% 25% 30% Professional school degree 2.2% 2.1% Doctorate degree 0.8% 0.8%

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

30% 25% 20% 15%

Rates of Adult Level 1 Literacy

By County Percent of adults at Level 1 Literacy

Oklahom a has a rate of 18%.

25% 19% Level 1 Literacy is the low est literacy level. Adults at this level display difficulty using certain reading, w riting, and computational skills considered necessary for functioning in everyday life.

16% 15% 13% 13% 10% 5% 0% Tulsa Co.

Creek Co. Okmulgee Co. Osage Co. Rogers Co. Wagoner Co.

Source: Oklahoma Literacy Resource Office.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Oklahoma's Rankings in Risk Factors Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006

According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings

Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst Personal Behaviors

Prev alence of smoking Motor v ehicle deaths Prev alence of obesity High school graduation

Com m unity Environm ent

Violent crime Children in pov erty Occupational f atalities Inf ectious disease

Health Policies

Lack of health insurance Adequacy of prenatal care Per capita public health spending Immunization cov erage

#44 #46 #31 #32 #23 #24 #21 #14 #8 #24 #22 #33 #38 #34 #35 #41 #30 #46 #43 #40 #44

1990 2006

Source: United Health Foundation.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Oklahoma's Rankings in Outcomes Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006

According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings

Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst Overall ranking

Poor mental health days #31 Poor physical health days Infant mortality Cardiovascular deaths #27 #31 Cancer deaths #24 Premature death #27 1990 2006

Source: United Health Foundation.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

#44 #41 #44 #43 #44 #50 #43

How Do We Increase Tulsa’s Economic Potential? Long Term Gain



Think P-16 (prenatal through college)

–

Healthy prenatal and early childhood

–

Prevent abuse and neglect of children

–

Engage students in school

–

Prevent student drop-out

–

Students complete a bachelor’s degree

Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment

United States, 1973-2005 Real hourly wage (2005 dollars) $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 19 73 19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 Less than high school 19 85 19 87 19 89 High school 19 91 19 93 19 95 College degree 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 Advanced degree 20 05

Source: Economic Policy Institute website.

Prenatal Interventions



Healthy Start



Children First



Healthy Families and Safe Care



Parents as Teachers

Summary of Risk Factors for Infants

Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 2005 Teen mother (age 15-19)

11.6% 12.9%

Unmarried mother

41% 39.1%

Poor prenatal care (3rd trimester/no care) Mother w/ <12th grade education Low birthweight (1500-2499 grams) Very low birthweight (<1500 grams) Short birth spacing (<24 mos. apart) Very short birth spacing (<18 mos. apart) Premature (<37 weeks gest.) 0%

1.6% 1.4% 7% 5.6% 6.3% 6.6%

10%

11% 10.6% 19.2% 19.1% 24.6% 22.4% 33.5% 32.8%

20% 30% Percent of Births

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Tulsa Co.

Oklahoma Tulsa County births: 9,297 Oklahoma births: 51,775 40% 50%

Education Success in Preschool

    

Star Rating System for Quality Educare Head Start Supercenters Pre K 4 All Day Kindergarten

All this makes us Number 1 in US in early childhood efforts

Children Under Age 5 in Working Parent Households Relying on Care Outside of Parents, by Age

Tulsa County, 2005 (est.) Of the 26,863 children <5 living in working parent households.....

6,447 (24.0%) Do NOT rely on care outside of parents 20,416 (76.0%)

Rely on care outside of parents

Under 1 Year Olds 2,858 (14.0%) 1 Year Olds 4,083 (20.0%) 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 children cared for in unknown arrangements 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 Half-day Not enrolled Tulsa Co.

26% 36% 38% Total four year olds = 8,954

0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of all four year olds 80% 100% Tulsa Public Schools had 2,795 children enrolled in pre-K programs in October 2005. Of these, 2,132 were in full-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 Kindergarten – 12th Grade



Community Schools



School-based Clinics



Alternative Education



Charter Schools

Many 9th graders do not make it to graduation Percent Change in Average Daily Membership from 9th Grade to 2005 Graduating Class

Tulsa County School Districts Number change in ADM -2,137 Tulsa County Berry hill Bixby Broken Arrow Collinsv ille Glenpool Jenks Liberty Owasso Sand Springs Skiatook Sperry Tulsa Union -43.7% -26% -20.8% -24.7% -23.7% -18.5% -14.7% -10.2% -9.6% -8.5% -8.5% -11.9% -29% -15.9% -22 -29 -109 -12 -22 -62 -14 -111 -115 -30 -29 -1,424 -159 -50% -40% -30% -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 high for every 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) -21.2% (-177) -21.3% -30% -40% (-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

(-167) -39.4% Hispanic Origin

Dropout Rates Graduating Class of 2005 Tulsa County School Districts COLLINSVILLE 7.9

SKIATOOK 21.1

SPERRY 11.0

OWASSO 12.0

TULSA 28.6

SAND SPRINGS 3.8

BERRYHILL KEYSTONE 1.3

NA UNION 13.0

BROKEN ARROW 12.6

Dropout Rate Less than 5% 5 - 9.9% 10 - 19.9% 20%+ JENKS 4.3

GLENPOOL 14.8

BIXBY 8.2

LEONARD NA

N W E S Sourc e: E ducation Overs ight B oard, Off ice of A ccountabi lity, Departm ent of Education.

LIBERTY 2.4

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

Attrition Rates Graduating Class of 2005 Tulsa County School Districts

SKIATOOK

-11.9

SPERRY

-29.0

COLLINSVILLE

-8.5

OW ASSO

-18.5

SAND SPRINGS

-23.7

BERRYHILL

-20.8

KEYSTONE TULSA

-43.7

UNION

-15.9

BROKEN ARROW

-9.6

Attrition Rate > -10% -10 to -19.9% -20 to -29.9% -30% or less

JENKS

-8.5

GLENPOOL

-14.7

BIXBY

-10.2

LEONARD

N LIBERTY

-24.7

W E S Sourc e: D epartm ent of Education, Data Services.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

Education Success Post-Secondary-Higher Education



Improved engagement in post high school college and vocational preparation



Reduce remediation classes in first college years

Oklahoma Public College Going Rate of Tulsa County 2002-03 HS Graduates

By School District 70% 60% 54.2% 51.4% 48.9% 59.3% 55.6% 52% 56.7% 49.4% 60.1% 56.9% 50% 39.7% 40% 35.1% 32.8% 30% 20% 10% 0% TPS Spri ngs Sand BA Bi xby Jenks Co lli nsville Skiato ok Sperry Un ion Berr yhi ll Owas so Gle npo ol Lib ert y

Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment

Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003 70% 60% 50% 63.9% 40% 30% 20% 13.1% 9.4% 8% 10% 3.2% 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

2.4% LU-Tulsa

Public College Remediation Rates Among HS Graduates

Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 1999-2003 50% 40% Tulsa County Oklahoma 37% 36.5% 32.4% 34.1% 35.1% 36.5% 38.1% 36.2% 33.6% 35% 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

How Do We Increase Tulsa’s Economic Potential?

Mid Term Gain



Redevelop workforce for new job areas of health, early childhood education, nanotechnology, information technology, recreation and service industry



Prepare immigrant workforce to participate in “information age” workforce



Examine immigration policies to bolster needed workforce demands

Percent growth in area school districts varies greatly Percent Change in Average Daily Membership

Tulsa County School Districts, 1997-2005 Berry hill Bixby Broken Arrow Collinsv ille Glenpool Jenks Key stone Leonard Liberty Owasso Sand Springs Skiatook Sperry Tulsa Union Tulsa County -40% -30%

-19.2%

-20%

-3.6%

-10% 0%

2.9% 2.5% 0.2% 4.2% 7.7% 7.7% 6.8%

10%

12.5% 16.8% 12.8% 16.3%

20% 30%

30.5% 33.9% 33%

40%

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

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 2004: Berry hill

60%

24 Bixby

44.6%

162 Broken Arrow

151.1%

570 Collinsv ille

-25%

43.5%

Glenpool Jenks

138.5%

99 570 Key stone

-57.1%

6 0 Leonard Liberty Owasso Sand Springs Skiatook Sperry Tulsa Union Tulsa County

0% 80.9% 57.5% 27.3% 133.3% 149.9% 146.1% 137%

21 284 137 42

450%

55 6,023 1,506 9,514 -200% -100% 0% 100% 200% 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

How Do We Increase Tulsa’s Economic Potential?

Short Term Gain



Recover drop-outs who are now 16-35 years of age

 

Recover retired workforce of 55-70 year olds Stop the “Brain Drain” of college educated to other states



Improve health of the workforce



Recover workforce leaving prison

186 th S t. N.

Number of Civilian Non-Institutionalized Males Age 16-64 Unemployed or Not in Labor Force By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

S o u r c e : U S C e n s u s B u r e a u , 2 0 0 0 C e n s u s .

5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Number of persons 0 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 299 300 - 399 400+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Percent of Civilian Non-Institutionalized Males Age 16-64 Unemployed or Not in Labor Force By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Percent of persons 0 - 9.9% 10 - 19.9% 20 - 29.9% 30 - 39.9% 40%+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Number of Persons Age 16-19 Not in School and Not High School Graduates By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Number of persons 0 1 - 24 25 - 49 50 - 99 100+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Percent of Persons Age 16-19 Not in School and Not High School Graduates By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Percent of persons 0% 0.1 - 9.9% 10 - 19.9% 20 - 29.9% 30%+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Distribution of Persons Age 62 to 70 By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Number of persons Less than 100 100 - 199 200 - 299 300 - 399 400+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

Area of Study of University of Oklahoma Students Leaving Oklahoma Area of Study

Business Engineering Humanities Natural Sciences Professional Studies Social Sciences

Number of Majors

19 24 19 18 18 18

Percentage of Majors

58 % 73 % 58 % 55 % 55 % 55 % Total Expected Percentage 116 59 %

•Source:

Migration After College: The Spatial Distribution of Recent OU Graduates

, Emily McCauley, March 1999 , University of Oklahoma

Reasons to Leave and Stay in Oklahoma

  

Oklahoma is loosing 20% of its graduates each year to Texas and other enticing states. Economic opportunity is cited most often as the top reason to move to a location. Students rank it first 44% of the time. Students who are from Oklahoma and who plan to remain in Oklahoma (31%) rank economic opportunity as the top reason for their locational decision 41% of the time.

Source:

Migration After College: The Spatial Distribution of Recent OU Graduates

, Emily McCauley, March 1999 , University of Oklahoma

25,000 22,500 20,000 17,500 15,000 12,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 2,500 0 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

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.

Community Profile 2007

is available on the website of The Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa:

www.csctulsa.org

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Appendix

Slides which support statements offered regarding demographics and human development

Economic Potential of Tulsa is at a Turning Point



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

Economic Potential of Tulsa is at a Turning Point



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

100% 80%

Rich - 5% Middle - 20% Rich - 10% Rich - 20% Middle - 60%

60%

Middle - 80%

40%

Poor - 75%

20% 0%

Poor - 20%

1900 - 1940

Poor - 10%

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 Wealth: Household Income

U.S., Oklahoma, Tulsa MSA and Tulsa County, 2005 Estimates 100%

16.3% 9.4% 12% 12.7%

80% 60% 40% 20%

40.1% 43.5% 37.5% 53.1% 38.6% 49.4% 38.5% 48.8%

$100,000+/year $40,000-$99,999 /year <$40,000/year 1% of U.S. households hav e 39.3% of the assets, making the U.S. the #1 country in the world in inequality of income.

0% U.S.

Oklahoma TAUW Tulsa Co.

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Income disparity between rich and poor grows wider beyond 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 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Low est Second Middle Fourth Highest Top 5%

Source: Economic Policy Institute website.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Many Households Lack Adequate Income

~More and more households lack adequate income to meet living needs

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 $40,000

Self-Sufficiency Wage = $37,762

($18.15/hr.)

$45,268 All families with children <18

($21.76/hr.)

$30,710 $30,000

($14.76/hr.)

$20,000 $16,600 $8,400 $10,712

($7.98/hr.)

$10,000

($5.15/hr.) ($4.04/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

Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64

Tulsa County, 2005 Estimates 70,396 20.8% NOT in labor force

16,251 (6.1%)

Unemployed

In labor force

268,213 79.2%

251,470 (93.8%)

Employed

492 (0.2%)

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

Unemployment Rates

Tulsa MSA, 1991 - 2006 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Rate 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Oct.

2006 5.9

5.3

6.3

5.8

4.2

3.3

3.5

3.2

2.8

3.4

4.9

6.5

5.0

4.4

3.5

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment

Source: Economic Policy Institute website.

Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment, by Sex

United States, 2005 Real hourly wage (2005 dollars) $40 Both sexes Men Women $36 $30 $31 $25 $28 $27 $20 $21 $10 $14 $16 $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

Participation in Public Assistance Programs

Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating Tulsa County, August, 2006 Medicaid Total

78,641 13.7%

Medicaid <5

21,228 47.4%

Medicaid <18

52,892 36.5%

Medicaid 65+

5,530 8%

WIC Inf ants

4,606 51.4%

WIC age 1-5

8,647 19.9%

Child Care Subsidy <5

5,146 11.5%

Food Stamps Total

60,205 10.5%

TANF <18 Elem. School Free Lunch (2005-06) Elem. School Reduced Lunch (2005-06) 100,000 75,000

24,755

50,000 25,000 Number of Participants

2,468 5,538 1.7% 10% 44.5%

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

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 Teen mother (age 15-19)

11.6% 12.9%

Unmarried mother

41% 39.1%

1.6% 1.4% 7% 5.6% 6.3% 6.6%

10%

11% 10.6% 19.2% 19.1% 24.6% 22.4% 33.5% 32.8%

20% 30% Percent of Births

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Tulsa Co.

Oklahoma Tulsa County births: 9,297 Oklahoma births: 51,775 40% 50%

Small proportion of special education students received early intervention Special Education Students and Students who Received Early Intervention

Oklahoma Public Schools, 2003-04 Special education 15% Early intervention 2.2% Not special education 85%

Total Oklahoma Public School Students

No early intervention 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 Trends and Projections by Age Group

Tulsa County, 1970 - 2030 2030 6.3

ctions 2020 6.6

Proje 2010 6.8

16.6

17.1

9.2

9.7

47.8

50.5

17.5

14.1

2.5

2.1

2000 7.4

1990 7.7

18.2

18.9

18.4

10.1

10 10.1

52.5

51.9

52.2

10.6

10.4

1.9

1.4

1.2

1980 7.7

19.8

13.5

49.1

9 .9

1970 8.5

25.9

10.7

46.2

8.1

0% 20% 0-4 5-17 40% 60% Percent of population 18-24 25-64 65-84 80% 85+ 100%

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

Disability Prevalence by Age and Level of Disability

Oklahoma, 1997 0 to 2 Age Group 2% 3.4% 3 to 5 6 to 14 15-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-79 80+ 0% Level of disability Any Severe 4.8% 11.2% 5.3% 10.7% 8.1% 13.4% 13.9% 22.6% 35.7% 24.2% 49% 31.8% 73.6% 57.6% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent with Specified Level of Disability 100%

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-Adjusted Death Rates

Tulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 1980 - 2002 Death rates 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 Tulsa Co OK US 800 198 0 198 2

Source: CDC Wonder.

198 4 198 6 198 8 199 0 199 2 199 4 199 6

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

199 8 200 0 200 2

Percentage of the Population that is Obese

Oklahoma and US, 1990 - 2002 Percent obese 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Oklahoma US 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200 200 200

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

Percentage of Adults who Smoke

Tulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 2003 Percent adult smokers 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 22.7% 25.1% 22% 0% Tulsa Co.

Oklahoma

Source: NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

1,648,530 (47.9%)

Health Insurance Status, by Age

Oklahoma, 2004-2005

Total Population

659,370 (19.2%) 424,880 (47.2%)

Under Age 19

130,780 (14.5%) 23,450 (2.6%) 553,150 (16.1%) 283,680 (31.5%) 444,630 (12.9%) 137,050 (4.0%) 36,520 (4.1%) 439,280 (91.0%) 524,320 (25.4%) 1,222,600 (59.3%) 90,420 (4.4%) 123,040 (6.0%) 100,090 (4.9%)

Age 19-64

Employer Individual Medicaid 37,910 (7.8%) 440 (0.1%)

Age 65 & over

1,050 (0.2%) 4,270 (0.9%) Medicare/Other Public Uninsured

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Oklahoma's Rankings in Risk Factors Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006

According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings

Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst Personal Behaviors

Prev alence of smoking Motor v ehicle deaths Prev alence of obesity High school graduation

Com m unity Environm ent

Violent crime Children in pov erty Occupational f atalities Inf ectious disease

Health Policies

Lack of health insurance Adequacy of prenatal care Per capita public health spending Immunization cov erage

#44 #46 #31 #32 #23 #24 #21 #14 #8 #24 #22 #33 #38 #34 #35 #41 #30 #46 #43 #40 #44

1990 2006

Source: United Health Foundation.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Oklahoma's Rankings in Outcomes Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006

According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings

Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst Overall ranking

Poor mental health days #31 Poor physical health days Infant mortality Cardiovascular deaths #27 #31 Cancer deaths #24 Premature death #27 1990 2006

Source: United Health Foundation.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

#44 #41 #44 #43 #44 #50 #43

Poor Human Conditions Impact Crime and Growing Incarcerations

Trends greatly affected by substance abuse

1950-2005

Methamphetamine Labs Seized by Authorities

Oklahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2005 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 Number of labs discovered Oklahoma Tulsa 400 200 0 Oklahoma Tulsa 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 10 34 125 241 275 781 946 1,193 1,254 1,235 812 274 0 0 6 13 47 132 150 124 178 214 131 51

Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Website, Tulsa Police Department Website.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Overall Progress in Human Development is Tied to Educational Success

From preschool through post secondary education

Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

30% 25% 20% 15%

Rates of Adult Level 1 Literacy

By County Percent of adults at Level 1 Literacy

Oklahom a has a rate of 18%.

16% 15% 13% 13% 10% 5% 0% Tulsa Co.

Creek Co. Okmulgee Co. Osage Co. Rogers Co. Wagoner Co.

Source: Oklahoma Literacy Resource Office.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Education Success: Preschool

Children Under Age 5 in Working Parent Households Relying on Care Outside of Parents, by Age

Tulsa County, 2005 (est.) Of the 26,863 children <5 living in working parent households.....

6,447 (24.0%) Do NOT rely on care outside of parents 20,416 (76.0%)

Rely on care outside of parents

Under 1 Year Olds 2,858 (14.0%) 1 Year Olds 4,083 (20.0%) 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 children cared for in unknown arrangements 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%)

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 Half-day Not enrolled Tulsa Co.

26% 36% 38% Total four year olds = 8,954

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: Kindergarten – 12

Grade

Percent growth in area school districts varies greatly Percent Change in Average Daily Membership

Tulsa County School Districts, 1997-2005 Berry hill Bixby Broken Arrow Collinsv ille Glenpool Jenks Key stone Leonard Liberty Owasso Sand Springs Skiatook Sperry Tulsa Union Tulsa County -40% -30%

-19.2%

-20%

-3.6%

-10% 0%

2.9% 2.5% 0.2% 4.2% 7.7% 7.7% 6.8%

10%

12.5% 16.8% 12.8% 16.3%

20% 30%

30.5% 33.9% 33%

40%

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

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 2004: Berry hill

60%

24 Bixby

44.6%

162 Broken Arrow

151.1%

570 Collinsv ille

-25%

43.5%

Glenpool Jenks

138.5%

99 570 Key stone

-57.1%

6 0 Leonard Liberty Owasso Sand Springs Skiatook Sperry Tulsa Union Tulsa County

0% 80.9% 57.5% 27.3% 133.3% 149.9% 146.1% 137%

21 284 137 42

450%

55 6,023 1,506 9,514 -200% -100% 0% 100% 200% 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

Many 9th graders do not make it to graduation Percent Change in Average Daily Membership from 9th Grade to 2005 Graduating Class

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services Alternative Education.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

0% 10%

Attrition rates high for every 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) -21.2% (-177) -21.3% -30% -40% (-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

(-167) -39.4% Hispanic Origin

Education Success: Post-Secondary-Higher Education

Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment

Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003 70% 60% 50% 63.9% 40% 30% 20% 13.1% 9.4% 8% 10% 3.2% 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

2.4% LU-Tulsa

Oklahoma Public College Going Rate of Tulsa County 2002-03 HS Graduates

Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Public College Remediation Rates Among HS Graduates

Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 1999-2003 50% 40% Tulsa County Oklahoma 37% 36.5% 32.4% 34.1% 35.1% 36.5% 38.1% 36.2% 33.6% 35% 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

186 th S t. N.

Number of Civilian Non-Institutionalized Males Age 16-64 Unemployed or Not in Labor Force By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

S o u r c e : U S C e n s u s B u r e a u , 2 0 0 0 C e n s u s .

5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Number of persons 0 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 299 300 - 399 400+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Percent of Civilian Non-Institutionalized Males Age 16-64 Unemployed or Not in Labor Force By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Percent of persons 0 - 9.9% 10 - 19.9% 20 - 29.9% 30 - 39.9% 40%+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Number of Persons Age 16-19 Not in School and Not High School Graduates By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Number of persons 0 1 - 24 25 - 49 50 - 99 100+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Percent of Persons Age 16-19 Not in School and Not High School Graduates By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Percent of persons 0% 0.1 - 9.9% 10 - 19.9% 20 - 29.9% 30%+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

Dropout Rates Graduating Class of 2005 Tulsa County School Districts COLLINSVILLE 7.9

SKIATOOK 21.1

SPERRY 11.0

OWASSO 12.0

TULSA 28.6

SAND SPRINGS 3.8

BERRYHILL KEYSTONE 1.3

NA UNION 13.0

BROKEN ARROW 12.6

Dropout Rate Less than 5% 5 - 9.9% 10 - 19.9% 20%+ JENKS 4.3

GLENPOOL 14.8

BIXBY 8.2

LEONARD NA

N W E S Sourc e: E ducation Overs ight B oard, Off ice of A ccountabi lity, Departm ent of Education.

LIBERTY 2.4

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

Attrition Rates Graduating Class of 2005 Tulsa County School Districts

SKIATOOK

-11.9

SPERRY

-29.0

COLLINSVILLE

-8.5

OW ASSO

-18.5

SAND SPRINGS

-23.7

BERRYHILL

-20.8

KEYSTONE TULSA

-43.7

UNION

-15.9

BROKEN ARROW

-9.6

Attrition Rate > -10% -10 to -19.9% -20 to -29.9% -30% or less

JENKS

-8.5

GLENPOOL

-14.7

BIXBY

-10.2

LEONARD

N LIBERTY

-24.7

W E S Sourc e: D epartm ent of Education, Data Services.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

186 th S t. N.

Distribution of Persons Age 62 to 70 By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000

126 th S t. N.

96th S t. N.

66th S t. N.

36th S t. N.

3 1

Ad miral P l.

4 5 6

31s t St .

9 7

61s t St .

2 Number of persons Less than 100 100 - 199 200 - 299 300 - 399 400+ 8

101 st S t.

131 st S t.

N W E S Sourc e: U S Census B ureau, 2000 C ensus.

211 th S t.

181 st S t.

Prepared by the Community Service C ouncil of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

Slide 1

Transcript Slide 1