Transcript Slide 1

Community Profile 2006
Creek County
Presented to
Tulsa Area United Way
Community Investments Volunteers
Prepared for The Tulsa Area United Way
Community Investments Process
By The Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Quiz
1. Which area is growing the most rapidly (percent increase)?
a. TAUW service area b. Creek Co.
c. Sapulpa
2. During the past 30 years, what has happened to the income gap
between rich and poor?
a. increased
b. decreased
c. stable
3. What percentage of all poor families in Creek County have an
employed householder and/or spouse?
a. 20%
b. 40%
c. 61%
4. What percentage of Creek County residents age 25 & older have only
a high school education or less?
a. 27%
b. 44%
c. 62%
5. How does Oklahoma compare to the nation in age-adjusted deaths
rates?
a. better
b. worse
c. same
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Community Profile 2006
•
•
•
•
Demographic Trends
Human Development
Panel Topics
Best Practices
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Demographic Trends
>
>
>
>
>
>
Population growth
Age
Race and Hispanic origin
Living arrangements
Median family income
Residential mobility
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Demographic Trends in
Creek County
• Population growth in Creek County has been steady.
• Greater cultural diversity particularly among the population under
25 years of age
• Living arrangements are changing significantly with more
children in single headed households and other relative
households
• 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
TAUW Service Area
Osage
Rogers
Tulsa
Wagoner
Creek
N
Okmulgee
W
E
S
Population of TAUW Service Area and Creek County
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
1,000,000
900,000
TAUW
Creek County
800,000
700,000
TAUW service area’s population
grew 3% between 2000 and
2004, w hile that of Creek County
increased 2%.
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1970
TAUW 561,210
Creek County
45,532
1980
1990
696,342
59,016
745,444
60,915
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2000
2004
(est.)
842,920 864,981
67,367
68,666
Population of Selected Cities in Creek County
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
Sapulpa
Bristow
Drumright
Mannford’s population grew 6%
between 2000 and 2004, w hile that of
Sapulpa increased 2%. Both Bristow
and Drumright lost population.
Mannf ord
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004 (est.)
5,000
Sapulpa
15,159
15,853
18,074
19,379
19,800
10,000
Bristow
4,653
4,702
4,062
4,325
4,320
15,000
Drumright
2,740
3,162
2,799
2,905
2,890
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004 (est.)
20,000
Mannford
892
1,610
1,826
2,102
2,230
25,000
Population of Selected Counties in the Tulsa M etro Area
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
100,000
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004 (est.)
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004 (est.)
Creek Co.
Okmulgee Co.
Osage Co.
Rogers Co.
Wagoner Co.
45,532
59,016
60,915
67,367
68,666
35,358
39,169
36,490
39,685
39,890
29,750
39,327
41,645
44,437
45,181
28,425
46,436
55,170
70,641
79,042
22,163
41,801
47,883
57,491
63,054
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population by Race and Hispanic Origin
Creek County, 2000
White
(55,425) 82.3%
Two or more races
(3,479) 5.2%
Some other race
(440) 0.7%
Black
(1,724) 2.6%
Hispanic Origin*
(N=1,283) 1.9%
American Indian*
(6,120) 9.1%
Asian*
(179) 0.3%
Notes: Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race, and therefore are not included separately in pie chart.
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are Included in "Asian" race category Alaska Natives are included
in "American Indian" race category.
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Births by Race of Mother
Creek County, 2004
Hispanic origin:
16 (1.8%)
Total births=908
Black
26 (2.9%)
American Indian
98 (10.8%)
Asian/Pacif ic Islander
6 (0.7%)
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
White
778 (85.7%)
Age Distribution
Creek County, 2000
18-24
(5,356) 8.0%
5-17
(13,845) 20.6%
0-4
(4,587) 6.8%
85+
(965) 1.4%
25-64
(34,929) 51.8%
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
65-84
(7,685) 11.4%
Living Arrangements of Children Under 18
Creek County, 2000
80%
68%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
15.1%
20%
9.1%
5.5%
10%
0%
Married Couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Other relativ es
Children in Non-Traditional Settings
Creek County, 2000
Number of children
1,500
1,000
500
0
Children
Percentage of
children <18
Living with
grandparents
1,423
7.7%
Living with
other relatives
254
1.4%
Foster care
(Sept. 2005)
185
1%
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census; Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Institutions
32
0.2%
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Creek County, 2000
Renter-occupied
22 (22.0%)
Owner-occupied
78 (78.0%)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Housing Units by Householder's Length of
Residence and by Tenure
Creek County, 2000
Renter-occupied
Owner-occupied
25.7%
35.9%
10.1%
37.1%
27.0%
64.2%
15 months or less
16 months to 4 years
Median household income for ow ner-occupied
housing units in Creek County = $37,075
5 years or more
Median household income for renter-occupied
housing units in Creek County = $22,132
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
M edian Family Income, by Race
Creek County, 1999
Annual Income
$80,000
$66,250
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$38,470
$39,373
$40,000
$29,524
$33,125
$25,938
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Total
White
Black
American Indian
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Asian
Hispanic
Human Development
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
The Roots of the Challenge
Thirty Years 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 and young families
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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 Creek County for many is
risky business
Human Development:
Key Points…continued
• Populations of aging and persons with
disabilities are large and growing
• Health challenges are critical to individual and
community well-being
• Poor human conditions impact crime and
growing incarcerations
• Overall progress in human development is tied
to educational success
The Middle Class is Disappearing
~Lower income groups greatly expand,
middle shrinks,
highest income group increases
dramatically
The Overall Dominant Trend...
The Shrinking Middle Class
100%
80%
Rich - 5%
Rich - 10%
Middle - 20%
Rich - 20%
Middle - 60%
60%
Middle - 80%
40%
Poor - 75%
20%
Poor - 20%
Poor - 10%
0%
1900 - 1940
1940 - 1990
1990 - ?
The trend: housing patterns and income mirror the job structure, with
more rich, more poor, and fewer in the middle -- the "hourglass effect"
Source: Hodgkinson, Harold, "The Client," Education Demographer, 1988.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Distribution of Wealth: Household Income
U.S., Ok lahoma, TAUW Service Area and Creek County, 1999
100%
12.3%
80%
6.6%
35%
40.3%
8.7%
4.8%
35.4%
38.6%
60%
40%
58.4%
20%
47.4%
52.7%
59.8%
0%
U.S.
Oklahoma
TAUW
Creek Co.
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.
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
6
19
6
6
19
8
7
19
0
7
19
2
7
19
4
7
19
Lowest
6
7
19
8
8
19
0
Second
8
19
2
8
19
4
8
19
Middle
6
8
19
8
9
19
Fourth
0
9
19
2
9
19
4
Highest
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
9
19
6
9
19
8
0
20
Top 5%
0
0
20
2
Many Households Lack
Adequate Income
~More and more households lack
adequate income to meet living needs
The Self-Sufficiency Standard...
...The level of income required
for a family to meet its needs on its own.
>
>
>
>
Customized by specific family composition
Customized by geographic location
Based on all expense categories
Updated annually using consumer price index
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, 2002, "The Self-Sufficiency
Standard for Oklahoma."
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Wage to
Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family
Creek County, 2005
One
person
Two
persons
Three
persons
Four
persons
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$17,893
$9,570
$8,323
187.0%
($8.60 per hour)
($4.60 per hour)
$29,289
$12,830
$16,459
228.3%
($14.08 per hour)
($6.17 per hour)
$33,986
$16,090
$17,896
211.2%
($16.34 per hour)
($7.74 per hour)
$42,558
$19,350
$23,208
219.9%
($20.46 per hour)
($9.30 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;" Federal Register, February 18, 2005; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Self-sufficiency income requires amount far beyond minimum wage
Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, Minimum, Poverty, 185% of
Poverty, and Median Family Income
Example: Family of Three, One Wage Earner, Creek County, 2005
Annual Wage
$50,000
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $33,986
Married-couple w/
kids: $44,090
($16.34/hr.)
$40,000
$38,470
All families
$29,767
$30,000
($14.31/hr.)
$20,000
$10,000
($22.83/hr.)
Male-headed w/
kids: $26,922
$16,090
$8,292
($3.99/hr.)
$10,712
Female-headed
w/ kids: $18,408
($7.74/hr.)
($5.15/hr.)
$0
Welfare
Wage
Minimum
Wage
Poverty
Wage
185% Poverty
Wage
Median Family
Income
(1999)
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 Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency
Standard for Oklahoma;" Federal Register, February 18, 2005; Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services, Bureau of Labor
Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2004.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Budget Distribution for Typical Family of
Three Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Creek County, 2005
Taxes
$340
Housing
$708
Miscellaneous
$227
12%
25%
8%
10%
Health Care
$283
9%
21%
16%
Transportation
$255
Child Care
$595
Food
$453
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.
Self-sufficiency wage for a family of three of this composition is $33,986, or $2,832 per month.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma."
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Percentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Creek County, 1999
Percentage of population
60%
100%
130%
185%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Under 18
population
100%
130%
185%
13.5%
20%
33.8%
17.7%
25%
42%
Under 5
5-17
18-64
65+
20.5%
29.5%
49.1%
16.7%
23.5%
39.8%
11.4%
16.5%
28%
14.1%
26%
44.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates for Families by Family Type and Age of Children
Creek County, 1999
Pov erty rate
70%
Married-couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
62.3%
60%
50%
37.7%
40%
35%
28.8%
30%
21.3%
19.3%
20%
20.5%
18.8%
16.8%
13.8%
12.1%
10%
10.3%
8.7%
5.2%
5.8%
0%
w/ children <18
w/ children <5 & 5-17
w/ children <5 only
w/ children 5-17 only
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
no children
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64
Creek County, 1999
1,177 (4.2% )
10,314
26.9%
NOT in
labor force
In labor
force
28,025
73.1%
26,815 (95.7% )
33 (0.1% )
Unemployed
Employed
In armed forces
Unemployment rate (all ages) for October 2005 = 4.9%.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Unemployment Rates
Tulsa MSA, 1991 - 2005
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Oct.
2005
Rate
5.9
5.3
6.3
5.8
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.2
2.8
3.4
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
4.9
6.5
5.0
4.0
Many families in poverty have employed worker(s)
Families in Poverty by Family Type and Employment Status
Creek County, 1999
Percent of impov erished f amilies
100%
39
38.2
39.4
36.1
58.2
35.9
80%
60%
40%
20%
47.5
22.9
21.6
25.7
18.8
16.6
Male-headed
families in poverty
Female-headed
families in poverty
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
Education increasingly impacts wages
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment
United States, 1973-2003
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
3
7
19
75
9
1
77
9
1
79
9
1
8
19
1
8
19
3
Less than high school
8
19
5
8
19
7
8
19
High school
9
9
19
1
9
19
3
9
19
5
College degree
7
9
19
9
9
19
1
0
20
Advanced degree
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
3
0
20
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for M en
United States, 1973-2003
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
3
7
19
75
9
1
77
9
1
9
7
19
1
8
19
8
19
3
Less than high school
8
19
5
8
19
7
8
19
High school
9
9
19
1
9
19
3
9
19
5
College degree
7
9
19
9
9
19
01
0
2
Advanced degree
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
3
0
20
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for Women
United States, 1973-2003
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
3
7
19
5
7
19
77
9
1
79
9
1
1
8
19
8
19
3
Less than high school
8
19
5
7
8
19
8
19
High school
9
1
9
19
3
9
19
9
19
5
College degree
7
9
19
9
9
19
1
0
20
Advanced degree
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
3
0
20
Additional Indicators of
Economic Distress
>
>
>
>
Public assistance programs
Free & reduced school lunch program
Homeless shelters
Helpline and Babyline referrals
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Participation in Public Assistance Programs
Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participatin
Creek County, September 2005
Medicaid Total
15.7%
10,794
Medicaid <18
40.2%
6,761
52.7%
451
WIC Infants (Oct. 05)
17.3%
747
WIC age 1-5 (Oct. 05)
7.8%
332
Child Care Subsidy <5
11.7%
8,067
114
TANF <18
Elem. School Free Lunch
(2004-05)
Elem. School Reduced Lunch
(2004-05)
15,000
9.9%
941
Medicaid 65+
Food Stamps Total
50.7%
2,167
Medicaid <5
0.7%
49.6%
3,842
13.5%
1,045
10,000
5,000
Number of Participants
0%
0
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Population
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Statistical Bulletin, Sept. 2005; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low
Income Report for 2004-2005; Pop. Estimates Division - U.S. Census Bureau; Oklahoma State Department of Health.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and
Reduced Lunch Program
By School District, Creek County, 2004-2005 School Year
Creek County Total
50%
13%
74%
Oilton
8%
67%
Bristow
15%
64%
Drumright
9%
61%
Depew
9%
57%
Kiefer
Olive
47%
Allen-Bowden
46%
9%
16%
15%
48%
Mounds
12%
44%
Mannford
Kellyville
15%
45%
Sapulpa
34%
Lone Star
0%
20%
Reduced lunch eligibility requirement:
annual household income below
185% of poverty, which currently is
$29,767 for a family of three.
16%
43%
Free lunch eligibility requirement:
annual household income below
130% of poverty, which currently is
$20,917 for a family of three.
12%
Free
13%
40%
60%
Percent of Students Eligible
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2004-2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
Reduced
100%
Selected Helpline Service Requests, by Type of Service
2001 through 2005
Number of Serv ice Requests
20,000
Total incoming calls
to Helpline rose to
49,952 in 2005, up
from 28,741 in 2004
(74% increase); while
assessments of
caller needs and
referrals rose to
101,180 in 2005, up
from 50,784 in 2004
(99% increase).
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1,945
2,688
12,376
1,913
2,852
12,173
2,152
3,404
13,269
2,019
4,074
12,035
3,339
7,720
17,847
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Babyline and Planline Appointments Scheduled
Tulsa MSA and Surrounding Counties, 1990 through 2005
Number of Appointments Scheduled
5,000
4,795
4,423
4,000
4,604
4,692
4,355
3,998
3,525
3,000
3,004
2,107
1,997
2,000
2,767
2,662
2,605
2,369 2,342
2,212
1,789
1,409
1,000
1,193
858
872
1997
1998
1,432 1,345
1,333
1,500
909
631
0
0
1990
0
1991
0
1992
0
1993
0
1994
1995
1996
Family Planning Appointments
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Prenatal Appointments
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2004
2005
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
Creek County and Ok lahoma, 2004
15.5%
13.4%
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
37.3%
38.5%
Unmarried mother
5.5%
4.7%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
21.3%
22.8%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
Creek Co.
Oklahoma
6.5%
6.7%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
2.1%
1.3%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
24.1%
25.7%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
Creek County births:
908
Oklahoma births:
51,157
11.6%
12.7%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
13%
10.4%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
0%
10%
20%
30%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
Adequate Early Screening Essential for All
Children to Assess Impact of Risk Factors
• Some evidence indicates only small portion of
children receive needed screening
• Sufficient data do not exist to clearly indicate
extent and nature of problem
What is early intervention?
• Early intervention applies
to children of school age or
younger who are
discovered to have or be
at risk of developing a
handicapping condition or
other special need that
may effect their
development.
• Early intervention consists
of the provision of services
such children and their
families need for the
purpose of lessening the
effects of the condition.
Early intervention can be
remedial or preventive in
nature – premeditating
existing developmental
problems or preventing
their occurrence.
Small proportion of special education
students received early intervention
Special Education Students and Students who Received Early Intervention
Oklahoma Public Schools, 2003-04
Early
interv ention
2.2%
Special
education
15%
Not
special
education
85%
Total Oklahoma Public
School Students
No early
interv ention
97.8%
Total Oklahoma Public
School Students
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Populations of Aging and
Persons with Disabilities are
Large and Growing
~These populations will significantly
test the capacity of resources needed
to enable them to be most selfsufficient
Living Arrangements of Persons Age 65 & Older
Creek County, 2000
74% of the 65+ population
in Creek County living
alone are female.
Liv e alone
2,375 (27.5%)
Other
137 (1.6%)
Group quarters
558 (6.5%)
Family households
5,580 (64.5%)
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Disabilities affect all ages
Disability Prevalence by Age and Level of Disability
Oklahoma, 1997
Age Group
2%
0 to 2
Level of disability
Any
Severe
3.4%
3 to 5
11.2%
6 to 14
4.8%
10.7%
5.3%
13.4%
8.1%
15-24
25-44
22.6%
45-54
13.9%
35.7%
55-64
24.2%
49%
65-79
31.8%
73.6%
80+
57.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent with Specif ied Lev el of Disability
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 (Aug.-Nov. 1997 data from Survey of Income
and Program Participation).
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Health Challenges are Critical to
Individual and Community Well-being
~Inadequate income, high risks of
starting life and poor lifestyle
choices contribute to major health
concerns
Oklahoma and Tulsa County faring poorly
Rate
compared to US in age-adjusted death rates
Age-Adjusted Death Rates, 1980 to 2002
1,100
1,050
1,000
950
900
850
800
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Tulsa Co
OK
US
Major Health Concern:
Poor Lifestyle Choices -- Obesity
OBESITY
Trend: America’s weight gain epidemic – 25% of
Americans are obese – more than doubled in 15
years.
•
Benchmark: We must reverse this trend.
•
Bad: Consequences –
OK
US
– high healthcare costs.
– Increased heart disease, type II diabetes,
osteoarthritis, hypertension, gallbladder
disease, breast cancer, endometrial cancer
and colon cancer.
•
Bad: OK and Tulsa Co heart disease rates are
higher than the rest of the nation – only one state
ranks worse than OK.
Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development, OUCPH, 2005; NCHS, CDC; THD;
Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; United Health Foundation; BRFSS, CDC; St. Francis Health System FY 2004 Community Needs Assessment.
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Major Health Concern:
Poor Lifestyle Choices -- Smoking
 Trend: Percent of adult smokers (2003): 22.7(Tulsa
Co), 25.1(OK), 22.0(US), state rank=36.
 Benchmark: Smoking bans in public venues,
smoking cessation programs, and increasing
cigarette taxes = curtailed adult smoking and youth
take-up rate.
 Good: OK youth smoking percent is below the
national average— 26.5(OK) and 27.5(US); adult
smokers declining locally, statewide and nationally
(2003).
 Bad: Smoking is a major cause of premature death,
cardiovascular and pulmonary system disease
including heart attack, stroke and cancer.
Percent adult smokers
30%
Tulsa Co.
25%
Oklahoma
US
25.1%
22.7%
22%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2003
NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Poor health conditions leave safety net severely challenged
- Growing Uninsured Population
Suburban Counties of Tulsa MSA, 2003
Medicaid
22%
Uninsured
19%
Insured
48%
Medicare
11%
NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Poor health conditions create huge inefficient demand
on resources - Misuse of Hospitals
and Emergency Rooms
 Tulsa’s uninsured and Medicaid beneficiaries seek primary care in Tulsa
hospital ERs. ER visits by Medicaid recipients actually exceeded
uninsured visits by 25%.
 Tulsa hospital ER patient survey found that 73% were not true
emergencies: 30% treated for non-emergency conditions – another 43%
could have been treated in non-emergency facilities within 48 hours.
 Using hospital ERs for non-emergency care is a costly and inefficient.
 Non-emergency ER use is a major contributor to overload and frequent
divert status of Tulsa hospital ERs — especially in the last 2 years.
Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development, OUCPH, 2005; THD CAP
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Poor Human Conditions
Impact Crime and Growing
Incarcerations
~Trends greatly affected by
substance abuse
Oklahoma’s prison population was relatively
stable until 1980 when laws passed to curb
illegal drug use came into effect
Oklahoma’s Prison Population
1950-2005
25,000
22,500
20,000
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
1980
7,500
5,000
2,500
'04
'02
'00
'98
'96
'94
'92
'90
'88
'86
'84
'82
'80
'78
'76
'74
'72
'70
'68
'66
'64
'62
'60
'58
'56
'54
'52
'50
0
Note: Number of inmates in Oklahoma prisons, data as of June 30 of each year
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Corrections,
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa for the Metropolitan Human Services Commission in Tulsa.
Methamphetamine Labs Seized by Authorities
Ok lahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2004
Number of labs discov ered
1,254
Oklahoma
Tulsa
1,400
1,193
1,235
1,200
946
1,000
812
781
800
600
241
400
275
125
200
10
0
132
34
0
6
13
150
124
178
214
131
47
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
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
Creek County, 2000
22.4%
Less than
high school
40%
High school
graduate
20.7%
Some
college
5.2%
Associate
degree
7.8%
Bachelor's
degree
2.8%
Master's
degree
0.9%
Professional
school degree
0.2%
Doctorate
degree
0%
10%
20%
30%
Percent of persons 25+
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
Education Success:
Preschool
Large pre-K enrollment in surrounding counties, as
emphasis increasingly turns to assuring high quality
Enrollment in Public Pre-K Programs, by Full and Part Day
Creek, Osage, Rogers and Wagoner Counties, October 2004
Full-day
Part-day
Not enrolled
Total four
year olds:
23.5
Creek Co.
61
31.2
Osage Co.
4.3
16.5
Rogers Co.
0%
558
41.8
14.1
20%
916
64.5
41.7
22.1
Wagoner Co.
15.5
1,081
842
63.8
40%
60%
80%
Percent of all four year olds
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
100%
Education Success:
Post-Secondary-Higher
Education
Tulsa Community College serves as primary
source of higher education enrollment
Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment
Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003
63.9
TCC
13.1
RSU
9.4
OSU-Tulsa
8
NSU-BA
3.2
OU-Tulsa
2.4
LU-Tulsa
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent of Enrollment
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (Fall 2003)
60
70
80
Public College Remediation Rates Among HS
Graduates
Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 1999-2003
Percent Requiring Remediation
50
40
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
Academic Year
Tulsa
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (Fall 2003)
State
2003
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 Creek County for many is
risky business
Human Development:
Key Points…continued
• Populations of aging and persons with
disabilities are large and growing
• Health challenges are critical to individual and
community well-being
• Poor human conditions impact crime and
growing incarcerations
• Overall progress in human development is tied
to educational success
At-Risk Populations
>
>
>
>
Infants and Young Children at Risk
Adolescents at Risk
Families at Risk
Our Health at Risk
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
...Infants and Young Children
at Risk
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Infants and Young Children at Risk…
Infant Risk Factors
Summary of Risk Factors for Infants
Creek County and Ok lahoma, 2004
15.5%
13.4%
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
37.3%
38.5%
Unmarried mother
5.5%
4.7%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
21.3%
22.8%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
Creek Co.
Oklahoma
6.5%
6.7%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
2.1%
1.3%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
24.1%
25.7%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
Creek County births:
908
Oklahoma births:
51,157
11.6%
12.7%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
13%
10.4%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
0%
10%
20%
30%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
Characteristics of Births to Teen Mothers (Age 15-19)
Creek County and Ok lahoma, 2004
70.7%
77%
Unmarried
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
5.7%
7.2%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
51.5%
57.4%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
Creek Co.
Oklahoma
9.3%
7.5%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
3.6%
1.6%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
75%
61.3%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
50%
39.4%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
15.7%
10.5%
Creek County births to teens: 140
Creek County teen birth rate: 56.3
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
18.6%
21%
1+ previous births
Oklahoma births to teens:
Oklahoma teen birth rate:
2.8%
3.3%
2+ previous births
0%
6,849
55.5
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
20%
40%
60%
Percent of Teen Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
Infant Mortality Rates
Ok lahoma, 1980-2004
Number of inf ant deaths per 1,000 liv e births
14
In 2004, there w ere 406 infant
deaths in Oklahoma, for a rate
of 7.9 per 1,000 live births
12
10
8
6
4
“Healthy People 2010”
goal = 5 per 1,000
Oklahoma
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
0
1980
2
13.4 12.4 13.4 10.6 10 10.2 9.3 8.5 8.3 8.1 9.2 9.5 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.7 7.7 8.9 8.7 8.8 7.5 8.1 7.9 7.9
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Infants and Young Children at Risk…
Young Children Risk Factors
Top Risk Factors for
Young Children Age 0-4
> Low-income and poverty
> Teen mother, especially those with more than one child
> Absent father
> Short spacing between births (less than 24 months)
> Parent, especially the mother, without a high school
education
> Lack of positive emotional, physical and intellectual
experiences
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Infants and Young Children at Risk…
Early Brain Development
Importance of Brain Development for Children 0-3
80% of brain
development
occurs by age 3;
90% by age 4.
Early experiences
help to determine
brain structure, thus
shaping the way
people learn, think,
and behave for the
rest of their lives.
Principles of Brain Development
The outside world shapes the brain's
wiring.
The outside world is experienced
through the senses - seeing, hearing,
smelling, touching, and tasting enabling the brain to create or modify
connections.
Relationships with consistent
caregivers early in life are the major
source of development of the
emotional and social parts of the
brain.
Excerpt from: "The First Years Last Forever: I am Your Child"
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Impact of Poverty on Early Brain Development
Multiple Pathways
Inadequate Nutrition
Substance Abuse
Lack of Mother-Child
Connection due to
Maternal Depression
Poverty
Exposure to
Environmental Toxins
Trauma/Abuse
Quality of Daily Care
Inadequate
Prenatal Care
Lack of Basic
Health Care
Source: National Center for Children in Poverty.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Early Brain
Development
Infants and Young Children at Risk…
Children’s Living Arrangements
Infants and Young Children at Risk…
Child Abuse & Neglect
Child Abuse and Neglect
Ok lahoma, FY 2004
70,000
59,329
60,000
50,000
36,232
40,000
30,000
Of these 12,347 children,
1,414 were abused, 8,953
were neglected, and 1,980
were abused and neglected.
20,000
12,347
10,000
0
Reports of abuse
or neglect
Reports accepted for
investigation or assessment
Children confirmed
abused or neglected
(duplicated count)
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Child Abuse and Neglect
Creek County, FY 2004
1,000
891
800
509
600
Of these 172 children, 28
were abused, 122 were
neglected, and 22 were
abused and neglected.
400
172
200
0
Reports of abuse
or neglect
Reports accepted for
investigation or assessment
Children confirmed
abused or neglected
(duplicated count)
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age of Children of Confirmed Abuse and Neglect
Ok lahoma, 2004
1-2
2,011 (16.3%)
3-6
3,341 (27.1%)
Under 1
1,143 (9.3%)
12 & older
2,910 (23.6%)
7-11
2,942 (23.8%)
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Perpetrators of Confirmed Abuse and Neglect
Top 6, Ok lahoma, FY 2004
60%
50%
46.4%
40%
27.9%
30%
20%
7.7%
10%
6.6%
3.8%
1.3%
0%
Mother
Father
Stepparent
No relation
Grandparent
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Foster parent
Child Deaths Due to Abuse
Ok lahoma, Fiscal Years 1978 - 2004
60
51
50
45
47 48
42
38
40
38
35
34
31
31
30
24
23
21
18
20
25
27
23
20
18
16 16
29
12 13
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
5
1979
0
7
1978
10
Child Deaths Due to Abuse, by Age of Child
Ok lahoma, 2004
Under 1
23 (45.1%)
12 & older
1 (2.0%)
7-11
2 (3.9%)
1-2
14 (27.5%)
3-6
11 (21.6%)
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
...Adolescents at Risk
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Adolescents at Risk…
Disconnected youth
Disconnected Youth: Percent of Youth Age 16-19
Not in School and Not Working
By County, 2000
14%
12%
#65
10%
8%
#46
6%
#27
#24
#31
#28
4%
2%
0%
Rate
Number
Tulsa Co.
Creek Co.
9.7%
3,090
6.7%
278
Okmulgee Co. Osage Co.
12.1%
325
Rogers Co. Wagoner Co.
7.3%
194
Note: County ranking shown at top of bars (#1=best, #77=worst).
Source: Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Factbook 2004.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
8.1%
340
7.7%
274
Labor Force Participation among Youths, Age 16-19
Creek County, 2000
279 (13.2% )
2,030
48.9%
NOT in
labor force
In labor
force
2,121
51.1%
1,842 (86.8% )
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Unemployed
Employed
Adolescents at Risk…
Teen Mothers
Births by Age of Mother
Creek County, 2004
Total births=908
329
36.2%
104
11.5%
38
4.2%
9
1.0%
72
7.9%
236
26.0%
<18
18-19
120
13.2%
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40+
Resident Births to Teens Age 15-17 and 18-19
Creek County, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004
Number of births
Birth rate
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
Births 15-17
Births 18-19
Birth rate 15-17
Birth rate 18-19
1980
1990
2000
2004
70
142
43.2
161
58
98
39.4
127.1
54
113
32.8
131.2
36
104
23
112.7
Note: Teen birth rate is the number of births to females age 15-19 per 1,000 females age 15-19.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Adolescents at Risk…
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Results of 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey:
Tobacco Use
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2003
Ever tried
cigarette smoking
58%
64%
22%
Smoked cigarettes
during past month
27%
10%
Smoked cigarettes on
20+ days during past month
13%
28%
Used any tobacco products
during past month
100%
34%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Oklahoma
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
U.S.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2003; Centers for Disease Control,
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2003.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Results of 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey:
Alcohol & Other Drug Use
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2003
Used once or
more during
prior 30 days...
45%
48%
Alcohol
22%
22%
Marijuana
Inhalants
10%
Cocaine
9%
12%
9%
Ever
used...
8%
10%
Methamphetamine
Offered/sold/given
illegal drugs at school
29%
22%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Oklahoma
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
U.S.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2003; Centers for Disease Control,
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2003.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Results of 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey:
Unintentional Injuries and Violence
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2003
Never or rarely wear
seatbelt w/ other driver
Drove after drinking
alcohol in past month
12%
18%
Rode with drinking
driver in past month
30%
31%
Carried weapon to
school in past month
6%
8%
Seriously considered
suicide in past year
17%
15%
Attempted suicide
in past year
100%
18%
11%
9%
7%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Oklahoma
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
U.S.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2003; Centers for Disease Control,
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2003.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Results of 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey:
Sexual Behaviors
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2003
47%
50%
Ever had sexual intercourse
34%
37%
Had sex in past 3 months
7%
6%
Had sex before age 13
14%
16%
Have had 4+ sex partners
Have been or have
gotten someone pregnant
4%
4%
Had alcohol or drugs
before last sexual encounter
25%
25%
Did not use
condom last time
Did not use
birth control pills last time
37%
36%
83%
82%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Oklahoma
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
U.S.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2003; Centers for Disease Control,
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2003.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Results of 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Survey:
Overweight, Dietary Behaviors and Physical Activity
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2003
At risk of overweight
(according to BMI)
Overweight
(according to BMI)
14%
11%
Perceive self
as overweight
30%
31%
44%
44%
Trying to lose weight
Ate < 5 fruits
& veggies daily
Drank < 3 glasses
milk daily
15%
14%
78%
86%
83%
87%
Insufficient vigorous
physical activity
37%
36%
Insufficient moderate
physical activity
75%
75%
Attended PE class
1+ days/week
56%
37%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Oklahoma
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
U.S.
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2003; Centers for Disease Control,
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2003.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Adolescents at Risk…
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Arrests, by Type of Crime
Creek County, 2001 through 2003
Number of arrests
500
2001
2002
2003
A total of 539 juvenile arrests w ere
made in Creek County in 2003, for a
rate of 64.2 per 1,000 juveniles age
10-17, up from 529 arrests and rate
of 60.4 in 2001.
400
300
386
358
339
200
100
66
80
96
46
24
53
67
58
16
0
Index crimes
Includes murder, rape,
robbery aggravated
assault, burglary,
larceny, and motor
vehicle theft.
Drug related
Includes sale/
manufacturing
and possession
of drugs.
Alcohol related
Includes driving under
the influence, liquor
law violations, and
drunkenness.
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Other crimes
Adolescents at Risk…
Youth Suicide
Youth Suicide in Oklahoma
> In 2000, 29 Oklahoma adolescents committed
suicide -- 6 were under age 15.
> Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among
15-24 year olds.
> The majority of young Oklahomans who commit
suicide use firearms.
> The rate of youth suicide is slightly higher in rural
Oklahoma than in urban areas of the state.
Source: Centers for Disease Control.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
...Families at Risk
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Families at Risk…
Literacy
Rates of Adult Level 1 Literacy
By County
Percent of adults at Lev el 1 Literacy
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.
30%
25%
25%
Oklahoma has
a rate of 18%.
19%
20%
15%
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
Adult Literacy Levels and Income
> Over 20% of American adults read at or below a 5th
grade level - far below the level needed to earn a living
wage.
> 43% of people with the lowest literacy skills live in
poverty.
> Workers who lack a high school diploma earned an
average hourly wage of $9.50 in 2001, compared to
$12.81 for high school graduates and $22.58 for those
with a college degree.
Source: Oklahoma Literacy Resource Office; Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Impact of Adult Literacy &
Education Levels on Children
>
As the educational lev el of adults improv es, so does their children's success in
school; helping low-literate adults improv e their basic skills has a direct and
measurable impact on both the education and quality of lif e of their children.
>
Children of adults who participate in literacy programs improv e their grades
and test scores, improv e their reading skills and are less likely to drop out.
>
Children's literacy lev els are strongly linked to educational lev el of their
parents, especially their mothers.
>
Children of parents who are unemploy ed and hav e not completed high school
are f iv e times more likely to drop out than children of employ ed parents.
Source: Oklahoma Literacy Resource Office.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Illiteracy Among Children in the U.S.
38% of 4th grade students
cannot read at grade level.1
Of children who cannot read at
grade level in 4th grade, 75%
never become successful
readers.
2
75%
38%
All 4th Graders
4th Graders Not Reading at
Grade Level
Source: (1) National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1998; (2) Shaywitz, Yale University Longitudinal Study (National
Education Association).
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Families at Risk…
Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence Cases Reported to
Law Enforcement Agencies
Ok lahoma, 1994 - 2003
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Cases
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
18,153
18,621
21,683
23,087
21,435
21,211
22,065
23,687
25,157
23,773
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 2003 Uniform Crime Report.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Domestic Violence Cases Reported to Law
Enforcement Agencies, by Offense
Ok lahoma, 2003
20,000
15,000
18,028
A total of 23,773 domestic violence
cases were reported to Oklahoma
law enforcement agencies in 2003.
10,000
5,282
5,000
57
406
0
Homicides
Violent sex crimes
Felony assaults
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 2003 Uniform Crime Report.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Felony assaults
& battery
...Our Health at Risk
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Our Health at Risk…
Health rankings
Oklahoma's Rankings in Outcomes
Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2005
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rank ings
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Overall ranking
Limited activity days
Cardiovascular deaths
#31
#41
#43
#31
#50
#24
Cancer deaths
Total mortality
#44
#44
#32
Infant mortality
#27
Premature death
#27
#47
#37
#43
1990
2005
Source: United Health Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Report Card on Health
Ok lahoma and United States, 2002
Oklahoma
Eat <5 fruits/
85.6%
vegetables per day
Overweight
U.S.
77.4%
F
58.7%
Obese
59.2%
C
HS students inactive
30.5%
B
Adults inactive
30.6%
F
Youth smokers
Adult smokers
100% 75%
16.9%
26.6%
50%
22.2%
C
22.9%
31.2%
24.4%
11%
F
23%
F
25%
0%
25%
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Report Card on Health, 2004.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
50%
75% 100%
Our Health at Risk…
Lack of Health Insurance
Health Insurance Status, by Type
Ok lahoma, 2003-2004
Total Population
Under Age 19
166,090 (18.2%)
693,050 (20.3%)
23,250 (2.6%)
435,150 (47.8%)
1,631,430 (47.9%)
564,150 (16.5%)
256,250 (28.1%)
391,140 (11.5%)
129,260 (3.8%)
525,470 (26.2%)
29,920 (3.3%)
448,910 (91.2%)
91,990 (4.6%)
1,193,460 (59.5%)
97,740 (4.9%)
97,700 (4.9%)
Age 65 &
Age 19-64
Employer
Individual
Medicaid
Medicare/Other Public
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
37,150 (7.6%)
1,640 (0.3%)
2,810 (0.6%)
1,490 (0.3%)
over
Uninsured
Our Health at Risk…
Persons with Disabilities
What is a Disability?
– A person is considered to hav e a
– A person who is unable to
disability if he or she has dif f iculty
perf orm one or more activ ities,
perf orming certain f unctions (e.g.,
or who uses some ty pe of
seeing, hearing, talking, walking,
assistiv e technology to improv e
climbing stairs, lif ting and
daily participation in all aspects
carry ing, etc.), or has dif f iculty
of work, school and community
perf orming activ ities of daily liv ing,
lif e, or who needs assistance
or has dif f iculty with certain social
f rom another person to perf orm
roles (e.g., doing school work f or
basic activ ities is considered to
children, working at a job and
hav e a sev ere disability.
around the house f or adults, etc.).
1 in 5 Americans have some level of disability.
1 in 8 Americans have a severe disability.
1 in 9 children age 6 to 14 have a disability.
Source: ARC-USA, 2000; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); Developmental Services Division (DDSD),
Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS), 2000; National Organization on Disability (NOD), 2000;
U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 2001, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 .
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Disability Prevalence by Age and Level of Disability
Ok lahoma, 1997
Age Group
2%
0 to 2
Level of disability
Any
Severe
3.4%
3 to 5
11.2%
6 to 14
4.8%
10.7%
5.3%
13.4%
8.1%
15-24
25-44
22.6%
45-54
13.9%
35.7%
55-64
24.2%
49%
65-79
31.8%
73.6%
80+
57.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent with Specif ied Lev el of Disability
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 (Aug.-Nov. 1997 data from Survey of Income
and Program Participation).
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Persons with Disabilities by Age and Type
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 2000
Age 5-15
(N=561)
Age 16-20
(N=690)
6.2%
14.8%
21.0%
7.4%
8.8%
25.1%
3.9%
49.7%
20.3%
40.0%
2.7%
0.2%
2.9%
2.6%
23.0%
2.4%
0.4%
9.9%
13.9%
23.2%
7.5%
9.0%
49.9%
55.1%
Age 65+
(N=4,086)
Age 21-64
(N=8,995)
Sensory
Physical
Mental
Self-care
Go-outside-home
Employment
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2 or more disabilities
Labor Force Participation of People with Work Disabilities
Ok lahoma, 1999
work
disability
27.6%
30.5% in
labor force
employed
2.9%
90.3%
no work
disability
unemployed
2.9%
9.7%
69.5%
not in
labor force
An estimated 10% of
Oklahoma's population age
16-64 have a work disability.
Of those with a work
disability, 31% are in labor
force and 28% are
employed.
Note: A work disability is one which prevents a person from working or limits a person in terms of kind or amount of
work he or she can do.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 1999 Current Population Survey.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Disability Status and Age
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 1999
Percent of population liv ing below pov erty
30%
Persons with a disability
Persons with no disability
25.9%
25.6%
25%
20%
17.8%
17.2%
15.6%
13.8%
15%
12.6%
8.8%
10%
5%
0%
Age 5-15
Age 16-20
Age 21-64
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age 65+
Best Practices...
Doing What Works
A Research Based Approach
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices...Doing What Works
Strategies
• Outcome performance measures
• Community coalitions
– Collaborative, public-private partnerships
– Consumer/client investments
• Successful outreach and recruitment
• Case management/Care coordination
• Strong social marketing
• Risk reduction education
• Access to services and care
– Child care
– Transportation
– Translation
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices
Institute of M edicine’s Intervention Spectrum
Source: Institute of Medicine, Reducing Risk for Mental Disorders, 1994.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices
SAM HSA’s Strategic Prevention Framework
1: Assessment
Organize community to
profile needs, including
community readiness
5: Evaluation
2: Capacity
Evaluate for results and
sustainability
Mobilize community and
build capacity to address
needs
Sustainability &
cultural competence
4: Implementation
Implement prevention
plan
3: Planning
Develop the prevention
plan (activities,
programs & strategies
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA.).
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices
“Communities that Care” M odel of Prevention
Risk and Protective Factor Framework
Risk Factors
Characteristics that
increase the
likelihood of
negative outcomes
Domains
~Community
~Family
~School
~Individual/Peer
Protective Factors
Characteristics that
protect or provide a
buffer to moderate the
influence of negative
characteristics, and
reduce potential of
negative outcomes
Source: Hawkins, Catalano, Miller, University of Washington Social Marketing Research Group, 1992, “Communities that
Care” model of prevention.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
...There is hope
when United Way
invests in important
long-term change and
we all work together.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Quiz
1. Which area is growing the most rapidly (percent increase)?
a. TAUW service area b. Creek Co.
c. Sapulpa
2. During the past 30 years, what has happened to the income gap
between rich and poor?
a. increased
b. decreased
c. stable
3. What percentage of all poor families in Creek County have an
employed householder and/or spouse?
a. 20%
b. 40%
c. 61%
4. What percentage of Creek County residents age 25 & older have only
a high school education or less?
a. 27%
b. 44%
c. 62%
5. How does Oklahoma compare to the nation in age-adjusted deaths
rates?
a. better
b. worse
c. same
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
TAUW Community Investments
Strategy M ission Statement
To take a leadership role in community building
by investing TAUW's community resources
in the most efficient and effective delivery
systems for health and human services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Community Profile 2006
...now available on the website of
The Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
www.csctulsa.org
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa