Transcript Slide 1

Community Profile 2006
Wagoner County/Broken Arrow
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. Wagoner Co.
c. Broken Arrow
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 Broken Arrow have an
employed householder and/or spouse?
a. 20%
b. 49%
c. 75%
4. What percentage of Wagoner County residents age 25 & older have
only a high school education or less?
a. 24%
b. 40%
c. 55%
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
Wagoner County & Broken Arrow
• Population growth in Wagoner County exceeding that of TAUW
service area.
• 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 Wagoner County
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
1,000,000
900,000
TAUW
Wagoner Co.
800,000
700,000
Wagoner County’s population
grew 10% betw een 2000 and
2004, w hile that of TAUW
service area increased only 3%.
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1970
TAUW 561,210
Wagoner Co. 22,163
1980
1990
696,342
41,801
745,444
47,883
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
2000
2004
(est.)
842,920 864,981
57,491
63,054
Population of Wagoner County and Broken Arrow
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
100,000
Broken Arrow
Wagoner Co.
80,000
60,000
Broken Arrow’s population
increased 6% betw een
2000 and 2004.
40,000
20,000
0
Broken Arrow
Wagoner Co.
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004
(est.)
11,787
22,163
35,761
41,801
58,043
47,883
79,871
57,491
84,400
63,054
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population of Selected Cities in Wagoner County
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
Broken Arrow
Wagoner
Coweta’s population
increased 8% betw een
2000 and 2004, w hile that
of Wagoner grew 2%.
Coweta
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004 (est.)
20,000
Broken Arrow
11,787
35,761
58,043
79,871
84,400
40,000
60,000
Wagoner
4,959
6,191
6,894
7,698
7,870
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004 (est.)
80,000
Coweta
2,457
4,554
6,159
7,531
8,140
100,000
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
Wagoner County and Brok en Arrow, 2000
Wagoner County
Broken Arrow
46,032
80.1%
63,886
85.3%
951
1.3%
502
0.9%
2,797
2,793 3.7%
3.7%
3,110
5.4%
2,158
3.8%
Hispanic Origin*
(N=1,437) 2.5%
296
0.5%
White
Black
1,425 3,007
1.9% 4.0%
5,393
9.4%
Hispanic Origin*
(N=2,664) 3.6%
Asian*
Two or more races
American Indian*
Some other race
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
Wagoner County, 2004
Hispanic origin:
27 (3.4%)
Total births=800
Black
34 (4.3%)
Amer. Indian
94 (11.8%)
Asian/Pacif ic Islander
5 (0.6%)
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
White
667 (83.4%)
Age Distribution
Wagoner County and Brok en Arrow, 2000
Wagoner County
4,531
7.9%
Broken Arrow
12,104
21.1%
17134
22.9%
5749
7.7%
5954
8.0%
605
0.8%
4,056
7.1%
457
0.8%
5,381
9.4%
30,962
53.9%
5020
6.7%
40397
54.0%
0-4
5-17
18-24
25-64
65-84
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
85+
Living Arrangements of Children Under 18
Wagoner County and Brok en Arrow, 2000
100%
Wagoner County
Broken Arrow
79.1%
80%
72.2%
60%
40%
20%
13.6% 12.4%
7.6%
4.8% 3.6%
3.8%
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
Types of Families with Own Children Under 18, by Race
Wagoner County, 2000
Percent of families within each race
100%
83.3%
80%
80%
80.9%
74.4%
60%
46.5%
41.2%
40%
18.8%
20%
14.4%
13.9%
12.3%
13.1%
6.8%
5.6%
6%
2.8%
0%
White
Black
Married Couple
American Indian
Male-headed
Asian
Hispanic
Female-headed
Note: "Own Children" refers to children (including step and adopted) of the householder in a family.
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Types of Families with Own Children Under 18, by Race
Brok en Arrow, 2000
Percent of families within each race
120%
100%
92.9%
81.7%
81.5%
75.2%
80%
70.6%
60%
40%
24.5%
18.7%
14.1%
20%
4.2%
13%
4.9%
6.2%
6.1%
5.5%
0.9%
0%
White
Black
Married Couple
American Indian
Male-headed
Asian
Hispanic
Female-headed
Note: "Own Children" refers to children (including step and adopted) of the householder in a family.
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Children in Non-Traditional Settings
Wagoner County and Brok en Arrow, 2000
Number of children
1,500
Children in
Wagoner Co.
Children in BA
1,000
500
0
Children in
Wagoner Co.
Percentage of
children <18
Children in BA
Percentage of
children <18
Living with
grandparents
1,056
Living with
other relatives
180
Foster care
(Sept. 2005)
122
Juvenile
institutions
3
6.5%
1.1%
0.8%
0%
683
3%
199
0.9%
NA
NA
0
0%
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census; Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Wagoner County & Brok en Arrow, 2000
Wagoner County
Broken Arrow
78.9%
81.0%
19.0%
Owner-occupied
21.1%
Renter-occupied
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
Wagoner County and Brok en Arrow, 2000
W agoner Co. owner-occupied
W agoner Co. renter-occupied
27.9%
41.4%
12.6%
37.8%
59.5%
31.4%
20.8%
48.8%
13.5%
14.2%
55.1%
37.0%
Broken Arrow owner-occupied
Broken Arrow renter-occupied
15 months or less
16 months to 4 years
5 years or more
In Wagoner County, median household
income for owner-occupied housing units =
$46,107; for renter-occupied = 23,209
In Broken Arrow , median household
income for owner-occupied housing units =
$60,188; for renter-occupied = 32,056
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family Income, by Race
Wagoner County and Brok en Arrow, 1999
Annual Income
$100,000
Wagoner Co.
Broken Arrow
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Wagoner Co.
Broken Arrow
Total
White
Black
$47,062
$58,891
$48,934
$59,180
$27,778
$60,481
American
Indian
$40,734
$53,900
Asian
Hispanic
$46,250
$77,704
$40,550
$52,552
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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 Wagoner 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
Wagoner County, 2005
One
person
Two
persons
Three
persons
Four
persons
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$17,953
$9,570
$8,383
187.6%
($8.63 per hour)
($4.60 per hour)
$30,104
$12,830
$17,274
234.6%
($14.47 per hour)
($6.17 per hour)
$34,401
$16,090
$18,311
213.8%
($16.54 per hour)
($7.74 per hour)
$42,896
$19,350
$23,546
221.7%
($20.62 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
Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, M inimum
Poverty, 185% of Poverty, and M edian Family Income
Family of Three, Wagoner County, 2005
Married-couple w/
kids: $52,066
Annual Wage
$47,062
$50,000
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $34,401
($16.54/hr.)
$40,000
All families
($22.63/hr.)
$29,767
$30,000
($14.31/hr.)
$20,000
$10,000
Female-headed
w/ kids: $21,235
$16,090
$8,292
($3.99/hr.)
$10,712
Male-headed w/
kids: $24,012
($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.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Budget Distribution for Typical Family of
Three Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Wagoner County, 2005
Taxes
$344
Housing
$688
24%
Miscellaneous
$229
12%
8%
10%
21%
Health Care
$287
9%
15%
Child Care
$602
Transportation
$258
Food
$430
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 $34,401 per year or $2,867 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
Wagoner County, 1999
Percentage of population
50%
100%
130%
185%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Under 18
population
100%
130%
185%
8.9%
14.1%
26.3%
11.7%
18.3%
34%
Under 5
5-17
18-64
65+
14.3%
24.1%
39.8%
10.8%
16.3%
32%
7.6%
11.9%
22.2%
9.2%
16.1%
30.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Number of Persons: Total Population and Children
Wagoner County, 1999
All Income
Lev els
100% of
pov erty lev el
130% of
pov erty
lev el
185% of
pov erty
lev el
Total population
57,087
5,086
8,066
15,017
Under 18 y ears
15,929
1,868
2,916
5,419
Under 5 y ears
4,050
581
976
1,613
5-17 y ears
11,879
1,287
1,940
3,806
18-64 y ears
35,473
2,693
4,234
7,872
65+
5,685
525
916
1,726
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Percentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Brok en Arrow, 1999
Percentage of population
50%
100%
130%
185%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Under 18
population
100%
130%
185%
4.5%
7.5%
15.1%
5.4%
9.4%
18.8%
Under 5
5-17
18-64
65+
5.8%
10.1%
22.5%
5.2%
9.1%
17.5%
3.8%
6.3%
12.5%
6.9%
10.6%
21.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
Number of Persons: Total Population and Children
Brok en Arrow, 1999
All Income
Lev els
100% of
pov erty lev el
130% of
pov erty
lev el
185% of
pov erty
lev el
Total population
74,326
3,346
5,603
11,236
Under 18 y ears
23,002
1,235
2,155
4,329
Under 5 y ears
5,962
347
601
1,341
5-17 y ears
17,040
888
1,554
2,988
18-64 y ears
46,183
1,756
2,905
5,779
65+
5,141
355
543
1,128
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
Wagoner County, 1999
Pov erty rate
60%
Married-couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
50.8%
50%
40%
36.6%
32.2%
29.3%
30%
24.3%
20.1%
19.8%
20%
10%
16.4%
5.2%
7.1%
8.5%
3.5%
3.1%
5.2% 5%
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
Poverty Rates for Families by Family Type and Age of Children
Broken Arrow, 1999
Pov erty rate
50%
Married-couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
39.7%
40%
37.6%
30%
20%
16.8%
12.6%
10.9%
10.6%
10%
7.1%
5.1%
2.2%
1.4%
7.1%
6.4%
3.5%
1.4%
1.2%
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
Median Family Income
By Family Type and Presence of Children under 18
Wagoner County, 1999
All families
Married-couple
families
$45,623
$52,066
Female-headed
families
$51,766
$21,235
Male-headed
families
$60,000
$48,603
$28,432
$24,012
$40,000
$20,000
Families WITH children
$37,813
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
Families WITHOUT children
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family Income
By Family Type and Presence of Children under 18
Brok en Arrow, 1999
All families
Married-couple
families
$58,573
$59,311
$64,491
$62,053
Female-headed
families
$26,318
Male-headed
families
$37,717
$38,929
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
Families WITH children
$50,417
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
Families WITHOUT children
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64
Wagoner County, 1999
756 (2.9% )
8,174
24.1%
NOT in
labor force
In labor
force
25,756
75.9%
24,955 (96.9% )
45 (0.2% )
Unemployed
Employed
In armed forces
Unemployment rate (all ages) for October 2005 = 3.6%.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64
Brok en Arrow, 1999
882 (2.4% )
7,964
18.0%
NOT in
labor force
In labor
force
36,202
82.0%
35,272 (97.4% )
48 (0.1% )
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Unemployed
Employed
In armed forces
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
Wagoner County, 1999
Percent of impov erished f amilies
100%
35.6
37.5
80%
60%
17.4
38.7
48.5
44.2
38.9
49.8
40%
34.1
20%
20.2
23.5
11.6
0%
All families
in poverty
Married-couple
families in poverty
Male-headed
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
Female-headed
families in poverty
Many families in poverty have employed worker(s)
Families in Poverty by Family Type and Employment Status
Broken Arrow, 1999
Percent of impov erished f amilies
100%
25.4
22.7
31
26.9
80%
49.7
51.9
40.8
60%
49.5
40%
20%
24.9
25.5
All families
in poverty
Married-couple
families in poverty
28.2
23.5
0%
Male-headed
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
Female-headed
families in poverty
Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin
Total Population and Under Age 5, WagonerCounty, 1999
Total population
40%
Under 5
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total population
Under 5
Total
White
Black
American
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
8.9%
14.3%
7.2%
10.6%
24.3%
35.4%
14.2%
23.5%
8.6%
8.7%
15.5%
12.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin
Total Population and Under Age 5, Brok en Arrow
, 1999
Total population
25%
Under 5
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Total population
Under 5
Total
White
Black
American
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
4.5%
5.8%
4%
5.1%
12.4%
21.9%
4.1%
3.7%
4.4%
14%
4.1%
3.5%
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
Wagoner County, September 2005
Medicaid Total
12.6%
7,933
Medicaid <18
33.6%
5,293
27%
207
WIC Infants (Oct. 05)
10.4%
411
WIC age 1-5 (Oct. 05)
6.3%
243
Child Care Subsidy <5
8.9%
5,600
1.4%
224
TANF <18
Elem. School Free Lunch
(2004-05)
Elem. School Reduced Lunch
(2004-05)
8.4%
560
Medicaid 65+
Food Stamps Total
43.6%
1,674
Medicaid <5
45.3%
1,630
12.4%
447
10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000
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, Wagoner County, 2004-2005 School Year
Free
Wagoner County Total
45%
12%
65%
Wagoner
12%
56%
Porter
14%
42%
Okay
12%
29%
Coweta
23%
Broken Arrow
0%
Free lunch eligibility requirement:
annual household income below
130% of poverty, which currently is
$20,917 for a family of three.
13%
Reduced lunch eligibility requirement:
annual household income below
185% of poverty, which currently is
$29,767 for a family of three.
9%
20%
Reduced
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%
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 for Many is Risky
Business
~Combination of many risk factors
takes heavy toll and early screening
for risk level is inadequate
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
Wagoner County and Brok en Arrow, 2000
Wagoner County
Broken Arrow
24.2%
21.7%
1.9%
2.3%
68.2%
1.5%
8.6%
71.7%
73% of the 65+ population in Wagoner
County living alone are female; 81% of
those in Broken Arrow are female.
Liv e alone
Family households
Group quarters
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Other
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
Wagoner County, 2000
18.7%
Less than
high school
35.8%
High school
graduate
23.7%
Some
college
6.3%
Associate
degree
11.4%
Bachelor's
degree
3%
Master's
degree
0.7%
Professional
school degree
0.3%
Doctorate
degree
0%
10%
20%
Percent of persons 25+
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
30%
40%
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older
Brok en Arrow, 2000
8.3%
Less than
high school
24.4%
High school
graduate
27.1%
Some
college
9.4%
Associate
degree
22.7%
Bachelor's
degree
6%
Master's
degree
1.5%
Professional
school degree
0.7%
Doctorate
degree
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percent of persons 25+
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
30%
35%
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by Sex
Wagoner County, 2000
Less than
high school
High school
graduate
19.5%
17.8%
36%
35.7%
Some
college
23.2%
24.4%
Associate
degree
6.5%
6.1%
Bachelor's
degree
11%
11.8%
Master's
degree
3.1%
2.8%
Professional
school degree
0.9%
0.6%
Doctorate
degree
0.5%
0.1%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10%
20%
Percent of persons 25+
Males
Females
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
30%
40%
50%
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by Sex
Brok en Arrow, 2000
Less than
high school
High school
graduate
Some
college
26.9%
21.3%
27.5%
26.7%
Associate
degree
9.7%
9.1%
Bachelor's
degree
20.1%
25.6%
Master's
degree
5.2%
7%
Professional
school degree
1%
2.1%
Doctorate
degree
50%
9.4%
7.1%
0.3%
1.1%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10%
20%
Percent of persons 25+
Males
Females
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
30%
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 Wagoner 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 Population
> Our Health at Risk
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
...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, Wagoner County, 2000
Age 5-15
(N=689)
Age 16-20
(N=626)
6.4%
10.9%
21.7%
16.1%
2.7%
1.0%
27.3%
62.4%
15.1%
36.4%
0.2%
3.0%
3.3%
4.2%
0.4%
8.3%
12.5%
27.7%
24.9%
9.3%
9.0%
44.0%
53.3%
Age 65+
(N=2,745)
Age 21-64
(N=7,046)
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
Persons with Disabilities by Age and Type
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Brok en Arrow, 2000
Age 5-15
(N=865)
Age 16-20
(N=625)
8.0%
18.4%
3.2%
65.8%
9.2%
2.1%
6.1%
29.6%
20.8%
0.1%
2.9%
35.8%
0.9%
3.8%
27.0%
2.0%
8.6%
15.2%
26.2%
8.8%
9.8%
42.0%
53.6%
Age 65+
(N=2,041)
Age 21-64
(N=5,925)
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
Employment Rates by Disability Type
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 21 to 64, Wagoner County, 2000
58.1%
Any Disability
57%
Sensory
34.2%
Phy sical
31.6%
Mental
Self -care
16.5%
45.7%
Go-outside-home
62.4%
Employ ment
0%
20%
40%
Percent Employ ed
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
60%
80%
Employment Rates by Disability Type
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 21 to 64, Broken Arrow, 2000
67.8%
Any disability
64.3%
Sensory
54.5%
Phy sical
39.6%
Mental
31.8%
Self -care
51.9%
Go-outside-home
69.5%
Employ ment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent Employ ed
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
60%
70%
80%
Poverty Rates by Disability Status and Age
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Wagoner County, 1999
Percent of population liv ing below pov erty
25%
20%
Persons with a disability
Persons with no disability
18.6%
15%
12.8%
12.6%
10.4%
11.1%
9.8%
10%
7.5%
6%
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+
Poverty Rates by Disability Status and Age
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Brok en Arrow, 1999
Percent of population liv ing below pov erty
25%
Persons with a disability
Persons with no disability
20%
14.9%
15%
9.1%
10%
4.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5%
5.8%
5.5%
3.1%
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+
Our Health at Risk…
Death Rates
Age-Adjusted Death Rates for the Leading Causes of Death
United States, 2003, Ok lahoma and Tulsa County, 2004
Heart disease
Cancer
Stroke
Chronic lower
respiratory diseases
Accidents
U.S.
Oklahoma
Tulsa County
Diabetes mettitus
Influenza & pneumonia
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Rate per 100,000 Persons
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 51, No. 5, March 14, 2003; Oklahoma
State Department of Health
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
350
M ortality Rates for the Three Leading Causes of Death
Ok lahoma, 1930 - 2000
Rate per 100,000 persons
400
350
Stroke
Cancer
Heart Disease
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Major Health Concern:
Tulsa’s high age-adjusted death rate compared to other
areas
Age-Adjusted Deaths Rates for Tulsa and Comparable Areas, 2002
 Good:
Death Rates for Comparable Areas, 2002
 Tulsa Co death rates parallel
those of OK
Honolulu, HI
El Paso, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Albuquerque, NM
Syracuse, NY
 Tulsa rates below the OK rate
for most years;
Tucson, AZ
Fresno, CA
US
Buf f alo, NY
 2002 Tulsa rate lower than
some metro areas of similar
size and scope, including
Oklahoma City.
Baltimore, MD
Omaha, NE
Denver, CO
Wichita, KS
Little Rock, AR
Knoxville, TN
Toledo, OH
Bakersf ield, CA
Tulsa, OK
Louisville, KY
Oklahoma City, OK
Washington, DC
Birmingham, AL
600
700
800
900
County Rate
1,000
1,100
 Bad: By 2002 Tulsa County rate was
14.5% higher than the nation.
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
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. Wagoner Co.
c. Broken Arrow
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 Broken Arrow have an
employed householder and/or spouse?
a. 20%
b. 49%
c. 75%
4. What percentage of Wagoner County residents age 25 & older have
only a high school education or less?
a. 24%
b. 40%
c. 55%
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