Transcript Slide 1

Community Profile 2007
Creek County
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
January, 2007
How Well do You Know Your
Community?
1. How did Creek County’s population change between 2000 & 2005?
a. down 8%
b. no change
c. up 2%
2. What percentage of Creek County’s 65+ population live alone?
a. 10%
b. 28%
c. 41%
3. What percentage of Creek County’s elementary school children
participate in the school free & reduced lunch program?
a. 28%
b. 45%
c. 63%
4. What percentage of Oklahoma’s working age population have no health
insurance?
a. 13%
b. 25%
c. 48%
5. What percentage of Creek County’s population with disabilities are
employed?
a. 54%
b.38%
c. 22%
Community Profile 2007
Demographic Trends
 Human Development
 Panel Topics
 Best Practices

Demographic Trends
Demographic Trends in Creek County (part 1)

Populations of Creek County, Sapulpa and
Bristow have each increased 2% since 2000.

Growing cultural diversity, particularly among the
population <25

Living arrangements are changing significantly
with more children living with a single parent,
especially the mother, and living with other
relatives, especially grandparents
Demographic Trends
Demographic Trends in Creek County (part 2)

Creek County’s population 65+ projected to make
up 21% of population by 2030 (up from 13% in
2000)

Population <18 projected to account for 23% of
population by 2030 (down from 27% in 2000)

As working age population’s share declines, the
2030 projected dependency ratio climbs to 80 per
100, up from 67 per 100 in 2000
Demographic Trends
Demographic Trends in Creek County (part 3)

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
Okmulgee
Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area
Osage
Rogers
Pawnee
Tulsa
Wagoner
Creek
Okmulgee
Demographic Trends
Population Trends: Creek County, TAUW Service Area and
Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005 (est.)
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Tulsa MSA
TAUW
Creek County
Tulsa MSA and TAUW service area
populations both grew 3% between
2000 and 2005, while that of Creek
County increased 2%.
1970
Tulsa MSA 572,548
TAUW 561,210
Creek County
45,532
1980
1990
711,652
696,342
59,016
761,019
745,444
60,915
2000
2005
(est.)
859,532 887,800
842,920 870,900
67,367
68,700
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; Population Estimates Program, 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population of Se le cte d Citie s in Cre e k County
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005 (est.)
Sapulpa
Demographic Trends
Bristow
Drumright
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005 (est.)
Mannford’s population grew 4%
between 2000 and 2005, while those
of Sapulpa and Bristow increased 2%.
Drumright’s population declined.
Mannf ord
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005 (est.)
5,000
Sapulpa
15,159
15,853
18,074
19,379
20,620
10,000
Bristow
4,653
4,702
4,062
4,325
4,400
15,000
20,000
Drumright
2,740
3,162
2,799
2,905
2,880
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; Population Estimates Program, 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Mannford
892
1,610
1,826
2,102
2,760
25,000
Population by Race and Hispanic Origin
Creek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates
2000
2005 (est.)
55,425
82.3%
Demographic Trends
57,165
83.2%
3,239
4.7%
1,823
2.7%
3,479
5.2%
Hispanic Origin*
N=1,283 (1.9%)
White
Black
1,724
2.6%
6,120
179 9.1%
0.3%
440
0.7%
Asian*
Some other race
6,194
9.0%
267
0.4%
Hispanic Origin*
N=1,595 (2.3%)
American Indian*
Two or more races
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:
US Census
Bureau,
2000 Census; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2005 Population Estimates
by Age.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
27
0.0%
Births by Race of Mothe r
Creek County, 2005
Demographic Trends
Hispanic origin:
28 (3.3%)
Total births=864
Black
21 (2.4%)
American Indian
110 (12.7%)
Asian/Pacif ic Islander
7 (0.8%)
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
White
726 (84.0%)
Age Distribution
Creek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimate
Demographic Trends
5,356
(8.0%)
6,299
(9.2%)
13,845
(20.6%)
12,278
(17.9%)
4,587
(6.8%)
4,197
(6.1%)
894
(1.3%)
965
(1.4%)
7,685
(11.4%)
34,929
(51.8%)
2000
0-4
8,733
(12.7%)
36,306
(52.8%)
2005 Estimate
5-17
18-24
25-64
65-84
85+
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2005 Population Estimates
by Age.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Types of Families with Own Children Under 18, by Race
Creek County, 2000
Percent of families within each race
100%
Demographic Trends
80%
78.9%
76%
71.2%
67.4%
60%
49%
42.9%
40%
21.6%
21.7%
21.1%
17.1%
20%
6.9%
8.2%
10.9%
7.2%
0%
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
Living Arrange me nts of Childre n Unde r 18
Creek County, 2000
80%
68%
70%
Demographic Trends
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
Childre n in Non-Traditional Se ttings
Creek County, 2000
Number of children
Demographic Trends
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%
Living Arrange me nts of Pe rsons Age 65 & Olde r
Creek County, 2000
Demographic Trends
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
Me dian Family Income , by Race
Creek County, 1999
Annual Income
$80,000
$66,250
Demographic Trends
$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
Occupie d Housing Units by Te nure
Creek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates
Demographic Trends
5,558
22.0%
6,021
23.6%
19,445
76.4%
19,731
78.0%
2000
2005 (est.)
Owner-occupied
Renter-occupied
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Housing Units by House holde r's Le ngth of Re side nce
and by Te nure
Creek County, 2000
Renter-occupied
Demographic Trends
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 owner-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
Human Development
Tulsa Area Human Development Industry
What is it?

Independent and collective action of efforts to
address the education, health, housing, family
support, emergency financial, and
transportation needs of families and individuals
in the Tulsa area.

Increasingly these efforts seek to prevent needs
through promoting increased self-sufficiency
among people in the Tulsa area while still
intervening to respond to crises and other
concerns.
The Roots of the Challenge
Thirty Year of Economic and Social Changes
Human Development

Emergence of new persistent poor in late 1960's
and early 1970's
 Massive loss of low skill/high pay jobs
 Sharp rise in working poor
 Decline in young male workers' wages
 Increase in female headed families
 Impact of substance abuse
All trends disproportionately affected:
~African-Americans
~young children & young families
Human Development
Human Development:
Key Points
Middle class is disappearing
 Many households lack adequate
income
 Stress of inadequate income and
related conditions is widespread
 Starting life in 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
Human Development

Disappearing Middle Class
The Middle Class is Disappearing
~Lower income groups greatly expand,
middle shrinks,
highest income group increases
dramatically
The Ove rall Dominant Tre nd...
The Shrinking Middle Class
Disappearing Middle Class
100%
80%
Rich - 5%
Rich - 10%
Middle - 20%
Rich - 20%
Middle - 60%
60%
Middle - 80%
40%
Poor - 75%
20%
Poor - 10%
0%
1900 - 1940
(Pre-War)
1940 - 1990
(Post WWII)
Poor - 20%
1990 - ?
(New Millenia)
The trend: housing patterns and income mirror the job structure, with
more rich, more poor, and f ewer in the middle -- the "hourglass ef f ect"
Source: Hodgkinson, Harold, "The Client," Education Demographer, 1988.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Distribution of We alth: House hold Income
U.S., Oklahoma, Tulsa MSA and Creek County, 2005 Estimates
2005 Dollars
100%
Disappearing Middle Class
16.3%
9.4%
12%
8.9%
80%
37.5%
60%
38.6%
35.5%
40.1%
40%
20%
$100,000+/year
$40,000-$99,999
/year
<$40,000/year
43.5%
53.1%
49.4%
Oklahoma
Tulsa MSA
55.6%
0%
U.S.
Creek Co.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
1% of U.S.
households have
39.3% of the
assets, making
the U.S. the #1
country in the
world in inequality
of income.
Annual increase in wages consistent among all 5 income groups
from 1947 to 1973; Major imbalances occurred from 1973 to 1993
with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer
Disappearing Middle Class
Annual Growth Rates of Household Income
United States, 1947-1993
Annual growth rates of household income
3%
1947-1973
1973-1993
2%
1%
0%
-1%
1
(poorest)
2
3
4
Income Quintiles
5
(richest)
1
(poorest)
2
3
4
Income Quintiles
Source: Cassidy, John, ‘Death of the Middle Class,’ New Internationalist 1996.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
5
(richest)
Income disparity be twe e n rich and poor grows
wide r be yond 1993
Mean Family Income by Quintile and Top 5% (2003 dollars)
United States, 1966-2003
Disappearing Middle Class
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
6
19
6
6
19
8
7
19
0
7
19
2
7
19
4
7
19
Lowest
6
7
19
8
8
19
0
Second
8
19
2
8
19
4
8
19
Middle
6
8
19
8
9
19
Fourth
0
9
19
2
9
19
4
Highest
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
9
19
6
9
19
8
0
20
Top 5%
0
0
20
2
Many Households Lack
Adequate Income
~More and more households
lack adequate income to meet
living needs
Inadequate Income
The Self-Sufficiency Standard
…The level of income required for a family
to meet its own needs

Customized by specific family composition
 Customized by geographic location
 Based on all expense categories
 Updated annually using consumer price index
Comparison of Se lf-Sufficie ncy Wage to
Pove rty Guide line s, by Size of Family
Creek County, 2006
Inadequate Income
SelfSufficiency
Wage
(annual)
Poverty
Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar
Difference
SelfSufficiency
Percent of
Poverty
$8,431
186%
$16,642
226%
$18,027
209%
$23,362
217%
One
person
$18,231
$9,800
($8.77 per hour)
($4.71 per hour)
Two
persons
$29,842
$13,200
($14.35 per hour)
($6.35 per hour)
$34,627
$16,600
($16.65 per hour)
($7.98 per hour)
$43,362
$20,000
($20.85 per hour)
($9.62 per hour)
Three
persons
Four
persons
Notes: For the self-sufficiency wages shown in table, family of two consists of one adult and one preschooler; family of three consists of one adult,
one preschooler and one schoolage child; family of four consists of two adults, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Per hour wages given
assume pay for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma;" 2006 HHS
Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November
2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, Minimum,
Poverty, 185% of Poverty, and Median Family Income
Family of Three, Creek County, 2006
Annual Wage
$50,000
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $34,627
($16.65/hr.)
Inadequate Income
$40,000
$30,710
$30,000
($18.82/hr.)
All families with
children <18
($14.76/hr.)
$16,600
$20,000
$10,000
$39,143
$8,400
($4.04/hr.)
$10,712
($7.98/hr.)
($5.15/hr.)
$0
Welfare
Wage
Minimum
Wage
Poverty
Wage
185% Poverty
Wage
Median
Family Income
(2005 est.)
Note: For the self-sufficiency wage, family of three consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child. The hourly wages given assume
employment at 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma;" 2006 HHS
Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index,
November 2006. Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Monthly Budge t Distribution for Typical Family of
Thre e Earning Se lf-Sufficie ncy Wage
Creek County, 2006
Taxes
$346
Inadequate Income
Housing
$722
Self -suf f iciency
wage = $2,886
per month.
Miscellaneous
$231
12%
25%
8%
10%
Health Care
$289
9%
21%
16%
Transportation
$260
Child Care
$606
Food
$462
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for
Oklahoma;" Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November 2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Pove rty Le ve l
Percentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Creek County, 1999
Percentage of population
60%
100%
130%
185%
Inadequate Income
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
Ratio of Income to Pove rty Le ve l for Total Population
Creek County, 1989, 1999 & 2005 Estimates
Percentage of population
Below 100%
50%
Below 185%
Below 200%
Inadequate Income
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Below 100%
Below 185%
Below 200%
1989
1999
2005 (est.)
14.5%
36.6%
40.3%
13.5%
33.8%
37.1%
10.9%
33%
34.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Me dian Family Income
By Family Type and Pre se nce of Childre n unde r 18
Creek County, 1999
Inadequate Income
All families
Married-couple
families
$36,989
$44,090
Female-headed
families
$42,862
$18,408
Male-headed
families
$60,000
$39,804
$26,922
$40,000
$20,000
Families WITH children
$25,786
$32,014
$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
Population Living in Pove rty, by Age
Creek County, 1989, 1999 & 2005 Estimates
Percentage of population
Total
25%
<18
18-64
65+
Inadequate Income
20%
<18
18-64
Total
15%
10%
65+
5%
0%
Total
<18
18-64
65+
1989
1999
2005 (est.)
14.5%
17.4%
12.1%
19.4%
13.5%
17.7%
11.4%
16.4%
10.9%
12.3%
11.4%
6%
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Pove rty Rate s by Race and Hispanic Origin
Total Population and Under Age 5, Creek County, 1999
Percentage of population
Total population
50%
Under 5
Inadequate Income
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total population
Under 5
Total
White
Black
American
Indian
Asian
Hispanic
13.5%
20.5%
11.8%
17.7%
29.3%
46.6%
19.2%
26.7%
4.7%
0%
27.7%
40.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64
Creek County, 1999
Inadequate Income
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 2006 = 3.6%.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Une mployme nt Rate s
Tulsa MSA, 1991 - 2006
7.0
6.0
Inadequate Income
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Oct.
2006
Rate
5.9
5.3
6.3
5.8
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.2
2.8
3.4
4.9
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
6.5
5.0
4.4
3.5
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%
Inadequate Income
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
Many familie s in pove rty have e mploye d worke r(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
Inadequate Income
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
Re al Hourly Wage by Educational Attainme nt
United States, 1973-2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
$35
Inadequate Income
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
3
7
19
75 977 979 981 983 985 987 989 991 993 995 997 999 001 003 005
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Less than high school
High school
College degree
Advanced degree
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared
Community
Service
Council
of Greater
Prepared
by by
thethe
Community
Service
Council
of Greater
Tulsa Tulsa
Inadequate Income
Stress of Inadequate Income and Related
Conditions is Widespread
~Based on following key indicators:

Poverty
 Families with children headed by women
 Youth 16-19 not in school or high school
graduates
 Men 16-64 not employed or in labor force
Economic Distress Indicators
Additional Indicators of Economic
Distress
Public assistance programs
 Free & reduced school lunch
program
 Homeless shelters
 Helpline and Babyline referrals

Participation in Public Assistance Programs
Number of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Creek County, August 2006
Economic Distress Indicators
Medicaid Total
16.6%
11,425
Medicaid <18
45.5%
7,495
51.7%
434
WIC Infants
17.9%
757
WIC age 1-5
8.2%
346
Child Care Subsidy <5
11.6%
7,991
114
TANF <18
Elem. School Free Lunch
(2005-06)
Elem. School Reduced Lunch
(2005-06)
15,000
10.8%
1,040
Medicaid 65+
Food Stamps Total
61.9%
2,596
Medicaid <5
0.7%
49.1%
3,775
1,085
10,000
5,000
Number of Participants
14.1%
0%
0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percent of Population
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, County Profiles August, 2006; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low
Income Report for 2005-2006; US Census Bureau, Pop. Estimates Division, 2005 Estimates; Oklahoma State Department
of Health-WIC Service, Caseload Report, August, 2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ele me ntary School Stude nts Eligible for Fre e and
Re duce d Lunch Program
By School District, Creek County, 2005-2006 School Year
Creek County Total
49.1%
67%
Bristow
Economic Distress Indicators
14.1%
20.3%
Oilton
74.4%
Drumright
72.9%
8.1%
7.1%
68.3%
Depew
5.8%
50.2%
Kiefer
15.6%
45%
Kellyville
19%
Mounds
50.6%
12.2%
Allen-Bowden
50.4%
11.6%
44.9%
Sapulpa
12.3%
30.7%
Pretty Water
28.2%
Lone Star
25.6%
Olive
0%
Reduced lunch eligibility
requirement: annual household
income below 185% of poverty,
which currently is $30,710 for a
family of three.
13.6%
42.5%
Mannford
Free lunch eligibility requirement:
annual household income below
130% of poverty, which currently
is $21,580 for a family of three.
20.3%
13.5%
Free
10.8%
20%
40%
60%
Percent of Students Eligible
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2005-2006.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
Reduced
100%
Total Units of Se rvice Provide d by Tulsa She lte rs
By Age and Se x of Clie nt
January - December, 2006
Units of serv ice
Economic Distress Indicators
200,000
183,489
Shelters:
Day Center for the Homeless
DaySpring Villa
DVIS
John 3:16 Mission
Salvation Army
Tulsa County Shelter
Youth Services
(100%)
150,000
101,346
100,000
(55%)
46,680
50,000
17,414
(25%)
(10%)
(9%)
0
Total
Male Adults
Male Children
18,049
Female Adults Female Children
Note: One "unit of service" represents one person staying at a shelter one day. The numbers shown do not
represent an unduplicated count of clients served.
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Tulsa Helpline.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Se le cte d He lpline Se rvice Re que sts, by Type of Se rvice
2001 through 2006
Economic Distress Indicators
Number of Serv ice Requests
Total incoming
calls to Helpline
rose to 72,071 in
2006, up from
49,952 in 2005
(44% increase);
while
assessments of
caller needs and
referrals rose to
143,609 in 2006,
up from 101,180
in 2005 (42%
increase).
20,000
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
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
6,389
14,293
18,308
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Tulsa Helpline.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Starting Life in Tulsa for Many
is Risky Business
~Combination of many risk factors
takes heavy toll and early
screening for risk level is
inadequate
Summary of Risk Factors for Infants
Creek County and Oklahoma, 2005
14.8%
12.9%
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
37.6%
39.1%
Unmarried mother
7%
5.6%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
22.6%
22.4%
Starting Life
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
Creek Co.
Oklahoma
7.3%
6.6%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
1.5%
1.4%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
30.7%
32.8%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
19.6%
19.1%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
12.5%
10.6%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
0%
10%
20%
Creek County births:
864
Oklahoma births:
51,775
30%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
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
Early Screening
What is early intervention?

Early intervention applies to children of school age
or younger who are discovered to have or be at risk
of developing a handicapping condition or other
special need that may effect their development.

Early intervention consists of the provision of
services such children and their families need for
the purpose of lessening the effects of the
condition. Early intervention can be remedial or
preventive in nature – premeditating existing
developmental problems or preventing their
occurrence.
Small proportion of spe cial e ducation
stude nts re ce ive d e arly inte rve ntion
Special Education Students and Students who Received Early Intervention
Oklahoma Public Schools, 2003-04
Early
interv ention
2.2%
Early Screening
Special
education
15%
Not
special
education
85%
Total Oklahoma Public
School Students
No early
interv ention
97.8%
Total Oklahoma Public
School Students
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Populations of Aging and Persons with
Disabilities are Large and Growing
~These populations will
significantly test the capacity of
resources needed to enable them
to be most self-sufficient
Living Arrange me nts of Pe rsons Age 65 & Olde r
Aging & Persons with Disabilities
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
Disability Pre vale nce by Age and Le ve l of Disability
Oklahoma, 1997
Age Group
2%
Aging & Persons w/ Disabilities
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
Ok lahoma's Rank ings in Outcomes
Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Health Challenges
Overall ranking
#31
#44
#41
Poor mental health days
#44
Poor physical health days
Infant mortality
Cardiovascular deaths
Cancer deaths
Premature death
#27
#43
#31
#50
#24
#44
#27
#43
1990
2006
Source: United Health Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age -Adjuste d De ath Rate s
Tulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 1980 - 2002
Death rates
Health Challenges
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
Tulsa Co
OK
US
800
8
19
0
2
8
19
4
8
19
8
19
6
8
19
8
0
9
19
2
9
19
4
9
19
6
9
19
Source: CDC Wonder.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
98
9
1
0
0
20
02
0
2
Pe rce ntage of the Population that is Obe se
Oklahoma and US, 1990 - 2002
Percent obese
25%
Health Challenges
20%
15%
10%
5%
Oklahoma
US
0%
9
9
1
0
1
9
9
1
2
9
9
1
9
9
1
3
9
9
1
4
5
9
9
1
6
9
9
1
7
9
9
1
9
9
1
8
9
9
9
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
Source: Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development,
OUCPH, 2005; NCHS, CDC; THD;
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Pe rce ntage of Adults who Smoke
Tulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 2003
Percent adult smokers
30%
Health Challenges
25%
20%
25.1%
22.7%
22%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Tulsa Co.
Oklahoma
Source: NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
US
He alth Insurance Status, by Age
Oklahoma, 2004-2005
Total Population
Under Age 19
130,780 (14.5%)
23,450 (2.6%)
659,370 (19.2%)
424,880 (47.2%)
1,648,530 (47.9%)
Health Challenges
553,150 (16.1%)
283,680 (31.5%)
444,630 (12.9%)
137,050 (4.0%)
524,320 (25.4%)
36,520 (4.1%)
439,280 (91.0%)
90,420 (4.4%)
1,222,600 (59.3%)
123,040 (6.0%)
100,090 (4.9%)
Age 19-64
Employer
Individual
Age 65 &
Medicaid
Medicare/Other Public
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
37,910 (7.8%)
440 (0.1%)
(0.2%)
over 1,050
4,270 (0.9%)
Uninsured
Poor 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
22,500
20,000
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000
2,500
'04
'02
'00
'98
'96
'94
'92
'90
'88
'86
'84
'82
'80
'78
'76
'74
'72
'70
'68
'66
'64
'62
'60
'58
'56
'54
'52
0
'50
Crime & Incarceration
25,000
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.
DOC Receptions Drug Crimes and Other Crimes
FY1995 – FY 2005
Crime & Incarceration
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
Other Crime Receptions
Drug Crime Receptions
1,000
Linear (Other Crime Receptions)
Linear (Drug Crime Receptions)
0
FY'95
FY'96
FY'97
FY'98
FY'99
FY'00
FY'01
FY'02
FY'03
FY'04
FY'05
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Corrections
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa for the Metropolitan Human Services Commission in Tulsa.
Me thamphe tamine Labs Se ize d by Authoritie s
Oklahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2005
Number of labs discov ered
Oklahoma
Tulsa
1,400
Crime & Incarceration
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Oklahoma
Tulsa
10
0
34
0
125
6
241
13
275
47
781
132
946
150
1,193 1,254 1,235
124 178 214
812
131
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Website, Tulsa Police Department Website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
274
51
Overall Progress in Human
Development is Tied to
Educational Success
~From preschool through post
secondary education
Educational Attainme nt for Pe rsons Age 25 & Olde r
Creek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates
Less than
high school
Educational Success: Attainment
High school
graduate
Some
college
Associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Master's
degree
Professional
school degree
2000
2005 (est.)
Doctorate
degree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of persons 25+
Less than
high school
2000
22.4%
2005 (est.)
17.9%
High school
graduate
40%
44.1%
Some
college
20.7%
19.5%
Associate's
degree
5.2%
5%
Bachelor's
degree
7.8%
9.1%
Master's
degree
2.8%
3.2%
Professional Doctorate
school degree
degree
0.9%
0.2%
1.1%
0.1%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by Sex
Creek County, 2005 Estimates
Percent of persons 25+
Educational Success: Attainment
Less than
high school
High school
graduate
Some
college
Associate
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Master's
degree
Professional
school degree
Doctorate
degree
50%
Males
Females
40%
Less than
high school
17.7%
18%
30%
High school
graduate
45.8%
42.6%
20%
Some
college
18.8%
20.1%
10%
0%
Associate
degree
4.7%
5.3%
Males
10%
Bachelor's
degree
7.8%
10.3%
20%
Master's
degree
4.2%
2.2%
Females
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
30%
40%
50%
Professional Doctorate
school degree
degree
0.9%
0%
1.4%
0.1%
Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment
Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003
Educational Success: Higher Education
70%
63.9%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
13.1%
9.4%
8%
10%
3.2%
2.4%
0%
TCC
RSU
OSU-Tulsa
NSU-BA
OU-Tulsa
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
LU-Tulsa
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
Special Topics
Infants and Young Children at Risk
 Adolescents at Risk
 Adults and Families at Risk

Infants and Young Children at
Risk…
Top Risk Factors for Infants
and Young Children







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
Adverse childhood experiences
Impact of Pove rty on Early Childhood De ve lopme nt
Multiple Pathways
Inadequate Nutrition
Substance Abuse
Poverty
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
Summary of Risk Factors for Infants
Creek County and Oklahoma, 2005
14.8%
12.9%
Teen mother
(age 15-19)
37.6%
39.1%
Risk Factors for Infants
Unmarried mother
7%
5.6%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
22.6%
22.4%
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
Creek Co.
Oklahoma
7.3%
6.6%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
1.5%
1.4%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
30.7%
32.8%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
19.6%
19.1%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
12.5%
10.6%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
0%
10%
20%
Creek County births:
864
Oklahoma births:
51,775
30%
Percent of Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40%
50%
Characteristics of Births to Teen Mothers (Age 15-19)
Creek County and Oklahoma, 2005
78.1%
78.4%
Unmarried
8.7%
8.5%
Poor prenatal care
(3rd trimester/no care)
52.3%
54.9%
Risk Factors for Infants
Mother w/ <12th grade
education
5.5%
7.6%
Low birthweight
(1500-2499 grams)
3.1%
1.8%
Very low birthweight
(<1500 grams)
56.5%
Short birth spacing
(<24 mos. apart)
64.8%
39.1%
42.9%
Very short birth spacing
(<18 mos. apart)
Creek County births to teens: 128
Creek County teen birth rate: 52.4
12.5%
10.6%
Premature
(<37 weeks gest.)
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
12.5%
1+ previous births
2+ previous births
Creek co.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma births to teens:
Oklahoma teen birth rate:
20.9%
0.8%
3.5%
0%
6,682
54.2
(per 100,000 females age 15-19)
20%
40%
60%
Percent of Teen Births
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
80%
100%
Early Care & Learning
Importance of Brain De ve lopme nt for Childre n 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
ACE Study
The Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACE) Study

Major American research project that poses the
question of whether and how childhood experiences
affect adult health decades later

Provides compelling evidence that:
– Adverse childhood experiences are surprisingly common
– ACE’s happen even in “the best of families”
– ACE’s have long-term, damaging consequences

Findings reveal powerful relationships between
emotional experiences as children and physical and
mental health as adults
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “About the Adverse Childhood
Experiences Study.”
ACE Study
The Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACE) Study Pyramid
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “About the Adverse Childhood
Experiences Study.”
Adverse Childhood Experiences…
Growing up in a household with:
ACE Study





Recurrent physical
abuse
Recurrent emotional
abuse
Sexual abuse
An alcohol or drug
abuser
An incarcerated
household member




Someone who is
chronically
depressed, suicidal,
institutionalized or
mentally ill
Mother being treated
violently
One or no parents
Emotional or physical
neglect
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “What are Adverse Childhood
Experieinces (ACE’s).”
…Lead to Health-Risk Behaviors…

ACE Study





Smoking
Overeating
Physical inactivity
Heavy alcohol use
Drug use
Promiscuity
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org
…Which Cause Disease, Disability
and Social Problems in Adulthood
ACE Study

Nicotine addiction
 Alcoholism
 Drug addiction
 Obesity
 Depression
 Suicide
 Injuries
 Unintentional
pregnancy






Heart disease
Cancer
Chronic lung and liver
disease
Stroke
Diabetes
Sexually transmitted
diseases
Source: Felitti, Vincent J., “The Relationship of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adult Health: Turning gold into lead;”
CDC Media Relations, May 14, 1998, “Adult Health Problems Linked to Traumatic Childhood Experiences.”
Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of
Adverse Health and Social Outcomes
~ Adverse Outcomes for Infants and Young
Children:

Infant death
 Poor health
 Poor development
 Lack of school readiness
 Poor school performance
 Physical, mental or sexual abuse or neglect
Adult Literacy & Education
Impact of Adult Literacy &
Education Levels on Children

As the educational level of adults improves, so does their
children's success in school; helping low-literate adults
improve their basic skills has a direct and measurable impact
on both the education and quality of life of their children.

Children of adults who participate in literacy programs improve
their grades and test scores, improve their reading skills and
are less likely to drop out.

Children's literacy levels are strongly linked to educational level
of their parents, especially their mothers.

Children of parents who are unemployed and have not
completed high school are five times more likely to drop out
than children of employed parents.
Source: Oklahoma Literacy Resource Office.
Illite racy Among Childre n in the U.S.
38% of 4th grade students
cannot read at grade level.
Of children who cannot read at
grade level in 4th grade, 75%
never become successful
readers.
Child Literacy
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
Child Abuse & Neglect
Child Abuse & Neglect in Oklahoma
and Tulsa County

Reports of child abuse and neglect have increased from 51,000 in 1997 to 61,610 in
FY 2005 in Oklahoma (21% increase), and from 5,835 to 7,970 in Tulsa County (37%
increase).

Confirmed child neglect cases make up 2/3 of the confirmed cases. These types of
cases increased 4% between 2000 and 2005.

Overall, confirmed cases of abuse and neglect decreased by 21% between 2000 and
2005 in Tulsa County.

In Oklahoma, 14.7 of every 1,000 children are victims of abuse and/or neglect. In
Tulsa County, the rate is 7.9 of every 1,000 children (54% of the state rate).

Oklahoma ranks #35 in the nation in the rate of children who are victims of abuse
and/or neglect.

Parents make up 74.3% of all perpetrators, followed by step-parents at 7%, “no
relation” at 6.8%, and grandparents at 3.8%.

Substance abuse is a major contributing factor to child neglect.
Child Abuse and Ne gle ct
Oklahoma, FY 2005
70,000
61,613
Child Abuse & Neglect
60,000
50,000
36,605
40,000
Of these 13,328 children,
1,360 were abused, 10,094
were neglected, and 1,874
were abused and neglected.
30,000
13,328
20,000
10,000
0
Reports of abuse
or neglect
Reports accepted for
investigation or assessment
Children confirmed
abused or neglected
(duplicated count)
Note: One “report” of child abuse or neglect may be an individual child or multiple children.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse & Neglect Statistics State Fiscal Year 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Child Abuse and Ne gle ct
Creek County, FY 2005
1,400
Child Abuse & Neglect
1,200
1,125
1,000
800
643
Of these 192 children, 17
were abused, 159 were
neglected, and 16 were
abused and neglected.
600
400
192
200
0
Reports of abuse
or neglect
Reports accepted for
investigation or assessment
Children confirmed
abused or neglected
(duplicated count)
Note: One “report” of child abuse or neglect may be an individual child or multiple children.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse & Neglect Statistics State Fiscal Year 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age of Childre n of Confirme d Abuse and Ne gle ct
Oklahoma, 2005
1-2
2,170 (16.3%)
Child Abuse & Neglect
Under 1
1,944 (14.6%)
3-6
3,485 (26.1%)
12 & older
2,673 (20.1%)
7-11
3,056 (22.9%)
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Pe rpe trators of Confirme d Abuse and Ne gle ct
Top 5, Oklahoma, FY 2005
50%
46%
Child Abuse & Neglect
40%
28.3%
30%
20%
7%
10%
6.8%
3.8%
0%
Mother
Father
Stepparent
No relation
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Grandparent
Child De aths Due to Abuse
Oklahoma, Fiscal Years 1978 - 2004
60
51
50
45
47 48
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
5
1980
0
7
1979
10
1978
Child Abuse & Neglect
42
Child De aths Due to Abuse , by Age of Child
Oklahoma, 2004
Child Abuse & Neglect
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…
Top Risk Factors for Adolescents







Poor academic performance
Economic deprivation
Alcohol, tobacco and other drug use
Early sexual activity
Unprotected sexual activity
Family dysfunction
Physical, mental or sexual abuse
Re sults of 2005 Youth Risk Be havior Surve y:
Alcohol, Othe r Drug & Tobacco Use
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2005
Used once or
more during
prior 30 days...
6.2%
7.1%
Methamphetamine
Offered/sold/given
illegal drugs at school
YRBS
20.2%
18.7%
Marijuana
Ever
used...
43.3%
40.5%
Alcohol
25.4%
18.4%
Smoked cigarettes on
20+ days during past month
9.4%
10.7%
Used any tobacco products
during past month
28.4%
34.6%
Drove after drinking
alcohol in past month
9.9%
12.3%
Rode with drinking
driver in past month
28.5%
25.8%
100% 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
20%
Oklahoma
40%
US
Source: Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
60%
80% 100%
Re sults of 2005 Youth Risk Be havior Surve y:
Se xual Be haviors, Suicide & Physical He alth
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2005
Ever had
sexual intercourse
46.8%
49.3%
6.2%
6.5%
Had sex before age 13
Did not use
condom last time
37.2%
38.3%
82.4%
YRBS
Did not use
83.6%
birth control pills last time
Attempted suicide
in past year
At risk of overweight
(according to BMI)
15.9%
Overweight
(according to BMI)
15.2%
Insufficient moderate
physical activity
8.4%
7.9%
15.7%
13.1%
73.5%
75.7%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
20%
Oklahoma
40%
U.S.
Source: Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
60%
80%
100%
Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of
Adverse Health and Social Outcomes
~ Adverse Outcomes for Adolescents:









Poor health
Tobacco, alcohol or drug addiction
School dropout
Unemployment
Sexually transmitted disease
Teen pregnancy
Abusive relationships (cycle of abuse)
Juvenile delinquency/incarceration
Suicide or other premature death
Disconne cte d Youth: Pe rce nt of Youth Age 16-19
Not in School and Not Working
By County, 2000
Percent not in school and not working
14%
Disconnected Youth
12%
#65
10%
8%
#46
6%
#27
#24
#31
#28
4%
2%
0%
Rate
Number
Tulsa Co.
Creek Co.
Okmulgee Co.
Osage Co.
Rogers Co.
Wagoner Co.
9.7%
3,090
6.7%
278
12.1%
325
7.3%
194
8.1%
340
7.7%
274
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
Labor Force Participation among Youths, Age 16-19
Creek County, 2000
Working Youths
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
Births by Age of Mothe r
Creek County, 2005
Total births=864
306
35.4%
85
9.8%
Births to Teens
48
5.6%
13
1.5%
47
5.4%
231
26.7%
<18
18-19
134
15.5%
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
40+
Re side nt Births to Te e ns Age 15-17 and 18-19
Creek County, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005
Number of births
Birth rate
200
200
150
150
Births to Teens
100
100
50
50
0
0
Births 15-17
Births 18-19
Birth rate 15-17
Birth rate 18-19
1980
1990
2000
2005
70
142
43.2
161
58
98
39.4
127.1
54
113
32.8
131.2
43
85
27.6
96.3
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, Vital Statistics.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Crime in Oklahoma

Total juvenile arrests in Oklahoma fell 19.2% from 29,551 in
1995 to 23,880 in 2004

During that time period, arrests for violent crimes, nonviolent crimes and alcohol related violations all declined,
while arrests for drug abuse violations rose

Juveniles accounted for 14.5% of all persons arrested in
2004

In 2004, 1,440 juvenile males and 2,219 juvenile females
were arrested for runaway; 32% of those arrested for
runaway were 13-14 years old
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, 2004 Uniform Crime Report.
Juve nile Arre sts, by Type of Crime
Creek County, 2001 through 2004
Number of arrests
400
2001
300
2003
2004
A total of 451 juvenile arrests were
made in Creek County in 2004, for a
rate of 54.6 per 1,000 juveniles age
10-17, down from 529 arrests and
rate of 60.4 in 2001.
200
Juvenile Crime
2002
100
0
Index crimes
2001
2002
2003
2004
66
80
96
96
Includes murder, rape,
robbery aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny,
and motor vehicle theft.
Drug related
24
16
46
34
Includes sale/
manufacturing
and possession
of drugs.
Alcohol related
53
67
58
50
Includes driving under
the influence, liquor
law violations, and
drunkenness.
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Other crimes
386
358
339
271
Includes other assaults,
disorderly conduct, curfew
& loitering, runaway and all
other non-traffic offenses
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.
Adults and Families at Risk…
Top Risk Factors for Adults
and Families








Single-parent households
Low educational attainment
Illiteracy
Childhood abuse and other adverse
childhood experiences
Substance abuse/addiction
Lack of health insurance/poor health care
Poor diet & lack of exercise
Tobacco use & excessive alcohol use
Educational Attainme nt for Pe rsons Age 25 & Olde r
Creek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates
Less than
high school
High school
graduate
Educational Attainment
Some
college
Associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Master's
degree
Professional
school degree
2000
2005 (est.)
Doctorate
degree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of persons 25+
Less than
high school
2000
22.4%
2005 (est.)
17.9%
High school
graduate
40%
44.1%
Some
college
20.7%
19.5%
Associate's
degree
5.2%
5%
Bachelor's
degree
7.8%
9.1%
Master's
degree
2.8%
3.2%
Professional Doctorate
school degree
degree
0.9%
0.2%
1.1%
0.1%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Rate s of Adult Le ve l 1 Lite racy
By County
Percent of adults at Lev el 1 Literacy
Level 1 Literacy is the lowest
literacy level. Adults at this
level display difficulty using
certain reading, writing, and
computational skills
considered necessary for
functioning in everyday life.
30%
25%
Adult Literacy
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
Me thamphe tamine Labs Se ize d by Authoritie s
Oklahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2005
Number of labs discov ered
Oklahoma
Tulsa
1,400
Substance Abuse
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Oklahoma
Tulsa
10
0
34
0
125
6
241
13
275
47
781
132
946
150
1,193 1,254 1,235
124 178 214
812
131
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Website, Tulsa Police Department Website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
274
51
He alth Insurance Status, by Age
Oklahoma, 2004-2005
Total Population
Under Age 19
130,780 (14.5%)
23,450 (2.6%)
659,370 (19.2%)
424,880 (47.2%)
1,648,530 (47.9%)
Health Insurance
553,150 (16.1%)
283,680 (31.5%)
444,630 (12.9%)
137,050 (4.0%)
524,320 (25.4%)
36,520 (4.1%)
439,280 (91.0%)
90,420 (4.4%)
1,222,600 (59.3%)
123,040 (6.0%)
100,090 (4.9%)
Age 19-64
Employer
Individual
Age 65 &
Medicaid
Medicare/Other Public
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
37,910 (7.8%)
440 (0.1%)
1,050 (0.2%)
over 4,270 (0.9%)
Uninsured
Ok lahoma's Rank ings in Risk Factors
Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Personal Behav iors
Prevalence of smoking
#44
#46
#14
Motor vehicle deaths
#23
Prevalence of obesity
Health Rankings
#33
#38
#31
High school graduation
#24
Community Env ironment
#24
Violent crime
#34
#21
Children in poverty
#41
#8
Occupational fatalities
#35
#32
Infectious disease
#22
Health Policies
Lack of health insurance
#46
#43
#40
Adequacy of prenatal care
#30
Per capita public health spending
#44
Immunization coverage
1990
2006
Source: United Health Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of
Adverse Health and Social Outcomes
~ Adverse Outcomes for Adults and Families:







Lower earnings/lack of economic
self-sufficiency
Domestic violence
Crime/gang violence/incarceration
Effects of adverse childhood
experiences
Disease or disability
Suicide
Premature death
Re al Hourly Wage by Educational Attainme nt
United States, 1973-2005
Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)
$35
Inadequate Income
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
3
7
19
75 977 979 981 983 985 987 989 991 993 995 997 999 001 003 005
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Less than high school
High school
College degree
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Advanced degree
Inadequate Income
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.
Dome stic Viole nce Case s Re porte d to
Law Enforce me nt Age ncie s
Oklahoma, 1994 - 2004
30,000
Domestic Violence
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Cases
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
18,153
18,621
21,683
23,087
21,435
21,211
22,065
23,687
25,157
23,773
24,542
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 2004 Uniform Crime Report.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Dome stic Viole nce Case s Re porte d to Law
Enforce me nt Age ncie s, by Offe nse
Oklahoma, 2004
25,000
Domestic Violence
20,000
A total of 24,542 domestic violence
cases were reported to Oklahoma
law enforcement agencies in 2004.
19,183
15,000
10,000
4,764
5,000
54
541
0
Murder
Sex crimes
Assaults
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 2004 Uniform Crime Report.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Assault & Battery
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
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
0
'50
Crime & Incarceration
25,000
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.
DOC Receptions Drug Crimes and Other Crimes
FY1995 – FY 2005
Crime & Incarceration
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
Other Crime Receptions
Drug Crime Receptions
1,000
Linear (Other Crime Receptions)
Linear (Drug Crime Receptions)
0
FY'95
FY'96
FY'97
FY'98
FY'99
FY'00
FY'01
FY'02
FY'03
FY'04
FY'05
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Corrections
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa for the Metropolitan Human Services Commission in Tulsa.
Ok lahoma's Rank ings in Outcomes
Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Overall ranking
#31
#44
#41
Health Rankings
Poor mental health days
#44
Poor physical health days
Infant mortality
Cardiovascular deaths
Cancer deaths
Premature death
#27
#43
#31
#50
#24
#44
#27
#43
1990
2006
Source: United Health Foundation.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Drug Addiction
Disability Pre vale nce by Age and Le ve l of Disability
Oklahoma, 1997
Age Group
2%
0 to 2
3.4%
3 to 5
Persons with Disabilities
Level of disability
Any
Severe
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
Disability Pre vale nce by Age
Non-institutionalized Population
Oklahoma & Creek County, 2005 Estimates
Percent of population
Persons with Disabilities
50%
47%
Oklahoma %
Creek Co. %
46.3%
40%
30%
21.9%
21.2%
19%
16.2%
20%
7%
10%
NA
0%
Oklahoma #
Creek Co. #
5 & older
604,245
13,953
5-15
35,300
NA
16-64
361,145
9,463
65 & older
207,800
4,086
Note: Persons living in institutions or other groups quarters are not included in these estimates.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Pe rsons with Disabilitie s by Age and Type
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 2000
Age 5-15
(N=561)
Age 16-20
(N=690)
6.2%
14.8%
Persons with Disabilities
21.0%
Sensory
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)
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
Oklahoma, 1999
work
disability
27.6%
30.5% in
labor force
Persons with Disabilities
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
Employme nt Rate s by Disability Type
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 21 to 64, Creek County, 2000
54.4%
Persons with Disabilities
Any disability
48.3%
Sensory
34.1%
Physical
24.4%
Mental
20.3%
Self-care
41.5%
Go-outside-home
60.3%
Employment
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%
Pove rty Rate s by Disability Status and Age
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 1999
Percent of population liv ing below pov erty
30%
Persons with Disabilities
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
Best Practices
Strategies

Best Practices

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
Best Practices
Best Practices
Continuum of Intervention
Source: Institute of Medicine, Reducing Risk for Mental Disorders, 1994.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices
Strategic Prevention Framework
1: Assessment
Best Practices
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
3: Planning
Implement prevention
plan
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
Best Practices
Risk and Protective Factor Framework
Risk Factors
Characteristics that
increase the
likelihood of
negativ e outcomes
Domains
~Community
~Family
~School
~Indiv idual/Peer
Protective Factors
Characteristics that
protect or prov ide a
buf f er to moderate the
inf luence of negativ e
characteristics, and
reduce potential of
negativ e 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
How Well do You Know Your
Community?
1. How did Creek County’s population change between 2000 & 2005?
a. down 8%
b. no change
c. up 2%
2. What percentage of Creek County’s 65+ population live alone?
a. 10%
b. 28%
c. 41%
3. What percentage of Creek County’s elementary school children
participate in the school free & reduced lunch program?
a. 28%
b. 45%
c. 63%
4. What percentage of Oklahoma’s working age population have no health
insurance?
a. 13%
b. 25%
c. 48%
5. What percentage of Creek County’s population with disabilities are
employed?
a. 54%
b.38%
c. 22%
Community Profile 2007
Creek County
…is available on our website:
www.csctulsa.org
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
January, 2007