community profile 2007 human development prepared for the tulsa area united way community...

Community Profile 2007Community Profile 2007

Human Development

Prepared for the Tulsa Area United Way Community Investments ProcessBy the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

January, 2007

Community Profile 2007Community Profile 2007

Demographic TrendsHuman Development

Demographic Trends in Tulsa CountyDemographic Trends in Tulsa County

Population growth in Tulsa County twice the pace of the City of Tulsa between 1990 and 2000; the city has actually lost population since 2000

Bixby was fastest growing place in Oklahoma between 2000 and 2005 with an increase of 39% to 18,600

Growing cultural diversity, particularly among the population <25

Hispanic population continues to expand; since 1991, number of births to Hispanic women have increased 400% to 1,486 in 2005

Population 65+ projected to make up 20% of population by 2030 (up from 12% in 2000)

Demographic Trends in Tulsa County Demographic Trends in Tulsa County (cont.)(cont.)

Population <18 projected to account for 23% of population by 2030 (down from 26% in 2000)

As working age population’s share declines, the 2030 projected dependency ratio climbs to 75 per 100, up from 62 per 100 in 2000

Living arrangements are changing significantly with more children living with a single parent, especially the mother, and living with other relatives, especially grandparents

Larger number of people over 65 years of age are living alone, especially women

Median family income varies by race Large population of mobile renters

Tulsa’s Human Development IndustryTulsa’s Human Development IndustryWhat is it?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 Tulsa County.

Increasingly these efforts seek to prevent needs through promoting increased self-sufficiency among Tulsa's people while still intervening to respond to crises and other concerns

The Roots of the ChallengeThe Roots of the ChallengeThirty Year of Economic and Social ChangesThirty Year of Economic and Social Changes

Emergence of new persistent poor in late 1960's and early 1970's

Massive loss of low skill/high pay jobs Sharp rise in working poor Decline in young male workers' wages Increase in female headed families Impact of substance abuse

All trends disproportionately affected:~African-Americans~young children & young families

Human Development: Human Development: Key PointsKey Points

Middle class is disappearingMany households lack adequate

incomeStress of inadequate income and

related conditions is widespreadStarting life in Tulsa for many is risky

business

Human Development: Human Development: Key Points…Key Points…continuedcontinued

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 DisappearingThe Middle Class is Disappearing

~Lower income groups greatly expand, middle shrinks,

highest income group increases dramatically

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Source: Hodgkinson, Harold, "The Client," Education Demographer, 1988.

1900 - 1940 1940 - 1990 1990 - ?0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Poor - 75%

Poor - 20%Poor - 10%

Rich - 20%

Middle - 60%

Rich - 5% Rich - 10%

Middle - 20%

Middle - 80%

The trend: housing patterns and income mirror the job structure, with more rich, more poor, and fewer in the middle -- the "hourglass effect"

The Overall Dominant Trend...The Shrinking Middle Class


Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.

Distribution of Wealth: Household IncomeU.S., Oklahoma, Tulsa MSA and Tulsa County, 2005 Estimates

43.5%53.1% 49.4% 48.8%

40.1%

37.5%38.6% 38.5%

16.3%9.4% 12% 12.7%

U.S. Oklahoma TAUW Tulsa Co.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<$40,000/year

$40,000-$99,999/year

$100,000+/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

Source: Economic Policy Institute website.

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)

Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Top 5%

Many Households Lack Many Households Lack Adequate IncomeAdequate Income

~More and more households lack adequate income to meet

living needs

The Self-Sufficiency StandardThe Self-Sufficiency Standard

Customized by specific family composition Customized by geographic location Based on all expense categories Updated annually using consumer price index

…The level of income required for a family to meet its own needs


Self-Sufficiency

Wage(annual)

Poverty Guidelines

(annual)

Dollar Difference

Self-SufficiencyPercent of

Poverty

One person

$18,219 $9,800 $8,419 186%

Two persons

$32,470 $13,200 $19,270 246%

Three persons

$37,762 $16,600 $21,162 227%

Four persons

$45,840 $20,000 $25,840 229%

Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Wage to Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family

Tulsa County, 2006

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.

($4.71 per hour)

($6.35 per hour)

($7.98 per hour)

($9.62 per hour)

($8.76 per hour)

($15.61 per hour)

($18.15 per hour)

($22.04 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.


Family of Three, Tulsa County, 2006

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.

$8,400$10,712

$16,600

$30,710

$45,268

WelfareWage

MinimumWage

PovertyWage

185% PovertyWage

Median Family Income

(2005 est.)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000Annual Wage

Self-Sufficiency Wage = $37,762 ($18.15/hr.)

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.

Comparison of Wages: Self-Sufficiency, Welfare, Minimum, Poverty, 185% of Poverty, and Median Family Income

All families with children <18

($4.04/hr.)($5.15/hr.)

($7.98/hr.)

($14.76/hr.)

($21.76/hr.)


Monthly Budget Distribution for Typical Family of Three Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage

Tulsa County, 2006

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.

Housing$724

Child Care$755

Food$441

Transportation$252

Health Care$283

Miscellaneous$252

Taxes$441

23%

24%

14%

8%

9%

8%

14%

Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.

Self-sufficiency wage = $3,147 per month.


Ratio of Income to Poverty LevelPercentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups

Tulsa County, 1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

Total population

Under 5 5-17 Under 18 18-64 65 & older0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percentage of population

Below 100% Below 130% Below 185%

Below 100% 11.6% 18.9% 15% 16.1% 10.3% 8.3%

Below 130% 16.8% 26.3% 21.3% 22.7% 14.9% 13.8%

Below 185% 27.7% 40.5% 34.4% 36.1% 24.5% 25.7%


Many families experience lack of adequate income Ratio of Income to Poverty for Families by Family Type and Age of Children

Tulsa County, 1999


19.9%

41.6%

64%

26.7%

50.6%

79.9%

5.6%

17.8%

34.5%

8.2%

23.6%

49.5%

Married-couple

Male-headed

Female-headed

Married-couple

Male-headed

Female-headed

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Poverty rate

% below 100% %below 185%

# below 100% 3,033 996 6,537 1,935 476 3,322

# below 185% 10,828 2,325 12,123 6,317 1,021 5,358

Families with children <18 Families with children <5


Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64Tulsa County, 2005 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.

268,21379.2%

70,39620.8%

In armed forces

Employed

Unemployed

492 (0.2%)

251,470 (93.8%)

16,251 (6.1%)

NOT in labor force

In labor force

Unemployment rate (all ages) for October 2006 = 3.5%.


Unemployment RatesTulsa MSA, 1991 - 2006

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

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Oct.2006

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

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 6.5 5.0 4.4 3.5


Many families in poverty have employed worker(s)Families in Poverty by Family Type and Employment Status

Tulsa County, 1999


20.127

15.5 16.4

48.346.8

51.1 48.8

31.6 26.2 33.4 34.7

All familiesin poverty

Married-couplefamilies in poverty

Male-headedfamilies in poverty

Female-headedfamilies in poverty

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of impoverished families

Employment Status of Householder or SpouseFull-time Part-time Did not work


Population Living in Poverty, by AgeTulsa County, 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999 & 2005 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.

1969 1979 1989 1999 2005 (est.)0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


Total <18 18-64 65+

Total 11.6% 9.9% 13.2% 11.6% 14.5%

<18 13.8% 12.8% 18.2% 16.1% 22.2%

18-64 8.2% 8.1% 11.2% 10.3% 12.7%

65+ 25.5% 13.1% 12.8% 8.3% 7.8%

<18

Total18-64

65+


Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic OriginTotal Population and Under Age 5, Tulsa County, 1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Total White Black AmericanIndian

Asian Hispanic0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Total population Under 5

Total population 11.6% 8% 30.2% 15.1% 12.2% 22.5%

Under 5 18.9% 11.6% 48.2% 18.6% 19% 27.4%

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater TulsaPrepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Real Hourly Wage by Educational AttainmentUnited States, 1973-2005


1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)

Less than high school High school College degree Advanced degree


Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment, by SexUnited States, 2005


$11

$14

$25

$31

$11

$16

$28

$36

$9

$12

$21

$27

Less than high school High school College degree Advanced degree$0

$10

$20

$30

$40Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)

Both sexes Men Women

Stress of Inadequate Income and Related Stress of Inadequate Income and Related Conditions is WidespreadConditions is Widespread

~Based on following key indicators~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

Additional Indicators of Economic Additional Indicators of Economic DistressDistress

Public assistance programsFree & reduced school lunch

programHomeless sheltersHelpline and Babyline referrals


Participation in Public Assistance ProgramsNumber of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating

Tulsa County, August, 2006

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.

78,641

21,228

52,892

5,530

4,606

8,647

5,146

60,205

2,468

24,755

5,538

13.7%

47.4%

36.5%

8%

51.4%

19.9%

11.5%

10.5%

1.7%

44.5%

10%

Medicaid Total

Medicaid <5

Medicaid <18

Medicaid 65+

WIC Infants

WIC age 1-5

Child Care Subsidy <5

Food Stamps Total

TANF <18

Elem. School Free Lunch(2005-06)

Elem. School Reduced Lunch(2005-06)

025,00050,00075,000100,000

Number of Participants

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Percent of Population


Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.

Public Support for FamiliesTulsa County, December, 1996-2005

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20050

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Recipients

Child Care Subsidies (<5)

3,539 4,014 4,263 4,794 5,087 5,101 5,231 5,169

TANF (persons) 13,742 11,174 7,439 4,774 3,828 4,014 4,539 5,444 4,593 3,467

Medicaid (<5) 7,877 12,002 14,097 15,273 15,963 16,724 16,946 18,442

Food Stamps(persons)

42,265 36,848 32,733 29,276 27,563 34,295 49,226 56,316 58,748 60,438


Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch Program

By School District, Tulsa County, 2005-2006 School Year

Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2005-2006.

44.5%

70.7%

52.1%

52.9%

47.3%

34.8%

39.6%

34.8%

31.6%

30.8%

23.5%

22.1%

16.8%

17.9%

17.2%

14.7%

10%

11.7%

15.2%

13.2%

11.4%

13.2%

6.1%

8.8%

12.1%

7.8%

10.3%

10%

7.3%

6%

6.3%

6.2%

Tulsa County Total

Tulsa

Sand Springs

Leonard

Keystone

Glenpool

Liberty

Skiatook

Sperry

Union

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Bixby

Jenks

Berryhill

Owasso

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of Students Eligible

Free Reduced

Free lunch eligibility requirement: annual household income below 130% of poverty, which currently is $21,580 for a family of three.

Reduced lunch eligibility requirement: annual household income below 185% of poverty, which currently is $30,710 for a family of three.


Total Units of Service Provided by Tulsa SheltersBy Age and Sex of Client

January - December, 2006

Source: Helpline/Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.

183,489

101,346

17,414

46,680

18,049

Total Male Adults Male Children Female Adults Female Children0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Units of service

(100%)

(55%)

(9%)

(25%)

(10%)

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.

Shelters:Day Center for the Homeless

DaySpring VillaDVIS

John 3:16 MissionSalvation Army

Tulsa County ShelterYouth Services


Selected Helpline Service Requests, by Type of Service2001 through 2005

Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.

2001 2002 2003 2004 20050

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Number of Service Requests

Food

Health & Medical Services

Financial Assistance

Food 1,945 1,913 2,152 2,019 3,339

Health & Medical Services 2,688 2,852 3,404 4,074 7,720

Financial Assistance 12,376 12,173 13,269 12,035 17,847

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).


Babyline and Planline Appointments ScheduledTulsa MSA and Surrounding Counties, 1990 through 2006

Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.

631

1,409

858 872

1,1931,432 1,345

1,789

1,333

909

1,5001,704

1,9972,107 2,212

3,004

2,6052,369 2,342

2,662 2,767

3,525

3,998

4,4234,604

4,7954,692

4,3554,219

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20060

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000Number of Appointments Scheduled

Prenatal Appointments Family Planning Appointments

Starting Life in Tulsa for Many Starting Life in Tulsa for Many is Risky Businessis Risky Business

~Combination of many risk factors takes heavy toll and early screening for risk level is

inadequate


Summary of Risk Factors for InfantsTulsa County and Oklahoma, 2005

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.

11.6%

41%

7%

24.6%

6.3%

1.6%

33.5%

19.2%

11%

12.9%

39.1%

5.6%

22.4%

6.6%

1.4%

32.8%

19.1%

10.6%

Teen mother(age 15-19)

Unmarried mother

Poor prenatal care(3rd trimester/no care)

Mother w/ <12th gradeeducation

Low birthweight(1500-2499 grams)

Very low birthweight(<1500 grams)

Short birth spacing(<24 mos. apart)

Very short birth spacing(<18 mos. apart)

Premature(<37 weeks gest.)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percent of Births

Tulsa Co.

Oklahoma

Tulsa County births: 9,297Oklahoma births: 51,775


Children under three increasingly live with one parent or other relatives

Living Arrangements of Children Under Age 3Tulsa County, 1990 & 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses.

Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Percent of children living in each family type

1990 2000

1990 77.6% 2.9% 11.4% 8.1%

2000 67.4% 4.6% 17.8% 10.2%

Adequate Early Screening Essential for All Adequate Early Screening Essential for All Children to Assess Impact of Risk FactorsChildren 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?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.


Special Education Students and Students who Received Early Intervention

Oklahoma Public Schools, 2003-04

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.

Notspecial

education85%

Specialeducation

15%

Earlyintervention

2.2%

No earlyintervention

97.8%

Small proportion of special education students received early intervention

Total Oklahoma Public School Students

Total Oklahoma Public School Students

Populations of Aging and Persons with Populations of Aging and Persons with Disabilities are Large and GrowingDisabilities are Large and Growing

~~These populations will These populations will significantly test the capacity of significantly test the capacity of

resources needed to enable them resources needed to enable them to be most self-sufficientto be most self-sufficient


Population Trends and Projections by Age GroupTulsa County, 1970 - 2030

Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, Population Projections, 2000 - 2030.

6.3

6.6

6.8

7.4

7.7

7.7

8.5

16.6

17.1

18.2

18.9

18.4

19.8

25.9

9.2

9.7

10.1

10

10.1

13.5

10.7

47.8

50.5

52.5

51.9

52.2

49.1

46.2

17.5

14.1

10.6

10.4

10.4

9

8.1

2030

2020

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of population

0-4 5-17 18-24 25-64 65-84 85+

1.9

1.4

1.2

.9

.6

Pro

ject

ions 2.5

2.1


Living Arrangements of Persons Age 65 & OlderTulsa County, 2000

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Live alone20,205 (30.3%)

Family households41,155 (61.7%)

Group quarters4,223 (6.3%)

Other1,152 (1.7%)

15,846 women age 65 and older live alone in Tulsa County,

acounting for 78% of the total 65+ population living alone.


Disability Prevalence by Age and Level of DisabilityOklahoma, 1997

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 (Aug.-Nov. 1997 data from Survey of Income and Program Participation).

2%

3.4%

11.2%

10.7%

13.4%

22.6%

35.7%

49%

73.6%

4.8%

5.3%

8.1%

13.9%

24.2%

31.8%

57.6%

0 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 14

15-24

25-44

45-54

55-64

65-79

80+

Age Group

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent with Specified Level of Disability

Level of disabilityAny Severe

Health Challenges are Critical to Health Challenges are Critical to Individual and Community Well-beingIndividual and Community Well-being

~Inadequate income, high risks of starting life and poor lifestyle

choices contribute to major health concerns


Age-Adjusted Death RatesTulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 1980 - 2002

Source: CDC Wonder.

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

Death rates

Tulsa Co OK US


Percentage of the Population that is ObeseOklahoma and US, 1990 - 2002

Source: Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development, OUCPH, 2005; NCHS, CDC; THD;

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent obese

Oklahoma US


Percentage of Adults who SmokeTulsa County, Oklahoma and US, 2003

Source: NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC

22.7%

25.1%

22%

Tulsa Co. Oklahoma US0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent adult smokers


Health Insurance Status, by AgeOklahoma, 2004-2005

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.

1,648,530 (47.9%)

137,050 (4.0%)444,630 (12.9%)

553,150 (16.1%)

659,370 (19.2%)

424,880 (47.2%)

36,520 (4.1%)

283,680 (31.5%)

23,450 (2.6%)

130,780 (14.5%)

1,222,600 (59.3%)

100,090 (4.9%)123,040 (6.0%)

90,420 (4.4%)

524,320 (25.4%)

1,050 (0.2%)440 (0.1%)

37,910 (7.8%)

439,280 (91.0%)

4,270 (0.9%)

Employer Individual Medicaid Medicare/Other Public Uninsured

Total Population Under Age 19

Age 19-64 Age 65 & over

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.

THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05

Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development, OUCPH, 2005; THD CAP

Poor health conditions create huge inefficient Poor health conditions create huge inefficient demand on resources - Misuse of Hospitals demand on resources - Misuse of Hospitals

and Emergency Roomsand Emergency Rooms

Poor Human Conditions Impact Poor Human Conditions Impact Crime and Growing Crime and Growing

IncarcerationsIncarcerations

~Trends greatly affected by substance abuse

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

22,500

25,000

'50

'52

'54

'56

'58

'60

'62

'64

'66

'68

'70

'72

'74

'76

'78

'80

'82

'84

'86

'88

'90

'92

'94

'96

'98

'00

'02

'04

Oklahoma’s prison population was relatively stable until 1980 when laws passed to curb illegal drug use

came into effectOklahoma’s Prison Population

1950-2005

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Corrections, Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa for the Metropolitan Human Services Commission in Tulsa.

Note: Number of inmates in Oklahoma prisons, data as of June 30 of each year


Methamphetamine Labs Seized by AuthoritiesOklahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2005

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

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20050

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Number of labs discovered

Tulsa

Oklahoma

Tulsa 0 0 6 13 47 132 150 124 178 214 131 51

Oklahoma 10 34 125 241 275 781 946 1,193 1,254 1,235 812 274

Overall Progress in Human Overall Progress in Human Development is Tied to Development is Tied to

Educational SuccessEducational Success

~From preschool through post secondary education


Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & OlderTulsa County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates

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

Less thanhigh school

High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree

Professionalschool degree

Doctoratedegree

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percent of persons 25+

2000

2005 (est.)

Less thanhigh school

High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree

Professionalschool degree

Doctoratedegree

2000 14.9% 26.5% 24.7% 6.9% 18.5% 5.4% 2.2% 0.8%

2005 (est.) 12.5% 25.7% 23% 8.8% 21.2% 5.9% 2.1% 0.8%

Education Success: Preschool


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

Tulsa County, 2005 (est.)

Sources: National Survey of American Families, Urban Institute, 1997; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

20,416(76.0%)

6,447(24.0%)

4 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

3 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

2 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

1 Year Olds4,083 (20.0%)

Under 1 Year Olds2,858 (14.0%)

Rely on care outside of

parents

Do NOT rely on care

outside of parents

Notes: "Working parent household:" all parents in family in labor force. Percent distribution by age is an estimate based on that of children receiving DHS child care subsidies.

Of the 26,863 children <5 living in working parent households.....


Estimated Number of Children Under Age 5 in Working Parent Households Relying on Care Outside of Parents, Using Licensed vs. Unlicensed Care

Tulsa County, October 2006

Sources: National Survey of American Families, Urban Institute, 1997; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005; DHS Statistical Bulletin, October 2006.

20,416(76.0%)

6,447(24.0%)

Licensed12,084 (59.2%)

Unlicensed8,333 (40.8%)

Rely on care outside of

parents

Do NOT rely on care outside of

parents

Of the 26,863 children <5 living in working parent households.....

Many young children cared for in unknown arrangements

Notes: "Working parent household:" all parents in family in labor force. The estimate for children in licensed care is based on the assumptions that the number of children receiving DHS subsidy is 40% of total number in licensed care for children under 1, and 38% for 1 & 2 year olds, and that 90% of children <3 in licensed care live in working parent households. Given recent local research study on “non-parental care,“ many children in licensed care also regularly spend time in unlicensed care.


Almost two-thirds of all Tulsa County four-year olds are enrolled in public pre-K, as emphasis increasingly turns to assuring quality

Enrollment in Public Pre-K Programs, by Full and Half DayTulsa County, October 2005

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2005 Estimates.

26% 36% 38%Tulsa Co.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of all four year olds

Full-day Half-day Not enrolled

Tulsa Public Schools had 2,795 children enrolled in pre-K programs in October 2005. Of these, 2,132 were in full-day and 663 were in half-day pre-K.

Total four year olds = 8,954

Education Success: Kindergarten – 12th Grade


ADM in Tulsa County public schools has grown about 1% annually between 1997 and 2004

Average Daily Membership (ADM), Tulsa County, 1997-2005

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20050

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Tulsa Co. 99,957 101,216 103,950 105,693 106,126 105,518 106,112 106,141 106,070

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services; Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability: Profiles State Reports

Note: Average daily membership is the average number of students enrolled on any given day during the school year.


Public School Average Daily MembershipTulsa County School Districts, 2005

1,140

4,009

14,899

2,094

2,170

9,162

481

75

588

7,882

5,112

2,322

1,258

41,091

13,789

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000



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

Tulsa County School Districts, 1997-2005


12.5%

30.5%

2.9%

33.9%

2.5%

4.2%

7.7%

-19.2%7.7%

33%

-3.6%16.8%

12.8%

0.2%

16.3%

6.8%

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

Tulsa County

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%-10%-20%-30%-40%


Growth in Hispanic students greatly contributes to changes in enrollment

Percent Change in Enrollment of Students of Hispanic Origin from 1998 to 2004Tulsa County School Districts


60%

44.6%

151.1%

-25%43.5%

138.5%

-57.1%0%

133.3%

80.9%

57.5%

27.3%

450%

149.9%

146.1%

137%

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

Tulsa County

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500%-100%-200%

Hispanic enrollment 2004:

24

6

0

21

284

137

42

55

6,023

1,506

9,514

162

570

15

99

570


Enrollment in full-day kindergarten growingPublic School Full and Half Day Kindergarten Enrollment

Tulsa County School Districts, 2005-06

28

287

10

143

1

55

0

7

37

512

0

0

0

0

796

39

0

1,166

44

176

556

32

0

0

0

373

184

109

3,888

77

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

01,0002,0003,0004,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Half day Full day

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services;


Many 9th graders do not make it to graduationPercent Change in Average Daily Membership

from 9th Grade to 2005 Graduating ClassTulsa County School Districts

-26%

-20.8%

-10.2%

-9.6%

-8.5%

-14.7%

-8.5%

-24.7%

-18.5%

-23.7%

-11.9%

-29%

-43.7%

-15.9%

Tulsa County

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

0% 10%-10%-20%-30%-40%-50%

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

Number change in ADM

-22

-29

-109

-12

-22

-62

-14

-111

-115

-30

-29

-1,424

-159

-2,137


Attrition rates high for every race & Hispanic OriginAttrition Rates from 9th Grade to 12th Grade for 2004 Graduating Class,

based on October 1 Enrollment Totals, by Race and Hispanic Origin

Tulsa County

-21.2%

-44.2%

-21.3%

-39.4%

White Black Native American Hispanic Origin

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%

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

(-1,169)

(-655)

(-177)

(-167)


12th Grade ACT Participation Rates in Relation to 9th Grade Average Daily Membership for Graduating Class of 2004

Tulsa County School Districts, 2004

Berryhill

Bixby

B. Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Liberty

Owasso

S. Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500Berryhill Bixby B. Arrow Collinsville Glenpool Jenks Liberty Owasso S. Springs Skiatook Sperry Tulsa Union

ACT 74 187 725 81 68 548 27 430 282 94 53 1,208 663

ADM 107 287 1,138 154 174 754 47 617 500 205 103 3,254 1,094

ACT % 69% 65% 64% 52% 39% 73% 58% 70% 56% 46% 51% 37% 61%

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Data Services.Note: Average daily membership is the average number of students enrolled on any given day during the school year.

Education Success: Education Success: Post-Secondary-Higher EducationPost-Secondary-Higher Education


Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment

Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003

Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.

63.9%

13.1%9.4% 8%

3.2% 2.4%

TCC RSU OSU-Tulsa NSU-BA OU-Tulsa LU-Tulsa0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Public College Head Count Enrollment of Tulsa County 2002-03 HS Graduates

By School District


933

162

454

157

343

44 65 31

430

44

241

7413

TPS

Sand

Spring

s BABixb

y

Jenk

s

Collins

ville

Skiato

ok

Sperry

Union

Berry

hill

Owas

so

Glen

pool

Liber

ty0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200


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

By School District


54.2%51.4%

48.9%

59.3%55.6%

32.8%

52%

39.7%

56.7%

49.4%

60.1%56.9%

35.1%

TPS

Sand

Spring

s BABixb

y

Jenk

s

Collins

ville

Skiato

ok

Sperry

Union

Berry

hill

Owas

so

Glen

pool

Liber

ty0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Public College Remediation Rates Among HS GraduatesTulsa County and Oklahoma, 1999-2003


37%

32.4%35.1%

38.1%

33.6%

36.5%34.1%

36.5% 36.2%35%

1999 2000 2001 2002 20030%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Tulsa County Oklahoma

Human Development: Human Development: Key PointsKey Points

Middle class is disappearingMany households lack adequate

incomeStress of inadequate income and

related conditions is widespreadStarting life in Tulsa for many is

risky business

Human Development: Human Development: Key Points…Key Points…continuedcontinued

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

If you have questions or are interested in having the Community Profile presented to your organization, please contact

Ginny Utter at the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa at 918-585-5551 or [email protected].

Please visit our website csctulsa.org for more presentations and reports on a wide array of human services topics.

Community Profile is a product of the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.

community profile 2007 human development prepared for the tulsa area united way community...

Documents