who is tulsa
TRANSCRIPT
Prepared by the Community Service Council
Supported by the Metropolitan Human Services Commission
April 7, 2014
“You cannot improve what
you do not understand”
Thinking in the Future Tense,
Jennifer James, American Cultural Anthropologist
2
… and we all must better
understand the power of
population and large numbers as
we plan for the future
3
Starting a Possibly Difficult Conversation
About Tulsa’s Future, Its Challenges and
Opportunities…
Then Aggressively Developing
Strategies for Creating Our Preferred
Future Out of All Possible Futures
4
Historically dynamic, innovative, and high
quality of life
A community with enormous potential…
To be realized only through better
understanding and engaging of change…
Willingness and ability to see and embrace
new challenges and opportunities, and…
Greater wisdom, and humility for shaping
and sustaining needed action.
10
The following information refers to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, or the MSA except when
referring to data for the state of Oklahoma.
11
#1: City not growing, county only slightly, and the MSA just a bit better
#2: Profound changes significantly shaping Tulsa area population and future
#3: Population spatial shifts and distinct concentrations powerful and growing
#4: Education and workforce dramatically impacted by changes
#5: Poverty and low income -- a huge and costly effect
#6: What’s ahead to 2030? #7: Oh yes, and Don’t forget Tulsa is in
Oklahoma that is ranked…
12
Between 2000-2010 the City lost over 1,000 residents, County gained just over 40,000, almost all due to Hispanic population growth.
Increasingly uneven geographic distribution. North and west continued long term trend of
losing population. Available housing, especially more rental, helping
shape location of population. Many vacant housing areas in parts of City and
County. Eastern areas rapidly growing due to Hispanic
increases. Young children concentrated primarily in few
areas to the east (east Tulsa and Broken Arrow) and in Owasso.
13
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1910 1950 2000 2050 2075
MSA
Source: Oklahoma Department of Commerce, “2012 Demographic State of the State Report: Oklahoma State and County
Population Projections through 2075;” US Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, “Population and Housing
Unit Counts: United States;” US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses.
County
14
City
9.1% growth 2000 to 2010
.3% loss 2000 to 2010
7.1% growth 2000 to 2010
• 58.3% of Tulsa County's 175 census tracts lost population (102) between 2000 and 2010, while 65.9% of the City of Tulsa's 126 tracts declined in population (83)
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.0290.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.1176.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
89
74.07
73.11
13
80.01
76.34
4546
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232
76.11
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.1274.11 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.09
3635
3334
2120
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the MHSC (5/22/2012.)
City of Tulsa
Change in Total Population
Population Loss
Population Gain
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
151st
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
15
Widespread loss…
The Hispanic population has experienced dramatic growth in both the County and the City since 2000, with increases of 38,912 (+98%) in the MSA, 32,966 (+98%) in the County, and 27,155 (+97%) in the City Tulsa MSA’s Hispanic population grew to 78,446 in 2010
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
151st
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
33rd
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the MHSC (3/23/2011.)
Change in Hispanic Population
Loss of 25 or more
Within 25 loss or gain
Gain of 25 to 99
Gain of 100 to 499
Gain of 500 or more
City of Tulsa
Tulsa County Hispanic population: 2010: 66,582 2000: 33,616 Change: +32,966 (+98.1%)City of Tulsa Hispanic population: 2010: 55,266 2000: 28,111 Change: +27,155 (+96.6%)
17
Explosive growth to east and northeast…
SourSource: US Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Census.
0095
00540055
0078.02
0077.02
0058.04
0059
0056
0111
0067.06
0066
0078.01
0075.16
0093
0073.08
0067.05
0094.01
0091.04
0075.13
0094.02 0065.07
0090.03
0092
0049
0077.01
0091.01
0076.24
0002
0065.06
0076.38
0090.09
0075.15
0090.07
0067.03
0029
0001
0067.01
0075.060075.08
0062
0027
0057
0088
0079
0048
0025
0047
0074.07
0075.11
0085.02
0074.09
0090.08
0012 00820016 006000150014
0080.01
0076.34
0003
0038
0087
0086
0004
0070
0052
0040
0084
0037
00530042 0039
0051
00300017
0080.02
0072 0083
0076.25
0089
0071.02
0045
0005
0036
00350034
0033
0058.060058.050058.01
0076.37 0076.350076.36
0075.20
0073.11
0013
0076.10
0076.11
0046
0073.05
0074.02
0069.06
0076.190076.14
0076.15
0068.02
0075.03
0069.05
0074.11
0071.01
0074.12 0074.15
0076.16
0076.31
0076.30
0075.22
0073.10
0074.13
0075.23
0075.10
0073.06
0076.39
0041.01
0069.02
0076.17
0069.07
0075.12
0075.190075.18
0076.20 0076.18
0076.32
0076.130076.09
0076.33
0073.12
0074.08
0076.40
0076.29
0043.02
0069.03
0075.07
0069.01
0074.14
0044
0050.02
0074.10
0090.060090.04
0075.17
0043.01
0076.12
0085.010032
0023
0010
0031
0073.09
0006
0009
0007
0022
0073.040021
00190018
0020
0008
0068.01
0050.01
0076.08
Total Occupied Housing UnitsTulsa County by Census Tract, 2000
Housing units
Less than 750
750 to 999
1,000 to 1,499
1,500 to 1,999
2,000 or more
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
In 2000, there were a total of 165,743 occupied housing units in the Cityof Tulsa, and 226,892 in Tulsa County.
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.02
111
54.01
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
73.11
89
74.07
13
80.01
76.34
45
46
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 74.1176.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Total Occupied Housing UnitsTulsa County by Census Tract, 2010
Housing units
Less than 750
750 to 999
1,000 to 1,499
1,500 to 1,999
2,000 or more
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
In 2010, there were a total of 163,975 occupied housing units in the City of Tulsa, and 241,737 in Tulsa County.
18
2000 2010
SourSource: US Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Censuses.
Tulsa lost 1,768 occupied housing units between 2000 and 2010, a loss of 1.1%, while Tulsa County
and the MSA both gained - 14,845 and 29,876 units, respectively, for an increase of 6.5% and 8.9%,
respectively.
In the Tulsa MSA, there were 337,215 occupied housing units.
In the Tulsa MSA, there were 367,091 occupied housing units.
19
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.02
111
54.01
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
73.11
89
74.07
13
80.01
76.34
45
46
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 74.1176.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Numeric Change in Owner-occupied Housing Units2000 to 2010, Tulsa County by Census Tract
Numeric change
Loss of 100 or more
Loss of less than 100
Gain of less than 100
Gain of 100 to 249
Gain of 250 or more
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
The number of owner-occupied housing units in the City of Tulsafell from 92,234 to 87,787 between 2000 and 2010, a loss of 4,447 units.
In contrast, Tulsa County gained 7,359 owner-occupied units, anincrease from 140,151 to 147,510.
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.02
111
54.01
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
73.11
89
74.07
13
80.01
76.34
45
46
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 74.1176.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Numeric Change in Renter-occupied Housing Units2000 to 2010, Tulsa County by Census Tract
Numeric change
Loss of 100 or more
Loss of less than 100
Gain of less than 100
Gain of 100 to 249
Gain of 250 or more
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
The number of renter-occupied housingunits in the City of Tulsa grew from 73,509 to 76,188 between 2000 and 2010, adding 2,679 units.
In Tulsa County, the number grew from86,741 to 94,227, adding 7,486 units.
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
SourSource: US Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Censuses.
The owner-occupied housing units losses are concentrated within the city (except far south and southeast) and a few areas right outside the city. The gains in this category are found in southern and northeastern parts of county and far south and southeastern Tulsa.
Gains in renter-occupied units are found throughout the city and county, but primarily in far southern parts of the city and Owasso/Collinsville area.
20
2000 2010
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.02
111
54.01
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
73.11
89
74.07
13
80.01
76.34
45
46
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 74.1176.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Percent Change in Owner-occupied Housing Units2000 to 2010, Tulsa County by Census Tract
Percent change
Decrease of 10% or more
Decrease of less than 10%
Less than 25% increase
25 to 49% increase
50% increase or more
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
The number of owner-occupiedhousing units in the City of Tulsa fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2010.
In contrast, Tulsa County experienced an increase of 5.3%.
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.02
111
54.01
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
73.11
89
74.07
13
80.01
76.34
45
46
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 74.1176.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Percent Change in Renter-occupied Housing Units2000 to 2010, Tulsa County by Census Tract
Percent change
Decrease of 10% or more
Decrease of less than 10%
Less than 25% increase
25 to 49% increase
50% increase or more
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
The number of renter-occupied housing units in the City of Tulsagrew by 3.6% between 2000 and 2010.
In Tulsa County, the number grewby 8.6%.
The owner-occupied housing units loss affected all parts of the city.
Dramatic increases in renter-occupied housing units occurred in south and far west parts of the county and in Owasso/Collinsville area.
SourSource: US Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Censuses.
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
21
2000 2010
The greatest concentration areas of vacant housing fell within the City of Tulsa in both 2000 and 2010.
Number of vacant housing units increased by over 50% in both the city and the county between 2000 and 2010. In the MSA, vacant housing units grew 47% to a total of 42,729 in 2010.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Censuses.
0095
00540055
0078.02
0077.02
0058.04
0059
0056
0111
0067.06
0066
0078.01
0075.16
0093
0073.08
0067.05
0094.01
0091.04
0075.13
0094.02 0065.07
0090.03
0092
0049
0077.01
0091.01
0076.24
0002
0065.06
0076.38
0090.09
0075.15
0090.07
0067.03
0029
0001
0067.01
0075.060075.08
0062
0027
0057
0088
0079
0048
0025
0047
0074.07
0075.11
0085.02
0074.09
0090.08
0012 00820016 006000150014
0080.01
0076.34
0003
0038
0087
0086
0004
0070
0052
0040
0084
0037
00530042 0039
0051
00300017
0080.02
0072 0083
0076.25
0089
0071.02
0045
0005
0036
00350034
0033
0058.060058.050058.01
0076.37 0076.350076.36
0075.20
0073.11
0013
0076.10
0076.11
0046
0073.05
0074.02
0069.06
0076.190076.14
0076.15
0068.02
0075.03
0069.05
0074.11
0071.01
0074.12 0074.15
0076.16
0076.31
0076.30
0075.22
0073.10
0074.13
0075.23
0075.10
0073.06
0076.39
0041.01
0069.02
0076.17
0069.07
0075.12
0075.190075.18
0076.20 0076.18
0076.32
0076.130076.09
0076.33
0073.12
0074.08
0076.40
0076.29
0043.02
0069.03
0075.07
0069.01
0074.14
0044
0050.02
0074.10
0090.060090.04
0075.17
0043.01
0076.12
0085.010032
0023
0010
0031
0073.09
0006
0009
0007
0022
0073.040021
00190018
0020
0008
0068.01
0050.01
0076.08
Vacant Housing UnitsTulsa County by Census Tract, 2000
Housing units
300 or more
200 to 299
150 to 199
100 to 149
Less than 100
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (10/18/2013).
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
In 2000, there were 13,662 vacant housing units in the City of Tulsa, and 17,061 in Tulsa County, accounting for 8% and 7%, respectively, of allhousing units. This indicates that 80% of all vacant housing units in the countyfell within the City of Tulsa in 2000.
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.02
111
54.01
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
73.11
89
74.07
13
80.01
76.34
45
46
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 74.1176.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Vacant Housing UnitsTulsa County by Census Tract, 2010
Vacant housing units
300 or more
200 to 299
150 to 199
100 to 149
Less than 100
Tulsa
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010 Census.Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (10/18/2013).
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
In 2010, there were 21,152 vacant housing units in the City of Tulsa, and 26,689 in Tulsa County, accounting for 11% and 10%, respectively, of allhousing units. This indicates that 79% of all vacant housing units in the countyfell within the City of Tulsa in 2010.
Sour
2000 2010
22
Major concentrations of vacant parcels in north and west. New development largely in suburbs…
Vacant residential parcels shown in orange/clay. Newly developed residential parcels shown in green.
Fertility rates…non-Hispanic whites and blacks are not replacing themselves as compared to Hispanics
Aging…population age 65 and over soaring, projected to be just over 16% of population by 2030 as compared to 9% in 2010. (Tulsa County)
Little growth among young, except Hispanic… non-Hispanic under age 18 decreased almost 8,000 or about 6% between 2000- 2010; Hispanic increase 14,200 or 116%
23
Population Trends and Projections by Age GroupOklahoma, 1970 - 2030
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010 Censuses; Oklahoma Department of Commerce, 2012 Demographic State of the State Report: Oklahoma State and County Population Projections 2075.
6.4
6.6
7
6.8
7.2
7.7
7.7
16.8
17.2
17.7
19
19.4
20.5
25.1
9
9.3
10.2
10.3
10.2
13.3
11.6
49
50
51.5
50.6
49.7
46
43.8
16.3
14.9
11.9
11.6
12
11.3
10.8
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+
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.1
.9
Pro
jectio
ns
(20
12
) 2.5
2.1
Total population 1970 =2,559,229Total projected population 2030 = 4,302,501
25
SourSource: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010 Census; Oklahoma Department of Commerce, 2012 Demographic State of the StateReport: Oklahoma State and County Population Projection 2075.
27
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W151st
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
9400.05
9400.06
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
89
74.07
73.11
13
80.01
76.34
4546
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.1274.11 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
City of Tulsa
Hispanic Under Age 5
Less than 50
50 to 99
100 to 199
200 or greater
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.Prepared by the Community Service Council,
with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (5/1/2013)
Hispanic youth now number 31,555 in the MSA, 26,394 in Tulsa County,
and 21,652 in the City. Hispanics are the most populous minority group among the under 18 population in both the city and the county.
Largest youth minority group…
SourSource: US Census Bureau 2010 Census.
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W151st
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
9400.05
9400.06
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
89
74.07
73.11
13
80.01
76.34
4546
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.1274.11 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
City of Tulsa
Hispanic Under Age 5
Less than 10
10 to 24
25 to 49
50 or more
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (10/10/2011)
28
Hispanic youth under
age 5 now number 10,812 in the MSA, 9,231 in Tulsa County and 7,874 in the City. Among the very young, Hispanics are now the most populous minority group in both Tulsa County and Tulsa
Largest very young minority group…
SourSource: US Census Bureau 2010 Census.
Child population among all races and ethnicities highly concentrated in east and northeast part of city and county.
Concentrations of aging persons growing in south and central Tulsa —
Census Tract 87: • North of Southern Hills Country Club • 2007-11 population = 3,028• 35% of residents are age 60 and over and
25% age 65 and over • only 41 children under age 5 (1%)
Census Tract 76.13: • West of St. Francis Hospital• 2007-11 population = 3,218• 32% of residents are age 60 and over and
22% age 65 and over • only 126 children under age 5 (4%)
29
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
151st
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
9400.05
9400.06
95
55
59
78.02
56
77.02
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
2
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
1
73.08
67.05
92
49
94.01
91.04
75.13
94.02
90.03
65.07
29
77.01
91.01
34
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
62
90.09
67.03
27
57
88
79
67.01
25
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
48
5
47
12 821614 6015
6
58.01
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
7
30
51
9
75.11
76.35
17
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
8372
75.24
75.20
8
89
74.07
73.11
13
80.01
76.34
4546
80.02
76.25
44
31
10
71.0232 36
35
33
34
76.11
21
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
18
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.1274.11 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
19
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
73.0920
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.0368.04
76.08
Children under Age 5 as a Proportion of Total Population, 2010
City of Tulsa
Proportion under 5
Less than 5%
5 to 6.4%
6.5 to 7.9%
8 to 9.9%
10% or more
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Prepared by the Community Service Council,
with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (9/27/2011)
Tulsa County's total of 44,711 children under age 5 represent 7.4% of the total county population, and Tulsa's 29,479 children under age 5 represent 7.5%
of the total city population.
30
Tulsa County’s total of 44,711 children under 5 represent 7.4% of total county population. Tulsa’s 29,479 children under 5 represent 7.5% of the total city population. Tulsa MSA’s 66,320 young children make up 7.1% of the population.
Both highest and lowest shares within City…
Source: US Census Bureau 2010 Census.
9400.05
9400.06
95
55
78.02
59
77.02
56
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
73.08
67.05
2
94.01
91.04
75.13
92
49
1
94.02
90.03
65.07
77.01
91.01
29
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
90.09
67.03
62
27
57
67.01
34
88
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
79
25
4847
12
58.01
821614 6015
5
75.11
76.35
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
75.24
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
75.20
74.07
73.1130
51
17
80.01
76.34
8372 89
6
13
7
45
9
80.02
76.25
8
71.02
44
10
76.11
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
74.11
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
18 73.0919
4631 32 36
35
33
34
21
20
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.03
76.08
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W
151st
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
Proportion of <5 population
Top 25% census tracts
Top 33% census tracts
City of Tulsa
Top 33% of Census Tracts in Share of the City of Tulsa's Population Age <5, 2010
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.Prepared by the Community Service Council with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (2/28/12)
The City of Tulsa is home to 29,479 childrenage <5, 33% of whom (10,369) live in these
21 tracts (16%).
408
408 403
659
631
482
638378
503
526
566
420
412
390
442 467
574
522
584534
422
31
City of Tulsa is home to 29,479 children under 5,
33% of whom (10,369) live in these 21 tracts(16%).
Concentration of youth…
Source: US Census Bureau 2010 Census.
87
71st
61st
51stSkelly
Le
wis
Harv
ardL
ew
is
I- 44
Aging in Specific Areas: Census Tract 87
Prepared by the Community Service Council with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (4/29/2013)
Southern Hills
32
2007-11 population = 3,028 25% of the population of census tract 87 are 65 and older; 7% are 85 and older This compares to 12% 65 and older and 2% 85 and older in Tulsa County Only 9% are under 18
The old-age dependency ratio is 38.4, which means there are 38 persons age 65+ for every 100 persons of working age, or 2.6 workers per person age 65+, compared to ratio of 19.4 in Tulsa County (5 workers per person 65+)
Concentration of the aged…
Source: US Census Bureau 2007-11 American Community Survey.
95
55
78.02
59
77.02
56
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
73.08
67.05
2
94.01
91.04
75.13
92
49
1
94.02
90.03
65.07
77.01
91.01
29
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
90.09
67.03
62
27
57
67.01
34
88
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
79
25
4847
12
58.01
821614 6015
5
75.11
76.35
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
75.24
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
75.20
74.07
73.1130
51
17
80.01
76.34
8372 89
6
13
7
45
9
80.02
76.25
8
71.02
44
10
76.11
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
74.11
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
76.12
85.01
18 73.0919
4631 32 36
35
33
34
21
20
73.04
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.03
76.08
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
Peo
ria
Min
go
49th
W151st
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
177
th E
161
st E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
Percent of population age 65+
20% or more age 65+
Less than 20% age 65+
City of Tulsa
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census.Prepared by the Community Service Council with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (2/23/12)
642
985
862
892
918775
674
941
723
748
1,039
348
427
495
356
761
34
Tulsa County is home to
72,856 persons age 65+, 16%
of whom (11,586) live in these
16 tracts (9%) in which at least
20% of the population is age
65+
All but one of these high
concentration census tracts lie
within the City of Tulsa
Tulsa is home to 48,839
persons age 65+, 22% of
whom (10,825) live in these 15
tracts ( 12%)
12% of both Tulsa’s and Tulsa
County’s populations are age
65 and older
13% of the MSA’s population
is 65 or older
Source: US Census Bureau 2010 US Census.
Concentration of the elderly…
Almost 30% of TPS students are Hispanic, and 25% of Union. Education workforce doesn’t match…not even close. Major cultural and language challenges, as well with other ethnic groups.
Similar racial/ethnic trends in other area school districts.
Slightly less than 9% of Hispanics over age 25 have a four-year degree: by 2030, 20-25% of workforce projected to be Hispanic.
Human development workforce projected to shrink due mainly to aging and retirements.
Nationally, 50% of teacher workforce projected to retire by 2022.
Overall workforce will be shrinking, especially among teens and young adults, but have more older workers and persons with some disabilities.
35
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Remainder*
Union PS
Tulsa PS
9.2%
27.8%
28.6%
12.4%
5.2%
6.4%
3.0%
6.9%
1.3%
5.1%
14.4%
27.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
63.5%
38.4%
27.8%
6.4%
7.1%
8.3%
Hispanic Total NH Amer. Ind. Total NH Asian Total NH Black Total
NH HOPI Total NH White Total NH 2+ Races Total
36Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.
* Proportions by race for remaining districts in Tulsa County are preliminary.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
U.S. Oklahoma
18.4%
14.2%13.0%
9.7%
Associate's degree or higher Bachelors degree or higher
Prepared by the Community Service Councilwith support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2008-10 American Community Survey.
37
Note: Values shown are midpoint estimates within a 90% confidence range.
15% of County and MSA, and 19% of City
population lives in poverty
35% of children under age 6 and 10% of
persons age 65 and older in the City live in
poverty
Growing poverty among the increasing
elderly population
Children in low income households spreading
in large numbers beyond the city
Poverty strong correlate to poor early reading
38
9400.05
9400.06
95
55
78.02
59
77.02
56
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
73.08
67.05
2
94.01
91.04
75.13
92
49
1
94.02
90.03
65.07
77.01
91.01
29
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
90.09
67.03
62
27
57
67.01
34
88
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
79
25
4847
12
58.01
821614 6015
5
75.11
76.35
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
75.24
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
75.20
73.11
74.07
30
51
17
80.01
76.34
8372 89
6
13
7
45
9
80.02
76.25
8
71.02
44
10
76.11
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19 74.11
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
18 73.0919
4631 32 36
35
76.12
33
34
85.01
21
20
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.03
76.08
Population below 185% of Poverty
Less than 10%
10 to 24%
25 to 32%
33 to 49%
50% or greater
City of Tulsa
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
49th
W151st
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
177
th E
161
st E
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
Source: US Census Bureau, 2007-11 American Community Survey.Prepared by the Community Service Council with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (4/9/13)
Estimated Percentage of Persons Living Below 185% of Poverty, 2007-11
Tulsa County and Part Osage County by Census Tract
Note: Data estimates used for this map are based on a sample survey, and due to the small geographicarea, margins of error are very high.
Peo
ria
Min
go
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
2013 poverty guidelinesfor family of 3:
100% = $19,530130% = $25,389185% = $36,131
42
Source: US Census Bureau 2007-11 American Community Survey.
Number in poverty:Tulsa Co.: 189,803Tulsa: 151,146Tulsa MSA: 289,755
Percent in poverty:Tulsa County: 32.4%Tulsa: 39.6%Tulsa MSA: 31.8%
Concentrated low income areas…
9400.05
9400.06
95
55
78.02
59
77.02
56
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
73.08
67.05
2
94.01
91.04
75.13
92
49
1
94.02
90.03
65.07
77.01
91.01
29
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
90.09
67.03
62
27
57
67.01
34
88
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
79
25
4847
12
58.01
821614 6015
5
75.11
76.35
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
75.24
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
75.20
73.11
74.07
30
51
17
80.01
76.34
8372 89
6
13
7
45
9
80.02
76.25
8
71.02
44
10
76.11
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19 74.11
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
18 73.0919
4631 32 36
35
76.12
33
34
85.01
21
20
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.03
76.08
Under 6: Below 185% of Poverty
Less than 25%
25 to 32%
33 to 49%
50 to 74%
75% or greater
City of Tulsa
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
49th
W151st
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
177
th E
161
st E
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
Source: US Census Bureau, 2007-11 American Community Survey.Prepared by the Community Service Council with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (4/9/13)
Estimated Percentage of Persons Under Age 6 Living Below 185% of Poverty, 2007-11
Tulsa County and Part Osage County by Census Tract
Note: Data estimates used for this map are based on a sample survey, and due to the small geographicarea, margins of error are very high.
Peo
ria
Min
go
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Mem
ori
al
Yale
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
2013 poverty guidelinesfor family of 3:
100% = $19,530130% = $25,389185% = $36,131
43
Source: US Census Bureau 2007-11 American Community Survey.
Number in poverty:Tulsa Co.: 26,237Tulsa: 21,435
Tulsa MSA: 37,939 Percent in poverty:
Tulsa County: 50.1%Tulsa: 62.3%Tulsa MSA: 48.8%
Concentrated low income areas among youth…
9400.05
9400.06
95
55
78.02
59
77.02
56
58.08
66
54.0254.01
111
78.01
93
75.16
58.07
67.07
67.08
73.08
67.05
2
94.01
91.04
75.13
92
49
1
94.02
90.03
65.07
77.01
91.01
29
76.24
76.38
65.06
75.15
90.07
90.09
67.03
62
27
57
67.01
34
88
58.05 58.06
75.0675.08
79
25
4847
12
58.01
821614 6015
5
75.11
76.35
85.02
76.37
74.09
76.36
90.08
75.24
84
87
38
52
53
37
40
86
70
42 39
75.20
73.11
74.07
30
51
17
80.01
76.34
8372 89
6
13
7
45
9
80.02
76.25
8
71.02
44
10
76.11
73.05
23.01
75.03
76.14 76.19 74.11
69.07
76.39
71.01
76.30
75.22
76.32
76.09
69.06
76.33
76.15
69.05
74.1574.12 74.08
76.16
75.12
73.10
76.13
69.02
73.06
69.03
90.06
74.14
69.01
75.10
73.12
41.01
75.07
75.19
76.17
76.31
76.18
75.18
75.23
76.29
76.20 74.13 74.02
43.02
50.02
90.04
74.10
43.01
18 73.0919
4631 32 36
35
76.12
33
34
85.01
21
20
68.01
50.01
76.4176.42
68.03
76.08
Percent 65+ below 185% Poverty
Less than 10%
10 to 24%
25 to 39%
40 to 49%
50% or greater
City of Tulsa
Apache
96th
66th
121st
91st
Admiral
31st
61st
49th
W151st
Mem
ori
al
181st
Pine
36th
65th
W
193
rd E
177
th E
161
st E
97th
W
81st
W
113
th W
126th
Source: US Census Bureau, 2007-11 American Community Survey.Prepared by the Community Service Council with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (4/9/13)
Estimated Percentage of Persons Age 65 and Over Living Below 185% of Poverty, 2007-11
Tulsa County and Part Osage County by Census Tract
Note: Data estimates used for this map are based on a sample survey, and due to the small geographicarea, margins of error are very high.
Peo
ria
Min
go
145
th E
Ga
rnet
t
Yale
Sher
ida
n
Ha
rva
rdLe
wis
129
th E
33rd
W
Un
ion
Elw
oo
d
2013 poverty guidelinesfor family of 3:
100% = $19,530130% = $25,389185% = $36,131
44
Number in poverty:Tulsa Co.: 18,334Tulsa: 13,651Tulsa MSA: 32,322
Percent in poverty:Tulsa County: 26.4%Tulsa: 28.7%Tulsa MSA: 28.2%
Concentrated low income areas among elderly…
Source: US Census Bureau 2007-11 American Community Survey.
45
PATRICK HENRY ESFree: 60%Reduced: 9%
GRIMES ESFree: 69%Reduced: 14%
LEE ESFree: 45%Reduced: 8%
HOOVER ESFree: 61%Reduced: 15%
CARNEGIE ESFree: 24%Reduced: 9%
GRISSOM ESFree: 45%Reduced: 11%
I- 44
I- 244
US
Hw
y 7
5
US Hwy 412
State Hwy 51
US
Hw
y 1
69
US
Hw
y 6
4
Min
go V
alle
y E
xpy
Broken Arrow Expy
Sta
te H
wy 1
1
Crosstown Expy
Keystone Expy
Che
roke
e E
xpy
Creek Tpke
Red
Fork
Exp
y
N P
eori
a A
ve
Gilcrease Expy
Sta
te H
wy 9
7
N 4
th W
Ave
Owasso E
xpy
N 1
3th
E A
ve
E 46th St N
E 36th St N
Sta
te H
wy 2
0
E 98th St N
US
Hw
y 7
5I- 44
Mingo Valley Expy
US Hwy 412
Che
roke
e Exp
y
Sta
te H
wy 9
7
US
Hw
y 7
5I- 244
State Hwy 51
Free and Reduced Lunch ParticipationTulsa Public Schools, School Year 2013-14
Source: October 1, 2013 Membership Report, Oklahoma Department of Education.Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (3/25/14).
Total TPS Free Lunch Participation = 31,566 (78.6%)Total TPS Reduced Lunch Participation = 3,948 (9.8%)
Total TPS free lunch participation = 31,566 (78.6%)
Total TPS reduced lunch participation = 3,948 (9.8%)
46
ANGUS VALLEY ESFree: 39%Reduced: 10%
PRATT ESFree: 43%Reduced: 12%
WILSON ESFree: 38%Reduced: 9%
HERALD ESFree: 33%Reduced: 10%
LARKIN BAILEY ESFree: 18%Reduced: 5%
MILLS ESFree: 42%Reduced: 15%
SPERRY ESFree: 51%Reduced: 17%
MARRS ESFree: 51%Reduced: 12%
Skiatook
OwassoSperry
Collinsville
Sand Springs
Sand Springs
Berryhill
Free and Reduced Lunch ParticipationNorthwest Tulsa County Suburban School Districts, School Year 2013-14
Total Non-TPS Free Lunch Participation = 28,268 (36.4%)Total Non-TPS Reduced Lunch Participation = 7,636 (9.8%)
Source: Oklahoma Department of Education.Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (3/25/14).
Total non-TPS free lunch participation = 28,268 (36.4%)
Total non-TPS reduced lunch participation = 7,636 (9.8%)
47
LYNN WOOD ESFree: 48%Reduced: 13%
COUNTRY LANE PRIM. ESFree: 21%Reduced: 10%
RHOADES ESFree: 46%Reduced: 20%
WOLF CREEK ESFree: 24%Reduced: 10%
EAST ESFree: 51%Reduced: 8%
WEST ESFree: 24%Reduced: 6%
LIBERTY ESFree: 55%Reduced: 8%
GLENPOOL ESFree: 44%Reduced: 14%
MOORE ESFree: 27%Reduced: 10%
ROSA PARKS ESFree: 81%Reduced: 12%
BRIARGLEN ESFree: 81%Reduced: 18%
CLARK ESFree: 86%Reduced: 10%
CEDAR RIDGE ESFree: 24%Reduced: 10%
Bixby
Broken Arrow
Liberty
Jenks
Union
Glenpool
Free and Reduced Lunch ParticipationSoutheast Tulsa County Suburban School Districts, School Year 2013-14
Source: Oklahoma Department of Education.Prepared by the Community Service Council, with support from the Metropolitan Human Services Commission (3/25/14).
Total Non-TPS Free Lunch Participation = 28,268 (36.4%)Total Non-TPS Reduced Lunch Participation = 7,636 (9.8%)
Total non-TPS free lunch participation = 28,268 (36.4%)
Total non-TPS reduced lunch participation = 7,636 (9.8%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Readin
g S
core
Percent of Low Income
Series1
Linear (Series1)
r=-0.9130255
48
Fertility rates… not anticipated to change, possibly slightly lower among Hispanics.
Births to teens… down but cumulatively still a big number over time with almost 1,000 year in recent years (prelim. 2009-12) in Tulsa County.
Births to unmarried couples… close to 45%.
Maternal education levels… 60% of infants are born to mothers with high school education or less; 23% with less than a high school education.
Multiple births… Many women of most all races and ethnicities with these low education levels have multiple births.
Continued growth of racial/ethnic minorities… Especially Asians and Hispanics.
49
Workforce increasingly complex and critical… Everyone that is going to be hired for a job has already been born today; more Hispanic and elderly.
Educating and training for all… at least 70% of labor force need some post high school degree, certificate, or award of skill, a huge challenge.
Success unusually difficult… population of young people who will be primarily lower income, poor, and first generation high school grads and beyond.
Old-Age dependency ratio growing… in 2010 there were 4.5 persons age 18-64 for every person age 65 and over, down just a bit from 5 to 1 in 1970. By 2030 that ratio is projected to shrink to 3 to 1.
50
1970 1980 1990 2000 20102020proj.
2030proj.
Dependency ratio 79.9 68.6 66.9 64.1 62 68.6 72.3
Old-age dependency ratio 21 21 22.5 21.7 21.9 28.5 32.4
Child dependency ratio 58.9 47.6 44.4 42.4 40.2 40.1 39.9
Ratio of age 65-84 to 25-44 47 42.1 39.3 40.9 46 57.3 63.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
51
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2010 Census; Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota 2011 http://www.nhgis.org; Oklahoma Department of Commerce, 2012 Demographic State of the State Report: Oklahoma State and County
Population Projections through 2075.
Dependency ratio = population age <18
& 65+ / population
age 18-64 x 100
Old-age
dependency ratio= population age 65+ /
population age 18-64 x
100
Child dependency
ratio = population
age <18 / population
age 18-64 x 100
#2 in incarceration rates #2 in persons with mental illness #48 in per capita spending on mental
health #13 in suicides #15 in income inequality #48 in persons with 4 year college degree #48 in per pupil expenditures on elementary
and secondary education #45 in persons 19-64 (22%) who are
uninsured and tied for #16 for persons under 19 (17%)
53
54
“The global fall in fertility, even if it does
not continue to deepen and spread, is
creating a world for which few individuals,
and nations, are prepared. Simply stated,
this is because population growth and the
human capital it creates are part of the
foundation upon which modern economies,
as well as the modern welfare state, are
built.”
The Empty Cradle, Phillip Longman
55
“…once a city attracts some innovative workers and innovative companies, its economy changes in ways that make it even more attractive to other innovators. … this is what is causing the Great Divergence among American communities, as some cities experience an increased concentration of good jobs, talent, and investment and others are in free fall. It is a trend that is reshaping not just our economy but our entire society in profound ways. It implies that a growing part of inequality in America reflects not just a class divide but a geographical divide. “
New Geography of Jobs, Enrico Moretti
56
“As 78 million of us retire, there won’t be enough qualified workers behind us to fill the jobs and grow the economy that’s necessary to support all us new dependents…Communities and companies will fight each other for jobs and qualified workers. Some communities will win and prosper. Others will fail and will be a mess…”
“Managing our communities is a whole new game now… Most of us have no idea what’s in store. I want this book to change the way you think. If enough people understand the gravity of the situation, community dialogue will change. Only then will priorities change and solutions come.”
When Boomers Bail, Mark Lautman
57
58
“Above all, we need to decide which America
we want as our future – the America of ever-
increasing educational levels, rising
productivity, and pragmatic optimism, or the
America of deteriorating skills, shrinking
horizons, and paralyzing pessimism. We are
at one of those major historical crossroads
that determine the fate of nations for
decades to come.”
New Geography of Jobs, Moretti, p. 249
59
“Population aging and decline need not lead to global depression, environmental strain, or war, but they may well. Nations that do not adapt to the new demographic realities of the twenty-first century – primarily by fostering more rewards to parents and other caregivers, investing heavily in the education of the next generation, and pursuing strategies to allow for more productive aging – stand in danger of being consumed by debt, of losing their ability to innovate, and ultimately of losing their identity.”
The Empty Cradle, Longman, p. 44
60
“Catastrophic full employment isn’t going to happen in every community, but it has the potential to constrain our national economy enough to make us poorer, weaker, more divided and meaner… But if the Boomers continue to bail, and the schools continue to fail, the majority of U.S. communities will be unable to keep their economies balanced with the service demands of their populations. For these losers, it will feel liked perpetual recession. My economic development colleagues and I have three choices: deny, despair, or innovate.
For those who choose to innovate our way out, this will be the most exciting time… There are no silver-bullet solutions. But there are things we can do. Some of them are right in front of us, and we should be doing them anyway. “Believe!”
When Boomers Bail, Lautman, p. 197
61
62
Visionary
Apprehensive, but unafraid
Innovative
Well-educated
Connected
Predictive
Leaders-knowledge economy
Create value at a high rate
Find knowledge
Create knowledge
Package knowledge
Distribute knowledge
Apply knowledge
63
Leaders
National and
International
64