Post on 30-Dec-2015
Community Profile 2007Community Profile 2007Creek CountyCreek County
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater TulsaJanuary, 2007
How Well do You Know Your How Well do You Know Your Community?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 2007Community Profile 2007
Demographic TrendsHuman DevelopmentPanel TopicsBest Practices
Demographic Trends in Creek County (part 1)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 grandparentsD
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s
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 in Creek County (part 2)Demographic Trends in Creek County (part 2)
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
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
Demographic Trends in Creek County (part 3)Demographic Trends in Creek County (part 3)
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Osage
Creek
Tulsa
Rogers
Okmulgee
Wagoner
TAUW Service AreaTAUW Service Area
Osage
Creek
Tulsa
RogersPawnee
Okmulgee
Wagoner
Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical AreaTulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population Trends: Creek County, TAUW Service Area and Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area
1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005 (est.)
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; Population Estimates Program, 2005.
1970 1980 1990 2000 2005(est.)
0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,000
1,000,000
Creek County
TAUW
Tulsa MSA
Creek County 45,532 59,016 60,915 67,367 68,700
TAUW 561,210 696,342 745,444 842,920 870,900
Tulsa MSA 572,548 711,652 761,019 859,532 887,800
Tulsa MSA and TAUW service area populations both grew 3% between 2000 and 2005, while that of Creek County increased 2%.
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population of Selected Cities in Creek County1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005 (est.)
Source: US Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; Population Estimates Program, 2005.
Sapulpa
Bristow
Drumright
Mannford
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005 (est.)
Sapulpa Bristow Drumright Mannford
1970 15,159 4,653 2,740 892
1980 15,853 4,702 3,162 1,610
1990 18,074 4,062 2,799 1,826
2000 19,379 4,325 2,905 2,102
2005 (est.) 20,620 4,400 2,880 2,760
Mannford’s population grew 4% between 2000 and 2005, while those of Sapulpa and Bristow increased 2%. Drumright’s population declined.
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population by Race and Hispanic OriginCreek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2005 Population Estimates by Age.
55,42582.3%
1790.3%
6,1209.1%
1,7242.6%
4400.7%
3,4795.2%
57,16583.2%
2670.4%
6,1949.0%
1,8232.7%
270.0%
3,2394.7%
White Asian* American Indian*
Black Some other race 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.
Hispanic Origin*N=1,283 (1.9%)
Hispanic Origin*N=1,595 (2.3%)
2000 2005 (est.)
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Births by Race of MotherCreek County, 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
White726 (84.0%)
Black21 (2.4%)
American Indian110 (12.7%)
Asian/Pacific Islander7 (0.8%)
Total births=864Hispanic origin:
28 (3.3%)
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age DistributionCreek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimate
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, 2005 Population Estimates by Age.
4,587(6.8%)
13,845(20.6%)
5,356(8.0%)
34,929(51.8%)
7,685(11.4%)
965(1.4%)
4,197(6.1%)
12,278(17.9%)
6,299(9.2%)
36,306(52.8%)
8,733(12.7%)
894(1.3%)
0-4 5-17 18-24 25-64 65-84 85+
2000 2005 Estimate
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Types of Families with Own Children Under 18, by RaceCreek County, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
76%
49%
71.2%
78.9%
67.4%
6.9% 8.2% 7.2%
0%
10.9%
17.1%
42.9%
21.6% 21.1% 21.7%
White Black American Indian Asian Hispanic0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Percent of families within each race
Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed
Note: "Own Children" refers to children (including step and adopted) of the householder in a family.
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Living Arrangements of Children Under 18Creek County, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
68%
5.5%
15.1%
9.1%
Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Children in Non-Traditional SettingsCreek County, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census; Department of Human Services.
Living withgrandparents
Living withother relatives
Foster care(Sept. 2005)
Institutions0
500
1,000
1,500
Number of children
Children 1,423 254 185 32
Percentage ofchildren <18
7.7% 1.4% 1% 0.2%
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Living Arrangements of Persons Age 65 & OlderCreek County, 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Live alone2,375 (27.5%)
Family households5,580 (64.5%)
Group quarters558 (6.5%)
Other137 (1.6%)
74% of the 65+ population in Creek County living
alone are female.
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family Income, by RaceCreek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
$38,470 $39,373
$29,524$33,125
$66,250
$25,938
Total White Black American Indian Asian Hispanic$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
Annual Income
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Occupied Housing Units by TenureCreek County, 2000 & 2005 Estimates
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
19,73178.0%
5,55822.0%
19,44576.4%
6,02123.6%
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
2000 2005 (est.)
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Housing Units by Householder's Length of Residence and by Tenure
Creek County, 2000
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
10.1%
25.7%
64.2%
35.9%
37.1%
27.0%
15 months or less 16 months to 4 years 5 years or more
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
Median household income for owner-occupied housing units in Creek County = $37,075
Median household income for renter-occupied housing units in Creek County = $22,132
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds
Tulsa Area Human Development IndustryTulsa Area 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 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.H
uman
Dev
elop
men
t
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
Hum
an D
evel
opm
ent
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 Creek County for many
is risky businessHum
an D
evel
opm
ent
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 successH
uman
Dev
elop
men
t
The Middle Class is DisappearingThe Middle Class is Disappearing
~Lower income groups greatly expand, middle shrinks,
highest income group increases dramatically
Dis
appe
arin
g M
iddl
e C
lass
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Source: Hodgkinson, Harold, "The Client," Education Demographer, 1988.
1900 - 1940(Pre-War)
1940 - 1990(Post WWII)
1990 - ?(New Millenia)
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
Dis
appe
arin
g M
iddl
e C
lass
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Distribution of Wealth: Household IncomeU.S., Oklahoma, Tulsa MSA and Creek County, 2005 Estimates
43.5%53.1% 49.4%
55.6%
40.1%
37.5%38.6%
35.5%
16.3%9.4% 12% 8.9%
U.S. Oklahoma Tulsa MSA Creek Co.0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% 2005 Dollars
<$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.
Dis
appe
arin
g M
iddl
e C
lass
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Annual Growth Rates of Household Income
United States, 1947-1993
Source: Cassidy, John, ‘Death of the Middle Class,’ New Internationalist 1996.
1(poorest)
2 3 4 5(richest)
1(poorest)
2 3 4 5(richest)
0%
1%
2%
3%
-1%
Annual growth rates of household income
1947-1973 1973-1993
Income Quintiles Income Quintiles
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
Dis
appe
arin
g M
iddl
e C
lass
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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%
Dis
appe
arin
g M
iddl
e C
lass
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
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Self-Sufficiency
Wage(annual)
Poverty Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar Difference
Self-SufficiencyPercent of
Poverty
One person
$18,231 $9,800 $8,431 186%
Two persons
$29,842 $13,200 $16,642 226%
Three persons
$34,627 $16,600 $18,027 209%
Four persons
$43,362 $20,000 $23,362 217%
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Wage to Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family
Creek 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)
($8.77 per hour)
($14.35 per hour)
($16.65 per hour)
($20.85 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.
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Family of Three, Creek 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
$39,143
WelfareWage
MinimumWage
PovertyWage
185% PovertyWage
Median Family Income
(2005 est.)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000Annual Wage
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $34,627 ($16.65/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.)
($18.82/hr.)
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Monthly Budget Distribution for Typical Family of Three Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Creek 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$722
Child Care$606
Food$462
Transportation$260
Health Care$289
Miscellaneous$231
Taxes$346
25%
21%
16%
9%
10%
8%
12%
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child.
Self-sufficiency wage = $2,886 per month.
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty LevelPercentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Creek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Total population
Under 18 Under 5 5-17 18-64 65+0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percentage of population
100% 130% 185%
100% 13.5% 17.7% 20.5% 16.7% 11.4% 14.1%
130% 20% 25% 29.5% 23.5% 16.5% 26%
185% 33.8% 42% 49.1% 39.8% 28% 44.8%
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Total PopulationCreek County, 1989, 1999 & 2005 Estimates
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
1989 1999 2005 (est.)0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percentage of population
Below 100% Below 185% Below 200%
Below 100% 14.5% 13.5% 10.9%
Below 185% 36.6% 33.8% 33%
Below 200% 40.3% 37.1% 34.9%
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family IncomeBy Family Type and Presence of Children under 18
Creek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
$36,989
$44,090
$18,408
$26,922
$39,804
$42,862
$25,786
$32,014
All families
Married-couplefamilies
Female-headedfamilies
Male-headedfamilies
$0$20,000$40,000$60,000
Families WITH children
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000
Families WITHOUT children
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population Living in Poverty, by AgeCreek County, 1989, 1999 & 2005 Estimates
Source: US Census Bureau, 1990, & 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
1989 1999 2005 (est.)0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percentage of population
Total <18 18-64 65+
Total 14.5% 13.5% 10.9%
<18 17.4% 17.7% 12.3%
18-64 12.1% 11.4% 11.4%
65+ 19.4% 16.4% 6%
<18
Total18-64
65+
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic OriginTotal Population and Under Age 5, Creek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Total White Black AmericanIndian
Asian Hispanic0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percentage of population
Total population Under 5
Total population 13.5% 11.8% 29.3% 19.2% 4.7% 27.7%
Under 5 20.5% 17.7% 46.6% 26.7% 0% 40.6%
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64Creek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
28,02573.1%
10,31426.9%
In armed forces
Employed
Unemployed
33 (0.1%)
26,815 (95.7%)
1,177 (4.2%)
NOT in labor force
In labor force
Unemployment rate (all ages) for October 2006 = 3.6%.
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates for Families by Family Type and Age of ChildrenCreek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
8.7%12.1%
16.8%
5.2% 5.8%
19.3%21.3% 20.5%
18.8%
10.3%
35%37.7%
62.3%
28.8%
13.8%
w/ children <18w/ children <5 only
w/ children <5 & 5-17w/ children 5-17 only
no children0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%Poverty rate
Married-couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Many families in poverty have employed worker(s)Families in Poverty by Family Type and Employment Status
Creek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
21.625.7
18.8 16.6
39.4 36.1
22.9
47.5
39 38.2 58.2 35.9
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
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
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
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
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
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
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 forceIn
adeq
uate
Inc
ome
Additional Indicators of Economic Additional Indicators of Economic DistressDistress
Public assistance programsFree & reduced school lunch
programHomeless sheltersHelpline and Babyline referrals
Eco
nom
ic D
istr
ess
Indi
cato
rs
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Participation in Public Assistance ProgramsNumber of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Creek 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.
11,425
2,596
7,495
1,040
434
757
346
7,991
114
3,775
1,085
16.6%
61.9%
45.5%
10.8%
51.7%
17.9%
8.2%
11.6%
0.7%
49.1%
14.1%
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)
05,00010,00015,000
Number of Participants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percent of Population
Eco
nom
ic D
istr
ess
Indi
cato
rs
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch Program
By School District, Creek County, 2005-2006 School Year
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2005-2006.
49.1%
67%
74.4%
72.9%
68.3%
50.2%
45%
50.6%
50.4%
44.9%
42.5%
30.7%
28.2%
25.6%
14.1%
20.3%
8.1%
7.1%
5.8%
15.6%
19%
12.2%
11.6%
13.6%
12.3%
20.3%
13.5%
10.8%
Creek County Total
Bristow
Oilton
Drumright
Depew
Kiefer
Kellyville
Mounds
Allen-Bowden
Sapulpa
Mannford
Pretty Water
Lone Star
Olive
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.
Eco
nom
ic D
istr
ess
Indi
cato
rs
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Total Units of Service Provided by Tulsa SheltersBy Age and Sex of Client
January - December, 2006
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Tulsa Helpline.
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
Eco
nom
ic D
istr
ess
Indi
cato
rs
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Selected Helpline Service Requests, by Type of Service2001 through 2006
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, 2-1-1 Tulsa Helpline.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20060
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 6,389
Health & Medical Services 2,688 2,852 3,404 4,074 7,720 14,293
Financial Assistance 12,376 12,173 13,269 12,035 17,847 18,308
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).
Eco
nom
ic D
istr
ess
Indi
cato
rs
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Summary of Risk Factors for InfantsCreek County and Oklahoma, 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
14.8%
37.6%
7%
22.6%
7.3%
1.5%
30.7%
19.6%
12.5%
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
Creek Co.
Oklahoma
Creek County births: 864Oklahoma births: 51,775
Star
ting
Lif
e
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.
Ear
ly S
cree
ning
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Ear
ly S
cree
ning
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Living Arrangements of Persons Age 65 & OlderCreek County, 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Live alone2,375 (27.5%)
Family households5,580 (64.5%)
Group quarters558 (6.5%)
Other137 (1.6%)
74% of the 65+ population in Creek County living
alone are female.
Agi
ng &
Per
sons
wit
h D
isab
ilit
ies
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Agi
ng &
Per
sons
w/ D
isab
ilit
ies
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Oklahoma's Rankings in Outcomes Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Source: United Health Foundation.
#31
#27
#31
#24
#27
#44
#41
#44
#43
#50
#44
#43
Overall ranking
Poor mental health days
Poor physical health days
Infant mortality
Cardiovascular deaths
Cancer deaths
Premature death
1990 2006
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Hea
lth
Cha
llen
ges
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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 USHea
lth
Cha
llen
ges
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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 USHea
lth
Cha
llen
ges
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Hea
lth
Cha
llen
ges
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Hea
lth
Cha
llen
ges
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
Cri
me
& I
ncar
cera
tion
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03 FY'04 FY'05
Other Crime Receptions
Drug Crime Receptions
Linear (Other Crime Receptions)
Linear (Drug Crime Receptions)
DOC Receptions Drug Crimes and Other CrimesDOC Receptions Drug Crimes and Other CrimesFY1995 – FY 2005FY1995 – FY 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Corrections Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa for the Metropolitan Human Services Commission in Tulsa.
Cri
me
& I
ncar
cera
tion
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Cri
me
& I
ncar
cera
tion
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & OlderCreek 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% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent of persons 25+
2000
2005 (est.)
Less thanhigh school
High schoolgraduate
Somecollege
Associate'sdegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Master'sdegree
Professionalschool degree
Doctoratedegree
2000 22.4% 40% 20.7% 5.2% 7.8% 2.8% 0.9% 0.2%
2005 (est.) 17.9% 44.1% 19.5% 5% 9.1% 3.2% 1.1% 0.1%Edu
cati
onal
Suc
cess
: A
ttai
nmen
t
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by SexCreek County, 2005 Estimates
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Master's degree
Professional school degree
Doctorate degree
Percent of persons 25+
0%10%20%30%40%50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Males Females
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Master's degree
Professional school degree
Doctorate degree
Males 17.7% 45.8% 18.8% 4.7% 7.8% 4.2% 0.9% 0%
Females 18% 42.6% 20.1% 5.3% 10.3% 2.2% 1.4% 0.1%
Edu
cati
onal
Suc
cess
: A
ttai
nmen
t
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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%
Edu
catio
nal S
ucce
ss:
Hig
her
Edu
catio
n
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 Creek County 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
Special TopicsSpecial Topics
Infants and Young Children at RiskAdolescents at RiskAdults and Families at Risk
Infants and Young Children Infants and Young Children at Risk…at Risk…
Top Risk Factors for Infants Top Risk Factors for Infants and Young Childrenand 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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Impact of Poverty on Early Childhood DevelopmentMultiple Pathways
Source: National Center for Children in Poverty.
Inadequate Nutrition
Substance Abuse
Lack of Mother-ChildConnection due to
Maternal Depression
Exposure toEnvironmental Toxins
Trauma/Abuse
Quality of Daily Care
Inadequate Prenatal Care
Lack of Basic Health Care
Early BrainDevelopment
Poverty
Pov
erty
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Summary of Risk Factors for InfantsCreek County and Oklahoma, 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
14.8%
37.6%
7%
22.6%
7.3%
1.5%
30.7%
19.6%
12.5%
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
Creek Co.
Oklahoma
Creek County births: 864Oklahoma births: 51,775
Ris
k F
acto
rs fo
r In
fant
s
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Characteristics of Births to Teen Mothers (Age 15-19)Creek County and Oklahoma, 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
78.1%
8.7%
52.3%
5.5%
3.1%
56.5%
39.1%
12.5%
12.5%
0.8%
78.4%
8.5%
54.9%
7.6%
1.8%
64.8%
42.9%
10.6%
20.9%
3.5%
Unmarried
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.)
1+ previous births
2+ previous births
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of Teen Births
Creek co.
Oklahoma
Creek County births to teens: 128Creek County teen birth rate: 52.4 (per 100,000 females age 15-19)
Oklahoma births to teens: 6,682Oklahoma teen birth rate: 54.2 (per 100,000 females age 15-19)
Ris
k F
acto
rs fo
r In
fant
s
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Importance of Brain Development for Children 0-3
Excerpt from: "The First Years Last Forever: I am Your Child"
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.
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.
Principles of Brain Development
Ear
ly C
are
& L
earn
ing
The Adverse Childhood The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) StudyExperiences (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
AC
E S
tudy
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “About the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study.”
The Adverse Childhood The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study PyramidExperiences (ACE) Study Pyramid
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “About the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study.”
AC
E S
tudy
Adverse Childhood Experiences…Adverse Childhood Experiences…
Recurrent physical abuse
Recurrent emotional abuse
Sexual abuse An alcohol or drug
abuser An incarcerated
household member
Growing up in a household with: Someone who is
chronically depressed, suicidal, institutionalized or mentally ill
Mother being treated violently
One or no parents Emotional or physical
neglectSource: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org, “What are Adverse Childhood Experieinces (ACE’s).”
AC
E S
tudy
……Lead to Health-Risk Behaviors…Lead to Health-Risk Behaviors…
Smoking Overeating Physical inactivity Heavy alcohol use Drug use Promiscuity
Source: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study website: www.acestudy.org
AC
E S
tudy
……Which Cause Disease, Disability Which Cause Disease, Disability and Social Problems in Adulthoodand Social Problems in Adulthood
Heart disease Cancer Chronic lung and liver
disease Stroke Diabetes Sexually transmitted
diseases
Nicotine addiction Alcoholism Drug addiction Obesity Depression Suicide Injuries Unintentional
pregnancy
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.”
AC
E S
tudy
Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of Adverse Health and Social OutcomesAdverse 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
Impact of Adult Literacy & Impact of Adult Literacy & Education Levels on ChildrenEducation 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.
Adu
lt L
iter
acy
& E
duca
tion
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Illiteracy Among Children in the U.S.
Source: (1) National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1998; (2) Shaywitz, Yale University Longitudinal Study (National Education Association).
38%75%
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.
All 4th Graders4th Graders Not Reading at
Grade Level
Chi
ld L
iter
acy
Child Abuse & Neglect in Oklahoma Child Abuse & Neglect in Oklahoma and Tulsa Countyand 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.
Chi
ld A
buse
& N
egle
ct
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Child Abuse and NeglectOklahoma, FY 2005
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse & Neglect Statistics State Fiscal Year 2005.
61,613
36,605
13,328
Reports of abuseor neglect
Reports accepted for investigation or assessment
Children confirmedabused or neglected
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Of these 13,328 children, 1,360 were abused, 10,094 were neglected, and 1,874 were abused and neglected.
(duplicated count)
Note: One “report” of child abuse or neglect may be an individual child or multiple children.
Chi
ld A
buse
& N
egle
ct
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Child Abuse and NeglectCreek County, FY 2005
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Child Abuse & Neglect Statistics State Fiscal Year 2005.
1,125
643
192
Reports of abuseor neglect
Reports accepted for investigation or assessment
Children confirmedabused or neglected
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Of these 192 children, 17 were abused, 159 were neglected, and 16 were abused and neglected.
(duplicated count)
Note: One “report” of child abuse or neglect may be an individual child or multiple children.
Chi
ld A
buse
& N
egle
ct
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age of Children of Confirmed Abuse and NeglectOklahoma, 2005
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
Under 11,944 (14.6%)
1-22,170 (16.3%)
3-63,485 (26.1%)
7-113,056 (22.9%)
12 & older2,673 (20.1%)
Chi
ld A
buse
& N
egle
ct
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Perpetrators of Confirmed Abuse and NeglectTop 5, Oklahoma, FY 2005
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
46%
28.3%
7% 6.8%3.8%
Mother Father Stepparent No relation Grandparent0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Chi
ld A
buse
& N
egle
ct
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Child Deaths Due to AbuseOklahoma, Fiscal Years 1978 - 2004
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
75
12 13
1821
16 16
24
31
2325
18
38
2023
3134
29
4245
47 48
3835
27
51
1978
1979
1 98 0
1 98 1
1 98 2
1 98 3
1 98 4
1 98 5
1 98 6
1 98 7
1 98 8
1 98 9
1 99 0
1 99 1
1 99 2
1 99 3
1 99 4
1 99 5
1 99 6
1 99 7
1 99 8
1 99 9
2 00 0
2 00 1
2 00 2
2 00 3
2 00 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Chi
ld A
buse
& N
egle
ct
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Child Deaths Due to Abuse, by Age of ChildOklahoma, 2004
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Children & Family Services Division.
Under 123 (45.1%)
1-214 (27.5%)
3-611 (21.6%)
7-112 (3.9%)
12 & older1 (2.0%)
Chi
ld A
buse
& N
egle
ct
Adolescents at Risk…Adolescents at Risk…
Top Risk Factors for AdolescentsTop 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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Results of 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Alcohol, Other Drug & Tobacco Use
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2005
Source: Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2005.
40.5%
18.7%
7.1%
18.4%
10.7%
34.6%
12.3%
25.8%
43.3%
20.2%
6.2%
25.4%
9.4%
28.4%
9.9%
28.5%
Alcohol
Marijuana
Methamphetamine
Offered/sold/givenillegal drugs at school
Smoked cigarettes on 20+ days during past month
Used any tobacco productsduring past month
Drove after drinkingalcohol in past month
Rode with drinkingdriver in past month
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Oklahoma US
Used once or more during
prior 30 days...
Everused...
YR
BS
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Source: Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2005.
49.3%
6.5%
38.3%
83.6%
7.9%
15.9%
15.2%
75.7%
46.8%
6.2%
37.2%
82.4%
8.4%
15.7%
13.1%
73.5%
Ever hadsexual intercourse
Had sex before age 13
Did not usecondom last time
Did not usebirth control pills last time
Attempted suicidein past year
At risk of overweight(according to BMI)
Overweight(according to BMI)
Insufficient moderatephysical activity
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Oklahoma U.S.
Results of 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Sexual Behaviors, Suicide & Physical Health
High School Students, Oklahoma and U.S., 2005
YR
BS
Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of Adverse Health and Social OutcomesAdverse 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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Disconnected Youth: Percent of Youth Age 16-19 Not in School and Not Working
By County, 2000
Source: Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Factbook 2004.
Tulsa Co. Creek Co. Okmulgee Co. Osage Co. Rogers Co. Wagoner Co.0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Percent not in school and not working
Rate 9.7% 6.7% 12.1% 7.3% 8.1% 7.7%
Number 3,090 278 325 194 340 274
#65
#46
#24 #27#31 #28
Note: County ranking shown at top of bars (#1=best, #77=worst).
Dis
conn
ecte
d Y
outh
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Youths, Age 16-19Creek County, 2000
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
2,12151.1%
2,03048.9% Employed
Unemployed
1,842 (86.8%)
279 (13.2%)
NOT in labor force
In labor force
Wor
king
You
ths
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Births by Age of MotherCreek County, 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
485.6%
859.8%
30635.4%
23126.7% 134
15.5%
475.4%
131.5%
<18 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+
Total births=864
Bir
ths
to T
eens
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Resident Births to Teens Age 15-17 and 18-19Creek County, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.
1980 1990 2000 20050
50
100
150
200
Number of births
0
50
100
150
200Birth rate
Births 15-17 70 58 54 43
Births 18-19 142 98 113 85
Birth rate 15-17 43.2 39.4 32.8 27.6
Birth rate 18-19 161 127.1 131.2 96.3
Note: Teen birth rate is the number of births to females age 15-19 per 1,000 females age 15-19.
Bir
ths
to T
eens
Juvenile Crime in OklahomaJuvenile 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, non-violent 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
Cri
me
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Juvenile Arrests, by Type of CrimeCreek County, 2001 through 2004
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports.
Index crimes Drug related Alcohol related Other crimes0
100
200
300
400Number of arrests
2001 2002 2003 2004
2001 66 24 53 386
2002 80 16 67 358
2003 96 46 58 339
2004 96 34 50 271
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.
Includes murder, rape, robbery aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.
Includes sale/manufacturing
and possession of drugs.
Includes driving under the influence, liquor law violations, and
drunkenness.
Includes other assaults, disorderly conduct, curfew & loitering, runaway and all other non-traffic offenses
Juve
nile
Cri
me
Youth Suicide in OklahomaYouth 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.
You
th S
uici
de
Adults and Families at Risk…Adults and Families at Risk…
Top Risk Factors for Adults Top Risk Factors for Adults and Familiesand 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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & OlderCreek 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% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent of persons 25+
2000
2005 (est.)
Less thanhigh school
High schoolgraduate
Somecollege
Associate'sdegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Master'sdegree
Professionalschool degree
Doctoratedegree
2000 22.4% 40% 20.7% 5.2% 7.8% 2.8% 0.9% 0.2%
2005 (est.) 17.9% 44.1% 19.5% 5% 9.1% 3.2% 1.1% 0.1%
Edu
cati
onal
Att
ainm
ent
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Rates of Adult Level 1 LiteracyBy County
Source: Oklahoma Literacy Resource Office.
15%16%
25%
19%
13% 13%
Tulsa Co. Creek Co. Okmulgee Co. Osage Co. Rogers Co. Wagoner Co.0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%Percent of adults at Level 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.
Oklahoma has a rate of 18%.
Adu
lt L
iter
acy
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Subs
tanc
e A
buse
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Hea
lth
Insu
ranc
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Oklahoma's Rankings in Risk Factors Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Source: United Health Foundation.
#44
#14
#23
#31
#24
#21
#8
#32
#46
#46
#33
#38
#24
#34
#41
#35
#22
#43
#40
#30
#44
Personal Behaviors
Prevalence of smoking
Motor vehicle deaths
Prevalence of obesity
High school graduation
Community Environment
Violent crime
Children in poverty
Occupational fatalities
Infectious disease
Health Policies
Lack of health insurance
Adequacy of prenatal care
Per capita public health spending
Immunization coverage
1990 2006
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Hea
lth
Ran
king
s
Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of Risk Factors Increase Likelihood of Adverse Health and Social OutcomesAdverse 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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Real Hourly Wage by Educational AttainmentUnited States, 1973-2005
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
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
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Adult Literacy Levels and IncomeAdult 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.
Inad
equa
te I
ncom
e
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Domestic Violence Cases Reported toLaw Enforcement Agencies
Oklahoma, 1994 - 2004
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 2004 Uniform Crime Report.
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Cases 18,153 18,621 21,683 23,087 21,435 21,211 22,065 23,687 25,157 23,773 24,542
Dom
esti
c V
iole
nce
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Domestic Violence Cases Reported to Law Enforcement Agencies, by Offense
Oklahoma, 2004
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 2004 Uniform Crime Report.
54 541
4,764
19,183
Murder Sex crimes Assaults Assault & Battery0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000A total of 24,542 domestic violence cases were reported to Oklahoma law enforcement agencies in 2004.
Dom
esti
c V
iole
nce
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.
1980
Note: Number of inmates in Oklahoma prisons, data as of June 30 of each year
Cri
me
& I
ncar
cera
tion
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
FY'95 FY'96 FY'97 FY'98 FY'99 FY'00 FY'01 FY'02 FY'03 FY'04 FY'05
Other Crime Receptions
Drug Crime Receptions
Linear (Other Crime Receptions)
Linear (Drug Crime Receptions)
DOC Receptions Drug Crimes and Other CrimesDOC Receptions Drug Crimes and Other CrimesFY1995 – FY 2005FY1995 – FY 2005
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Corrections Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa for the Metropolitan Human Services Commission in Tulsa.
Cri
me
& I
ncar
cera
tion
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Oklahoma's Rankings in Outcomes Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Source: United Health Foundation.
#31
#27
#31
#24
#27
#44
#41
#44
#43
#50
#44
#43
Overall ranking
Poor mental health days
Poor physical health days
Infant mortality
Cardiovascular deaths
Cancer deaths
Premature death
1990 2006
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Hea
lth
Ran
king
s
Dru
g A
ddic
tion
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
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
Per
sons
wit
h D
isab
ilit
ies
Per
sons
wit
h D
isab
ilit
ies
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Disability Prevalence by AgeNon-institutionalized Population
Oklahoma & Creek County, 2005 Estimates
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.
19%
7%
16.2%
47%
21.9% 21.2%
46.3%
5 & older 5-15 16-64 65 & older0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of population
Oklahoma % Creek Co. %
Oklahoma # 604,245 35,300 361,145 207,800
Creek Co. # 13,953 NA 9,463 4,086
Note: Persons living in institutions or other groups quarters are not included in these estimates.
NA
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Persons with Disabilities by Age and TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
21.0%
6.2%
49.7%
2.7%
20.3%
3.9%
8.8%7.4%14.8%
25.1%
40.0%
7.5%
13.9%2.6%
0.2%2.9%
23.0%
49.9%
9.0%
23.2%2.4%0.4%
9.9%
55.1%
Sensory Physical Mental Self-care Go-outside-home Employment 2 or more disabilities
Age 5-15(N=561)
Age 16-20(N=690)
Age 21-64(N=8,995)
Age 65+(N=4,086)
Per
sons
wit
h D
isab
ilit
ies
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation of People with Work DisabilitiesOklahoma, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 1999 Current Population Survey.
9.7%90.3%
69.5%
2.9%
27.6%
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.
work disability
30.5% in labor force
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.
employed
not in labor force
no work disability
unemployed2.9%
Per
sons
wit
h D
isab
ilit
ies
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Employment Rates by Disability TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 21 to 64, Creek County, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
54.4%
48.3%
34.1%
24.4%
20.3%
41.5%
60.3%
Any disability
Sensory
Physical
Mental
Self-care
Go-outside-home
Employment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percent Employed
Per
sons
wit
h D
isab
ilit
ies
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Disability Status and AgeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
25.6% 25.9%
17.8%15.6%
17.2%
13.8%
8.8%
12.6%
Age 5-15 Age 16-20 Age 21-64 Age 65+0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%Percent of population living below poverty
Persons with a disability
Persons with no disability
Per
sons
wit
h D
isab
ilit
ies
Best Practices…Best Practices…
A Research Based Approach
Doing What WorksDoing What Works
Best PracticesBest PracticesStrategiesStrategies
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
Bes
t Pra
ctic
es
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices
Source: Institute of Medicine, Reducing Risk for Mental Disorders, 1994.
Continuum of Intervention
Bes
t Pra
ctic
es
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best PracticesStrategic Prevention Framework
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA.).
Organize community to profile needs, including community readiness
Mobilize community and build capacity to address
needs
Develop the prevention plan (activities,
programs & strategies
Implement prevention plan
Evaluate for results and sustainability
1: Assessment
2: Capacity
3: Planning4: Implementation
5: Evaluation
Sustainability & cultural competence
Bes
t Pra
ctic
es
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best PracticesRisk and Protective Factor Framework
Source: Hawkins, Catalano, Miller, University of Washington Social Marketing Research Group, 1992, “Communities that Care” model of prevention.
Risk FactorsCharacteristics that
increase the likelihood of
negative outcomes
Protective FactorsCharacteristics that protect or provide a
buffer to moderate the influence of negative characteristics, and reduce potential of negative outcomes
Domains~Community
~Family~School
~Individual/Peer
Bes
t Pra
ctic
es
How Well do You Know Your How Well do You Know Your Community?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 2007Community Profile 2007Creek CountyCreek County
…is available on our website:
www.csctulsa.org
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
January, 2007