Community Profile 2007 Creek County Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Creek County, 1999


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


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%


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


Median Family IncomeBy Family Type and Presence of Children under 18

Creek County, 1999


$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


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%


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


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


Total White Black AmericanIndian

Asian Hispanic0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


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


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


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


Poverty Rates for Families by Family Type and Age of ChildrenCreek County, 1999


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


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

Creek County, 1999


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Summary of Risk Factors for InfantsCreek County and Oklahoma, 2005


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.)


High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree


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


Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by SexCreek County, 2005 Estimates


Less than high school

High school graduate

Some college

Associate degree

Bachelor's degree

Master's degree

Professional school degree

Doctorate degree


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


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


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


Summary of Risk Factors for InfantsCreek County and Oklahoma, 2005


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








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


Characteristics of Births to Teen Mothers (Age 15-19)Creek County and Oklahoma, 2005


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








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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Child Deaths Due to AbuseOklahoma, Fiscal Years 1978 - 2004


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


Child Deaths Due to Abuse, by Age of ChildOklahoma, 2004


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


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


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


~ 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


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


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


Births by Age of MotherCreek County, 2005


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


Resident Births to Teens Age 15-17 and 18-19Creek County, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2005


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


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


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



High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree


Doctoratedegree

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


2000

2005 (est.)


High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree


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


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


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


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


Oklahoma's Rankings in Risk Factors Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006



#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


Hea

lth

Ran

king

s


~ 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


Real Hourly Wage by Educational AttainmentUnited States, 1973-2005


1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35


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


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


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


Oklahoma's Rankings in Outcomes Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2006



#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


Hea

lth

Ran

king

s

Dru

g A

ddic

tion


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


Disability Prevalence by AgeNon-institutionalized Population

Oklahoma & Creek County, 2005 Estimates


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


Persons with Disabilities by Age and TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 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


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


Employment Rates by Disability TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 21 to 64, Creek County, 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


Poverty Rates by Disability Status and AgeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Creek County, 1999


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


Best Practices

Source: Institute of Medicine, Reducing Risk for Mental Disorders, 1994.

Continuum of Intervention

Bes

t Pra

ctic

es


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


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


January, 2007

Community Profile 2007 Creek County Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa...

Documents

Transcript of Community Profile 2007 Creek County Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa...