Upload
ashlee-marshall
View
217
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Presented to Tulsa Area United WayCommunity Investments Volunteers
Community Profile 2006Wagoner County/Broken Arrow
Prepared for The Tulsa Area United WayCommunity Investments Process
By The Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Quiz
1. Which area is growing the most rapidly (percent increase)? a. TAUW service area b. Wagoner Co. c. Broken Arrow
2. During the past 30 years, what has happened to the income gap between rich and poor?
a. increased b. decreased c. stable
3. What percentage of all poor families in Broken Arrow have an employed householder and/or spouse?
a. 20% b. 49% c. 75%
4. What percentage of Wagoner County residents age 25 & older have only a high school education or less?
a. 24% b. 40% c. 55%
5. How does Oklahoma compare to the nation in age-adjusted deaths rates?
a. better b. worse c. same
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Community Profile 2006
Demographic TrendsHuman DevelopmentPanel TopicsBest Practices
����
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Demographic Trends
Population growthAgeRace and Hispanic originLiving arrangementsMedian family incomeResidential mobility
>>>>>>
Demographic Trends in Wagoner County & Broken Arrow
• Population growth in Wagoner County exceeding that of TAUW service area.
• Greater cultural diversity particularly among the population under 25 years of age
• Living arrangements are changing significantly with more children in single headed households and other relative households
• 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
Osage
Creek
Tulsa
Rogers
Okmulgee
Wagoner
N
EW
S
TAUW Service Area
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population of TAUW Service Area and Wagoner County1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
1970 1980 1990 2000 2004(est.)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000Wagoner Co.
TAUW
Wagoner Co. 22,163 41,801 47,883 57,491 63,054
TAUW 561,210 696,342 745,444 842,920 864,981
Wagoner County’s population grew 10% between 2000 and 2004, while that of TAUW service area increased only 3%.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population of Wagoner County and Broken Arrow1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
1970 1980 1990 2000 2004(est.)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000Broken Arrow
Wagoner Co.
Broken Arrow 11,787 35,761 58,043 79,871 84,400
Wagoner Co. 22,163 41,801 47,883 57,491 63,054
Broken Arrow’s population increased 6% between 2000 and 2004.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population of Selected Cities in Wagoner County1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Broken Arrow
Wagoner
Coweta
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
1970
1980
1990
2000
2004 (est.)
Broken Arrow Wagoner Coweta
1970 11,787 4,959 2,457
1980 35,761 6,191 4,554
1990 58,043 6,894 6,159
2000 79,871 7,698 7,531
2004 (est.) 84,400 7,870 8,140
Coweta’s population increased 8% between 2000 and 2004, while that of Wagoner grew 2%.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population of Selected Counties in the Tulsa Metro Area1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004 (est.)
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Creek Co. Okmulgee Co. Osage Co. Rogers Co. Wagoner Co.0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 (est.)
1970 45,532 35,358 29,750 28,425 22,163
1980 59,016 39,169 39,327 46,436 41,801
1990 60,915 36,490 41,645 55,170 47,883
2000 67,367 39,685 44,437 70,641 57,491
2004 (est.) 68,666 39,890 45,181 79,042 63,054
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Population by Race and Hispanic OriginWagoner County and Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
46,03280.1%
2960.5%
5,3939.4%
2,1583.8%
3,1105.4%
5020.9%
63,88685.3%
1,4251.9%
3,0074.0%
2,7933.7%
2,7973.7%
9511.3%
White Asian* American Indian*
Black Two or more races Some other race
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=1,437) 2.5%
Hispanic Origin*(N=2,664) 3.6%
Wagoner County Broken Arrow
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Births by Race of MotherWagoner County, 2004
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health
White667 (83.4%)
Black34 (4.3%)
Amer. Indian94 (11.8%)
Asian/Pacific Islander5 (0.6%)
Total births=800Hispanic origin: 27 (3.4%)
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age DistributionWagoner County and Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
4,0567.1%
12,10421.1%
4,5317.9%
30,96253.9%
5,3819.4%
4570.8%
59548.0%
1713422.9%5749
7.7%
4039754.0%
50206.7%
6050.8%
0-4 5-17 18-24 25-64 65-84 85+
Wagoner County Broken Arrow
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Living Arrangements of Children Under 18Wagoner County and Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
72.2%
4.8%
13.6%7.6%
79.1%
3.6%
12.4%
3.8%
Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Wagoner County Broken Arrow
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Types of Families with Own Children Under 18, by RaceWagoner County, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
80%
46.5%
74.4%
83.3%80.9%
5.6%
12.3%6.8%
2.8%6%
14.4%
41.2%
18.8%13.9% 13.1%
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.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Types of Families with Own Children Under 18, by RaceBroken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
81.7%
70.6%75.2%
92.9%
81.5%
4.2% 4.9% 6.1%0.9%
5.5%
14.1%
24.5%18.7%
6.2%13%
White Black American Indian Asian Hispanic0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%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.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Children in Non-Traditional SettingsWagoner County and Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census; Department of Human Services.
Living withgrandparents
Living withother relatives
Foster care(Sept. 2005)
Juvenileinstitutions
0
500
1,000
1,500
Number of children
Children inWagoner Co.
Children in BA
Children inWagoner Co.
1,056 180 122 3
Percentage ofchildren <18
6.5% 1.1% 0.8% 0%
Children in BA 683 199 NA 0
Percentage ofchildren <18
3% 0.9% NA 0%
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Occupied Housing Units by TenureWagoner County & Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
81.0%
19.0%
78.9%
21.1%
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
Wagoner County Broken Arrow
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Housing Units by Householder's Length of Residence and by Tenure
Wagoner County and Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
12.6%
27.9%
59.5%
41.4%
37.8% 20.8%
13.5%
31.4%
55.1%
48.8%
37.0%
14.2%
15 months or less 16 months to 4 years 5 years or more
Wagoner Co. owner-occupied
Broken Arrow owner-occupied
Wagoner Co. renter-occupied
Broken Arrow renter-occupied
In Wagoner County, median household income for owner-occupied housing units =
$46,107; for renter-occupied = 23,209
In Broken Arrow, median household income for owner-occupied housing units =
$60,188; for renter-occupied = 32,056
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family Income, by RaceWagoner County and Broken Arrow, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Total White Black AmericanIndian
Asian Hispanic$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000Annual Income
Wagoner Co. Broken Arrow
Wagoner Co. $47,062 $48,934 $27,778 $40,734 $46,250 $40,550
Broken Arrow $58,891 $59,180 $60,481 $53,900 $77,704 $52,552
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Human Development
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Tulsa Area Human Development Industry What is it?
Independent and collective action of efforts to address the education, health, housing, family support, emergency financial, and transportation needs of families and individuals in the Tulsa area.
Increasingly these efforts seek to prevent needs through promoting increased self-sufficiency among people in the Tulsa area while still intervening to respond to crises and other concerns.
�
�
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
The Roots of the Challenge Thirty Years 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 and young families
Human Development: Key Points
• Middle class is disappearing
• Many households lack adequate income
• Stress of inadequate income and related conditions is widespread
• Starting life in Wagoner County for many is risky business
Human Development: Key Points…continued
• Populations of aging and persons with disabilities are large and growing
• Health challenges are critical to individual and community well-being
• Poor human conditions impact crime and growing incarcerations
• Overall progress in human development is tied to educational success
The Middle Class is Disappearing
~Lower income groups greatly expand, middle shrinks,
highest income group increases dramatically
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Source: Hodgkinson, Harold, "The Client," Education Demographer, 1988.
1900 - 1940 1940 - 1990 1990 - ?0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Poor - 75%
Poor - 20%Poor - 10%
Rich - 20%
Middle - 60%
Rich - 5% Rich - 10%
Middle - 20%
Middle - 80%
The trend: housing patterns and income mirror the job structure, with more rich, more poor, and fewer in the middle -- the "hourglass effect"
The Overall Dominant Trend...The Shrinking Middle Class
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Distribution of Wealth: Household IncomeU.S., Oklahoma, TAUW Service Area and Creek County, 1999
47.4%58.4% 52.7%
59.8%
40.3%
35%38.6%
35.4%
12.3% 6.6% 8.7% 4.8%
U.S. Oklahoma TAUW Creek Co.0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
<$40,000/year
$40,000-$99,999/year
$100,000+/year
1% of U.S. households have
39.3% of the assets, making the U.S. the #1 country in the
world in inequality of income.
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%
Many Households Lack Adequate Income
~More and more households lack adequate income to meet living needs
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
The Self-Sufficiency Standard...
...The level of income requiredfor a family to meet its needs on its own.
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, 2002, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma."
Customized by specific family compositionCustomized by geographic locationBased on all expense categoriesUpdated annually using consumer price index
>>>>
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Self-Sufficiency
Wage(annual)
Poverty Guidelines
(annual)
Dollar Difference
Self-SufficiencyPercent of
Poverty
One person
$17,953 $9,570 $8,383 187.6%
Two persons
$30,104 $12,830 $17,274 234.6%
Three persons
$34,401 $16,090 $18,311 213.8%
Four persons
$42,896 $19,350 $23,546 221.7%
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Wage to Poverty Guidelines, by Size of Family
Wagoner County, 2005
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma;" Federal Register, February 18, 2005; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November 2005.
($8.63 per hour)
($14.47 per hour)
($16.54 per hour)
($20.62 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.
($4.60 per hour)
($6.17 per hour)
($7.74 per hour)
($9.30 per hour)
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Family of Three, Wagoner County, 2005
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma;" Federal Register, February 18, 2005; Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services, Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; U.S. Census Bureau.
$8,292$10,712
$16,090
$29,767
$47,062
WelfareWage
MinimumWage
PovertyWage
185% PovertyWage
Median FamilyIncome(1999)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000Annual Wage
Self-Sufficiency Wage = $34,401 ($16.54/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
($3.99/hr.)($5.15/hr.)
($7.74/hr.)
($14.31/hr.)
($22.63/hr.)
Married-couple w/ kids: $52,066
Male-headed w/ kids: $24,012
Female-headed w/ kids: $21,235
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Budget Distribution for Typical Family of Three Earning Self-Sufficiency Wage
Wagoner County, 2005
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma."
Housing$688
Child Care$602
Food$430
Transportation$258
Health Care$287
Miscellaneous$229
Taxes$344
24%
21%
15%
9%
10%
8%
12%
Notes: Family of three in this example consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child. Self-sufficiency wage for a family of three of this composition is $34,401 per year or $2,867 per month.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty LevelPercentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Wagoner 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%
Percentage of population
100% 130% 185%
100% 8.9% 11.7% 14.3% 10.8% 7.6% 9.2%
130% 14.1% 18.3% 24.1% 16.3% 11.9% 16.1%
185% 26.3% 34% 39.8% 32% 22.2% 30.4%
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty LevelNumber of Persons: Total Population and Children
Wagoner County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
All Income Levels
100% of poverty level
130% of poverty
level
185% of poverty
level
Total population 57,087 5,086 8,066 15,017
Under 18 years 15,929 1,868 2,916 5,419
Under 5 years 4,050 581 976 1,613
5-17 years 11,879 1,287 1,940 3,806
18-64 years 35,473 2,693 4,234 7,872
65+ 5,685 525 916 1,726
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty LevelPercentage of Total Population and Selected Age Groups
Broken Arrow, 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%
Percentage of population
100% 130% 185%
100% 4.5% 5.4% 5.8% 5.2% 3.8% 6.9%
130% 7.5% 9.4% 10.1% 9.1% 6.3% 10.6%
185% 15.1% 18.8% 22.5% 17.5% 12.5% 21.9%
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Ratio of Income to Poverty LevelNumber of Persons: Total Population and Children
Broken Arrow, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
All Income Levels
100% of poverty level
130% of poverty
level
185% of poverty
level
Total population 74,326 3,346 5,603 11,236
Under 18 years 23,002 1,235 2,155 4,329
Under 5 years 5,962 347 601 1,341
5-17 years 17,040 888 1,554 2,988
18-64 years 46,183 1,756 2,905 5,779
65+ 5,141 355 543 1,128
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates for Families by Family Type and Age of Children
Wagoner County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
5.2%7.1%
8.5%
3.5% 3.1%
20.1% 19.8%
36.6%
16.4%
5.2%
29.3%32.2%
50.8%
24.3%
5%
w/ children <18w/ children <5 only
w/ children <5 & 5-17w/ children 5-17 only
no children
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Poverty rate
Married-couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates for Families by Family Type and Age of Children
Broken Arrow, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
2.2% 1.4%
5.1%
1.4% 1.2%
10.6%
7.1% 6.4%
12.6%
3.5%
16.8%
39.7%37.6%
10.9%
7.1%
w/ children <18w/ children <5 only
w/ children <5 & 5-17w/ children 5-17 only
no children
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%Poverty rate
Married-couple
Male-headed
Female-headed
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family IncomeBy Family Type and Presence of Children under 18
Wagoner County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
$45,623
$52,066
$21,235
$24,012
$48,603
$51,766
$28,432
$37,813
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Median Family IncomeBy Family Type and Presence of Children under 18
Broken Arrow, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
$58,573
$64,491
$26,318
$38,929
$59,311
$62,053
$37,717
$50,417
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64Wagoner County, 1999
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
25,75675.9%
8,17424.1%
In armed forces
Employed
Unemployed
45 (0.2%)
24,955 (96.9%)
756 (2.9%)
NOT in labor force
In labor force
Unemployment rate (all ages) for October 2005 = 3.6%.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Labor Force Participation among Adults, Age 20-64Broken Arrow, 1999
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
36,20282.0%
7,96418.0%
In armed forces
Employed
Unemployed
48 (0.1%)
35,272 (97.4%)
882 (2.4%)
NOT in labor force
In labor force
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Unemployment RatesTulsa MSA, 1991 - 2005
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Oct.2005
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 4.0
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
Wagoner County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
20.223.5
34.1
11.6
44.2 38.9
48.5
49.8
35.6 37.5 17.4 38.7
All familiesin poverty
Married-couplefamilies in poverty
Male-headedfamilies in poverty
Female-headedfamilies in poverty
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent of impoverished families
Employment Status of Householder or SpouseFull-time Part-time Did not work
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
Broken Arrow, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
24.9 25.5 28.223.5
49.7 51.9
40.849.5
25.4 22.7 31 26.9
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic OriginTotal Population and Under Age 5, Wagoner County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Total White Black AmericanIndian
Asian Hispanic0%
10%
20%
30%
40%Total population Under 5
Total population 8.9% 7.2% 24.3% 14.2% 8.6% 15.5%
Under 5 14.3% 10.6% 35.4% 23.5% 8.7% 12.1%
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic OriginTotal Population and Under Age 5, Broken Arrow , 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Total White Black AmericanIndian
Asian Hispanic0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%Total population Under 5
Total population 4.5% 4% 12.4% 4.1% 4.4% 4.1%
Under 5 5.8% 5.1% 21.9% 3.7% 14% 3.5%
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Education increasingly impacts wagesReal Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment
United States, 1973-2003
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
Less than high school High school College degree Advanced degree
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for MenUnited States, 1973-2003
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
Less than high school High school College degree Advanced degree
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Real Hourly Wage by Educational Attainment for WomenUnited States, 1973-2003
Source: Economic Policy Institute website.
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Real hourly wage (2003 dollars)
Less than high school High school College degree Advanced degree
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Additional Indicators of Economic Distress
Public assistance programsFree & reduced school lunch programHomeless sheltersHelpline and Babyline referrals
>>>>
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Participation in Public Assistance ProgramsNumber of Participants and Percentage of Population Participating
Wagoner County, September 2005
Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Statistical Bulletin, Sept. 2005; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2004-2005; Pop. Estimates Division - U.S. Census Bureau; Oklahoma State Department of Health.
7,933
1,674
5,293
560
207
411
243
5,600
224
1,630
447
12.6%
43.6%
33.6%
8.4%
27%
10.4%
6.3%
8.9%
1.4%
45.3%
12.4%
Medicaid Total
Medicaid <5
Medicaid <18
Medicaid 65+
WIC Infants (Oct. 05)
WIC age 1-5 (Oct. 05)
Child Care Subsidy <5
Food Stamps Total
TANF <18
Elem. School Free Lunch(2004-05)
Elem. School Reduced Lunch(2004-05)
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,000
Number of Participants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Population
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Elementary School Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch Program
By School District, Wagoner County, 2004-2005 School Year
Source: Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2004-2005.
45%
65%
56%
42%
29%
23%
12%
12%
14%
12%
13%
9%
Wagoner County Total
Wagoner
Porter
Okay
Coweta
Broken Arrow
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 $20,917 for a family of three.
Reduced lunch eligibility requirement: annual household income below 185% of poverty, which currently is $29,767 for a family of three.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Selected Helpline Service Requests, by Type of Service
2001 through 2005
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
2001 2002 2003 2004 20050
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Number of Service Requests
Food
Health & Medical Services
Financial Assistance
Food 1,945 1,913 2,152 2,019 3,339
Health & Medical Services 2,688 2,852 3,404 4,074 7,720
Financial Assistance 12,376 12,173 13,269 12,035 17,847
Total incoming calls to Helpline rose to 49,952 in 2005, up
from 28,741 in 2004 (74% increase); while
assessments of caller needs and referrals rose to
101,180 in 2005, up from 50,784 in 2004
(99% increase).
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Babyline and Planline Appointments ScheduledTulsa MSA and Surrounding Counties, 1990 through 2005
Source: Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa.
1,9972,107 2,212
3,004
2,6052,369 2,342
2,662 2,767
3,525
3,998
4,4234,604
4,795 4,692
4,355
0 0 0 0 0
631
1,409
858 872
1,1931,432 1,345
1,789
1,333
909
1,500
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20050
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Number of Appointments Scheduled
Family Planning Appointments Prenatal Appointments
Starting Life for Many is Risky Business
~Combination of many risk factors takes heavy toll and early screening
for risk level is inadequate
Adequate Early Screening Essential for All Children to Assess Impact of Risk Factors
• Some evidence indicates only small portion of children receive needed screening
• Sufficient data do not exist to clearly indicate extent and nature of problem
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.
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
Populations of Aging and Populations of Aging and Persons with Disabilities Persons with Disabilities are Large and Growingare Large and Growing
~~These populations will significantly These populations will significantly test the capacity of resources needed test the capacity of resources needed
to enable them to be most self-to enable them to be most self-sufficientsufficient
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Living Arrangements of Persons Age 65 & OlderWagoner County and Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
24.2%
71.7%
2.3%
1.9%
21.7%
68.2% 8.6%1.5%
Live alone Family households Group quarters Other
73% of the 65+ population in Wagoner County living alone are female; 81% of
those in Broken Arrow are female.
Wagoner County Broken Arrow
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Disabilities affect all agesDisability Prevalence by Age and Level of Disability
Oklahoma, 1997
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 (Aug.-Nov. 1997 data from Survey of Income and Program Participation).
2%
3.4%
11.2%
10.7%
13.4%
22.6%
35.7%
49%
73.6%
4.8%
5.3%
8.1%
13.9%
24.2%
31.8%
57.6%
0 to 2
3 to 5
6 to 14
15-24
25-44
45-54
55-64
65-79
80+
Age Group
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent with Specified Level of Disability
Level of disabilityAny Severe
Health Challenges are Critical to Individual and Community Well-being
~Inadequate income, high risks of starting life and poor lifestyle
choices contribute to major health concerns
800850900950
1,0001,0501,100
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Rat
e
Tulsa Co OK US
Oklahoma and Tulsa County Oklahoma and Tulsa County faring poorly faring poorly compared to US in age-adjusted death ratescompared to US in age-adjusted death rates
Age-Adjusted Death Rates, 1980 to 2002Age-Adjusted Death Rates, 1980 to 2002
OBESITYTrend: America’s weight gain epidemic – 25% of
Americans are obese – more than doubled in 15 years.
• Benchmark: We must reverse this trend.
• Bad: Consequences –
– high healthcare costs.
– Increased heart disease, type II diabetes, osteoarthritis, hypertension, gallbladder disease, breast cancer, endometrial cancer and colon cancer.
• Bad: OK and Tulsa Co heart disease rates are higher than the rest of the nation – only one state ranks worse than OK.
Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development, OUCPH, 2005; NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; United Health Foundation; BRFSS, CDC; St. Francis Health System FY 2004 Community Needs Assessment.
OK
US
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Major Health Concern: Poor Lifestyle Choices -- Obesity
Trend: Percent of adult smokers (2003): 22.7(Tulsa Co), 25.1(OK), 22.0(US), state rank=36.
Benchmark: Smoking bans in public venues, smoking cessation programs, and increasing cigarette taxes = curtailed adult smoking and youth take-up rate.
Good: OK youth smoking percent is below the national average— 26.5(OK) and 27.5(US); adult smokers declining locally, statewide and nationally (2003).
Bad: Smoking is a major cause of premature death, cardiovascular and pulmonary system disease including heart attack, stroke and cancer.
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC
22.7%
25.1%
22%
20030%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percent adult smokers
Tulsa Co. Oklahoma US
Major Health Concern: Poor Lifestyle Choices -- Smoking
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
NCHS, CDC; THD;Tulsa County Health Profile; NIH; BRFSS, CDC
Poor health conditions leave safety net severely challenged - Growing Uninsured PopulationSuburban Counties of Tulsa MSA, 2003
Medicare11%
Medicaid22%
Insured48%
Uninsured19%
Tulsa’s uninsured and Medicaid beneficiaries seek primary care in Tulsa hospital ERs. ER visits by Medicaid recipients actually exceeded uninsured visits by 25%.
Tulsa hospital ER patient survey found that 73% were not true emergencies: 30% treated for non-emergency conditions – another 43% could have been treated in non-emergency facilities within 48 hours.
Using hospital ERs for non-emergency care is a costly and inefficient.
Non-emergency ER use is a major contributor to overload and frequent divert status of Tulsa hospital ERs — especially in the last 2 years.
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Lapolla, Health Policy Analysis of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, Center for Health Policy Research and Development, OUCPH, 2005; THD CAP
Poor health conditions create huge inefficient demand on resources - Misuse of Hospitals
and Emergency Rooms
Poor Human Conditions Poor Human Conditions Impact Crime and Impact Crime and
Growing IncarcerationsGrowing Incarcerations
~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.
1980
Note: Number of inmates in Oklahoma prisons, data as of June 30 of each year
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Methamphetamine Labs Seized by AuthoritiesOklahoma and City of Tulsa, 1994 - 2004
Source: Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Website, Tulsa Police Department Website.
10 34
125
241 275
781
946
1,1931,254 1,235
812
0 0 6 13 47132 150 124
178214
131
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Number of labs discovered
Tulsa
Oklahoma
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 & OlderWagoner County, 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
18.7%
35.8%
23.7%
6.3%
11.4%
3%
0.7%
0.3%
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%
Percent of persons 25+
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & OlderBroken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
8.3%
24.4%
27.1%
9.4%
22.7%
6%
1.5%
0.7%
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Master's degree
Professional school degree
Doctorate degree
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Percent of persons 25+
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by SexWagoner County, 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
17.8%
35.7%
24.4%
6.1%
11.8%
2.8%
0.9%
0.5%
19.5%
36%
23.2%
6.5%
11%
3.1%
0.6%
0.1%
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
Percent of persons 25+
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Educational Attainment for Persons Age 25 & Older, by SexBroken Arrow, 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
7.1%
21.3%
26.7%
9.1%
25.6%
7%
2.1%
1.1%
9.4%
26.9%
27.5%
9.7%
20.1%
5.2%
1%
0.3%
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
Percent of persons 25+
Education Success: Preschool
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Large pre-K enrollment in surrounding counties, as emphasis increasingly turns to assuring high quality
Enrollment in Public Pre-K Programs, by Full and Part Day
Creek, Osage, Rogers and Wagoner Counties, October 2004
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
23.5
31.2
16.5
22.1
61
4.3
41.7
14.1
15.5
64.5
41.8
63.8
Creek Co.
Osage Co.
Rogers Co.
Wagoner Co.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of all four year olds
Full-day Part-day Not enrolled
916
Total four year olds:
558
1,081
842
Education Success: Post-Secondary-Higher
Education
Tulsa Community College serves as primary source of higher education enrollment
Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education EnrollmentTulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (Fall 2003)
63.9
13.1
9.4
8
3.2
2.4
TCC
RSU
OSU-Tulsa
NSU-BA
OU-Tulsa
LU-Tulsa
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent of Enrollment
Public College Remediation Rates Among HS Graduates
Tulsa County and Oklahoma, 1999-2003
37
32.435.1
38.1
33.636.5
34.136.5 36.2 35
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Academic Year
0
10
20
30
40
50
Per
cent
Req
uiri n
g R
emed
i ati o
n
Tulsa State
Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (Fall 2003)
Human Development: Key Points
• Middle class is disappearing
• Many households lack adequate income
• Stress of inadequate income and related conditions is widespread
• Starting life in Wagoner County for many is risky business
Human Development: Key Points…continued
• Populations of aging and persons with disabilities are large and growing
• Health challenges are critical to individual and community well-being
• Poor human conditions impact crime and growing incarcerations
• Overall progress in human development is tied to educational success
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
At-Risk Population
Our Health at Risk>
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
...Our Health at Risk
Our Health at Risk…
Health rankings
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Oklahoma's Rankings in Outcomes Associated with Poor Health, 1990 and 2005
According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings
Source: United Health Foundation.
#31
#41
#31
#24
#32
#27
#27
#44
#43
#50
#44
#47
#37
#43
Overall ranking
Limited activity days
Cardiovascular deaths
Cancer deaths
Total mortality
Infant mortality
Premature death
1990 2005
Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Report Card on HealthOklahoma and United States, 2002
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Report Card on Health, 2004.
85.6%
58.7%
22.9%
30.5%
30.6%
16.9%
26.6%
77.4%
59.2%
22.2%
31.2%
24.4%
11%
23%
Eat <5 fruits/vegetables per day
Overweight
Obese
HS students inactive
Adults inactive
Youth smokers
Adult smokers
0%25%50%75%100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Oklahoma U.S.
F
C
C
F
F
F
B
Our Health at Risk…
Lack of Health Insurance
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Health Insurance Status, by TypeOklahoma, 2003-2004
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.
1,631,430 (47.9%)
129,260 (3.8%)391,140 (11.5%)
564,150 (16.5%)
693,050 (20.3%)
435,150 (47.8%)
29,920 (3.3%)
256,250 (28.1%)
23,250 (2.6%)
166,090 (18.2%)
1,193,460 (59.5%)
97,700 (4.9%)97,740 (4.9%)
91,990 (4.6%)
525,470 (26.2%)
2,810 (0.6%)1,640 (0.3%)37,150 (7.6%)
448,910 (91.2%)
1,490 (0.3%)
Employer Individual Medicaid Medicare/Other Public Uninsured
Total Population Under Age 19
Age 19-64 Age 65 & over
Our Health at Risk…
Persons with Disabilities
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
What is a Disability?
Source: ARC-USA, 2000; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); Developmental Services Division (DDSD), Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS), 2000; National Organization on Disability (NOD), 2000; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 .
A person is considered to have a disability if he or she has difficulty performing certain functions (e.g., seeing, hearing, talking, walking, climbing stairs, lifting and carrying, etc.), or has difficulty performing activities of daily living, or has difficulty with certain social roles (e.g., doing school work for children, working at a job and around the house for adults, etc.).
– A person who is unable to perform one or more activities, or who uses some type of assistive technology to improve daily participation in all aspects of work, school and community life, or who needs assistance from another person to perform basic activities is considered to have a severe disability.
–
1 in 5 Americans have some level of disability.1 in 8 Americans have a severe disability.1 in 9 children age 6 to 14 have a disability.
*
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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Persons with Disabilities by Age and TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Wagoner County, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
16.1%
6.4%
62.4%
15.1%
1.0%2.7%
21.7%10.9%
27.3%
36.4%
9.3%
12.5%3.3%
0.2%3.0%
27.7%
44.0%
9.0%
24.9%4.2%0.4%
8.3%
53.3%
Sensory Physical Mental Self-care Go-outside-home Employment 2 or more disabilities
Age 5-15(N=689)
Age 16-20(N=626)
Age 21-64(N=7,046)
Age 65+(N=2,745)
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Persons with Disabilities by Age and TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
9.2%
3.2%
65.8%
0.9%
20.8%
6.1%
2.1%
18.4%8.0%
29.6%
35.8%
9.8%
15.2%3.8%
0.1%2.9%
26.2%
42.0%
8.8%
27.0%2.0%
8.6%
53.6%
Sensory Physical Mental Self-care Go-outside-home Employment 2 or more disabilities
Age 5-15(N=865)
Age 16-20(N=625)
Age 21-64(N=5,925)
Age 65+(N=2,041)
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%
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Employment Rates by Disability TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 21 to 64, Wagoner County, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
58.1%
57%
34.2%
31.6%
16.5%
45.7%
62.4%
Any Disability
Sensory
Physical
Mental
Self-care
Go-outside-home
Employment
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percent Employed
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Employment Rates by Disability TypeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 21 to 64, Broken Arrow, 2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
67.8%
64.3%
54.5%
39.6%
31.8%
51.9%
69.5%
Any disability
Sensory
Physical
Mental
Self-care
Go-outside-home
Employment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percent Employed
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Disability Status and AgeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Wagoner County, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
18.6%
12.6% 12.8%11.1%10.4% 9.8%
6%7.5%
Age 5-15 Age 16-20 Age 21-64 Age 65+0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%Percent of population living below poverty
Persons with a disability Persons with no disability
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Poverty Rates by Disability Status and AgeCivilian Noninstitutionalized Population, Broken Arrow, 1999
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
4.4%
14.9%
5.8%
9.1%
5.5% 5.5%
3.1%
5.5%
Age 5-15 Age 16-20 Age 21-64 Age 65+0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%Percent of population living below poverty
Persons with a disability Persons with no disability
Our Health at Risk…
Death Rates
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Age-Adjusted Death Rates for the Leading Causes of DeathUnited States, 2003, Oklahoma and Tulsa County, 2004
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 51, No. 5, March 14, 2003; Oklahoma State Department of Health
Heart disease
Cancer
Stroke
Chronic lowerrespiratory diseases
Accidents
Diabetes mettitus
Influenza & pneumonia
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Rate per 100,000 Persons
U.S.
Oklahoma
Tulsa County
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Mortality Rates for the Three Leading Causes of DeathOklahoma, 1930 - 2000
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health.
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Rate per 100,000 persons
Stroke
Cancer
Heart Disease
Death Rates for Comparable Areas, 2002
600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100
Birmingham, AL
Washington, DC
Oklahoma City, OK
Louisville, KY
Tulsa, OK
Bakersfield, CA
Toledo, OH
Knoxville, TN
Little Rock, AR
Wichita, KS
Denver, CO
Omaha, NE
Baltimore, MD
Buffalo, NY
US
Fresno, CA
Tucson, AZ
Syracuse, NY
Albuquerque, NM
Salt Lake City, UT
El Paso, TX
Honolulu, HI
County Rate
Good:
Tulsa Co death rates parallel those of OK
Tulsa rates below the OK rate for most years;
2002 Tulsa rate lower than some metro areas of similar size and scope, including Oklahoma City.
Bad: By 2002 Tulsa County rate was 14.5% higher than the nation.
THD – Patel/Woodruff 9/05
Major Health Concern: Tulsa’s high age-adjusted death rate compared to other areasAge-Adjusted Deaths Rates for Tulsa and Comparable Areas, 2002
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
A Research Based Approach
Best Practices... Doing What Works
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices...Doing What WorksStrategies
Outcome performance measuresCommunity coalitions
Collaborative, public-private partnershipsConsumer/client investments
Successful outreach and recruitmentCase management/Care coordinationStrong social marketingRisk reduction educationAccess to services and care
Child careTransportationTranslation
��
––
�����
–––
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices
Source: Institute of Medicine, Reducing Risk for Mental Disorders, 1994.
Institute of Medicine’s Intervention Spectrum
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best PracticesSAMHSA’s Strategic 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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Best Practices“Communities that Care” Model of Prevention
Risk 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
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
...There is hope when United Way
invests in important long-term change and we all work together.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Quiz
1. Which area is growing the most rapidly (percent increase)? a. TAUW service area b. Wagoner Co. c. Broken Arrow
2. During the past 30 years, what has happened to the income gap between rich and poor?
a. increased b. decreased c. stable
3. What percentage of all poor families in Broken Arrow have an employed householder and/or spouse?
a. 20% b. 49% c. 75%
4. What percentage of Wagoner County residents age 25 & older have only a high school education or less?
a. 24% b. 40% c. 55%
5. How does Oklahoma compare to the nation in age-adjusted deaths rates?
a. better b. worse c. same
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
TAUW Community Investments Strategy Mission Statement
To take a leadership role in community building by investing TAUW's community resourcesin the most efficient and effective delivery systems for health and human services.
Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
Community Profile 2006
...now available on the website ofThe Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa
www.csctulsa.org