Community Profile 2007 Education and Economics City of Tulsa January 22, 2007 Prepared for the Tulsa...

Community Profile 2007Community Profile 2007Education and EconomicsEducation and Economics

City of TulsaJanuary 22, 2007

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

January, 2007

Demographic Trends in Tulsa Demographic Trends in Tulsa CountyCounty

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

Growing cultural diversity, particularly among the population <25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Median family income varies by race Large population of mobile renters

Source: US Census 2000, American Community Survey, 2005

What is the Job Climate in What is the Job Climate in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the US?Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the US?

More jobs than qualified workers (Impending Crisis: Too Many Jobs, Too Few People, 2003)

80% of new jobs require a degree (The End of Work, 2002)

39.2% of Tulsans have a high school degree or less and 23% more have some college (US Census 2005 Estimates)

59% of the University of Oklahoma Bachelor’s degree graduates leave Oklahoma (1999, University of Oklahoma)

The immigrant population….if all stay….will not be enough to fill the job demand

Top Risk Factors for Adults Top Risk Factors for Adults and Families for Poor and Families for Poor

Economic SuccessEconomic Success Single-parent households Low educational attainment Illiteracy Poor health and lack of health insurance Substance abuse/addiction

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

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

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

Less thanhigh school

High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree

Professionalschool degree

Doctoratedegree

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

Percent of persons 25+

2000

2005 (est.)


High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree


Doctoratedegree

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

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


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%.


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

According to United Health Foundation's State Health Rankings

Source: United Health Foundation.

#44

#14

#23

#31

#24

#21

#8

#32

#46

#46

#33

#38

#24

#34

#41

#35

#22

#43

#40

#30

#44

Personal Behaviors

Prevalence of smoking

Motor vehicle deaths

Prevalence of obesity

High school graduation

Community Environment

Violent crime

Children in poverty

Occupational fatalities

Infectious disease

Health Policies

Lack of health insurance

Adequacy of prenatal care

Per capita public health spending

Immunization coverage

1990 2006

Ranking: 1=best, 50=worst


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


How Do We Increase Tulsa’s How Do We Increase Tulsa’s Economic Potential? Economic Potential?

Long Term GainLong Term GainThink P-16 (prenatal through college)

– Healthy prenatal and early childhood– Prevent abuse and neglect of children– Engage students in school– Prevent student drop-out– Students complete a bachelor’s degree

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

Real Hourly Wage by Educational AttainmentUnited States, 1973-2005

Source: Economic Policy Institute website.

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)

Less than high school High school College degree Advanced degree

Prenatal InterventionsPrenatal Interventions

Healthy StartChildren FirstHealthy Families and Safe CareParents as Teachers


Summary of Risk Factors for InfantsTulsa County and Oklahoma, 2005

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.

11.6%

41%

7%

24.6%

6.3%

1.6%

33.5%

19.2%

11%

12.9%

39.1%

5.6%

22.4%

6.6%

1.4%

32.8%

19.1%

10.6%

Teen mother(age 15-19)

Unmarried mother

Poor prenatal care(3rd trimester/no care)

Mother w/ <12th gradeeducation

Low birthweight(1500-2499 grams)

Very low birthweight(<1500 grams)

Short birth spacing(<24 mos. apart)

Very short birth spacing(<18 mos. apart)

Premature(<37 weeks gest.)

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

Percent of Births

Tulsa Co.

Oklahoma

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

Education Success in PreschoolEducation Success in Preschool

Star Rating System for Quality Educare Head Start Supercenters Pre K 4 All Day Kindergarten

All this makes us Number 1 in US in early childhood efforts


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

Tulsa County, 2005 (est.)

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

20,416(76.0%)

6,447(24.0%)

4 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

3 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

2 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

1 Year Olds4,083 (20.0%)

Under 1 Year Olds2,858 (14.0%)

Rely on care outside of

parents

Do NOT rely on care

outside of parents

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

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


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

Tulsa County, October 2006

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

20,416(76.0%)

6,447(24.0%)

Licensed12,084 (59.2%)

Unlicensed8,333 (40.8%)


parents

Do NOT rely on care outside of

parents


Many young children cared for in unknown arrangements

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


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

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

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

26% 36% 38%Tulsa Co.

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

Percent of all four year olds

Full-day Half-day Not enrolled

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

Total four year olds = 8,954

Education SuccessKindergarten – 12th Grade

Community SchoolsSchool-based ClinicsAlternative EducationCharter Schools


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

from 9th Grade to 2005 Graduating ClassTulsa County School Districts

-26%

-20.8%

-10.2%

-9.6%

-8.5%

-14.7%

-8.5%

-24.7%

-18.5%

-23.7%

-11.9%

-29%

-43.7%

-15.9%

Tulsa County

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

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

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

Number change in ADM

-22

-29

-109

-12

-22

-62

-14

-111

-115

-30

-29

-1,424

-159

-2,137


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

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

Tulsa County

-21.2%

-44.2%

-21.3%

-39.4%

White Black Native American Hispanic Origin

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%


(-1,169)

(-655)

(-177)

(-167)

TULSA

BIXBY

SKIATOOK

OWASSO

SPERRY

BROKEN ARROW

JENKS

LIBERTY

COLLINSVILLE

KEYSTONE

UNION

SAND SPRINGS

GLENPOOL

LEONARD

BERRYHILL

28.6

12.6

7.921.1

8.2

12.0

2.4

NA

3.8

4.3

11.0

13.0

14.8

1.3

NA

Dropout RateLess than 5%5 - 9.9%10 - 19.9%20%+

Dropout RatesGraduating Class of 2005

Tulsa County School Districts

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa (November 2006).

N

EW

S

Source: Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability, Department of Education.

-43.7

-9.6

-11.9 -8.5

-18.5

-10.2

-29.0

-24.7

-23.7

-15.9

-14.7

-20.8

TULSA

BIXBY

SKIATOOK

OWASSO

SPERRY

BROKEN ARROW

JENKS

LIBERTY

COLLINSVILLE

KEYSTONEUNION

SAND SPRINGS

GLENPOOL

LEONARD

BERRYHILL

NA

NA

-8.5Attrition Rate> -10%-10 to -19.9%-20 to -29.9%-30% or less

N

EW

S


Attrition RatesGraduating Class of 2005


Source: Department of Education, Data Services.

Education SuccessEducation SuccessPost-Secondary-Higher EducationPost-Secondary-Higher Education

Improved engagement in post high school college and vocational preparation

Reduce remediation classes in first college years


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

By School District

Source: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.

54.2%51.4%

48.9%

59.3%55.6%

32.8%

52%

39.7%

56.7%

49.4%

60.1%56.9%

35.1%

TPS

Sand

Spring

s BABixb

y

Jenk

s

Collins

ville

Skiato

ok

Sperry

Union

Berry

hill

Owas

so

Glen

pool

Liber

ty0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment

Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003


63.9%

13.1%9.4% 8%

3.2% 2.4%

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

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


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


37%

32.4%35.1%

38.1%

33.6%

36.5%34.1%

36.5% 36.2%35%

1999 2000 2001 2002 20030%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Tulsa County Oklahoma

How Do We Increase Tulsa’s How Do We Increase Tulsa’s Economic Potential?Economic Potential?

Mid Term GainMid Term Gain Redevelop workforce for new job areas of

health, early childhood education, nanotechnology, information technology, recreation and service industry

Prepare immigrant workforce to participate in “information age” workforce

Examine immigration policies to bolster needed workforce demands


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

Tulsa County School Districts, 1997-2005

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

12.5%

30.5%

2.9%

33.9%

2.5%

4.2%

7.7%

-19.2%7.7%

33%

-3.6%16.8%

12.8%

0.2%

16.3%

6.8%

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

Tulsa County

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


Growth in Hispanic students greatly contributes to changes in enrollment

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


60%

44.6%

151.1%

-25%43.5%

138.5%

-57.1%0%

133.3%

80.9%

57.5%

27.3%

450%

149.9%

146.1%

137%

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

Tulsa County

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

Hispanic enrollment 2004:

24

6

0

21

284

137

42

55

6,023

1,506

9,514

162

570

15

99

570

How Do We Increase Tulsa’s How Do We Increase Tulsa’s Economic Potential?Economic Potential?

Short Term GainShort Term Gain Recover drop-outs who are now 16-35

years of age Recover retired workforce of 55-70 year

olds Stop the “Brain Drain” of college educated

to other states Improve health of the workforce Recover workforce leaving prison

Sourc e: U S Census B ureau , 2000 C ensus.

Number of persons0 - 99100 - 199200 - 299300 - 399400+

Number of Civilian Non-Institutionalized

Males Age 16-64Unemployed or

Not in Labor Force

By Census Tract, Tulsa County, 2000


81s

t W

. A

ve.

66th St. N.

61st St.

Admiral Pl.

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Uni

on

96th St. N.

126th St. N.

36th St. N.

31st St.

131st St.

101st St.

181st St.

211th St.

186th St. N.

N

EW

S

Pe

oria U.S

. 75

Mem

oria

l

145

th E

. A

ve.

Pe

oria

Har

vard

Yal

e

Min

go

Ga

rnet

t

6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Percent of persons0 - 9.9%10 - 19.9%20 - 29.9%30 - 39.9%40%+


Percent of Civilian Non-Institutionalized


Not in Labor Force

6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4

Ga

rnet

t

Min

go

Yal

e

Har

vard

Pe

oria

145

th E

. A

ve.

Mem

oria

l

U.S

. 75

Pe

oria

N

EW

S

186th St. N.

211th St.

181st St.

101st St.

131st St.

31st St.

36th St. N.

126th St. N.

96th St. N.

Uni

on

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Admiral Pl.

61st St.

66th St. N.

81s

t W

. A

ve.



Number of persons01 - 2425 - 4950 - 99100+


Number of Persons Age 16-19

Not in School and Not High School

Graduates

6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4

Ga

rnet

t

Min

go

Yal

e

Har

vard

Pe

oria

145

th E

. A

ve.

Mem

oria

l

U.S

. 75

Pe

oria

N

EW

S

186th St. N.

211th St.

181st St.

101st St.

131st St.

31st St.

36th St. N.

126th St. N.

96th St. N.

Uni

on

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Admiral Pl.

61st St.

66th St. N.

81s

t W

. A

ve.



Percent of persons0%0.1 - 9.9%10 - 19.9%20 - 29.9%30%+

Percent of Persons Age 16-19


Graduates


6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4

Ga

rnet

t

Min

go

Yal

e

Har

vard

Pe

oria

145

th E

. A

ve.

Mem

oria

l

U.S

. 75

Pe

oria

N

EW

S

186th St. N.

211th St.

181st St.

101st St.

131st St.

31st St.

36th St. N.

126th St. N.

96th St. N.

Uni

on

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Admiral Pl.

61st St.

66th St. N.

81s

t W

. A

ve.



Number of personsLess than 100100 - 199200 - 299300 - 399400+




81s

t W

. A

ve.

66th St. N.

61st St.

Admiral Pl.

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Uni

on

96th St. N.

126th St. N.

36th St. N.

31st St.

131st St.

101st St.

181st St.

211th St.

186th St. N.

N

EW

S

Pe

oria U.S

. 75

Mem

oria

l

145

th E

. A

ve.

Pe

oria

Har

vard

Yal

e

Min

go

Ga

rnet

t

6

3

1

28

5

7

9

4

Distribution of PersonsAge 62 to 70

Area of StudyNumber of

MajorsPercentage of

Majors

Business 19 58 %

Engineering 24 73 %

Humanities 19 58 %

Natural Sciences 18 55 %

Professional Studies

18 55 %

Social Sciences 18 55 %

Total 116

Expected Percentage

59 %

Area of Study of University of Oklahoma Students Area of Study of University of Oklahoma Students Leaving OklahomaLeaving Oklahoma

•Source: Migration After College: The Spatial Distribution of Recent OU Graduates, Emily McCauley, March 1999 , University of Oklahoma

Reasons to Leave and Stay in OklahomaReasons to Leave and Stay in Oklahoma

Oklahoma is loosing 20% of its graduates each year to Texas and other enticing states.

Economic opportunity is cited most often as the top reason to move to a location. Students rank it first 44% of the time.

Students who are from Oklahoma and who plan to remain in Oklahoma (31%) rank economic opportunity as the top reason for their locational decision 41% of the time.

Source: Migration After College: The Spatial Distribution of Recent OU Graduates, Emily McCauley, March 1999 , University of Oklahoma

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


Community Profile 2007

is available o n the website of

The Community Service Councilo f Greater Tulsa: www.csctulsa.org

AppendixAppendix

Slides which support statements offered regarding demographics and

human development

Economic Potential Economic Potential of Tulsa is at a Turning Pointof Tulsa is at a Turning Point

Middle class is disappearingMany households lack adequate

incomeStress of inadequate income and

related conditions is widespreadStarting life in Tulsa for many is risky

business

Economic Potential Economic Potential of Tulsa is at a Turning Pointof Tulsa is at a Turning Point

Populations of aging and persons with disabilities are large and growing

Health challenges are critical to individual and community well-being

Poor human conditions impact crime and growing incarcerations

Overall progress in human development is tied to educational success

The Middle Class is DisappearingThe Middle Class is Disappearing

~Lower income groups greatly expand, middle shrinks,

highest income group increases dramatically


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

1900 - 1940 1940 - 1990 1990 - ?0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Poor - 75%

Poor - 20%Poor - 10%

Rich - 20%

Middle - 60%

Rich - 5% Rich - 10%

Middle - 20%

Middle - 80%

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

The Overall Dominant Trend...The Shrinking Middle Class


Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005.

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

43.5%53.1% 49.4% 48.8%

40.1%

37.5%38.6% 38.5%

16.3%9.4% 12% 12.7%

U.S. Oklahoma TAUW Tulsa Co.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<$40,000/year

$40,000-$99,999/year

$100,000+/year

1% of U.S. households have

39.3% of the assets, making the U.S. the #1 country in the

world in inequality of income.


Income disparity between rich and poor grows wider beyond 1993

Mean Family Income by Quintile and Top 5% (2003 dollars)United States, 1966-2003


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


Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Top 5%

Many Households Lack Many Households Lack Adequate IncomeAdequate Income

~More and more households lack adequate income to meet

living needs


Family of Three, Tulsa County, 2006

Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, with Community Action Project of Tulsa County, "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oklahoma;" 2006 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, November 2006. Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005.

$8,400$10,712

$16,600

$30,710

$45,268

WelfareWage

MinimumWage

PovertyWage

185% PovertyWage

Median Family Income

(2005 est.)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000Annual Wage

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

Note: For the self-sufficiency wage, family of three consists of one adult, one preschooler and one schoolage child. The hourly wages given assume employment at 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year.

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

All families with children <18

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

($7.98/hr.)

($14.76/hr.)

($21.76/hr.)


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

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

268,21379.2%

70,39620.8%

In armed forces

Employed

Unemployed

492 (0.2%)

251,470 (93.8%)

16,251 (6.1%)

NOT in labor force

In labor force

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


Unemployment RatesTulsa MSA, 1991 - 2006

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

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

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Rate 5.9 5.3 6.3 5.8 4.2 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.4 4.9 6.5 5.0 4.4 3.5

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


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


$11

$14

$25

$31

$11

$16

$28

$36

$9

$12

$21

$27

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

$10

$20

$30

$40Real hourly wage (2005 dollars)

Both sexes Men Women

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

~Based on following key indicators~Based on following key indicators::

Poverty Families with children headed by women Youth 16-19 not in school or high school

graduates Men 16-64 not employed or in labor force


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

Tulsa County, August, 2006

Source: Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, County Profiles August, 2006; Oklahoma State Dept. of Education, Low Income Report for 2005-2006; US Census Bureau, Pop. Estimates Division, 2005 Estimates; Oklahoma State Department of Health-WIC Service, Caseload Report, August, 2006.

78,641

21,228

52,892

5,530

4,606

8,647

5,146

60,205

2,468

24,755

5,538

13.7%

47.4%

36.5%

8%

51.4%

19.9%

11.5%

10.5%

1.7%

44.5%

10%

Medicaid Total

Medicaid <5

Medicaid <18

Medicaid 65+

WIC Infants

WIC age 1-5

Child Care Subsidy <5

Food Stamps Total

TANF <18

Elem. School Free Lunch(2005-06)

Elem. School Reduced Lunch(2005-06)

025,00050,00075,000100,000

Number of Participants

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

Percent of Population

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

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

inadequate


Summary of Risk Factors for InfantsTulsa County and Oklahoma, 2005

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health, Vital Statistics.

11.6%

41%

7%

24.6%

6.3%

1.6%

33.5%

19.2%

11%

12.9%

39.1%

5.6%

22.4%

6.6%

1.4%

32.8%

19.1%

10.6%

Teen mother(age 15-19)

Unmarried mother

Poor prenatal care(3rd trimester/no care)

Mother w/ <12th gradeeducation

Low birthweight(1500-2499 grams)

Very low birthweight(<1500 grams)

Short birth spacing(<24 mos. apart)

Very short birth spacing(<18 mos. apart)

Premature(<37 weeks gest.)

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

Percent of Births

Tulsa Co.

Oklahoma

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


Special Education Students and Students who Received Early Intervention

Oklahoma Public Schools, 2003-04

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education.

Notspecial

education85%

Specialeducation

15%

Earlyintervention

2.2%

No earlyintervention

97.8%

Small proportion of special education students received early intervention

Total Oklahoma Public School Students

Total Oklahoma Public School Students

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

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

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


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

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

6.3

6.6

6.8

7.4

7.7

7.7

8.5

16.6

17.1

18.2

18.9

18.4

19.8

25.9

9.2

9.7

10.1

10

10.1

13.5

10.7

47.8

50.5

52.5

51.9

52.2

49.1

46.2

17.5

14.1

10.6

10.4

10.4

9

8.1

2030

2020

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

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

Percent of population

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

1.9

1.4

1.2

.9

.6

Pro

ject

ions 2.5

2.1


Disability Prevalence by Age and Level of DisabilityOklahoma, 1997

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

2%

3.4%

11.2%

10.7%

13.4%

22.6%

35.7%

49%

73.6%

4.8%

5.3%

8.1%

13.9%

24.2%

31.8%

57.6%

0 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 14

15-24

25-44

45-54

55-64

65-79

80+

Age Group

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

Percent with Specified Level of Disability

Level of disabilityAny Severe

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

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

choices contribute to major health concerns


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

Source: CDC Wonder.

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

Death rates

Tulsa Co OK US


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

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

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent obese

Oklahoma US


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

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

22.7%

25.1%

22%

Tulsa Co. Oklahoma US0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent adult smokers


Health Insurance Status, by AgeOklahoma, 2004-2005

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.

1,648,530 (47.9%)

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

553,150 (16.1%)

659,370 (19.2%)

424,880 (47.2%)

36,520 (4.1%)

283,680 (31.5%)

23,450 (2.6%)

130,780 (14.5%)

1,222,600 (59.3%)

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

90,420 (4.4%)

524,320 (25.4%)

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

37,910 (7.8%)

439,280 (91.0%)

4,270 (0.9%)

Employer Individual Medicaid Medicare/Other Public Uninsured

Total Population Under Age 19

Age 19-64 Age 65 & over


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



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


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

IncarcerationsIncarcerations

~Trends greatly affected by substance abuse

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

22,500

25,000

'50

'52

'54

'56

'58

'60

'62

'64

'66

'68

'70

'72

'74

'76

'78

'80

'82

'84

'86

'88

'90

'92

'94

'96

'98

'00

'02

'04

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

came into effectOklahoma’s Prison Population

1950-2005

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

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


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

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

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

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Number of labs discovered

Tulsa

Oklahoma

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

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

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

Educational SuccessEducational Success

~From preschool through post secondary education


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

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


High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree


Doctoratedegree

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

Percent of persons 25+

2000

2005 (est.)


High schoolgraduate

Somecollege

Associate'sdegree

Bachelor'sdegree

Master'sdegree


Doctoratedegree

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

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


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%.

Education Success: Preschool


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

Tulsa County, 2005 (est.)

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

20,416(76.0%)

6,447(24.0%)

4 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

3 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

2 Year Olds4,492 (22.0%)

1 Year Olds4,083 (20.0%)

Under 1 Year Olds2,858 (14.0%)


parents

Do NOT rely on care

outside of parents

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



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

Tulsa County, October 2006

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

20,416(76.0%)

6,447(24.0%)

Licensed12,084 (59.2%)

Unlicensed8,333 (40.8%)


parents

Do NOT rely on care outside of

parents


Many young children cared for in unknown arrangements

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


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

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

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

26% 36% 38%Tulsa Co.

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

Percent of all four year olds

Full-day Half-day Not enrolled

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

Total four year olds = 8,954

Education Success: Kindergarten – 12th Grade


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

Tulsa County School Districts, 1997-2005


12.5%

30.5%

2.9%

33.9%

2.5%

4.2%

7.7%

-19.2%7.7%

33%

-3.6%16.8%

12.8%

0.2%

16.3%

6.8%

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

Tulsa County

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


Growth in Hispanic students greatly contributes to changes in enrollment

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


60%

44.6%

151.1%

-25%43.5%

138.5%

-57.1%0%

133.3%

80.9%

57.5%

27.3%

450%

149.9%

146.1%

137%

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Keystone

Leonard

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

Tulsa County

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

Hispanic enrollment 2004:

24

6

0

21

284

137

42

55

6,023

1,506

9,514

162

570

15

99

570


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

from 9th Grade to 2005 Graduating ClassTulsa County School Districts

-26%

-20.8%

-10.2%

-9.6%

-8.5%

-14.7%

-8.5%

-24.7%

-18.5%

-23.7%

-11.9%

-29%

-43.7%

-15.9%

Tulsa County

Berryhill

Bixby

Broken Arrow

Collinsville

Glenpool

Jenks

Liberty

Owasso

Sand Springs

Skiatook

Sperry

Tulsa

Union

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


Number change in ADM

-22

-29

-109

-12

-22

-62

-14

-111

-115

-30

-29

-1,424

-159

-2,137


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

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

Tulsa County

-21.2%

-44.2%

-21.3%

-39.4%

White Black Native American Hispanic Origin

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%


(-1,169)

(-655)

(-177)

(-167)

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


Percent Distribution of Tulsa Area Higher Education Enrollment

Tulsa Area Public Colleges, Fall 2003


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%


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

By School District


54.2%51.4%

48.9%

59.3%55.6%

32.8%

52%

39.7%

56.7%

49.4%

60.1%56.9%

35.1%

TPS

Sand

Spring

s BABixb

y

Jenk

s

Collins

ville

Skiato

ok

Sperry

Union

Berry

hill

Owas

so

Glen

pool

Liber

ty0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


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


37%

32.4%35.1%

38.1%

33.6%

36.5%34.1%

36.5% 36.2%35%

1999 2000 2001 2002 20030%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Tulsa County Oklahoma

Sourc e: U S Census B ureau , 2000 C ensus.

Number of persons0 - 99100 - 199200 - 299300 - 399400+

Number of Civilian Non-Institutionalized


Not in Labor Force



81s

t W

. A

ve.

66th St. N.

61st St.

Admiral Pl.

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Uni

on

96th St. N.

126th St. N.

36th St. N.

31st St.

131st St.

101st St.

181st St.

211th St.

186th St. N.

N

EW

S

Pe

oria U.S

. 75

Mem

oria

l

145

th E

. A

ve.

Pe

oria

Har

vard

Yal

e

Min

go

Ga

rnet

t

6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4


Percent of persons0 - 9.9%10 - 19.9%20 - 29.9%30 - 39.9%40%+


Percent of Civilian Non-Institutionalized


Not in Labor Force

6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4

Ga

rnet

t

Min

go

Yal

e

Har

vard

Pe

oria

145

th E

. A

ve.

Mem

oria

l

U.S

. 75

Pe

oria

N

EW

S

186th St. N.

211th St.

181st St.

101st St.

131st St.

31st St.

36th St. N.

126th St. N.

96th St. N.

Uni

on

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Admiral Pl.

61st St.

66th St. N.

81s

t W

. A

ve.



Number of persons01 - 2425 - 4950 - 99100+


Number of Persons Age 16-19


Graduates

6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4

Ga

rnet

t

Min

go

Yal

e

Har

vard

Pe

oria

145

th E

. A

ve.

Mem

oria

l

U.S

. 75

Pe

oria

N

EW

S

186th St. N.

211th St.

181st St.

101st St.

131st St.

31st St.

36th St. N.

126th St. N.

96th St. N.

Uni

on

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Admiral Pl.

61st St.

66th St. N.

81s

t W

. A

ve.



Percent of persons0%0.1 - 9.9%10 - 19.9%20 - 29.9%30%+

Percent of Persons Age 16-19


Graduates


6

3

1

2

8

5

7

9

4

Ga

rnet

t

Min

go

Yal

e

Har

vard

Pe

oria

145

th E

. A

ve.

Mem

oria

l

U.S

. 75

Pe

oria

N

EW

S

186th St. N.

211th St.

181st St.

101st St.

131st St.

31st St.

36th St. N.

126th St. N.

96th St. N.

Uni

on

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Admiral Pl.

61st St.

66th St. N.

81s

t W

. A

ve.



TULSA

BIXBY

SKIATOOK

OWASSO

SPERRY

BROKEN ARROW

JENKS

LIBERTY

COLLINSVILLE

KEYSTONE

UNION

SAND SPRINGS

GLENPOOL

LEONARD

BERRYHILL

28.6

12.6

7.921.1

8.2

12.0

2.4

NA

3.8

4.3

11.0

13.0

14.8

1.3

NA

Dropout RateLess than 5%5 - 9.9%10 - 19.9%20%+

Dropout RatesGraduating Class of 2005



N

EW

S

Source: Education Oversight Board, Office of Accountability, Department of Education.

-43.7

-9.6

-11.9 -8.5

-18.5

-10.2

-29.0

-24.7

-23.7

-15.9

-14.7

-20.8

TULSA

BIXBY

SKIATOOK

OWASSO

SPERRY

BROKEN ARROW

JENKS

LIBERTY

COLLINSVILLE

KEYSTONEUNION

SAND SPRINGS

GLENPOOL

LEONARD

BERRYHILL

NA

NA

-8.5Attrition Rate> -10%-10 to -19.9%-20 to -29.9%-30% or less

N

EW

S


Attrition RatesGraduating Class of 2005


Source: Department of Education, Data Services.

Number of personsLess than 100100 - 199200 - 299300 - 399400+




81s

t W

. A

ve.

66th St. N.

61st St.

Admiral Pl.

33r

d W

. A

ve.

Uni

on

96th St. N.

126th St. N.

36th St. N.

31st St.

131st St.

101st St.

181st St.

211th St.

186th St. N.

N

EW

S

Pe

oria U.S

. 75

Mem

oria

l

145

th E

. A

ve.

Pe

oria

Har

vard

Yal

e

Min

go

Ga

rnet

t

6

3

1

28

5

7

9

4

Distribution of PersonsAge 62 to 70

Community Profile 2007 Education and Economics City of Tulsa January 22, 2007 Prepared for the Tulsa...

Documents

Transcript of Community Profile 2007 Education and Economics City of Tulsa January 22, 2007 Prepared for the Tulsa...