prepared by the community service council december 2010

56
COMMUNITY PROFILE 2010 ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS Prepared by the Community Service Counci December 201

Upload: nancy-mason

Post on 03-Jan-2016

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

COMMUNITY PROFILE 2010ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY AREADEMOGRAPHICS

Prepared by the Community Service CouncilDecember 2010

Page 2: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY AREA

Demographic Trends Human Investment Industry Economics and Employment Homelessness Transportation Child Indicators

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 3: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

Page 4: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Osage

Nowata

Washington

Bartlesville

Rogers

74056

74048

7402274072

74003

74027

74006

74061

74083

74048

74029

74051

7404274042

Bartlesville Regional United Way (Oklahoma part)

BRUW counties

Bartlesville

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 5: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

Population change – out-migration of 35-50 years old

Age--aging population Race and ethnicity – more culturally

diverse Living arrangements – poor with

growing instability Transportation – multi-county travel

pattern

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 6: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

TOTAL POPULATION PERCENT CHANGEUS COMPARED TO OKLAHOMA BY SINGLE YEAR OF AGE 0-85+

TOTAL POPULATION

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85+

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4US 2000-2030 % ChangeOK 2000-2030 % Change

Age in Years

Perc

ent

Change

Oklahoma Ages 34-47 decline

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 7: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Population of BRUW Service Area, Area Counties and Bartlesville

2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division; US Census Bureau; 2000 Census.

85,654

45,051

10,528

50,706

36,068

65,553

Rogers Co. Osage Co. Nowata Co. WashingtonCo.

Bartlesville BRUW area(2000 census)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 8: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Population TrendsNowata, Osage, Washington and Rogers Counties, and Bartlesville

1980 through 2030

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

1980 1990 2000 2009(est.)

2020(proj.)

2030(proj.)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Nowata Co. 11,486 9,992 10,569 10,528 13,688 15,373

Bartlesville 34,568 34,256 34,748 36,068 36,030 36,380

Osage Co. 39,327 41,645 44,437 45,051 50,864 53,369

Washington Co. 48,113 48,066 48,996 50,706 50,778 51,334

Rogers Co. 46,436 55,170 70,641 85,654 90,031 98,490

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 9: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Race Comparison for Total Population and Children under 5Oklahoma and BRUW Service Area, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

65.6%

9.5%

10.9%

1.3%

12.6%

66.1%

2.9%

17.3%

0.7%

12.9%

76.2%

7.6%

7.9%

1.4%

7.0%

78.3%

2.5%

11.4%

0.6%7.2%

White Black American Indian Asian Other/2+ races

Oklahoma

Under 5

Total Population

Hispanic9.7%

Hispanic4.5%

Hispanic5.2%

Hispanic2.4%

BRUW Area

N = 3,927

N = 65,553

N = 236,353

N = 3,450,654

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 10: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Demographics

Race Comparison for Total Population and Children under 5Oklahoma and Washington County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

65.6%

9.5%

10.9%

1.3%

12.6%

71.1% 3.1%

12.3%

0.9%

12.6%

76.2%

7.6%

7.9%

1.4%

7.0%

81.2%

2.5%

8.6%

0.7%7.0%

White Black American Indian Asian Other/2+ races

Oklahoma

Under 5

Total Population

Hispanic9.7%

Hispanic5.0%

Hispanic5.2%

Hispanic2.6%

Washington County

N = 2,918

N = 48,996

N = 236,353

N = 3,450,654

Page 11: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Race Comparison by Age GroupWashington County, 2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

80.6%2.8%

8.9%

1.1%

6.7%

74.8%3.9%

11.4%

1.0%9.0%

80.6%

2.8%

9.0%

1.3%

6.4%

89.1%

1.2%

5.1%0.6%

4.1%

White Black American Indian Asian & other 2+ races

20 to 64

Under 20

65 & over

Total

N = 8,869

N = 13,222N = 50,706

N = 28,615

Hispanic5.3%

Hispanic7.1%

Hispanic5.6%

Hispanic1.4%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 12: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Race Comparison by Age GroupNowata County, 2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

71.2%2.7%

17.0%

0.2%9.0%

60.8%

3.1%

23.0%

0.1%

12.9%

73.5%

2.3%

16.3%

0.2%7.7%

79.5%

3.4%

9.9%

7.2%

White Black American Indian Asian & other 2+ races

20 to 64

Under 20

65 & over

Total

N = 1,830

N = 2,804N = 10,528

N = 5,894

Hispanic2.1%

Hispanic4.0%

Hispanic1.8%

Hispanic.4%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 13: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Race Comparison by Age GroupOsage County, 2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

67.4%

11.0%

14.4%

0.4%6.8%

60.4%

11.2%

18.7%

0.4%

9.3%

68.4%

11.5%

13.6%

0.5%6.1%

76.6%

8.3%

9.4%

0.3%5.4%

White Black American Indian Asian & other 2+ races

20 to 64

Under 20

65 & over

Total

N = 5,781

N = 11,760N = 45,051

N = 27,510

Hispanic3.2%

Hispanic5.0%

Hispanic2.8%

Hispanic1.2%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 14: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Race Comparison by Age GroupRogers County, 2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

79.8%

1.5%

11.5%

1.0%

6.2%

74.1%

2.2%

14.0%

1.1%8.6%

81.0%

1.4%

11.1%

1.1%

5.4%

86.6%0.7%8.0%

0.2%4.5%

White Black American Indian Asian & other 2+ races

20 to 64

Under 20

65 & over

Total

N = 11,153

N = 24,329N = 85,654

N = 50,172

Hispanic3.6%

Hispanic5.6%

Hispanic3.3%

Hispanic.9%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 15: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Race DistributionWashington, Osage, Nowata and Rogers Counties, 2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

80.6%2.8%

8.9%

1.1%

6.7% 67.4%

11.0%

14.4%

0.4%

6.8%

71.2%

2.7%

17.0%

0.2%9.0%

79.8%

1.5%

11.5%

1.0%

6.2%

White Black American Indian Asian & other 2+ races

Nowata Co.

Osage Co.

Rogers Co.

Washington Co.

Hispanic5.3%

Hispanic3.2%

Hispanic2.1%

Hispanic3.6%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 16: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Births by Race of MotherWashington, Osage, Nowata and Rogers Counties, 2008

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Health.

81.4% 2.9%

14.4%

1.4%70.4%

6.7%

22.5%

0.4%

71.3%

3.1%

25.6%

78.8%

0.7%

18.3%

2.2%

White Black American Indian Other

Nowata Co.

Osage Co.

Rogers Co.

Washington Co.

Hispanic8.0%

Hispanic2.2%

Hispanic3.1%

Hispanic3.8%

Total births = 724

Total births = 129 Total births = 972

Total births = 510

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 17: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Age DistributionBRUW Service Area, 2000 Census, Washington County, 2009 Population

Estimates, and Bartlesville, ACS 2005-09 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division; US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005-09.

6.0%

19.3%7.6%

49.4%

15.6%

2.2%

6.6%

16.7%9.2%

50.0%

14.9%

2.6%

6.6%

17.3%9.5%

49.5%

14.5%

2.6%

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

Washington Co. (2009 Pop. Est.)

Bartlesville(ACS 2005-09)

BRUW Area(2000 Census)

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 18: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Age DistributionWashington, Osage, Nowata and Rogers Counties, 2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

6.6%

16.7%9.2%

50.0%

14.9%

2.6% 5.4%

17.7%9.4%

54.7%11.3%

1.5%

6.0%

17.7%8.1%

50.8%14.9%

2.5%

6.1%

19.3%8.9%

52.7%11.7%

1.3%

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

Washington Co.

Rogers Co.Nowata Co.

Osage Co.

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 19: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Population by Age GroupTulsa, Washington, Osage, Nowata and Rogers Counties, 2009

Tulsa

Washington

Osage

Nowata

Rogers

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

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

Tulsa Washington Osage Nowata Rogers

0-4 8.1 6.6 5.4 6 6.1

5-17 17.8 16.7 17.7 17.7 19.3

18-24 9.4 9.2 9.4 8.1 8.9

25-64 52.6 50 54.7 50.8 52.7

65-84 10.3 14.9 11.3 14.9 11.7

85+ 1.8 2.6 1.5 2.5 1.3

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 20: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Trends in Age DistributionWashington County, 1990, 2000, 2009 est. and 2020 proj.

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

1990 2000 2009 (est.) 2020 (proj.)0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

0-4 3,255 2,918 3,338 3,280

5-17 9,170 9,345 8,476 8,401

18-24 3,563 3,794 4,689 4,241

25-64 24,289 24,239 25,334 24,250

65-84 6,991 7,651 7,535 8,838

85+ 798 1,049 1,334 1,767

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 21: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Trends in Age DistributionOsage County, 1990, 2000, 2009 est. and 2020 proj.

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

1990 2000 2009 (est.) 2020 (proj.)0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

0-4 2,913 2,748 2,441 3,311

5-17 8,636 8,977 7,960 8,193

18-24 3,141 3,403 4,234 4,219

25-64 21,259 23,502 24,634 25,357

65-84 5,142 5,168 5,087 8,522

85+ 554 639 694 1,261

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 22: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Trends in Age DistributionNowata County, 1990, 2000, 2009 est. and 2020 proj.

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

1990 2000 2009 (est.) 2020 (proj.)0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0-4 626 688 635 915

5-17 1,894 2,068 1,867 2,278

18-24 738 802 851 1,205

25-64 4,813 5,182 5,345 6,780

65-84 1,715 1,580 1,570 2,160

85+ 206 249 260 352

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 23: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Trends in Age DistributionRogers County, 1990, 2000, 2009 est. and 2020 proj.

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

1990 2000 2009 (est.) 2020 (proj.)0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

0-4 4,046 4,907 5,220 6,223

5-17 11,626 15,344 16,554 15,346

18-24 4,669 5,226 7,621 7,860

25-64 29,214 37,203 45,106 44,731

65-84 5,125 7,128 10,046 13,989

85+ 490 833 1,107 1,883

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 24: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Marital Status for Population Age 15 & OverBRUW Service Area, 2000 Census, Washington County and Bartlesville,

ACS 2005-09 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005-09.

17.6%

62.3%

1.2%11.0%

7.9%

21.3%

55.8%

2.0%

12.9%

8.0%

23.2%

54.6%

2.0%

12.4%

7.8%

Never married Married Separated Divorced Widowed

Washington Co. (ACS 2005-09)

Bartlesville(ACS 2005-09)

BRUW Area(2000 Census)

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 25: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Marital Status for Population Age 15 & OverWashington, Osage, Nowata and Rogers Counties, 2009 Estimates

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division.

21.3%

55.8%

2.0%

12.9%

8.0%

21.6%

57.6%

2.4%12.1%

6.3%

22.4%

57.2%

1.9%11.9%

6.6%

21.2%

59.6%

1.8%

11.9%

5.5%

Never married Married Separated Divorced Widowed

Washington Co.

Rogers Co.Nowata Co.

Osage Co.

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 26: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Types of Families with Own Children Under 18,by Race & Hispanic Origin

BRUW Service Area, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

74.0%

19.8%

6.2%

76.0%

18.0%

5.9%

46.7%

41.4%

11.9%

68.8%

24.6%

6.6%86.5%

11.5%

1.9%

74.9%

20.6%

4.6%

Married couple Female-headed Male-headed

Total White Black

American Indian Asian Hispanic

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 27: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Types of Families with Own Children Under 18,by Race & Hispanic Origin

Washington County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

74.7%

19.5%

5.8%

76.4%

17.9%

5.7%

50.6%

40.4%

9.0%

71.0%

23.8%

5.2%85.1%

12.8%

2.1%

76.5%

18.1%

5.4%

Married couple Female-headed Male-headed

Total White Black

American Indian Asian Hispanic

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 28: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Types of Families with Own Children Under 18,by Race & Hispanic Origin

Osage County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

74.9%

17.9%

7.2%

78.5%

14.1%

7.4%

62.8%

30.8%

6.4%

66.7%

25.2%

8.1%

90.0%

10.0%

71.2%

21.6%

7.2%

Married couple Female-headed Male-headed

Total White Black

American Indian Asian Hispanic

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 29: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Types of Families with Own Children Under 18,by Race & Hispanic Origin

Nowata County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

73.6%

19.1%

7.3%

75.1%

17.9%

7.0%

40.6%

43.8%

15.6%

72.9%

19.4%

7.7%

100.0%

57.1%

42.9%

Married couple Female-headed Male-headed

Total White Black

American Indian Asian Hispanic

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 30: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Types of Families with Own Children Under 18,by Race & Hispanic Origin

Rogers County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

79.5%

14.8%

5.8%

80.8%

13.5%

5.7%65.6%

23.4%

10.9%

71.8%

22.3%

5.9%

92.3%

7.7%

81.1%

14.8%

4.1%

Married couple Female-headed Male-headed

Total White Black

American Indian Asian Hispanic

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 31: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Living Arrangements of Children Under 18Washington County, 1990, 2000 and 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 77.6% 2.8% 13.7% 4.4%

2000 71.3% 4.6% 16.3% 5.9%

2005-09 62.6% 6% 23.8% 7.7%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 32: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Living Arrangements of Children Under 18Osage County, 1990, 2000 and 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1990 75.1% 3.1% 13.2% 6.7%

2000 68% 5.5% 14.6% 9.3%

2005-09 64.2% 6.1% 18.2% 11.5%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 33: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Living Arrangements of Children Under 18Nowata County, 1990, 2000 and 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1990 76.3% 3% 12.8% 5.2%

2000 67.2% 5.8% 16.5% 7.7%

2005-09 55.5% 9.4% 26.8% 8.3%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 34: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Living Arrangements of Children Under 18Rogers County, 1990, 2000 and 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 81.5% 2.9% 10.6% 5%

2000 76.6% 4.5% 12.5% 6.4%

2005-09 73.9% 4% 14.4% 7.8%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 35: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Living Arrangements of Children Under 18Bartlesville, 1990, 2000 and 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses; US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

Married Couple Male-headed Female-headed Other relatives0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1990 76.5% 2.7% 15.2% 4.1%

2000 71% 4.5% 17.7% 4.9%

2005-09 66.8% 3.9% 22.5% 6.8%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 36: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Children in Non-Traditional SettingsWashington, Osage, Nowata and Rogers Counties, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; Oklahoma State Department of Human Services, Monthly Statistical Bulletin.

Living withgrandparents

Living withother relatives

DHS Out-of-homeplacement (Aug. 2010)

Institutions0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Washington Co. 603 118 118 1

% of children <18 4.9 1 1 0

Osage Co. 909 183 93 24

% of children <18 7.8 1.6 0.8 0.2

Nowata Co. 185 28 15 0

% of children <18 6.7 1 0.5 0

Rogers Co. 1,055 211 65 7

% of children <18 5.2 1 0.3 0

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 37: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Living Arrangements of Persons Age 65 & OverBRUW Service Area, Washington, Osage, Nowata and Rogers Counties, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

30.5%

64.5%

3.8%1.1%

30.2%

65.0%

3.7%

1.0%

28.8%

66.1%

3.2%1.8%

30.1%

63.8%

4.9%1.3%

24.2%

66.5%8.0%1.3%

31.7%

63.8%

3.6%1.0%

Live alone Family households Group quarters Other

BRUW Service Area Washington Co. Osage Co.

Nowata Co. Rogers Co. Bartlesville

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 38: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence

BRUW Service Area, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied74.5% Renter-occupied

25.5%

15 months or less9.9%

16 months to 5 years23.0%

More than 5 years67.1%

15 months or less42.2%

16 months to 5 years35.6%

More than 5 years22.2%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 39: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence

Washington County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied74.0% Renter-occupied

26.0%

15 months or less10.6%

16 months to 5 years23.4%

More than 5 years66.1%

15 months or less43.1%

16 months to 5 years36.2%

More than 5 years20.6%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 40: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence

Osage County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied80.5%

Renter-occupied19.5%

15 months or less8.9%

16 months to 5 years23.5%

More than 5 years67.7%

15 months or less37.0%

16 months to 5 years36.2%

More than 5 years26.9%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 41: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence

Nowata County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied77.7%

Renter-occupied22.3%

15 months or less9.6%

16 months to 5 years22.9%

More than 5 years67.5%

15 months or less37.0%

16 months to 5 years33.4%

More than 5 years29.6%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 42: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence

Rogers County, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied81.1%

Renter-occupied18.9%

15 months or less12.6%

16 months to 5 years29.2%

More than 5 years58.2%

15 months or less48.2%

16 months to 5 years32.5%

More than 5 years19.3%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 43: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence for Householders Age 65 & Older

Washington County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied84.8% Renter-occupied

15.2%

15 months or less3.2%

16 months to 5 years10.7%

More than 5 years86.1%

15 months or less22.0%

16 months to 5 years38.2%

More than 5 years39.7%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 44: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence for Householders Age 65 & Older

Osage County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied85.6% Renter-occupied

14.4%

15 months or less2.9%

16 months to 5 years10.6%

More than 5 years86.5%

15 months or less20.6%

16 months to 5 years29.6%

More than 5 years49.7%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 45: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence for Householders Age 65 & Older

Nowata County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied86.8%

Renter-occupied13.2%

15 months or less2.7%

16 months to 5 years14.4%

More than 5 years83.0%

15 months or less17.2%

16 months to 5 years27.9%

More than 5 years54.9%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 46: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Occupied Housing Units by Tenure and by Length of Residence for Householders Age 65 & Older

Rogers County, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Owner-occupied84.8% Renter-occupied

15.2%

15 months or less3.3%

16 months to 5 years17.3%

More than 5 years79.4%

15 months or less26.9%

16 months to 5 years25.5%

More than 5 years47.6%

Tenure

Owner-Occupied Housing Units

Renter-Occupied Housing Units

Length of Residence

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 47: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

SUBFAMILIES, BY TYPEBRUW COUNTIES COMBINED, WASHINGTON COUNTY, AND BARTLESVILLE, 2005-

09

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

  BRUW Counties Washington County Bartlesville

  Estimate MOE Estimate MOE Estimate MOE

Total: 1,477 245 215 +/-84 122 +/-69

Married-couple subfamily: 331 105 28 +/-27 26 +/-27

With own children under 18 189 85 20 +/-24 18 +/-24

No own children under 18 142 54 8 +/-13 8 +/-13

Mother-child subfamily 964 209 180 +/-88 93 +/-74

Father-child subfamily 182 76 7 +/-12 3 +/-10

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

An estimated 2-3% of families in the BRUW service area are “subfamilies,“ accounting for over 1,200 families. The majority of these subfamilies are single parent mothers with children.

Page 48: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

SUBFAMILIES, BY TYPENOWATA, OSAGE AND ROGERS COUNTIES, 2005-09

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

  Nowata County Osage County Rogers County

  Estimate MOE Estimate MOE Estimate MOE

Total: 104 +/-50 398 +/-131 760 +/-182

Married-couple subfamily: 22 +/-17 56 +/-33 225 +/-94

With own children under 18

6 +/-7 21 +/-15 142 +/-80

No own children under 18

16 +/-16 35 +/-29 83 +/-40

Mother-child subfamily 71 +/-44 255 +/-110 458 +/-148

Father-child subfamily 11 +/-16 87 +/-59 77 +/-44

Page 49: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Means of Transportation to WorkBRUW Counties, 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

70,94380.0%

9,93411.2%

5,0925.7%

2,7063.1%

Drove alone - car, truck or van Carpooled - car, truck or van

Other means Work at home

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 50: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Time Leaving Home to Go to WorkBRUW Counties, 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

12:00 to 4:59 a.m.4,415 5.3%

5:00 to 5:29 a.m.6,659 8.0%

6:00 to 6:29 a.m.17,264 20.7%

7:00 to 7:29 a.m.27,302 32.8%

8:00 to 8:29 a.m.10,587 12.7%

9:00 to 9:59 a.m.3,552 4.3%

10:00 to 10:59 a.m.2,368 2.8%

12:00 to 3:59 p.m.5,668 6.8%

4:00 to 11:59 p.m.5,448 6.5%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 51: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

Travel Time to WorkBRUW Counties, 2005-09

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005-09 American Community Survey.

Less than 15 minutes29,668 35.6%

15 to 29 minutes27,257 32.7%

30 to 44 minutes16,676 20.0%

45 to 59 minutes6,488 7.8%

60 or more minutes3,174 3.8%

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICS

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa

Page 52: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

EMPLOYEES BY JOB SITE MAPWASHINGTON COUNTY AREA, 2008

Page 53: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

EMPLOYEES BY JOB SITE TABLEWASHINGTON COUNTY AREA, 2008

W ork A rea P rofile R eport

T o tal P rim ary J o b s2008 2003

C ount S hare C ount S hare

Tota l P rim ary J obs 25,724 100.0% 23,046 100.0%

J o b s b y W o rke r A g e2008 2003

C ount S hare C ount S hare

A ge 29 or younger 7,101 27.6% 6,193 26.9%

A ge 30 to 54 13,742 53.4% 13,055 56.6%

A ge 55 or o lder 4,881 19.0% 3,798 16.5%

J o b s b y E arning s2008 2003

C ount S hare C ount S hare

$1,250 per m onth or les s 7,227 28.1% 8,193 35.6%

$1,251 to $3,333 per m onth 11,989 46.6% 10,131 44.0%

M ore than $3,333 per m onth 6,508 25.3% 4,722 20.5%

J o b s b y N A IC S Ind us try S e c to r2008 2003

C ount S hare C ount S hare

A gric ulture, F ores try , F is hingand H unting 63 0.2% 67 0.3%

M ining, Q uarry ing, and O iland G as E x trac tion 1,208 4.7% 1,746 7.6%

U tilities 512 2.0% 574 2.5%

C ons truc tion 1,236 4.8% 1,071 4.6%

M anufac turing 2,798 10.9% 2,092 9.1%

W holes a le Trade 457 1.8% 421 1.8%

J o b s b y N A IC S Ind us try S e c to r2008 2003

C ount S hare C ount S hare

R etail Trade 3,568 13.9% 3,252 14.1%

Trans portation andW arehous ing 219 0.9% 232 1.0%

Information 216 0.8% 201 0.9%

F inance and Ins urance 951 3.7% 873 3.8%

R eal E s tate and R ental andLeas ing 232 0.9% 300 1.3%

P rofes s ional, S c ientific , andTechnical S ervices 803 3.1% 791 3.4%

M anagement of C ompaniesand E nterpris es 284 1.1% 110 0.5%

A dminis tration & S upport,W as te M anagement andR emediation 1,645 6.4% 1,161 5.0%

E ducational S ervices 3,466 13.5% 3,462 15.0%

H ealth C are and S oc ialA s s is tance 3,344 13.0% 2,164 9.4%

A rts , E ntertainment, andR ec reation 290 1.1% 274 1.2%

A ccommodation and F oodS ervices 2,092 8.1% 1,923 8.3%

O ther S ervices (exc ludingP ublic A dminis tration) 894 3.5% 943 4.1%

P ublic A dminis tration 1,446 5.6% 1,389 6.0%

J o b s b y W o rke r R ac e2008 2003

C ount S hare C ount S hare

W hite A lone 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

B lack or A frican A mericanA lone 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Page 54: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

EMPLOYEES BY JOB SITE MAPBARTLESVILLE AREA, 2008

Page 55: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

W ork A rea P ro file R ep ort

B artle s ville A re a

T o ta l P rim ary J o b s2008

C ount S hare

Total P rimary J obs 14,813 100.0%

J o b s b y W o rke r A g e2008

C ount S hare

A ge 29 or younger 4,311 29.1%

A ge 30 to 54 7,619 51.4%

A ge 55 or o lder 2,883 19.5%

J o b s b y E arning s2008

C ount S hare

$1,250 per month or les s 4,289 29.0%

$1,251 to $3,333 per month 7,040 47.5%

M ore than $3,333 per month 3,484 23.5%

J o b s b y N A IC S Ind us try S e c to r2008

C ount S hare

A gric ulture, F ores try , F is hingand H unting 14 0.1%

M ining, Q uarry ing, and O iland G as E xtrac tion 702 4.7%

U tilities 163 1.1%

C ons truc tion 502 3.4%

M anufac turing 1,049 7.1%

EMPLOYEES BY JOB SITE TABLEBARTLESVILLE AREA, 2008

J o b s b y N A IC S I nd us try S e c to r2008

C ount S hare

W holes ale Trade 258 1.7%

R etail Trade 2,392 16.1%

Trans portation andW arehous ing 108 0.7%

Information 124 0.8%

F inanc e and Ins uranc e 620 4.2%

R eal E s tate and R ental andL eas ing 167 1.1%

P rofes s ional, S c ientific , andTec hnic al S ervic es 600 4.1%

M anagement of C ompaniesand E nterpris es 78 0.5%

A dminis tration & S upport,W as te M anagement andR emediation 1,171 7.9%

E duc ational S ervic es 1,709 11.5%

H ealth C are and S oc ialA s s is tanc e 2,501 16.9%

A rts , E ntertainment, andR ec reation 221 1.5%

A c c ommodation and F oodS ervic es 1,383 9.3%

O ther S ervic es (exc ludingP ublic A dminis tration) 673 4.5%

P ublic A dminis tration 378 2.6%

J o b s b y W o rke r R ac e2008

C ount S hare

W hite A lone 0 0.0%

Page 56: Prepared by the Community Service Council December 2010

COMMUNITY PROFILE 2010 ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY AREA

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater TulsaDecember 2010

…is available on our website:www.csctulsa.org

Prepared by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa