Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nancy-mason |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
COMMUNITY PROFILE 2010ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE BARTLESVILLE REGIONAL UNITED WAY AREADEMOGRAPHICS
Prepared by the Community Service CouncilDecember 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
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
EMPLOYEES BY JOB SITE MAPWASHINGTON COUNTY AREA, 2008
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%
EMPLOYEES BY JOB SITE MAPBARTLESVILLE AREA, 2008
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%
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