The Quality of Life Report A Foundation for Policy Development

Tulsa City Council / 2014-16 Term

‘Tulsa Skyline - view from ONEOK field’ by Vladxp, Creative Commons (NC-ND 2011)

“I know not anything more pleasant, or more instructive,

than to compare experience with expectation, or to

register from time to time the difference between idea

and reality. It is by this kind of observation that we grow daily less liable to be disappointed.”

Samuel Johnson

Overall “Health & Wealth”

• Median Income

• College Education

• Unemployment

• Disability

• Life Expectancy • Obesity

Tulsa

Wichita

Minneapolis

Oklahoma City Albuquerque

Ft. Worth

Kansas

City St. Louis

Omaha

Denver

New Orleans

Tampa

Raleigh

Tucson

Portland

Nashville

Louisville

Cleveland

Oakland

Pittsburgh

Overall “Health & Wealth”

Tulsa

Wichita

Minneapolis

Oklahoma City Albuquerque

Ft. Worth

Kansas

City St. Louis

Omaha

Denver

New Orleans

Tampa

Raleigh

Tucson

Portland

Nashville

Louisville

Cleveland

Oakland

Pittsburgh

Most current data for

comparable cities...

Tulsa

Wichita

Minneapolis

Oklahoma City Albuquerque

Ft. Worth

Kansas

City St. Louis

Omaha

Denver

New Orleans

Tampa

Raleigh

Tucson

Portland

Nashville

Louisville

Cleveland

Oakland

Pittsburgh

Most current data for

comparable cities...

me

dia

n

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000

Fort Worth

Denver

Nashville

Portland

Oklahoma City

Louisville

Albuquerque

Tucson

Kansas City

Omaha

Raleigh

Oakland

Minneapolis

Tulsa

Cleveland

Wichita

New Orleans

Tampa

St. Louis

Pittsburgh

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

…and City of Tulsa data over time.

Demography

me

dia

n

398,724

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Fort Worth

Denver

Nashville

Portland

Oklahoma City

Louisville

Albuquerque

Tucson

Kansas City

Omaha

Raleigh

Oakland

Minneapolis

Tulsa

Cleveland

Wichita

New Orleans

Tampa

St. Louis

Pittsburgh 2013 Population

me

dia

n

52%

47%

24%

21%

17%

16%

16%

15%

11%

11%

10%

8%

6%

5%

2%

1%

-9%

-9%

-18%

-22%

-25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

Raleigh

Fort Worth

Albuquerque

Oklahoma City

Denver

Tampa

Nashville

Portland

Omaha

Louisville

Wichita

Tucson

Kansas City

Minneapolis

Oakland

Tulsa

St. Louis

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

New Orleans Population Change 2000-13

me

dia

n

1,992

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500

Minneapolis

Oakland

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Cleveland

Portland

Denver

Omaha

Tampa

Albuquerque

Raleigh

Wichita

Tucson

Fort Worth

New Orleans

Tulsa

Louisville

Kansas City

Nashville

Oklahoma CityPopulation Density

(people per square mile)

me

dia

n

41.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Albuquerque

Wichita

Tucson

Omaha

Louisville

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Nashville

Raleigh

New Orleans

Portland

Denver

Kansas City

Cleveland

Pittsburgh

Tampa

Fort Worth

Minneapolis

St. Louis

Oakland 2013 City Population as % of MSA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

19

10

19

20

19

30

19

40

19

50

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

13

(est.)

po

pu

latio

n d

istr

ibu

tio

n

City of Tulsa and Its Suburbs

Percent of MSA Population (1910-2013)

% City of Tulsa % Outside City

96%

1%

29%

43%

31%

6% 2% 7% 5%

6% 13%

30%

40%

78%

34%

27%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

20

-30

19

30

-40

19

40

-50

19

50

-60

19

60

-70

19

70

-80

19

80

-90

19

90

-00

20

00

-10

City of Tulsa and Its Suburbs

Population Growth by Decade (1920-2010)

City of Tulsa

Largest Suburbs Combined

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

19

00

19

10

19

20

19

30

19

40

19

50

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

13

(est.)

Tulsa and Oklahoma City - Population History

(1900-2013)

Oklahoma City

City of Tulsa

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013

(est.)

City of Tulsa Population History 398,724

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

-25,407

Hispanic

or Latino

(of any

race)

+31,082

-30,000

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

City of Tulsa

Population Change

(2000-2013)

Net Growth from 2000-2013: +5,675

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013

(est.)

City of Tulsa Population History 398,724

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013

(est.)

City of Tulsa Population History

with no Hispanic population growth from 2000-13

373,317 (-25,407)

2.6% 7.2%

14.1% 14.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 2000 2010 2013 (est.)

Hispanic or Latino

Percent of Total City of Tulsa Population

me

dia

n

14.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Albuquerque

Tucson

Fort Worth

Denver

Oakland

Tampa

Oklahoma City

Wichita

Tulsa

Omaha

Cleveland

Raleigh

Kansas City

Nashville

Portland

Minneapolis

New Orleans

Louisville

St. Louis

Pittsburgh

Percent Hispanic or Latino

(any race)

Hispanic or Latino Origin Tulsa County Census Tracts where

Hispanic or Latino Residents are More

than 33% of the Population

51.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other Black or African American White Hispanic or Latino (any race)

Race/Ethnicity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other Black or African American White Hispanic or Latino (any race)

Race/Ethnicity

me

dia

n

16.2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Oakland

Tucson

Fort Worth

Albuquerque

Denver

Tampa

Oklahoma City

Minneapolis

Portland

Wichita

Raleigh

Nashville

Tulsa

Omaha

Kansas City

Cleveland

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

New Orleans

Louisville

Language Other Than

English Spoken at Home

me

dia

n 34.7

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Louisville

Portland

Oakland

Albuquerque

Tampa

New Orleans

Kansas City

Cleveland

Tulsa

St. Louis

Omaha

Denver

Oklahoma City

Wichita

Nashville

Pittsburgh

Tucson

Raleigh

Minneapolis

Fort Worth Median Age

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

65-Years and Older 18-65 Years Younger than 18-Years "Millennials" (18-34 Years)

Age Profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

65-Years and Older 18-65 Years Younger than 18-Years "Millennials" (18-34 Years)

Age Profile

“Young Professionals”

me

dia

n 4.7%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%

Minneapolis

Denver

Pittsburgh

Raleigh

Portland

Nashville

St. Louis

New Orleans

Oakland

Kansas City

Tampa

Omaha

Albuquerque

Oklahoma City

Louisville

Tulsa

Fort Worth

Wichita

Cleveland

Tucson

Percent of Population Age 25-34 with

Bachelor's Degree or Higher

“Young Professionals” Tulsa County Census Tracts where Residents

Age 25-34 with Bachelor’s Degrees are 10% or More of the Population

Downtown/

Riverview

TU/Kendall-Whittier

Renaissance/Florence Park/

Yorktown/Gillette/Swan Lake

Brookside

Lewis Crest/

Southern Hills

King’s Landing/Crown

Chase Apts./Silver

Chase/Hunter’s Pointe

Jenks

14.2

%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

City of Tulsa Age Distribution

(2000 and 2013)

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

City of Tulsa - Age Range Growth

(from 2000 to 2013)

Economic Vitality

me

dia

n

$55,000

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000

Fort Worth

Oakland

Minneapolis

Denver

Portland

St. Louis

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

Tampa

Kansas City

Nashville

New Orleans

Oklahoma City

Rahleigh

Louisville

Tulsa

Omaha

Albuquerque

Tucson

Wichita2013 Gross Domestic Product (MSA)

(in millions current dollars)

5.2%

me

dia

n

$51,599

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000

Oakland

Portland

Minneapolis

Denver

Fort Worth

Omaha

New Orleans

Cleveland

Nashville

Kansas City

Pittsburgh

Raleigh

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

St. Louis

Louisville

Wichita

Albuquerque

Tampa

Tucson

2013 Real Per Capita

Gross Domestic Product (MSA)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

(Oc

t.)Tulsa Area Employment

(1990-2013 & Oct. 2014)

Service Providing

Goods Producing

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

(Oc

t.)

Tulsa Area Employment Growth

(1991-2013 and Oct. 2014)

me

dia

n

5.3%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

Oakland

Cleveland

St. Louis

Louisville

Wichita

Tampa

Tucson

Kansas City

New Orleans

Denver

Pittsburgh

Portland

Albuquerque

Nashville

Fort Worth

Raleigh

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Minneapolis

Omaha

2013 Average

Unemployment Rate

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

Oc

t. 20

14

Average Annual Unemployment Rate

(1990-2013 and Oct. 2014)

Oklahoma Tulsa MSA City of Tulsa U.S.

Unemployment Tulsa County Census Tracts with

Unemployment above 10%

12.7%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Co

st o

f Li

vin

g I

nd

ex

Ave

rag

e W

ee

kly

Wa

ge

2013 County Average Weekly Wage Composite Cost of Living (US Avg. 100)

Wages vs. Cost of Living

me

dia

n

$1,004

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

Denver

Nashville

Minneapolis

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Raleigh

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Louisville

Omaha

Cleveland

Tampa

Kansas City

Fort Worth

New Orleans

Wichita

Albuquerque

Tucson

Portland

Oakland

Average Weekly Wage Adjusted for Cost of Living

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

Tulsa County Growth in Average Annual Pay (2002-13)

Wealth Tulsa County Census Tracts with More

than 25% of Households with Annual

Income of $200,000 or More

36.6%

Poverty Tulsa County Census Tracts where

More than 40% of Families with

Income Live in Poverty

Eugene

Field

61st &

Peoria

36th Street N.

Charles Page

Pe

oria

67.7%

Percent of Families with

Incomes below Poverty m

ed

ian

15.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Cleveland

New Orleans

St. Louis

Tucson

Tampa

Tulsa

Fort Worth

Albuquerque

Pittsburgh

Wichita

Minneapolis

Denver

Oakland

Kansas City

Oklahoma City

Nashville

Omaha

Louisville

Portland

Raleigh

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Cleveland

New Orleans

St. Louis

Tucson

Tampa

Tulsa

Fort Worth

Albuquerque

Pittsburgh

Wichita

Minneapolis

Denver

Oakland

Kansas City

Oklahoma City

Nashville

Omaha

Louisville

Portland

Raleigh Percent of Families Headed by

Single Mothers, with Children under

5, with Incomes below Poverty

47.4%

me

dia

n

17.7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Cleveland

St. Louis

New Orleans

Portland

Tucson

Tampa

Pittsburgh

Tulsa

Minneapolis

Louisville

Fort Worth

Oklahoma City

Albuquerque

Kansas City

Wichita

Nashville

Oakland

Omaha

Denver

Raleigh

Percent of Households with Cash

Public Assistance or Food Stamps/SNAP

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tulsa County Public Support for Families (for the month of December 2001-2013, and February 2014)

Food Stamps (persons) TANF (persons) Child Care Subsidies (≤5 Years)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

19

90

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

19

99

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

20

07

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

Bankruptcy Filings

(N.D. Okla. 1995-2014)

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

$150,000

199

0

19

91

199

2

19

93

199

4

19

95

199

6

19

97

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

Sa

les

Tax R

eve

nu

e (

in t

ho

usa

nd

s)

City of Tulsa

2¢ Sales Tax Revenue

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

Ma

r-99

Se

p-9

9

Ma

r-00

Se

p-0

0

Ma

r-01

Se

p-0

1

Ma

r-02

Se

p-0

2

Ma

r-03

Se

p-0

3

Ma

r-04

Se

p-0

4

Ma

r-05

Se

p-0

5

Ma

r-06

Se

p-0

6

Ma

r-07

Se

p-0

7

Ma

r-08

Se

p-0

8

Ma

r-09

Se

p-0

9

Ma

r-10

Se

p-1

0

Ma

r-11

Se

p-1

1

Ma

r-12

Se

p-1

2

Ma

r-13

Se

p-1

3

Ma

r-14

Se

p-1

4

Tulsa MSA Retail Trade

(1999-2014)

Food (Groceries) Eating & Drinking Out

+149%

-13%

The Relationship between Employment, Retail Sales, and Property Crime

300,000

310,000

320,000

330,000

340,000

350,000

360,000

370,000

380,000

390,000

400,000

410,000

420,000

430,000

440,000

450,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

$150,000

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

20

00

200

1

200

2

200

3

20

04

200

5

200

6

200

7

20

08

200

9

201

0

201

1

20

12

201

3

Tuls

a A

rea

No

n-F

arm

Em

plo

ym

en

t

Sa

les

Tax

Re

ve

nu

e (

in t

ho

usa

nd

s)

Tulsa Area Employment

2¢ Sales Tax Revenue

300,000

310,000

320,000

330,000

340,000

350,000

360,000

370,000

380,000

390,000

400,000

410,000

420,000

430,000

440,000

450,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

$150,000

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

20

00

200

1

200

2

200

3

20

04

200

5

200

6

200

7

20

08

200

9

201

0

201

1

20

12

201

3

Tuls

a A

rea

No

n-F

arm

Em

plo

ym

en

t

Sa

les

Tax

Re

ve

nu

e (

in t

ho

usa

nd

s)

Tulsa Area Employment

2¢ Sales Tax Revenue

R2 = .97 (97% explained variance)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

Pro

pe

rty

Cri

me

s

City of Tulsa Average Annual Unemployment Rate

City of Tulsa Property Crimes

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

Pro

pe

rty

Cri

me

s

City of Tulsa Average Annual Unemployment Rate

City of Tulsa Property Crimes

R2 = .82 (82% explained variance)

Consistent with Studies

“On the whole, the preponderance of the evidence suggests

that there is an important relationship between unemployment

rates and property crime but little impact of unemployment on

violent crime. The relationship between unemployment and

property crime is empirically meaningful as property crime

would be predicted to rise by between 9 and 18 percent during

a serious recession in which unemployment increased by three

percentage points. Moreover, this, if anything, may understate

the magnitude of the relationship as crime appears to be

particularly sensitive to the existence of employment

opportunities for low skilled-men.”

Chalfin & McCrary, “Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Literature” (2014)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

Pro

pe

rty

Cri

me

s

City of Tulsa Average Annual Unemployment Rate

City of Tulsa Property Crimes

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

Pro

pe

rty

Cri

me

s

City of Tulsa Average Annual Unemployment Rate

City of Tulsa Property Crimes

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

11,000,000

12,000,000

13,000,000

14,000,000

15,000,000

199

5

199

6

199

7

19

98

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

20

11

20

12

201

3

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

Pro

pe

rty

Cri

me

s

National Average Annual Unemployment Rate

National Property Crimes

Public Safety

0.00

1,000.00

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

5,000.00

6,000.00

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

National Property Crime Rate

National Violent Crime Rate

-45%

-47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4Gallop Poll:

“Is there more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago, or less?”

% More

% Less

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4Gallop Poll:

“Is there more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago, or less?”

% More

% Less

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000 City of Tulsa Part I Crimes

In 2012, there were 11,757 fewer major crimes reported than in 1987 (-32%).

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000 City of Tulsa Part I Crimes per 100,000 Residents

The violent crime rate decreased by 27% from 1992 to 2013.

The property crime rate decreased by 42% from 1987 to 2012.

median

median

53.2

9.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents

Violent Crimes per 1,000 Residents

me

dia

n

1.52

0 1 2 3 4

New Orleans

St. Louis

Oakland

Kansas City

Tulsa

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

Oklahoma City

Omaha

Minneapolis

Tucson

Tampa

Louisville

Albuquerque

Denver

Fort Worth

Nashville

Wichita

Raleigh

Portland

Murder and Non-Negligent

Manslaughter per 10,000 Residents

me

dia

n

150

0 50 100 150 200 250

Cleveland

Tulsa

Kansas City

St. Louis

Oklahoma City

Albuquerque

Oakland

Minneapolis

Fort Worth

Louisville

Wichita

Tucson

Nashville

New Orleans

Omaha

Denver

Raleigh

Pittsburgh

Portland

Tampa Burglaries per 10,000 Residents

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Robberies per 10,000

Residents

Aggravated Assaults per

10,000 Residents

Larcenies-Thefts per 10,000

Residents

Motor Vehicle Thefts per

10,000 Residents

Tulsa

Comparison City Median

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Larceny-Theft Rate Burglary Rate

Aggravated Assault Rate Motor Vehicle Theft Rate

Robbery Rate Rape Rate

Murder and Manslaughter Rate

City of Tulsa Part I Crimes per 100,000 Residents

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

198

2

198

3

198

4

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

20

01

200

2

200

3

200

4

20

05

200

6

200

7

200

8

20

09

201

0

201

1

201

2

20

13

Tulsa Fire Department Responses (1982-2013)

Mutual Aid Responses

Hazardous Materials Responses

Other Hazardous Responses

False Alarms

All Other Responses

Rescue, Emergency Medical Responses

Fires

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

EMSA Eastern Division Transports

(1995-2014)

Emergency Transports

Non-Emergency Transports

Transportation

median

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Min

ute

s

Average Travel Time to Work

80.5

%

85.8

%

12.1

%

18.4

%

13.5

%

7.1

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Commuting Profile

Other

Work at Home

Bike or Walk

Public Transportation

Carpool

Drive Alone

Walking Tulsa County Census Tracts where

More than 7% of Residents Walk to

Work

31.2%

Transit Tulsa County Census Tracts where

More than 5% of Residents Take

Public Transportation to Work

6.7

%

me

dia

n

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200

Oakland

Portland

Denver

Minneapolis

St. Louis

New Orleans

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

Tucson

Albuquerque

Nashville

Raleigh

Tampa

Louisville

Kansas City

Fort Worth

Tulsa

Wichita

Omaha

Oklahoma City

Annual Transit Passenger Miles Per Capita

(all modes)

me

dia

n

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Oakland

Portland

New Orleans

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

Tucson

Denver

Cleveland

St. Louis

Kansas City

Albuquerque

Louisville

Raleigh

Tampa

Nashville

Fort Worth

Tulsa

Omaha

Wichita

Oklahoma City

Annual Transit Passenger Trips Per Capita

(all modes)

me

dia

n

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

Oakland

Portland

New Orleans

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

Denver

Cleveland

St. Louis

Tucson

Kansas City

Albuquerque

Nashville

Louisville

Raleigh

Tampa

Fort Worth

Tulsa

Omaha

Wichita

Oklahoma City

Annual Transit Operating Expenditures Per Capita

(all modes)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

1992 1997 2002 2006 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Arterial Pavement Condition

(1992-2010, and projected to 2019) Council District 1

Council District 2

Council District 3

Council District 4

Council District 5

Council District 6

Council District 7

Council District 8

Council District 9

City-wide Weighted Average

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

1990 1995 2000 2004 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non-Arterial Pavement Condition

(1992-2008, and projected to 2019) Council District 1

Council District 2

Council District 3

Council District 4

Council District 5

Council District 6

Council District 7

Council District 8

Council District 9

City-wide Weighted Average

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

150,000

170,000

190,000

210,000

230,000

250,000

270,000

290,000

310,000

330,000

350,000

J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ton

s o

f C

arg

o

Pa

sse

ng

ers

Tulsa Airports Monthly Traffic

(2007-Nov. 2014)

Total Passengers

Total Cargo

12 per. Mov. Avg. (Total Passengers)

12 per. Mov. Avg. (Total Cargo)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

197

1

197

2

197

3

19

74

197

5

197

6

197

7

197

8

197

9

198

0

198

1

198

2

198

3

19

84

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

19

93

19

94

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

20

03

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

20

13

Tulsa Port of Catoosa Tonnage

(1971-2013)

Neighborhood Vitality

616 3,013

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Fort Worth

Denver

Oakland

Portland

Minneapolis

Tampa

Nashville

Raleigh

Kansas City

Louisville

Omaha

Pittsburgh

Albuquerque

Oklahoma City

Tucson

St. Louis

Tulsa

Wichita

New Orleans

Cleveland

2013 Number of New 5+Family

Dwelling Units

2013 Number of New Single-

Family Dwelling Units

11

.6%

1

1.1

%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Va

lue

# U

nits

2012-13 Growth in # of New Single Family Housing Units

2012-13 Growth in Average Value of New Single Family Housing Units

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

198

0

198

1

198

2

198

3

198

4

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

19

91

19

92

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

20

06

20

07

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

Tulsa MSA - New Single-Family Building Permits

(1980-2013)

Units

Value ($)

-44.9

%

-35.5

%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

198

1

198

2

198

3

19

84

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

19

93

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

20

02

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

20

11

201

2

201

3

Tulsa MSA - New Single-Family Building Permits

Annual Percent Change

(1981-2013 )

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Ju

n-0

8Ju

l-08

Au

g-0

8Se

p-0

8O

ct-0

8N

ov

-08

De

c-0

8Ja

n-0

9Fe

b-0

9M

ar-0

9A

pr-0

9M

ay-0

9Ju

n-0

9Ju

l-09

Au

g-0

9Se

p-0

9O

ct-0

9N

ov

-09

De

c-0

9Ja

n-1

0Fe

b-1

0M

ar-1

0A

pr-1

0M

ay-1

0Ju

n-1

0Ju

l-10

Au

g-1

0Se

p-1

0O

ct-1

0N

ov

-10

De

c-1

0Ja

n-1

1Fe

b-1

1M

ar-1

1A

pr-1

1M

ay-1

1Ju

n-1

1Ju

l-11

Au

g-1

1Se

p-1

1O

ct-1

1N

ov

-11

De

c-1

1Ja

n-1

2Fe

b-1

2M

ar-1

2A

pr-1

2M

ay-1

2Ju

n-1

2Ju

l-12

Au

g-1

2Se

p-1

2O

ct-1

2N

ov

-12

De

c-1

2Ja

n-1

3Fe

b-1

3M

ar-1

3A

pr-1

3M

ay-1

3Ju

n-1

3Ju

l-13

Au

g-1

3Se

p-1

3O

ct-1

3N

ov

-13

De

c-1

3Ja

n-1

4Fe

b-1

4M

ar-1

4A

pr-1

4M

ay-1

4Ju

n-1

4Ju

l-14

Au

g-1

4Se

p-1

4O

ct-1

4

Tulsa Metro Area Home Sales

(2008-14)

12-Month Moving Average

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

Ja

n-0

4

Ma

y-0

4

Se

p-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ma

y-0

5

Se

p-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ma

y-0

6

Se

p-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ma

y-0

7

Se

p-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ma

y-0

8

Se

p-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ma

y-0

9

Se

p-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Ma

y-1

0

Se

p-1

0

Ja

n-1

1

Ma

y-1

1

Se

p-1

1

Ja

n-1

2

Ma

y-1

2

Se

p-1

2

Ja

n-1

3

Ma

y-1

3

Se

p-1

3

Ja

n-1

4

Ma

y-1

4

Se

p-1

4

City of Tulsa - Foreclosures per 10,000 Homes

(2004-14)

12-month moving average

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Ja

n-0

4

Ma

y-0

4

Se

p-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ma

y-0

5

Se

p-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ma

y-0

6

Se

p-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ma

y-0

7

Se

p-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ma

y-0

8

Se

p-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ma

y-0

9

Se

p-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Ma

y-1

0

Se

p-1

0

Ja

n-1

1

Ma

y-1

1

Se

p-1

1

Ja

n-1

2

Ma

y-1

2

Se

p-1

2

Ja

n-1

3

Ma

y-1

3

Se

p-1

3

Ja

n-1

4

Ma

y-1

4

Se

p-1

4

City of Tulsa – Percentage of Homes Sold for Loss

(2004-14)

me

dia

n

12.7%

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

Cleveland

St. Louis

New Orleans

Kansas City

Pittsburgh

Tulsa

Tucson

Oklahoma City

Tampa

Wichita

Louisville

Albuquerque

Nashville

Fort Worth

Raleigh

Omaha

Oakland

Denver

Minneapolis

Portland % Vacant Housing Units

Housing Vacancy Tulsa County Census Tracts where More

than 25% of the Housing Units are Vacant

33

.5%

me

dia

n

$121,300

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000

Oakland

Portland

Denver

Raleigh

Minneapolis

Albuquerque

New Orleans

Nashville

Tampa

Louisville

Oklahoma City

Omaha

Kansas City

Tucson

Tulsa

Fort Worth

Wichita

St. Louis

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

Median Value of

Owner-Occupied Units

51

.0%

4

9.0

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Renter-Occupied Units

Owner-Occupied Units

Housing Tenure

98.1%

98.2%

me

dia

n

$727

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

Oakland

Portland

Tampa

New Orleans

Raleigh

Denver

Fort Worth

Nashville

Minneapolis

Albuquerque

Pittsburgh

Kansas City

Omaha

Oklahoma City

Tucson

Tulsa

St. Louis

Louisville

Wichita

Cleveland Median Gross Rent

me

dia

n

38.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

New Orleans

Cleveland

Tucson

Oakland

Albuquerque

Portland

Tampa

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Omaha

Denver

Kansas City

Minneapolis

Fort Worth

Louisville

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Wichita

Raleigh

Nashville

Gross Rent 35% or

More of Household Income

Human Investment

me

dia

n

31.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Raleigh

Minneapolis

Portland

Denver

Pittsburgh

Oakland

Nashville

New Orleans

Tampa

Albuquerque

Omaha

St. Louis

Kansas City

Tulsa

Wichita

Fort Worth

Oklahoma City

Louisville

Tucson

Cleveland

Bachelor's Degree or Higher High School Graduate or Higher (including GED)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Raleigh

Minneapolis

Portland

Denver

Pittsburgh

Oakland

Nashville

New Orleans

Tampa

Albuquerque

Omaha

St. Louis

Kansas City

Tulsa

Wichita

Fort Worth

Oklahoma City

Louisville

Tucson

Cleveland

Bachelor's Degree or Higher High School Graduate or Higher (including GED)

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

Public Schools

Student/Teacher Ratio (largest public district in city)

Total Expenditures per Student (largest public district in city)

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

Public Schools

Student/Teacher Ratio (largest public district in city)

Total Expenditures per Student (largest public district in city)

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tulsa Union Jenks

Student/Teacher Ratio Total Expenditures per Student

me

dia

n

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tampa

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Fort Worth

New Orleans

Louisville

Omaha

Raleigh

Nashville

Wichita

Albuquerque

Oakland

Denver

Pittsburgh

Portland

Tucson

Kansas City

St. Louis

Cleveland

Minneapolis

Percent of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State Pre-Kindergarten

(Statewide)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%Health Profile Percent Obese

Percent of Adults who Smoke

Percent who Exercise

15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000 Percent Obese

2010 Population Density (per square mile)

me

dia

n

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

Fort Worth

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Tucson

St. Louis

Oakland

Kansas City

New Orleans

Nashville

Cleveland

Albuquerque

Denver

Wichita

Raleigh

Tampa

Portland

Louisville

Omaha

Minneapolis

Pittsburgh

Children with no health insurance

coverage

Adults with no health insurance

coverage

Health Insurance Tulsa County Census Tracts where

More than 40% of Residents Have no

Health Insurance Coverage

45.4%

Recreation & Culture

Tulsa Park and Recreation Department 5,995 acres

River Parks Authority 1,066 acres

Tulsa County Parks (within city of Tulsa) 230 acres

7,291 acres

1.9% 3.9%

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

Minneapolis

Omaha

St. Louis

Denver

Portland

Fort Worth

Cleveland

Oakland

Tampa

Raleigh

Kansas City

Pittsburgh

Albuquerque

Wichita

Louisville

Tulsa

Nashville

Tucson

New Orleans

Oklahoma City

Parkland as Percent of

Adjusted Total Land Area

Designed Parkland (all jurisdictions) Natural Parkland (all jurisdictions)

median

median

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Acres of Parkland per 1,000 Residents

# Park Units per 100,000 Residents

median

Park Access is the ability to reach a publicly owned park within a half-mile walk on the road network, unobstructed by freeways, rivers, fences, and other obstacles.

94%

85% 81% 80%

78% 76% 76%

64%

55% 54% 53% 52% 50%

42%

36%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of Population With Walkable Park Access (only calculated for 50 largest cities)

me

dia

n

$34.18 $4.99

$0 $15 $30 $45 $60 $75 $90 $105 $120 $135 $150 $165 $180 $195 $210 $225

Minneapolis

Raleigh

Oakland

Portland

Tampa

St. Louis

Kansas City

Denver

Tucson

Cleveland

Pittsburgh

Fort Worth

Omaha

New Orleans

Louisville/Jefferson

Nashville/Davidson

Albuquerque

Wichita

Oklahoma City

Tulsa

Park Operating

Expenditure per Resident

Park Capital Expenditure

per Resident

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Performing Arts Center

(FY2002-14) Attendance

Gross Ticket Sales

Environment

me

dia

n

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Pittsburgh

Fort Worth

Cleveland

St. Louis

Tulsa

Louisville

Oklahoma City

Albuquerque

Oakland

Tampa

Raleigh

Nashville

Omaha

Tucson

Portland

Wichita

Denver

Kansas City

Minneapolis

New Orleans

Air Quality - Ten Year Average Annual

Number of Unhealthy Days for

Older Adults and Children (County)

0.058

0.063

0.068

0.073

0.078

0.083

0.088

0.093

0.098

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

pa

rts

pe

r m

illio

n

Tulsa Area Ground Level Ozone

(3-Year average of the 4th highest ozone level)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Po

un

ds

Tulsa County Toxic Chemical Releases

(2001-13)

Total On-site Releases to Land

Total Underground Injection

Surface Water Discharges

Total Air Emissions

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Ton

s

City of Tulsa Residential Recycling

(FY01-14)

subscription service

Citizen Engagement

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

ho

urs

rate

2012 Volunteer Rates

2012 Volunteer Hours per Resident

5.5

3%

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6% Percent of Adjusted Gross Income Given to Charity (County)

Median Annual Charitable Contribution (County)

5.5

3%

$4,622

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6% Percent of Adjusted Gross Income Given to Charity (County)

Median Annual Charitable Contribution (County)