2026
EVALUATE THE 918
YOU SPOKE, WE LISTENED
Table of Contents
ABOUT THIS REPORT
Good governance requires good data and meaningful ways to listen to residents.
Without understanding residents’ basic needs, opinions, and experiences, City leaders and oversight bodies cannot fully understand how public systems affect daily life in Tulsa.
Evaluate the 918 was designed to provide a regular, actionable source of resident feedback for the Tulsa City Auditor’s Office, City leaders, departments, community partners, and residents. The survey asks Tulsans about City services, access to resources, children and family priorities, community health and wellbeing, civic trust, and neighborhood-level experiences.
This report summarizes responses from residents who provided ZIP codes that fall within the boundaries of the City of Tulsa. Results are presented overall and, where useful, by Tulsa region and selected demographic groups. These comparisons are intended to identify patterns, inequities, and opportunities for improvement rather than to assign blame to any one department, institution, or community.
The report shows two kinds of results. Unweighted results show what survey respondents said. Weighted results adjust the results by zip code so they better match Tulsa’s population.
The main results are limited to respondents who provided ZIP codes that fall within the City of Tulsa ZIP-code list. Weighted results use ZIP-code population weights based on the 27 City of Tulsa ZIP codes that fall within Tulsa’s city limits. The report also includes unweighted comparison tables showing responses from City of Tulsa ZIP-code respondents and respondents with valid ZIP codes outside the City of Tulsa.
HOW THE CITY AUDITOR USES THE RESULTS
Evaluate the 918 is more than a survey report. The results are one source of evidence the City Auditor uses during the office’s annual risk assessment. This process helps identify where audit work may add value and helps inform which audits are included in the annual audit plan.
DEPARTMENT HEADS
Department-related results are also used in one-on-one risk assessment interviews with City of Tulsa department heads. During these conversations, the City Auditor’s Office reviews both quantitative results and open-ended comments related to each department’s services, responsibilities, and resident experiences. This helps connect survey findings to department context, current challenges, and possible areas for future audit work.
CITY LEADERS
The results are also reviewed with other City leaders, including the Office of the Mayor and the City Council. Sharing the findings helps City leaders understand resident priorities, identify cross-cutting issues, and consider how resident feedback can inform policy, operations, service improvement, and public accountability.
THE PUBLIC
Finally, the results are made publicly available on the City Auditor’s website. Public access allows nonprofits, neighborhood groups, researchers, City staff, and residents to use the findings to better understand community needs, improve services, and support better outcomes across Tulsa.
KEY FINDINGS
MIXED VIEWS ON TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT
Tulsa respondents express mixed views about transparency and accountability. Forty-five percent agreed that the City operates transparently and responsibly, while 33% agreed that the City has effective oversight to prevent waste, fraud, and misuse of public funds and resources.
STRONG SATISFACTION WITH CORE CITY SERVICES
Residents rate emergency response, water/sewer, fee payment, cultural opportunities, and parks most positively. Net satisfaction was highest for fire and emergency medical response (+85), water/sewer reliability and water quality (+58), ease of paying City fees (+56), cultural and recreation opportunities (+55), and outdoor parks / playgrounds / recreation facilities (+52).
STREETS, TRANSIT & EQUITY NEED IMPROVEMENT
Residents gave the lowest ratings to streets and sidewalks, public transportation, fair service across neighborhoods, and efforts to address housing and homelessness. Streets and sidewalks had the lowest ZIP-weighted net score (-44).
CULTURAL ACCESS STRONG; HEALTH AFFORDABILITY WEAK
Access to cultural and civic assets is a strength, but healthcare and behavioral health affordability are major concerns. Cultural opportunities (+58) and civic, religious, or social clubs/organizations (+60) had strong ZIP-weighted net satisfaction scores, while affordability of mental health/substance use supports (-43) and healthcare affordability (-33) were negative.
CHILDREN & FAMILIES ARE TOP COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
Children, youth, and families are a high priority across Tulsa. Eighty-one percent rated City investment in opportunities for children, youth, and families as a very high or high priority. The top ZIP-weighted priorities were after-school/summer programs (42%), safe parks/recreation (42%), affordable housing supports (36%), and youth jobs/internships (35%).
COST & TIME BARRIERS LIMIT HEALTHY LIVING
Cost, time, and access barriers shape residents’ health and wellbeing. The most common barrier to living a healthy life was the cost of healthy food (22% ZIP-weighted), followed by limited time due to work, school, or caregiving (15%).
NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION VARIES BY REGION
Most City ZIP-code respondents feel positive about their neighborhood, but optimism varies by region. Fifty-seven percent agreed that the area where they live is the perfect place for them, and 66% agreed they feel safe and secure in their neighborhood.
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT STRONG; TRUST IN LEADERSHIP LOWER
Residents report civic capacity, but trust in City leaders is comparatively lower. Fifty-seven percent said people like them can have a moderate or big impact in their community, and 46% worked with neighbors to fix or improve something. Trust was highest for Tulsa fire services (97%) and lower for Tulsa’s city leaders (61%).
EXPLORE RESULTS BY REGION
These interactive maps allow you to explore survey responses across Tulsa.
These interactive maps allow you to explore survey responses across Tulsa. Click through the maps to see how residents in different parts of the city responded to key questions about city services, trust, transparency, and community priorities. The maps provide additional context and complement the findings highlighted in the survey report.
INTRODUCTION
Cities often track crime, jobs, roads, and service times. These numbers matter.
But they do not tell the full story of daily life in Tulsa.
Resident experience can reveal gaps that administrative data alone may miss. A service may exist but be difficult to access. A department may publish information online, but residents may still struggle to find or understand it. A park may be nearby, but unsafe crossings, missing sidewalks, or poor lighting may limit whether residents can use it. Evaluate the 918 was created to bring those experiences more directly into audit planning and public accountability.
SURVEY OVERVIEW
The 2026 Evaluate the 918 Annual Survey was administered by the Tulsa City Auditor’s Office to gather resident feedback on City services, community priorities, access to resources, health and wellbeing, and civic engagement.
The survey had 2,805 responses. The main report tables are limited to 2,497 responses from people who provided one of the 27 City of Tulsa ZIP codes. Another 302 responses came from valid ZIP codes outside that City ZIP-code list. Six responses had missing or invalid ZIP entries.
For service and amenity items, net satisfaction is calculated by subtracting the percentage of respondents who were dissatisfied from the percentage who were satisfied. “Satisfied” includes respondents who selected satisfied or somewhat satisfied. “Dissatisfied” includes respondents who selected dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied. Neutral responses and “not applicable/don’t know” responses are excluded from the calculation so the score reflects only respondents who expressed a positive or negative opinion.
FOR EXAMPLE
If 60% of respondents who expressed an opinion were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with a service, and 25% were dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied, the net satisfaction score would be +35.
60% Satisfied
-25% Dissatisfied
​
+35% Net Satisfaction
A positive score means more respondents were satisfied than dissatisfied. A negative score means more respondents were dissatisfied than satisfied. A score near zero means satisfaction and dissatisfaction were about evenly balanced.
*All results shown are weighted unless otherwise noted. See Appendix A for more information.
THE STATE OF THE RESIDENT EXPERIENCE & ACCESS IN TULSA
Open government, good service, and access to help shape how residents view the City.
TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY
People need to know how City choices are made and how public money is used. They also need to know that checks are in place to stop waste, fraud, and misuse.
The City of Tulsa operates in a transparent and responsible manner
The City has effective oversight to prevent waste, fraud, and misuse
Agreement that the City has effective oversight was lower than agreement that the City operates transparently and responsibly in every region.
Transparency and oversight by Tulsa region
Transparent/responsible:
Effective oversight:
EAST TULSA
Effective oversight:
Transparent/responsible:
MIDTOWN TULSA
Transparent/responsible:
Effective oversight:
NORTH TULSA
Effective oversight:
Transparent/responsible:
SOUTH TULSA
Transparent/responsible:
Effective oversight:
WEST TULSA
City ZIP and outside City ZIP Comparison (unweighted)
Transparent/responsible:
Effective oversight:
CITY ZIP
Effective oversight:
Transparent/responsible:
OUTSIDE CITY ZIP
Outside City ZIP respondents are shown for context only. These results are not used in City of Tulsa ZIP-weighted estimates.
RESIDENT VOICES
“Be more transparent to where funds are being spent. Police and Fire have large budgets that are not fully transparent.”
​
“Prior to the ransomware attack, the public was able to review and analyze a vast amount of public data — crash reports, crime reports, spending, etc. Most of this information is no longer available and not easy to obtain. I would like to see this restored.”
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE THEMES
Comments about transparency and accountability often focused on how public money is spent, how priorities are set, and whether residents can easily find clear information about City decisions and follow-through.
Several respondents wanted more plain-language budget information, clearer status updates on major projects and service requests, and easier access to public data.
Some comments also connected transparency to trust, saying residents are more likely to believe City decisions are fair when information is easy to find, understandable, and tied to visible action.
SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
City services affect daily life. These results show which services residents rate well and which ones need more attention.
City Service Net Satisfaction Scores
Fire and emergency medical response
+85
Reliability of water/sewer service and water quality
+58
Ease of paying City fees
+56
Cultural and recreation opportunities
+55
Outdoor parks, playgrounds, and recreation facilities
+52
311 help, service requests, and issue reporting
+41
Trash, brush, and bulky waste services
+36
Efforts to attract jobs and investment to Tulsa
+32
Police response and community safety presence
+31
Upkeep and condition of City-owned buildings/facilities
+31
Support for small businesses and neighborhood economic vitality
+18
Clarity of City rules/ordinances and legal guidance
+14
Fairness and clarity of fines/fees processes
+13
Opportunities for residents to have a voice in City decisions
+9
Code enforcement (speed, clarity, fairness)
+8
Permitting and inspections (speed, clarity, fairness)
+7
City updates that are easy to find and understand
+7
Animal control response and stray animal services
+7
Clear information about City budgets and spending
-9
Efforts to address housing and homelessness
-18
City services that are equitable acrossneighborhoods
-23
Public transportation availability
-28
Street/sidewalk condition and maintenance
-44
Fire and emergency medical response, water/sewer reliability and water quality, ease of paying City fees, cultural and recreation opportunities, and parks had the highest net satisfaction scores. Streets, public transportation, fair service across neighborhoods, and housing and homelessness had lower scores.
Net Satisfaction Scores By Region
Fire and emergency medical response
Reliability of water/sewer service and water quality
Ease of paying City fees
Cultural and recreation opportunities
Outdoor parks, playgrounds, and recreation facilities
311 help, service requests, and issue reporting
Trash, brush, and bulky waste services
Efforts to attract jobs and investment to Tulsa
Police response and community safety presence
Upkeep and condition of City-owned buildings/facilities
Support for small businesses and neighborhood economic vitality
Clarity of City rules/ordinances and legal guidance
Fairness and clarity of fines/fees processes
Opportunities for residents to have a voice in City decisions
Code enforcement (speed, clarity, fairness)
Permitting and inspections (speed, clarity, fairness)
City updates that are easy to find and understand
Animal control response and stray animal services
Clear information about City budgets and spending
Efforts to address housing and homelessness
City services that are equitable across neighborhoods
Public transportation availability
Streets/sidewalk condition and maintenance
EAST
MIDTOWN
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
+77
+60
+59
+51
+55
+40
+31
+31
+41
+31
+19
+25
+40
+19
+12
+29
+21
+4
+2
-14
-11
-6
-36
+88
+65
+47
+67
+59
+37
+45
+39
+27
+37
+26
+12
+7
+5
-1
0
+6
+8
-7
-10
-32
-49
-58
+82
+41
+61
+29
+31
+47
+20
+25
+15
+18
+8
+6
-13
+2
-1
+4
+2
-23
-7
-27
-38
-15
-37
+88
+63
+62
+64
+57
+41
+44
+29
+41
+31
+18
+16
+20
+11
+19
+1
+3
+34
-20
-22
-2
-39
-42
+90
+47
+52
+64
+59
+51
+26
+36
+28
+36
+9
+15
+10
+10
+17
+1
-2
+12
-6
-24
-51
-9
-37
City ZIP and Outside City ZIP Comparison: Selected Service Net Satisfaction (unweighted)
Fire and emergency medical response
Reliability of water/sewer service and water quality
Ease of paying City fees
Cultural and recreation opportunities
Outdoor parks, playgrounds, and recreation facilities
311 help, service requests, and issue reporting
Trash, brush, and bulky waste services
Efforts to attract jobs and investment to Tulsa
Police response and community safety presence
Upkeep and condition of City-owned buildings/facilities
Support for small businesses and neighborhood economic vitality
Clarity of City rules/ordinances and legal guidance
Fairness and clarity of fines/fees processes
Opportunities for residents to have a voice in City decisions
Code enforcement (speed, clarity, fairness)
Permitting and inspections (speed, clarity, fairness)
City updates that are easy to find and understand
Animal control response and stray animal services
Clear information about City budgets and spending
Efforts to address housing and homelessness
City services that are equitable across neighborhoods
Public transportation availability
Streets/sidewalk condition and maintenance
CITY ZIP
OUTSIDE CITY ZIP
+85
+59
+55
+58
+54
+40
+38
+35
+29
+33
+22
+13
+11
+9
+5
+3
+8
+7
-7
-15
-28
-34
-47
+66
+39
+46
+36
+50
+35
+23
+15
+27
+22
+14
+12
+13
-4
+3
+15
+5
+7
-17
-27
-12
-25
-30
RESIDENT VOICES
“Sidewalk access can be sparse in Tulsa neighborhoods. Park access can be difficult as well. While there may be a park close by, often times it requires walking through a neighborhood with no sidewalks or crossing a major/busy street.”
​​
“So many street lights are out and it is dangerous for drivers and those walking. Streets need to be upgraded. Some are still horrible to drive on and dangerous. I know many are being repaired, but there seem to be some that are being neglected.”
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE THEMES
The service-related comments reinforced the lower ratings for streets, sidewalks, public transportation, equitable service across neighborhoods, and housing and homelessness.
Residents frequently described road conditions, potholes, missing or damaged sidewalks, unsafe crossings, streetlights, traffic safety, public transit availability, code enforcement, trash and bulky waste, and animal services.
Many comments framed these as both service-quality and equity issues, especially when residents felt some neighborhoods receive faster attention or better maintenance than others.
Positive comments most often mentioned fire and emergency response, parks, cultural amenities, libraries, and basic utility reliability, but residents still asked for more consistent service quality and clearer follow-up when problems are reported.
ACCESS TO SERVICES & AMENITIES
Quality of life depends on more than whether services exist. People also need to be able to use them. Cost, location, transportation, language, disability access, safety, and technology can all affect access.
Selected Access and Amenity Net Satisfaction Scores
Civic, religious, or social clubs or organizations
+60
Cultural opportunities, such as theatre, museums, and music
+58
Neighborhood amenities
+40
Reliable, affordable internet and technology
+35
Quality healthcare
+27
Accessibility of healthcare
+23
Extracurricular activities for children and teenagers
-5
Street and neighborhood lighting
-20
Access to mental health/substance use supports
-30
Quality of mental health/substance use supports
-30
Affordability of healthcare
-33
Affordability of mental health/substance use supports
-43
Access Scores By Region
EAST
MIDTOWN
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
Civic, religious, or social clubs or organizations
Cultural opportunities, such as theatre, museums, and music
Neighborhood amenities
Reliable, affordable internet and technology
Quality healthcare
Accessibility of healthcare
Extracurricular activities for children and teenagers
Street and neighborhood lighting
Access to mental health/substance use supports
Quality of mental health/substance use supports
Affordability of healthcare
Affordability of mental health/substance use supports
+63
+46
+39
+43
+37
+25
+6
-19
-16
-15
-16
-21
+66
+74
+46
+40
+26
+22
-2
-13
-37
-38
-44
-56
+35
+32
+13
+15
+13
+11
-28
-41
-31
-34
-44
-43
+68
+65
+52
+39
+33
+32
+5
-15
-29
-28
-22
-43
+64
+68
+43
+29
+20
+23
-6
-11
-37
-36
-47
-50
Net Affordability Scores by Household Income
Healthcare affordability
Mental health/substance use affordability
-20
-26
-25
-18
-40
-42
-44
-47
-44
-57
-37
-47
-12
-44
UNDER $15,000
$15,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,000
$100,000 - $150,000
OVER $150,000
City ZIP and Outside City ZIP Comparison: Selected Access Net Satisfaction (unweighted)
Civic, religious, or social clubs or organizations
Cultural opportunities, such as theatre, museums, and music
Neighborhood amenities
Reliable, affordable internet and technology
Quality healthcare
Accessibility of healthcare
Extracurricular activities for children and teenagers
Street and neighborhood lighting
Access to mental health/substance use supports
Quality of mental health/substance use supports
Affordability of healthcare
Affordability of mental health/substance use supports
CITY ZIP
OUTSIDE CITY ZIP
+63
+63
+41
+36
+26
+22
-5
-19
-32
-32
-36
-36
+45
+46
+30
+16
+9
+12
-1
-12
-22
-20
-20
-30
RESIDENT VOICES
“I believe that due to my zip code I have an abundance of access to some of the amenities listed above … but I do not believe that there is equal access across Tulsa.”
​​​
“Healthcare and especially mental health support needs to be prioritized, especially access and affordability.”
​
“We have excellent libraries, parks, rec centers, and cultural experiences, but very little inclusive accessibility to these with sidewalks and bike lanes.”
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE THEMES
Access comments showed that availability alone does not always mean residents can use services or amenities.
Common themes included the affordability of healthcare and behavioral health supports, the need for more mental health and substance-use services, uneven access to parks, libraries, cultural amenities, and neighborhood resources, and the role of transportation, sidewalks, lighting, and safety in whether people can reach what is available.
Several respondents also raised disability access, language access, reliable internet, and neighborhood-level differences as barriers that affect who benefits from Tulsa’s assets.
COMMUNITY HEALTH & WELLBEING
Community health and wellbeing are shaped by more than healthcare. Residents’ ability to live healthy lives is affected by food costs, health insurance, transportation, work and caregiving demands, mental health, housing stability, safe places to be active, neighborhood conditions, and knowledge of available resources.
Where Residents Typically Get Healthcare
Primary Care Doctor
Urgent Care Clinic
Usually Do Not Seek Care When Needed
Other
Community Health Center/FQHC
Emergency Room/Hospital
Telehealth/Virtual Visit
Pharmacy or Retail Clinic
Prefer Not to Answer
Top Health and Wellbeing Barriers By Tulsa Region
EAST TULSA
1
Cost of Healthy Food (22%)
2
Lack of Health Insurance/Inadequate Coverage (14%)
3
Limited Time Due to Work/School/Caregiving (13%)
MIDTOWN TULSA
1
Cost of Healthy Food (22%)
2
None of the above (18%)
3
Limited Time Due to Work/School/Caregiving (18%)
NORTH TULSA
1
Cost of Healthy Food (27%)
2
Limited Time Due to Work/School/Caregiving (11%)
3
Lack of Safe Places to Be Active (10%)
SOUTH TULSA
1
None of the Above (22%)
2
Cost of Healthy Food (18%)
3
Limited Time Due to Work/School/Caregiving (14%)
WEST TULSA
1
Cost of Healthy Food (23%)
2
None of the Above (20%)
3
Limited Time Due to Work/School/Caregiving (14%)
Healthcare Source By Household Income
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
UNDER $15,000
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
$15,000 - $29,999
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
$30,000 - $49,999
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
$50,000 - 74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
$100,000 - $150,000
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
OVER $150,000
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
City ZIP and Outside City ZIP Comparison: Health and Wellbeing Indicators (unweighted)
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
HEALTHCARE SERVICE
CITY ZIP
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
WELLBEING BARRIERS
None of the Above
OUTSIDE CITY ZIP
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
HEALTHCARE SERVICE
Primary Care Doctor
Usually Don't Seek Care When Needed
WELLBEING BARRIERS
None of the Above
RESIDENT VOICES
“Even with insurance, out-of-pocket cost can affect everything else, including ability to buy healthy food.”
​​​
“I can’t afford healthy food, but even if I could, I do not have time or energy to cook for my family like I would like to after work.”
​​
“There are not enough mental health providers of color in the city.”
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE THEMES
Health-related comments described wellbeing as closely connected to household costs, neighborhood conditions, and the built environment.
Residents discussed the cost of healthy food, insurance and medical bills, difficulty finding providers or appointments, mental health and substance-use needs, time pressures from work and caregiving, housing instability, and the lack of safe places to walk, bike, exercise, or spend time outdoors.
These comments suggest that residents see health as connected to City decisions about transportation, lighting, parks, housing, safety, and neighborhood investment, not only to the healthcare system.
OPPORTUNITY & SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES
RESIDENTS SEE CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES AS A SHARED PRIORITY
Support for children, youth, and families affects safety, learning, health, and long-term wellbeing. Schools and nonprofits do much of this work. City choices about parks, libraries, transportation, housing, safety, and neighborhoods also matter.
Eighty-one percent of City ZIP-code respondents rated City investment in opportunities for children, youth, and families as a very high or high priority after ZIP weighting.
Priority for City Investment in Children, Youth, and Families
Very HIgh
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
Not Sure
Top Priorities Selected to Support Children, Youth, and Families
After-School/Summer Programs
Safe Parks/Recreation
Affordable Housing Supports
Mental Health/Addiction Supports
Neighborhood Safety
Youth Jobs and Internships
Arts/Culture Opportunities
Family Resource Navigation
Support for City Investment By Region
EAST
MIDTOWN
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
Very High/High Priority
83%
78%
91%
75%
83%
Selected Priorities By Tulsa Region
EAST
MIDTOWN
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
After-School/Summer Programs
Safe Parks/Recreation
Affordable Housing Supports
Mental Health/Addiction Supports
Neighborhood Safety
Youth Jobs and Internships
39%
42%
33%
28%
27%
35%
42%
38%
40%
36%
33%
30%
47%
42%
42%
38%
34%
42%
43%
47%
32%
33%
37%
35%
38%
42%
31%
39%
38%
31%
City ZIP and Outside City ZIP Comparison: Children, Youth, and Family Priorities (unweighted)
CITY ZIP
SUPPORT FOR CITY INVESTMENT
After-School/Summer Programs
Safe Parks/Recreation
SELECTED PRIORITIES
Affordable Housing Supports
Mental Health/Addiction Supports
OUTSIDE CITY ZIP
SUPPORT FOR CITY INVESTMENT
After-School/Summer Programs
Safe Parks/Recreation
SELECTED PRIORITIES
Affordable Housing Supports
RESIDENT VOICES
“This may be family resource navigation, but ensuring families have access to have their basic needs: housing, food, mental/physical health.”
​​​
“The lack of transportation and destinations for youth is hurting outcomes. There are no longer areas outside of Gathering Place for youth to congregate and just be.”
​​​
“Creating a coalition of students of multiple ages from all areas of the city to give opinions on what they would like to see … giving our leaders perspective from our city’s future.”
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE THEMES
Comments about children, youth, and families emphasized safe places to play and gather, after-school and summer programs, youth jobs and internships, mental health supports, affordable housing, and help connecting families to resources.
Respondents also frequently named education, school quality, safe routes to school, transportation, childcare, sports, arts, and basic needs such as food and housing.
A recurring theme was that youth opportunities should be available across the whole city, not concentrated only in a few neighborhoods or major destination areas.
CIVIC SUPPORT FOR A THRIVING TULSA
BELONGING, TRUST, & ACTION HELP COMMUNITIES SOLVE PROBLEMS
Strong communities need trust, safety, belonging, and hope. These measures show whether residents feel connected, think Tulsa is improving, trust local groups, and work with neighbors.
Belonging and Neighborhood Safety
The area where I live in Tulsa is the perfect place for me
Compared to other parts of Tulsa, I feel safe and secure in my neighborhood
Direction of the City and Neighborhood
Getting Better
Getting Worse
THE CITY OF TULSA
Getting Worse
Getting Better
THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE IN TULSA
Trust in Groups and Institutions
Tulsa Fire Services
Your Neighbors
People in General
Tulsa Police Department
Tulsa City Leaders
A LOT/SOME
A LOT
97%
83%
70%
70%
61%
71%
32%
10%
33%
10%
Selected Community Engagement Indicators By Region
EAST
MIDTOWN
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
Area is the perfect place for me
Feel safe and secure
City of Tulsa is getting better
Area where I live is getting better
People like me can have moderate/big impact
Worked with neighbors to improvesomething
49%
63%
30%
18%
52%
41%
67%
69%
44%
26%
61%
49%
46%
47%
34%
26%
60%
41%
60%
77%
29%
12%
56%
49%
54%
61%
27%
23%
49%
43%
Trust in City Leaders and Police by region
Trust City Leaders A Lot/Some
Trust Tulsa Police Department A Lot/Some
EAST TULSA
Trust Tulsa Police Department A Lot/Some
Trust City Leaders A Lot/Some
MIDTOWN TULSA
Trust City Leaders A Lot/Some
Trust Tulsa Police Department A Lot/Some
NORTH TULSA
Trust City Leaders A Lot/Some
Trust Tulsa Police Department A Lot/Some
SOUTH TULSA
Trust City Leaders A Lot/Some
Trust Tulsa Police Department A Lot/Some
WEST TULSA
City ZIP and Outside City ZIP Comparison: Civic Support Indicators (unweighted)
Area is the perfect place for me
Feel safe and secure
City of Tulsa is getting better
Trust City Leaders A Lot/Some
Trust Tulsa Police Department A Lot/Some
Worked with Neighbors to Improve Something
CITY ZIP
OUTSIDE CITY ZIP
61%
67%
38%
63%
70%
47%
51%
72%
27%
51%
69%
38%
RESIDENT VOICES
“I appreciated the Neighborhood Academy. It was a good chance to get out and try to figure out how to help my neighborhood. I feel just knowing my neighbors is very hard to do. Connection and community have suffered.”​​​
​
“Neighbors can do a lot to support each other… support from programs like the new Neighborhood Connect seem like good options and I’d like to see more of that.”
​​​​
“There is no clear path of inquiry if someone wanted to engage more with the City or make their community a better place.”
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE THEMES
Civic-engagement comments often focused on connection, safety, and whether residents feel heard.
Some respondents described neighbors helping one another, neighborhood groups, and programs that build connection as important strengths.
Others said they were unsure how to bring concerns to the City, how to track whether input leads to action, or how to get involved beyond filing a complaint.
Comments also showed that trust and belonging are affected by visible neighborhood conditions, public safety, homelessness, police-community relationships, and whether residents believe City leaders listen to all parts of Tulsa.
WHO RESPONDED & HOW TO INTERPRET THE RESULTS
The ZIP-code weight helps balance the results by City ZIP code.
The results should still be read as resident feedback. Demographic information shows who took the survey. It also shows where the survey may need stronger outreach next time. These results only include people who gave City of Tulsa ZIP codes unless otherwise noted.
Respondents by ZIP Code Status
CITY OF TULSA ZIP
2,497
89% of Total Responses
OUTSIDE CITY ZIP CODE
302
11% of Total Responses
CITY OF TULSA ZIP
6
0% of Total Responses
Tulsa Region: Unweighted and Weighted Distribution
EAST
MIDTOWN
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
19%
10% Unweighted
29%
46% Unweighted
20%
21% Unweighted
25%
17% Unweighted
7%
7% of Total Responses
Respondent Age Profile
1% Unweighted
1%
3% Unweighted
3%
17% Unweighted
18%
23% Unweighted
23%
17% Unweighted
17%
15% Unweighted
15%
23% Unweighted
22%
UNDER 18
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65+
Respondent Household Income Profile
8% Unweighted
9%
9% Unweighted
10%
14% Unweighted
14%
20% Unweighted
20%
13% Unweighted
12%
17% Unweighted
16%
20% Unweighted
18%
UNDER $15,000
$15,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,000
$100,000 - $150,000
OVER $150,000
The respondent profile suggests that survey participation was not evenly distributed across the city. Midtown Tulsa accounted for 46% of unweighted region-coded City ZIP responses, but 29% after applying the ZIP-code weight. East Tulsa accounted for 10% of unweighted City ZIP responses but 19% after weighting. South Tulsa also increased from 17% unweighted to 25% weighted.
RESIDENT VOICES
“As a current resident of North Tulsa, and formerly of Brookside, I also see the discrepancies in services from neighborhood to neighborhood.”
​​​
“East Tulsa residents want to see major investment in our neighborhood. People are losing hope and feel like they have to move to different parts of town, or to a suburb to thrive.”
The weight helps adjust for where City respondents live. But it does not fix all limits. The survey may still have too many or too few responses from some groups, such as age, race, income, housing status, language, or civic activity.
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
The Tulsa City Auditor’s Office created the 2026 Evaluate the 918 Annual Survey to gather resident feedback. The results can help with audit planning, public reporting, and service improvement.
Results are shown two ways
Unweighted results show what respondents said. Weighted results use a sample weight to better match the population distribution across the 27 City of Tulsa ZIP codes used for this analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Main results are limited to respondents who provided ZIP codes that fall within the City of Tulsa ZIP-code list:
74103, 74104, 74105, 74106, 74107, 74108, 74110, 74112, 74114, 74115, 74116, 74117, 74119, 74120, 74126, 74127, 74128, 74129, 74130, 74132, 74133, 74134, 74135, 74136, 74137, 74145, and 74146.
​
No responses in the finalized dataset were identified from ZIP code 74117.
WEIGHTED RESULTS
Weighted results use ZIP-code population weights. The weight adjusts the share of responses from each City ZIP code to better match the population share of that ZIP code among the 27 City ZIP codes.
Because this was a community survey rather than a confirmed probability sample, findings should be interpreted as resident feedback and adjusted descriptive estimates, not precise population estimates.
For weighted calculations, cases must have a valid response to the item and a nonmissing positive weight. Service and amenity satisfaction results are summarized using net satisfaction scores that exclude neutral and “not applicable/don’t know” responses from the denominator.
Open-Ended Response Themes
The survey also included open-ended questions and write-in fields. For the thematic analysis, responses from City of Tulsa ZIP-code respondents were reviewed across the open-ended access and amenities question, children/youth/family “other” responses, healthcare and health-barrier “other” responses, and the final additional-comments question. The final City ZIP-code dataset included 1,767 open-ended text entries from 1,055 respondents.
Responses were read and coded using an issue-based framework aligned with the major sections of this report. A single response could be coded to more than one theme when it discussed multiple topics, such as sidewalks, safety, and neighborhood equity. The themes are used as qualitative context to help explain the survey findings. They should be read as recurring patterns in resident feedback, not as statistically weighted estimates.
