1 surmounting borders as barriers to best practices – the case of gis barbara seitz de martinez,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Surmounting Borders as Barriers to Best Practices –
The Case of GIS
Barbara Seitz de Martinez, PhD, MLS, CPP
Desiree Goetze, MPH, CHES, CPP ….
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Prevention Research: Driving Successful Outcomes
21st Annual National Prevention Network ConferenceIndianapolis Marriott Downtown Hotel
August 27, 2008
2
We will learn:
• Why it is imperative to surmount borders• How borders present barriers to success• Ways technology obstructs and facilitates
surmounting borders• That we need to acknowledge our power
to influence others and be responsible• We need to acknowledge our neighbors’
influence over us and work together
Learning Objectives
3Source: http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ncounties.htm
We live w/in and beyond boundaries.
Counties of the Continental US
4Source: http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ncounties.htm
International Boundaries
5
We live w/in and beyond boundaries.
Source: http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ncounties.htm
Common concerns for the planet
6
IN’s Neighbors9-OH, 11-KY,10-IL,5-MI
Source: http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/state/indiana.html
7
Weather ignores boundaries Source: http://www.wunderground.com/US/Region/Midwest/2xMaxTemp3Day.html
8
Rivers cross
borders.
Source: http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/state/indiana.html
They often define them.
9
Midwest flooding – June 2008
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25193213/
10
People and their societies
defy boun-daries
Source: US Census,
Population figures from
C2K
Ten Largest Midwestern Cities
RANK CITY STATE POP
1 Chicago IL 2,896,016
2 Detroit MI 951,270
3 Indianapolis IN 791,926
4 Columbus OH 711,470
5 Milwaukee WI 596,974
6 Cleveland OH 478,403
7 Kansas City MO 441,545
8 Omaha NE 390,007
9 Minneapolis MN 382,618
10 St. Louis MO 348,189
11
Source: US
Census, Populati
on figures
from C2K
Ten Largest Urban Areas
RANK CITY STATE POP
1 Chicago IL-IN 8,307,904
2 Detroit MI 3,903,377
3 Minn-St Paul MN 2,388,593
4 St. Louis MO-IL 2,077,662
5 Cleveland OH 1,786,647
6 Cincinnati OH-KY-IN 1,503,262
7 Kansas City MO-KS 1,361,744
8 Milwaukee WI 1,308,913
9 Indianapolis IN 1,218,919
10 Columbus OH 1,133,193
12
Source: US
Census, Populati
on figures
from C2K
Ten Largest Metro Areas
RANK CITY STATE POP
1 Chicago IL-IN-WI 9,098,316
2 Detroit MI 4,452,557
3 Minn-St Paul MN-WI 2,968,806
4 St. Louis MO-IL 2,698,687
5 Cleveland OH 2,148,143
6 Cincinnati OH-KY-IN 2,009,632
7 Kansas City MO-KS 1,836,038
8 Columbus OH 1,612,694
9 Indianapolis IN 1,525,104
10 Milwaukee WI 1,500,741
13Source: US Census Bureau
Minneapolis St. Paul Metro Area
14
Arable Land Defined by Soil
Source: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/ag064.pdf
15
Transportation Analysis Regions Source: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/ntar000.pdf
16
Transportation Analysis Regions
Transportation Analysis Regions
Source: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/nt
ar000.pdf
17
Types of Geographic Divisions
• American Indian and Alaska Native Areas• County Subdivisions• Places• Census Tracts and Block Groups• Urban and Rural Classifications• Metropolitan Areas• Voting Districts• Area Measurement/Water Classification
Source: Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch 13. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/garm.html
18
Census Regions and Divisions
Source Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch 6.Stat Groupings of States and Counties, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf
19
Boundaries – Arbitrary, Changing
The United States, 1st Census, 1790
Source: Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch 6.Stat Groupings of States
and Counties, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf
20
Boundaries – Arbitrary, Changing
Source: Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch 6.Stat Groupings of States
and Counties, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf
1850 Census, Areas/Boundaries
21
Boundaries – Arbitrary, Changing
• Source: Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch 6.Stat Groupings of
States and Counties, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf
293 counties
45
614
223
Socioeconomic homogeneity is the principal criterion for grouping States into regions.
1900 Topographic Divisions, Regions
22
Census Regions and Divisions
Source Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch 6.Stat Groupings of States and Counties, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf
23
Boundaries – Arbitrary, ChangingSource:
http://fhm.fs.fed.us/fhh/fhh-01/in/in_01.htm
24
Past Year Ages 12-17
Source: SAMHSA, OAS, NSDUH, Figure 5.2, based on 2004 and 2005 NSDUHs http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5State/ch5.htm#Fig5.1
Alcohol Dependence or Abuse
25
Past Year Ages 18-25
Source: SAMHSA, OAS, NSDUH, Figure 5.2, based on 2004 and 2005 NSDUHs http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5State/ch5.htm#Fig5.1
Alcohol Dependence or Abuse
26
Past Mo. Alcohol Use, Ages 12-20
Source: The NSDUH Report. Issue 13 (2006) SAMHSA, OAS, 2003-2004. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6/stateUnderageDrinking/underageDrinking.htm
Past Mo Alcohol UseAges 12-20
27
Past Mo. Alcohol Use, Ages 12-20
30.4
30.2
30.
29.826.7
Source: The NSDUH Report. Issue 13 (2006) SAMHSA, OAS, 2003-2004.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6/stateUnderageDrinking/under
ageDrinking.htm
28
Past Mo. Alcohol Use, Ages 12-20
Source: The NSDUH Report. Issue 13 (2006 SAMHSA, OAS, 2003-2004. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6/stateUnderageDrinking/underageDrinking.htm
30.4
30.2
30.
29.826.7
Rank State Rate
23 IL 30.4
25 MI 30.2
27 KY 30
29 OH 29.8
39 IN 26.7
Past Mo Alcohol Use Ages 12-20
29
Need but Not Receiving Treatment Past Year, Ages 12-17
Source: SAMHSA, OAS, NSDUH, Figure 5.26, based on 2004 and 2005 NSDUHs http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5State/ch5.htm#Fig5.26
Alcohol Dependence or Abuse
30
Need but Not Receiving Treatment Past Year, Ages 18-25
Source: SAMHSA, OAS, NSDUH, Figure 5.27, based on 2004 and 2005 NSDUHs http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5State/ch5.htm#Fig5.27
Alcohol Dependence or Abuse
31
Actions/Concerns
• Townhall Meetings• Coalitions to Reduce Underage Drinking• Compliance Checks• Laws• Policies• Campus Programs, Policies• Survey Research• State Strategic Planning• Drug Free Community and other Grants
32
SPF SIG Grants Cohorts I & II by CAPT Region
Source: PIRE, Strategic Prevention Framework: NC Model (10-25-06)
33
Marion County Universities and Alcohol Retail Outlets
UniversityAlcohol Retail Outlet Butler
Indianapolis Downtown Campus of Ivy Tech
IUPUI
Marion College
U of Indy
34
1 and 2 Miles
around Univers
ity of Indiana
polis
Alcohol Outlets around Univ.
35
Outcome Based Prevention
Source: PIRE, Strategic Prevention Framework: NC Model (10-25-06)
Includes drug consumption, crime, socioeconomic consequences
36
Personal Crime – Murder
Source: 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
37
2007
Nation = 100
Indiana = 95
Personal Crime – Murder
Source: 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
38
IN (95) and Florida (98) are closest to the national murder rate without reaching it.
IL, MI, DC and the southern states are at and above the national level for murder.
78
78
128 95
111
Personal Crime – Murder
Source: 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
39
14-County Region – Green Infrastructure
http://www.greenmapping.or
g/maps/gi-map.pdf
40
14-County Region – Green Infrastructure
http://www.greenmappin
g.org/maps/gi-map.pdf
14-County Region – Green Infrastructure
41
14-County Region – Green Infrastructure
http://www.greenmapping.org
/maps/gi-map.pdf
42
Marijuana Use
Source: SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-7. Annual Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6state/Ch2.htm#2.7
Past Year, 18-25
43
Fig. 2.181st Use of Marijuana Use
Past Year, 12-17
44
Illicit Drug Use (not marijuana)–
Past Year, 12 and olderSource: SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-20. Annual Averages Based on 2005 and 2006
NSDUHs
45
Past Year, 12 and older
Source: SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-28. Annual Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs
Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers –
46
Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers –
Past Year, 12-17
Source: SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-29. Annual Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs
47Source: SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-30. Annual Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs
Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers –
Past Year, 18-25
48Fig. 2-31. Annual Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs
Past Yr– 26
or Older
Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers –
49
Crime Indices – Total Crime
Source: 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
50
Nation = 100
Indiana = 90
Total Crime
Source: 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
51
96
9598
70
Total Crime
Source: 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
52
Crime Risk 2007 – Total Crime
INDIANA = 90
US = 100
96
9598
70
Total Crime
Source: 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
53
AGS, 2007
As Percent of Ave. House-
hold Income
Per HH Alcohol Spending
AGS, 2007
54AGS, 2007
Annual per HH Tobacco Spending
As Percent of Ave. House-
hold Income
55
As Percent of Ave. House-
hold Income
Per HH Tobacco SpendingAGS, 2007
56AGS, 2007
As Percent of Ave. House-
hold Income
Per HH Tobacco Spending
57
We have learned:
Why it is imperative to surmount borders
• We live dynamically, in contexts, not in bubbles or silos• Like peers, we influence one another• Like people, as groups we need support• It is our responsibility to ourselves and others. Together we are stronger.
Conclusion
58
We have learned:How borders present barriers to success
• Governments have boundaries.• Funding often limited by boundaries• Data is generally presented by boundaries• Policies, laws and program coverage is often limited by boundaries.
Conclusion
59
We have learned:Ways technology obstructs and facilitates
our surmounting borders• Creates buttresses, invisible walls, limits • We purchase data by boundaries• We describe phenomenon by boundary• Technology allows us to see relationships• Technology allows us to study dynamics
Conclusion
60
We have learned:
• That we need to acknowledge our power to influence others and be responsible
HOW? • Use GIS to study broader environment• Note risk factors that are higher in your area• ID and study intervening variables• Note policies, practices and programs that
contribute to progress or problems• Brainstorm together how to coordinate
Conclusion
61
We have learned:
That we need to acknowledge our neighbors’ influence over us and work together:
HOW TO DO THIS: Some ideas• Share information online (IPRC County Profiles)• Share at conferences• RADAR Network, SALIS, regional groups• Obtain data about your neighbors• Share findings
Conclusion
62
For more information:
Indiana Prevention Resource Center812/855-1237