Surmounting Borders as Barriers to Best Practices

1
Surmounting Borders as Barriers to Best
Practices The Case of GIS
Prevention Research Driving Successful Outcomes

• Barbara Seitz de Martinez, PhD, MLS, CPP
• Desiree Goetze, MPH, CHES, CPP .
• Indiana Prevention Resource Center

21st Annual National Prevention Network
Conference Indianapolis 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
3
We live w/in and beyond boundaries.

• Source http//geography.about.com/library/misc/n
  counties.htm

Counties of the Continental US
4

• Source http//geography.about.com/library/misc/n
  counties.htm

International Boundaries
5
We live w/in and beyond boundaries.

• Source http//geography.about.com/library/misc/n
  counties.htm

Common concerns for the planet
6
INs Neighbors
9-OH, 11-KY,10-IL,5-MI

• Source http//geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/off
  site.htm?sitehttp//www.infoplease.com/atlas/stat
  e/indiana.html

7
Weather ignores boundaries

• Source http//www.wunderground.com/US/Region/Mid
  west/2xMaxTemp3Day.html

8
Rivers cross borders.
They often define them.

• Source http//geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/off
  site.htm?sitehttp//www.infoplease.com/atlas/stat
  e/indiana.html

9
Midwest flooding June 2008

• Source http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25193213/

10
People and their societies defy boun-daries
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

• Source US Census, Population figures from C2K

Ten Largest Midwestern Cities
11
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

• Source US Census, Population figures from C2K

Ten Largest Urban Areas
12
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

• Source US Census, Population figures from C2K

Ten Largest Metro Areas
13

• Source 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

• Source http//www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/
  images/ntar000.pdf

Transportation Analysis Regions
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
Source Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch
6.Stat Groupings of States and Counties,
http//www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf
The United States, 1st Census, 1790
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
Socioeconomic homogeneity is the principal
criterion for grouping States into regions.
223
293 counties
45

• Source Geographic Areas Reference Manual, ch
  6.Stat Groupings of States and Counties,
  http//www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf

614
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, Changing
Source http//fhm.fs.fed.us/fhh/fhh-01/in/in_01.h
tm
24
Past Year Ages 12-17
Source SAMHSA, OAS, NSDUH, Figure 5.2, based on
2004 and 2005 NSDUHs http//www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k
5State/ch5.htmFig5.1
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/2k
5State/ch5.htmFig5.1
Alcohol Dependence or Abuse
26
Past Mo. Alcohol Use, Ages 12-20
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

27
Past Mo. Alcohol Use, Ages 12-20
30.2
29.8

• Source The NSDUH Report. Issue 13 (2006)
  SAMHSA, OAS, 2003-2004. http//www.oas.samhsa.gov/
  2k6/stateUnderageDrinking/underageDrinking.htm

30.4
26.7
30.
28
Past Mo. Alcohol Use, Ages 12-20
Past Mo Alcohol Use Ages 12-20
Rank State Rate
23 IL 30.4
25 MI 30.2
27 KY 30
29 OH 29.8
39 IN 26.7
30.2
29.8
26.7
30.4
30.

• Source The NSDUH Report. Issue 13 (2006
  SAMHSA, OAS, 2003-2004. http//www.oas.samhsa.gov/
  2k6/stateUnderageDrinking/underageDrinking.htm

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/2k
5State/ch5.htmFig5.26
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/2k
5State/ch5.htmFig5.27
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
University Alcohol Retail Outlet
Butler
Marion College
Indianapolis Downtown Campus of Ivy Tech
IUPUI
U of Indy
34
1 and 2 Miles around University of Indianapolis
Alcohol Outlets around Univ.
35
Includes drug consumption, crime, socioeconomic
consequences
Source PIRE, Strategic Prevention Framework NC
Model (10-25-06)

• Outcome Based Prevention

36
Personal Crime Murder
Source 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
37
2007

• Source 2006 Crime Risk, 2007

Nation 100 Indiana 95
Personal Crime Murder
38
111
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
128
95
78
Source 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
Personal Crime Murder
39
14-County Region Green Infrastructure

• http//www.greenmapping.org/maps/gi-map.pdf

40
14-County Region Green Infrastructure

• http//www.greenmapping.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
Past Year, 18-25
Source SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-7. Annual
Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs.
http//www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6state/Ch2.htm2.7
43
1st Use of Marijuana Use
Past Year, 12-17

• Fig. 2.18

44
Illicit Drug Use (not marijuana)
Past Year, 12 and older
Source 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
Past Year, 12-17

Source SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-29. Annual
Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs
Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers
47
Past Year, 18-25

• Source SAMHSA, OAS, Fig. 2-30. Annual
  Averages Based on 2005 and 2006 NSDUHs

Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers
48
Past Yr 26 or Older

• Fig. 2-31. Annual Averages Based on 2005 and 2006
  NSDUHs

Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers
49
Crime Indices Total Crime
Source 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
50
Nation 100 Indiana 90
Source 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
Total Crime
51
96
95
98
70
Source 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
Total Crime
52
Crime Risk 2007 Total Crime
96
95
98
INDIANA 90 US 100
70
Source 2006 Crime Risk, 2007
Total Crime
53
As Percent of Ave. House-hold Income
AGS, 2007
Per HH Alcohol Spending

• AGS, 2007

54
As Percent of Ave. House-hold Income
AGS, 2007
Annual per HH Tobacco Spending
55
As Percent of Ave. House-hold Income
AGS, 2007
Per HH Tobacco Spending
56
As Percent of Ave. House-hold Income
AGS, 2007
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
Thank You !

• For more information
• Indiana Prevention Resource Center
• 812/855-1237