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