THE INDIANA PREVENTION RESOURCE CENTER

THE INDIANA PREVENTION RESOURCE CENTER

GIS in Prevention County Profiles Series, No. 1

Vanderburgh County, Indiana

Barbara Seitz de Martinez, PhD, MLS, CPP

The Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University is funded, in part, by a contract with the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, financially supported through HHS/Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant. The IPRC is operated by the Department of Applied Health Science and The School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

GIS in Prevention County Profiles Series

Barbara Seitz de Martinez, Ph.D., MLS, CPP

Project Staff:Solomon Briggs, GIS Technician

Christina Jagielski Nan Jiang, M.S. Jennifer Kelley, M.P.H., CHES Nattiporn Nokkaew, M.S.

Bilesha Perera, M.Sc. Susan Samuel, M.Sc., M.S.

Matthew Lee Smith, M.P.H., CPP Murali Krishna Tangirala, B.A.M.S.,

M.P.H.Indiana Prevention Resource Center


The Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University is funded, in part, by a contract with the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, financially supported through HHS/Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant. The IPRC is operated by the Department of Applied Health Science and The School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

Vanderburgh County

The maps and tables in this publication were prepared using PCensus7.06 for MapInfo and MapInfo Professional 7.0.

Acknowledgements

The completion of this project would not have been possible without the inspiration and assistance of many people and multiple agencies. The PREV-STAT™ service of the IPRC was launched from the vision of our past Executive Director, Mr. William J. Bailey, MPH, CPP, whose determination to keep the Indiana Prevention Resource Center at the cutting edge of technology led to its initiation. This current project would never have been completed without the support, information sharing, and staff assistance given by the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, the Indiana State Excise Police Tobacco Retailer Inspection Program (TRIP), and the Indiana State Police Forensics Laboratory for methamphetamine data. It would never have been completed without the invaluable and incredible work of the staff of the Indiana Prevention Resource Center (IPRC) and TRIP, especially our student interns and hourly employees.

Special thanks to Mr. James Wolf, Operations Director of the Tobacco Retailer Inspection Program (TRIP), for consultation, data sharing, and staff assistance. We also thank Ms. Penny Davis, Superintendent of the Indiana State Excise Police Alcohol Tobacco Commission. Thanks to JoBeth McCarthy-Jean and her successor as Coordinator of TRIP, Desiree Goetze, for helping coordinate exchanges of information, for advise and for arranging a meeting with James Wolf. Thanks to JoBeth and Desiree also for permitting their TRIP staff to contribute to this project. TRIP staff included student interns and hourly employees, Christina Jagielski , Jennifer Kelley, and Murali Krishna Tangirala. Special thanks as well to Officer Dave Phelps of the Indiana State Police Forensics Laboratory for sharing data on methamphetamine laboratory seizures. In addition, I thank Mr. William J. Bailey, past Executive Director of the Indiana Prevention Resource Center. While GIS software was still in its infancy, he produced a set of county profiles with demographic and local statistics for Indiana prevention professionals and practitioners in Indiana. A most heartfelt thank you to all the Indiana Prevention Resource

Acknowledgements, cont.

Center staff for their encouragement and especially to the student interns and hourly staff who worked so hard on this publication, including Solomon Briggs, Bilesha Perera, Matthew Smith, Susan Samuel, Nan Jiang, and Nattiporn Nokkaew.

Establishing the master template was a monumental task. Initially there was hope of finishing the entire project before the end of 2003. During the 1st and 2nd semesters of 2003, TRIP staff, Christina and Jennifer assisted by completing dozens and dozens of slides in the templates for each of the 92 counties. Bilesha Perera and Krishna Tangirala prepared the data on tobacco retail outlets for each county. Krishna prepared the TRIP data for the numbers of tobacco retail outlets and rates per thousand persons and youth, and the intensity of inspections measurement for each county. Solomon Briggs created a set of approximately 1,804 maps and 552 tables, amounting to about 3,478 pages. Bilesha prepared the FBI Uniform Crime Report arrest data and offered thoughtful and helpful editorial comments, and assisted with assembling the various sections during the final phase of production. Matthew Smith prepared gambling slides. Susan Samuel and Nan Jiang prepared alcohol-related slides. Nan also prepared other slides, proofed all 92 counties for almost all of the variables, and worked on the beginning of the final assembly process. Thanks to Josh Pugh for the design of the PREV-STAT™ logo, which appears on each page of the publication, and to unpaid student intern Nattiporn Nokkaew for her assistance during the proofing and assembly process. Thanks, too, to Richard Li, who is currently preparing online search engine access to much of this data, which when ready will become part of the Indiana Prevention Resource Center’s PREV-STAT™ Service offerings at our web site.

Finally, my thanks to my husband, without whose love and encouragement I would not have had the fortitude to bring this project across the finish line, and to my son, who tried to chase me to bed, night after night when he found me working on this project well after midnight.

Background

The idea for this present series and its format evolved in response to customers of the PREV-STAT™ Service, some of whom recalled the earlier County Profiles statistics produced by the IPRC. Many customers were requesting county-level data. The requests were increasing and the labor involved in each response was considerable. It occurred to me that some of that labor could be “given legs,” as they say, by creating wide and immediate access to a large pool of county level data, adding maps and tables and taking advantage of the new GIS software and data sources. Microsoft Power Point slides seemed an excellent medium, because it facilitates development of the publication and because it allows the reader/user access to the maps and tables for use in public presentations, for incorporation into grant applications, for further development of the Excel tables, and for other manipulations useful for their prevention needs. In addition to providing data, this publication serves a training function, introducing people to the IPRC and its PREV-STAT™ service and aiding understanding of how data can be applied to prevention. The County Profiles are at once an application and a training tool. They increases both the return for investment of the IPRC PREV-STAT™ staff, databases and hardware, and also the effectiveness and efficiency of prevention efforts across Indiana. In addition to expanding the number of people who know about the IPRC, its PREV-STAT™ service, and how it can assist them in their work, having these Profiles then frees the IPRC staff to respond to requests at the smaller geographic level for neighborhood and site-specific reports. These Profiles will be made available via the internet, on CD Rom, and in a very limited number of print copies.

Table of Contents Summary

1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters

2. PREV-STAT™ Overview

3. Geographic and Historical Notes

4. Protective Factors

5. Basic Demographics

6. Archival Indicators of Risk

7. Outstanding Characteristics

8. Complementary Resources

9. Appendices


2. PREV-STAT™ Overview


4. Protective Factors

5. Basic Demographics5.1 Population5.2 Race/EthnicityPCensus Table 1: Demographics by Block Group and Totals

Total PopulationAverage Household IncomePercent of Total Population in PovertyTotal Housing UnitsAverage Age

5.3 Marital Status5.4 Labor Force5.5 Industry5.6 Occupations5.7 Educational Attainment5.8 Households5.9 Families5.10 Lifestyles

Table of Contents

6. Archival Indicators of Risk

Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs6.1 Alcohol Sales Outlets per CapitaMap 1: Schools in Proximity to Alcohol and Tobacco Outlets, 20026.2 Tobacco Sales Outlets per Capita6.3 Availability of Drugs to Youth: Failed TRIP InspectionsMap 2: Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets That Failed TRIP InspectionsMap 3: Close-up of Schools in Proximity to Failed TRIP Inspections6.4 Proximity of Failed TRIP Inspections to Schools6.5 Clandestine Methamphetamine Lab Busts

Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms 6.6 Household Spending on Alcohol6.7 Household Spending on Tobacco6.8 Adult Smoking BehaviorsPCensus Table 2: Adult Smoking (Cigarettes and Cigars) by Block Group and TotalsMap 4: Adult Cigarette Smoking (Count)Map 5: Adult Cigarette Smoking (Percent)Map 6: Adult Cigar Smoking (Count)Map 7: Adult Cigar Smoking (Percent)6.9 Intensity of TRIP Inspections6.10 Gambling -- Casinos and Horseracing Establishments6.11 Adult Gambling BehaviorsPCensus Table 3: Adult Gambling Behaviors (Casino and Lottery) by Block Groups and TotalsMap 8: Adult Casino Gambling (Count)Map 9: Adult Casino Gambling (Percent)Map 10: Adult Lottery Gambling (Count)Map 11: Adult Lottery Gambling (Percent)6.12 Crime Indices6.13 FBI Uniform Crime Reports6.14 Alcohol-Related Crashes

Table of Contents, cont.

Table of Contents, cont.Community Risk Factor: Transitions and Mobility6.15 Net Migration

Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation6.16 Unemployment Rates6.17 Free Lunches/Textbooks, K-126.18 Food Stamp Recipients6.19 Aid to Families with Dependent ChildrenPCensus Table 4: More Demographics by Block Group and Totals

Percent of Population over 25 with Less Than a High School DiplomaFamilies with Children under 18 in Poverty (Count)Single Mom with Children under 18 in Poverty (Count)Children under 18 in Poverty (Count)Households with No Vehicle Available (Count)

Map 12: Percent of Population over 25 with Less Than a High School Diploma6.20 Adults without a High School Diploma6.21 Single Parent Family Households6.22 Poverty: Total Poverty and Poverty by Age GroupMap 13: Percent of Total Population in Poverty6.23 Poverty: Child Poverty as Percent of All Persons in Poverty6.24 Poverty by RacePCensus Table 5: Child Poverty Statistics by Block Group and Totals

Total Children 6-11 (Count)Children 6-11 in Poverty (Count)Children 6-11 in Poverty (Percent)Total Children 12-17 (Count)Children 12-17 in Poverty (Count)Children 12-17 in Poverty (Percent)

Map 14: Children 12-17 in Poverty (Count)6.25 Poverty: Single Parent Families with Children in Poverty6.26 Lack of Health Insurance


Family Risk Factor Management Problems:6.27 Children in Homes with No Parent Present

Family Risk Factor: Family Conflict6.28 Divorce Rate

Family Risk Factor: Family Attitudes and Involvement6.29 Households Where All Parents Work

7. Outstanding Characteristics: Assets, Liabilities and Facts 7.1 Top 10% Status7.2 Bottom 10% Status


8.1 IPRC's PREV-STAT™ County/Local Data Page8.2 STATS Indiana8.3 Statistics from the Indiana Youth Institute8.4 The Indiana Department of Education8.5 The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute8.6 FBI Uniform Crime Report8.7 U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder8.8 Claritas™ "You Are Where You Live“8.9 SAVI


9. AppendicesA. Census DefinitionsB. Claritas™ Lifestyle PRIZM ClustersC. County Distribution of Tobacco FarmsD. State by County Maps E. Archival IndicatorsF. DSA Contact InformationG. State Offices H. PCensus Tables by Block Group

– County Demographics– Smoking Behaviors– Gambling Behaviors (Count, Percent)– Poverty and More Demographics– Poverty– Child Poverty


Protective factors “counter risk factors and the more protective factors that are present, the less the risk.” (Hogan, et al. 2003:15) Protective factors are sometimes referred to as assets; risk factors might be better referred to as challenges, since many of the risk factors in no way suggest current or future failures or problems. For example, single parenthood can be associated with outstanding child-rearing practices and outcomes, yet no one can deny that single parents face greater challenges than do two-parent families.

Risk and protective factors include individual, interpersonal, institutional, community, and cultural components, which are interwoven in our lives. Interactions and relationships between these components are complex. We know that they especially affect children and youth during their formative developmental years. Aspects of individual personality, i.e., impulsivity or timidity, predispose a child to engage in risky behaviors or to be resilient. (August 2003) Relationships with key individuals (e.g., parent, teacher, mentor and role model) strongly impact a child’s development. Also, identification with certain organizations and institutions, and interactions with additional others, provide further influence and context: “To a large extent, the outcomes of children and youth are determined by various community characteristics.” (CPRD 2001:9)

DiClemente, Wingood, and Crosby suggest viewing the spheres of influence as concentric circles – individual, family, personal relationships, community and society – where behaviors are influenced within each spheres and even moreso by interactions between and among spheres. (DiClemente, et al. 2003: 367-8) The community sphere exerts influence through community norms, neighborhood/community cohesion, community prevention programs, school and institutional bonding, and social capital. The societal sphere includes such factors

1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.

as music, the media, crime and socioeconomic conditions (e.g.., “stressful environments”), which contribute to the child’s socialization and choice of behaviors. (DiClemente, et al. 2003:370-372)

Life Domains Prevention professionals employ and encourage science-based prevention programs, policies and strategies that promote and support a drug-free lifestyle. (Kumpfer 1996, 1998; Webster-Stratton 1998) The norms associated with the domains in which the child grows and develops are a major object of their concern. (Webster-Stratton 1998; Thornton 2000; Oetting 1997; Chou 1998

The National Institutes of Health have identified a major protective and risk factor for each of five domains (NIDA 2003:6) or spheres of influence in which children live and develop. The risk factors can be viewed as absence of a protective factor, the consequence of that absence, or as part of a more complex scenario involving additional mitigating conditions. Where a child’s environment includes multiple risk factors, the situation becomes increasingly dangerous.

Domain Protective Factor Risk FactorIndividual Impulse Control Aggressive BehaviorFamily Parental Monitoring Lack of Parental MonitoringSchool Anti-Use Policies Drug AvailabilityPeer Academic Competence Substance UseCommunity Neighborhood Attachment Poverty

Similarly, in this County Profile, a single variable may indicate either risk or protection, depending on the county’s or block group’s score for that particular variable, e.g., variables showing various forms of assets versus deprivations.


CultureBy definition culture refers to behaviors and knowledge that are learned and systematic, and that are transmitted from one generation to the next. (UCSB 2004) Herskovits’ classic definition states that “culture is the man-made part of the environment.” (Herskovits 1960:17) As such, cultures are not static but ever-changing. Culture includes those non-material facets such as values, customs, beliefs and traditions passed on consciously and unconsciously to children by parents, family members, teachers, significant others, and through society via the group(s) the person belongs to and comes to identify with. Because cultures are dynamic and subject to human influence, prevention professionals and practitioners have the opportunity to intervene in a positive fashion to shape a community’s norms and culture, that is, the values, customs, beliefs and traditions related to substance use. Indeed, this is our challenge! Some examples of prevention efforts aimed at this community-level goal include policy adaptation and enforcement (e.g., to reduce youth access to tobacco and alcohol), social norms marketing, media advocacy and counter-advertising media campaigns (CPRD 2001:13-33) Some prevention efforts target an individualized environment and others a shared environment; but in either case the aim is to alter the environment to foster a healthy lifestyle and reduce or eliminate high risk behaviors. (Brounstein, et al. 1998). The social norms approach is an example of a science-based approach that is increasingly embraced by prevention (Perkins 2003:xv)

It is instructive to consider the risk/protective factors associated with the five domains in relationship to the particular culture where the prevention professional is working. The protective/risk factors reveal aspects of the culture, the norms of the environment defined by that sphere or domain. A risk or protective factor may pertain to a tiny subset of the population or be typical of an entire neighborhood or larger community. In the family domain, a child is protected by an environment where parental monitoring is the child-rearing norm and an accepted cultural practice; in contrast, a child is placed at risk by an environment lacking parental monitoring. In the school domain a norm of anti-drug use (policies and enforcement) protects a child from the


risks associated with drug availability. And at the community level, a protective environment is one characterized by strong neighborhood attachment, where residents feel a sense of belonging and identity, taking pride in their neighborhood. Poverty complicates neighborhood attachment because it tends to produce stress and to reduce a sense of security, working against neighborhood and community bonding.

More concentrated within the individual, the protective and risk factors associated with the individual and peer domains are also highly linked to a child’s environment. In both cases, positive role-modeling and a community norm of high expectations for the child’s behavior hold significant influence. In the individual domain the protective factors of self-control and positive emotionality, versus risk factors of lack of self-control and negative emotionality, affect a child’s likelihood to engage in substance use. (Wills, et al. 2003:146-147) Parenting practices, and an environment that models and instructs children in healthy ways to handle emotions, will help children develop self-control and avoid negative behaviors. In the peer domain, norms that encourage studying, seeking parental involvement, and high expectations for academic achievement foster academic competence. In contrast, an environment where substance abuse is the norm augments the risk that a child would engage in substance abuse rather than academic pursuits. In order to be effective, prevention must target the broader environment inhabited by youth and those who would supply them with drugs (CSAP 1999:1) In these domains, prevention aims to introduce skills and practices that will support healthy norms and healthy child development.

1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters cont.

Hence in every domain, by creating or supporting healthy norms, prevention programs help to positively influence the environment within which a child grows and develops. Karol Kumpfer enumerates critical principles of successful prevention programs. In order to be effective, prevention must be comprehensive; evidence-based; responsive to the needs, lifestyles, cultures and other characteristics of the participants; well-timed and appropriately-paced; focus on changing behaviors by teaching skills and involving peer role models; and include follow-up. The first principle of successful prevention programming is to be comprehensive, which means that it will target the primary domains and create enduring change in the social environment. (Kumpfer 2003)

By teaching the child drug resistance skills, social skills, and relevant knowledge, and by modeling and fostering healthy attitudes, the prevention professional and prevention program

impact the individual and her/his environment. All of the six strategies outlined by CSAP [1] (Hogan, et al. 2003:30-39) aim to achieve a healthy, drug-free lifestyle. Taken as a group, used in an integrated manner based on the unique characteristics of the community or target audience and their circumstances, these strategies contribute to changing community norms.

In order to have maximum effectiveness, prevention needs to be carried out with sensitivity and in such a way that behaviors change. Adding knowledge and changing attitudes are not enough. Behavioral patterns must be broken. New behaviors must be practiced. Norms must be altered. (Kumpfer [2003]) When prevention professionals select the prevention strategies that are most

[1] The six strategies enumerated by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention in The Prevention Primer (1993), elaborated upon by Brounstein, et al (Western CAPT, 1998), and elaborated upon in Hogan, et al., are: 1. Dissemination of Information, 2. Prevention Education, 3. Alternative Activities, 4. Community-Based Processes, 5. Environmental Approaches, and 6. Problem Identification and Referral.


appropriate for their target audience and implement those strategies with sensitivity across multiple domains, prevention has the greatest likelihood of success. (Kumpfer [2003]). Ideally, to be effective, prevention programs need to be grounded in the values that define the culture of the target audience. (Hecht, et al. 2003: 234) Environmental approaches executed with cultural sensitivity are one strategy long encouraged by CSAP, since to be culturally appropriate means to mirror the values, characteristics, preferences and expectations of the group (CSAP 2003:16).

Prevention not only contributes to the individual child’s chances of thriving and remaining drug-free. Prevention also contributes to future generations by positively impacting not only current norms, but also future norms of the families, schools and communities that these children will help to create throughout the course of their life times. Clearly, a goal of prevention, like public health in general, is to understand, respect, and strengthen local culture(s) in ways that will improve health, in this case for the attainment of a drug-free lifestyle. In each domain the goals of prevention are: 1) to support and encourage behaviors and norms (customs, values, beliefs and practices) that are protective and, at the same time, 2) to discourage and reduce or eliminate behaviors and norms that place children and others at risk.

However you look at it, whichever evidence-based strategies, policies and/or programs you embrace, environment plays an important role in child development. Prevention professionals, like other public health professionals, act as change agents, doing their best to make the environment in which children grow up conducive to healthy outcomes and to provide opportunities for social interactions that will foster realization of the child’s full potential for health and happiness. Success will benefit the individual child and her/his community now and in the future. It is my sincere hope that the statistics and discourse contained in this County Profile will serve you in your prevention efforts for the children of your county and our world!


Bibliography

August, Gerald J., et al.2003 “Dissemination of an Evidence-Based Prevention Innovation for Aggressive

Children Living in Culturally Diverse, Urban Neighborhoods: The ‘Early Risers’ Effectiveness Study,” Prevention Science 4/4 (December 2003):271-286.

Brounstein, et al.1998 Research Findings and CSAP Strategies. Western CAPT.

The Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD). 2001 Real World Prevention: A Practical Guide for Understanding Prevention and How It

Can Work in Your Community. CPRD Monograph No. 5. Champaign: University of Illinois, 2001.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention2003 Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002. Rockville: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Chou, C., S. Montgomery, M. Pentz, L. Rohrbach, C. Johnson, B. Flay, and D. Mackinnon.1998 Effects of a Community-Based Prevention Program in Decreasing Drug Use n

High- Risk Adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 88:944-948.

Central CAPT. [2003] A Road Map for Science-Based Prevention: Participant Materials. Anoka, MN:

Central Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies.

DiClemente, Ralph J., Gina M. Wingood, and Richard A. Crosby.2003 “A Contextual Perspective for Understanding and Preventing STD/HIV among

Adolescents.” In Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward an Integrated Approach. Daniel Romer, ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Pp. 1-7.

Governor’s Advisory Panel – Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Mental Health and Addiction (FSSA/DMHA).

2004 I magine Indiana Together: The Framework to Advance the Indiana Substance Abuse Prevention System. [Overview Fact Sheet]. Indianapolis: FSSA, 2004.

Grover, Prakash L., ed.1999 Preventing Problem Related to Alcohol Availability: Environmental Approaches:

PEPS 3rd ed. Prakash L. Grover, Ex. Editor.

Hawkins, David J., Richard F. Catalano, Jr., and Associates.1992 Communities That Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hecht, Michael L., Flavio Francisco Marsiglia, Elvira Elek, David A. Wagstaff, Stephen Kulis, Patricia Dustman, and Michelle Miller-Day

2003 “Culturally Grounded Substance Use Prevention: An Evaluation of the Keepin’ it R.E.A.L. Curriculum,” Prevention Science 4/4 (December 2003):233-248.



Herskovits, Melville J. 1960 Man and His Works: The Science of Cultural Anthropology. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.

Hogan, Julie A., et al. 2003 Substance Abuse Prevention: The Intersection of Science and Practice. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Kumpfer, Karol. L. [2003] What Works in the Prevention of Drug Abuse. Southwest CAPT

http://www.swcapt.org/What_s_New?what_s_new.html

Kumpfer, Karol. L., V. Molgaard, and R. Spoth.1996 The “Strengthening Families Program” for the Prevention of Delinquency and Drug

Abuse.” In Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency. R.D. Peters and R.J. McMahon, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kumpfer, Karol L., et al. 1998 “Family Etiology of Youth Problems.” In Drug Abuse Prevention Through Family

Interventions. NIDA Research Monograph No. 177. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp. 42-77.

Oetting, E., R. Edwards, K. Kelly, and F. Beauvais. 1997 “Risk and Protective Factors for Drug Use among Rural American Youth.” In Rural

Substance Abuse: State of Knowledge and Issues. Robertson, E.B., et al, eds.; and


Rural Substance Abuse: State of Knowledge and Issues. NIDA Research Monograph No. 168. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. P. 90-130.

Perkins, H. Wesley, ed. 2003 The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance

Abuse, Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Romer, Daniel, ed.2003 Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward an Integrated Approach. Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Romer, Daniel2003 “Prospects for an Integrated Approach to Adolescent Risk Reduction.” In Reducing

Adolescent Risk: Toward an Integrated Approach. Daniel Romer, ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Pp. 1-7.

Thornton, T.N., et al, eds.2000 Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community

Action. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

University of California Santa Barbara, Department of Anthropology2004 Anthromorphemics. http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/glossary/index2.html

Webster-Stratton, Carolyn.

Webster-Stratton, Carolyn.1998 Preventing Conduct Problems in Head Start Children: Strengthening Parenting

Competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66:715-730.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/glossary/index2.html


Webster-Stratton, Carolyn and Ted Taylor. 2001 “Nipping Early Risk Factors in the Bud: Preventing Substance Abuse, Delinquency,

and Violence in Adolescence through Interventions Targeted at Young Children (0-8 Years),” Prevention Science 2/3 (September 2001):165-192.

Wills, Thomas A.2001 “Temperament Related to Early-Onset Substance Use: Test of a Developmental

Model,” Prevention Science 2/3 (September 2001):145-164.

2. PREV-STAT™: Overview

How many times have you heard or read a national or local statistic and been surprised and shaken your head because the statistic did not reflect your reality? This happens when data about very diverse realities are blended into a single summary statistic. For example, describing Marion County as the wealthiest county in Indiana overlooks the pockets of deep poverty that exist there. Geographic Information Systems help us understand data in much more minute detail, separating layers of information and suggesting relationships between those layers, such as synergies and cause-and-effect.

Recently, the Indiana Prevention Resource Center launched a new, free service called PREV-STAT™ for people working in prevention in Indiana. Using GIS software and data from a variety of sources, IPRC staff create county profiles and customized project reports, including maps and tables. Users of this service include such prevention professionals and practitioners as state level officials, agency heads, teachers, community coalition members and program leaders.

PREV-STAT™ enables the user to understand the characteristics of a place, to locate a group of people with particular attributes, or to study a subset of the population of a given locale. Analysis can be done at any level from the state to the county, block group, zip code, neighborhood, or based on any arbitrary selected boundaries. Alternately, a radius can be drawn around a site (e.g., a school, place of worship or prevention program) to be studied. The greatest power of PREV-STAT™ is its ability to zoom in on the very small geographic area!

2. PREV-STAT™: Overview, cont.

GIS empowers the prevention landscape by attaching threads to statistics and tying them to precise locations on earth. These locations can be potentially very small, like your neighborhood or the mile radius around your school or prevention program site. GIS gives faces to the statistics by allowing you to study specific groups of people. You can ask either “Who lives here?” or “Where do they live?” Ask “Who lives here?” to learn about people in a specific area (e.g., your county, neighborhood or school district). Ask “Where do they live?” to find out about a target audience you seek to serve, (e.g., single female-headed families with incomes below $30,000). GIS in prevention helps make statistics more meaningful and persuasive.

Purchased databases (e.g., from the U.S. Census Bureau, Applied Geographic Solutions-AGS, Claritas, Health Data Science) provide rich data at the community and neighborhood levels. In addition, asset information is continuously being collected to reflect local resources in the form of prevention programs and other community and youth serving agencies, organization and institutions (e.g., libraries, YMCAs, and religious institutions). Other environmental risk and protective factors represented in PREV-STAT™ include schools, alcohol outlets and locations of tobacco retailers that were found to have sold to minors, and gambling casinos.)

PREV-STAT™ enhances many areas of prevention, including needs assessment, program planning, marketing and evaluation. It aids program planning by supporting decision-making regarding such issues as the goals of the program, the selection of the program site, program activities, transportation, and whether to provide (or what and when to serve) food or snacks. Information on educational attainment, plus information on local preferences for reading, listening, TV viewing, and sports participation can lead to more effective marketing strategies and the selection of more appealing activities.


These County Profiles offer statistics at the county level with comparisons to the State of Indiana and U.S. In addition, for many variables there are tables listing statistics by block groups (neighborhoods) for the entire county demonstrate the wide diversity that exists within each county and identifies where in the county there are assets or strengths (e.g., literacy and vehicles for transportation) and challenges or risks (e.g., child poverty).

The contents of this volume are intended to advance prevention by providing statistical

information for use in the various phases of the prevention process, including community readiness, needs assessment, grant-seeking, program planning, and eventually program evaluation. This series is full of information about the citizens of Indiana, living in her 92 counties: their ages; occupations; incomes; households and families; education; behaviors with regard to alcohol, tobacco, other drugs, and gambling; their assets and their hardships; their resources and their needs. Even so, the information contained in these volumes is incomplete without the insider knowledge that the residents of the counties bring to it. It is hoped that users of this volume will seek to complement this county-level information by requesting custom reports for their neighborhoods and communities from the IPRC PREV-STAT™ Service.

This service is here to meet your needs. You do not need to have a precise question in mind. We will help you discover how PREV-STAT™ can help you. Just call and ask to speak to someone about PREV-STAT™.

Instructions for How to Access PREV-STAT™:

Search for specific data using the PREV-STAT™ search page:http://www.pdw.indiana.edu/barb/

You can obtain copies of Indiana’s 92 County Profiles in these ways:1. View and print entire files or selected pages from the IPRC web site 2. Download the entire file from the IPRC web site via the “County Profile” link at:

http://www.iprc.indiana.edu/drug%5Fstats3. Request a copy be sent to you on CD ROM by calling or e-mailing the IPRC

To obtain a custom report:1. Call or e-mail the IPRC to discuss your request2. Expect your report to be completed in approximately 3-6 weeks3. You can only request one report at a time4. Demand may limit custom reports to about three per person per year

Points of access to the PREV-STAT™ Service: 1. www.drugs.indiana.edu 2. http://www.iprc.indiana.edu/drug_stats/county-profiles.html3. http://www.iprc.indiana.edu/drug_stats/county-local.html4. 1-812-855-1237, or, in Indiana toll free at 1-800-346-30775. [email protected]

PREV-STAT™, the IPRC GIS-in-prevention service, is available at no cost to prevention professionals and practitioners affiliated with non-profit or governmental organizations or agencies, including schools and religious institutions.

The IPRC is continuously working to obtain more data and to use it to produce maps, tables, slides, publications and soon searchable databases to meet your prevention needs.


http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/

mailto:[email protected]

Vanderburgh County is located in South Central Indiana bordered by the Ohio River and the State of Kentucky to the south and by the following Indiana counties: Posey to the west, Gibson to the north, and Warrick to the east. U.S. Highway 41 and State Highways 62 and 66 cross the county. Elevation is 375 to 500 feet.

A variety of types of terrain are found in the county: slightly sloping in the south, steeper across the west and north, and nearly level sectors near the Big Creek and Pigeon Creek tributaries on the eastern border. The landscape features hickory and oak trees. The county pertains to the Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes land resource area.

Vanderburgh County alternates between Central Standard Time (October to April) and Central Daylight Savings Time (April to October). Average daily temperatures are 24٥/42٥ in January and 67٥/89٥ in July. Annual precipitation is about 42 and snowfall about 10 inches. The first freeze comes first in the far northeastern sector between October 20-25, and a little later (October 25-30) across the rest of the county. The last freeze happens first (April 5-10) in the majority of the county and a bit later (April 10-15) in the northern third of the county. / The growing season lasts about 188-208 days.

Agricultural activity is mainly in corn for grain and soybeans. Additional crops include hay and winter wheat. Livestock are mainly cattle/calves and hogs/pigs. About half of the land is in farms and more than four-fifths of that land is in cash crops. Important natural resources include coal, construction sand and gravel, petroleum, and forestland. Water resources include lakes/reservoirs (the largest being Clutter, Kahre, Woodland, Talahi, Schnake, and Hamilton Lakes), the Ohio River, and the Big and Pigeon Creeks.

Communities include the city of Evansville, the county seat; and the town of Darmstadt.


Sources: Map from PCensus for MapInfo; Geographic Notes from Indiana Facts: Flying the Colors by John Clements, 1995.

Vanderburgh County is not a tobacco-producing county, according to the Strategic Development Group’s “Alternative Agricultural Strategy” (Bloomington, March 15, 2001) report, which is part of Governor Joseph E. Kernan’s “Recipient Final Reports for Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture Grant Programs” (http://www.in.gov/oca/grants/valueadd/VAFinalReports.html):

3. Location and Historical Notes

http://www.in.gov/oca/grants/valueadd/VAFinalReports.html


Don’t Know Your Block Group Number?

You can find it easily at the American Factfinder Web Site

(www.census.gov)

3. Vanderburgh County Block Group Maps

http://www.census.gov/




Vanderburgh County

Block Groups

Slide #1

Vanderburgh County

Block Groups

Slide #2

Vanderburgh County

Block Groups

Slide #3

4. Protective Factors in Vanderburgh County: An Overview

The importance of protective factors in the environment cannot be over emphasized. They can make all the difference between positive or negative outcomes in child development. Decisions and behaviors with regard to substance use and other high risk behaviors are found to be associated with a constellation of risk and protective factors. These factors have come to be regarded as a “descriptive and predictive framework” within which prevention theory and prevention programs are elaborated. (CSAP 2003:3)

The web of influence which affects each individual and group includes individual, family, school, peer and community factors. Among the personal “individual” characteristics that impact decisions and behaviors are personality traits like a tendency toward sensation-seeking, mental health status, and religiosity. Influences within the family include parent-child bonding, parenting practices, parental substance use, and family size. Influences related to a child’s school experience include the quality of the bond formed between the child and school, academic performance, safety versus conflict in the school climate, and enforcement of clear policies. Pressure from peers and positive peer modeling are among peer influences predictive of abstinence from or involvement with drugs. The availability of drugs in the community, norms of use (e.g., adult use and attitudes, and community policies and enforcement), advertising and socioeconomic circumstances all contribute to the influence of community on its individual members. (CSAP 2003:4-9) These are only a few selected examples of how these factors influence youth behaviors with regard to drug use and other risky behaviors.

4. Protective Factors in Vanderburgh County:

Many agencies, organizations and institutions in a child’s environment offer highly positive support and can fortify the child, reducing likelihood of high risk behaviors and substance use. Research has found that the resilience of children from very high risk circumstances is related to the protective factors which also comprise part of their environment and which have had positive impacts upon them. These children thrive in spite of negative influences and vulnerabilities. Examples of protective factors include the schools, libraries, churches, and other youth serving agencies and organizations in the child’s community.

Vanderburgh County celebrates the presence in its communities of many institutions, organizations and agencies that promote healthy child development. The teachers, program leaders, librarians, religious leaders, and those who fund them deserve the sincere thanks of all the members of the community for their role in developing future generations of healthy, intelligent, caring and civic-minded citizens. The IPRC is collecting information on assets in each county. The following graph reports the number of public and private schools; libraries (including branches); places of worship; and youth serving agencies, organizations or programs which have been identified by the IPRC:

Table 2.1. School data from the Department of Education, library datathe Indiana State Library, churches and youth serving agencies from American Church List and FSSA (2003).

CSAP. Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002. Rockville: U.S. DHHS, SAMHSA, 2003.

Protective Factors Present in the County (2003 data)

County Vanderburgh

Schools 70

Youth Serving Agencies/Programs 66

Libraries 9

Places of Worship 290

5. Vanderburgh County Basic Demographics Unless otherwise noted, all of the data in the Basic Demographics section comes from AGS Core Demographics, 2002 estimates, published in 2003.

5.1 Population (2002, estimates)

The total population of Vanderburgh County was 172,634 in 2002, making it the 7th largest county in the state. With a land area of 234.572 square miles, Vanderburgh County has a population density of 736 persons per square mile. In addition, the county has a water area of 1.164 square miles. Median age reflects the aging of America. In Vanderburgh County median age was 32 in 1980, 37 in 2002, and is projected to be 40 by 2012. The following are 2002 estimates of population by age for children 0-17:

Population by Age for Children 0-17, 2002

Age Vanderburgh Co. Indiana U.S.

0-4 6% 7% 7%

5-9 6% 7% 7%

10-13 5% 6% 6%

14-17 5% 6% 6%

Median Age 37 36 36

Table 5.1: Population by Age, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

5. Vanderburgh County Basic Demographics

5.2 Race/Ethnicity (2002, estimates)

In 2002 Vanderburgh County was predominantly white (155,594 persons). The county residents also include Blacks (14,600), American Indians (307), Asian or Pacific Islanders (1,420), and Hispanics/Latinos (1,870). The following table shows Vanderburgh County’s racial/ethnic make-up in percentages compared to the rest of the state and nation:

2002 Population Estimates Race & Hispanic/Latino origin:*

Race/Ethnic GroupVanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

African-American 8% 9% 13%

Asian 1% 1% 4%

Hispanic/Latino 1% 4% 13%

White 90% 88% 76%

Table 5.2: Race/Ethnicity, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

PCensus Table 1: Vanderburgh County Demographics

See Appendix for Table

• Total Population

• Average Household Income- 1999 Level

• Percent of Total Population in Poverty

• Total Housing Units

• Average Age

These statistics come from the U.S. Census 2000, SF3 Indiana.


5.3 Marital Status (2002, estimates)

In 2002, an estimated 35,187 Vanderburgh County residents had never married. Another 67,393 were currently married; 10,042 were widowed; 6,443 were separated; and 18,318 were divorced. The following table shows percentages for Vanderburgh County in comparison with the state and nation:

Marital Status, 2002

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Never Married 26% 25% 27%

Currently Married 49% 53% 50%

Separated 5% 4% 6%

Divorced 13% 11% 10%

Widowed 7% 7% 6%

Table 5.3: Marital Status, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)


5.4 Labor Force: (2002, estimates)

In 2002, an estimated 34 percent of persons were not in the labor force.

Table 5.4: Labor Force, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Labor Force, 2002

Vanderburgh Co. Indiana U.S.

Percent of Persons Not in Labor Force 34% 34% 36%


5.5 Industry (2002, estimates)

The largest industry in Vanderburgh County is Manufacturing with 13,947 persons employed; followed by Health Services with 10,956 persons employed; and Retail trade with 10,899 persons employed. Table 4 shows percentages for the top five industries relative to the state and nation:

Blue collar jobs account for 49% of all workers, white collar for 51% of workers.

Table 5.5: Top 5 Industries, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Top Five Industries, 2002

IndustryVanderbur

gh Co. Indiana U.S.

Manufacturing 17% 23% 14%

Health Services 13% 11% 12%

Retail trade 13% 12% 12%

Education Services 8% 9% 9%

Business & Repair Services 7% 6% 9%

White collar workers in all industries 51% 48% 53%

Blue collar workers in all industries 49% 52% 47%


5.6 Occupations (2002, estimates)

The occupations in which the highest percent of Vanderburgh County residents worked in 2002 were Administrative support occupations, including clerical(12,994); followed by Service occupations, except protective & household(11,631); Professional specialty occupations(10,528); Sales occupations(10,486); and Precision production, craft & repair occupations(9,022). The following table shows these occupations and their corresponding percentages for the state and nation:

Table 5.6: Top Five Occupations, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Top Five Occupations, 2002


Administrative support occupations, including clerical, 16%



Service occupations, except protective & household, 14%

Precision production, craft & repair occupations, 13%

Professional specialty occupations, 14%

Professional specialty occupations, 13%


Executive, Administrative, and Managerial, 12%

Sales occupations, 13%Professional specialty occupations, 12%


Precision production, craft & repair occupations, 11% Sales occupations, 11% Sales occupations, 12%


5.7 Educational Attainment (2002 estimates)

As of 2002, 6,611 Vanderburgh County residents aged 25 and over had not completed 9th grade; and 15,407 had some high school but no diploma. The following table shows educational attainment in Vanderburgh County compared with the state and the nation.

Table 5.7: Educational Attainment (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Educational Attainment, 2002

Highest Level Vanderburgh Co. Indiana U.S.

Less than 9th Grade 6% 6% 8%

9th-12th, No Diploma 14% 15% 14%

High School 19% 20% 16%

Some College, No Diploma 28% 26% 25%

Associate Degree 8% 7% 7%

Bachelor's Degree 17% 16% 19%

Grad or Prof Degree 9% 9% 11%


5.8 Households (2002, estimates)

As of 2002, the number of households in Vanderburgh County in 2002 was 71,203. Table 8 shows median age of householders; median, average, and per capita incomes per household in comparison to the state and nation.

Table 5.8: Median Age and Household Income (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Median Age and Household Income, 2002

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Median Age of HH 48 47 47

Median HH Income $34,583 $40,365 $40,719

Average HH Income $51,900 $54,723 $59,189

Per Capita Income $21,406 $21,175 $22,272


5.9 Families (2002, estimates)

Of the 71,203 households in Vanderburgh County, in 2002 there were an estimated 22,362 households with children. Of these households with children, 14,100 were married couple households; 1,558 were lone parent male households; 6,416 were lone parent females; 227 were non-family male-headed households; and 61 were non-family-female headed households. Median income per family in 2002 was $53,915. The following tables shows the percent distribution by type of household with children and median family income with comparisons to the state and nation.

Table 5.9a: Types of Households with Children (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Types of Households with Children, 2002


Married Couple Family 63% 68% 68%

Lone Parent Male 7% 7% 7%

Lone Parent Female 29% 23% 24%

Non-Family Male-Headed HH 1% 1% 1%

Non-Family Female Headed HH 0% 0% 0%

Table 5.9b: Median Family Income (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Median Family Income, 2002


Median Family Income $53,915 $61,376 $60,397


5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)

According to the 2001 Claritas™ PRIZM Household Summary, in Vanderburgh County, the most dominant lifestyles were C3 with 22,505 persons; C2 with 21,986 persons; T1 with 9,561 persons; C1 with 5,976 persons; and S2 with 1,950 persons. The following table shows the percentages for the most dominant lifestyles of Vanderburgh County households, and the corresponding percentages for those same lifestyle in Indiana and U.S. households. See the Appendix for descriptions of these lifestyles.

Table 5.10a: Dominant Lifestyles of Vanderburgh County (Claritas™: Indiana, 2002)

Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles in Households, 2001

PRIZM Lifestyle Vanderburgh Co. Indiana U.S.

C3 32.30% 11.10% 7.00%

C2 31.50% 9.30% 7.20%

T1 13.70% 10.00% 7.30%

C1 8.60% 2.40% 5.70%

S2 2.80% 7.40% 7.90%

See Appendix for explanation of Lifestyles Codes



The following table shows percentages for the five dominant lifestyles for Indiana households with corresponding percentages for lifestyles in Vanderburgh County and in the U.S.

Table 5.10b: Dominant Lifestyles of Indiana (Claritas™: Indiana, 2002)

The following table show the percent of persons belonging to the five dominant lifestyles for households in the U.S. with the corresponding percentages of persons belonging to those lifestyles in Vanderburgh County and Indiana.

Table 5.10c: Dominant Lifestyles in U.S., (Claritas™: Indiana, 2002)

Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles, 2001

PRIZM Lifestyle Indiana Vanderburgh Co. U.S.

R1 Country Families 15.40% 2.50% 6.20%

C3 2nd City Blues 11.10% 32.30% 7.00%

T1 Landed Gentry 10.00% 13.70% 7.30%

C2 2nd City Centers 9.30% 31.50% 7.20%

T2 Exurban Blues 8.70% 2.50% 6.00%

Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles, 2001

PRIZM Lifestyle U.S. Vanderburgh Co. Indiana

R3 Rustic Living 9.70% 0.00% 8.50%

S1 Elite Suburbs 9.50% 1.20% 5.30%

S2 The Affluentials 7.90% 2.80% 7.40%

T1 Landed Gentry 7.30% 13.70% 10.00%

C2 2nd City Centers 7.20% 31.50% 9.30%

See Appendix for explanation of Lifestyles Codes

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk

Section 6 explores variables found to be associated with elevated risk for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug problems. This analysis of risk factors is based on the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)’s list of archival indicators as described in “Building a Successful Prevention Program” published on the Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology (CAPT) web site. CSAP outlines four major categories of risk indicators: community, family, school and individual/peer. A full listing of archival indicators can be found in the Appendix. The Indiana Prevention Resource Center (IPRC) is aggressively pursuing the collection of data for all the archival indicators and offers here additional indicators beyond those suggested by CSAP.

Children form their opinions of human nature and the world based on their experiences and observations. For children the family is the most important institutional influence upon their socialization. (Allison and Lerner 1993) The norms of the child’s domain are critical. Children growing up in a home where parents abuse drugs (Biederman, et al. 2001), in a school where non-drug use policies are not clearly communicated and firmly enforced (CSAP 2003:7), in a community where drug use is tolerated or encouraged (Hogan, et al 2003:43) are at higher risk of becoming involved in substance use. Parenting practices are key to reducing and preventing problem behaviors in youth. (Bigan and Cody 2003:131) An important part of the family and parenting picture is parent role modeling. Parents involved in community service, parents who vote, parents who participate in their child’s life -- do make a difference. Not only do they model what it means to be a parent and an adult, they also communicate norms of behavior through example. This modeling, together with parental monitoring of children’s behaviors and the establishment of high expectations, creates a powerful influence. (Perkins 2003:9) By confronting misperceptions about norms, the social norms approach to prevention strengthens cultures by correcting misunderstandings about the beliefs and values of its members. Several of CSAP’s six prevention strategies aim to change norms and/or to correct misperceptions about them.

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk Allison, Kevin W., and Richard M. Lerner1993 “Integrating Research, Policy, and Programs for Adolescents and Their

Families.” In Early Adolescence: Perspectives on Research, Policy and Intervention. Richard M. Lerner, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Biederman, J., Faraone, S.F., Monuteaux M. C., and Feighner, J.A.2001 “Patterns of Alcohol and Drug Use in Adolescents Can be Predicted by

Parental Substance Use Disorders,” Pediatrics 106, 792-797.

Bigan, Anthony, and Christine Cody2003 “Preventing Multiple Problem Behaviors in Adolescence.” In Reducing

Adolescent Risk: Towards and Integrated Approach. Daniel Romer, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 125-131

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention2003 Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002. Rockville, MD.

Hogan, Julie A., Kristen Reed Gabrielsen, Nora Luna, and Denise Grothaus.2003 Substance Abuse Prevention: The Intersection of Science and Practice.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Perkins, H. Wesley2003 “The Emergence and Evolution of the Social Norms Approach to Substance

Abuse Prevention.” In The Social Norms Approach to Prevention School and College Age Substance Abuse. H. Wesley Perkins, ed. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Western CAPT2002 Building a Successful Prevention Program Reno: Univ. of Nevada.

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk This section discusses those CSAP archival indicators for which Indiana data

is available and adds several additional related indicators. This report presents data for the following archival indicators:

Category: CommunityAvailability of DrugsCommunity Laws/NormsTransitions and MobilityExtreme Economic & Social Deprivation

Category: FamilyFamily Management ProblemsFamily ConflictFavorable Parental Attitudes and Involvement


6.1 Alcohol Sales Outlets Per Capita

CSAP defines this indicator as the number of alcohol sales outlets in relation to the total population. Based on a list from the ATC, the number of alcohol outlets in Vanderburgh County in 2002 was 361. The number of outlets per capita was 0.00210 (or 2.10 per thousand persons). The following table shows Vanderburgh County compared to the state.

Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs

Table 6.1: Alcohol Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2000 (ATC, 2002)

Alcohol Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2000 (IN ATC, 2002)

Vanderburgh - Co. Indiana

Number of Outlets, 2000 361 10,181

Total Population, 2000 171,922 6,080,485

Outlets per Capita 0.00210 0.00167


Schools in Proximity to Alcohol and Tobacco Outlets, 2002

Indiana Prevention Resource Center

Source: IN State Excise Police, ATC, and Department of Education


6.2 Tobacco Sales Outlets Per Capita

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) defines this indicator as the number of tobacco sales outlets in relation to the total population. Among Indiana counties, Vanderburgh ranked 7th for total population and 8th for population aged 10-17. In 2002 there were 148 reported1 tobacco sales outlets in Vanderburgh County (rank, 5 th highest in Indiana), based on a listing from the Indiana State Excise Police. We find that for Vanderburgh County the number of tobacco outlets per capita for the total population in 2002 was .0009 (or 0.9 per thousand persons, the 74th highest among Indiana counties) and per capita for the population aged 10-17 was .0081 (or 8.1 per thousand youth, the 57th highest in the State). The following table shows Vanderburgh County compared to the State.


Table 6.2: Tobacco Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2002 (ATC, 2003)

1Because prior to July 2003 there was no registration or license requirement for tobacco vendors, a complete listing of retailers was most difficult to achieve. The numbers reported here should not be considered 100% reliable. From July 2003, this information will be much more accurate and easily maintained.

Tobacco Retail Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2002

Vanderburgh Indiana

Number of Outlets 148 5,878

Total Population 172,634 6.1m

Outlets Per Capita 0.0009 0.0010

Total Population, 10-17 18,168 717,800

Outlets per Capita 0.0081 0.0082


6.3 Availability of Drugs to Youth: Failed TRIP Inspections

Thanks to the outstanding work of the Tobacco Retailer Inspection Program (TRIP), we have additional data concerning the availability of tobacco products to youth, such as the locations of outlets that sold to youth and the number of total inspections and of failed inspections in each county where inspections were held in 2002. In Vermillion County, there were 22 failed TRIP inspections of 132 total inspections of the county’s 148 outlets.


Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

2003 Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002. Rockville, MD.

Howard, K. A., K.N. Ribisl, B. Howard-Pitney, G.J. Norman, L.A. Rohrback

2001 “What Factors Are Associated with Local Enforcement of Laws Banning Illegal Tobacco Sales to Minors?” Preventive Medicine 33, 63-70.

The sale of tobacco to youth is a clear indicator of the availability of drugs to youth and of the attitude of at least some members of the community with regard to the seriousness of the issue. Therefore we have included some aspects of the TRIP data here and some aspects under “Community Norms.” The use of compliance checks has been found to be an effective environmental strategy. (Howard, et al. 2001) CASP names “ready access to tobacco” a factor that increases the likelihood of drug use by youth and “active enforcement of youth access laws using unannounced compliance checks” a prevention strategy shown to successfully reduce such sales. (CSAP 2003:8-9) Therefore, CSAP promotes increased levels of enforcement as part of a larger effort to reduce youth smoking. (CSAP 2003:8-9)


Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets That Failed TRIP Inspections in 2002


Source: IN State Excise Police, and Department of Education


Close Up of Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets That Failed TRIP Inspections in 2002

Indiana Prevention Resource Center Source: IN State Excise Police, ATC, and Department of Education


6.4 Proximity of Failed TRIP Inspections to Schools

Where drugs are available in areas heavily trafficked by children, the environmental risk is increased (CSAP 2003:8). In addition to the above statistics for TRIP, PREV-STAT™ has geocoded the locations of schools and of failed tobacco inspections to facilitate yet another level of analysis by showing, via maps, the proximity to schools of tobacco outlets that failed TRIP inspections. For the counties that did participate in the TRIP Program, this County Profiles series presents maps for the county with some close-ups. These maps are intended to give a very general picture of the situation in the county and to encourage people to pursue obtaining similar information at the neighborhood level. (The power of PREV-STAT™ is greatest for neighborhood analysis!)


It should be noted that whereas the scale of a map showing the entire county makes it difficult to see much detail, studies of neighborhoods offer great potential for representing the environmental risks and assets. The greatest power of PREV-STAT™ lies in its ability to give extensive data and insights for the very small geographic area. To have a customized study of your neighborhood, call the IPRC and ask for the PREV-STAT™ service.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention2003 Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002. Rockville, MD.

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs

According to the Indiana State Police there were 427 methamphetamine lab seizures in the state of Indiana in the year 2000, 681 seizures in 2001, and 988 seizures in 2002. In 2003 there were 1,260 seizures. Obviously, the implications of this problem are serious and a major concern for the residents of Indiana. (David Phelps, Indiana State Police, 2003). In Vanderburgh County there were 99 methamphetamine lab seizures in 2003. (David Phelps, Indiana State Police, 2003).

Table 6.5: Clandestine Methamphetamine Lab Seizures, 2002 (ATC, 2003)

Meth Lab Seizures Made by ISP and All Seizures (Vanderburgh County and Indiana)

Vanderburgh Co.

(ISP Seizures)Vanderburgh Co.

(All Seizures)Indiana (ISP

Seizures)Indiana (All Seizures)

1998 0 N/A 43 43

1999 1 N/A 129 178

2000 1 N/A 314 427

2001 0 N/A 546 681

2002 0 133 732 988

2003 2 99 1011 1260

6.5 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs Seizures

The discovery of clandestine methamphetamine labs attests to the presence of crystal methamphetamine in the area. Law enforcement officers in Indiana have found that the primary motivation of those individuals mounting methamphetamine labs in this state has been to support their personal addiction rather than to create a market for sales. Nonetheless, the presence of the labs creates the impetus for selling the drug and creates sources for obtaining the drug in the community.

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk A child’s view of normal is critically impacted by the child’s environment: the sights,

sounds, tastes, textures, and smells of the child’s world: “Infants participate, from birth on, in sociocultural activities that are committed to cultural goals and values . . .” (Keller, et al. 2004) If the child grows up seeing drugs and drug use portrayed in a positive manner on local billboards and local television and modeled at home and elsewhere in the child’s community, the presence of drugs (and hence potential availability) and use of drugs easily becomes the child’s norm. In this circumstance logic suggests it would be “norm-al” for the child to have the expectation that later in life he or she, too, for better or worse, may use drugs. As success tends to beget success, and good parenting practices tend to be replicated by the children raised in that environment, so unfortunately, those who are abused are more likely to become abusers, and those raised in a climate of drug use are more likely to become users.

Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms

The smell of cigarettes, the feel of icy beer bottles and of delicate wine glasses, song lyrics glamorizing drug use, and the over-use of over-the-counter or prescription medications to eliminate every small discomfort creates a notion of normal that impacts the child’s expectations of human behavior, including his or her own. In some instances, it can be difficult to separate family norms and community norms. Many factors contribute to the creation of community norms, including family traditions, public policies, and law enforcement practices. In general, community norms will be the outcome of the beliefs and practices of all the community’s governmental, educational, social, religious, and business enterprises.

Drug use modeling by adults in a community creates an environment that is more hospitable and encouraging of drug use by youth. This modeling takes place within and outside of the home. Since the statistics don’t separate adults from family settings from other adults, we have included adult behaviors with regard to drugs as a community indicator and simply mention it again in the context of family indicators. Still, clearly, this information from a community has strong implications for family settings as well, since one could assume that a significant number of those adults live in family settings. Each County Profile contains several maps and tables comparing the block groups in a county for the counts and percents of adults who smoke cigarettes or cigars, drink alcohol, or gamble. Where possible, indicator data is given in terms of per household amounts.

Heide Keller, et al., “The Bio-Culture of Parenting: Evidence from Five Cultural Communities,” Parenting: Science and Practice 4/1 (2004):25-50.


6.6 Household Spending on Alcohol, 2002

According to AGS Consumer Spending estimates for 2002 (2003), spending on alcohol products in Vanderburgh County per household was 427 and included the following expenditures:


Table 6.6: Per Household Spending on Alcohol (AGS, Consumer Spending, 2002, 2003)

Per Household Spending on Alcohol, 2002


Consumer Spending on Alcoholic Beverages 427 441 462

Spending on Alcohol Outside the Home 184 189 198

Beer and Ale Away from Home 60 62 65

Wine Away from Home 28 29 30

Whiskey Away from Home 47 48 50

Alcohol on Out-of-Town Trips 49 50 53

Spending on Alcohol In the Home 242 250 262

Beer and Ale at home 139 144 151

Wine at Home 60 62 65

Whiskey and Other Liquor at from Home 43 44 46


6.7 Household Spending on Tobacco, 2002

According to AGS Consumer Spending estimates for 2002 spending on tobacco products in Vanderburgh County totaled $28,952,600. The amount spent per household was $407. To give a better perspective we will compare this figure to household spending on miscellaneous reading materials and on personal insurance.


Table 6.7: Per Household Spending on Tobacco Products, Miscellaneous Reading and Personal Insurance (AGS, Consumer Spending, 2002)

Per Household Spending on Tobacco, 2002

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Per Household Spending on Tobacco Products 407 421 436

Cigarettes 368 381 394

Other Tobacco Products 39 40 43

Per Household Spending on Misc. Reading 237 245 256

Newspapers 105 108 113

Magazines 50 51 54

Books 82 85 89

Per Household Spending on Personal Insurance 508 528 557


6.8 Adult Tobacco Behavior

According to MRI Consumer Behavior estimates for 2002 (2003), the number of adults who smoked cigarettes in Vanderburgh County was 39,603; and the number who smoked cigars in the past 6 months was 7,100. The following table shows adult smoking behavior as percentages for Vanderburgh County, with comparisons for Indiana and the nation.


Table 6.8a: Adult Smoking Behaviors (MRI, Consumer Behavior Lifestyle 2002, 2003)

Adult Smoking Behavior, 2002


Smoked Cigarettes in last 12 mos. 30.01% 29.31% 27.72%

Smoked Cigars in last 6 mos. 5.38% 5.36% 5.30%

Vanderburgh County is not a tobacco producing county, so this section is not relevant.

Source: the Strategic Development Group’s “Alternative Agricultural Strategy” (Bloomington, March 15, 2001) report, which is part of Governor Joseph E. Kernan’s “Recipient Final Reports for Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture Grant Programs” (http://www.in.gov/oca/grants/valueadd/VAFinalReports.html):

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms

6.8 Tobacco Production

Tobacco Producing Vanderburgh County (Latest figures, from 1997 USDA Census):

Rank for tobacco production

Acres in tobacco production

Number of farms producing tobacco

As a Percent of all farms

Rank in IN for percent of all farms:

Tobacco income per farm producing

Percent of County’s Ave. Household Income

Table 6.8b: Tobacco Production. Kernan’s “Recipient Final Reports for Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture Grant Programs,” Strategic Development Group’s “Alternative Agricultural Strategy” (Bloomington, March 15, 2001)


PCensus Table 2: Adult Smoking Behaviors


• Adult Cigarette Smoking (Count)

• Adult Cigarette Smoking (Percent)

• Adult Cigar Smoking (Count)

• Adult Cigar Smoking (Percent)

These statistics come from MRI Consumer Behavior Lifestyle (2003).


Adult Cigarette Smoking, 2002 (Count)

Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)Indiana Prevention Resource Center


Adult Cigarette Smoking, 2002 (Percent)



Adult Cigar Smoking, 2002 (Count)



Adult Cigar Smoking, 2002 (Percent)



6.9 Intensity of TRIP Inspections

The IPRC is grateful to the Penny Davis, Director of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission and to Jim Wolf, Operations Director of the Tobacco Retailer Inspection Program (TRIP), and to the staff and police officers of TRIP for all the support they have given to this project.

The IPRC has studied the TRIP data generously made available by the Indiana State Excise Police and has created two additional statistical measurements:

1) for the intensity of inspections (the number of inspections relative to the total number of outlets);

2) for the number of inspections per capita for the population of youth most likely to seek access to tobacco, (i.e., youth ages 10-17).


Intensity of inspection can be viewed as one of many possible indicators of the degree of a county’s involvement in activities to create or maintain a community norm that youth access to tobacco is not tolerated.


6.9 Intensity of TRIP Inspections


Table 6.9: Intensity of TRIP Inspections and Related Statistics, Calculations for 2002 Based on Data from the TRIP Program (ATC, Indiana State Excise Police, 2003)

TRIP Inspection Data, Vanderburgh Co. (using data from IN State Excise Police), 2002

County Name Vanderburgh Indiana

Intensity of Inspection 0.89 1.06

No of Inspections per Capita:

Population Age, 10-17 0.0073 0.0087

Total No. of Tobacco Retail Outlets 148 5,791

Total Inspections Attempted 132 6,286

Total Inspections Completed 132 6238

Failed Inspections 22 1195

Percent, Failed Inspections 16.7 19.2

Percent, Passed Inspections 83.3 80.8


6.10 Gambling – Casinos

The presence of gambling establishments -- like the presence of tobacco and alcohol outlets, billboards and other forms of advertising – provides information on community environment and would appear to be an indicator of risk for ATOD problems in a community. In 2002 there were two casinos and one horse-racing establishments in Vanderburgh County.


Table 6.10: Casinos and Horse-Racing Establishments in Vanderburgh County, 2002

Gambling Establishments

Name Address City

Gambling Outlets in Vanderburgh County

Casino 1 Casino Aztar 421 N.W. Riverside Drive Evansville

Casino 2 City of Evansville Riverboat 421 N.W. Riverside Drive Evansville

Horse Racing Facility Evansville OTB 5480 East Indiana Street Evansville


6.11 Adult Gambling Behavior

Like the modeling of smoking and drinking, gambling by adults sets a tone for youth expectations about what it means to be an adult. This report includes maps and tables detailing gambling behaviors by persons 18 and older. In 2002 in Vanderburgh County 3,296 persons gambled 6 or more times in a casino during the year, and 19,466 persons played the lottery six or more times in the last 30 days. These gambling statistics were projected based on sophisticated demographic analysis MediaMark Research, Inc. (MRI, Consumer Behavior Lifestyle 2002, 2003).


Table 6.11a: Adult Gambling Behaviors (Casino and Lottery) (MRI, Consumer Behavior Lifestyle 2002, 2003)

Per Household Gambling Behavior, 2002

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.%

Population 18+ years and older 131,949 4.5m 211.9m

Gambled in a Casino 6 or more times/2002 2.5% 2.19% 2.25%

Lottery Played 6+ Times in Last 30 days 14.75% 14.53% 13.79%

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk 6.11 Adult Gambling Behavior

The following statistics show Hoosier Lottery sales by zip code for Vanderburgh County from fiscal year 2003.


Table 6.11b: Hoosier Lottery Sales by Zip Code, Fiscal Year 2003 (Hoosier Lottery, 2003)

Hoosier Lottery Sales by Zip Code for Vanderburgh County for Fiscal Year 2003 (Hoosier Lottery)

Zip Code City Scratch Off Draw Pull-Tabs TOTAL

47612 CYNTHIANA $85,456 $63,032 $0 $148,488

47708 EVANSVILLE $115,460 $102,221 $0 $217,681

47710 EVANSVILLE $1,806,752 $843,560 $27,384 $2,677,696

47711 EVANSVILLE $2,371,671 $1,167,489 $75,795 $3,614,955

47712 EVANSVILLE $1,829,620 $1,014,001 $90,216 $2,933,837

47713 EVANSVILLE $148,424 $53,089 $5,376 $206,889

47714 EVANSVILLE $2,154,278 $1,189,117 $66,696 $3,410,091

47715 EVANSVILLE $1,707,698 $1,047,329 $67,872 $2,822,899

47720 EVANSVILLE $287,075 $181,843 $20,832 $489,750

47725 EVANSVILLE $324,863 $219,197 $37,128 $581,188

County Totals: $10,831,297 $5,880,878 $391,299 $17,103,474

IN Totals: $355,238,893 $275,022,293 $742,560 $631,003,746

PCensus Table 3: More Adult Gambling Behaviors


• Casino, 6+ Times in Last Year, 2002 (Count)• Casino, Any, Last Year, 2002 (%)• Lottery, 6+ Times in Last 30 Days, 2002 (Count)• Played Lottery, Last 30 Days, 2002 (Count)• Lottery, Any, Last Year, 2002 (Count)



Adult Casino Gambling, 6+ Times in Last Year (Count)




Adult Casino Gambling, 6+ Times in Last Year (Percent)



Adult Lottery Gambling, 6+ Times in Last 30 Days (Count)



Adult Lottery Gambling, 6+ Times in Last 30 Days (Percent)


Crime Statistics

People prefer to reside and businesses prefer to locate where they feel safe to move about, to study and to work. Levels of criminal activity in an area constitute an environmental influence on many aspects of life. People plan their lives taking into account levels of danger associated with activities. How late at night is it safe to be out? on foot? by car? alone? with a group?

For a child, the nature of their environment and the behaviors of their family, friends, neighbors, classmates, and community members strongly contribute to the child’s view of the world and of human nature, and to the child’s expectations for his or her own future behaviors and fate. If people close to the child model criminal behaviors or are often victims of the same, the child will likely hold expectations, including fears, of encountering similar future circumstances.

Hence crime statistics are a useful insight into the character of a place and are important to consider in prevention planning. A prevention program needs to be conducted in a safe place and at a time when it is safe for people to attend. The prevention professionals planning the program could consider specific activities designed to confront, enhance, or offer alternatives to norms and role modeling prevalent in the child’s world.

Data about crimes, arrests and convictions is not collected in any one central location in the state of Indiana at this time.



6.12 Crime Indices

One of the best sources of data available for Indiana at this time is the Crime Risk database published by AGS, who use the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Because the level and methods of reporting information to the FBI vary by jurisdiction, information about specific crimes should be viewed as a general indicator rather than for exact precision or exact comparisons.

The AGS Crime Risk Index describes the risk of various types of crime in a given geographic area (e.g., city or state) by comparing the rate of crime in that location to the rate of crime in the nation as a whole. The crime rate for the U.S. is set to 100 for all crimes. Hence a rate of 200 means that the risk of crime in that place is twice as high as for the nation as a whole. (Think of these numbers not as counts of criminal incidents, but as degrees of risk. Hence, an index of 200 means that while the risk of this crime is x per 1000 persons for the nation as a whole, it is 2x per 1000 for the community in question). The following table shows the Crime Indices for Total Crime, Property Crime and Personal Crime. This table shows indices for Vanderburgh County, compared to Indiana and the nation.


Table 6.12a: Total Crime, Property Crime, and Personal Crime Indices, 2002. (AGS Crime Risk 2002, 2003)

Crime Indices, 2002

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Total Crime Index 97 91 100

Personal Crime Index 89 92 100

Property Crime Index 105 90 100


6.12 Crime Indices

The following table shows the Crime Indices for specific property and personal crimes. The method is to compare the risk in a given location to the general crime risk for the nation as a whole. We see that in the context of the U.S., Indiana is generally safer than other places for risk of robbery, but is more dangerous for risk of murder. See the Appendix Glossary for definitions of these crimes. This table shows indices for Vanderburgh County, compared to Indiana and the nation (which is the point of comparison).


Table 6.12b: Specific Crimes, Indices (AGS Crime Risk 2002, 2003)

Crime Indices, 2002


Total Crime Index 97 91 100

Personal Crime Index 89 92 100

Murder 76 111 100

Rape 91 94 100

Robbery 60 73 101

Assault 126 90 101

Property Crime Index 105 90 100

Burglary 123 90 100

Larceny 131 93 100

Motor Vehicle Theft 62 86 101


6.13 FBI Uniform Crime Reports (2001)

The following data comes directly from the FBI Uniform Crime Report as published by the University of Virginia Library website. (There is a link from the PREV-STAT™ County/Local Data Page on the Indiana Prevention Resource Center web site.) The first table presents juveniles crimes, including drug arrests. The most recent data available is from 2001.


Table 6.13a: All Arrests, including Drug Arrests, 2001 (FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Arrest Variable or Other Variable: Vanderburgh Co.

Coverage 100

Alcohol-Related Arrests

Liquor Law Violation 82

Driving Under the Influence 852

Drunkenness 690

Drug Possession Subtotal 216

Marijuana Possession 98

Opium/Cocaine Possession 118

Other Drug Possession 0

Other Dangerous Non-Narcotic 1

Synthetic Narcotics Possession 0

Arrest Variable or Other Variable: Vanderburgh Co.

Sale/Manufacturing of Drugs 9

Marijuana Sale/Manufacture 7

Opium/Cocaine Sale/Manufacture 0

Other Drug Sale/Manufacture 1

Gambling 2

Sexual Offenses

Prostitution & Commercial vice 54

Sex Offenses 45

Select Behaviors

Disorderly Conduct 164

Runaway Juveniles 489

Weapons Violations 55

http://www.virginia.edu/library/FBI


6.13 FBI Uniform Crime Reports (2001)

The following data comes directly from the FBI Uniform Crime Report as published by the University of Virginia Library website. (There is a link from the PREV-STAT™ County/Local Data Page on the Indiana Prevention Resource Center web site.) This table presents juvenile arrests for crimes, including drug arrests, for 2001.


Table 6.13b: Juvenile Arrests, including Drug Arrests, 2001 (FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Juvenile Arrest Variable or Other Variable: Vande. Co.

Coverage 100

Number of Agencies in County Report Arrests 3

Total Co. Population - Agencies Reporting Arrests 172891

Alcohol-Related Arrests

Liquor Law Violation 55

Driving Under the Influence 12

Drunkenness 13

Drug Possession (Subtotal) 10

Marijuana Possession 6

Opium/Cocaine Possession 4

Other Drug Possession 0

Other Dangerous Non-Narcotics 1

Synthetic Narcotics Possession 0

Juvenile Arrest Variable or Other Variable: Vande. Co.

Drug Abuse Sale/Manufacture 1

Marijuana Sale/Manufacture 0

Opium/Cocaine Sale/Manufacture 0

Synthetic Drug Sale/Manufacture 0

Drug Abuse Violations - Total 11

Gambling 0

Select Behaviors

Disorderly Conduct 52

Runaway Juveniles 489

Sex Offenses 10

Weapons Violations 6

http://www.virginia.edu/library/FBI

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk 6.14 Alcohol-Related Crashes

The Indiana Council on Drugged and Dangerous Driving through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute publishes crash data for each county and municipal level alcohol-related crash data for the major cities. The most recent of both types of data are included in the following tables:


Table 6.14a: Alcohol-Related Crashes, 2000 (Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, Council on Drugged and Dangerous Driving, 2003)

2000 Crash Statistics (ICJI, Vanderburgh Co. 2000 Statistics, 2003)

Vanderburgh County Level Data Fatal Total Drivers-All Crashes

County Level Data - All Crashes 7 11,400

Percent of All Licensed Drivers Involved in Crashes by Age Group – ALL Crashes

16-17 31.83 % --

18-20 24.33% --

21-24 16.35% --

Municipal Level Data - Alcohol-Related Crashes

Largest

Cities + Rural Evansville

Total Crashes 6,631 5,190

Total Alcohol-Related Crashes 309 237

As Percent of Total Crashes 5 % 5%

Total Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes 1 0

Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes as Percent of Total Fatal Crashes 14% 0 %

http://www.cji.gov/

http://www.cji.gov/

http://www.cji.gov/

http://www.cji.gov/

6.14 Alcohol-Related Crashes, cont.

Alcohol-Related Crash Data for Vanderburgh County and Indiana

1996-2000. (CJI, Indiana Crash Facts, 2000, 2003)

Crash Data Alcohol Crashes Total Crashes Percent of Crashes

1996

Vanderburgh County 305 6,832 4.5

Indiana 9,777 221,465 4.4

1997


Indiana 9,544 220,009 4.3

1998


Indiana 9,508 216,510 4.4

1999


Indiana 9,072 217,340 4.2

2000


Indiana 8,901 220,883 4


Table 6.14b: Alcohol-Related Crash Data 1996-2000(Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, Indiana Crash Facts 2000, 2003)



For studies of a local neighborhood, the Department of Education web site offers information on retention and drop-out or transfers from neighborhood schools. The IYI web site offers data for the county on graduation rates, drop out rates, etc.

Community Risk Factor: Transitions and Mobility

Table 6.15: Net Migration (STATS Indiana, 2003)

6.15 Net Migration

An excellent indicator of the “transitions and mobility” indicator is the figure for net migration. Data from the STATS Indiana web site reveals that in 2002 net domestic migration for Vanderburgh County was -857 and net international migration was 82.

Net Migration

Vanderburgh

Co.Rank in Indiana

Net Domestic Migration (change 2000/2001) -857 82

Net International Migration (change 2000/2001) 95 15


Extreme deprivation, either due lack of sufficient funds for basic necessities or due to lack of sufficient social support (e.g., parenting, mentoring and role modeling) has known detrimental implications for child development and creates a high risk environment for the community. This section will explore data related to various forms of extreme deprivation in the county. The archival indicators included by CSAP for this risk factor include unemployment, free and reduced school lunch, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamp recipients, adults without a high school diploma, and single parent households. To these variables, PREV-STAT™ adds total poverty statistics, child poverty by age group, and single-parent families living in poverty, and lack of health insurance coverage.

Community Risk Factor: Extreme EconomicAnd Social Deprivation

Table 6.16: Unemployment Rates, January of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for county and Indiana reported by www.stats.indiana.edu/laus/laus_view3.html.

6.16 Unemployment Rates:

Unemployment rates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Unemployment Rates - January (Percents)


2000 3.5 3.8 4.1

2001 3.4 4.4 4.2

2002 4.4 5.9 5.6

2003 4.4 5.5 5.7

2004 4.4 5.6 5.6

http://www.stats.indiana.edu/laus/laus_view3.html

6. Vanderburgh County Archival Indicators of Risk Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic

And Social Deprivation

Table 6.17: Eligible for Free Lunches/Textbooks, K-12 (Department of Education, Division of School and Community Nutrition Programs; IYI, Kids Count in Indiana, 2003)

Free Lunch/Textbooks (DOE)

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana

Percent of Students Eligible for Free Lunch/Textbooks 28.8% 22.9%

6.17 Free and Reduced Lunches K-12

According to the Department of Education, as published in the Indiana Youth Institute Kids Count in Indiana 2003, 28.8% of students in grades K-12 received free or reduced lunches in 2002.



Food Stamp Recipients, 2002 (FSSA, Family Resources Bureau)

Vanderburgh Co. Indiana

Total Population, 2002 172,634 6.1m

Food Stamp Recipients/mo* 14,762 395,444

Rate per 1,000 Total Pop 85.5 65

Table 6.18: Food Stamp Recipients as Rate per 1,000 Total Population (*data from FSSA, Division of Family and Children)

6.18 Food Stamp Recipients

CSAP calculates this as the average number of persons who receive food stamps each month, stated as the rate per 1,000 persons in the total population. This statistic for Indiana comes from Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Family Resources Bureau as reported in the Indiana Youth Institute Kids Count in Indiana 2003. The following table shows the rate for 2002 for Vanderburgh County with comparisons for the state and nation.



Table 6.19: Temporary Aid to Needy Families as Rate per 1,000 Total Population (*data from FSSA, Division of Family and Children)

Temporary Aid to Need Families (TANF), 2002 (FSSA)

Vanderburgh Co. Indiana

Total Population 172,634 6.1m

AFDC/TANF Families ave/mo (FSSA)* 1,848 47,459

AFDC/TANF Recipients ave/mo.* 4,971 131,993

Rate of TANF per 1000 persons 28.8 21.6

6.19 Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC)

CSAP calculates this as the rate of persons of all ages who participate in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TANF in Indiana), stating the rate as the number per 1,000 persons. The average monthly average statistics come from Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Family and Children, as reported in the Indiana Youth Institute Kids Count in Indiana 2003 Using this data, the rate TANF families for Vanderburgh County is ))1 as reflected in the following table.

PCensus Table 4: More Vanderburgh County Demographics


• Percent of Population Over 25 with Less Than a High School Diploma

• Families with Children under 18 in Poverty (Count)• Single Mom with Children under 18 in Poverty (Count)• Children under 18 in Poverty• Households with No Vehicle Available

These statistics come from U.S. Census 2000, SF3 Indiana.

Vanderburgh County

Educational Attainment

Census 2K SF3



6.20 Adults without a High School Diploma (2002, estimates)

Lack of education places a person at extreme disadvantage in many areas of life, including health and income potential. CSAP calculates this risk factor as the percent of persons aged 25 and older who have reached 9th-12th grades but without obtaining a high school diploma. As of 2002, 6,611 Vanderburgh County residents over the age of 25 had not completed 9th grade; and another 15,407 had attended some high school classes but had not earned a high school diploma. The following table shows the rate for Vanderburgh County compared with the state and the nation.


Table 6.20: Adults Who Have Not Finished High School (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Educational Attainment of Persons 25 and Older, 2002

Highest LevelVanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Less than 9th Grade 6% 6% 8%

9th-12th, No Diploma 14% 15% 14%

Total Percent with less than HS Diploma 20% 21% 22%


6.21 Single Parent Family Households

CSAP calculates this risk factor as the percent of family households with a spouse absent. The equation is the sum of families (male and female) with no spouse present divided by the sum of all families with children (married couple families and other families) times 100.


Table 6.21: Single Parent Families (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)In addition to the above risk factors listed by CSAP, PREV-

STAT™ includes additional basic demographic statistics on total poverty, child poverty and poverty by age group, single parent families living in poverty, lack of health insurance, and households with no vehicle.

Single Parent Families, 2002



Non-Family Headed Householders (No Parent Present), 533 1% 1% 1%

Families with One Spouse Absent

Female-Headed Family Households 29% 23% 24%

Male-Headed Family Households 7% 7% 7%

Percent of All Households w/ Children Where 1 Spouse is Absent 36% 30% 31%


Risk Factor: Poverty

Poverty can be calculated based on the total population or subsets of the population. It can be expressed as a count of persons or as a percent of persons. The poverty statistics presented in this report come from the 2000 U.S. Census, SF3 figures published in 2002.

Looking at the total population of persons living in a place, the poverty rate can be expressed as the number or count of persons living in poverty or as the percent of the total population in poverty. For example, in Indiana, as of the 2000 census, there were 559,484 persons living in poverty or 9% percent of the total population. This means that 9 of every 100 persons living in Indiana lived in poverty. By age, 2 of every 100 Indiana children ages 6-17 in the year 2000 lived in poverty, hence 2%.

Looking at the population of persons who live in poverty (that 9% of the total population), it can be very useful to understand what their ages are. If we consider all persons living in poverty in Indiana as a group, we learn from the 2000 Census that of that group 11% were between the ages of 0 and 4 years, 2% were 5 years old, 11% were 6-11, and 9% were 12-17 years old.

This description of poverty risk factors will report on total poverty and poverty by age group, on poverty and child poverty as percent of all persons living in poverty, poverty by race, and on single parent families in poverty.




Table 6.22: Poverty and Child Poverty as Percent of Total Population (Census 2K, SF3+ Indiana)

6.22 Poverty: Total Poverty and Poverty by Age Group

As of 2000, there were a total of 18,414 persons living in poverty in Vanderburgh County. By age group there were 2,557 persons under 6; 3,190 persons aged 6-17; 10,894 persons 18-64; and 1,773 persons 65 and older. The following table shows total poverty and the aforementioned age statistics as percent of the total population of Vanderburgh County with comparisons to the state of Indiana and the nation. For example, for Indiana, we see that of all children under 6 years of age in the State, 1% of them live in poverty.

Poverty Statistics - Percent of Total Population, 2000

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Total Persons 11% 9% 12%

Under 6 1% 1% 1%

6 to 17 2% 2% 3%

18 to 64 7% 5% 7%

65 and over 1% 1% 2%

Vanderburgh County

Percent of Total Population in Poverty

Census 2K SF3




Table 6.23: Poverty and Child Poverty as Percent of All Persons in Poverty (Census 2K, SF3+ Indiana)

6.23 Poverty: Child Poverty as Percent of All Persons in Poverty

Rather than comparing those in poverty to the total population of persons living in Vanderburgh County, another way to view poverty statistics is to study only those people who are living in poverty. For example, in Indiana statistically for every 100 persons in poverty, 11 will be ages 0-4, 2 will be 5 years old, 11 will be ages 6-11, and 9 will be 12-17, making fully 33% of the persons in poverty aged 17 and younger. This following table compares this information for Vanderburgh County to Indiana and the nation.

Poverty Statistics - Percent of Group Below Poverty, 2000

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Total Persons 11% 9% 12%

0-4 12% 11% 10%

5 2% 2% 2%

6 to 11 10% 11% 12%

12 to 17 7% 9% 10%



Table 6.24: Poverty by Race, 2000 (U.S. Census 2K, SF3 Indiana)

6.24 Poverty: Poverty by Race

In the effort to understand the dynamics a community, its needs and how best to design and carry-out prevention programs to meet those needs, it is helpful to analyze data by many different variables. Poverty is an example of how this principle applies. Rates of poverty differ not only between age groups but also in conjunction with other variables, such as race/ethnicity and marital and parenting status. PREV-STAT™ can help the prevention professional look at such combinations of variables to identify an area of need or to better understand a target audience. First we report on poverty and race, secondly on marital status, parent status and poverty (single parents in poverty).

Poverty Statistics by Race (Percent of Group in Poverty), 2000

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Black 31% 23% 25%

Asian 8% 16% 13%

Hispanic/Latino 24% 18% 23%

White 9% 8% 9%

PCensus Table 5: Child Poverty

See Appendix for Table• Total Children 6-11 (Count)• Children 6-11 in Poverty (Count)• Children 6-11 in Poverty (Percent)• Total Children 12-17 (Count)• Children 12-17 in Poverty (Count)• Children 12-17 in Poverty (Percent)


Vanderburgh County

Children 12-17 in Poverty

Census 2K SF3




Table 6.25: Poverty and Child Poverty as Percent of All Persons in Poverty (Census 2K, SF3 Indiana)

6.25 Poverty: Single Parent Families with Children in Poverty

According to the 2000 Census, SF3, there were 2,263 single parent families with dependent children under 18 living in poverty in Vanderburgh County. Of these, 2,004 were single parent female headed households with dependent children under 18 living in poverty. The following table shows the various types of households with children under 18 living in poverty with comparisons to the state and the nation.

Single Parent Families with Children under 18 in Poverty and Other HH w Children As Percent of All Families

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.


Lone Male Householder, No Spouse 1% 0% 0%

Lone Female Householder, No Spouse 4% 3% 4%

Total Single Parent Families w/ Children 5% 3% 4%



Table 6.26: Insurance Coverage, 2002 (MRI, Consumer Behavior Insurance 2002, 2003)

6.26 Lack of Health Insurance

We consider lack of health insurance to be a form of extreme deprivation. Research has shown that two of the strongest indicators of self-reported health status and routine preventative care are having a consistent source of medical care and having health insurance. Where either is absent there is a higher risk of health problems and particularly of not receiving preventative care. Lack of health insurance is often associated with lack of employment or underemployment, poverty, being in transition, and/or undocumented immigrant status. The following table shows rates of health insurance coverage for Vanderburgh County, compared with Indiana and the nation.

Health Insurance Status for Population 18 and Older, 2002

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.

Any medical insurance 73.23% 73.55% 72.20%

From a union 3.04% 2.92% 3.24%

From a place of work 47.15% 48.17 47.05%

Medicaid 4.13% 3.58% 3.20%

Medicare supplements 12.44% 11.75% 10.73%

Dental insurance 32.73% 33.16% 33.95%


No one lives in isolation. We all belong to a community, and, actually, to many communities simultaneously. We belong to our immediate family, our extended family, our neighborhood, our town and our nation, to name a few. Others might include religious communities, clubs, school and work. We all want our community, our county, and our state to be a great place to study, to work and to live.

Many risk factors affecting families have been presented in earlier sections of this volume (e.g., poverty, unemployment, single parent status, and lack of health insurance). The analysis presented here is at the level of the county, state and nation, but PREV-STAT™ can easily analyze at the level of the neighborhood, where prevention is most effectively undertaken. Therefore, you are encourage to call the Indiana Prevention Resource Center and take advantage of the PREV-STAT™ Service to support your work in prevention in your neighborhood and community.

CSAP archival indicators of family risk include Family Management Problems, Family Conflict, and Family Attitudes and Involvement, issues which impact most intensely in the confines of the home. Other statistics that are available and would be of relevance in this category are child abuse and neglect.

Family Risk Factor: Management Problems


6.27 Family Risk Factor: Children in Homes with No Parent Present

CSAP defines this risk indicator as the children living in homes with neither parent. It calculates this indicator as a rate (the sum of children living in a household headed by a male or female not the parent plus children living in group quarters divided by the sum of all the types of home circumstances in which children might live, times 100). The following table shows the types of households with children as a percent of all households for Vanderburgh County, compared to the state and the nation.

Family Risk Factor: Management Problems

Table 6.27: Types of Households with Children, 2002 (AGS, 2002 estimates, 2003)

Types of Households with Children, 2002

Vanderburgh

Co. Indiana U.S.


Lone Parent Male 7% 7% 7%

Lone Parent Female 29% 23% 24%

Non-Family Male-Headed HH 1% 1% 1%

Non-Family Female Headed HH 0% 0% 0%


6.28 Divorce Rate

CSAP defines family conflict in terms of the divorce rate. Another statistic which CSAP does not mention, but which would be relevant to this risk factor, would be rates of domestic violence in households with children.

Family Risk Factor: Family Conflict

Table 6.28: Divorce Rates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)

Divorce Rate, 2002


AGS, 2002 estimates, 2003 13% 11% 10%


6.29 Family Risk Factor: Households Where All Parents Work

One way to measure involvement is to look at households where every available parent is working. In Vanderburgh County, according to the 2000 Census SF3, the following percents of children were living in households where both parents work. For comparison, all families with children are included in the table.

Family Risk Factor: Family Attitudes and Involvement

Table 6.29: Parents in the Work Force, 2000 (U.S. Census 2000, SF3 Indiana)

Parents in the Labor Force (Children under 18), 2000


Living with 2 parents 69% 74% 72%

Both parents in labor force 50% 48% 43%

Father only in labor force 16% 22% 22%

Mother only in labor force 2% 2% 3%

Living with 1 parent 31% 26% 28%

Living with father 6% 6% 6%

In Labor Force 5% 5% 5%

Living with mother 25% 20% 22%

In Labor Force 20% 16% 16%

7. Assets, Liabilities, Facts: Top 10%, Bottom 10% The following information, also available at the neighborhood level through

PREV-STAT™ (AGS Core Demographics and other sources), is easily found at the county level via the STATS Indiana web site.

7.1 Top 10% Status

Table 41: Top 10 Status by Rank (STATS Indiana web site)

Compared with other Indiana counties, Vanderburgh County is in the top 10% counties in Indiana in the following areas:

Population (2000) 7th Households (2000) 5th

Labor Force (persons) (2001) 7th Non-Farm Employment (% of all jobs in County) 6th

Services (Avg Wage per Job) 6th

Per Capita Personal Income, 1980 (adj. for inflation) 5th

Same, 1990 (rank, 6th) Same, 2000 (rank, 14th)

BEA Employment by Industry in 2000 (by place of work), Rank in State, Earnings per Job

Total 10th

Non-Farm Proprietors 1st Private Industry 10th

Mining 1st Construction 1st

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 5th Services 3rd

Government 7th

7. Assets, Liabilities, Facts: Top 10%, Bottom 10% The following information, also available at the neighborhood level through

PREV-STAT™ (AGS Core Demographics and other sources), is easily found at the county level via the STATS Indiana web site.

7.2 Bottom 10% Status

Table 42: Top 10 Status by Rank (STATS Indiana web site)

Compared with other Indiana counties, Vanderburgh County is in the bottom 10% of Indiana counties in the following areas:

Average Household Size (2.33) 91st

The IPRC PREV-STAT™ Local/County Data PageSTATS IndianaStatistics from the Indiana Youth InstituteThe Indiana Department of EducationThe Indiana Criminal Justice InstituteThe FBI Uniform Crime ReportThe U.S. Census Bureau American FactfinderClaritas™ “You Are Where You LiveSAVI

The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize prevention professionals with sources of county level data available on the internet. This information complements the PREV-STAT™ service and may fulfill your needs. When, however, you need more localized information, such as for a neighborhood, the radius around a site location, or a town or region, the best advice is to call 1-800-346-3077 and ask for the PREV-STAT™ Service. This chapter describes the context of available data into which the PREV-STAT™ Service fits.

The internet sources of information described in this chapter include:

8. Complementary Resources*

*This chapter is based, in part, on Dr. Barbara Seitz de Martinez and Dr. Mindy Hightower King, “Show Me the Numbers,” conference presentation presented throughout the state, including in Allen County at the 14th Annual Conference on Youth, October 1, 2003.

8.1 IPRC’s PREV-STAT™ County/Local Data Page

The Indiana Prevention Resource Center offers, as part of the PREV-STAT™ Service, a web page that lists major sources of statistics at the county and local level that are of interest for prevention planning. Resources linked from this page include the following:

Indiana Sources for County- and Local-Level Prevention Planning Data

Census Data by County

Other Data by County

Youth Data

Economic Data

Crime Data

Health Data

Youth Access to Tobacco Non-Compliance Rates

National Sources for County- and Local-Level Prevention Planning Data

Census Data by County

Census Tract Map Locators

Other Data by County

Health Data

Economic Data


8.2 Statistics from STATS Indiana

For certain kinds of U.S. Census Bureau statistics for Indiana, an excellent source is the STATS Indiana web site (www.stats.indiana.edu), which is prepared by the Business Resource Center of the Indiana University Kelly School of Business and supported by major funding from the Department of Commerce. This site is especially useful for comparing a county to all the other counties in Indiana and the United States. Several statistics in this County Profile come from this web site.

STATS Indiana gives per capita income for the last 4 censuses, starting with 1970, adjusting for inflation. STATS Indiana also shows at a glance how poverty rates for the total population have changed since 1995 until the present.

In addition to information for the state as a whole, for individual counties, for comparisons of counties, for cities, and for townships, it is possible to select an indicator and a level of geography and obtain information.


8.3 Statistics from the Indiana Youth Institute

The IYI web site (www.iyi.org) uses data from a variety of sources including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Education, TANF, the Indiana State Department of Health, CHINS, and the Child Protection Agency. Based on this data, IYI Kids Count Database presents demographic, economic, education, social, health, juvenile crime, and early childhood indicators for both the state and its 92 counties for the years 1990-2002. The IYI database online allows the user to do comparisons across a series of up to about a dozen years, and to do some mapping.

From IYI.org we gain valuable insight into the state of children, including early childhood, child protection, health, and economic well-being. Statistics on economic well-being includes monthly average of families receiving TANF, monthly average of persons issued food stamps, and the percent of student in the county who receive free lunch and/or textbooks.

STATS on early childhood include the number of children served by First Steps, the numbers of licensed child care centers, child care homes, child care ministries; and the number of licensed child care spaces per 100 children, ages 0-4. Statistics concerning child care vouchers include the annual number of children receiving CCDF child care vouchers, and the monthly average of children on the waitlist for these vouchers.

Child protection statistics from Child Protection Services (CPS, 2002) report cases of child abuse processed and substantiated by CPS in 2002; cases of child neglect processed and substantiated; cases of child physical abuse cases substantiated; child sexual abuse cases substantiated; and an overall child abuse and neglect rate.

Three County statistics relate to Juveniles and the Law. IYI reports the number of juveniles committed to the Department of Correction, the number of status case filings , and delinquency case filing.

8. Complementary Resources*

8.3 Statistics from the Indiana Youth Institute

IYI statistics from the Indiana Department of Health for health and well-being include live births, including total births, and percent of low birthweight births. Background on the status of mothers from IYI that has implications for the health and well-being of babies includes the percent of mothers who reported smoking during pregnancy; the percent of mothers who received 1st trimester prenatal care; percent of non-married Moms as percent of all births; the number of Moms who were single, under 20 and without a high school diploma; and the birth rate for teens ages 15-17. Three types of death rate data are also given: the total number of infant deaths; child deaths; and teen deaths from accident, homicide, or suicide. In addition, there is data on the number of children enrolled in Hoosier Healthwise and the number of Noncompliance with Youth Tobacco Access Laws (N/A for 2002).

IYI statistics for each county on education, grades K-12, include much of the same information available on the Department of Education (DOE) web site and some county level data on education not found on the DOE web site. The IYI site includes enrollment data information for public schools, K-12; non-Public Schools; home schools; and alternative schools. Also provided are the numbers of public school dropouts and expulsions and suspensions. Related to graduation are both the number and percent of high school graduates. The Department of Education calculates this percentage graduation rate based on the percent of those who enter twelfth grade and graduate the same year. IYI provides this statistic and also an alternative method for calculating graduation rate, which is the percent of the Freshman class that graduates in 4 years. Other statistics gathered from graduating students include the percent who intend to study at a 4-year college and the percent intending to study at a Vocational/Technical School. One additional significant piece of data is the total per pupil expenditure.


8.4 Statistics from the Department of Education

The DOE web site (http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/htmls/education.html) reports school and school-corporation level data for grades K-12. Data on the site comes from the years 2001-2003. Indicator data include:

enrollment;

attendance;

graduation and dropout data;

ISTEP reading and math scores for each school by grade;

SAT, ACT, and PSAT test scores;

comparisons to the rest of the state;

free and reduced lunch statistics;

suspensions and expulsions (including alcohol and other drug-related)

future plans of graduates

student-teacher ratio

Links to individual schools provide rich background information on the school communities.

The Indiana School Directory contains address and telephone information for all of Indiana’s schools.


8.5 Statistics from The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute

The sections of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute web site (http://www.in.gov/cji/indexb.htm) which have the most potential relevance to drug prevention professionals include: Drug and Crime Control, Substance Abuse, Traffic Safety, Youth, and Public Information and Education.

One section of the web site include pdf files for all 92 counties, presenting statistics on all licensed drivers by age, the number of drivers in crashes by age, the percent of drivers involved in crashes by age group, and fatal crashes by month. Included in each of these 92 county reports is a table listing the number of alcohol-related crashes in each of the principle municipalities in the county. These municipalities by county tables are also available in a separate pdf file. These county and municipality files presented data from 2000 (as of April 2003). The statistics in section 6.14 of this County Profile come from this web site.

The section on Traffic Safety includes the Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving 2002 Report, Crash Data (up to 2000), Seatbelt Studies, Alcohol Impaired Driving Reports, and Teenage Driver Reports.


8.6 Statistics from The FBI Uniform Crime Reports

An excellent site for locating FBI Uniform Crime Report data has been created at the University of Virginia Fisher Library (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/crime ). This site includes county as well as state level data from 1990-2001 and presents indicators including all arrests, adult arrests, and juvenile arrests. The number of arrests is given for such crimes as burglary; vandalism; drug use, sale, or possession; driving under the influence; weapons violations; assault; and violent crimes.

Crimes reported in county data are divided into two categories: Part I offenses (murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson) and Part II offenses (forgery, fraud, embezzlement, vandalism, weapons violations, sex offenses, drug and alcohol abuse violations, gambling, vagrancy, curfew violations, and runaways).

The statistics in section 6.13 of this County Profile come from this web site.


8.7 Statistics from U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder Web Site

The U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov) provides multiple web sites that offer statistics in a variety of forms. One of the most useful sites for prevention professionals and others is the American Factfinder web site, which is a link from the U.S. Census Bureau web site.

This is one site where information at the local level can be obtained, down to the Block, which is smaller than the Block Group. For example, one can learn the Congressional and Legislative districts numbers. Tables and profiles available for any given Block Group from this site include a profile of the general demographic characteristics; general housing characteristics; tenure, household size, and age of householder. Reference maps are also available.


8.8 Claritas’ “You Are Where You Live” Web Site

The Claritas ™ (www.claritas.com) produces market segmentation (lifestyle) databases that offer insights into the character of communities. The “You Are Where You Live” web site is both a service and a promotional sampling of the kind of information Claritas™ market segmentation databases can provide. This site is, at the same time, entertaining and informative. You simply type in a zip code, select a market segmentation system, and then a search presents the five most prominent segments (lifestyles) in your neighborhood. Each lifestyle is described with examples of typical behaviors and preferences. The PRIZM system classifies lifestyles into 62 types; Microvision has 42 distinct types.

The IPRC owns the Claritas™ 2001 database for Indiana (2002), which contain far more detailed information than that which is available on the “You Are Where You Live” web site. Call the IPRC for more information.

The “You Are Where You Live” web site contains lifestyle profiles (both PRIZM and MOSAIC) for every neighborhood in America, searchable by zip code.


8.9 SAVI

SAVI Interactive: Information for Central Indiana communities (www.savi.org) provides

community profiles, data and mapping. It aims to build capacity to improve decision-making. It is intended to serve as a community information resource. It has Census 2000 data. It presents data for census 2000 census tracts and for 1990 block groups. Other types of data are supplied by many local data providers.

It includes data for Indianapolis MSA counties: Boone, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, Putnam and Shelby.


http://www.savi.org/

Appendices

A. Census DefinitionsB. Claritas™ Lifestyle PRIZM ClustersC. County Distribution of Tobacco FarmsD. State by County Maps E. Archival IndicatorsF. DSA Contact InformationG. State OfficesH. Tables by Block Group

A. Census DefinitionsThe following is an excellent source of definitions and explanations of geography-related terms used by the U.S. Census 2000:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossary.html

Block Group (BG) A statistic subdivision of a census tract. Includes all blocks whose numbers begin with the same digit in a census tract. For example, for Census 2000, BG3 within a census tract includes all blocks numbered from 3000 to 3999. BGs generally contain between 300 and 3000 persons, with an optimal size of 1,500 people.

Census Tract (CT) A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county or statistically equivalent entity. Designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions at the time they are established. CTs generally contain between 1,000 and 8,000 persons, with an optimal size of 4,000 people. CT numbers range from 001 to 9999.

Rural All territory, population, and housing units located outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters.

Urban All territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas and urban clusters.

Urban area. A generic term that refers to both urbanized areas and urban clusters. This terminology is new for Census 2000.

Urban cluster (UC) A densely settled area that has a census population of 2,500 to 49,999. A UC generally consists of a geographic core of block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile, and adjacent block groups and blocks with at least 500 people per square mile.

Urbanized area (UA) A densely settled area that has a census population of at least 50,000. A UA generally consists of a geographic core of block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile, and adjacent block groups and blocks with at least 500 people per square mile. A UA consists of all or part of one or more incorporated places and/or census designated places, and may include additional territory outside of any place.

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossary.html

A. Census DefinitionsThe following is an excellent source of definitions and explanations of social, economic and housing

characteristics and general terms used by the U.S. Census 2000: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-2-a.pdf

Labor Force. All people classified in the civilian labor force (i.e., employed and unemployed people), plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces (on active duty).

Group Quarters. Includes all people not living in households. Includes institutionalized population and non-institutionalized population (such as college dormitories, military quarters, and group homes, and the staff residing at these quarters.

Household. A household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or an other group of related or unrelated people who share living quarters.

Spouse (husband/wife) A person married to and living with a householder. People in formal marriages, as well as people in common law marriages, are included.

Child. A son or daughter by birth, a stepchild, or an adopted child of the householder, regardless of the child’s age or marital status. The category excludes sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, and foster children.

Own child. A never-married child under 18 who is son or daughter of the householder by birth, marriage (a stepchild), or adoption.

Family Type. A family includes a householder and one or more other people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. Not all households contain families, since a household may be comprised of a group of unrelated people or of one person living alone.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-2-a.pdf

A. Census DefinitionsIncome of households. This includes the income of the householder and all other individuals 15 years old and

over in the household, whether they are related to the householder or not.

Income of families. The incomes of all members 15 years old and over related to the householder are summed and treated as a single amount.

Median income. The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts: one half of the cases falling below the median income and one-half above the median.

Per capita income. The mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group (dividing the total income of a particular group by the total population in that group).

Industry. The classification system consists of 265 categories for employed people, classified into 14 major industry groups (developed from the 1997 North American Industry Classification System, NAICS).

Occupation. Consists of 509 specific occupational categories for employed people arranged into 23 major occupational groups (developed based on the Standard Occupational Classification, SOC, Manual: 2000).

Poverty Status. The Census Bureau uses the federal government’s official poverty definition. The Social Security Administration developed the original poverty definition in 1964, revised in 1969 and 1980. . . . Since the UDSA’s 1955 Food Consumption Survey showed that families of three or more people across all income levels spent roughly one-third of their income on food, the SSA multiplied the cost of the Economy Food Plan by three to obtain dollar figures for the poverty thresholds. Poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition. Poverty thresholds are revised annually to allow for changes in the cost of living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. The poverty thresholds are the same for all parts of the country – they are not adjusted for regional, state, or local variations in the cost of living. The weighted average threshold for 3-person families was $13,032 for three adults; $13,410 for 2 adults and a child; and $13,423 for 2 children and 1 adult.

Appendix A, cont.

A. Census DefinitionsIndividuals for whom poverty status is determined. All people except institutionalized people, people in

military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. They are considered neither “poor” nor “nonpoor.”

Household poverty data. Poverty status is not defined for households --- only for families and unrelated individuals.

Race. The concept of race, as used by the Census Bureau, reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups.

Vehicles available. Show the number of passenger cars, vans, and pickup or panel trucks of 1-ton capacity or less kept at home and available for the use of household members.

Appendix A, cont.

B. An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups Related to


Based upon census data and demographic projections, the Claritas™ PRIZM segmentation system analyzes every neighborhood in the United States according to the opportunities and the influences which impact its residents. Claritas™ has defined 62 different types of neighborhoods, which they call “clusters.” The cluster concept is based on the assumption that “Birds of a feature flock together.” The clusters are defined based on “similarities in income, education, and household type, as well as attitudes and product preferences.” (Mitchell 1995) These clusters are, in turn, assigned to 15 broader categories called Social Groups. An objective of this analysis is to determine demographic variables and lifestyle characteristics to explain customer profile differences. While the driving impetus behind this data is commercial for-profit business, its application value is not limited to that sector. We offer this information in the County Profile Series for its application in the service of prevention.

The following 15 PRIZM social groups, which are referenced in this County Profile, are defined largely by degree of urbanization, from the rural countryside to the urban high-rise, and by degree of socioeconomic status determined by such factors as income, education, occupation and home value. Within any one of the 15 social groups, clusters can exhibit very different habits. Studying the details of the PRIZM groups and clusters can inform marketing, advertising, and other planning decisions.

It should be noted that, with reference to degree of urbanization, the term “second city” refers to cities that are not characterized by urban living. These cities are also called “edge cities” because life there is somewhere in between the styles of life in an urban metropolitan city like Chicago or New York and life in a rural country setting. (Mitchell 1995)

The following descriptions are based upon information contained in Summary Lifestyle Descriptions: PRIZM Cluster Narratives (Claritas 2000).

.

An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups Related to


S1. Elite SuburbsU1. Urban UptownC1. 2nd City SocietyT1. Landed GentryS2. The AffluentialsS3. Inner SuburbsU2. Urban MidscaleC2. 2nd City CentersT2. Exurban BluesR1. Country FamiliesU3. Urban CoresC3. 2nd City BluesT3. Working TownsR2. Heartlanders R3. Rustic Living

Appendix B, cont.



S1. Elite SuburbsThis PRIZM social group is characterized by high levels of education, income,

investments and expenditures. There are five clusters identified within this group. Many live in suburbs of major metropolitan cities. They tend to be much more liberal than the C1 group described below. Outside of these shared characteristics, the five clusters in this S1 group differ markedly.

U1. Urban UptownThis PRIZM group is also characterized by affluence and is in second place after the

S1 group for this feature. An indication of the density of market concentration in this group is the fact that 94% of all households fall into the 10 top television markets. Over the past 20 years, the clusters in this group have included many executives and professionals from the fields of finance, business, education and entertainment. Recently the clusters in this group have seen the addition of wealthy Eastern European, Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants.

C1. 2nd City SocietyThis PRIZM group is characterized by high levels of education and income and by the fact that they occupy the top economic rung in hundreds of so-called “second” cities and “satellite” cities. Highly educated, they also have large incomes. Most are home-owners. They hold executives and professional positions in local businesses, in finance, health, law, communications and wholesale. They tend to be much more conservative than suburban peers from the S1 group. There are three clusters in this group.

Appendix B, cont.



T1. Landed GentryThis is the third most common social group in Indiana. The persons in the four

clusters that comprise this PRIZM group are dispersed across the country over a wide geographic area. They constitute the fourth wealthiest PRIZM group. They are characterized by large families with multiple incomes with school-aged children. Heads of household are well-educated executives and professional. This group is dominated by so-called “techies.” For the most part, these households reside far from the country’s major metro areas, in gorgeous areas along the coast and in our uplands.

S2. The AffluentialsThe 3rd most common social group in the U.S., this PRIZM group is made up of

households living in the major metro area suburbs and having upper middle incomes. They comprise the fifth wealthiest group. They have incomes that are above-average and above-average rentals. Their residences include homes, condos and apartments. Their wide ranging careers include business, public service and technical positions. They commute daily. In other ways the five clusters in this group differ widely

S3. Inner SuburbsThis PRIZM group is characterized by being middle income in the suburbs of major

metro areas. Their incomes hover right about the U.S. average. In other ways the four clusters in this social group are very different from one another. Two clusters feature college-educated, white-collar workers, while the other two tend to have high school education and be blue-collar employees. Two clusters are young, one old, the other mixed ages. But each of the four clusters has a distinct employment pattern, lifestyle and geographic location.

Appendix B, cont.



U2. Urban MidscaleThis PRIZM group is characterized as the backbone of many neighborhoods in the

fringes of major metro areas. They are middle income. Their average income is below the mean of affluence. They are geographically highly concentrated, with three-quarters of these households living in the five top television markets; and only four percent of this group lives outside of the top 25 television markets. All five clusters in this PRIZM social group have high potential for density and ethnic diversity. They employ public transportation. And they cope with urban life, both its perks and its risks.

C2. 2nd City CentersOf the 15 PRIZM social groups, this is the 4th most common in Indiana. In the U.S.

this PRIZM group lives in the middle-density, midscale satellite cities that surround major metro areas, and also in smaller cities describes as second-tier. Cost of living is lower in their communities, helping them to be better off compared to peers belonging to the U2 group. Most but not all of the five clusters in this group tend to be predominantly white. In other ways these five clusters differ in terms of their ages, marital status, education, careers, and lifestyles.

T2. Exurban BluesThe 5th most common social group in Indiana, this PRIZM group is characterized by

residence in low-density, midscale towns located on the outskirts of major metro areas and so-called second cities. This group has compares to the S3, U2, and C2 groups. Three of its five clusters are predominantly white, have an even distribution in terms of age, are home-owners, married and raising children.

Appendix B, cont.



R1. Country FamiliesMore households in Indiana belong to this group than to any other. This PRIZM

group has recently come to rival the S3, U2, C2 and T2 groups in terms of their midscale affluence and, because their cost of living tends to be lower, they suffer poverty less than these other four groups. Country families are found widely dispersed across the country in small towns and in remote exurban centers, they fall into all but a few of the television markets. They are characterized as married couples with children, white, and working in industrial and agricultural employments. They are home owners and owners of mobile homes.

U3. Urban CoresThis PRIZM group suffers the highest poverty ratios and has the lowest income of

any PRIZM group. The clusters in the U2 group tend to live in big cities in communities described as multi-racial, multi-lingual, with dense population in rental properties (either rowhouses or high-rise apartments). They are characterized by high numbers of single people, single-parents with very young children, and high rates of unemployment.

C3. 2nd City BluesThis is the second most common social group among Indiana households. This

PRIZM group is characterized by residence in downtown neighborhoods in the nation’s numerous so-called second cities that are found in the fringes of major metro areas. Because the cost of living in their neighborhoods is lower, the persons in the four clusters of the C3 group enjoy more affluence compared to the U3 group, which resides in the bigger cities. While there are some places with unemployment, “broken homes,” and single-parent households, this group also includes a wide spectrum of employment from agriculture to office, retail, clerical, transportation, public service and private sector service.

Appendix B, cont.



T3. Working TownsThis PRIZM group is found in exurban and remote towns and in so-called “satellite”

towns that are located outside major metro areas and also outside so-called “second cities.” In general, this group is considered to be better off compared to the U3 and C3 social groups. All four clusters of the T3 group tend to have lower educational attainment and incomes and to work in blue collar jobs. They typically own or rent single-family homes in the midst of beautiful scenery. They enjoy attending religious services. They tend to like doing crafts. In other respects, the four clusters in this group are quite different from one another.

R2. Heartlanders

This PRIZM group is said to represent the agrarian heartland of the nation. They are found in the Great Plains and in South Central, Mountain and Pacific regions, and in a few isolated locales in the East. Comparatively self-sufficient, the five clusters in this group enjoy a low cost of living. Their families tend to be multi-generational and live in low-density settings in houses and mobile homes. The persons in this group include extremely independent Hispanic/Latinos and Native Americans.

R3. Rustic Living

A higher percent of households in the United States belong to this group than to any other. This PRIZM group is characterized by lower middle income and low cost of living. They are viewed as a promising market for businesses. They live in the very numerous remote towns, hamlets, villages and reservations spread across the country. Married couples and elders share mobile homes, help raise children, and maintain carpools. Employment features craftsmen, agricultural labor, mining, construction and transportation.

Appendix B, cont.



To learn more about these PRIZM groups and the clusters included in each, consult the following web sites:

•http://www.tetrad.com•www.tetrad.com/pub/prices/PRIZM_Clusters.pdf•http://www.claritas.com•http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/usersguide/appendix_q.pdf•http://www.andreas.com/downloads/geodemographic-clusters.pdf

You can also find a free analysis of your neighborhood by zip code at the Claritas “You Are Where You Live” link from the www.claritas.com web page.

_______________References:

Claritas, Inc.2000 Summary Lifestyle Descriptions: PRIZM Cluster Narratives. Pp. 5-19. Also found at

www.tetrad.com/pub/prices/PRIZM_Clusters.pdf

Mitchell, Susan.1995 “Birds of a Feather,” American Demographics,” February. Also at: http//www.andreas.com/faq-geodemo2.html

Appendix B, cont.

http://www.tetrad.com/

http://www.tetrad.com/pub/prices/PRIZM_Clusters.pdf

http://www.claritas.com/


http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/usersguide/appendix_q.pdf


C. Tobacco Production

Source: Tobacco Production. Kernan’s “Recipient Final Reports for Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture Grant Programs,” Strategic Development Group’s “Alternative Agricultural Strategy” (Bloomington, March 15, 2001), p. 11.

Appendix D: State by County Maps


• Single Parent Families with Children as Percent of All Families with Children

• Educational Attainment Less than H.S.

• No Medical Insurance

• Average Household Income

Poverty: Percent of Total Population

U.S. Census 2000, SF3, Indiana

Appendix D, cont.


Single Parent Families

Appendix D, cont.

AGS, Core Demographics,2002 estimates (2003)


Educational Attainment: Less Than HS Diploma

U.S. Census 2000, SF3, Indiana

Appendix D, cont.


Medical Insurance Coverage: None

MediaMark Research, Inc. Consumer Behavior Insurance, 2002 (2003)

Appendix D, cont.


Average Household Income

Appendix D, cont.


AGS, Core Demographics,2002 estimates (2003)

E. Archival Indicators

www.westerncapt.

Source: http://www.westerncapt

Archival Indicators

Appendix E, cont.

Archival Indicators

Source: http://www.westerncaptAppendix E, cont.

Archival Indicators

See web site for further school and peer indicators: http://www.westerncapt

Appendix E, cont.

F. DSA Contact Information

Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu

DSA Contact Information

Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.eduAppendix F, cont.



Appendix F, cont.


Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.eduAppendix F, cont.



Appendix F, cont.

G. STATE OFFICES

Source: ONDCP web site, STATE OFFICES page: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/in/stoffices.html#3

State Education OfficeState Coordinator for Drug-Free SchoolsDepartment of Education Office of Student Services State House, Room 229 Indianapolis, IN 46204–2798(317) 232–0808Fax: (317) 232–6326Web site: http://www.doe.state.in.us

Judicial AgencyDivision of State Court Administration115 West Washington, Suite 1080Indianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232–2542Fax: (317) 233–6586Web site: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin

Law Enforcement Planning& State Administrative AgencyIndiana Criminal Justice InstituteOne North Capitol Avenue, Suite 1000Indianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232–1233Fax: (317) 233–5150Web site: http://www.in.gov/cji/home.htm

State Health OfficesDrug and Alcohol AgencyBureau for Chemical AddictionsDivision of Mental Health and AddictionFamily and Social Services AdministrationP.O. Box 7083Indianapolis, IN 46207–7083(317) 233–4454Fax: (317) 233–4693Web site: http://www.in.gov/fssa/serviceaddict/

RADAR Network AgencyIndiana Prevention Resource Center Indiana University, Room 110Creative Arts Building840 State Rd. 46 BypassBloomington, IN 47408–2606(812) 855–1237Fax: (812) 855–49401–800–346–3077 Web site: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu

HIV-Prevention ProgramDepartment of HealthHIV/AIDS Program2 North Meridian StIndianapolis, IN 46204(317) 233–1325Web site: http://www.state.in.us/isdh/programs/hivstd/index.htm

http://www.doe.state.in.us/

http://www.doe.state.in.us/

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin



http://www.in.gov/cji/home.htm

http://www.in.gov/cji/home.htm

http://www.in.gov/fssa/serviceaddict/



http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/

http://www.state.in.us/isdh/programs/hivstd/index.htm

http://www.state.in.us/isdh/programs/hivstd/index.htm

STATE OFFICESState Offices Policy OfficesGovernor's OfficeOffice of the Governor206 State HouseIndianapolis, IN 46204–2797(317) 232–4567Fax: (317) 232–3443Web site: http://www.in.gov/gov/

State Drug Program CoordinatorGovernor's Commission for a Drug-Free IndianaISTA Building 150 West Market St., Suite 320Indianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232–4219Web site: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/indiana/gcdfi.html

State Legislative ContactLegislative Services AgencyIndiana House of Representatives/ State Senate200 W. Washington St.Indianapolis, IN 46204–2786House of Representatives (317) 232–9600Indiana State Senate (317) 232–9400Web site: http://www.in.gov/legislative

State Criminal Justice OfficesAttorney General's OfficeOffice of the Attorney GeneralIndiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor302 West Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232–6201Fax: (317) 232–7979Web site: http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral

Corrections AgencyIndiana Department of CorrectionIGCS, Rm E334302 West Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232–5715Fax: (317) 232–6798Web site: http://www.in.gov/indcorrection/

Appendix G, cont.

Source: ONDCP web site, STATE OFFICES page: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/in/stoffices.html#3

http://www.in.gov/gov/

http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/indiana/gcdfi.html

http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/indiana/gcdfi.html

http://www.in.gov/legislative



http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral

http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral

http://www.in.gov/indcorrection/



H. Tables by Block Group

• County Demographics• Smoking Behaviors• Gambling Behaviors (Count, Percent)• Poverty and More Demographics• Poverty• Child Poverty

PCensus Table 1: Vanderburgh County Demographics

• Total Population

• Average Household Income- 1999 Level


• Total Housing Units

• Average Age

These statistics come from the U.S. Census 2000, SF3 Indiana.

PCensus Table 1, cont.

PCensus Table 2: Adult Smoking Behaviors

• Adult Cigarette Smoking (Count)

• Adult Cigarette Smoking (Percent)

• Adult Cigar Smoking (Count)

• Adult Cigar Smoking (Percent)



(Count)

• Casino, 6+ Times in Last Year, 2002

• Casino, Any, Last Year, 2002

• Lottery, 6+ Times in Last 30 Days, 2002

• Played Lottery, Last 30 Days, 2002 Lottery, Any, Last Year, 2002


PCensus Table 3a, cont.


(Percent)

• Casino, 6+ Times in Last Year, 2002

• Casino, Any, Last Year, 2002

• Lottery, 6+ Times in Last 30 Days, 2002

• Played Lottery, Last 30 Days, 2002 Lottery, Any, Last Year, 2002


Table 3b

PCensus Table 3b, cont.

PCensus Table 4: More Vanderburgh County Demographics

• Percent of Population Over 25 with Less Than a High School Diploma

• Families with Children under 18 in Poverty (Count)• Single Mom with Children under 18 in Poverty (Count)• Children under 18 in Poverty• Households with No Vehicle Available


PCensus Table 5: Child Poverty

• Total Children 6-11 (Count)• Children 6-11 in Poverty (Count)• Children 6-11 in Poverty (Percent)• Total Children 12-17 (Count)• Children 12-17 in Poverty (Count)• Children 12-17 in Poverty (Percent)


Indiana University Creative Arts 110

2735 E. 10th Street Bloomington, IN 47408-2602

Phone: 812.855.1237 Toll Free in Indiana: 1.800.346.3077

Fax: 812.855.4940E-Mail: [email protected]

WWW: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/

THE INDIANA PREVENTION RESOURCE CENTER

Documents

Transcript of THE INDIANA PREVENTION RESOURCE CENTER