THE INDIANA PREVENTION
RESOURCE CENTER
GIS in Prevention
County Profiles Series, No. 1
Clinton 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
Clinton County, Indiana
Barbara Seitz de Martinez, PhD, MLS, CPP
Project Staff:
Solomon Briggs, GIS Technician
Christina Jagielski, MPH
Nan Jiang, MS
Jennifer Kelley, MPH, CHES
Nattiporn Nokkaew, MS
Bilesha Perera, MSc
Susan Samuel, MSc, MS
Matthew Lee Smith, MPH, CPP
Murali Krishna Tangirala, BAMS, MPH
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Trustees of
Indiana University or the Division of Mental Health and Addiction. Indiana University accepts full
Responsibility for the content of this publication. ©2004 The Trustees of Indiana University.
Permission is extended to reproduce this County Profile for non-profit educational purposes.
All other rights reserved.
Clinton County
The maps and tables in this publication were prepared using PCensus
7.06 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 PREVSTAT™ 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 PREVSTAT™ 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Introduction: Why Environment Matters
PREV-STAT™ Overview
Geographic and Historical Notes
Protective Factors
Basic Demographics
Archival Indicators of Risk
Outstanding Characteristics
Complementary Resources
Appendices
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters
2. PREV-STAT™ Overview
3. Geographic and Historical Notes
4. Protective Factors
5. Basic Demographics
5.1 Population
5.2 Race/Ethnicity
PCensus Table 1: Demographics by Block Group and Totals
Total Population
Average Household Income
Percent of Total Population in Poverty
Total Housing Units
Average Age
5.3 Marital Status
5.4 Labor Force
5.5 Industry
5.6 Occupations
5.7 Educational Attainment
5.8 Households
5.9 Families
5.10 Lifestyles
Table of Contents, cont.
6.
Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs
6.1 Alcohol Sales Outlets per Capita
Map 1: Schools in Proximity to Alcohol and Tobacco Outlets, 2002
6.2 Tobacco Sales Outlets per Capita
6.3 Availability of Drugs to Youth: Failed TRIP Inspections
Map 2: Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets That Failed TRIP Inspections
Map 3: Close-up of Schools in Proximity to Failed TRIP Inspections
6.4 Proximity of Failed TRIP Inspections to Schools
6.5 Clandestine Methamphetamine Lab seizures
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.6 Household Spending on Alcohol
6.7 Household Spending on Tobacco
6.8 Adult Smoking Behaviors
PCensus Table 2: Adult Smoking (Cigarettes and Cigars) by Block Group and Totals
Map 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 Inspections
6.10 Gambling -- Casinos and Horseracing Establishments
6.11 Adult Gambling Behaviors
PCensus Table 3: Adult Gambling Behaviors (Casino and Lottery) by Block Groups and Totals
Map 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 Indices
6.13 FBI Uniform Crime Reports
6.14 Alcohol-Related Crashes
Table of Contents, cont.
Community Risk Factor: Transitions and Mobility
6.15 Net Migration
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation
6.16 Unemployment Rates
6.17 Free Lunches/Textbooks, K-12
6.18 Food Stamp Recipients
6.19 Aid to Families with Dependent Children
PCensus Table 4: More Demographics by Block Group and Totals
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 (Count)
Households with No Vehicle Available (Count)
Map 12: Percent of Population over 25 with Less Than a High School Diploma
6.20 Adults without a High School Diploma
6.21 Single Parent Family Households
6.22 Poverty: Total Poverty and Poverty by Age Group
Map 13: Percent of Total Population in Poverty
6.23 Poverty: Child Poverty as Percent of All Persons in Poverty
6.24 Poverty by Race
PCensus 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 Poverty
6.26 Lack of Health Insurance
Table of Contents, cont.
Family Risk Factor Management Problems:
6.27 Children in Homes with No Parent Present
Family Risk Factor: Family Conflict
6.28 Divorce Rate
Family Risk Factor: Family Attitudes and Involvement
6.29 Households Where All Parents Work
7. Outstanding Characteristics: Assets, Liabilities and Facts
7.1 Top 10% Status
7.2 Bottom 10% Status
8. Complementary Resources
8.1 IPRC's PREV-STAT™ County/Local Data Page
8.2 STATS Indiana
8.3 Statistics from the Indiana Youth Institute
8.4 The Indiana Department of Education
8.5 The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute
8.6 FBI Uniform Crime Report
8.7 U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder
8.8 Claritas™ "You Are Where You Live“
8.9 SAVI
Table of Contents, cont.
9. Appendices
A. Census Definitions
B. Claritas™ Lifestyle PRIZM Clusters
C. County Distribution of Tobacco Farms
D. State by County Maps
E. Archival Indicators
F. DSA Contact Information
G. State Offices
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters
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; WebsterStratton 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
Individual
Family
School
Peer
Community
Protective Factor
Impulse Control
Parental Monitoring
Anti-Use Policies
Academic Competence
Neighborhood Attachment
Risk Factor
Aggressive Behavior
Lack of Parental Monitoring
Drug Availability
Substance Use
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.
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
Culture
By 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
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
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.
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
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 drugfree. 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!
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
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 Prevention
2003
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 HighRisk Adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 88:944-948.
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
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.
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
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
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
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, Daniel
2003
“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 Anthropology
2004
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.
1. Introduction: Why Environment Matters, cont.
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 SolutionsAGS, 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.
2. PREV-STAT™: Overview, cont.
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 PREVSTAT™ 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™.
2. PREV-STAT™: Overview, cont.
Instructions for How to Access PREV-STAT™:
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.
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.
2.
3.
View and print entire files or selected pages from the IPRC web site
Download the entire file from the IPRC web site via the “County Profile” link at:
http://www.iprc.indiana.edu/drug%5Fstats
Request a copy be sent to you on CD ROM by calling or e-mailing the IPRC
To obtain a custom report:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Call or e-mail the IPRC to discuss your request
Expect your report to be completed in approximately 3-6 weeks
You can only request one report at a time
Demand may limit custom reports to about three per person per year
Points of access to the PREV-STAT™ Service:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
www.drugs.indiana.edu
http://www.iprc.indiana.edu/drug_stats/county-profiles.html
http://www.iprc.indiana.edu/drug_stats/county-local.html
1-812-855-1237, or, in Indiana toll free at 1-800-346-3077
seitzb@indiana.edu
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.
3. Geographic and Historical Notes
Clinton County is located in Central Indiana. It is
bordered by Tipton County to the east, Hamilton to the
southeast, Boone to the south, Montgomery to the
southwest, Tippecanoe to the northwest, Carroll to the
north, and Howard to the northeast. U.S. Highway 421
and State Highways 28 and 75 cross Clinton County.
Elevation is 800-900 feet. The landscape features maple,
birch, beech, elm, ash, and cottonwood trees. In the
north the landscape is slightly sloping, in the south it is
quite level, and along the Potato Creek and Sugar Creek
higher slopes are typical. This county is part of the
Indiana and Ohio Till Plain resource area.
Clinton County is on Eastern Standard Time all year.
Average daily temperatures are 15٥/33٥ in January and
62٥/85٥ in July. Annual precipitation is 39 and snowfall
21-23 inches.
Typically the first freeze of the season is around October
10-15 and the last freeze is around May 1-5. The growing
season lasts about 158-168 days.
Agriculture is diversified. Nearly nine-tenths of the land
is farmland and nine-tenths of that land is used for
commercial crops. Main crops include corn for grain,
hay and soybeans. Livestock include cattle/calves, milk
cows and hogs/pigs. Main natural resources include
construction sand and gravel and forestland.
Communities include the city of Frankfort, the county
seat. Towns include Colfax, Kirklin, Michigantown,
Mulberry, and Rossville. Townships include Center,
Forest, Jackson, Johnson, Kirklin, Madison, Michigan,
Owen, Perry, Ross, Sugar Creek, Union, Warren and
Washington.
Sources: Map from PCensus for MapInfo; Geographic Notes from
Indiana Facts: Flying the Colors by John Clements, 1995.
3. Location and Historical Notes
Clinton 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. Clinton County Block Group
Maps
Don’t Know Your Block Group
Number?
You can find it easily at the
American Factfinder Web Site
Clinton County
Slide #1
Block Groups
Clinton County
Slide #2
Block Groups
4. Protective Factors in Clinton 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 Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002, 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 Clinton 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.
Clinton 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:
Protective Factors Present in the County (2003 data)
County
Clinton
Schools
17
Youth Serving Agencies/Programs
15
Libraries
6
Places of Worship
87
Table 2.1. School data from
the Department of
Education, library data
the 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.
5. Clinton 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 Clinton County was 34,309 in 2002, making it the 46th largest county
in the state. With a land area of 405.096 square miles, Clinton County has a population density of 85
persons per square mile. In addition, the county has a water area of 0.181 square miles. Median age
reflects the aging of America. In Clinton County median age was 32 in 1980, 36 in 2002, and is projected
to be 38 by 2012. The following are 2002 estimates of population by age for children 0-17:
Population by Age for Children 0-17, 2002
Age
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
0-4
7%
7%
7%
5-9
8%
7%
7%
10-13
6%
6%
6%
14-17
6%
6%
6%
36
36
36
Median Age
Table 5.1: Population by Age, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.2 Race/Ethnicity (2002, estimates)
In 2002 Clinton County was predominantly white (32,555persons). The county residents
also include Blacks (126), American Indians (48), Asian or Pacific Islanders (80), and Hispanic/Latinos
(2,734). The following table shows Clinton 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 Group
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
African-American
0%
9%
13%
Asian
0%
1%
4%
Hispanic/Latino
8%
4%
13%
White
95%
88%
76%
Other
4%
2%
6%
Table 5.2: Race/Ethnicity, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
PCensus Table 1:
Clinton County Demographics
•
•
•
•
•
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.
PCensus Table 1, cont.
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.3 Marital Status (2002, estimates)
In 2002, an estimated 5,299 Clinton County residents had never married. Another 14,693
were currently married, 1,927 were widowed, 1,459 were separated, and 2,690 were divorced. The
following table shows percentages for Clinton County in comparison with the state and nation:
Marital Status, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Never Married
20%
25%
27%
Currently Married
56%
53%
50%
Separated
6%
4%
6%
Divorced
10%
11%
10%
Widowed
7%
7%
6%
Table 5.3: Marital Status, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.4 Labor Force: (2002, estimates)
In 2002, an estimated 37 percent of persons were not in the labor force.
Labor Force, 2002
Percent of Persons
Not in Labor Force
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
37%
34%
36%
Table 5.4: Labor Force, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.5 Industry (2002, estimates)
The largest industry in Clinton County is manufacturing with 5,321 persons employed,
followed by retail trade with 1,572 persons employed, and health services with 1,263 persons
employed. Table 4 shows percentages for the top five industries relative to the state and
nation:
Top Five Industries, 2002
Industry
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Manufacturing
35%
23%
14%
Retail Trade
10%
12%
12%
Health Services
8%
11%
12%
Construction
6%
6%
6%
Education Services
6%
9%
9%
White collar workers in all industries
40%
48%
53%
Blue collar workers in all industries
60%
52%
47%
Table 5.5: Top 5 Industries, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
Blue collar jobs account for 60% of all workers, white collar for 40% of workers.
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.6 Occupations (2002, estimates)
The occupations in which the highest percent of Clinton County residents worked in 2002
were precision production, craft & repair occupations (2,376); followed by administrative
support occupations, including clerical (2,140); machine operators (2,125); service
occupations (1,938); and sales occupations (1,344). The following table shows these
occupations and their corresponding percentages for the state and nation:
Top Five Occupations, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Precision production, craft & repair
occupations, 16%
Administrative support
occupations, including clerical,
15%
Administrative support
occupations, including clerical,
16%
Administrative support
occupations, including clerical, 14%
Precision production, craft &
repair occupations, 13%
Professional specialty
occupations, 14%
Machine operators, assemblers &
inspectors, 14%
Service occupations, except
protective & household, 13%
Executive, Administrative, and
Managerial, 12%
Service occupations, except
protective & household, 13%
Professional specialty
occupations, 12%
Service occupations, except
protective & household, 12%
Sales occupations, 9%
Sales occupations, 11%
Sales occupations, 12%
Table 5.6: Top Five Occupations, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.7 Educational Attainment (2002 estimates)
As of 2002, 1,889 Clinton County residents aged 25 and over had not completed 9th grade;
and 4,107 had some high school but no diploma. The following table shows educational
attainment in Clinton County compared with the state and the nation.
Educational Attainment, 2002
Highest Level
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Less than 9th Grade
9%
6%
8%
9th-12th, No Diploma
19%
15%
14%
High School
30%
20%
16%
Some College, No Diploma
23%
26%
25%
Associate Degree
6%
7%
7%
Bachelor's Degree
10%
16%
19%
Grad or Prof Degree
5%
9%
11%
Table 5.7: Educational Attainment (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.8 Households (2002, estimates)
As of 2002, the number of households in Clinton County in 2002 was 12,733.
Table 8 shows median age of householders; median, average, and per capita incomes per
household in comparison to the state and nation.
Median Age and Household Income, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Median Age of HH
48
47
47
Median HH Income
$39,797
$40,365
$40,719
Average HH Income
$48,495
$54,723
$59,189
Per Capita Income
$17,998
$21,175
$22,272
Table 5.8: Median Age and Household Income (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.9 Families (2002, estimates)
Of the 12,733 households in Clinton County, in 2002 there were an estimated 4,834
households with children. Of these households with children, 3,511 lived in married couple
households; 425 were in lone parent male households; 836 lived with lone parent females; 57
were in non-family male headed households; and 5 were in non-family female headed
households. Median income per family in 2002 was $59,990.The following tables shows the
percent distribution by type of household with children and median family income with
comparisons to the state and nation.
Types of Households with Children, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Married Couple Family
73%
68%
68%
Lone Parent Male
9%
7%
7%
Lone Parent Female
17%
23%
24%
Non-Family Male-Headed HH
1%
1%
1%
Non-Family Female Headed HH
0%
0%
0%
Table 5.9a: Types of Households with Children (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
Median Family Income, 2002
Median Family Income
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
$59,990
$61,376
$60,397
Table 5.9b: Median Family Income (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas: Indiana, 2001)
According to the 2001 Claritas PRIZM Household Summary, in Clinton County,
the five most dominant lifestyles were T3 with 5,288 persons; R1 with 3,227 persons; T2 with
1,926 persons; R2 with 1,595 persons; and R3 with 381 persons. The following table shows
the percentages for the five dominant lifestyles of Clinton County households, and the
corresponding percentages for those same lifestyle in Indiana and U.S. households. See the
Appendix for descriptions of these lifestyles.
Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles in Households, 2001
PRIZM Lifestyle
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
T3
42.60%
8.30%
6.80%
R1
26.00%
15.40%
6.20%
T2
15.50%
8.70%
6.00%
R2
12.80%
2.80%
3.70%
R3
3.10%
8.50%
9.70%
Table 5.10a: Dominant Lifestyles of Clinton County (Claritas™: Indiana,
2002)
5. Clinton County Basic Demographics
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
The following table shows percentages for the five dominant lifestyles for Indiana
households with corresponding percentages for lifestyles in Clinton County and in the U.S.
Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles, 2001
PRIZM Lifestyle
Indiana
Clinton Co.
U.S.
R1
15.40%
26.00%
6.20%
C3
11.10%
0%
7.00%
T1
10.00%
0%
7.30%
C2
9.30%
0%
7.20%
T2
8.70%
15.50%
6.00%
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 Clinton County and Indiana.
Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles, 2001
PRIZM Lifestyle
U.S.
Clinton Co.
Indiana
R3
9.70%
3.10%
8.50%
S1
9.50%
0%
5.30%
S2
7.90%
0%
7.40%
T1
7.30%
0%
10.00%
C2
7.20%
0%
9.30%
Table 5.10c: Dominant Lifestyles in U.S., (Claritas™: Indiana, 2002)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
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.
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.
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Allison, Kevin W., and Richard M. Lerner
1993
“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 Cody
2003
“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 Prevention
2003
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. Wesley
2003
“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 CAPT
2002
Building a Successful Prevention Program Reno: Univ. of Nevada.
6. Clinton 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: Community
Availability of Drugs
Community Laws/Norms
Transitions and Mobility
Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation
Category: Family
Family Management Problems
Family Conflict
Favorable Parental Attitudes and Involvement
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs
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 Clinton
County in 2002 was 56. The number of outlets per capita was 0.00165 (or 1.65 per thousand
persons). The following table shows Clinton County compared to the state.
Alcohol Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2000 (IN ATC, 2002)
Number of Outlets, 2000
Total Population, 2000
Outlets per Capita
Clinton - Co.
Indiana
56
10,181
33,866
6,080,485
0.00165
0.00167
Table 6.1: Alcohol Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2000 (ATC, 2002)
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: IN Excise Police and Department of Education
Schools in Proximity to
Alcohol and Tobacco Outlets, 2002
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs
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. Clinton County ranked 46 th
in total population. In 2002 there were 36 reported tobacco sales outlets in Clinton County
(rank, 50th highest in Indiana), based on a listing from the Indiana State Excise Police. We
find that for Clinton County the number of tobacco outlets per capita for the total population
in 2002 was .001 (or 1 per thousand persons, the 45th highest among Indiana counties) and
per capita for the population aged 10-17 was .0083 (or 8.3 per thousand youth, the 52nd
highest in the State). The following table shows Clinton County compared to the State.
Tobacco Retail Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2002
Number of Outlets
Total Population
Outlets Per Capita
Total Population, 10-17
Outlets per Capita
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.
Clinton
Indiana
36
5,878
34,309
6.1m
0.0010
0.0010
4,317
717,800
0.0083
0.0082
Table 6.2:
Tobacco
Sales
Outlets Per
Capita, 2002
(ATC, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs
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 Clinton
County, there were 4 failed TRIP inspections of 16 total inspections of the county’s 36
outlets.
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)
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.
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: IN Excise Police and Department of Education
Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets
that Failed TRIP Inspections in 2003
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets
that Failed TRIP Inspections in 2003
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs
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.
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. So far in 2003, as of November 1, there had already been approximately 1,000 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 Clinton County there were 11
methamphetamine lab seizures in 2003. (David Phelps, Indiana State Police, 2003).
Meth Lab seizures Made by ISP and All seizures (Clinton County and Indiana)
Clinton Co. (ISP
seizures)
Clinton Co.
(All seizures)
Indiana
(ISP
seizures)
1998
0
N/A
43
43
1999
0
N/A
129
178
2000
2
N/A
314
427
2001
4
N/A
546
681
2002
5
5
732
988
2003
11
11
1011
1260
Indiana (All
seizures)
Table 6.5:
Clandestine
Methamphetamine
Lab seizures, 2002
(ATC, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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.
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. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.6 Household Spending on Alcohol, 2002
According to AGS Consumer Spending estimates for 2002 (2003), spending on alcohol
products in Clinton County per household was $409 and included the following
expenditures:
Per Household Spending on Alcohol, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Consumer Spending on Alcoholic Beverages
409
441
462
Spending on Alcohol Outside the Home
177
189
198
Beer and Ale Away from Home
58
62
65
Wine Away from Home
27
29
30
Whiskey Away from Home
45
48
50
Alcohol on Out-of-Town Trips
47
50
53
Spending on Alcohol In the Home
Beer and Ale at home
231
250
262
133
144
151
Wine at Home
57
62
65
Whiskey and Other Liquor at from Home
41
44
46
Table 6.6: Per Household Spending on Alcohol (AGS, Consumer Spending, 2002, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.7 Household Spending on Tobacco, 2002
According to AGS Consumer Spending estimates for 2002 spending on
tobacco products in Clinton County totaled $4,967,500. The amount spent per household
was $390. To give a better perspective we will compare this figure to household spending
on miscellaneous reading materials and on personal insurance.
Per Household Spending on Tobacco, 2002
Per Household Spending on Tobacco Products
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
390
421
436
Cigarettes
Other Tobacco Products
Per Household Spending on Misc. Reading
353
381
394
37
40
43
227
Newspapers
245
256
100
108
113
Magazines
48
51
54
Books
79
85
89
Per Household Spending on Personal Insurance
492
528
557
Table 6.7: Per Household Spending on Tobacco Products, Miscellaneous
Reading and Personal Insurance (AGS, Consumer Spending, 2002)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.8 Adult Smoking Behavior
According to MRI Consumer Behavior estimates for 2002 (2003), the number of adults who
smoked cigarettes in Clinton County was 7,487 and the number who smoked cigars was
1,207. The following table shows adult smoking behavior as percentages for Clinton
County, with comparisons for Indiana and the nation.
Adult Smoking Behavior, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Smoked Cigarettes in last 12 mos.
30.24%
29.31%
27.72%
Smoked Cigars in last 6 mos.
4.87%
5.36%
5.30%
Table 6.8a: Adult Smoking Behaviors (MRI, Consumer Behavior Lifestyle
2002, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.8 Tobacco Production
Clinton 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):
Tobacco Producing Clinton 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
2002
•
•
•
•
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).
PCensus Table 2, cont.
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Cigarette Smoking, 2002 (Count)
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Cigarette Smoking, 2002 (Percent)
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Cigar Smoking, 2002 (Count)
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Cigar Smoking, 2002 (Percent)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.9 Intensity of TRIP Inspections
TRIP Inspection Data, Clinton Co. (using data from IN State Excise Police),
2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
0.44
1.06
.0037
.0087
Total, Number of Tobacco Retail Outlets
36
5878
Total Inspections Attempted
17
6286
Total Inspections Completed
16
6238
Failed Inspections
4
1195
Percent, Failed Inspections
25%
19.2%
Percent, Passed Inspections
75%
80.8%
Intensity of Inspections
No. of Inspections per Capita:
for Population Age, 10-17
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)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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 no casinos and no horse-racing
establishments in Clinton County.
Table 6.10: Casinos and Horse-Racing Establishments in Clinton
County, 2002
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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 Clinton
County 484 persons gambled 6 or more times in a casino during the year, and 3,930
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).
Per Household Gambling Behavior, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.%
Population 18+ years and older
24,762
4.5m
211.9m
Gambled in a Casino 6 or more times/2002
1.95%
2.19%
2.25%
15.87%
14.53%
13.79%
Lottery Played 6+ Times in Last 30 days
Table 6.11a: Adult Gambling Behaviors (Casino and Lottery) (MRI,
Consumer Behavior Lifestyle 2002, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.11 Adult Gambling Behavior
The following statistics show Hoosier Lottery sales by zip code for Clinton
County from fiscal year 2003.
Hoosier Lottery Sales by Zip Code for Clinton County for Fiscal Year 2003 (Hoosier Lottery)
Zip Code
City
46035
COLFAX
46041
FRANKFORT
46050
KIRKLIN
46057
MICHIGANTOWN
46058
46065
Scratch Off
Draw
Pull-Tabs
TOTAL
$46,520
$27,611
$0
$74,131
$1,685,380
$728,187
$30,072
$2,443,639
$4,600
$5,026
$0
$9,626
$83,555
$53,144
$0
$136,699
MULBERRY
$125,453
$63,160
$0
$188,613
ROSSVILLE
$106,506
$63,911
$0
$170,417
County Totals:
$2,052,014
$941,039
$30,072
$3,023,125
IN Totals:
$355,238,893
$275,022,293
$742,560
$631,003,746
Table 6.11b: Hoosier Lottery Sales by Zip Code, Fiscal Year 2003
(Hoosier Lottery, 2003)
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)
These statistics come from MRI Consumer Behavior Lifestyle (2003).
PCensus Table 3a, cont.
PCensus Table 3b, cont.
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Casino Gambling, 6+ Times in Last Year (Count)
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Casino Gambling, 6+ Times in Last Year (Percent)
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Lottery Gambling, 6+ Times in Last 30 Days (Count)
Clinton County, Indiana
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Adult Lottery Gambling, 6+ Times in Last 30 Days (Percent)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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 Clinton County,
compared to Indiana and the nation.
Crime Indices, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Total Crime Index
19
91
100
Personal Crime Index
22
92
100
Property Crime Index
17
90
100
Table 6.12a: Total
Crime, Property Crime,
and Personal Crime
Indices, 2002. (AGS
Crime Risk 2002, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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 Clinton County, compared to Indiana and the nation (which is the point of
comparison).
Crime Indices, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Total Crime Index
19
91
100
Personal Crime Index
22
92
100
Murder
20
111
100
Rape
32
94
100
Robbery
7
73
101
Assault
28
90
101
Property Crime Index
17
90
100
Burglary
20
90
100
Larceny
26
93
100
7
86
101
Motor Vehicle Theft
Table 6.12b:
Specific Crimes,
Indices (AGS
Crime Risk 2002,
2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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 PREVSTAT™ 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.
Arrest Variable or Other Variable:
Coverage
Clinton Co.
100
Arrest Variable or Other Variable:
Sale/Manufacturing of Drugs
Alcohol-Related Arrests
Liquor Law Violation
270
Driving Under the Influence
149
Drunkenness
108
Drug Possession Subtotal
92
Marijuana Possession
72
Opium/Cocaine Possession
17
Other Drug Possession
2
Other Dangerous Non-Narcotic
1
Synthetic Narcotics Possession
1
Clinton Co.
18
Marijuana Sale/Manufacture
9
Opium/Cocaine Sale/Manufacture
8
Other Drug Sale/Manufacture
0
Gambling
0
Sexual Offenses
Prostitution & Commercial vice
0
Sex Offenses
7
Select Behaviors
Table 6.13a: All Arrests, including Drug Arrests,
2001 (FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
Disorderly Conduct
39
Runaway Juveniles
22
Weapons Violations
7
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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 PREVSTAT™ County/Local Data Page on the Indiana Prevention Resource Center web site.)
This table presents juvenile arrests for crimes, including drug arrests, for 2001.
Juvenile Arrest Variable or Other Variable:
Coverage
Number of Agencies in County Report Arrests
Total Co. Population - Agencies Reporting
Arrests
Clinton Co
100
3
34057
Alcohol-Related Arrests
Juvenile Arrest Variable or Other Variable:
Drug Abuse Sale/Manufacture
Clinton Co
2
Marijuana Sale/Manufacture
2
Opium/Cocaine Sale/Manufacture
0
Synthetic Drug Sale/Manufacture
0
Liquor Law Violation
14
Drug Abuse Violations - Total
11
Driving Under the Influence
2
Gambling
0
Drunkenness
30
Select Behaviors
Drug Possession (Subtotal)
9
Disorderly Conduct
8
Marijuana Possession
7
Runaway Juveniles
22
Opium/Cocaine Possession
1
Sex Offenses
4
Other Drug Possession
0
Weapons Violations
0
Other Dangerous Non-Narcotics
0
Synthetic Narcotics Possession
1
Table 6.13b: Juvenile Arrests, including Drug Arrests, 2001 (FBI
Uniform Crime Reports)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
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:
2000 Crash Statistics (ICJI, Clinton Co. 2000 Statistics, 2003)
Clinton County Level Data
County Level Data - All Crashes
Fatal
Total Drivers-All Crashes
6
1,476
Percent of All Licensed Drivers Involved in Crashes by Age Group – ALL Crashes
16-17
21.51 %
--
18-20
13.22%
--
21-24
9.47%
--
Largest
Cities + Rural
Frankfort
1,068
478
Total Alcohol-Related Crashes
51
18
As Percent of Total Crashes
5%
4%
0
0
0%
-- %
Municipal Level Data - Alcohol-Related Crashes
Total Crashes
Total Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes
Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes as Percent of Total
Fatal Crashes
Table 6.14a: Alcohol-Related Crashes, 2000 (Indiana
Criminal Justice Institute, Council on Drugged and
Dangerous Driving, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.14 Alcohol-Related Crashes, cont.
Alcohol-Related Crash Data for Clinton County and Indiana
1996-2000. (CJI, Indiana Crash Facts, 2000, 2003)
Crash Data
Alcohol Crashes
Total Crashes
Percent of Crashes
52
1,061
4.9
9,777
221,465
4.4
59
1,129
5.2
9,544
220,009
4.3
46
1,028
4.5
9,508
216,510
4.4
43
1,098
3.9
9,072
217,340
4.2
51
1,068
4.8
8,901
220,883
4
1996
Clinton County
Indiana
1997
Clinton County
Indiana
1998
Clinton County
Indiana
1999
Clinton County
Indiana
2000
Clinton County
Indiana
Table 6.14b:
AlcoholRelated
Crash Data
1996-2000
(Indiana
Criminal
Justice
Institute,
Indiana Crash
Facts 2000,
2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Transitions and Mobility
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.
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 Clinton County was -361 and net international migration was 116.
Net Migration
Clinton Co.
Rank in Indiana
Net Domestic Migration (change 2000/2001)
-361
74
Net International Migration (change 2000/2001)
116
12
Table 6.15: Net Migration (STATS Indiana, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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.
6.16 Unemployment Rates:
Unemployment rates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Unemployment Rates - January (Percents)
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
2000
3.2
3.8
4.1
2001
3.9
4.4
4.2
2002
5.1
5.9
5.6
2003
5.6
5.5
5.7
2004
6.5
5.6
5.6
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. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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, 25% of students in grades K-12 received free or reduced lunches in
2002.
Free Lunch/Textbooks (DOE)
Percent of Students Eligible for Free
Lunch/Textbooks
Clinton Co.
Indiana
25%
22.9%
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)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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 of 53.7 per thousand persons for 2002 for Clinton
County with comparisons for the state and nation.
Food Stamp Recipients, 2002 (FSSA, Family Resources Bureau)
Clinton Co.
Indiana
Total Population, 2002
34,309
6.1m
Food Stamp Recipients/mo*
1,842
395,444
Rate per 1,000 Total Pop
53.7
65
Table 6.18: Food Stamp Recipients as Rate per 1,000 Total Population
(*data from FSSA, Division of Family and Children)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
6.19 Aid to Families with Dependent Children
CSAP calculates this as the rate of persons of all ages who participate in the
AFDC program, 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 AFDC families for Clinton County is 13.9 as reflected in the
following table.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC/TANF), 2002 (FSSA)
Clinton Co.
Indiana
34,309
6.1m
AFDC/TANF Families ave/mo (FSSA)*
172
47,459
AFDC/TANF Recipients ave/mo.*
477
131,993
13.90
21.6
Total Population
Rate of TANF per 1000 persons
Table 6.19: Aid to Families with Dependent Children as Rate
per 1,000 Total Population (*data from FSSA, Division of
Family and Children)
PCensus Table 4:
More Clinton 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.
PCensus Table 4, cont.
Clinton County
Percent of Pop over 25 w/ Less Than HS Diploma
Clinton County
Census 2K SF3
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Educational Attainment
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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, 1,889 Clinton County residents over the age of 25 had not
completed 9th grade and another 4,107 had attended some high school classes but had not
earned a high school diploma. The following table shows the rate for Clinton County
compared with the state and the nation.
Educational Attainment of Persons 25 and Older, 2002
Highest Level
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Less than 9th Grade
9%
6%
8%
9th-12th, No Diploma
19%
15%
14%
Total Percent with less than HS Diploma
28%
21%
22%
Table 6.20: Adults Who Have Not Finished High School (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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.
Single Parent Families, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Married Couple Family
73%
68%
68%
Non-Family Headed Householders (No Parent
Present), 533
1%
1%
1%
Female-Headed Family Households
17%
23%
24%
Male-Headed Family Households
9%
7%
7%
Percent of All Households w/ Children Where 1
Spouse is Absent
26%
30%
31%
Families with One Spouse Absent
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.
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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.
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
6.22 Poverty: Total Poverty and Poverty by Age Group
As of 2000, there were a total of 2,824 persons living in poverty in Clinton
County. By age group there were 424 persons under 6; 572 persons aged 6-17; 1,445
persons 18-64; and 383 persons 65 and older. The following table shows total poverty and
the aforementioned age statistics as percent of the total population of Clinton 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
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
9%
9%
12%
Under 6
1%
1%
1%
6 to 17
2%
2%
3%
18 to 64
4%
5%
7%
65 and over
2%
1%
1%
Total Persons
Table 6.22: Poverty and Child Poverty as Percent of Total
Population (Census 2K, SF3+ Indiana)
Clinton County
Census 2K SF3
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Percent of Total Population in Poverty
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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
Clinton 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 04, 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 Clinton County
to Indiana and the nation.
Poverty Statistics - Percent of Group Below Poverty, 2000
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
9%
9%
12%
0-4
13%
11%
10%
5
2%
2%
2%
6 to 11
10%
11%
12%
12 to 17
10%
9%
10%
Total Persons
Table 6.23: Poverty and Child Poverty as Percent of All Persons in
Poverty (Census 2K, SF3+ Indiana)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
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
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Black
23%
23%
25%
Asian
5%
16%
13%
Hispanic/Latino
26%
18%
23%
White
8%
8%
9%
Table 6.24: Poverty by Race, 2000 (U.S. Census 2K, SF3 Indiana)
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)
These statistics come from U.S. Census 2000, SF3 Indiana.
PCensus Table 5, cont.
Clinton County
Census 2K SF3
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Children 12-17 in Poverty
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
6.25 Poverty: Single Parent Families with Children in Poverty
According to the 2000 Census, SF3, there were 270 single parent families with
dependent children under 18 living in poverty in Clinton County. Of these 182 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
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Married Couple Family
2%
1%
2%
Lone Male Householder, No Spouse
1%
0%
0%
Lone Female Householder, No Spouse
2%
3%
4%
Total Single Parent Families w/ Children
3%
3%
4%
Table 6.25: Poverty and Child Poverty as Percent of All Persons in
Poverty (Census 2K, SF3 Indiana)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic
And Social Deprivation
6.26 Lack of Health Insurance
We consider lack of health insurance to be a form of extreme deprivation.
Based on the statistics from MRI, an estimated 24.85% of Clinton County residents have
no health insurance, and 68.74% have no dental insurance. 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 Clinton County,
compared with Indiana and the nation.
Health Insurance Status for Population 18 and Older, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Any medical insurance
75.15%
73.55%
72.20%
From a union
2.91%
2.92%
3.24%
From a place of work
48.10%
48.17%
47.05%
4.25%
3.58%
3.20%
Medicare supplements
13.74%
11.75%
10.73%
Dental insurance
31.26%
33.16%
33.95%
Medicaid
Table 6.26: Insurance Coverage, 2002 (MRI, Consumer Behavior Insurance 2002, 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Family Risk Factor: Management Problems
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). These can be analyzed by PREV-STAT™ at the level of the neighborhood and
are presented here at the level of the county, state and nation.
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.
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
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 Clinton County, compared to the state
and the nation.
Types of Households with Children, 2002
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Married Couple Family
73%
68%
68%
Lone Parent Male
9%
7%
7%
Lone Parent Female
17%
23%
24%
Non-Family Male-Headed HH
1%
1%
1%
Non-Family Female Headed HH
0%
0%
0%
People living in Group Quarters* (873)
3%
3%
Table 6.27: Types of Households with Children, 2002 (AGS, 2002 estimates,
2003) * This figure comes from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Indiana, SF3
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Family Risk Factor: Family Conflict
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.
Divorce Rate, 2002
AGS, 2002 estimates, 2003
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
10%
11%
10%
Table 6.28: Divorce Rates (AGS, 2002 est., 2003)
6. Clinton County Archival Indicators of Risk
Family Risk Factor: Family Attitudes and Involvement
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 Clinton 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.
Parents in the Labor Force (Children under 18), 2000
Living with 2 parents
Clinton Co.
Indiana
U.S.
77%
74%
72%
Both parents in labor force
48%
48%
43%
Father only in labor force
23%
22%
22%
Mother only in labor force
3%
2%
3%
Living with 1 parent
23%
26%
28%
Living with father
7%
6%
6%
In Labor Force
6%
5%
5%
Living with mother
17%
20%
22%
In Labor Force
14%
16%
16%
Table 6.29: Parents in the Work Force, 2000 (U.S. Census 2000, SF3 Indiana)
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
Compared with other Indiana counties, Clinton County is in the top 10%
counties in Indiana in the following areas:
Table 41: Top 10 Status by Rank (STATS Indiana web site)
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
Compared with other Indiana counties, Clinton County is in the bottom 10% of
Indiana counties in the following areas:
Table 42: Top 10 Status by Rank (STATS Indiana web site)
8. Complementary Resources*
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:
The IPRC PREV-STAT™ Local/County Data Page
STATS Indiana
Statistics from the Indiana Youth Institute
The Indiana Department of Education
The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute
The FBI Uniform Crime Report
The U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder
Claritas™ “You Are Where You Live
SAVI
*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. Complementary Resources
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. Complementary Resources
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. Complementary Resources*
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. Complementary Resources
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 20012003. 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. Complementary Resources
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. Complementary Resources
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. Complementary Resources
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. Complementary Resources
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. Complementary Resources
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 decisionmaking. 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.
Appendices
A. Census Definitions
B. Claritas™ Lifestyle PRIZM Clusters
C. County Distribution of Tobacco Farms
D. State by County Maps
E. Archival Indicators
F. DSA Contact Information
G. State Offices
A. Census Definitions
The 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.
A. Census Definitions
The 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 noninstitutionalized 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.
A. Census Definitions
Income 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 Definitions
Individuals 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
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
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
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
S1.
U1.
C1.
T1.
S2.
S3.
U2.
C2.
T2.
R1.
U3.
C3.
T3.
R2.
R3.
Appendix B, cont.
Elite Suburbs
Urban Uptown
2nd City Society
Landed Gentry
The Affluentials
Inner Suburbs
Urban Midscale
2nd City Centers
Exurban Blues
Country Families
Urban Cores
2nd City Blues
Working Towns
Heartlanders
Rustic Living
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
S1. Elite Suburbs
This 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 Uptown
This 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 Society
This 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.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
T1. Landed Gentry
This 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 Affluentials
The 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 aboveaverage 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 Suburbs
This 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.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
U2. Urban Midscale
This 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 Centers
Of 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 Blues
The 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 socalled 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.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
R1. Country Families
More 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 Cores
This 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 highrise apartments). They are characterized by high numbers of single people, single-parents with
very young children, and high rates of unemployment.
C3. 2nd City Blues
This 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.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
T3. Working Towns
This 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.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2001)
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.
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
• Percent of Total Population in Poverty
• 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
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
U.S. Census 2000, SF3, Indiana
Appendix D, cont.
Single Parent Families
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2002 estimates (2003)
Appendix D, cont.
Educational Attainment:
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
U.S. Census 2000, SF3, Indiana
Appendix D, cont.
Less Than HS Diploma
Medical Insurance Coverage: None
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Appendix D, cont.
MediaMark Research, Inc. Consumer Behavior Insurance, 2002 (2003)
Average Household Income
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2002 estimates (2003)
Appendix D, cont.
E. Archival Indicators
www.westerncapt.
Archival Indicators
Appendix E, cont.
Source: http://www.westerncapt
Archival Indicators
Source: http://www.westerncapt
Appendix E, cont.
Archival Indicators
Source: http://www.westerncapt
Appendix 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.edu
Appendix F, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
Appendix F, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
Appendix F, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
Appendix F, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
Appendix F, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
Appendix F, cont.
G. STATE OFFICES
State Health Offices
Drug and Alcohol Agency
Bureau for Chemical Addictions
Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Family and Social Services Administration
P.O. Box 7083
Indianapolis, IN 46207–7083
(317) 233–4454
Fax: (317) 233–4693
Web site: http://www.in.gov/fssa/serviceaddict/
RADAR Network Agency
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Indiana University, Room 110
Creative Arts Building
840 State Rd. 46 Bypass
Bloomington, IN 47408–2606
(812) 855–1237
Fax: (812) 855–4940
1–800–346–3077
Web site: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
State Education Office
State Coordinator for Drug-Free Schools
Department of Education
Office of Student Services
State House, Room 229
Indianapolis, IN 46204–2798
(317) 232–0808
Fax: (317) 232–6326
Web site: http://www.doe.state.in.us
Judicial Agency
Division of State Court Administration
115 West Washington, Suite 1080
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232–2542
Fax: (317) 233–6586
Web site: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin
Law Enforcement Planning
& State Administrative Agency
Indiana Criminal Justice Institute
One North Capitol Avenue, Suite 1000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232–1233
Fax: (317) 233–5150
Web site: http://www.in.gov/cji/home.htm
HIV-Prevention Program
Department of Health
HIV/AIDS Program
2 North Meridian St
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 233–1325
Web site: http://www.state.in.us/isdh/programs/hivstd/index.htm
Source: ONDCP web site, STATE OFFICES page:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/in/stoffices.html#3
STATE OFFICES
State Offices
Policy Offices
Governor's Office
Office of the Governor
206 State House
Indianapolis, IN 46204–2797
(317) 232–4567
Fax: (317) 232–3443
Web site: http://www.in.gov/gov/
State Drug Program Coordinator
Governor's Commission for a Drug-Free Indiana
ISTA Building
150 West Market St., Suite 320
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232–4219
Web site: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/indiana/gcdfi.html
State Legislative Contact
Legislative Services Agency
Indiana House of Representatives/ State Senate
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204–2786
House of Representatives (317) 232–9600
Indiana State Senate (317) 232–9400
Web site: http://www.in.gov/legislative
State Criminal Justice Offices
Attorney General's Office
Office of the Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232–6201
Fax: (317) 232–7979
Web site: http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral
Corrections Agency
Indiana Department of Correction
IGCS, Rm E334
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232–5715
Fax: (317) 232–6798
Web site: http://www.in.gov/indcorrection/
Source: ONDCP web site, STATE OFFICES page:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/in/stoffices.html#3
Appendix G, cont.
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: 812.855.4940
E-Mail: drugprc@indiana.edu
WWW: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/