THE INDIANA PREVENTION
RESOURCE CENTER
GIS in Prevention
County Profiles Series, No. 2
Grant 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 2 (2005)
1
GIS in Prevention
County Profile Series, No. 2
Grant County, Indiana
Barbara Seitz de Martinez, PhD, MLS, CPP
Project Staff:
Solomon Briggs, BA, GIS Technician
Robin Canfield, BA
Parul Kaushik, MPH
Jennifer Hoffman
Bilesha Perera, MSc, PhD
Megan Randall, BA
Susan Samuel, MSc, MS
Nicole Smith
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. ©2005 The Trustees of
Indiana University. Permission is extended to reproduce this County Profile for non-profit educational purposes. All other rights reserved.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant County
The maps and tables in this publication were prepared using PCensus
7.06 for MapInfo and MapInfo Professional 7.0.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Acknowledgements
This edition of the PREV-STAT™ County Profiles is dedicated to the memory of Mr. William J. Bailey,
MPH, CPP, past Executive Director of the Indiana Prevention Resource Center, whose vision for the
application of GIS to prevention led him to launch PREV-STAT™ in the Spring of 2002.
Primary thanks are due to the project staff – Bilesha, Jennifer, Megan, Nicole, Parul, Robin and Solomon –
whose hours of work brought this effort to completion. During the course of our year’s work on this
project, Bilesha Perera completed his PhD and Parul Kaushik completed her MPH in Applied Health
Science. Jennifer Hoffman and Nicole Smith progressed to near completion of their MPH degrees.
Megan Randall completed her BA in Journalism; Robin Canfield her BA in Computer Science; and
Solomon Briggs, a recent I.U. graduate, completed his A+ Certifications in computer hardware and
software.
This second edition of the full County Profiles includes information gathered from multiple agencies and
sources, including 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, the Family and Social Services Administration, and the Indiana Business Resource Center. Thanks
go out to all the agencies that make their rich data available to the public. Special thanks to Major Steve
Anderson, State Director of the Indiana Tobacco Retailer Inspection Program (TRIP) and to Dave Heath,
Chairman of the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission. Special thanks to Desiree Goetze, Coordinator of TRIP
at the Indiana Prevention Resource Center, for her support and advice. Special thanks also to Sergeant
Dave Phelps of the Indiana State Police Forensics Laboratory for sharing data on methamphetamine
laboratory seizures.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Acknowledgements, cont.
Thanks, too, to Steve Turner, who has provided online search engine access to a subset of the data from the
full County Profiles, offering access to multiple years and multiple variables for each of several data topics.
The new search engine, launched in April, will be a major focus for development during the up-coming
year.
Serving as Deputy Director of the IPRC while continuing to direct the PREV-STAT™ Service certainly
contributed to making this a very memorable year of challenges and opportunities. It has been a year of
much personal and professional growth. For this opportunity and for all their assistance and support
throughout the year, I thank Dr. Mohammad Torabi, Chair of the Department of Applied Health Science
and Interim Executive Director of the IPRC, Joyce F. Arthur, all my co-workers at the IPRC, and Sally
Fleck, Office of Mental Health and Addiction, Family and Social Services Administration. Finally, my
thanks to my husband, for his love and encouragement.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
The Bill Bailey I Remember
Bill knew poverty. In conversations at work he recounted memories from his childhood that troubled him still, and
that moved him to select the field of public health. He worried about the children who wore their house key on a
string and had no one to care for them after school. Bill cared about the elderly. He worried about the old folks who
lacked access to medical care. He recounted memories of elderly women in his home town, who ate dog food and
suffered malnutrition because they could not afford both food and medicines.
Bill loved children. His life was about improving their chances for health and happiness. The assets approach to
prevention appealed tremendously to him, because it celebrated the beauty of childhood and what is right and
wholesome: parents bonding with their children; children bonding with their school and other mentoring adults;
and the community of neighbors, the community of faith embracing the children and providing them with healthful
activities and strong values, attitudes and beliefs.
Bill believed in Everyman. He believed in the power of the people to solve their own problems. At the same time, he
believed in the responsibility of government to provide a safety net for the disadvantaged, young and old.
Bill was about finding solutions. He was a master at identifying simple solutions to complex problems. Bill studied
a situation in all its complexity and reduced it to its simplest basic components, positive and negative. He drew
attention to those key elements. Then he found ways to attack the negatives at their point of greatest vulnerability,
and to celebrate the positives to multiply their impact. He strived for efficiency and economy of means, calling this
“Precision Targeting in Prevention.” He targeted youth 10-14 because those are the “critical years.” He targeted
the gateway drugs, and he targeted the after school hours from 3-6 p.m. because they are the “critical hours.” He
launched a campaign for science-based prevention strategies and programs before “science-based” became a
national mandate.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
The Bill Bailey I Remember
He envisioned a State where children would have healthy alternative activities in the after school hours. He invested
hundreds of hours in grant-seeking and won the largest prevention grant in the history of the state, establishing
after school programs in cities across the state. By doing so he demonstrated the value of this innovative approach
and positioned Indiana as a leader in the nation.
Bill was a visionary. He foresaw the monumental educational force of the internet and concentrated his energies and
resources in the early and mid 1990s into building the first major drug information portal of any state prevention
resource center. Only the federal National Clearinghouse of Drug Information was bigger. Bill was work
personified. The hours he poured into the building, maintenance and expansion of the IPRC web site consumed his
evenings and weekends. His scholarly articles and his students continue to influence the future of prevention and
public health.
Bill was a visionary and an innovator. He foresaw the power of desktop publishing to reach the most people with the
greatest efficiency and for the least cost. He foresaw the power of mapping to inform prevention planning and
decision-making. He called it “creating a statistical picture of your community” and he squeezed the power of that
software at a time when it was in its infancy and its potential had not yet evolved. He labored for hundreds of hours
to produce maps, which today would take minutes. But by doing so he demonstrated the value of this innovation and
justified major investment in it, positioning Indiana again as the leader in the nation in this approach to prevention.
Bill loved to talk and share stories, and had a fantastic sense of humor. Those who worked with him will always
remember his vigor and enthusiasm for story-telling. The stories were about real people, real issues, and
demonstrated how much he cared and how much he wanted to make a difference. Bill did make a difference at
many levels and in many lives: at the personal level for those who knew him, and in the history of prevention for
decades to come for those touched by the programs he helped to put in place. He will be sorely missed.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Background
This is the second edition of The PREV-STAT™ GIS in Prevention County Profiles Series, which includes one
volume for each of Indiana’s 92 counties. This edition will join last year’s on the IPRC web site.
Microsoft PowerPoint was selected as the medium for presentation, because PowerPoint (PP) facilitates
development of the publication and because PP allows users access to data and maps that is not possible with other
formats (e.g., Adobe pdf files). Using proper citation, the user can copy maps and tables from the County Profile
PP slides for use in public presentations, documents, and spreadsheets for their prevention needs. For help with
such manipulations of the County Profile components, please call the IPRC (800/346-3077 in Indiana).
Following the appearance of last year’s first edition of the full profiles, the PREV-STAT™ GIS in Prevention
County Profiles Fact Sheet Series was published, presenting highlights from the full profiles in the form of 92 fact
sheets, one per county. These are also available on the IPRC web site.
In addition to providing data, this publication serves a training function, both introducing people to the IPRC’s
PREV-STAT™ Service and promoting the goals of the Imagine Indiana Together Framework and the Strategic
Prevention Framework, promoting infrastructure development and understanding of how data can be applied to
prevention. The County Profiles are at once an application and a training tool. They increase 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 being available via the internet, individual Profiles can also be
made available on CD ROM, upon request.
This year a major focus will be enhancement of the search engine component of the PREV-STAT™ Service and
web site.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table of Contents Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids
PREV-STAT™ Overview
Geographic and Historical Notes
Protective Factors
Basic Demographics
Archival Indicators of Risk
Complementary Resources
Appendices
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
9
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids
2. PREV-STAT™ Overview
3. Geographic and Historical Notes
4. Protective Factors
Schools
Youth Serving Agencies
Libraries
Places of Worship
Map 1: Married Couple Families with Children
Map 2: Afternoons R.O.C.K. in Indiana Programs
5. Basic Demographics
5.1 Population
Map 3: Total Population (Equal Count)
Map 4: Total Population (Natural Break)
Map 5: Total Population (Custom Ranges)
Map 6: Percent of Population (Ages 0-4)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
10
Table of Contents
5. Basic Demographics, continued
5.2 Race/Ethnicity
Map 7: Percent of Population, 2 or More Races
Map 8: Percent of Population, Hispanic Origin
Map 9: Percent of Population, African American
PCensus Table 1: Demographics by Block Group and Totals
Median Family Income
Median Household Income
Percent of Housing Units Owner-Occupied
Percent of Housing Units Renter-Occupied
Percent of Housing Units Vacant
Median Age
5.3 Marital Status
Map 10: Percent of Population Currently Divorced
5.4 Labor Force
Map 11: Renter-Occupied Housing Units
5.5 Industry
5.6 Occupations
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
11
Table of Contents
5. Basic Demographics, continued
5.7 Educational Attainment
Map 12: Educational Attainment Less Than 9th Grade
5.8 Households
Map 13: Median Household Income
Map 14: Average Household Income
5.9 Families
5.10 Lifestyles
6. Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs
6.1 Alcohol Sales Outlets per Capita
6.2 Tobacco Sales Outlets per Capita
Map 15: Population of Youths Vulnerable to Tobacco Sales to Minors
Map 16: Failed TRIP Inspections
6.3 Availability of Drugs to Youth: Failed TRIP Inspections
6.4 Proximity of Failed TRIP Inspections to Schools
Map 17: Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets That Failed TRIP Inspections
Map 18: 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
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
12
Table of Contents, cont.
6. Archival Indicators of Risk, continued
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 (Census 2K, SF3)
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 27: Population under 25 with Less Than a HS Diploma (County by Block Group)
6.20 Adults without a High School Diploma
Map 28: Low Educational Attainment, Less Than a High School Diploma (IN by County)
6.21 Single Parent Family Households
Map 29: Single Moms with Children under 18
6.22 Poverty: Total Poverty and Poverty by Age Group
6.23 Families with Own Children in Poverty
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
13
Table of Contents, cont.
6. Archival Indicators of Risk, continued
Map 30: Single Moms with Children in Poverty (County by Block Group)
6.24 Poverty by Race
PCensus Table 5: Child Poverty Statistics by Block Group and Totals (Census 2K, SF3)
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 31: Children 12-17 in Poverty (County by Block Group)
6.25 Poverty: Single Parent Families with Children in Poverty
6.26 Lack of Health Insurance
Map 32: No Health Insurance
Family Risk Factor Management Problems:
6.27 Children in Homes with No Parent Present
Family Risk Factor: Family Conflict
6.28 Divorce Rate
Map 33: Divorce
Family Risk Factor: Family Attitudes and Involvement
6.29 Households Where All Parents Work
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
14
Table of Contents, cont.
7. Complementary Resources
7.1 IPRC's PREV-STAT™ County/Local Data Page
7.2 STATS Indiana
7.3 Statistics from the Indiana Youth Institute
7.4 The Indiana Department of Education
7.5 The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute
7.6 FBI Uniform Crime Report
7.7 U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder
7.8 Claritas™ "You Are Where You Live“
7.9 SAVI
7.10 Social Indicator System (SIS)
7.11 Indiana State Department of Health
8. Appendices
A. Census Definitions
B. Claritas™ Lifestyle PRIZM Clusters
C. County Distribution of Tobacco Farms
D. Archival Indicators
E. DSA Contact Information
F. State Offices
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
15
Maps
(Indiana by county unless otherwise indicated)
Map 1: Married Couple Families with Children
Map 2: Afternoons R.O.C.K. in Indiana Programs
Map 3: Total Population (Equal Count)
Map 4: Total Population (Natural Break)
Map 5: Total Population (Custom Ranges)
Map 6: Percent of Population (Ages 0-4)
Map 7: Percent of Population, 2 or More Races
Map 8: Percent of Population, Hispanic Origin
Map 9: Percent of Population, African American
Map 10: Percent of Population Currently Divorced
Map 11: Renter-Occupied Housing Units
Map 12: Educational Attainment Less Than 9th Grade
Map 13: Median Household Income
Map 14: Average Household Income
Map 15: Population of Youths Vulnerable to Tobacco Sales to Minors
Map 16: Failed TRIP Inspections
Map 17: Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets That Failed TRIP
Inspections (County)
Map 18: Close-up of Schools in Proximity to Failed TRIP Inspections
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
16
Maps
Map 19:
Map 20:
Map 21:
Map 22:
Map 23:
Map 24:
Map 25:
Map 26:
Map 27:
Map 28:
Map 29:
Map 30:
Map 31:
Map 32:
Map 33:
Adult Cigarette Smoking, County by Block Groups (Percent)
Adult Cigar Smoking, County by Block Groups (Percent)
Adult Cigarette Smokers, Indiana by County (Percent)
Highest Gambling Rates (Percent)
Lowest Gambling Rates (Percent)
Gambling Rates
Adult Lottery Gambling (Percent)
Total Crime Index
Population under 25 with Less Than a HS Diploma , County by Block Group
Low Educational Attainment Less Than a High School Diploma (IN by County)
Single Moms with Children under 18
Single Moms with Children under 18 in Poverty
Children 12-17 in Poverty, County by Block Group
No Health Insurance
Divorce
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
17
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids
When a child is born, parents, grandparents and other relatives and friends, in whose home the child will
spend time, prepare or “childproof” to create a safe and wholesome environment. When the child reaches
school age, most parents entrust their child to the school, confident that teachers and school personnel will
provide a safe and wholesome environment where the child will continue to thrive. Proactive parents
become involved in the school to help guarantee this happens. From birth and throughout life, the child,
then adolescent, then young adult experiences more and varied contexts and gains skills needed to appraise
and respond appropriately to people, circumstances and events. Through role modeling and many other
methods, parents and others help the child and adolescent to master these skills. At the same time, parents
and others attempt to protect the child and adolescent from negative influences and from stressors (people,
circumstances and events) inappropriate to their age and maturity. This process continues into young
adulthood and to an extent throughout life. But inevitably, parents and other caregivers gradually release
control over their offspring’s interactions; and gradually the child assumes responsibility for her or his own
life.
The child passes increasingly into the hands of society, that is, the communities (school, town, neighborhood,
workplace, social group, etc.) in which he or she lives. It is therefore important to be concerned with the
larger environment beyond the home for its many influences upon child development. Communities can be
defined variously, including geographically and socially. How we define community will depend on the
question being asked or objective being sought. Sometimes the geographic and social communities overlap,
even coincide; but many times they do not. Geographically the communities in which people live include the
global, national and state levels down to the smaller county, block group, neighborhood and household level.
Socially people belong to groups that cross all geographic boundaries and that can be described from broad
political, socioeconomic, religious, linguistic, ethnic and lifestyle categories, down to the individual school,
program, club, religious congregation, neighborhood and nuclear family.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
18
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
In fact, society has its hands on the child from the beginning, since an individual’s eyes, ears, and mind are
constantly being filled with images and sounds produced or supplied by our unique environments. In nearly
every corner of the earth and for nearly every child, this includes the electronic media that enters through
our televisions, computers, and music players.
Although the notion of child-proofing the world is more than overwhelming, there is much that a parent,
neighborhood and community can do to positively influence child development and thus adult behaviors.
Ideally, the world should be a safe place for everyone, where everyone could thrive. Those concerned about
children need to be concerned with their total environment. Though it is very difficult for a single person or a
few individuals to effect large scale change, individual actions and organized efforts by community coalitions
and advocacy groups can influence policies, laws and community norms, thus reaching the broader
environment and society.
In addition to the ways parents can influence their children’s risk for smoking in the home (e.g., an
authoritative child-raising style, communicating disapproval of smoking, and parental non-smoking), a
significant factor in adolescent smoking is friends’ smoking behavior. Mewse, et al (2004:64-65) found that the
“association between parental smoking and adolescent smoking is mediated by friends’ smoking behavior.”
Adolescents’ friends are a powerful influence, as are their parents. The question then becomes: “How can
parents influence the smoking behavior of their children’s friends?”
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
19
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
An answer is “By influencing community norms.” Actually, there are numerous ways to influence the
smoking behavior of the child’s or adolescent’s friends. One way is to try to influence the child’s choice of
friends. But this is not enough, because as the child ages, the parent’s ability to control or influence becomes
more limited.
Another method for influencing youth tobacco behaviors is reducing the availability of tobacco to youth.
Since millions of youth in the U.S. purchase cigarettes personally (NHSDA 2002:2), enforcement of laws
prohibiting the sale of tobacco to youth is imperative. But this is not enough, because, rather than make a
direct purchase, over 60% of youth will ask a friend or relative to buy cigarettes for them. (NHSDA 2002:1-2)
In order to discourage this enabling behavior, strategies such as penalties, education and cessation should be
put in place to target those who might purchase for youth, i.e., parents, siblings and others of legal age.
(CSAP 2000:4)
The task of confronting the availability of drugs in the community involves identifying the locations where
drugs are sold and/or produced, as well as reducing the demand. Research finds that although users of drugs
are relatively evenly distributed across most communities, the sources of drugs are not. (Saxe 2001:19871994)
Advocacy for the establishment and enforcement of policies and laws is another method. Goals of this effort
would include: increasing state and local taxes on cigarettes; restricting indoor smoking; regulating and
enforcing youth access laws; and state laws regulating purchase, possession and use.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
20
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
Supporting the appropriate use of the tobacco settlement moneys and state excise taxes for tobacco control
efforts is another important strategy. Research shows that if the states and District of Columbia had
followed even the minimum recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for
the amount of money to be spent on tobacco control, the prevalence of youth smoking would have fallen
from between 3.3 to 13.5% more than it has. (Tauras 2005:341).
Other strategies involve education, including normative education. According to the CDC, education
strategies, when carried out together with community and media activities, have the potential to “postpone or
prevent smoking onset in 20 to 40 percent of adolescents.” (CDC 2000:2) The character, timing and duration
of school-based programs are all significant. Normative education is important, because it creates awareness
of true community norms, countering misperceptions that “everyone is doing it.” Nationally, 75% of 12th
graders, 84% of 10th graders, and 91% of 8th graders are not current (past 30-days) smokers. (Monitoring
the Future 2004:53).
In order to reduce tobacco use, it is important to understand all the factors that contribute to smoking. For
example, poverty and stress have been associated with negative health outcomes, including tobacco use.
Bennet, et al (2005), found a positive connection between perceived experiences of racial/ethnic harassment
and smoking. Likelihood of smoking was two times higher for African American college students during the
30 days following a perceived incident of racial/ethnic harassment, suggesting tobacco use to cope with
psychosocial stress. (Bennet 2005:239)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
21
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
Appropriate targeting of tobacco prevention efforts requires addressing health disparities. For example,
adolescents residing in rural areas are 19% more likely to smoke than their suburban peers. (Eberhardt
and Pamuk 2004:1684) The Chartbook confirms “that the reduction and elimination of health disparities
among rural populations will require a population approach that is sensitive to local variations in physical
and cultural realities.” (Hartley 2004:1677) In addition, it is necessary to consider the subgroups in the
community, as well as multiple variables. A study by Subramanian, et al, found that a negative health
outcome association with poverty was tied not only to neighborhood of residence, but also to race/ethnicity.
In the neighborhoods studied, the health of Blacks was more severely affected by poverty than was the
health of Whites, suggesting that “the consequences of neighborhood deprivation may be particularly
exacerbated for Blacks, compared with Whites.” (Subramanian 2005:262-263)
Clearly, the answer to the challenge of reducing youth tobacco use requires a multi-faceted approach,
involving multiple strategies – policies, practices and programs – components of a comprehensive plan. This
approach offers far-reaching impact and benefits over time and space. Prevention happens in communities,
and every community is distinct. In order to successfully reduce youth smoking, it is essential to understand
the local environment. (NIH 1998:iii) To be most effective, prevention programs and strategies need to be
appropriate to the characteristics of the community where they are implemented.
The selection of strategies and programs for a particular community should be based on a thorough
assessment, including data describing risk and protective levels, which highlight the problems and resources
of the community. Based on this data, the greatest risks and weakest protective factors can be targeted, using
the community’s resources and building on the strongest protective factors that characterize that community.
(Hawkins, et al, 2004:213) In addition, within the local community, it is also necessary to distinguish between
subgroups, because generalized data may be misleading with regard to the reality of subgroups within the
community. The PREV-STAT Service is one way to seek a revealing picture of the various groups making up
a community.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
22
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
Community mobilization and awareness policies should target social sources as well as tobacco retailers.
Education about underage use and health consequences of smoking can influence social norms, namely, the
perceived acceptability of youth smoking and of supplying them with cigarettes. Seeing parents and other
adults attempting to quit smoking may also influence youth to not start smoking, as well as reduce the
availability of cigarettes from those who have quit smoking. (CSAP 2000:5)
The potential negative impact of friends’ smoking, the fact that many retailers sell to youth and the fact that
youth obtain cigarettes through multiple means, should motivate parents and other concerned citizens to
become involved in efforts to influence smoking norms in their community. Influencing norms involves more
than monitoring your child’s activities and trying to influence her or his choice of friends. It also involves
reducing the sources of drugs by enforcing laws prohibiting sales of tobacco products to minors. It involves
taking the parental authority and parental disapproval of smoking to a community level. It includes
community-wide actions to communicate repeatedly the message that “Our community disapproves of youth
smoking and our community will not tolerate the sale of tobacco products to youth.”
One of the most effective ways to address tobacco availability and its use by minors is through comprehensive
tobacco control programs, which include adequate training for employees, an adequate number and
distribution of inspections in the community, an adequate structure of penalties and fines, plus public
awareness about the program (Goetze 2004:2) Indiana is lucky to have such a program, namely, the Tobacco
Retail Inspection Program (TRIP) of the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission (ATC) in conjunction with the
Indiana Prevention Resource Center (IPRC). This program, described in more detail elsewhere in this
publication, has contributed to reductions in availability of tobacco to youth and to an overall reduction in
youth smoking in Indiana. (The same principle holds true for influencing underage alcohol use through
compliance checks of alcohol retail outlets.)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
23
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
Research shows that if an individual does not begin smoking before the age of 18, she or he is unlikely to
become a regular user of tobacco. Using data from TRIP, the IPRC’s PREV-STAT™ Service has calculated
the number of tobacco outlets per 1,000 youth ages 10-17 for each county and for the state (7.2 per
thousand). This ratio provides some insight into the density of tobacco’s presence among the population of
youth most vulnerable to initiating use and becoming regular users of tobacco. One way to illustrate how
this number is useful for communicating relative risk and also the need for citizen support is to describe the
rate of outlets per thousand youth in concrete images and familiar terms.
Imagine a hypothetical community where the rate of outlets is 8 per thousand youth ages 10-17. There are
2,000 students in the town’s high school. Eight outlets per 1,000 youth equates to 16 outlets per 2,000 youth.
If the 16 tobacco outlets were located within the walls of the school or on its campus, parents and school
personnel would be acutely aware of the outlets’ proximity to the students. And if it were discovered that
even one of those outlets was selling cigarettes to minors, the reaction surely would be swift and clear.
Undoubtedly, violators would be penalized and vigilance maintained. Since we know that high school
students move freely about a city, why would parents, educators and others not be equally concerned about
outlets located throughout the entire community? Residents should support frequent and emphatic
communications to all tobacco retailers, reminding them that the sale of tobacco to youth is not tolerated in
their community. And they should support the use of penalties for non-compliance to give weight to this
mandate.
The IPRC PREV-STAT™ service has also used TRIP data to create a calculation for the intensity of inspection
(ratio of number of inspections to number of retail tobacco outlets). This number gives limited insight into the
amount of energy being expended in each county. This number, combined with data on the non-compliance
rate and trends over time, gives a fuller picture of progress with regard to community norms and efforts
currently being undertaken to change them.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
24
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
Ideally, all sectors of the community would participate in prevention efforts, including law enforcement,
medical, education, business, religious, government, neighborhood and other professionals, practitioners and
volunteers. The hope is that the benefits of a comprehensive, multi-strategy combination of evidence-based
programs, policies and practices will generally influence community norms towards a non-smoking lifestyle.
The hope is that the benefits will ripple across the community, reducing all forms of drug abuse and
improving quality of health and quality of life for all its residents now and for future generations.
Bibliography
Department of Health and Human Services (2000). U.S. Public Health Service. Reducing Tobacco Use: A
Report of the Surgeon General -- Executive Summary. Atlanta: US DHHS, CDC, National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
Eberhardt, M.S. and E. R. Pamul (2004). “The importance of place of residence: Examining health in rural
and nonrural areas,” American Journal of Public Health 94/10, 1682-1686.
Goetze, Desiree (2004). “Effectiveness of compliance programs,” Prevention Newsline 4/4, 1-7.
Hartley, David (2004). “Rural health disparities, population health, and rural culture,” American Journal of
Public Health 94/10, 1675-1678.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
25
1. Introduction: Raising Smoke-Free Kids, cont.
Hawkins, J. David, M. Lee Van Horn, and Michael W. Arthur. (2004) “Community variation in risk and
protective factors and substance use outcomes.” Prevention Science 5/4, 213-220
Johnston, Lloyd D., Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and John E. Schulenberg (2005). Monitoring
the future: National results on adolescent drug use. Bethesda: NIH.
SAMHSA (2002). “How youths get cigarettes,” The NHSDA Report (November 22).
SAMHSA. CSAP (2000). Social Sources of Cigarettes for Youth: The Problem and Potential Solutions.
Rockville, CSAP.
Mewse, Avril, J.J., Richard Eiser, Alan M. Slater, and Stephen E.G. Lea (2004), “The smoking behaviors of
adolescents and their friends: Do parents matter?” Parenting Science 4/1, 51-72.
Saxe, Leonard, et al (2001), “The visibility of illicit drugs: Implications for community-based drug control
strategies,” American Journal of Public Health 91/12, 1987-1994.
Subramanian, Jarvis, T. Chen, David H Rehkopf, Pamela D. Waterman, and Nancy Krieger (2005). “Racial
disparities in context: A multilevel analysis of neighborhood variations in poverty and excess mortality
among black populations in Massachusetts,” American Journal of Public Health 95/2, 260-265.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
26
2. PREV-STAT™: Overview
Increasingly, the value of data to decision-making is shaping how people work. Collection and
analyses of relevant data facilitates improved quality in all phases of prevention. Better needs assessment
enables better planning, better capacity building, better processes, programs, outcomes, evaluations, and
grant-writing.
Advances in technology have made the use of data extremely cost effective. In 2002 the Indiana
Prevention Resource Center launched a new, free service called PREV-STAT™ for people working in
prevention in Indiana. This system uses geographic information system software to analyze demographics
and alcohol, tobacco and other drug risk and protective factors down to the neighborhood level. 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!
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
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
2. PREV-STAT™: Overview, cont.
study specific groups of people. You can ask either“Who lives here?” or “Where do they live?” Ask
“Who lives here?” to learn about people in a specific area (e.g., your county, neighborhood or school district).
Ask “Where do they live?” to find out about a target audience you seek to serve, (e.g., single female-headed
families with incomes below $30,000). GIS in prevention helps make statistics more meaningful and persuasive.
Purchased databases (e.g., from the U.S. Census Bureau, Applied Geographic Solutions-AGS, Claritas,
Health Data Science) provide rich data at the community and neighborhood levels. In addition, asset
information is continuously being collected to reflect local resources in the form of prevention programs and
other community and youth serving agencies, organization and institutions (e.g., libraries, YMCAs, and
religious institutions). Other environmental risk and protective factors represented in PREV-STAT™ include
schools, alcohol outlets and locations of tobacco retailers that were found to have sold to minors, and gambling
casinos.)
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).
In addition, 32 maps accompany and illustrate demographics, risk and protective factors.
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, grantseeking, 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;
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
2. PREV-STAT™: Overview, cont.
education; behaviors with regard to alcohol, tobacco, other drugs, and gambling; their assets and their
hardships; their resources and their needs. Even so, the information contained in these volumes is incomplete
without the insider knowledge that the residents of the counties bring to it. It is hoped that users of this volume
will seek to complement this county-level information by requesting custom reports for their neighborhoods and
communities from the IPRC PREV-STAT™ Service.
Data will never replace people, who remain the key to success. We talk about data-driven prevention,
but people actually remain very much in the driver’s seat. People as individuals and agencies need to
collaborate and develop protocols for data collection and data sharing. People at the grassroots need to add
their common sense, insider-knowledge to the process to check for missing variables, wrong assumptions,
cultural oversights or insensitivities. People select what data will be collected and how. They collect it, analyze
it, check its accuracy, use their findings to develop reasonable strategies, practices and programs. They use
data in decision-making related to planning, marketing, testing, and implementing. At each step of the way,
people use data, including data generated by the prevention activities themselves, to evaluate performance, both
in terms of processes and outcomes. Process evaluation uses data to measure such things as the fidelity of
program delivery and efficiency in maximizing human and financial capital. Outcome evaluation uses such
data tools as pre- and post- tests, surveys and data trends to assess the effectiveness of prevention efforts.
The PREV-STAT™ 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™.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
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. 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.
Access PREV-STAT™ through the IPRC home page: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/
Click on Resources, then on PREV-STAT™. You will then be on the following page
http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/resources/prev-stat/index.html/
From this page you can access:
The new search engine of PREV-STAT™ County Statistics (with select statistics from 2002-2005)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles Series, Nos. 1-2. 92 volumes published in 2004 and 2005
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles Fact Sheet Series, No. 1 -- short version (No. 2 up-coming)
GIS in Prevention, Tobacco Series, No. 1 (92 volumes, up-coming)
Resources for County- and Local-Level Data for Prevention Planning
You can obtain copies of Indiana’s 92 County Profiles in these ways:
1.
View and print entire files or selected pages from the IPRC web site
2.
Download files from the IPRC web site
3.
Call or e-mail your request that a file be sent to you on CD ROM
You can obtain a custom report:
1.
Call or e-mail the IPRC to discuss your request
2.
Be very patient. Custom reports are done as time permits
3.
You can only request one report at a time
4.
Demand may limit custom reports by any individual per year
Points of access to the PREV-STAT™ Service:
1.
www.drugs.indiana.edu
2.
1-812-855-1237, or, in Indiana toll free at 1-800-346-3077
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
3. Geographic and Historical Notes
Grant County is located in North Central Indiana. It is bordered by the
following counties: Delaware to the south/southeast, Madison to the south,
Tipton to the southwest, Howard to the west, Miami to the northwest,
Wabash and Huntington to the north. Interstate Highway 69, U.S. Highway
35 and State Highway 18 cross the county. Elevation is 750-950 feet.
Terrain is nearly level, except slightly sloping near the many creeks and the
Mississinewa River. The landscape features beech, birch, maple, oak and
hickory trees. The county pertains to the Indiana and Ohio Till Plain land
resource area. Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes land resource area,
except the southern corner which is part of the Kentucky and Indiana
Sandstone and Shale Hills and Valleys land resource area.
Grant County is on Eastern Standard Time all year. Average daily
temperatures are 16٥/33٥ in January and 61٥/85٥ in July. Annual
precipitation is about 37 and snowfall about 37 inches.
Typically the first freeze of the season occurs October 10-15, except in the
northeast corner where it is October 5-10. The last freeze is usually between
May 1 – 5. The growing season lasts about 158-168 days.
Agricultural activity is diversified. About three-fourths of the land is
farmland of which over four-fifths is commercial crops. Main crops are corn
for grain, soybeans, hay and winter wheat. Apples are a primary fruit,
tomatoes a primary vegetable. Livestock includes hens/pullets, cattle/calves,
milk cows, and hogs/pigs. Main natural resources include sand and gravel
for both construction and industry, crushed stone, petroleum, and forestland.
Water resources include Edwin Blinn, Kilgore, Sports, and Wagner Lakes;
Lake Galacia; and the Mississinewa River.
Communities include the cities of Marion (the county seat) and Gas City.
Towns include Converse (which extends into Miami County), Fairmount,
Fowlerton, Jonesboro, Matthews, Swayzee, Sweetser, Upland, and Van
Buren.
Sources: Map from PCensus for MapInfo; Geographic Notes from
Indiana Facts: Flying the Colors by John Clements, 1995.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
3. Location and Historical Notes
Famous sons and daughters of Grant County include movie star James Dean, Jim Davis, and Wayne and Kim Seybold.
James Dean (1931-1951), born in Marion, who starred in East of Eden (1954), Rebel Without a Cause (1955), and Giant (1956).
Cartoonist Jim Davis (1945-), createds “Garfield.” Davis’ company is located on a farm near Muncie. Wayne and Kim
Seybold were Olympic figure skaters from Marion, who became internationally known in the 1988 Winter Olympics for their
courage in overcoming injuries and poverty.
(Nelson Price, Indiana Legends, Carmel: Guild Press of Indiana, Inc., 1997, p. 135, 247, 264)
Grant 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):
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
3. Grant County Block Group Maps
Don’t Know Your Block Group Number?
You can find it easily at the
American Factfinder Web Site
(www.census.gov)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant County
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Block Groups
4. Protective Factors in Grant 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 2004:3)
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 2004:4-9) These are only a few selected examples of how these factors
influence youth behaviors with regard to drug use and other risky behaviors.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
4. Protective Factors in Grant 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.
Grant 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 (2004 data)
County
Grant
Schools
34
Youth Serving Agencies/Programs
21
Libraries
8
Places of Worship
172
Table 4.1. School data from
the Department of
Education, library data
the Indiana State Library,
churches and youth
serving agencies from
American Church List and
FSSA (2004).
CSAP. Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002. Rockville: U.S. DHHS, SAMHSA, 2003.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Married Couple Families with Children
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Afternoons R.O.C.K.
SFY 2004-2005
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
246 total programs.
9 not geocoded
due to address problem.
27 geocoded to
zip code level.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
38
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.1 Population (2003, estimates)
In 2004, Grant County ranked 22 in the state by total population. Table 1a below shows total
population, persons per square mile, total number of households, total land and water areas. Table 1b presents
population under 24 by age. Both tables present comparisons of Grant county to the state and nation.
Total Population and Population under 24 by Age
Total Population and Geographic Data, 2003 est.
Grant Co.
Total Population
Persons per sq. mi.
Total Households
Land Area (sq. miles)
Water Area (sq. miles)
Indiana
U.S.
Age
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
0-4
6.1
6.8
6.9%
5-9
7.1
7.2
6.8%
10-13
5.6
5.7
5.7%
71,658
6,193,993
291,456,161
173
173
82
28,063
2,405,369
109,810,264
14-17
5.4
5.7
5.7%
414
35,867
3,537,438
18-20
6.4
4.6
4.2%
1
551
256,645
21-24
5.7
5.3
5.5%
Table 5.1a: Totals: Population, Households,
and Geographic Characteristics (AGS, 2003 est.,
2004).
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 5.1b Population by Age Source:
(AGS, 2003 est., 2004)
Total Population (Equal Count)
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix D, cont.
Total Population (Natural Break)
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Total Population (Custom Ranges)
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Percent of Population Age 0-4
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.2 Race/Ethnicity (2003, estimates)
In 2004 Grant County was predominantly white. The following table shows Grant County’s
racial/ethnic make-up in percentages compared to the rest of the state and nation:
Race & Hispanic/Latino Origin, 2003 est. (Percent):
Race/Ethnic Group
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
White
89.1
87.5
75.1
African-American
7.3
8.4
12.3
Asian
0.6
1
3.7
Two or more races
1.5
1.2
2.4
Hispanic/Latino
2.6
4.1
13.8
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 5.2:
Race/Ethnicity,
2003 estimates
(AGS, 2003 est.,
2004)
Percent of Population, 2 or More Races
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Percent of Population, Hispanic Origin
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Percent of Population, African American
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
PCensus Table 1:
County Demographics
•
•
•
•
•
•
Median Family Income
Median Household Income
Percent of Housing Units Owner-Occupied
Percent of Housing Units Renter-Occupied
Percent of Housing Units Vacant
Median Age
These statistics come from AGS 2003 (2004).
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
48
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 1
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 1
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 1
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.3 Marital Status (2003, estimates)
The following table shows the marital status of the population in Grant County compared with the state and nation:
Marital Status, 2003
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
22
24.8
27
Currently Married
53.1
53.4
51
Separated
5.5
4.1
6
Widowed
11.6
11.1
10
Divorced
7.8
6.5
7
Never Married
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 5.3:
Marital
Status,
2003
estimates
(AGS, 2003
est., 2004)
Percent of Population, Currently Divorced
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.4 Labor Force: (2003, estimates)
The following table shows the percent of persons were not in the labor force.
Population Not in Labor Force (Percent), 2003 est.
Grant Co.
Population by Labor Force (2003)
Indiana
57,004
United States
4,808,494
226,527,774
Percent of Males Not in Labor Force
32%
26%
29%
Percent of Females Not in Labor Force
44%
40%
42%
Population Not in Labor Force (Percent)
38%
33%
36%
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 5.4: Labor
Force, 2003
estimates (AGS,
2003 est., 2004)
Renter Occupied Housing Units
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.5 Industry (2002, estimates)
The largest industry in Grant County is manufacturing with 8,891 persons employed; followed
by health services with 4,272 persons employed; and education services with 3,830 persons
employed. Table 4 shows percentages for the top five industries relative to the state and
nation:
Top Five Industries, 2002
Industry
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Manufacturing
28%
23%
14%
Health Services
13%
11%
12%
Education Services
12%
9%
9%
Retail Trade
12%
12%
12%
Personal Services
6%
6%
6%
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.6 Occupations (2002, estimates)
The following table lists the occupations in which the highest percent of Grant County
residents worked in 2003 with comparisons to the state and nation:
Top Five Occupations, 2002
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Machine operators, assemblers, and
inspectors, 15%
Administrative support occupations,
including clerical, 15%
Administrative support occupations,
including clerical, 16%
Precision production, craft & repair
occupations, 14%
Precision production, craft & repair
occupations, 13%
Professional specialty occupations,
14%
Service occupations, except protective
& household, 14%
Service occupations, except
protective & household, 13%
Executive, Administrative, and
Managerial, 12%
Administrative support occupations,
including clerical, 14%
Professional specialty occupations,
12%
Service occupations, except protective
& household, 12%
Professional specialty occupations, 12%
Sales occupations, 11%
Sales occupations, 12%
Table 5.6: Top Five Occupations, 2002 estimates (AGS, 2002 est., 2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.7 Educational Attainment (2003 estimates)
The following table shows educational attainment in Grant County compared with the state
and the nation.
Educational Attainment, 2003 (Percent)
Highest Level
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Less than 9th Grade
5
5
8
9th-12th, No Diploma
16
13
12
High School
42
37
29
Some College, No Diploma
18
20
21
Associate Degree
5
6
6
Bachelor's Degree
8
12
16
Grad or Prof Degree
6
7
9
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 5.7:
Educational
Attainment
(AGS, 2003 est.,
2004)
Educational Attainment
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.8 Households (2003, estimates)
Table 8 shows number of households, families, and households with children, and also
included data in comparison to the state and nation.
Households, Families, and Income, 2003 est.
Grant Co.
Indiana
United States
Households (2003)
28,063
2,405,369
109,810,264
Families (2003)
19,057
1,626,451
74,008,827
9,063
847,845
39,230,063
Average Household Income
48,512
55,672
60,600
Per capita income
19,393
21,967
23,201
Households with children (2003)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 5.8: Median
Age and
Household
Income (AGS,
2003 est., 2004)
Median Household Income, 2003
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Average Household Income
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.9 Families (2003, estimates)
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 w/ Children, 2003 est. (AGS, 2004); Median Family Income (Claritas, 2004)
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Households with children (2003)
18,374
1,682,671
39,230,063
Married Couple Family (Percent)
65.2
69.9
68.9
Lone Parent Male (Percent)
8.1
6.9
6.8
Lone Parent Female (Percent of HH w Child)
25.1
21.7
23.2
Non-family Male Head (Percent)
1.2
1.2
0.8
Non-family Female Head (Percent)
0.5
0.3
0.3
45,982
51,568
57,801
Median Family Income (Claritas, 2003 est.)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 5.9a:
Types of
Households with
Children (AGS,
2003 est., 2004);
Median Family
Income (AGS,
2003 est., 2004)
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana 2003, 2004)
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.
Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles, 2003
PRIZM NE
IN
U.S.
19.75%
14.17%
10.31%
19.17%
7.45%
6.53%
19.08%
15.74%
10.00%
T4 - Rustic Living
15.47%
11.22%
11.59%
C2 - City Centers
13.94%
6.72%
7.33%
T3 - Middle America
C3 - Micro-City Blues
T2 - Country Comfort
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant Co.
Table 5.10a:
Dominant Lifestyles of
Grant County
(Claritas™: Indiana,
2003)
See Appendix for explanation of Lifestyles Codes
5. Grant County Basic Demographics
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
The following table shows the main lifestyles for Indiana households compared with the county and U.S.
Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles, 2003
IN Percent
Grant Co.
US Percent
T2 - Country Comfort
15.7%
19.08%
10.0%
T1 - Landed Gentry
12.0%
9.92%
8.2%
S4 - Inner Suburbs
8.5%
0.00%
4.6%
S3 - Middleburbs
8.2%
0.00%
6.2%
C3 - Micro-City Blues
7.5%
19.17%
6.5%
PRIZM Lifestyles Social Group
Table 5.10b:
Dominant
Lifestyles of
Indiana
(Claritas™:
Indiana, 2004)
The following table show the main lifestyles for households in the U.S. compared to the county and state.
Claritas' PRIZM Lifestyle, Dominant Lifestyles, 2003
PRIZM Social Group
US Percent
Grant Co.
IN Percent
T2 - Country Comfort
10.0%
19.08%
15.7%
U1 - Urban Uptown
8.7%
0.00%
1.1%
T1 - Landed Gentry
8.2%
9.92%
12.0%
S2 - The Affluentials
7.6%
0.00%
7.0%
C2 - City Centers
7.3%
13.94%
6.7%
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
See Appendix for explanation of Lifestyles Codes
Table 5.10c:
Dominant
Lifestyles in
U.S.,
(Claritas™:
Indiana, 2004)
6. Grant 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 2004:7), in a community where drug use is tolerated or encouraged
(Hogan, et al 2004:43) 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 2004:131) 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 2004:9) 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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
Substance Use Disorders,” Pediatrics 106, 792-797.
Bigan, Anthony, and Christine Cody
2004
“Preventing Multiple Problem Behaviors in Adolescence.” In Reducing
Adolescent Risk: Towards and Integrated Approach. Daniel Romer, ed.
CA: Sage. Pp. 125-131
Parental
Thousand Oaks,
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
2004
Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2003. 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
2003
Building a Successful Prevention Program Reno: Univ. of Nevada.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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. The following table shows the number of outlets, the total population,
the number of outlets per capita, and the approximate number of outlets per every 1,000
residents of Grant county, with comparisons to the state.
Alcohol Sales Outlets Per Capita, (IN ATC, 2005)
Total Population (2004 est.)
Number of Outlets (March 2005)
Outlets Per Capita
Outlets Per 1,000 Persons
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant Co.
Indiana
71,013
6,230,346
108
11,011
0.0015
0.0018
1.52
1.77
Table 6.1: Alcohol
Sales Outlets Per
Capita, 2004
(Population from AGS
2004, 2005; Number of
Outlets from ATC,
2005)
6. Grant 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. The following table shows the number of outlets in the
county compared to the State. It also reveals the density of outlets per capita for the county by stating the
number of outlets for every 1,000 residents and for every 1,000 youth in the county.
Tobacco Retail Sales Outlets Per Capita, 2003
Number of Outlets
Total Population
Outlets Per 1000 Persons
Total Population, 10-17
Outlets per 1000 Youth
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant
Indiana
77
5,095
71,658
6,193,993
1.1
0.8
7,905
710,759
9.7
7.2
Table 6.2:
Tobacco Sales
Outlets, 2003
(ATC, 2004)
Population of Youths Vulnerable to Tobacco Sales
to Minors
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior,
2003 (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Youth Ages 10-17 (2003)
Failed TRIP Inspections
Schools in Proximity to Tobacco Outlets that Failed TRIP
Inspections in 2003
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: IN State Excise Police, TRIP
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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 2003. Since the TRIP was established in 2000, the non-compliance rate has decreased each year.
For more information on this program, please consult the IPRC’s November 2004’s newsletter, “Prevention
Newsline.”
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 2004:8-9) Therefore, CSAP promotes increased levels of
enforcement as part of a larger effort to reduce youth smoking. (CSAP 2004:8-9)
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
2003
Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2003. 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.
Goetze, D.D. 2004. “Effectiveness of Compliance Programs.” Prevention Newsline 17, 1, 1-6.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Availability of Drugs
6.4 Proximity of Failed TRIP Inspections to Schools
Where drugs are available in areas heavily trafficked by children, the
environmental risk is increased (CSAP 2003:8). In addition to the above statistics for
TRIP, PREV-STAT™ has geocoded the locations of schools and of failed tobacco
inspections to facilitate yet another level of analysis by showing, via maps, the proximity
to schools of tobacco outlets that failed TRIP inspections. For the counties that did
participate in the TRIP Program, this County Profiles series presents maps for the county
with some close-ups. These maps are intended to give a very general picture of the
situation in the county and to encourage people to pursue obtaining similar information at
the neighborhood level. (The power of PREV-STAT™ is greatest for neighborhood
analysis!)
It should be noted that whereas the scale of a map showing the entire county
makes it difficult to see much detail, studies of neighborhoods offer great potential for
representing the environmental risks and assets. The greatest power of PREV-STAT™ lies
in its ability to give extensive data and insights for the very small geographic area. To
have a customized study of your neighborhood, call the IPRC and ask for the PREVSTAT™ service.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
2003
Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles 2002. Rockville, MD.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant County
had no violations in 2003!
Congratulations!
No Failed Trip Inspections in 2003!
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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 374 methamphetamine lab seizures in the
state of Indiana in the year 2000, 690 in 2001, 999 in 200, 1260 in 2003, and 1549 in 2004. (David Phelps,
Indiana State Police, 2005).
Meth Lab seizures Made by ISP and All seizures (Grant County and Indiana)
Grant Co. (ISP
seizures)
Grant Co. (All
seizures)
Indiana (ISP
seizures)
1998
0
0
43
43
1999
0
0
129
177
2000
0
0
314
374
2001
0
0
542
690
2002
5
5
732
999
2003
5
5
1011
1260
2004
1
1
1113
1549
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Indiana (All
seizures)
Table 6.5:
Clandestine
Methamphetamine
Lab Seizures,
1998-2004 (ISP,
2005)
6. Grant 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.,
2004
“The Bio-Culture of Parenting: Evidence from Five Cultural Communities,” Parenting: Science and Practice
4/1 (2004):25-50.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.6 Household Spending on Alcohol, 2003
According to AGS Consumer Spending estimates for 2003 (2004), spending on alcohol
products in Grant County per household was $412 and included the following
expenditures:
Per Household Spending on Alcohol, 2003 est.
Consumer Spending on Alcoholic Beverages
Spending on Alcohol Outside the Home
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
403
438
461
172
188
197
Beer and Ale Away from Home
57
62
65
Wine Away from Home
26
29
30
Whiskey Away from Home
44
48
50
Alcohol on Out-of-Town Trips
45
49
52
Spending on Alcohol In the Home
Beer and Ale at home
Wine at Home
Whiskey and Other Liquor at from
Home
Other Liquor
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
221
239
251
134
145
152
55
60
63
16
17
18
16
17
18
Table 6.6:
Per
Household
Spending on
Alcohol
(AGS,
Consumer
Spending,
2003, 2004)
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.7 Household Spending on Tobacco, 2003
The following table shows per household spending on tobacco products. 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, 2003, est.
Per Household Spending on Tobacco Products
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
395
428
444
Cigarettes
Other Tobacco Products
Per Household Spending on Misc. Reading
358
387
400
37
41
44
225
245
257
Newspapers
100
109
114
Magazines
48
52
54
Books
77
84
88
Per Household Spending on Personal Insurance
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
479
522
553
Table 6.7: Per
Household
Spending on
Tobacco Products,
Miscellaneous
Reading and
Personal Insurance
(AGS, Consumer
Spending, 2003)
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.8 Adult Tobacco Behavior
The following table shows adult smoking behavior as percentages for Grant County, with
comparisons for Indiana and the nation.
Adult Smoking Behavior, 2003 est. for Population Age 18+
Grant Co.
Indiana
United States
31.9
29.3
29.3
5.5
5.3
5.3
Smoked Cigarettes in last 12 mos.
Smoked Cigars in last 6 mos.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.8a: Adult
Smoking Behaviors
(MRI, Consumer
Behavior Lifestyle
2003, 2004)
6. GrantCounty Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.8 Tobacco Production
Grant 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 Grant County (Latest figures, from 1997
USDA Census):
Rank for tobacco production
n/a
Acres in tobacco production
n/a
Number of farms producing tobacco
n/a
As a Percent of all farms
n/a
Rank in IN for percent of all farms:
n/a
Tobacco income per farm producing
n/a
Percent of County’s Ave. Household Income
n/a
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
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, 2003
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adult Cigarette Smoking (Count)
Adult Cigarette Smoking (Percent)
Adult Cigar Smoking (Count)
Adult Cigar Smoking (Percent)
Money Spent on Tobacco
Money Spent on Cigarettes
Money Spent on Other Tobacco Products
These statistics come from MRI Consumer Behavior Lifestyle (2004).
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
83
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
84
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
85
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
86
Grant County, Indiana
Adult Cigarette Smoking, 2003 (Percent)
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior,
2003 (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant County, Indiana
Adult Cigar Smoking, 2003 (Percent)
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior,
2003 (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Adult Cigarette Smokers, 2003
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.9 Intensity of TRIP Inspections
The IPRC is grateful to Major Steve Anderson, State Director of the Indiana Tobacco Retailer
Inspection Program (TRIP) and to Desiree Goetze, Coordinator of TRIP at the Indiana Prevention Resource
Center, 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.9 Intensity of TRIP Inspections
TRIP Inspection Data, Grant Co. (using data from IN State
Excise Police), 2003
County Name
Grant
Indiana
0.77
1.28
7,905
710,759
Total No. of Tobacco Retail
Outlets
77
5,095
Total Inspections Attempted
59
6,645
Total Inspections Completed
59
6,533
Failed Inspections
0
896
Percent, Failed Inspections
0
13.7%
100%
86.3%
Intensity of Inspection
No of Inspections per Capita:
Population Age, 10-17
Percent, Passed Inspections
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.9:
Intensity of
TRIP
Inspections and
Related
Statistics,
Calculations for
2003 Based on
Data from the
TRIP Program
(ATC, Indiana
State Excise
Police, 2004)
6. Grant 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 2003 there were no casinos and no horse-racing
establishments in Grant County.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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. The following table
reports on the number and percent of persons ages 18 and over who gambled in a
casino six or more times in the past year and who played the lottery six or more times
in the past 30 days. These gambling statistics were projected based on sophisticated
demographic analysis by MediaMark Research, Inc. (MRI, Consumer Behavior Lifestyle
2003, 2004).
Adult Gambling Behavior, 2003 est.
Grant
Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Population 18+ years and older
54,312
4,597,0
13
216,704,01
7
Gambled in a Casino 6 or more times in 2003
(Count)
1,085
100,835
4,885,920
Gambled in a Casino 6 or more times in 2003 (%)
2
2.19
2.25
Lottery Played 6+ Times in Last 30 days (Count)
8,405
669,148
29,919,525
Lottery Played 6+ Times in Last 30 days (%)
15.48
14.56
13.81
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.11a:
Adult Gambling
Behaviors
(Casino and
Lottery) (MRI,
Consumer
Behavior
Lifestyle 2003,
2004)
6. Grant 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 the
county from fiscal year 2004.
Hoosier Lottery Sales by Zip Code for Grant County for Fiscal Year 2004 (Hoosier Lottery)
Zip Code
City
Scratch Off
Draw
Pull-Tabs
TOTAL
46928
FAIRMOUNT
$298,994
$182,338
$27,888
$509,220
46933
GAS CITY
$714,401
$407,423
$25,704
$1,147,528
46938
JONESBORO
$150,309
$71,866
46952
MARION
$1,978,754
$1,252,535
$71,736
$3,303,025
46953
MARION
$2,235,292
$1,440,193
$110,880
$3,786,365
46957
MATTHEWS
$43,446
$22,579
$66,025
46986
SWAYZEE
$95,618
$95,611
$191,229
46987
SWEETSER
$68,023
$55,030
$123,053
46989
UPLAND
$112,335
$56,599
$168,934
46991
VAN BUREN
$99,453
$54,779
$154,232
County Totals:
$4,632,921
$2,977,326
$182,616
$7,792,863
IN Totals:
$422,608,706
$291,464,296
$18,897,312
$732,970,314
$222,175
Table 6.11b: Hoosier Lottery Sales by Zip Code, Fiscal Year 2004 (Hoosier Lottery, 2005)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
PCensus Table 3:
More Adult Gambling Behaviors
•
•
•
•
Lottery, Heavy Users (6+ x), last 30 days (Count)
Lottery Heavy Users (6+ x) last 30 days (Percent)
Gambled in a Casino 6+ x, last yr., 2003 (Count)
Gambled in casino 6+ x, last yr., 2003 (Percent)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
95
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
96
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
97
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
98
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
99
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
100
Highest Gambling Rates
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Lowest Gambling Rates
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
Gambling Rates
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Source: AGS Consumer Behavior, 2002 (2003)
6. Grant 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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 Grant County,
compared to Indiana and the nation.
Crime Indices, 2003
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
98
91
100
Personal Crime Index
103
92
100
Property Crime Index
94
90
100
Total Crime Index
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.12a: Total Crime,
Property Crime, and
Personal Crime Indices,
2003. (AGS Crime Risk
2003, 2004)
6. Grant 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 Grant County, compared to Indiana
and the nation (which is the point of comparison).
Crime Indices, 2003
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Total Crime Index
98
91
100
Personal Crime Index
103
92
100
Murder
73
111
100
Rape
79
94
100
Robbery
52
73
101
Assault
207
90
101
Property Crime Index
94
90
100
Burglary
97
90
100
Larceny
137
93
100
46
86
101
Motor Vehicle Theft
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.12b:
Specific
Crimes,
Indices
(AGS Crime
Risk 2003,
2004)
Total Crime Index
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Crime Indices
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.13 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002 (2004)
The following data comes directly from the FBI Uniform Crime Report as published by the
University of Virginia Library website in September 2004. (There is a link from the PREV-STAT™
County/Local Data Page on the Indiana Prevention Resource Center web site.) The first table presents
juveniles crimes, including drug arrests. The most recent data available is from 2002.
FBI UCR All Arrests, 2002:
Coverage
Grant
100
Alcohol-Related Arrests
FBI UCR All Arrests, 2002:
Sale/Manufacturing of Drugs
Grant
47
Marijuana Sale/Manufacture
22
Liquor Law Violation
124
Opium/Cocaine Sale/Manufacture
15
Driving Under the Influence
565
Synthetic Drug Sale/Manufacture
9
Drunkenness
298
Gambling
Drug Possession:
269
Sexual Offenses
Marijuana
208
Prostitution & Communication
1
Opium/Cocaine
28
Sex Offenses
29
Other Drug Possession
5
Other Dangerous Narcotic
1
Disorderly Conduct
145
Synthetic Drug Possession
28
Runaway Juveniles
100
Weapons Violations
35
Table 6.13a: All Arrests, including Drug Arrests, 2002
(FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
0
Select Behaviors
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.13 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002 (2004)
The following data comes directly from the FBI Uniform Crime Report as published by the University of Virginia
Library website in September 2004. (There is a link from the PREV-STAT™ County/Local Data Page on the Indiana Prevention
Resource Center web site.) This table presents juvenile arrests for crimes, including drug arrests, for 2002.
Juvenile Arrests, FBI UCR, 2002 (2004)
Coverage
Number of Agencies in County Report Arrests
Total Co. Population - Agencies Reporting
Arrests
Grant
100
5
74351
Alcohol-Related Arrests:
Liquor Law Violation
Driving Under the Influence
Drunkenness
44
6
46
Juvenile Arrests, FBI UCR, 2002 (2004)
Drug Abuse Sale/Manufacture
Grant
6
Marijuana Sale/Manufacture
6
Opium/Cocaine Sale/Manufacture
0
Synthetic Drug Sale/Manufacture
0
Drug Abuse Violations - Total
Gambling
50
0
Select Behaviors:
Drug Possession (Subtotal)
44
Disorderly Conduct
42
Marijuana Possession
38
Runaway Juveniles
100
Opium/Cocaine Possession
2
Sex Offenses
0
Other Drug Possession
2
Weapons Violations
7
Other Dangerous Non-Narcotics
0
Synthetic Narcotics Possession
2
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.13b: Juvenile Arrests, including Drug Arrests,
2002 (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2004)
6. Grant 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. The most
recent of data on drivers involved in fatal crashes by blood alcohol content of the
driver are included in the following tables:
Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes and Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of the Driver, 2001
Grant County
No.
%
Total Drivers Involved
20
100%
BAC=>0.01--0.07 g/dl
0
0%
BAC=0.08+ g/dl
5
25%
Table 6.14a.: Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes by Blood Alcohol Content of the Driver,
2001 (Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2003)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
110
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Community Laws/Norms
6.14 Alcohol-Related Crashes, Cont.
The Indiana Council on Drugged and Dangerous Driving through the
Indiana Criminal Justice Institute publishes crash data for each county. The
following table compares figures for 1994 and 2001 for the estimated percent of
alcohol-related fatalities and drivers with BAC 0.08 or greater in fatal crashes.
Estimated Percent of Alcohol-Related Fatalities in 1994 and 2001
Grant County
1994
2001
BAC=>0.01
44%
29%
BAC Above Legal Limit (.10 (1994) and .08 (2001))
27%
25%
Table 6.14b: Estimated Percent of Alcohol-Related Fatalities and Drivers
with BAC 0.08 or Greater in Fatal Crashes, 1994 and 2001 (Indiana Criminal
Justice Institute, 2003)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
111
6. Grant 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 2003 net domestic
migration for Grant County was 258 and net international migration was 5.
Net Migration, 2002 to 2003 (STATS Indiana, 2005, U.S. Census Bureau):
Grant
Rank
in
State
Indian
a
-594
65
1,019
Net International Migration (change 2002 to 2003)
25
59
11,147
Natural Increase (Births Minus Deaths )
80
21
27,045
Net Domestic Migration (change 2002 to 2003)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.15: Net
Migration (STATS
Indiana, 2004)
6. Grant 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)
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
2000
4.7
3.8
4.1
2001
6.3
4.4
4.2
2002
8.3
5.9
5.6
2003
7.4
5.5
5.7
2004
9.6
5.6
5.6
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.16: Unemployment Rates,
January of 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004,
2004 from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, for county and Indiana
reported by
www.stats.indiana.edu/laus/laus_view3.html.
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation
6.17 Free Lunch/Textbooks, Grades K-12
The following table shows the percent of students in grades K-12 who received free lunch
and textbooks in 2003 and in 2002 according to the Department of Education, and the
change from 2002 to 2003, for Grant county and for the state.
Free Lunch/Textbooks (DOE), 2003 (2004)
Grant Co.
Indiana
Percent of Students Eligible for Free
Lunch/Textbooks in 2003
28.8
24.6
Percent of Students Eligible for Free
Lunch/Textbooks in 2002
28.5
25.1
Change from 2002 to 2003
0.3
-0.5
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.17: Percent of Children
Eligible for Free Lunches/Textbooks,
K-12, 2003 (*Department of
Education, Division of School and
Community Nutrition Programs,
2004), 2002 (** Ibid., 2003), and the
Change from 2002 to 2003.
6. Grant 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 2004.
The rate calculation comes from the Indiana Prevention Resource Center. The following
table shows the rate for 2003 for Grant County with comparisons for the state and nation.
Food Stamp Recipients in 2003 (FSSA, Family Resources
Bureau)
Grant Co.
Indiana
Total Population, 2003 est.
71,658
6,193,993
Food Stamp Recipients/mo, 2003*
7,278
452,654
Food Stamp Recipients (monthly
rate per 1,000 persons), 2003
101.6
73.1
Food Stamp Recipients (monthly
rate per 1,000 persons), 2002
91.3
64.2
Change in Rate per Thousand from
2002 to 2003
10.2
8.9
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.18: Food Stamp
Recipients per Month in 2003
(FSSA, Division of Family and
Children, 2004) and Rate per
1,000 Total Population for
2003 and 2002 and Change in
Rate (calculations from the
IPRC based on data from
FSSA, Division of Family and
Children, 2003 and 2004).
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic And Social Deprivation
6.19 Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)
(Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC)
CSAP calculates this indicator as the rate of persons of all ages who participate in the
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TANF in Indiana), stating the rate as the number per 1,000
persons. This table shows the average monthly average statistics for families and for recipients
from Grant County and for Indiana as reported by the Indiana Family and Social Services
Administration, Division of Family and Children. PREV-STAT™ has calculated the rate of TANF
recipients per month per 1000 residents of the county.
TANF Statistics for 2003
County
Grant
Indiana
Total Population
71,658
6,193,993
690
52,478
Average Monthly Persons
1,815
146,649
Rate of TANF per 1000 Persons
25.3
23.7
Average Monthly Cases
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.19:
Temporary Aid to
Needy Families as
Rate per 1,000 Total
Population (*data
from FSSA, Division
of Family and
Children)
PCensus Table 4:
More Grant 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
117
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
118
PCensus Table 4, cont.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
119
PCensus Table 4, cont.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
120
Grant County
Educational Attainment
Percent of Pop over 25 w/ Less Than HS Diploma
Grant County
Census 2K SF3
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
121
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic And Social Deprivation
6.20 Adults without a High School Diploma (2003, 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. The following table presents 3 statistics for persons over 25 in Grant
County: the percent who have not completed 9th grade; the percent who attended high
school but did not graduate; and the percent whose educational attainment is less than a
high school diploma (the sum of the first 2 statistics), compared with the state and the
nation. This information points to need and also is important to prevention planning for
marketing and for activities involving parents and other adults.
Percent of Population Ages 25+ with Less Than High School Diploma, 2003 (AGS)
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Less than 9th grade
5
5
8
9th to 12th grade, no
diploma
16
13
12
20.9
17.9
19.6
Less Than a HS Diploma
(Percent)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.20:
Adults Who
Have Not
Finished
High School
(AGS, 2003
est., 2004)
Low Educational Attainment
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
123
6. Grant 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 following table reports the percent of households with children where one parent
is absent.
Single Parent Households, 2003 (AGS, 2004)
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Households with children (2003)
18,374
1,682,671
39,230,063
Married Couple Family (Percent)
65.2
69.9
68.9
Lone Parent Male (Percent)
8.1
6.9
6.8
Lone Parent Female (Percent of HH w
Child)
25.1
21.7
23.2
Percent of All Households w/ Children
Where 1 Spouse is Absent
33.2
28.6
30.0
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.21:
Single Parent
Families
(AGS, 2003
est., 2004)
Single Moms with Children under 18
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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 2003.
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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 8,112 persons living in poverty in Grant
County. By age group there were 1,123 persons under 6; 1,658 persons aged 6-17; 4,437
persons 18-64; and 894 persons 65 and older. The following table shows total poverty and
the aforementioned age statistics as percent of the total population of Grant 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
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
12%
9%
12%
Under 6
1%
1%
1%
6 to 17
2%
2%
3%
18 to 64
6%
5%
7%
65 and over
2%
1%
2%
Total Persons
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.22: Poverty
and Child Poverty
as Percent of Total
Population (Census
2K, SF3+ Indiana)
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation
6.23 Families with Own Children in Poverty, 2003
The following table of 2003 estimates presents various statistics concerning families with
own children that live in poverty: percent of families with own children that live in poverty,
percent of married couple families, percent of single fathers, percent of single mothers,
and percent of single parents for Grant county and for the state.
Families in Poverty as Percent, 2003
County
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
16.2
11.6
15.2
Percent of Married Couples w/ Own Children Below
Poverty
6.8
4.1
6.9
Percent of Single Fathers w/ Own Children Below
Poverty
23
22.2
25.1
Percent of Single Mothers w/ Own Children Below
Poverty
40.3
34.9
39.8
36
31.8
36.5
Percent of Families w/ Own Children Below Poverty
Level As Percent of All Families w/ Own Children
Percent of Single Parents w/ Own Children < 18 Below
Poverty
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.23:
Families with
Own Children in
Poverty (Claritas
2003 Updates,
2004)
Single Moms Below Poverty
No. of Single Mothers w/ Children under 18 Below Poverty as
Percent of All Single Mothers with Children under 18.
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Claritas, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Black
22%
23%
25%
Asian
8%
16%
13%
Hispanic/Latino
31%
18%
23%
White
11%
8%
9%
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
131
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
132
PCensus Table 5, cont.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
133
PCensus Table 5, cont.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Grant County
Children 12-17 in Poverty
Census 2K SF3
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
135
6. Grant County Archival Indicators of Risk
Community Risk Factor: Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation
6.25 Poverty: Single Parent Families with Children 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.
Families in Poverty as Percent, 2003
County
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
16.2
11.6
15.2
Percent of Married Couples w/ Own Children Below
Poverty
6.8
4.1
6.9
Percent of Single Fathers w/ Own Children Below
Poverty
23
22.2
25.1
Percent of Single Mothers w/ Own Children Below
Poverty
40.3
34.9
39.8
36
31.8
36.5
Percent of Families w/ Own Children Below Poverty
Level As Percent of All Families w/ Own Children
Percent of Single Parents w/ Own Children < 18 Below
Poverty
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.25:
Single Parent
Families as
Percent of All
Persons in
Poverty
(Claritas™, 2003
est., 2004)
Single Parents Below Poverty
No. of Single Parents w/ Children under 18 as
Percent of All Single Parents with Children under 18
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
Claritas, Core Demographics,
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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.
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 Grant
County, compared with Indiana and the nation.
Percent of Adult Population with No Medical or No Dental Insurance, 2003 est. (2004)
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Current Population Age 18 +
54,312
4,597,013
216,704,017
No Medical Insurance
26.09
26.29
27.71
No Dental Insurance
68.93
66.74
65.97
Table 6.26: Insurance Coverage, 2003 (MRI, Consumer Behavior
Insurance 2003, 2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
No Health Insurance
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Consumer Behavior, Insurance
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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). The analysis presented here is at the level of the county, state and nation,
but PREV-STAT™ can easily analyze at the level of the neighborhood, where prevention is
most effectively undertaken. Therefore, you are encourage to call the Indiana Prevention
Resource Center and take advantage of the PREV-STAT™ Service to support your work in
prevention in your neighborhood and community.
CSAP archival indicators of family risk include Family Management Problems,
Family Conflict, and Family Attitudes and Involvement, issues which impact most
intensely in the confines of the home. Other statistics that are available and would be of
relevance in this category are child abuse and neglect.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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 percent
of all households with children where no parent is present for this county, compared to the state and
the nation.
Households with No Parent Present, 2003 (AGS, 2004)
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
Households with children (2003)
18,374
1,682,671
39,230,063
Non-family Male Head (Percent)
1.2
1.2
0.8
Non-family Female Head (Percent)
0.5
0.3
0.3
Percent of All Households w/ Children
Where No Parent in Present
1.7
1.5
1.1
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.27:
Households
with
Children
with No
Parent 2003
(AGS, 2003
estimates,
2004)
6. Grant 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, 2003 (Percent)
County
Divorced
(Percent)
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
7.8
6.5
6.5
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.28:
Divorce
Rates (AGS,
2003 est.,
2004)
Divorce
Indiana Prevention Resource Center
AGS, Core Demographics
2003 estimates (2004)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
6. Grant 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 Grant 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
Grant Co.
Indiana
U.S.
69%
74%
72%
Both parents in labor force
46%
48%
43%
Father only in labor force
18%
22%
22%
Mother only in labor force
2%
2%
3%
Living with 1 parent
31%
26%
28%
Living with father
7%
6%
6%
In Labor Force
6%
5%
5%
Living with mother
24%
20%
22%
In Labor Force
20%
16%
16%
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Table 6.29:
Parents in the
Work Force,
2000 (U.S.
Census 2000,
SF3 Indiana)
7. 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 1-800-3463077 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
Indiana Social Indicator System
Indiana State Department of Health
*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, 2004.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.1 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
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.2 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.3 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 1990-2003. 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 this web site 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, 2003) report cases of child
abuse processed and substantiated by CPS in 2003; 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.3 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 2003).
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.4 Statistics from the Department of Education
The DOE web site (http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/htmls/education.html) reports school and
school-corporation level data for grades K-12. Data on the site comes from the years 2001-2004.
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.5 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 2004). 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
2003 Report, Crash Data (up to 2000), Seatbelt Studies, Alcohol Impaired Driving Reports, and Teenage
Driver Reports.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.6 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.7 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources*
7.8 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 (2003), 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources
7.9 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources
7.10
Indiana Alcohol and Other Drugs Social Indicator System
Quoting the website (www.sis.indiana.edu) : “The Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction
created this site to assist communities in the identification of local substance abuse problems. The
indicators are presented for each of Indiana's 92 counties to the extent data were available. Social
indicators provide valuable information for deciding upon local action in response to alcohol and other
drug problems.
Social indicator data will be updated annually as information from available data sources become
available. . “
The “State of Indiana Demographics” section contains data from the 2000 Census. The PREVSTAT™ County Profiles contain more current information for many of these variables.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
7. Complementary Resources
7.11 Indiana State Health Department
The section named “Data and Statistics” of the Indiana State Health Department web
site ( http://www.in.gov/isdh/ ): contains information on Health Behavior Risk Factors (BRFSS),
HIV/STD Quarterly Reports, Immunizations, Infectious Diseases, marriages, maternal and child
health, mortality, natality, tuberculosis, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendices
A. Census Definitions
B.
C.
D.
F.
G.
Claritas™ Lifestyle PRIZM Clusters
County Distribution of Tobacco Farms
Archival Indicators
DSA Contact Information
State Offices
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
158
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
159
A. Census Definitions, cont.
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
non-institutionalized population (such as college dormitories, military quarters, and group
homes, and the staff residing at these quarters.
Household. A household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a
house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate
living quarters. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more
families living together, or an other group of related or unrelated people who share living
quarters.
Spouse (husband/wife) A person married to and living with a householder. People in formal marriages,
as well as people in common law marriages, are included.
Child. A son or daughter by birth, a stepchild, or an adopted child of the householder, regardless of the
child’s age or marital status. The category excludes sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, and foster
children.
Own child. A never-married child under 18 who is son or daughter of the householder by birth,
marriage (a stepchild), or adoption.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
160
A. Census Definitions, cont.
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.
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).
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
161
A. Census Definitions, cont.
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.
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
162
B.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to 5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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)
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
The following PRIZM lifestyle categories:
S1.
U1.
C1.
T1.
S2.
S3.
U2.
C2.
T2.
R1.
U3.
C3.
T3.
R2.
R3.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
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
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
The following descriptions are based upon information contained in Summary Lifestyle
Descriptions: PRIZM Cluster Narratives (Claritas 2000).
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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 socalled “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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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.
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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 so-called second cities. This group has compares to the S3, U2,
and C2 groups. Three of its five clusters are predominantly white, have an even
distribution in terms of age, are home-owners, married and raising children.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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 high-rise apartments). They are characterized by high numbers of single
people, single-parents with very young children, and high rates of unemployment.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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.
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 singlefamily 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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix B, cont.
An Explanation of Claritas™ Household PRIZM Groups
Related to
5.10 Lifestyles (Claritas™: Indiana, 2004)
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
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
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.
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
D. Archival Indicators
www.westerncapt.org
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix D, cont.
Archival Indicators
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Source: http://www.westerncapt
Appendix D, cont.
Archival Indicators
Source: http://www.westerncapt
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix D, cont.
Archival Indicators
Source: http://www.westerncapt
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix D, cont.
Archival Indicators
See web site for further school and peer indicators: http://www.westerncapt
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
E. DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix E, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix E, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix E, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix E, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix E, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
Appendix E, cont.
DSA Contact Information
Source: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
F. STATE OFFICES
Source: ONDCP web site, STATE OFFICES page:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/in/stoffices.htmlAllen3
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
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
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
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
Appendix F, cont.
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.htmlAllen3
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
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/
GIS in Prevention, County Profiles, Series 2 (2005)
188