Minnesota Child
Response Initiative:
Geo-mapping
Project in Minneapolis
Introduction and
Background
The Minnesota Child Response Initiative (MCRI) is a partnership led by the Tubman Family Alliance and consists of domestic violence programs, mental health agencies, and the Minneapolis Police Department. The primary mission of the project is to “break the cycle of violence and help to heal the emotional wounds that chronic exposure to violence inflicts on children, families, and communities.” The MCRI project has been organized into three primary components in order to facilitate this mission: intervention, system change, and research. The system change component of the project seeks to identify the needs that various communities have in terms of children’s exposure to violence through community needs assessments (in the form of surveys and focus groups) and a geo-mapping project. This report outlines the findings from the geo-mapping in Minneapolis.
Geo-Mapping
The purpose of the geo-mapping project is to use GIS software to highlight areas that appear to have high needs in terms of children’s exposure to violence and limited resources (i.e. to identify areas where there is an apparent gap between needs and available services). “Need” was defined across a number of factors. The 2000 census data was used to provide a “snapshot” of each area in terms of demographics and socioeconomic indicators. Domestic assault counts for each precinct in Minneapolis in 2002 were also obtained. Finally, social service resources were contacted and categorized by level of service . The agencies to be contacted were originally obtained from the United Way web site and the yellow pages. We then determined, based on a series of questions asked of staff at each agency, whether they provided services for children and of what those services consisted. Addresses for agencies that provided some services for children and/or some violence specific programming were then geocoded and overlaid on the census and domestic assault information.
Findings
Figure 1 shows total population by precinct overlaid with the number of domestic assaults reported in 2002. The 3rd precinct is the most populated, but the largest number of assaults was reported in the fourth precinct. Figure 2 shows the precinct boundaries overlaid with major roadways. This map simply provides a point of reference indicating which areas of Minneapolis are contained in each precinct. Figure 3 shows the percent of the population in each precinct that is under age 9 overlaid with domestic assault counts for 2002. The 4th precinct emerges as an area of comparatively high need; this area had the highest number of reported assaults in 2002 and has the highest concentration of young children (20%). Figures 4-7 show the percent of the population in each precinct made up of a given minority population. These maps are included because efforts to meet the needs of children exposed to violence must be culturally relevant and culturally specific. Figure 4 indicates that the 4th precinct has the highest concentration of African Americans (41%). Figure 5 indicates that American Indians make up relatively low percentages of Minneapolis’ population in general, but are most concentrated in the 3rd precinct. Figure 6 shows the highest concentration (14%) of Asians to be in the 4th precinct. Hispanic/Latinos make up the largest percentage of the population in the 3rd precinct (Figure 7). Figure 8 is the first map overlaid with resource points. The precincts are shaded by the percent of families with children that have incomes below 185% of the federal poverty guideline (an income often considered to be the cutoff for “working poor”). In this map, the 1st precinct emerges as highest need in terms of concentration of the working poor and impoverished. However, this picture is somewhat distorted by the large number of shelters that are located in the 1st precinct. In terms of the highest concentration of working poor and impoverished families in permanent residence, the 4th precinct again is shown as an area of high need (49.1% of families with children in this area have incomes below the working poor level). The stars on the maps are geocoded to show the locations of social service agencies that have some violence and/or children specific services. The stars are color coded on the basis of level of service. The blue stars indicate facilities with “comprehensive” services. These agencies provide counseling, services for children, and violence specific programming. The map clearly shows that these resources are not concentrated in the 4th precinct. Figure 9 shows the same map with an additional overlay for Minneapolis schools (the blue flags). Figures 10-12 show information about the concentration of children under 19 and the prevalence of single parent families overlaid with the domestic assault counts and resource information. Again, these maps show the 4th precinct as an area of high need and relatively limited resources.
Important Caveats
Although we made our best efforts to obtain accurate and comprehensive information about services in Minneapolis, it should be noted that these maps are potentially missing relevant information. For example, we were unable to obtain consistent information about the size of the agencies, i.e. the number of people typically served. As a result, areas that emerge as particularly high need may in fact be served by relatively few large agencies. Additionally, our methods for obtaining agencies to contact were limited to published resources, such as the United Way web site and the yellow pages. As a result, small agencies that do provide services to children could be missing from this picture.
Conclusion
Despite the limitations of the resource information provided in these maps, we feel that this geomapping project does provide a valuable starting place for understanding and planning to meet the needs of children exposed to violence. These maps should be used together with representatives of communities around the city in order to inform community and city planning for this vulnerable group of children and families.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
