Minnesota Child Response
Initiative:
Geo-mapping Project in Washington County
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 geo-mapping projects. This report outlines the findings from the
geo-mapping in Washington
County.
Geo-Mapping
The purpose of the geo-mapping project is to use GIS software to
highlight areas that appear to have high need 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 city/town in Washington
county were also obtained from the Tubman Family Alliance which, through a
previously existing process, receives information about all reported domestic
assaults in the area. Finally, social
service resources were contacted. 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 domestic assault information.
Findings
Figure 1 shows total population by city/town with the number of
domestic assaults reported in 2002.
Woodbury is the most populous area.
Woodbury had the highest number of assaults reported in 2002 (141),
while there were 116 incidents reported in Cottage Grove. Figure 2 shows the percent of the population
in each city/town that is under age 9 overlaid with domestic assault counts for
2002. Cottage Grove and Woodbury emerge as areas of
comparatively high need; both reported over 100 domestic assaults in 2002 and
have relatively high concentrations of young children (17.2% and 17.4%
respectively). Figures 3-6 show the
percent of the population in each city/town 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 3 indicates that American Indians make up a relatively low
percentage of Washington
county’s population in general (only .4% overall), but are most concentrated in
Bayport. Figure 4 indicates that Woodbury has the highest concentration of
Asian Americans (5.1%). Figure 5 shows
the highest concentration (17.7%) of African Americans to be in Bayport. Newport, St. Paul Park,
and Lakeland Shores have comparatively high
concentrations of Hispanic/Latinos. (Figure 6).
Overall, as can be seen on the “pull out” boxes on each map, minority communities
make up fairly small percentages of Washington
county’s population. Figure 7 shows
domestic assault counts and median family incomes in Washington county. Newport,
Landfall, and Forest
Lake had median incomes
below $45,000 in 2002. The red in Dellwood,
Grant, and Pine Springs indicates a concentration of wealth in this area of the
county. Figure 8 shades the cities/towns
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”). The red on this map is
scarcely visible, because the highest concentration of “working poor or poorer”
families in Washington
county is found in Landfall (47.9%). As
Figure 1 indicates, Landfall is a very small town. Lake
Elmo, Newport, and St. Mary’s Point are all areas
with relatively high (between 15% and 20%) concentrations of the working poor
or poorer. Figure 9 shows the percent of
families with children in each city/town with incomes below the federal poverty
guide. Overall, only 2.9% of families
with children in Washington
county are impoverished. Again, Landfall
emerges as an area of high need (29.8% of its families live in poverty). St. Paul
Park, Lake
Elmo, and Forest Lake
have between 5% and 9% of their families with children living in poverty. Figure 10 shows the percent renter occupied
by city/town in Washington
county. This measure is included because
a comparatively high concentration of residents living in rental properties is
considered to be on indicator of transience and potential instability. Overall, a fairly small percent (14.2%) of
all of Washington
county’s residents live in rental properties.
Between a quarter and one third of the residents in Newport,
Oak Park Heights,
and Forest Lake live in renter occupied units.
Finally, Figure 11 shows the places in Washington county shaded by the
number of domestic assaults reported to Tubman Family Alliance in 2002 overlaid
with points geocoded to represent social service agencies that serve children
and/or provide some violence specific programming (the green stars on the
map). This map also includes an outline
of suburban Ramsey county and space for St. Paul
because many resources utilized by Washington
county residents are located in Ramsey county.
The map indicates that the bulk of resources are located in St. Paul. However, a few of the agencies shown in Washington county (such
as the H.S.I. branches) are very large and serve many clients.
Important Caveats
Although we made our best efforts to obtain accurate and comprehensive
information about services in Washington
county, 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 (as
previously mentioned with regard to H.S.I..
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 county 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
