community area health inventory

Transcription

1 Health Status Index Series Volume XV Number III community area health inventory part two: community area comparisons CIty of Chicago Department of Public Health Office of Epidemiology

2 Community Area Health Inventory Part Two: Community Area Comparisons Kirsti Bocskay, Ph.D., M.P.H. Sandra Thomas, M.D., M.S. Kevin Gibbs, M.U.P.P. Dana Harper, B.S. Margarita Reina, M.P.H. Terry Mason, M.D., F.A.C.S., Commissioner, Department of Public Health, City of Chicago Copyright Information All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated. Suggested Citation Bocskay K., Thomas S., Gibbs K., Harper D., Reina M. Community Area Health Inventory Part Two: Community Area Comparisons. Health Status Index Series Vol. XV No. III Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Department of Public Health Office of Epidemiology, 005.

3 CONTENTS Preface...i Data Highlights...ii Methods... Definitions of Measures...7 Socioeconomic and Health Comparisons... Rankings...05

4 PREFACE Chicago was divided into 75 community areas based upon social, cultural and geographic factors more than 70 years ago by a research committee at the University of Chicago. Two additional community areas have been added since 960. Although the community areas no longer necessarily represent the boundaries of modern Chicago neighborhoods, demographic and health information at the community area level is useful to many community-based organizations, planners, hospitals, universities, and other groups. The first edition of the Community Area Health Inventory was published in 99 by the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) Office of Planning, Policy and Resource Development. The report was then expanded into two volumes by the Office of Epidemiology in 994. This year s edition of the Community Area Health Inventory marks a significant change in organization and content, incorporating revised racial/ethnic groupings, more meaningful socio-economic (SES) indicators, a more relevant arrangement of health measures and an expanded range of health indicators, such as Alzheimer s Disease. Part One includes: Population compostions by age, sex and race/ethnicity, SES and health measures, and 0-year trend analyses of these indicators. Graphic representations of demographic measures are also presented to provide a quick visual reference of gender, age, and racial distributions in each community area. Part Two, as in previous reports, uses the same health measures in Part One to rank community areas both in tabular and map form. This year s version introduces graphic representations for each health measure giving the user a quicker understanding of each community areas rate/percent compared to other areas and Chicago overall. A summary rank index is also given for each community area based on rank in all health indices. The Community Area Health Inventory summarizes data from many sources and represents the cumulative effort of the Offices of Epidemiology and HIV/AIDS Surveillance, and the Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Surveillance, Communicable Disease, Immunization and Lead Programs. We hope that this report and the additions and revisions within will prove helpful in developing effective interventions for improving the health and well-being of Chicagoans. We welcome any questions, comments, or suggestions for improvements. Please contact: Office of Epidemiology Chicago Department of Public Health DePaul Center, Room 7 South State Street Chicago, Illinois () Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. i

5 DATA HIGHLIGHTS POPULATION Chicago s population increased by 4% over the 0-year study period, , though not uniformly - 5.9% of community areas decreased in population. Gage Park increased by almost 50%, the most of any community area. Washington Park decreased by almost 0%, the least of any community area. The largest change in population for an age group in Chicago occurred in the 65 years and older category, a decrease of.7%. Almost 75% of community areas 65 and older population decreased. The average decrease was 9.9%. Gage Park had the largest decrease in persons 65 and older, 58.%. There were significant changes in the racial/ethnic composition of many community areas from The Hispanic population in Chicago grew by almost % over the 0-year study period, the greatest change of all racial/ethnic groups. West Elsdon had the largest increase in Hispanics, 44.5%. Population decreases were seen in the Non-Hispanic White and Black populations, 7.4% and 5.7%, respectively in Chicago. Gage Park saw the greatest loss of Non-Hispanic Whites, a 77.7% decrease. Near South Side had the largest decrease in Non-Hispanic Blacks,.%. The socioeconomic status of many Chicagoans improved from 990 to 000. More than 60% of community areas had a decrease in unemployment. Near South Side had the largest decrease of any community area, 6%. Almost 85% of Chicago s community areas increased their proportion of residents who had graduated from high school. West Town had the largest increase in high school graduates, improving more than 50% from 990. Almost 65% of community areas had a decrease in childhood poverty. The Loop saw the greatest decrease in childhood poverty, 70%. HEALTH Health for many Chicagoans also improved during Alzheimer s Disease was the only cause of mortality to significantly increase, 65.%. All-cause and all other causes of mortality, except diabetes, significantly decreased. Age-adjusted mortality rates and time trends for each community area varied. No single community area had the highest rates or the lowest rates. The majority of community areas (87%) had a significant decrease in all-cause mortality over the 0-year study period of The average decrease was 5%. The community area with the largest decrease in all-cause mortality was Fuller Park, 50%. More than 40% of community areas had a significant decrease in cancer mortality from 99 to 00. The average decrease was 0%. The community area with the greatest decrease in cancer mortality was Brighton Park, 60%. Many community areas (80.5%) had a significant decrease in heart disease mortality from 99 to 00. The average decrease was more than 0%. West Elsdon had the largest decrease in heart disease mortality, 6.7%. Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. ii

6 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. iii Almost 70% of community areas experienced a significant decrease in fertility during the 0-year period (99-00). The average decrease was 7.8%. Grand Boulevard had the greatest decrease in fertility, 60.8%. More than 60% of community areas had a significant increase in mothers who sought prenatal care in the first trimester. The average increase was.%. The community area with the greatest increase in prenatal care in the first trimester was Near South Side,.%. Maternal smoking during pregnancy decreased during the study period. More than 75% of all community areas had a significant decrease with an average decrease of 56%. West Elsdon had the greatest decrease in maternal smoking during pregnancy, 89.4%. The number of babies born by Caesarean section increased significantly in 70.% of community areas with an average increase of 9%. Washington Park had the largest increase in percentage of babies born via Caesarean section, 7.%. Birth outcomes improved for Chicago newborns during the 0-year study period. The percent of very low birthweight babies born decreased by almost 0% in Chicago. More than 90% of community areas did not experience a significant increase in the percentage of very low birthweight newborns. Although only 0.4% of community areas had a significant decrease in the percentage of premature births, those decreases were dramatic, averaging almost 0% (7.8). Infant mortality fell by almost 0% from 99 to 00 in Chicago. Almost one-third of community areas had less than the expected number of infants die in 00. Mortality due to HIV/AIDS dropped by 7.9% in the 0-year study period while the prevalence of AIDS, or people living with AIDS, increased by almost 00% (98.). Many community areas (80.5%) experienced an increase in the prevalence of AIDS from 99 to 00, the average increase being 8%. Oakland had the largest increase in AIDS prevalence, 99.8%.

7 METHODS GENERAL LIMITATIONS As noted in the preface, this report is intended as a resource for advocates, providers, planners, and others. It is descriptive and is not intended to serve as a causal analysis. For example, if a community has a high cancer mortality rate, this may not be caused by characteristics of the community. This is because the latency period for some cancers is ten years or longer and thus an elevated rate could reflect cancers that started in people before they moved into the community area. Answering these questions would require further investigation. For some measures, such as breast cancer mortality, which are based on relatively few events at the community area level, other limitations must be considered. These rates are subject to substantial random variability. These rates and subsequent rankings should therefore be interpreted as a general indication of how a community area fares, and not as a measure of its exact standing. OVERVIEW Volume Two uses the same socioeconomic and health measures found in Volume One, but does not include trend analysis. This volume consists of a series of graphs and thematic maps depicting community areas rate/percent for each SES and health measure with the Chicago rate/percent as a marker. The map for each measure highlights the community areas that have rates or percentages at least percent higher than the citywide rate. Volume Two also contains ranking tables for each measure. A composite health ranking table which sums up the rankings for each health measure and gives an overall rank of health for each community area is also included. POPULATION DENOMINATORS The population denominators for calculating 00 rates are from the 000 census. Although the Census Bureau undertakes a substantial effort to enumerate every person, there is still an undercount and it is not random. The magnitude of the undercount increases with poverty, for example. Many of the demographic groups that are at a higher risk of being under counted are also at higher risk of having poor health outcomes. To the extent that this is true, the differences between the highest and lowest risk communities are probably slightly (up to 0%) overstated. CAUSE OF DEATH DETERMINATION All deaths are required to be registered using death certificates. Death certificates are processed and analyzed by a standardized system that is used in most countries throughout the world, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). On the death certificate, the certifier (a physician, coroner or medical examiner) enters information about the causes and circumstances of death in a specific sequence. When received by the vital statistics office, the listed causes are placed in standard categories, and the underlying cause of death is then determined. The underlying cause of death is defined as: the disease or injury which started the sequence of events leading directly or indirectly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced a fatal injury. Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg.

8 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Underlying cause of death is not necessarily the first medical condition listed on the death certificate. All of the information on the certificate is examined systematically, using classification rules, to determine the most appropriate underlying cause of death. The system is periodically revised to reflect advances in medical knowledge and public health priorities. The ninth revision, ICD-9, was used for deaths in the United States for twenty years, The ICD-0 is the most recent update, and is being used for US deaths effective with data from 999. There are important differences between ICD-0 and its predecessor, ICD-9, including the following: The number of detailed categories has nearly doubled. Important changes in some of the rules for classifying underlying cause of death. INFECTIOUS DISEASE The numbers and rates for infectious diseases that are required to be reported are always subject to the effects of underreporting, since health care providers are not always compliant with reporting requirements for a variety of reasons, and persons affected by these illnesses do not always seek medical care. Therefore, even for conditions where provider-based surveillance is supplemented by active case finding, these figures must be interpreted as minimum estimates of the true case numbers and rates. The infectious, reportable diseases included in this report are AIDS, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis C, Syphilis (primary and secondary), and Tuberculosis. RATE CALCULATIONS In the Community Area Health Inventory, rates for causes of death and all cause mortality are age adjusted, which is explained below. All events and rates/percents presented in this report are incident for 00 except for AIDS and Hepatitis C cases, which are prevalent cases and rates. How Age Adjusted Rates are Calculated Age adjustment is a technique that is used to make it easier to interpret differences in disease rates between different populations. Most important health conditions vary with age- for example, heart disease rates are much higher in people over age 65 than in people under age 5. The populations in different community areas vary in their age composition. Similarly, the population in the same geographic area varies in its age composition over time. When comparing rates of death, we would like to be able to separate what differences are due to potentially modifiable risk factors and what differences are due to age. With direct age adjustment, a reference or standard population is identified, and weights are assigned to age-specific groups based on their representation in the standard population. For example, if 5-4 year olds represent 5% of the standard population, they are assigned a weight of.05. All of the weights add up to. The age adjusted rate for a population is a weighted average of the age group specific rates for the population, using the weights derived from the standard population. Age adjusted rates that are derived using the same standard population can be compared to each other, but they CANNOT be compared to age adjusted rates using different standard populations. Age adjusted rates are summary statistics for comparisons, and NOT actual rates - they cannot be applied to a specific population to get the actual number of events that occurred in that population.

9 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. The projected US population for the year 000 is currently used as the reference (standard) population for age adjustment by the Chicago Department of Public Health. This makes our data consistent with reports issued by all agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services, who uniformly adopted the projected US population for year 000 as their standard for age adjustment for health events or deaths occurring in 999 or later. STANDARDIZED MORTALITY RATIO Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) can be used to compare mortality in a specific population to a standard population. SMRs are commonly used when factor-adjusted rates (age, sex, race, ethnicity, etc.) are unreliable because factor-specific rates are unstable due to small numbers of deaths within those groups. SMRs result from an indirect method of adjustment compared to factor-adjusted rates, which are produced by direct adjustment (discussed in previous section). SMRs are the ratio of the observed and expected number of deaths in a specific population, which estimates the factor-adjusted rate ratio of the specific and standard population. The total number of expected deaths is determined by summing the product of the factor-specific mortality rate of the standard population and the number of persons in each group for the specific population. An SMR greater than one implies more deaths occurred than expected, while an SMR less than one implies fewer deaths occurred than expected. SMRs cannot be compared between two specific populations. For example, if the breast cancer SMR for Forest Glen is.4 and 5.7 for Avalon Park, one can conclude that both community areas have a higher number of deaths than expected compared to Chicago overall. But no conclusions can be drawn regarding the higher SMR for Avalon Park compared to Forest Glen. SMRs also do not provide information on the real disease burden in a community area as age-adjusted rates, or direct adjustment, does. SMRs were calculated for specific causes of deaths, including infant mortality, when 5 or more community areas age-adjusted rates had to be suppressed. The SMRs were then used for ranking analysis in Part Two. The expected number of deaths due to a specific cause was determined using cause-specific mortality rates for Chicago and the 000 population of each community area by age groups. DATA REPORTING CRITERIA The guidelines for data release and cell suppression used by CDPH try to balance data accessibility with privacy concerns and confidence in the stability of the estimates that we publish. Rates, percentages, and ratios based on twenty or fewer events can vary widely just by random chance even when there is no meaningful statistical difference between measurements. Rare events occurring in large populations do not usually allow for the identification of individuals, but reporting small cell sizes for population subgroups (for example, Native American Chicago residents between 0-9 that give birth in a calendar year) increases the risk of breaching confidentiality. The guidelines for cell suppression used in this report (adapted from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health) are based on both the numerator (event) and denominator (population or group size) values, except for Chlamydia, Gonnorrhea, Syphilis (primary and secondary), and AIDS cases and rates. To prevent back calculation of suppressed numbers, secondary suppression of at least three other cells may be performed in conjunction with the primary suppression.

10 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 4 Data will be reported when they meet one of the following conditions:. For population/group size > 9, number of events is less than the population/group size.. For population/group size between 0 and 9, the number of events is either 0 or the difference between the population/group size and the number of events is greater than 5.. For population/group size less than 0,there are no events. If these conditions are met but calculations produce statistically unreliable rates, ratios, or percentages, then: counts will be reported without secondary calculations, or secondary calculations will be identfied with a warning to use caution when interpreting or comparing those values. Data will NOT be reported when either of the following conditions exist:. For population/group size between 0 and 9, the difference between the population/group size and the number of events is between 0 and 5.. For population/group size less than 0, the number of events is between and 9. The Office of HIV/AIDS Surveillance and the STD Surveillance Program have a separate confidentiality standard whereby counts and rates for less than 5 cases are suppressed. As such, for fewer than 5 Chlamydia, Gonnorrhea, Syphilis (primary and secondary), and AIDS cases, counts will be reported as < 5 and rates suppressed. An age-adjusted mortality rate will be suppressed when the total number of events is 0 or less. (Other methods of analysis are available to evaluate age-adjusted rates based on 0 or fewer events e.g. Poisson. Please contact the Office of Epidemiology for more information.) Percentages and rates (not age-adjusted) based on 0 events or less will be reported along with a warning to use caution when making interpretations based on these rates and included in the ranked analysis for Part Two. Percentages and rates (not age-adjusted) based on fewer than 5 events will be supressed and excluded from ranked analysis in Part Two. For mortality, a community area was excluded from ranking analysis if the age-adjusted rate was suppressed or the number of expected deaths was less than 5 and the SMR was less than.

11 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 5 RANKING The community areas are ranked on each SES and health measure, with assigned to the highest rate, percent or SMR for each SES and health measure. If more than one community area has the same rate/percent/smr, the ranks will be tied and the number of ranks will be less than 77. If a community area s rate, percent or SMR is suppressed and excluded from ranking analysis, the number of ranks will be less than 77. The composite health rank is based on the sum of all ranks for each health measure, except for Percent Screened for Lead. The community area with the lowest composite value will be assigned the rank of. For the composite health ranking table, community areas who were excluded from ranking analysis for a specific measure will have a rank imputed for that measure in order to calculate an overall health rank. The imputed rank will be the average of the ranks for all other health measures that were included in ranking analyses for that specific community area. For example, if ranks for Kenwood were only able to be determined for the health measures, AIDS Cases, Maternal Smoking, Very Low Birthweight and All-Cancer Mortality (, 5, 8 and 9, respectively), then the imputed rank for all other health measures would be (+5+8+9)/4 or. If more than 0% of a community area s health measures were suppressed, the community area will be excluded from the composite rank analysis.

12

13 DEFINITIONS OF MEASURES SOCIOECONOMIC MEASURES Below Poverty Level Persons whose household income falls below the federally defined poverty level in 999 (000 data). Source: United States Census Childhood Poverty Persons under age 8 whose total family income falls below the federally defined poverty level in 999 (000 data). Source: United States Census High School Graduates Persons age 5 years and older who have received a high school diploma or its equivalent. Source: United States Census Housing Vacancies Number of unoccupied housing units either for rent, sale, or seasonal use only. Source: United States Census Median Household Income The annual income at which half of the households fell above and half below. Source: United States Census Same Place of Residence for 5 Years Persons who lived in the same place (house, apartment, etc.) in 995. Source: United States Census Unemployed Civilian persons over age 6 who are without work and actively seeking work. Source: United States Census HEALTH MEASURES Infectious Diseases (Reportable) Reportable diseases are those that are mandated by state law to be tabulated and reported to the appropriate health authority, in this case CDPH. The infectious, reportable conditions selected for this report are: AIDS Chlamydia Gonorrhea Hepatitis C Syphilis (primary and secondary) Tuberculosis Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 7

14 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 8 The annual number of cases and incidence rates per 00,000 population are given for all conditions except AIDS and Hepatitis C. The AIDS prevalence rate estimates the number of persons diagnosed with AIDS living in Chicago and a specific community area. The total number of cases diagnosed for individuals living in a community area/chicago since surveillance began are included in this report, assuming the persons living with AIDS remained in the community area where resided when diagnosed. As advances in treatment have lengthened the lifespan of AIDS patients, it is possible that persons living with AIDS have moved since diagnosis. Hepatitis C counts reflect persons who have tested positive by an antibody, PCR or RIBA test. The data included in this report are the number of positive reports received by CDPH in 00 per 00,000 and not the disease prevalence rate for Hepatitis C in 00. No rates are age-adjusted. Data for sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS are not reported if fewer than five events occurred in the community area. Sources: CDPH Programs of Communicable Disease and Sexually Transmitted Disease,and Office of HIV/AIDS Surveillance Disabilities Non-institutionalized, civilian persons aged 5 and older with a long-lasting condition such as: blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment (Blind/Deaf); a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities like walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying (Physical); a condition that makes it difficult to learn, remember, or concentrate (Mental); a condition that makes it difficult to dress, bathe, get around inside the home (Requires Care); a condition that makes it difficult to go outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor s office (Home-Bound); or a condition that makes it difficult to work at a job or business, refers only to persons between the ages of 6 and 64 (Unable to Work). These categories are NOT mutally exclusive. Source: United States Census Fertility Rate The annual number of births and fertility rate, defined as the number of births per 000 women of child-bearing age (5-44) in the geographic area. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes First Trimester Prenatal Care The annual number and percent of births to resident mothers receiving prenatal care in the first trimester. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes Smoking The annual number and percent of births to resident mothers who reported smoking during pregnancy. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes Caesarean Section The annual number and percent of births to resident mothers who were delivered by Caesarean section. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes Very Low Birthweight The annual number and percent of resident births weighing less than 500 grams (.5 pounds). Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes

15 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 9 Premature Birth The annual number and percent of resident births with less than 7 completed weeks in the womb. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes Fetal Mortality The annual number and rate of deaths of fetuses who have reached at least 0 weeks of gestion and whose mothers reside in Chicago. A fetal death is when the expelled fetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umblical cord, or definite movement of vountary muscles regardless of gestational length or fetal development. The rate is the number of fetal deaths per,000 live births and fetal deaths to mothers residing in the geographic area. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes Infant Mortality The annual number and rate of deaths of resident infants (younger than one year of age). The rate is the number of infant deaths per,000 live births to mothers residing in the geographic area. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes Lead Screening Screened is the number and percent of resident children age six and younger with at least one lead screening. Elevated is the number and percent of resident children screened with a blood lead level higher than nine micrograms per deciliter. If a child was screened more than once, only one elevated screening is reported here. Source: CDPH Lead Program

16 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 0 Causes of Death The annual number of resident deaths and the age adjusted annual death rate per 00,000 population are given for each of the indicated causes of death (see ICD-0 codes below). Note that the specific causes of death listed here are not exhaustive. Breast cancer rates are for female and males. For each community area, the causes are grouped into 4 categories: infectious disease, cancer, unnatural, and chronic disease. The causes of death and corresponding ICD-0 codes are listed in Table. Source: IDPH Vital Records Tapes Table. ICD-9 and ICD-0 Codes for Causes of Death CAUSE ICD-0 CODES HIV/AIDS B0-B4 Infl uenza and Pneumonia J0-J8 All-cancers C00-C97 Breast Cancer C50 Colon Cancer C8-C9 Lung Cancer C-C4 Prostate Cancer C6 Accidents V0-X59, Y85-Y86 Homicide X85-Y09, Y87., Y5, Y89.0 Suicide X60-X84, Y87.0 Heart Disease I00-I09, I, I, I0-I5 Stroke I60-I69 Lower Respiratory Disease J40-J47 Diabetes Mellitus E0-E4 Liver Disease and Cirrohosis K70, K7-K74 Alzheimer s Disease G0

17 SOCIOECONOMIC AND HEALTH COMPARISONS

18 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Figure. Median Household Income, 000 Chicago, $8,65 Chicago, $8, Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood,60 4,44,8 40,898 5,758 5,88 68,6 57,8 57,08 5,40 49,640 68,69 49,08 40,7 45,7 4,07 49,67 46,66 4,59 8,59 6,677 6,45 8,78 8,95,66, 4,6 9,5888 8,4,0 7,76 65,8 4,9,756 4,85 0,79 8,4 4,78 6, Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater 5,60 5,99 8,66 7,748,44 44,44 8,79 4,790 46,6 8,7 0,966 4,789 9,74 40,478,78 4,665 45,46 9,4 6,45 6,00 5,55 5,647 45,0 6,46 45,5 47,07 5,98 6,69 8,955 7,96 5,6 4,8 66,8 4,0 57,49 5, 4,54 5, ,000 0,000 45,000 60,000 75, ,000 0,000 45,000 60,000 75,000 Dollars Dollars

19 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Figure. Chicago Community Areas with the Lowest Median Household Income, Shaded community areas have median incomes that are at least percent lower than the citywide median income. See preceding page for median incomes and community area names.

20 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 4 Figure. Percent Below Poverty Level, 000 Chicago, 9.6% Chicago, 9.6% Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Percent Percent

21 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 5 Figure. Chicago Community Areas with the Highest Percent Living Below Poverty Level, Shaded community areas have percents that are at least percent higher than the citywide percent. See preceding page for percents and community area names.

22 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 6 Figure. Percent Childhood Poverty, 000 Chicago, 8.% Chicago, 8.% Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Percent Percent

23 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 7 Figure. Chicago Community Areas with the Highest Percent of Children Living in Poverty, Shaded community areas have percents that are at least percent higher than the citywide percent. See preceding page for percents and community area names.

24 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 8 Figure 4. Percent Housing Vacancies, 000 Chicago, 7.9% Chicago, 7.9% Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Percent Percent

25 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 9 Figure 4. Chicago Community Areas with the Highest Percent of Vacant Housing, Shaded community areas have percents that are at least percent higher than the citywide percent. See preceding page for percents and community area names.

26 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 0 Figure 5. Percent Same Place of Residence for 5 Years, 000 Chicago, 54.4% Chicago, 54.4% Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Percent Percent

27 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Figure 5. Chicago Community Areas with the Lowest Percent of Persons Residing in the Same Place for 5 Years, Shaded community areas have percents that are at least percent lower than the citywide percent. See preceding page for percents and community area names.

28 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Figure 6. Percent High School Graduates, 000 Chicago, 7.8% Chicago, 7.8% Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Percent Percent

29 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Figure 6. Chicago Community Areas with the Lowest Percent of High School Graduates, Shaded community areas have percents that are at least percent lower than the citywide percent. See preceding page for percents and community area names.

30 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 4 Figure 7. Percent Unemployed, 000 Chicago, 0.% Chicago, 0.% Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Percent Percent

31 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 5 Figure 7. Chicago Community Areas with the Highest Percent of Unemployment, Shaded community areas have percents that are at least percent higher than the citywide percent. See preceding page for percents and community area names.

32 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 6 Figure 8. HIV/AIDS Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), 00 SMR = SMR = Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater SMR SMR No bar indicates SMR was suppressed or zero. An SMR of indicates there was no excess or shortage of deaths, the observed number of deaths equaled the expected number.

33 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 7 Figure 8. Chicago Community Areas with the Highest HIV/AIDS Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), Shaded community areas have SMRs that are at least., or the observed number of deaths is 0% greater than the expected number. See preceding page for SMRs and community area names.

34 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 8 Figure 9. AIDS Case Rate, 00 Chicago, 5.5 Chicago, Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Rate (per 00,000) Rate (per 00,000) No bar indicates rate was suppressed or zero.

35 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 9 Figure 9. Chicago Community Areas with the Highest AIDS Case Rate, Shaded community areas have rates that are at least percent higher than the citywide rate. See preceding page for rates and community area names.

36 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. 0 Figure 0. Chlamydia Rate, 00 Chicago, 80. Chicago, Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Rate (per 00,000) Rate (per 00,000) No bar indicates rate was suppressed or zero.

37 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Figure 0. Chicago Community Areas with the Highest Chlamydia Rate, Shaded community areas have rates that are at least percent higher than the citywide rate. See preceding page for rates and community area names.

38 Health Status Index Series Vol XV No III, pg. Figure. Gonorrhea Rate, 00 Chicago, 48.5 Chicago, Rogers Park West Ridge Uptown Lincoln Square North Center Lake View Lincoln Park Near North Side Edison Park Norwood Park Jefferson Park Forest Glen North Park Albany Park Portage Park Irving Park Dunning Montclare Belmont Cragin Hermosa Avondale Logan Square Humboldt Park West Town Austin West Garfield Park East Garfield Park Near West Side North Lawndale South Lawndale Lower West Side Loop Near South Side Armour Square Douglas Oakland Fuller Park Grand Boulevard Kenwood Washington Park Hyde Park Woodlawn South Shore Chatham Avalon Park South Chicago Burnside Calumet Heights Roseland Pullman South Deering East Side West Pullman Riverdale Hegewisch Garfield Ridge Archer Heights Brighton Park McKinley Park Bridgeport New City West Elsdon Gage Park Clearing West Lawn Chicago Lawn West Englewood Englewood Greater Grand Crossing Ashburn Auburn Gresham Beverly Washington Heights Mount Greenwood Morgan Park O'Hare Edgewater Rate (per 00,000) Rate (per 00,000) No bar indicates rate was suppressed or zero.