Land Art Movement and Artists

Land Art Movement and Artists Land Art was mainly developed during the late 1960s. It is also known as Earthworks. Land art was the revolutionary side of the artists, which were trying to escape from the traditional painting and sculpture, as well as their ecological concerns. According to Robert Smithson, this revolutionary approach, was also an attempt to escape from galleries and museums; this led to environmental consciousness and objection. †¦The ecologist tends to see the landscape in terms of the past, while most industrialists dont see anything at all. The artist must come out of the isolation of galleries and museums and provide a concrete consciousness for the present as it really exists, and not simply present abstractions or utopias†¦[1] This had as a result, for artists to create their art directly into the landscape. The work was made mostly with huge scale ‘sculptures directly in nature, using natural materials. Land art is about ‘real life and embodies the direct and instinctive relations with the landscape, the nature and the environment. It covers the approach of the location and the experience of the observer attaching special importance to the landscape. Land art works were mainly exhibited with written or photographic documentations. [2] Land art also provides the social and cultural conditions of that time. During 1968 there was a fundamental change of revolution in both continents, United States and Europe. In United States there was a pacifist and human rights expression, mainly caused by the Cold War and the American attachment in Vietnam. In Europe, one factor for that revolutionary change was the rebellious activities of the ‘Situationist Internanionale (Guy Debord) in France. Also the warning of danger caused by the nuclear war (global extinction), had a result to emphasize the importance of ecological issues. The first images from space, published the same year, changed the way we perceive our world. Land art reveals the clash positions of that period, in the direction of land and the environment. It desires a radical change and the recovery of the ecological disaster on land caused by the industrialisation. Through Land art we can reconsider our relationship with the landscape and with nature. The massive unexploited land of America played a major role in the development of Land art in the United States during that period. Many American artists performed their works, using those unexplored deserts of the American landscape. Those deserts embodied a mainly American approach towards landscape. They also proposed the success of American culture and technology over nature. They rejected the historic fine art traditions of Europe and they started to reference towards the significant national American idioms.[3] One main American artist is Robert Smithson, which he considers being the most important theoretical artist among all land artists. Many of his activities were located in the geological and culturally rich of Western America in desert locations. Smithson was interested in natural history from an early age. The year 1964 was a crucial year for his career as he began to develop his themes and interests. Blood, decay, geological strata and theories about time and history, were some of the artists interests that were developed through the paintings that he made on that period. In the same year he created a series of ‘crystalline sculptures, like The Eliminator 1964. He also developed a friendly relationship with a number of artists, which were associated with Minimalism. One of them was Donald Judd. When he exhibited those sculptures, they were perceived as Minimalist. This was mainly because he was known for his connection with those artists and due to the fact that for this work he used industrial materials. But Smithsons work deals and represents the multipart conceptual ideas. This multipart conceptual ideas include crystalline growth, decompose and the dilemma of perspective. He rejects clarity, unlike Minimalism, in which objects are standing themselves and are symbolising the external. [4] Smithson, as well as other artists, played their part in transforming the perception of nature. He has seen landscape as a place in continuous transformation, revealing entropy. He is associated with a natural landscape and he emphasizes the relationship between man and natural powers. Smithson also provides a powerful image for the contemporary position. In Smithosns writings the concept that emphasizes much on his work is the principle of energy loss-entropy. In 1968 he started to think about the scale and how artworks can be positioned and viewed in the landscape. He explored these ideas in a series of works called Site and Nonsite. Smithson described this work as ‘an indoor earthwork. In 1969 he started to produce his work directly into landscape, as he was interested in making art outdoors, away from galleries. He produced photographic work using mirrors. [5] In 1970 he made his major work on the landscape called Spiral Jetty, (1) which was made at Rozel Point on Great Salt Lake, in Utah. Spiral Jetty was made from rocks, mud and precipitated salt crystals. Smithson documented the creation of the sculpture. He learned that Great Salt Lake in Utah carried micro bacteria that coloured the water red and he developed an interest in the symbolic possibility of a red saline lake. He created the spiral form, as he was inspired with the location, the natural characteristics and the historical contexts. Smithson linked the red salt water with blood. Through Smithsons own writings, Spiral Jetty is presented as a particular clear example of his association between artwork and location and he is emphasizing its entropic qualities.[6] Michael Heizer was an American artist who was considered being very important to the development of land art. He felt that a sculpture needed to express the character and the scale of the great Western American landscape. He believed that artworks were valued as products and he provided the differences between those works of the urban marketplace and the works in the landscape. He stated that: ‘†¦the position of art as malleable barter-exchange items falters as the cumulative economic structure gluts. The museums and collections are stuffed, the floors are sagging but the real space exists†¦'[7] Heizer used the desert spaces as a laboratory. His first landscape work began in 1967, and it was called North and South. Through out this work we can perceive his interest in void and negative spaces. He rejected European traditions, as he wanted to make art that was ‘American. Heizer most famous and most debatable work is Double Negative (2), built in 1969. It is located at the Mormon Mesa, near Overton, Nevada. This work was made at the edge of the sandstone cliff and it is composed of two deep cuts creating a huge channel. Double Negative is composed of space itself. Heizer said that: In Double Negative, there is the implication of an object or form that is actually not there†¦ [8] Heizer believes that the work is not about the landscape but it is about the sculpture. He also believes that the importance of his work in not in what ‘it rejected but in what ‘it offered instead. Heizer through his work kept his primary purposes for his art in the landscape. In England the Land art started to develop as well in the late 1960s. England presented fewer opportunities for impressive gestures than United States. One main British artist was Richard Long. Long mostly gave emphasis to the simplicity on his work, giving the attention to his common skills and the materials he used. Walking was the principal form of Long. [9] But beneath this simplicity we can perceive the conceptual and the imaginative aspects that highlight Longs art. He explored ideas about time, space and experience. From an early age he started also to explore the traditional subject of landscape. In 1969 he aimed to ‘create an open and exploratory environment during his studies on the ‘Advanced Sculpture Course at St Martins School of Art in London. Other artists shared the same interest with Long about landscape as a subject for contemporary art. During his studies he developed a very different way of reaching the landscape, as through his work, he involved space and scale. His achievement on that period was the work titled with: A Line Made by Walking, 1967. (3) He simply walked along a line, across a field, in order to create a visible path in the grass. The path was photographed. We can split the work into two parts. Part one is the making of the work and part two is the documentation. After this work he continued to explore this conceptual aspect by creating two more works, Bicycle Sculpture 1967 and A Ten Mile Walk, England 1968. Because this kind of works couldnt exhibit into a gallery, Long started to use documentary materials such as texts, maps and photographs. We can separate Longs sculptures into two categories. Sculptures that were made by walking in the landscape, and the documentation of it, and sculptures which were made in the gallery as a reaction to space and locality. This separation on Longs works (the work made in the landscape and the work made for the gallery space), can be compared with Robert Smithsons works Site and Nonesite . We can find many similarities and differences between artists in the two continents. Longs work is considered being practical opposing to the work of Smithson, which is considered being theorised. Both artists used natural materials in order to accomplish their motivations. Long was using in his work, forms such as lines and circles expanding the modernist development. On the other hand, Smithson, had the obsession with ‘ destruction, decay, decomposition and dissolution. Both artists shared the same interest in order to find the place (landscape) to construct their works. Mapping was also a significant concern for Long, as well as for Smithson, not only for the documentation of their work but also to find a specific location. Equally through their works, they demonstrated cultural and artistic concerns. [10] Land art emphasizes the importance between nature and culture. Through Land Art, artists provided that the landscape is one of the original places of cultural expression, like social and environmental are clearly marked. Bibliography: Land Art: A Cultural Ecology handbook, ed. by Max Andrews, London: RSA, 2006. Beardsley, J. Earthworks and beyond: contemporary art in the landscape, 3rd edn. New York: Abbeville, 1998. Malpas, W. Land art, earthworks, installations, environments, sculptures, Kidderminster: Crescent Moon, 1998. Tufnell, B. Land Art, London: Tate Gallery Publications, 2006. [1] Land Art: A Cultural Ecology handbook, ed. by Max Andrews.p.22 [2] Tufnell, B. Land Art, London: Tate Gallery Publications, 2006, pp.12-19 [3] Tufnell, B. Land Art, pp.12-19 [4] Tufnell, B. Land Art, pp 35-42 [5] Beardsley, J. Earthworks and beyond: contemporary art in the landscape, 3rd edn. New York: Abbeville, 1998, pp. 19-23 [6] Tufnell, B. Land Art, pp 43-45 [7] Beardsley, J. Earthworks and beyond: contemporary art in the landscape, p.13 [8] Tufnell, B. Land Art p.51 [9] Beardsley, J. Earthworks and beyond: contemporary art in the landscape, pp.41-46 [10] Tufnell, B. Land Art, pp 32-35

Italian Culture and Work Ethics Essay

History teaches us that it is through the family that new generations are equipped with ethics and values regarding work. The advent of bourgeois society, with its characteristic openness towards other social classes, appears to have relegated the promotion of working values by families to the background. This study sets out to test the hypothesis according to which the family continues to maintain an important role in the transmission of working values. Based on data from the Work Importance Study (Super and Sverko, 1995: Life Roles, Values, a n d Careers, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass), two subgroups were compared (working adults, and high school and university students), considered as representing two different generations (youths vs adults). Some results from cluster anatysis show how substantial similarity exists between adults and youths in terms of ideal values, expressing ‘what would be important in an ideal world’. The difference between the subgroups lies in expectations (termed ‘expected values’) relating to ‘what would be important in my actual work environment’. Here, relatively more important values for young people are relatively less important for working adults. Another result presented concerns the relationship existing betiveen value typobgies (classed into six categories) and personal character associated with birth order. What emerges is that the only children are prevalently the ‘tough type’, while the first bom, considered by some to be custodians of family traditions, tum out to be more independent than the second or third bom, identified above all by their calm and sociable characters. Introduction: the work ethic and the family ethic This study presents the results of a survey conducted nationaUy in 1995 on a sample of 1523 subjects (represendng the three main geo-cultural areas of Italy: North, Centre and South—see BeUotto, 1997). The objecdve of the survey was to determine values associated with work. For this a quesdonnaire, a values scale (VS) was used, devised by an intemadonal team pardcipadng in a world-wide survey called the Work Importance Study—WIS (Super and Sverko 1995). With the data coUected, a profile of the value judgements of Italian families was formulated. The importance of working values within the family context has been little explored from a psychological point of view. Yet the family is characterized by the ethical nature of the reladonships it contains, hence its values (Boszormeny-Nagy and Spark, 1973; Cigoli, 1992). The family is rightly placed in that class of insdtudons that Hegel indicated as the ethical horizon of human society. ‘ There are very few Italian studies on the processes of value transmission within families, not to mendon the handing down of working values. While one of the principal funcdons recognized as typical of families is the socializadon of the individual, studies regarding the socializadon by families with regard to work are rarely encountered. 1351-1610/99/040583-13 Â © 1999 Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences 584 Massimo Bellotto and Alberto ^atti The lack of research in this field can be partly explained by the relatively recent history of the concept of the ‘family’ as a scientific subject for study in social psychology. At least until the end of the 1940s, families were considered as a group typology (Lewin, 1951). Successively, interest focused on the pathology of family relationships (Bateson et al. , 1956; Epstein et al. , 1982; Bamhill, 1979; Watzlawick et al. , 1967). It was only in die 1970s that the so-called ‘normal’ family was considered worthy of psychological investigation as a scientific subject (Scabini, 1985). In recent years, however, the theme of values and the ethical importance of families has emerged strongly in a variety of fields, from individual and family psychotherapy to organizational psychology. In this article we would like to propose that a terminological distinction be made between ethics and morality. Ethics are, as the etymology of the word suggests, the study of the ‘customs’ (ethos), the social habits, the relational practices of a people or social grouping. Morality relates more to the theme of how much certain behaviour corresponds to a reference model. In this sense, it is important to distinguish between ethics and morality when studying the customs and habits, in a word, the ethics of families (and not their morality). This is to avoid the pitfalls associated with referring to a particular set of values held by the family being analysed. What exacdy are the working values held by families? What relationship exists between these values and family needs? What are the motivations that stir the family organization? And which family values can be linked, even indirecdy, with work? Let us seek some answers to these important questions. Families in history have also been units of production. The peasant family, craft guilds, the factory worker families of the first and second industrial revolutions (Manoukian, 1976) are the most emblematic examples. In medieval society the chances of changing one’s profession from the one inherited from the family were rather hmited. Children continued the working traditions of the family without having much choice in the matter. The transmission of working values within family groups, historically speaking, seemed to go without saying. However, it would be worthwhile to pose the question of how families educate their members today with regard to work. Families in Westem society have changed profoundly. The social mobility intrinsic to the very idea of bourgeois society (Weber, 1904) has led to the privatization of family relationships (Aries, 1960) and to the specialization of family practices to the sentimental sphere. The educational role of families is becoming more and more marginal, being delegated to collective institutions such as schools. Moreover, from the viewpoint of economic history, families have become increasingly characterized as units of consumption, losing in part their role as units of production. From a macrosocial perspective, a fundamental problem emerges in Italy: the percentage of youth unemployment is one of the highest in Europe, especially in the South. Working Values and the Italian Family 585 majority of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 live at home: 82. 4% of males and 72. 5% of females. In the next age bracket, 25-34, many more young men sdU live at home with their parents (33. 6%) compared with young women of the same age (22. 9%). According to some demographic projecdons to the year 2000, these percentages wiU touch 36. 3% for young males and 34. 2% for young females. There are cultural and ideological reasons for this phenomenon, such as the idea that marriage is the only proper route towards adult independence (8 males out of 10 and 9 women out of 10 leave the family only foUowing marriage). However, social factors also make a contribudon, in particular, high youth unemployment and a shortage of rental accommodadon. The result is that families coundng a young adult as a member are a socially significant category. Psychological factors and value systems also play an important role. The working values tradidonaUy handed down in Italian families place heavy emphasis on permanent and full-dme employment. The definidve departure from the family is often condidonal on minimizing the risks of independence. Among others, for these two factors (permanent fuU-dme employment and minimum risk of independence), life-dme employment in government and union employment policies have come to be considered as a necessary and sufficient prerequisite for the attainment of adulthood. The quest for so-caUed ‘guaranteed employment’ has led Italian society to one of the most cridcal paradoxes in its history: the creadon of a barrier to occupadonal access for youth. Thus, the one prerequisite considered a vital and sufficient condidon for the evoludon of Italian families, life-dme employment, has become one of the major obstacles to the same end. By disallowing generational change in employment, it has become impossible for young generadons to enter the workforce, and hence to reach independence. ‘* Following on these consideradons, we decided to use the results of a study on working values (WIS 1995) to shed some light on value differences between young students and adult workers. As mendoned above, very few studies have been carried out in Italy on the transmission of values within families. While the WIS study was not designed for this purpose, we believed that it could give some indicadons regarding the generadon gap (youths vs adults) and differences in social status (students vs workers). The underlying hypothesis to tjiis study is therefore that working adult values can be considered as being similar to those of parents; likewise, those held by young students can be considered as being similar to those of offspring. The WIS survey.

Dupage County Needs Assessment

Dupage County needs assessment U OM LTH C A E TUS ENT H A T ESM S S AS ITY N DUPAGE COUNT Y HEALTH DEPARTMENT Everyone, Everywhere, Everyday Community Health Status Assessment DuPage County Health Department 2010 Prepared By Mary Lally, RN, MPH Crystal Reingardt, MPH Peggy Iverson, BS Stacey Hoferka Jensen, MPH, MSIS Elizabeth Barajas, MPH Table of Contents Section 1 Leading Causes of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top Ten Leading Causes of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crude Mortality Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top Ten Leading Causes of Death by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top Five Leading Causes of Death by Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Years of Potential Life Lost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . DuPage County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birth Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistics. Mortality Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Immigrant Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unemployment. Unemployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uninsured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 2-1 2-1 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-1 0 2-11 2-12 2-13 2-13 3-1 3-7 3-8 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-25 3-28 3-29 4-1 4-1 4-7 4-8 4-12 4-13 4-14 5-1 5-1 5-4 5-7 5-7 5-10 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-6 Section 2 Section 3 Chronic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diseases of the Heart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cancer. Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stroke. Stroke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arthritis. Arthritis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Osteoporosis. Osteoporosis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diabetes. Diabetes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asthma. Asthma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EndDisease. End-Stage Renal Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infecti Infectious Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VaccineVaccine-Preventable Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Infectious Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sexually Transmitted Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HIV/AIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tuberculosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rabies . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 4 Section 5 Maternal and Child Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infant Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prenatal Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors. Risk Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Birth Weight and Very Low Birth Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adolescent Pregnancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activity Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activity. Physical Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obesity. Overweight and Obesity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FORWARD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 6 Section 7 Environmental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outdoor Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Waste. Toxics and Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communities. Healthy Homes and Healthy Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infrastructure and Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foodborne Illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mental Health Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ment al Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alzheimer ’s disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Substance Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcohol Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tobacco Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illicit Drug Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Injury and Violence Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unintentional Unintentional Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accidents. Motor Vehicle Accidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drowning. Drowning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deaths. Firearm Related Injuries / Deaths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Homicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Child Abuse and Neglect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7-1 7-3 7-4 7-6 7-6 7-8 8-1 8-1 8-3 8-5 8-6 8-7 8-10 8-12 9-1 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-9 1010-1 1010-1 1010-2 1010-2 1010-4 1010-5 10-5 101010-8 1111-1 11-1 111111-2 1111-4 1111-5 1111-6 1111-6 Section Section 8 Section 9 10 Section 10 Minority Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DuPage County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DuPage County Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnicity. Cause Specific Deaths by Race and Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top Five Leading Causes of Death by Race and YPLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motor Vehicle Accidents, Homicides, and Suicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maternal and Infant Health Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infectious Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Access to Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Health Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preven tive Clinical Preventive Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ongoing Sources of Primary Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inadequate Prenatal Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sentinel Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Section 11 Introduction In order to meet State requirements for health department re-certification, Illinois Administrative Code requires that every five years, each Local Health Department must assess the health needs of its community through a systematic process known as the Illinois Project for Local Assessment of Needs (IPLAN). IPLAN is grounded in the core functions of public health and ddresses public health practice standards. One of the required documents of the IPLAN process is a Community Health Status Assessment. The Community Health Status Assessment is intended to answer th e question, â€Å"What is the health status of the residents of DuPage County? † The results of this assessment will provide the IPLAN Steering Committee with an understanding of the community’s health status and ensure that the IPLAN priorities include specific health status issues. The Community Health Status Assessment is developed through the systematic analysis of health status data from primary and secondary sources.The following DuPage County Health Department Community Health Status Assessment is a compilation of data from these sources. The Institute of Medicine defines a community health profile as a set of health, demographic and socioeconomic indicators which are relevant to most communities. It is intended to provide a broad strategic view of the population’s health status, and the factors that influence health in the community. The IPLAN Steering Committee will use this document to identify and support approximately ten health status issues. Method ologyThe DuPage County Health Department has created this Community Health Status Assessment to identify specific health needs as part of the IPLAN process. Our intent is to develop an accurate, comprehensive picture of health status of DuPage County residents. Content areas covered focus on physical, mental and environmental health. This assessment will follow a structure similar to the U. S. Healthy People 2010 (HP 2010) document, providing the most current data available, and indicating how DuPage County compares to the HP 2010 target whenever possible.Incidence, prevalence and trends are shown when available. Objectives without HP 2010 targets have been included where appropriate based on public health impact. Direct HP 2010 comparisons were not always available. Finding current, comparative data on specific health objectives consistently remains a challenge. Many data sources have been used in an attempt to provide accurate data for analysis. Data reliability must always be con sidered, as in some instances, occurrence of morbidity or mortality may be so low that a valid rate or percent cannot be calculated or, if calculated, would be meaningless.These occurrences are noted throughout the document. Data derived in the Community Health Profile is a compilation of many sources. Frequently when discussing national health statistics or trends, direct HP 2010 text was quoted. The IPLAN Data System was a primary source for Illinois and DuPage County specific indicators, as this system contains a wealth of data on births, mortality and chronic illnesses. Illinois Department of Public Health birth and death files were frequently used as a data source, along with sources from specific DuPage County Health Department service areas.Other data and information sources include Access DuPage, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Psychiatric Association, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DuPage County Environmental Committee, DuPage County Sheriff’s Office, DuPage Federation on Human Services Reform, Family Shelter Services, Illinois Attorney General, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Illinois Department of Employment Security, Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois Department of Transportation, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois State Board of Education, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Kaiser Family Foundation, National Adolescent Health Information Center, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Cancer Institute, National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, National Osteoporosis Foundation, National Safety Council, National Stroke Association, Nationally Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Safe Kids USA, SEER*Stat (Surveillance, Epidemiology an d End Results statistical software), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Suicide Prevention Resource Center, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, U. S Census Bureau, U. S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U. S. Department of Justice, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and World Health Organization. Section 1: Leading Causes of Death and Mortality in DuPage County A good place to begin our study of the health status of the population is by reviewing the leading causes of death in DuPage County residents. Presenting, ranking, and comparing leading causes of death data is a common method of showing mortality statistics, and is useful for illustrating the relative burden of disease-specific mortality.The DuPage County death data presented in this section were obtai ned from death files provided by the Illinois Department of Public Health. In 2006, there were 5,703 deaths in DuPage County and 102,122 deaths in Illinois (1). Ninety-four percent of DuPage deaths were White, three percent were Asian, and two and one half percent were Black. Three percent of DuPage deaths were Hispanic. Minority Health will be addressed in Section 10 of this Community Health Profile. See Table 1. 1 for a comparison of the 2006 Top Ten Leading Causes of Death in DuPage County and Illinois (2)(3). See Table 1. 2 for the 2004 and 2005 Top Ten Leading Causes of Death in DuPage County (2). Table 1. Top Ten Leading Causes of Death in DuPage County with Illinois Comparison, 2006 DuPage County Rank Cause of Death All Causes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Illinois Number of Deaths 102,122 27,002 24,052 5,974 4,725 4,401 2,792 1 Number of Deaths 5,703 1,419 1,384 347 260 192 183 158 109 107 93 Percent of Deaths 100. 0 24. 9 24. 3 6. 1 4. 6 3. 4 3. 2 2. 8 1. 9 1. 8 1. 6 Percent of De aths 100. 0 26 24 6 5 4 3 1 Diseases of the Heart Cancer Cerebrovascular Disease Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease Accidents Alzheimer’s Disease Pneumonia Diabetes Mellitus Nephritis and Nephrosis Septicemia 2,794 2,501 2,001 3 2 2 Pneumonia is not in the top ten leading causes of death in Illinois Source: Illinois Department of Public Health (2) (3) 1-1 Table 1. Top Ten Leading Causes of Death, DuPage County, 2004-2005 2004 Percent of 2005 DuPage Total DuPage Deaths Deaths Deaths All Causes 5,444 100. 0 5,761 Diseases of the Heart 1,326 24. 4 1,455 Cancer 1,395 25. 6 1,440 Cerebrovascular Disease 385 7. 1 388 Chronic Lower Respiratory 252 4. 6 274 Disease Accidents 208 3. 8 181 Pneumonia 137 2. 5 177 Alzheimer’s Disease 166 3. 0 179 Nephritis and Nephrosis 116 2. 1 138 Diabetes Mellitus 119 2. 2 116 Septicemia 102 1. 9 89 Source: Illinois Department of Public Health (2) Percent of Total Deaths 100. 0 25. 3 25. 0 6. 7 4. 8 3. 1 3. 1 3. 1 2. 4 2. 0 1. 5 Since 1908, Dise ases of the Heart has been the first or second leading cause of death in the United States (4).Since 1921, Diseases of the Heart has remained the number one cause of death (4). While DuPage County historical mortality data dating back to 1921 is unavailable, one can extrapolate national patterns to County mortality. The increase in 2004 total Cancer can be seen as an anomaly. The transposition between Diseases of the Heart and Cancer in 2004 should be monitored. Crude Mortality Rate Table 1. 3 Crude Mortality Rate, DuPage County and Illinois, 2000-2006 Year DuPage County Illinois 2000 617. 1 855. 8 2001 620. 6 840. 1 2002 616. 1 842. 9 2003 615. 6 829. 2 2004 586. 3 805. 0 2005 618. 0 812. 1 2006 611. 3 795. 8 Source: Illinois Department of Public Health (2) 1-2Crude Mortality Rate in DuPage County and Illinois 2000 – 2006 Rate per 100,000 Population 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Illinois 2005 2006 Year DuPage County Graph 1. 1 Source: Illinois Department o f Public Health (2) As can be seen from Graph 1. 1, between 2000 and 2006 the DuPage County and Illinois mortality rates remained relatively stable. The DuPage County crude death rate ranges from 586 deaths per 100,000 population to 620 deaths per 100,000 population. The Illinois mortality rate is higher and has a greater range than DuPage County. It ranges from 796 deaths per 100,000 population to 843 deaths per 100,000 population (2). Top Ten Leading Causes of Death by Gender Table 1. DuPage County Leading Causes of Death, All Ages by Gender, 2006 Male Female Rank Cause Number Rank Cause 1 Cancer 681 1 Heart Disease 2 Heart Disease 661 2 Cancer 3 Accidents 130 3 Cerebrovascular Disease (CVD) 4 Cerebrovascular Disease 128 4 Chronic Obstructive (CVD) Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 5 Chronic Obstructive 99 5 Alzheimer Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 6 Pneumonitis 81 6 Pneumonitis 7 Diabetes 51 7 Accidents 8 Nephritis 47 8 Nephritis 9 Alzheimer 44 9 Diabetes 10 Septicemia 43 10 Septicemia Source: Illinois Department of Public Health (2) Number 758 703 219 161 139 77 62 60 58 50 1-3 Gender Differences The 2006 top ten leading causes of death are the same for oth males and females, though the ranking of causes varies by gender. The first and second cause of death for males is Cancer, followed by Heart Disease. This order is reversed for females. Accidents (Unintentional Injuries) are the third leading cause of death for males, but the seventh leading cause for women. This category includes motor vehicle accidents and any other unintentional injury death that occurs as a result of a fall, drowning, firearm or other accidental cause. In DuPage County, the number of male Accident deaths is more than twice the number of female Accident deaths, which is attributed primarily to higher numbers of male motor vehicle deaths.This discrepancy between male and female accident deaths is a trend that is also seen nationally (5). CVD and COPD are the fourth and fifth leading causes for males , but the third and fourth causes for women. Alzheimer’s disease is the fifth leading cause for women, but the ninth cause for men. Pneumonitis is the sixth leading cause of death for both males and females. Diabetes was the ninth leading cause of death for females and the seventh in males. Nephritis was the eighth leading cause of death in both females and males and Septicemia was the tenth leading cause of death for both genders. Top Five Leading Causes of Death by Age Groups Table 1. 5 Five Leading Causes of Death by Age Group in DuPage County, 2006 Rank

Analysis Of The Movie Girl Interrupted - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 963 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/08/05 Category Cinematographic Art Essay Level High school Topics: Girl Interrupted Essay Did you like this example? Girl, Interrupted is an American psychological film and memoir based on true events of Susanna Kaysens life. Over the course of her life and her stay in a mental hospital, she experiences three major stages; mental health, friend influence and self-esteem. Susana Kaysen is only eighteen years old at the beginning. She is an intelligent but troubled girl with a surprisingly and interesting outlook of life. Susana attempted suicide during a holiday party, which then makes her family very worried and concerned. Her family then forces her to have a consultation with a doctor, a friend of the family, who will push her into a couple of years of hospitalization. Susana just explains she is exhausted, and had a bad headache- which she took a bunch of pills with vodka. At the end of the consultation, Susana decides to sign herself into McLean Hospital. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Analysis Of The Movie Girl Interrupted" essay for you Create order Susana narrates by writing in her diary for the most part and begins to describe the people and outburst of life surrounding her and in the mental hospital during the 1960s. Her narration begins to sound emotionless and gives of the I dont know what to think or do attitude- Susana, as an adolescent, shes going through a lot of feelings which are getting complicated. While Susana searches for the nature of sanity and social conformity, she tries to bypass the system that restrained her. Susana experiences mental health factors before and during her stay, which she doesnt completely understand. Before she is admitted, Susana ditched school, had an affair with her high school teacher, and attempted suicide. But of course, like most teenagers, she just shrugged it off and said it wasnt a big deal. If this isnt wasnt a cry for help, everyone is baffled, because of her personality, it was unusual and out of character for her to do these serious doings. As time moves on, Susana befriends Lisa Rowe, the leader and the most popular and biggest influencer of all the girls in the ward. Lisa isnt like the other girls in the ward, she is extremely proud of her diagnosis as a sociopath, and thinks she is hot shit because of it. Lisa has that personality that everyone is attracted to and can make anyone do whatever she wants, but she has the confidence and dark side that can be unpredictable which attracts Susana even more to befriending her. But over time, Susana begins to gets sick and tired of being influenced and peer pressured by Lisa. Everyone experiences peer pressure and it is a key part in society. It is something that all adolescents have to deal with in the course of growing up (Berndt, 1996; Brown et. al., 2008, p 237). Lisa impels temper tantrums and plans and attempts to escape, and thats when Susana begins to realize that Lisa doesnt care for the repercussions of her actions and can be knowingly heartless. The ups and downs during Susanas stay at the hospital, she experiences some self-esteem issues. Susana knows she is not like most of the girls in this ward, and has the ability to use abstract thinking and questions about ones self, such as What kind of person am I? What characteristics make me who I am? How do people perceive me? What kind of life am I likely to have I the future? (p 162). By this age, self-conception become more focused on traits, which then becomes more abstract as they try to describe themselves. Adolescents are able to distinguish actual self and possible selves (Markus Nurius, 1986; Osyerman Destin, Novin, 2015, p. 164). But there are two more selves that go hand in hand with possible selves: ideal self and feared self. Actual self is a persons perception of the self as it is, while possible selves is a persons conception of the self as it potentially may be. Ideal self is the person that the adolescent would like to be and feared self is the self a person i magines it is possible to become but dreads becoming (p.164). Susana experiences all of these self-conceptions at one point or another during her stay. But along with this, she is also taking medicine she really doesnt what it is and what is for, and she has no idea what her personal diagnosis is until she sneaks into the office after hours and reads she is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. She is fighting what she think is the truth and what is reality- and having a hard time distinguishing the two. Just like Lisa, Susana is a unique person as well, especially with outlook on life. One theory can explain this is Cognitive Development by psychologist Jean Piaget. Cognitive development can be best explained as the changes over time in how people think, how they solve problems, and how their capacities for memory and attention change. Over the years of hard work, Piagets observations showed him that this development goes through stages. The idea of cognitive stages factors that each persons cognitive abilities are coordinated into logical mental structure; a person who thinks within a particular stage in one aspect of life should think within that stage in all other aspects of life as well because all thinking is part of the same mental structure (Keating, 2012, p. 69). The drive from one stage to another is maturation: the driving force behind development from one stage to the next (Miller, Miller, 2002, p. 70). Piaget had said the active construction of reality takes place through schemes/schemas which is mental structure for organizing and interpreting information. The two processes that use schemes/schemas are assimilation which is the cognitive process that occurs when new information is altered to fit an existing scheme and accommodation which the cognitive process that occurs when a scheme is changed to adapt to new information.