Analyze

Facing a pivotal federal investigation into Louisiana’s relationship with petro-chemical companies, the state’s attorney general hired lawyers who were simultaneously representing one of the main corporations at the center of the investigation, documents reveal.

The revelations, contained in documents released under public records requests, have led to allegations of a major conflict of interest and come just weeks after the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] dropped its civil rights investigation.

Internal emails, contracts and payments, show that the office of the attorney general, Jeff Landry, hired two lawyers to enter closed-door negotiations with the EPA during the 14-month civil rights investigation. But John King and Tim Hardy were also representing the Taiwanese chemicals firm Formosa in separate litigation, challenging a decision to revoke the company’s state air permits. (Moran and Sneath 2023).

how do artifacts such as songs, grocery stores, fishing tools, etc help Naluwan people claim their identities (cultural, professional, social, personal?)

There are manu artifacts mentioned in your fieldnote--songs, stories, fishing tools, grocery stores, etc. How do you analyze these artifacts--why and how were they constructed, used? What are the social, economic, cultural meanings/functions of these artifacts? And how have these artifacts helped construct the sense of place and identity of the Naluwan people?

In the 1980s, Formosa Plastics Corporation purchased financially struggling petrochemical plants in Delaware, Texas, and Louisiana. The company subsequently shifted its operations to Texas and Louisiana, where a competitive bidding process ensued between the two states, both of which were known for industry-friendly policies (Tubilewicz 2021). As political scientist Tubilewicz (2021, 16) has argued, the politics surrounding Formosa's investments in these states were not purely motivated by profit but were also shaped by the ongoing struggles of sub-state actors such as politicians and NGOs over issues of internationalization and representation in global affairs.

An example of this can be seen in Formosa's attempt to build a rayon fiber plant in Louisiana's St. John Parish in the late 1990s, an area also known as "Cancer Alley." Protests broke out due to concerns about massive tax exemptions, displacement of Black residents, and the plant's location on the historic Whitney Plantation (Tubilewicz 2021, 11). However, the project was eventually abandoned due to declining market demand and delays. In addition, the local St. John Governor was indicted for illegal industrial rezoning of land around the plantation and receiving $200,000 in real estate commission (Tubilewicz 2021, 11).

Creators of the Student Health Index recommend using the tool in combination with qualitative data collection and stakeholder/community engagement (e.g. working with school leaders, local community leaders, and healthcare providers).

A full guide to using the dashboard is available here.

Data sources utilized by the index are not always the most current due to data collection limitations (e.g. covid-19 has caused disruptions in the collection of CDE data).

The Index is limited in that it does not offer data for schools that were not large enough to warrant the construction of a School-based Health Center. Thus, schools that did not meet specific enrollment targets were excluded from the dashboard. This includes rural schools (designed as such by the USDA) with an enrollment under 500 students, urban schools (without a high school) with less than 500 students, and urban schools (with a high school) with less than 1000 students. California had more than 10,000 active public schools in 2020-21. The final dashboard for the Student Health Index includes 4,821 schools.

The lack of available data on health indicators at a school-level restricted the Student Health Index to using proxies for the health outcomes. Some health indicators are included, but they are not school-specific, instead linked to specific schools geographically through the census tract. However, community-level data does not always accurately reflect the characteristics of a school’s population. As a result, school-level indicators in the Index were weighted more heavily than community-level indicators.

Additionally, race was not included as a measure in the Student Health Index because of California’s Proposition 20, which prohibits the allocation of public resources based on race and ethnicity. However, the dataset does contain measures of non-white students at each school. 

The Index has also been limited as a quantitative measure of need, which may overlook the influence of other factors that might be better illuminated through qualitative evidence (e.g. stakeholder engagement, focus groups, interviews, etc.).

No information thus far

The Student Health Index can produce visualizations that represent data on conditions, school characteristics and risk factors that affect education outcomes and could be improved through access to school-based health care. These visualizations can be used to demonstrate need for expanding school-based health care access in California.

In addition to maps, the index can also be used to generate graphs and visual displays of data (e.g. ratio of highest need schools to all schools, by county).

The visualizations can be used to demonstrate the correlations between final need scores and race, the impact of specific indicators in health, and the concentration of need to certain regions of California (hot spot analysis).

The Student Health Index enables users to identify where SBHCs will have the most impact for students. The index uses 12 indicators, each of which can be scored from 1 to 4 for any given school. These scores are generated using percentiles and represent relative values. The 12 indicator scores are combined into a Need Score, which is calculated using percentiles along a scale of 1 to 4. Schools with a score of 4 (in the 4th quartile) have the highest Need scores relative to other schools in California.

The index is composed of 12 diverse indicators (percentages, rates, and index values) that have been transformed using percentiles in order to enable comparisons on a common scale. These indicators are divided into 3 categories: health indicators, school-level indicators, and socioeconomic indicators.

Health Indicators

1. Diabetes
2. Asthma ED admissions
3. Teen birth
4. Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA)

Socioeconomic Indicators

1. Poverty among individuals under 18
2. Uninsured among under 19
3. Healthy Places Index

School-Level Indicators

1. Percent FRPL (students eligible for free or reduced-price meals)
2. Percent English Learners
3. Percent Chronically Absent
4. Percent experiencing homelessness
5. Suspension rate

Other Data

1. Mental health hospitalization rate
2. Percent in foster care

Indicator selection was guided by CDC estimations on the primary contributing factors that shape health (social determinants of health, medical care, and health behaviors). The indicators included in the index are all either directly associated with the absence of health services that could be provided at a school level, act as proxies for health behaviors, or represent social determinants of health that could be addressed through access to school-based health services.

Indicator selection was influenced by recommendations from the Research Initiative of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Columbia Teachers College, which found that seven health disparities affecting school-aged youth could be addressed through school health programs. These disparities include: (1) vision, (2) asthma, (3) teen pregnancy, (4) aggression and violence (including bullying), (5) physical activity, (6) hunger, and (7) inattention and hyperactivity.

More detailed description of the rationale shaping indicator selection is available here.