Search

How are Data Gaps Worked Around:

Sarnia, and the surrounding area around chemical valley, have 9 air monitoring stations in which air pollutants are monitored from the nearby petrochemical complex. Until 2017, only data from one of these stations (the one on Christina Street in downtown Sarnia) was publicly available. This created a gap in accessiblility of important data for sarnia and the nearby AFN residents. In September 2015, the Clean Air Sarnia and Area group launched as a "community advisory panel made up of representatives from the public, government, First Nations, and industry, who are dedicated to providing the community with a clear understanding of ambient air quality in the Sarnia area." This group works to improve air quality in Sarnia by making information about air quality publicly available and by making recommendations to relevant authorities. In 2018, this group launched the website: https://reporting.cleanairsarniaandarea.com/ (also uploaded as an artifact) which allows public to access data from the air quality monitoring stations and understand how air quality compares to Ontario's standards. This site works to fill the gap of publicly available air quality data in Sarnia.

This report from Ecojustice shows a decline in air pollution compared to Ecojustice's first report released in 2007 for the area around Chemical Valley, yet Sarnia industries continue "to release far more pollution, and in particular far more SO2 , than comparable U.S. refineries." One contributor to the continued excessive emissions is Ontario's lagging air quality standards. The report notes that "Ontario’s AAQC and air quality standards are lagging behind current science on the health impacts of air pollutants, which may put the health of residents at risk." The report highlights pollutants where Ontario's standard is above the national standard or where Ontario has no standard at all. Additionally, Sarnia's benzene emissions are exempt from Ontario's health-based standard for this chemical and are instead regulated by  "an industry technical-based standard" allowing benzene levels to be far higher than the health-based standard. The lagging, lack of, or exemption from regulation undercut efforts in monitoring and reducing emissions to a "safe" level as what is considered "safe" by standards is out of line with what is considered "safe" by health and other standards.

This study utilized a random sample of rape victim advocates to determine whether the current community systems and services work for these victims. As is mentioned in the introduction, the services for rape victims are typically separated in terms of legal, medical, mental health; studies tend to focus on these entities individually when evaluating their procedures, thus greatly narrowing the scope of the procedure. This study, therefore, aims to create a comprehensive view of the system as a whole and whether services provided to victims work in this larger context.

The study does utilize a fairly new perspective to gather information. This study as a whole appears to work both as a review article and present information gathered through the subjects interviewed. The first portion of the article presents the various factors being considered in the provided services (for example, why some rape cases are thrown out at a community level, and what characteristics of sexual assault influence social system response). The second portion utilizes interviews with a national, random sample of victim advocates. The selection process ended with 177 eligible agencies for questioning, and 168 participated in the interview process. As mentioned in the introduction of the report and in a previous answer, this large scale study is contrary to usual methodologies. Victim services are typically examined within a small context (i.e. how many alleged rape cases brought to a detective are pursued or how many alleged rape victims who present for counseling receive this help and what is their progress). This study took all of the levels of service (legal, medical, and mental health) and viewed their effectiveness as a network.

This study was published in 1998 in the American Journal of Community Psychology. It is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on research devoted to community psychology. Community psychology attempts to place an individual's context within communities/community structure and in society. This includes quality of life for certain individuals, populations, and communities. The impact factor is only about 2, indicating that the journal is infrequently cited and does not have the prowess of larger journal publications. 

According to PubMed, this article has been cited 217 times since its publication in 1998. It has appeared as a reference work for research in areas such as PTSD, secondary victimization, silencing of victims, and emotional engagement of researching rape/traumatic events. The list of citing articles seems to commonly focus on the themes of community impact on rape victims, suggesting that this article did spark at least several additional studies.

As the data is from 1998, I would sincerely hope that the data has already encouraged responses. Nonetheless, at the very least, the data should be able to serve as a marker for progression in traumatic event services. While sexual assault is markedly different from other traumatic events, the data could also be extrapolated to other events with community ties. More pointedly, data from this study demonstrated where some of the gaps came between victims with the "best" service outcomes and those with the "worst". The primary difference between the "best" group and those in latter tears was in the legal system. These shortcomings appeared to emerge early on, with a discrepancy in whether their reports even made it to the desk of the prosecution from the police department. This indicates a shortcoming in the system, and a point which should be investigated to better victim outcomes moving forward. Sexual assault cases are rarely black and white, thus some detectives may be inclined to create personal judgments about the merit of a case before passing it along, thus leading to its exclusion. This is one of several differences in victim encounters leading to less desired outcomes.

Individuals who have been involved in a traumatic event are considered a vulnerable population, especially those who have been involved in something like a sexual assault. Those who have been victimized often have very little knowledge of the services available to them or the nuances of the systems with which them must interface. Thus, these individuals (after coming off a severe emotional and physical trauma), must then navigate a complex system that often feels biased towards the accused. This report summarizes their experiences and the shortcomings of this system. 

This study appears to be through the University of Illinois at Chicago. The vast majority of secondary institution-based studies come from federal grants, usually through National Health Institute or through a specific government agency interested in that topic.