Community Level. The Service will have a broad knowledge of community health needs and resources available e.g. health profiles, Children’s Centres and self-help groups to work in partnership to develop these where there is identified need and make sure families know about them. These will include: Empower families within the local community, through maximising family resilience. Develop community resources and capacity with involvement of local agencies and community groups as appropriate. Collate and co-ordinate information, data and intelligence in order to ensure that the best interests of the child are met. Use information and intelligence about communities’ assets in partnership with communities to support the health and wellbeing of 0-6 year olds, to inform the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA). Use intelligence to develop a service offer to respond to local need. Raise awareness and promote the services offered to professionals, children and young people and their families. Work in partnership with Children’s Services in the local authority and community and voluntary sector to ensure that local innovation can flourish and appropriate developments grown. Work with the Council’s Stronger Communities to identify and develop peer support groups and where appropriate support existing groups. Use networks to improve public health; signposting families to other services already existing locally, particularly early years’ services and professionals but also adult education and training. Utilise local media opportunities for health promotion.
Community Level. The community level seeks to understand the intersection of culture, context, and community. An example of addressing health concerns at a community level would be a collaborative approach. A study on HIV prevention among Somali immigrant/refugee young adults in the US recommends a collaborative approach involving community leaders (parents, elders, religious leaders) and educational (schools), media, and healthcare settings (Kingori et al., 2010). It is imperative that we recognize the very important role community and cultural beliefs play in influencing an individual’s effort to seek healthcare. Decisions to seek treatment are typically driven by ethnically based health belief systems that are deeply engrained. Identifying intra-ethnic social networks and ethnic leaders can be very beneficial in not only gaining a better understanding of the target community but also in gaining influence in the community. Most refugees come from communities where community leaders make decisions for the entire community. Therefore, support from these leaders goes a long way in mobilizing and educating a community on health issues of concern. Leadership in most of these communities does not present itself in what may be the equivalent of leadership in Western cultures. In some communities the leader could be the eldest woman in the community, who is trusted and respected due to her age and therefore considered to be the wisest person. She most likely has never had any formal education but a wellspring of experience in different matters.
Community Level. At the community level, media campaigns are necessary for increasing awareness about public health issues such as cancer. Public service announcements on the television, radio, and in print all help to enhance people’s understanding of the prevention and treatment options available for specific diseases. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, currently has a campaign called “Inside Knowledge: Get the
Community Level. Athletes and Entitlement
Community Level. Outcome Indicators & Targets
Community Level. The 2nd tier of an Integrated Responsible Retailing model is a community context which connects the public and private sectors in a collaborative, problem−solving approach to underage sales and use. R−E agencies have the dual role of enforcing laws on age−restricted products and also of assisting retailers to identify, adopt and sustain Responsible Retailing practices that are appropriate for that community. Retailers are seen not merely as objects of enforcement who are "compliant" or "non−compliant." Rather, retailers and their wholesalers/ distributors are seen as active partners with R−E agencies to identify and address community−level patterns of underage acquisition and use. This model, based upon the principles of "Community Policing," allows public and private stakeholders together to address the actual patterns of underage access and use of alcohol and other age− restricted products within the community and to consider coherent strategies to reduce use and abuse by minors.
Community Level. The monitoring efforts at this level must support and enhance the participation of the community and its appreciation of its own health status and the services being provided to it, and engage them in the solution of the health and service problems detected. The community becomes involved through the various groupings present: the village health committee, the clubs of mothers and fathers, the satisfied or not satisfied clients of health services, the animatrices and the support groups for breastfeeding. These groups provide the channels for communication of the project’s progress and for engaging the community in the activities of health development. The major source of data at this level is the promoter. Elements of data produced include: • Family folders for each targeted household (under 5 children, women of reproductive age, sick persons including TB and/or HIV/AIDS, family planning clients), including the changing classifications (red, yellow, etc) of those folders and families to indicate risk, need for additional attention, or behavior change target (e.g. potential user of contraceptives) • Weekly or biweekly verbal report on progress during regular meetings with the supervising auxiliary • Monthly written report of home visits made, progress as a result of those visits based on changes in the family folder classifications and solution of family problems such as illness, events (reports of community meetings (village health committee, mothers club sessions, COSAM activities, other), visits completed, problems identified, and progress in resolving problems previously identified. Each promoter will have activity targets by indicator, and these reports will document achievements relative to these targets, as well as failures. Analysis of achievements, problem identification, plans for problem solution, and reports of the success of such problem resolution will make decisions and planned action part of these reports. • Monthly vital statistics reports (births, deaths, migration) • Rally post report of attendance, growth, immunization • VCR of the quality of delivery assistance by local TBAs • Reports of contact tracing for STIs or TB An additional report about this level but by the auxiliary will be: • Reports from the regular supervision of the promoter and the village by the supervising auxiliary or the UCS nurse supervisor Another report will be: • LQAS studies of maternal behaviors, initially quarterly, later 6 monthly (by the Project statistician ...
Community Level. The third level of the social ecological model assesses the community contexts in which social relationships are surrounded and attempts to identify the characteristics of these settings that are associated with being a victim or offender of violence (Xxxxxxxx LL, 2002). In Table 2, a list of commonly identified risk factors at the community level illustrate that the perpetration of youth violence is associated with factors that not only influence individual and relationship context, but also impact groups context. The community level is primarily focused on settings or institutions in which social relationships take place (Xxxxxxxx LL, 2002). Some common examples of community settings include schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces. In the U.S., school-age children and adolescents spend many hours in school, therefore schools are widely considered to be important settings for developing youth and focusing youth violence interventions (Xxxxxx et al, 2013; Xxxxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx, and Xxxx-Xxxxxxxxx, 2004; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Research has investigated how the intersecting social ecologies of family and school interacted with one another and in turn how they were related to youth violent behavior (Xxxxxx et al, 2013; Community Preventive Services Task Force, n.d.). There is supporting information that if students felt connected to their schools, they reported engaging in fewer types of violent behavior over time (RAND, 2001; Xxxx, 2005). Among other factors, this may also be attributed to the fact that almost a decade ago most violence prevention programs were dominantly employed in schools; some of which have been evaluated as ineffective in preventing violence among youth (Xxxxxxx D et al, 1998).
