By aligning strategies across the portfolio, the interventions achieve a synergistic effect and compound into true population health improvement for communities. The success of this type of approach has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last 50 years through health improvement efforts that have incorporated both individual intervention and community-based prevention to take on issues as diverse as tobacco, driving under the influence, lead exposure, and violence, leading to public health victories that would never have been possible through individual sectors’ separate efforts.
“The Community-Centered Health Homes model has spurred a phenomenal transformation in our community and our clinic. CCHH is a way to make the connection to what we’re doing in the community to the services & treatment that we provide in the exam room.”
A new Prevention Institute (PI) brief outlines what we’ve learned in advancing the Community-Centered Health Homes (CCHH) model across the country since it was first released five years ago. PI originally developed the CCHH model to provide a framework for healthcare organizations to systematically address the community conditions that impact their patients. By implementing activities based on community needs rather than medical treatment needs alone, we can improve health, safety, and equity outcomes.
In the five years since the first report release, the CCHH model has catalyzed action and activity in communities across the country - including California, the Gulf Coast Region, North Carolina, and Texas. The brief reviews and analyzes what we’ve heard from healthcare organizations actively involved in community change – particularly clinics doing early testing of the CCHH model – and summarizes lessons learned, recommendations for success, and common themes that have emerged for healthcare organizations and funders looking to implement the model. The brief was funded by The Kresge Foundation.
Prevention Institute’s (PI) new report about community trauma provides insight into timely issues like high rates of gun violence in inner cities; protests in Ferguson, Baltimore, and elsewhere; and systemic poverty, unemployment and poor health in communities of color. It also offers solutions.
There is a growing need for treating trauma as a public health epidemic, and exploring population-level strategies and prevention. Until now, there has been no framework for understanding and preventing the systematic effects of community trauma — or how community trauma undermines both individual and collective resilience, especially in communities with high rates of violence.
The report, featured last week in USA Today, is based on interviews with practitioners in communities with high rates of violence. Adverse Community Experiences and Resilience, describes symptoms of trauma at the community level, as well as strategies to build resilience, heal community trauma, and prevent future trauma.
Healing strategies include: restorative justice programs that shift the norms around conflict resolution; safer public spaces via creation of parks; social relationship building, particularly across generations; improving housing quality and transportation; and healing circles that provide space for expression.
A new Prevention Institute (PI) brief shares key learnings from a recent summit in Los Angeles (LA) to discuss tools and strategies for supporting healthy community development without displacing current residents. The October meeting of policymakers, funders, academics, practitioners, and resident activists added a strong health frame to the ongoing conversation in LA on gentrification and displacement.
Public health agencies, community partners, and activists at the local and state level play a critical role in advancing public health. Cities and states are testing grounds for innovative and progressive policies that protect health and safety —like New York City’s law on smoke-free spaces, Berkeley’s soda tax, and Seattle’s paid sick days ordinance. When these policies work, they reshape our shared understanding of how to address problems like economic injustice, chronic disease, and environmental hazards, and generate momentum for broader changes.
While preemption is appropriate under some circumstances—for example, federal laws that set a floor for clean air standards ‘preempt’ less protective state and local laws—it’s often a tool used to stop progress in its tracks. Preemption refers to legislation typically introduced by industry groups to shield profits and practices from regulation—and strip law-making authority from local (or state) governments. In recent years, industry groups have successfully lobbied for laws to limit communities’ ability to designate smoke-free spaces, regulate fracking, require paid sick days, and protect kids from junk food marketing.
Prevention Institute and Grassroots Change will equip you with tools to push back against preemption, via our January 28, 2016 webinar “Preemption in 2016 and Beyond: Emerging Issues and Best Practices.” We will provide practical case studies illustrating the evolving threat and best practices to stop preemption, as well as the role of health and safety practitioners in protecting local control. Register today and join us on Twitter at #Preemption2016:
Prevention Institute (PI) and The College for Behavioral Health Leadership are co-hosting Summit 2016 - Population Health: Leadership for Building Healthier Communities this April 6-8, 2016 in San Diego. Conference participants will seek to identify and address opportunities for improvement, promote emerging consensus, contribute to the evolution of behavioral health and wellness, and positively impact the health of communities.
Every day, people make decisions about land use that impact whether or not communities will be safe. These decisions include where schools are sited, how streets and parks are designed, and the kinds of businesses that are allowed to operate. To the extent that safety has been taken into account in these decisions, it has mostly been through the lens of crime prevention. PI’s new paper, Community Safety by Design: Preventing Violence through Land Use, explains how a violence prevention lens and a crime prevention lens are similar, and how they are different.
One difference is that a violence prevention lens necessarily engages the end-user – community residents—in shaping land-use decisions that work for the community and support community safety. This engagement is a critical component to achieving equitable health and safety outcomes, and applies across many sectors. Our paper drew on extensive research and interviews with 23 key informants from planning, public health, the justice system, and other sectors, and outlines concrete steps to better integrate effective violence prevention strategies into land-use decisions. The report includes: