Public service use by residents of Jackson Hinds Gardens before and after enrollment

Homelessness is associated with high use of public services such as health care and criminal justice services. Intervention designs to reverse homelessness have broadly fallen into two categories: either standard care which employs requisitely addressing the causes of homelessness, or housing first, which emphasizes provision of permanent housing without requisitely addressing the causes of homelessness. Multiple cities have recently commenced housing first interventions. Locally, Houston’s first housing first development is the Jackson Hinds Gardens project. The purpose of this study is to analyze the public service use of residents of housing first in Houston. Residents of Jackson Hinds Gardens who have been enrolled for at least 6 months were evaluated for public service use for an equal amount of time preceding and during their residence at Jackson Hinds. Resident interactions with county health services and criminal justice entities were determined by electronic database searches; these data were supplemented by life experience interview data. Service usage values pre- and post-enrollment at Jackson Hinds Gardens were compared by paired t-test analyses. We found that ER and inpatient usage decreased following enrollment in Jackson Hinds, although these reductions were not significant. In contrast, outpatient care and number of medications significantly increased following enrollment. These analyses inform on the effects of housing first in another major city, as well as informing the ethical considerations regarding housing first versus standard care. ^

Planning and implementation efficacy as a determinant of health risk communication outcomes: Case studies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) to determine how Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are communicating information about health risk, what factors contributed to effective communication efforts, and what specific principles, strategies, and practices best promote more effective health risk communication outcomes.^ Member agencies of the Subcommittee submitted examples of health risk communication activities or decisions they perceived to be effective and some examples of cases they thought had not been as effective as desired. Of the 10 case studies received, 7 were submitted as examples of effective health risk communication, and 3, as examples of less effective communication.^ Information contained in the 10 case studies describing the respective agencies' health risk communication strategies and practices was compared with EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, since similar rules were not found in any PHS agency. EPA's rules are: (1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. (2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. (3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. (4) Be honest, frank, and open. (5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. (6) Meet the needs of the media. (7) Speak clearly and with compassion.^ On the basis of case studies analysis, the Subcommittee, in their attempts to design and implement effective health risk communication campaigns, identified a number of areas for improvement among the agencies. First, PHS agencies should consider developing a focus specific to health risk communication (i.e., office or specialty resource). Second, create a set of generally accepted practices and guidelines for effective implementation and evaluation of PHS health risk communication activities and products. Third, organize interagency initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and visibility of health risk communication issues and trends within and between PHS agencies.^ PHS agencies identified some specific implementation strategies the CCEHRP might consider pursuing to address the major recommendations. Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies emerged in the following five areas: (1) program development, (2) building partnerships, (3) developing training, (4) expanding information technologies, and (5) conducting research and evaluation. ^

Volunteering: Demographic characteristics, motives and potential benefits from service

Volunteering is intricately woven into the fabric of our society. In 2009 alone, approximately 63.4 million Americans participated in volunteer activities, collectively donating over 8.1 billion service-hours (Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS], 2010). Each service-hour is determined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) to be valued at $20.85/hr which translates to a national savings of $169 billion. Thus, we can clearly observe the significance of volunteer contribution to the overall benefit of society. In addition, there is now evidence that voluntary service may also benefit the actual volunteer, especially individuals who are 65+ years. As we reach 2020 this elderly class, composed of nearly 13 million (CNCS, 2010) Americans, will be of much consequence. Their potential to contribute in community-related efforts may save the U.S. billions in labor costs, and may also help reduce healthcare-related expenditures if volunteering proves to be a protective factor. In this literature review, we set out to explore the potential relationship between volunteer participation and increased mental and physical wellness. We also examined volunteer demographic characteristics and common motives for engaging in service-related activities. Analysis showed that volunteer work often combined low-impact physical activity and mental satisfaction from serving others, resulting in overall health benefit. Demographic characteristics displayed were consistent with previous studies and found that a majority of volunteers were female, White, married status, having received college degree or higher, employed, middle-high SES. In addition, age was seen to be a key characteristic in forecasting volunteer motivation and self-reported perceived health benefits.^