808 resultados para Illinois Community Care Program.
Resumo:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was established by the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Act). Administered nationally by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Act combined eight existing categorical programs into a single block grant program. In 1981, Congress amended the Act to allow states to directly administer the block grant for small cities. At the designation of the Governor, the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs assumed operation of the State of Illinois Community Development Block Grant -- Small Cities Program in the same year. The Illinois Block grant program is known as the Community Development Assistance Program (CDAP). Through this program, funds are available to assist Illinois communities meet their greatest economic and community development needs, with an emphasis upon helping persons of low-to-moderate income.
Resumo:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was established by the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Act). Administered nationally by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Act combined eight existing categorical programs into a single block grant program. In 1981, Congress amended the Act to allow states to directly administer the block grant for small cities. At the designation of the Governor, the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs assumed operation of the State of Illinois Community Development Block Grant -- Small Cities Program in the same year. The Illinois Block grant program is known as the Community Development Assistance Program (CDAP). Through this program, funds are available to assist Illinois communities meet their greatest economic and community development needs, with an emphasis upon helping persons of low-to-moderate income.
Resumo:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was established by the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Act). Administered nationally by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Act combined eight existing categorical programs into a single block grant program. In 1981, Congress amended the Act to allow states to directly administer the block grant for small cities. At the designation of the Governor, the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs assumed operation of the State of Illinois Community Development Block Grant -- Small Cities Program in the same year. The Illinois Block grant program is known as the Community Development Assistance Program (CDAP). Through this program, funds are available to assist Illinois communities meet their greatest economic and community development needs, with an emphasis upon helping persons of low-to-moderate income.
Resumo:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was established by the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Act). Administered nationally by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Act combined eight existing categorical programs into a single block grant program. In 1981, Congress amended the Act to allow states to directly administer the block grant for small cities. At the designation of the Governor, the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs assumed operation of the State of Illinois Community Development Block Grant -- Small Cities Program in the same year. The Illinois Block grant program is known as the Community Development Assistance Program (CDAP). Through this program, funds are available to assist Illinois communities meet their greatest economic and community development needs, with an emphasis upon helping persons of low-to-moderate income.
Resumo:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was established by the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Act). Administered nationally by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Act combined eight existing categorical programs into a single block grant program. In 1981, Congress amended the Act to allow states to directly administer the block grant for small cities. At the designation of the Governor, the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs assumed operation of the State of Illinois Community Development Block Grant -- Small Cities Program in the same year. The Illinois Block grant program is known as the Community Development Assistance Program (CDAP). Through this program, funds are available to assist Illinois communities meet their greatest economic and community development needs, with an emphasis upon helping persons of low-to-moderate income.
Resumo:
The following activities are considered ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for general conduct of government (e.g. city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations, etc.) 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g. mowing parks and replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing existing debt.
Resumo:
The following activities are considered ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for general conduct of government (e.g. city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations, etc.) 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g. mowing parks and replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing existing debt.
Resumo:
The following activities are specifically identified as ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for the general conduct of government (e.g., city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations). 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g., mowing parks, replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing of existing debt.
Resumo:
The following activities are specifically identified as ineligible. 1. Design Engineering costs of water storage tanks/towers. 2. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for the general conduct of government (e.g., city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations). 3. General government expenses. 4. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g., mowing parks, replacing street light bulbs). 5. Servicing or refinancing of existing debt.
Resumo:
The following activities are specifically identified as ineligible. 1. Construction of buildings, or portions thereof, used predominantly for the general conduct of government (e.g., city halls, courthouses, jails, police stations). 2. General government expenses. 3. Costs of operating and maintaining public facilities and services (e.g., mowing parks, replacing street light bulbs). 4. Servicing or refinancing of existing debt.
Resumo:
January 1996.
Resumo:
The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program was created by the federal Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. The CSBG Program provides a range of services which assist low-income people to attain the skills, knowledge and motivation necessary to achieve self-sufficiency. The program also may offer low-income people immediate life necessities such as food, shelter, medication, etc.
Resumo:
It has been recognised in current literature that, in general, Australia’s population is ageing and that older people are increasingly choosing to continue to live in the community in their own homes for as long as possible. Such factors of social change are expected to lead to larger numbers of older people requiring community care services for longer periods. Despite this, there is little information available in the literature on the perceptions and experiences of older people regarding community-based care and support. This study explores the lived experience of a small group of older people living in South East Queensland who were receiving a level of care consistent with the Community Aged Care Package (CACP). It also sought to examine the impact and meaning of that care on the older person’s overall lifestyle, autonomy, and personal satisfaction. In-depth interviews were undertaken with these older people, and were analysed using Heidegger’s interpretive hermeneutical phenomenological approach. Shared narratives were then explored using Ricoeur’s narrative analysis framework. In order to sensitise the researcher to the unconscious or symbolic aspects of the care experience, Wolfensberger’s social role valorization theory (SRV) was also utilised during a third phase of analysis. Methodological rigour was strengthened within this study through the use of reflexivity and an in-depth member check discussion that was conducted with each participant. The interviews revealed there were significant differences in expectations, understanding, and perceptions between older people and their carers or service providers. The older person perceived care primarily in relational terms, and clearly preferred active participation in their care and a consistent relationship with a primary carer. Older people also sought to maintain their sense of autonomy, lifestyle, home environment, routines, and relationships, as closely as possible to those that existed prior to their requiring assistance. However, these expectations were not always supported by the care model. On the whole, service providers did not always understand what older people perceived was important within the care context. Carers seldom looked beyond the provision of assistance with specific daily tasks to consider the real impact of care on the older person. The study identified that older people reported a range of experiences when receiving care in their own homes. While some developed healthy and supportive connections with their carers, others experienced ageism, abuse, and exploitation. Unsatisfactory interactions at times resulted in a loss, to varying degrees, of their independence, their possessions, and their connectedness with others. There is therefore a need for service providers to pay more attention to the perceptions and self-perceived needs of older people, to avoid unintended or unnecessary negative impacts occurring within care provision. The study provides valuable information regarding the older person’s experience that will assist in supporting the further development and improvement of this model of care. It is proposed that these insights will enable CACPs to cater more closely to the actual needs and preferences of older people, and to avoid causing preventable harm to care recipients.
Resumo:
- Objective Examine feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial of the Timing it Right Stroke Family Support Program (TIRSFSP) and collect pilot data. - Design Multi-site mixed method randomized controlled trial. - Setting Acute and community care in three Canadian cities. - Subjects Caregivers were family members or friends providing care to individuals who experienced their first stroke. - Intervention The TIRSFSP offered in two formats, self-directed by the caregiver or stroke support person-directed over time, were compared to standard care. - Main Measures Caregivers completed baseline and follow-up measures 1, 3 and 6 months post-stroke including Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression, Positive Affect, Social Support, and Mastery Scales. We completed in-depth qualitative interviews with caregivers and maintained intervention records describing support provided to each caregiver. - Results Thirty-one caregivers received standard care (n=10), self-directed (n=10), or stroke support person-directed (n=11) interventions. We retained 77% of the sample through 6-months. Key areas of support derived from intervention records (n=11) related to caregiver wellbeing, caregiving strategies, patient wellbeing, community re-integration, and service delivery. Compared to standard care, caregivers receiving the stroke support person-directed intervention reported improvements in perceived support (estimate 3.1, P=.04) and mastery (estimate .35, P=.06). Qualitative caregiver interviews (n=19) reflected the complex interaction between caregiver needs, preferences and available options when reporting on level of satisfaction. - Conclusions Preliminary findings suggest the research design is feasible, caregivers’ needs are complex, and the support intervention may enhance caregivers’ perceived support and mastery. The intervention will be tested further in a large scale trial.
Resumo:
Little is known about the types of incidents that occur to aged care clients in the community. This limits the development of effective strategies to improve client safety. The objective of the study was to present a profile of incidents reported in Australian community aged care settings. All incident reports made by community care workers employed by one of the largest community aged care provider organizations in Australia during the period November 1, 2012, to August 8, 2013, were analyzed. A total of 356 reports were analyzed, corresponding to a 7.5% incidence rate per client year. Falls and medication incidents were the most prevalent incident types. Clients receiving high-level care and those who attended day therapy centers had the highest rate of incidents with 14% to 20% of these clients having a reported incident. The incident profile indicates that clients on higher levels of care had higher incident rates. Incident data represent an opportunity to improve client safety in community aged care.