Sign in or 
- EasyEdit
- Edit tags
-
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
) - Report page
Share this
Capacity & Capacity- building in School Health, Safety, Development (EE)
This first draft of a summary (formatted in an Encyclopedia Entry format) was started a previous Canadian project and is being continued as part of a series of international webinars. Visitors to and members of this wiki-based web site are welcome to edit the draft (using the Easy Edit" tool found at the top of the page or to comment on the draft by using the "thread" tool found at the bottom of the page. (All previous versions of this page are automatically saved by the system, so don't hesitate to edit this page).
Capacity for health, safety, economic and social promotion means having the knowledge, skills, commitment, and resources among individual professionals and volunteers, having people, policy and financial resources at different organizational levels in several systems and having social, economic, environmental and political capital in the wider community, national or state/provincial jurisdiction and society environments to conduct and support effective health promotion, safety and social development efforts (McLean et al, 2004).
Different types and levels of capacity are present within:
Capacity-building is the development of knowledge, skills, commitment, structures, systems and leadership to enable effective health promotion. It involves actions to improve health at three levels: the advancement of knowledge and skills among practitioners; the expansion of support and infrastructure for health promotion in organizations, and; the development of cohesiveness and partnerships for health in communities (World Health Organization, Glossary of Health Promotion Terms, Geneva.
The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (nd) suggests that Capacity building is really a new label for the familiar concepts of community and workforce development. Capacity building taps into existing abilities of individuals, communities, organisations or systems to increase involvement, decision-making and ownership of issues. In a health promotion context, the notion of capacity building stems from the recognition that strategies can be more effective and sustainable if the effort extends beyond traditional health sector boundaries. They suggest that capacity building occurs at different levels (individual, community, organizational and systems) and it can start from the inside with the individual and then spread through the community and organizational levels to
the outer systems level. Or it may start with outer systems first until it eventually reaches the individual.
In the health promotion sector, much of the recent discussion of capacity has been focused on the development of the capacity among professionals and front-line agencies to identify and use evidence-based knowledge so that they can use their existing time, human and financial resources in the most effective manner.
Within the school health, safety and social development movements, most of the attention has similarly been devoted to professionals, primarily in teaching teachers what and how to teach about health or social issues. In most cases, the research has been devoted to discussing capacity in terms of the ability of educators or schools to implement a particular program or policy. However, attention is turning to discussing capacity in terms of developing and maintaining a comprehensive approach, coordinated agency-school programs or whole school strategies.
This summary suggests that school health, safety and social development advocates and decision-makers need to broaden their focus to examine basic or baseline organizational/system capacity and local community capacity as well as the different types of operational capacities such as policy development, knowledge management and others.
Organizational & System Capacity:
The concept of organizational capacity can be applied to school health, safety & social development programs at two levels, first in defining the baseline or minimum staffing, financial and policy requirements and secondly, by defining several operational capacities that promote effectiveness.
Baseline Capacity
The basic capacity of health, school and other systems to promote learning, health, safety and social development requires an essential number of staff, minimal financial resources and legislative/policy authority to operate a minimally effective and coordinated school-based or school linked approach or to implement a defined number or type of programs, services and policies. These basic capacities include the physical aspects of the schools, social supports such as parent and community involvement, essential preventive health and other services, core instruction in health, family studies, physical education, environmental studies, social studies and moral/spiritual/religious instruction and essential policies requiring schools, agencies and ministries to work together.
Although there are many organizations who have advocated for particular capacities such as staffing ratios for school nurses or minimum time to be devoted to health education learning in mandated curricula, the evidence base and the actual experiences with these specific baseline capacities is not well researched nor often discussed by systems decision-makers.
Operational Capacity
Working with the baseline capacity summarized above, a number of operational capacities are also required within schools, neighbourhoods, agencies, ministries and systems as well as among the professional and other staff assigned to work with or within schools in order to maintain their overall educational effectiveness, health, safety and social development as well as to implement and sustain programs. These capacities (World Health Organization, 2003, McCall, 2007) include:
Hoyle et all (2008) have described the preexisting conditions and ongoing processes in Pueblo, Colorado School District 60 (Pueblo 60) that built capacity for the development and continuous improvement of health-promoting schools. They suggest that capacity building strategies and a program-planning model for continuous improvement for health-promoting schools were used that included: (a) visionary/effective leadership and management structures, (b) extensive internal and external supports, (c) development and allocation of adequate resources, (d) supportive policies and procedures, and (e) ongoing, embedded professional development.
These capacities have been adapted and developed further by different organizations in Canada including a network of researchers (School Health Research Network, 2005); over 25 national organizations in their CSH Consensus statement (Canadian Association for School Health et al, 2007) and the Joint Consortium for School Health, nd). An amalgam of these Canadian definitions of operational capacity is as follows:
Community Capacity and Capacity Building
Since all schools are situated within and inextricable from their surrounding communities and clientele, advocates, practitioners and policy-makers of various forms of school-based and school-linked human development should also be familiar with the concepts of community capacity and community capacity building.
Raeburn et al (2006) community capacity building (CCB) is seen as part of a long-standing health promotion tradition involving community action in health promotion. They suggest that the usage of the term is variable and submit that its common features are (i) the concepts of capacity and empowerment (versus disease and deficiency), (ii) bottom-up, community-determined agendas and actions and (iii) processes for developing competence. They also suggest that most researchers into community capacity have placed an emphasis on building competencies, the measurement of community capacity and the attempt to break CCB down into operational components. Academic research on the impact of CCB on health is lacking, but multiple case studies documented in the ‘grey literature’ suggest CCB is highly effective, as does research in related areas, such as community empowerment.
Raeburn et al also suggest that various concepts are associated strongly with CCB. The most important, already mentioned, are empowerment(relating to both political and psychological power), and community control. Others are participation(‘real’ versus token) and self-determination (agendas set by communities, not outsiders). To the extent that social processes are also important in CCB, a variety of terms prefixed by ‘social’ are used, such as social connectedness/capital/cohesion/belonging/inclusion/support/networks. The concept of civil society is also associated with CCB, usually meaning organized society other than government or the military, especially the non-governmental organization (NGO) component.Equity and equality are central concepts, implying primacy for CCB processes involving the most dis-empowered, an emphasis on dignity, justice and respect for all, and attending to political, economic and other societal structures that result in inequity.Marginalized, excluded and poor communities are prioritized. The concept of development is relevant here, and indeed most case studies of successful CCB and CD come from the less ‘developed’ parts of the world. However, CCB principles are also applicable in highly developed settings. Some CCB examples involve an activist political dimension, others not. The organizational aspect of CCB is important. Concepts here include planning models, capacity domains, needs/wishes assessment, asset-mapping, governance, sustainability and evaluation. The American term community organization has overtones of CCB.
Labonte & Laverack (2001) remind us that Improving community capacity is not a panacea to complex social problems arising from unregulated economic globalism. Neither is it a substitute strategy for the re-creation of strong and democratic states, and their legislative and programmatic commitments to wealth redistribution and environmental sustainability.
In the same vein, building the operational capacities of professionals, agencies, schools and ministries to use knowledge more effectively to select and implement policies, programs, practices and multi-intervention approaches is not an adequate substitute for elected and senior officials in providing adequate human and financial resources as well as policies, public authority and mandates required to implement and maintain those ongoing efforts.
Professional Capacities (Competencies)
Most of the discussion associated with the capacity of professionals to implement and institutionalize school health, safety and social development programs has focused on the qualifications, knowledge, skills and aptitudes required of them relative to evidence-based programs. Several studies have examined their perceptions of various school programs and approaches but few studies have examined whether these professionals have the time, tools and support staff needed to sustain their respective roles. As well, most of the work in school health and other human development programs has focused on whether teachers and other educators have the awareness, knowledge, beliefs, skills and training required to implement school programs. Lesser attention has been paid to other professionals working in schools in research studies but there are several position statements and descriptions of the roles and training required to school nurses, school social workers, school psychologists, school resource officers and others.
There is also considerable work being done in the health sector about the roles and skills required of professionals to work together across disciplines. Inter-professional training models and training programs have been developed.
Peer-reviewed References:
Hoyle TB, Samek BB, Valois RF (2008) Building Capacity for the Continuous Improvement of Health-Promoting SchoolsJournal of School Health Volume 78,Issue 1,pages 1–8,January 2008
Joffres C, Heath S, Farquharson J, Barkhouse K, Hood R, Latter C , MacLean DR (2004) Defining and operationalizing capacity for heart health promotion in Nova Scotia, Canada, Health Promotion International, Vol. 19, No. 1, 39-49, March 2004
Labonte R, Laverack G (2001) Capacity building in health promotion, Part 2: whose use? And with what measurement?
Critical Public Health,Vol. 11, No. 2, 2001
New South Wales Health (2001) A Framework for Building Capacity to Improve Health, Author
Germann, K., Wilson, D. (2004). Organizational capacity for community development in regional health authorities: A conceptual model. Health Promotion International, Sep;19(3), 289-298.
Dressendorfer, R. H., Raine, K., Dyck, R. J., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins-Nakai, R. L., McLaughlin, W. K. et al. (2005). A conceptual model of community capacity development for heart health promotion in the Alberta Heart Health Project. Health Promotion Practice, Jan;6(1), 31-36.
Raeburn J, Akerman M, Chuengsatiansup K, Mejia F, Oladepo O (2006) Community capacity building and health promotion in a globalized world Health Promotion International Volume21,Issue suppl 1 Pp.84-9
Robinson, K., Elliott, S.J., Driedger, S.M., Eyles, J., O’Loughlin, J., Riley, B., Cameron, R., Harvey, D. (2004). Using linking systems to build capacity and enhance dissemination in heart health promotion: A Canadian multiple-case study. Health Education Research, 20(5), 499-513.
Schwartz, R., Smith, C., Speers, M. A., Dusenbury, L. J., Bright, F., Hedlund, S. et al. (1993). Capacity building resource needs of state health agencies to implement community-based cardiovascular disease programs. Journal of Public Health Policy, Winter;14(4), 480-494.
Warren, R. (2005). Building capacity for risk factor surveillance in developed countries: The need for a vision-driven approach: Lessons learned from the Canadian experience. Soz.Praventivmed, 50(Suppl1), S25-S30.
Champagne, R., Leduc, N., Denis, J.L., Pineault, R. (1993). Organizational and environmental determinants of the performance of public health units. Soc Sci Med, 37(1), 85-95.
Vince Whitman, C. (2005). Implementing research-based health promotion programmes in schools: Strategies for capacity building. In S. Clift & B.B. Jensen (Eds.),The health promoting school: International advances in theory, evaluation and practice(107-136). Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish University of Education Press
Reports, Reviews, Case Studies, Resources
McCall D (2007) Operational Capacity & School Health Promotion (Discussion paper prepared for the Health & Learning Knowledge Centre, Canadian Council on Learning, Ottawa, Canada)
McLean S, Feather J, Butler-Jones D (2004) Building Health Promotion Capacity: Action for Learning, Learning from Action UBC Press 2005
New South Wales Health (2001) A Framework for Building Capacity to Improve Health, Author, Gladesville, NSW, Australia (Discussion paper and planning resource prepared for NSW Health Department)
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (nd) Capacity Building for Health Promotion, Author, Fact Sheet Series
Bell-Woodward G (2004) Health Promotion Capacity Checklists: A Workbook for Individual, Organizational and
Environmental Assessment. Prairie Region Health Promotion Centre (2004)
World Health Organization (2003) Rapid Action & Assessment Tool Author, Geneva
Canadian Association for School Health and 26 other Canadian Organizations (2007) Canadian Consensus Statement on Comprehensive School Health: Revised Edition Surrey, BC
Joint Consortium for School Health (nd) Key Organizational Capacities for Sustaining Comprehensive Approaches to Health Promoting Schools Charlottetown, PEI (Accessed on October 20-2011)
School Health Research Network (2005) Assessment of Ministry Capacity Project Schools, Health, Substance Abuse and Nutrition, Unpublished, Surrey, BC, Canadian Association for School Health
Capacity and Capacity Building in School Health, Safety, Equity, Social and Sustainable Development Programs
CapacityCapacity for health, safety, economic and social promotion means having the knowledge, skills, commitment, and resources among individual professionals and volunteers, having people, policy and financial resources at different organizational levels in several systems and having social, economic, environmental and political capital in the wider community, national or state/provincial jurisdiction and society environments to conduct and support effective health promotion, safety and social development efforts (McLean et al, 2004).
Different types and levels of capacity are present within:
- individuals who are, in part, responsible for their own health and development, and based on their genetic and economic endowment, intelligence, attributes, knowledge, skills and attitudes can choose from among a wide or narrow variety of situations, practices and life options.
- families and parents, who form the first setting that develops capacities within individuals, who can choose among a wide or narrow range of practices, situations and life options
- communities and neighbourhoods which have geographical, economic, learning, social, political and economic attributes that affect their ability to develop in healthy, sustainable and productive ways
- professionals and volunteers who have awareness, knowledge, skills, beliefs that can be mobilized effectively to perform their assigned roles in various inter-locked systems
- semi-autonomous delivery centres such as schools, clinics, physicians offices that can organize some of their capacities to achieve some of their specific priorities within the fixed and broader mandate of their respective systems
- local health, education, police and social services authorities that can assign, organize, structure some of their human and financial resources to achieve some of their specific priorities within the fixed and broader mandate of their respective systems
- national and state/provincial health, education, law enforcement,social service and other ministries that can secure financial resources from taxation and assign, organize, structure some of their human and financial resources to achieve some of their specific priorities within the fixed and broader mandates established through their respective governance structures and within the broader social, economic and political context of their
Capacity-building is the development of knowledge, skills, commitment, structures, systems and leadership to enable effective health promotion. It involves actions to improve health at three levels: the advancement of knowledge and skills among practitioners; the expansion of support and infrastructure for health promotion in organizations, and; the development of cohesiveness and partnerships for health in communities (World Health Organization, Glossary of Health Promotion Terms, Geneva.
The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (nd) suggests that Capacity building is really a new label for the familiar concepts of community and workforce development. Capacity building taps into existing abilities of individuals, communities, organisations or systems to increase involvement, decision-making and ownership of issues. In a health promotion context, the notion of capacity building stems from the recognition that strategies can be more effective and sustainable if the effort extends beyond traditional health sector boundaries. They suggest that capacity building occurs at different levels (individual, community, organizational and systems) and it can start from the inside with the individual and then spread through the community and organizational levels to
the outer systems level. Or it may start with outer systems first until it eventually reaches the individual.
In the health promotion sector, much of the recent discussion of capacity has been focused on the development of the capacity among professionals and front-line agencies to identify and use evidence-based knowledge so that they can use their existing time, human and financial resources in the most effective manner.
Within the school health, safety and social development movements, most of the attention has similarly been devoted to professionals, primarily in teaching teachers what and how to teach about health or social issues. In most cases, the research has been devoted to discussing capacity in terms of the ability of educators or schools to implement a particular program or policy. However, attention is turning to discussing capacity in terms of developing and maintaining a comprehensive approach, coordinated agency-school programs or whole school strategies.
This summary suggests that school health, safety and social development advocates and decision-makers need to broaden their focus to examine basic or baseline organizational/system capacity and local community capacity as well as the different types of operational capacities such as policy development, knowledge management and others.
Organizational & System Capacity:
The concept of organizational capacity can be applied to school health, safety & social development programs at two levels, first in defining the baseline or minimum staffing, financial and policy requirements and secondly, by defining several operational capacities that promote effectiveness.
Baseline Capacity
The basic capacity of health, school and other systems to promote learning, health, safety and social development requires an essential number of staff, minimal financial resources and legislative/policy authority to operate a minimally effective and coordinated school-based or school linked approach or to implement a defined number or type of programs, services and policies. These basic capacities include the physical aspects of the schools, social supports such as parent and community involvement, essential preventive health and other services, core instruction in health, family studies, physical education, environmental studies, social studies and moral/spiritual/religious instruction and essential policies requiring schools, agencies and ministries to work together.
Although there are many organizations who have advocated for particular capacities such as staffing ratios for school nurses or minimum time to be devoted to health education learning in mandated curricula, the evidence base and the actual experiences with these specific baseline capacities is not well researched nor often discussed by systems decision-makers.
Operational Capacity
Working with the baseline capacity summarized above, a number of operational capacities are also required within schools, neighbourhoods, agencies, ministries and systems as well as among the professional and other staff assigned to work with or within schools in order to maintain their overall educational effectiveness, health, safety and social development as well as to implement and sustain programs. These capacities (World Health Organization, 2003, McCall, 2007) include:
- the ability to coordinate policy across multiple systems and at different levels,
- assigned staff to coordinate programs and services,
- formal and informal mechanisms for cooperation,
- ongoing workforce development,
- ongoing and effective knowledge exchange,
- regular monitoring & reporting,
- strategic management of issues and
- an explicit plan for sustainability of the system and core programs.
Hoyle et all (2008) have described the preexisting conditions and ongoing processes in Pueblo, Colorado School District 60 (Pueblo 60) that built capacity for the development and continuous improvement of health-promoting schools. They suggest that capacity building strategies and a program-planning model for continuous improvement for health-promoting schools were used that included: (a) visionary/effective leadership and management structures, (b) extensive internal and external supports, (c) development and allocation of adequate resources, (d) supportive policies and procedures, and (e) ongoing, embedded professional development.
These capacities have been adapted and developed further by different organizations in Canada including a network of researchers (School Health Research Network, 2005); over 25 national organizations in their CSH Consensus statement (Canadian Association for School Health et al, 2007) and the Joint Consortium for School Health, nd). An amalgam of these Canadian definitions of operational capacity is as follows:
- comprehensive and coordinated ministry, agency/school board and school/professional protocols/mandates on school health, health issues and the elements of school health promotion that are actively supported by senior managers; may include financing, administration and organization. These explicit, comprehensive policy and managerial supports for inter-ministry, interagency and inter-disciplinary coordination and cooperation should include procedures in policy-making, program planning, and budget preparation to align responses to health and social issues undertaken through and with the school systems. As well, an overarching policy should favour inter-sectoral approaches and it should be reflected in guidance and directives to school, public health, police, social service and other local authorities and agencies
- formal and informal mechanisms for inter-ministry, inter-agency and inter-professional coordination and cooperation; these mechanisms help to manage the implementation process, avoid confusion, and capitalize on synergistic action. Mechanisms may include joint committees, job descriptions, written policy statements, joint in-service programs, joint planning, shared budget allocations, joint vision development and consensus building.
- assigned staffing and infrastructure to support inter-ministry, inter-agency and interdisciplinary coordination and cooperation at all levels; Assigned staffing and infrastructure, such as provincial/territorial and district school health coordinators, help to facilitate and support interdisciplinary coordination and cooperation in school health promotion. These staff assignments should include time for actively supporting voluntary cooperation and alignment of activities, programs, polices and practices. They should be based on explicit intergovernmental, inter-ministry, inter-agency and inter-disciplinary agreements and should ensure that the voices of youth, parents, professionals and volunteers are heard in the decision-making about policies and programs.
- ongoing workforce development of health, social service, police, education and other professionals through professional preparation programs and staff development includes explicit and sustained programs and processes to develop ministry and local agency workforces, through studies of current professional practices, guidance and support for the development of university and college pre-service preparation programs, and development of guidelines, models and materials for sustained staff development programs.
- Ongoing and active knowledge transfer and exchange within and across sectors includes mechanisms and processes to sharing evidence as well as local solutions and ideas for implementation, funding and evaluation with decision-makers and practitioners to describe lessons learned and promote promising practices. This would include evidence-based knowledge summaries published by a variety of sources, guidelines for policy, programs and practice from provincial, territorial and professional sources and tools and models that enable decision-makers and practitioners to reflect on their situation and their practice and to locate materials and models that can be adapted to their circumstance.
- Regular monitoring and reporting on system, organizational (agency and school board), school and professional performance and capacities uses carefully selected indicators based on reliable data sources to produce regular reports on system/organizational performance over time as a tool to focus system reform and improvement. Effective M&R systems record changes over time in the local context, inputs, processes (programs, policies, practices) and outputs (short term health/social status, behaviours, knowledge, skills, attitudes). Specific surveys and reports on aspects of health, selected sub-populations or program evaluations can be done within the context of this overall reporting system but are not a substitute for such a system. M&R systems are similar but different than program evaluation, self-assessments, one-time or ongoing surveys or cohort studies of children. M&R systems report regularly and publicly on the overall characteristics, results and capacity of the school and other systems, agencies and professionals as well as the healthy development and health related learning of children and youth.
- Early identification and strategic management of emerging issues and joint priorities; health and education systems need to have clearly identified priority issues. But they also need to identify emerging issues and address those issues, otherwise they will go outside the established process and push their way into the open, loosely coupled system in another way.
- An explicit sustainability plan that includes long-term planning and sustained fundingensure the continuance of programs that demonstrate effectiveness, based on regular evaluations that shed light on program process, context and outcomes. Financial resources are needed for staff, personnel training, infrastructure changes, coordination, intersectoral participation and dissemination to support continued implementation and school health promotion action and evaluation plans.
Community Capacity and Capacity Building
Since all schools are situated within and inextricable from their surrounding communities and clientele, advocates, practitioners and policy-makers of various forms of school-based and school-linked human development should also be familiar with the concepts of community capacity and community capacity building.
Raeburn et al (2006) community capacity building (CCB) is seen as part of a long-standing health promotion tradition involving community action in health promotion. They suggest that the usage of the term is variable and submit that its common features are (i) the concepts of capacity and empowerment (versus disease and deficiency), (ii) bottom-up, community-determined agendas and actions and (iii) processes for developing competence. They also suggest that most researchers into community capacity have placed an emphasis on building competencies, the measurement of community capacity and the attempt to break CCB down into operational components. Academic research on the impact of CCB on health is lacking, but multiple case studies documented in the ‘grey literature’ suggest CCB is highly effective, as does research in related areas, such as community empowerment.
Raeburn et al also suggest that various concepts are associated strongly with CCB. The most important, already mentioned, are empowerment(relating to both political and psychological power), and community control. Others are participation(‘real’ versus token) and self-determination (agendas set by communities, not outsiders). To the extent that social processes are also important in CCB, a variety of terms prefixed by ‘social’ are used, such as social connectedness/capital/cohesion/belonging/inclusion/support/networks. The concept of civil society is also associated with CCB, usually meaning organized society other than government or the military, especially the non-governmental organization (NGO) component.Equity and equality are central concepts, implying primacy for CCB processes involving the most dis-empowered, an emphasis on dignity, justice and respect for all, and attending to political, economic and other societal structures that result in inequity.Marginalized, excluded and poor communities are prioritized. The concept of development is relevant here, and indeed most case studies of successful CCB and CD come from the less ‘developed’ parts of the world. However, CCB principles are also applicable in highly developed settings. Some CCB examples involve an activist political dimension, others not. The organizational aspect of CCB is important. Concepts here include planning models, capacity domains, needs/wishes assessment, asset-mapping, governance, sustainability and evaluation. The American term community organization has overtones of CCB.
Labonte & Laverack (2001) remind us that Improving community capacity is not a panacea to complex social problems arising from unregulated economic globalism. Neither is it a substitute strategy for the re-creation of strong and democratic states, and their legislative and programmatic commitments to wealth redistribution and environmental sustainability.
In the same vein, building the operational capacities of professionals, agencies, schools and ministries to use knowledge more effectively to select and implement policies, programs, practices and multi-intervention approaches is not an adequate substitute for elected and senior officials in providing adequate human and financial resources as well as policies, public authority and mandates required to implement and maintain those ongoing efforts.
Professional Capacities (Competencies)
Most of the discussion associated with the capacity of professionals to implement and institutionalize school health, safety and social development programs has focused on the qualifications, knowledge, skills and aptitudes required of them relative to evidence-based programs. Several studies have examined their perceptions of various school programs and approaches but few studies have examined whether these professionals have the time, tools and support staff needed to sustain their respective roles. As well, most of the work in school health and other human development programs has focused on whether teachers and other educators have the awareness, knowledge, beliefs, skills and training required to implement school programs. Lesser attention has been paid to other professionals working in schools in research studies but there are several position statements and descriptions of the roles and training required to school nurses, school social workers, school psychologists, school resource officers and others.
There is also considerable work being done in the health sector about the roles and skills required of professionals to work together across disciplines. Inter-professional training models and training programs have been developed.
Peer-reviewed References:
Hoyle TB, Samek BB, Valois RF (2008) Building Capacity for the Continuous Improvement of Health-Promoting SchoolsJournal of School Health Volume 78,Issue 1,pages 1–8,January 2008
Joffres C, Heath S, Farquharson J, Barkhouse K, Hood R, Latter C , MacLean DR (2004) Defining and operationalizing capacity for heart health promotion in Nova Scotia, Canada, Health Promotion International, Vol. 19, No. 1, 39-49, March 2004
Labonte R, Laverack G (2001) Capacity building in health promotion, Part 2: whose use? And with what measurement?
Critical Public Health,Vol. 11, No. 2, 2001
New South Wales Health (2001) A Framework for Building Capacity to Improve Health, Author
Germann, K., Wilson, D. (2004). Organizational capacity for community development in regional health authorities: A conceptual model. Health Promotion International, Sep;19(3), 289-298.
Dressendorfer, R. H., Raine, K., Dyck, R. J., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins-Nakai, R. L., McLaughlin, W. K. et al. (2005). A conceptual model of community capacity development for heart health promotion in the Alberta Heart Health Project. Health Promotion Practice, Jan;6(1), 31-36.
Raeburn J, Akerman M, Chuengsatiansup K, Mejia F, Oladepo O (2006) Community capacity building and health promotion in a globalized world Health Promotion International Volume21,Issue suppl 1 Pp.84-9
Robinson, K., Elliott, S.J., Driedger, S.M., Eyles, J., O’Loughlin, J., Riley, B., Cameron, R., Harvey, D. (2004). Using linking systems to build capacity and enhance dissemination in heart health promotion: A Canadian multiple-case study. Health Education Research, 20(5), 499-513.
Schwartz, R., Smith, C., Speers, M. A., Dusenbury, L. J., Bright, F., Hedlund, S. et al. (1993). Capacity building resource needs of state health agencies to implement community-based cardiovascular disease programs. Journal of Public Health Policy, Winter;14(4), 480-494.
Warren, R. (2005). Building capacity for risk factor surveillance in developed countries: The need for a vision-driven approach: Lessons learned from the Canadian experience. Soz.Praventivmed, 50(Suppl1), S25-S30.
Champagne, R., Leduc, N., Denis, J.L., Pineault, R. (1993). Organizational and environmental determinants of the performance of public health units. Soc Sci Med, 37(1), 85-95.
Vince Whitman, C. (2005). Implementing research-based health promotion programmes in schools: Strategies for capacity building. In S. Clift & B.B. Jensen (Eds.),The health promoting school: International advances in theory, evaluation and practice(107-136). Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish University of Education Press
Reports, Reviews, Case Studies, Resources
McCall D (2007) Operational Capacity & School Health Promotion (Discussion paper prepared for the Health & Learning Knowledge Centre, Canadian Council on Learning, Ottawa, Canada)
McLean S, Feather J, Butler-Jones D (2004) Building Health Promotion Capacity: Action for Learning, Learning from Action UBC Press 2005
New South Wales Health (2001) A Framework for Building Capacity to Improve Health, Author, Gladesville, NSW, Australia (Discussion paper and planning resource prepared for NSW Health Department)
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (nd) Capacity Building for Health Promotion, Author, Fact Sheet Series
Bell-Woodward G (2004) Health Promotion Capacity Checklists: A Workbook for Individual, Organizational and
Environmental Assessment. Prairie Region Health Promotion Centre (2004)
World Health Organization (2003) Rapid Action & Assessment Tool Author, Geneva
Canadian Association for School Health and 26 other Canadian Organizations (2007) Canadian Consensus Statement on Comprehensive School Health: Revised Edition Surrey, BC
Joint Consortium for School Health (nd) Key Organizational Capacities for Sustaining Comprehensive Approaches to Health Promoting Schools Charlottetown, PEI (Accessed on October 20-2011)
School Health Research Network (2005) Assessment of Ministry Capacity Project Schools, Health, Substance Abuse and Nutrition, Unpublished, Surrey, BC, Canadian Association for School Health
dmccall |
Latest page update: made by dmccall
, Nov 22 2011, 10:36 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by dmccall
34 words added 17 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
