Campus Wide Proposal For Fayette County Community Action Agency

The goals of the agency evolved from their mission statement and include building families (through reunification or permanent placement), strengthening communities for all youth to have a safe place to call home, and building skills to maintain a positive and productive

This paper presents an analysis of the evaluation report on “Hennepin County Community Works: 20 Years of Transforming Places for People: An Evaluation of Past Performance and Lessons Learned with Recommendations for the Future. The report was viewed on October 23, 2015 and can be found on this link: http://www.hennepin.us/~/media/hennepinus/your-government/projects-initiatives/community-works/cw-evalulation-report-2014-final.pdf

It is important to note, Cumberland County is located in the southeastern part of Kentucky on the Cumberland River; with a population of only 7,000, the community’s population on the decline, and it is clear to see there are underlying problems for this decline. The county is faced with the highest unemployment rates in the state at 12% and low household incomes. There is also high drug abuse rates amongst teens and a lack of proper education as well as a dropout rate that is 5% higher than the state and national average Also, there is a lack of job opportunities in the community, which then in turn causes for people to move and pursue work elsewhere. Residents clearly live hard and stressful lives with so many issues facing the community; therefore, they can benefit greatly from the community center and programs as well as have better life opportunities that are both fun and

“We affirm that environmental tobacco smoke is a significant public health risk to young children and that parents need to know about the risks of smoking in the home around their young children. We agree to co-operate on education and public awareness efforts aimed at reducing children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.”

Goal: Reduce the number of households with high opacity smoke emissions and improve burning related behaviors in response to complaints.

Their principal mission and values are to increase the availability of satisfactory, safe and affordable living accommodations; and to ensure equal opportunity in housing; promote self-sufficiency and asset growth; and improve the community character of life and economic viability.

Mission - To support and enhance the physical and emotional well-being of disadvantaged children by providing products and services not otherwise provided by levels of government, insurance, or other organizations. We strive to fill in the cracks, bridge the gap and open a door when all others have closed.

We are trying to garner support for changing smoking-locations on campus. Issue seeking to fix: Public smoking on Drexel campus is excessive and potentially dangerous. Not only that, but the littering of cigarette butts has become problematic. We want to determine a way to make the campus cleaner and safer. We are targeting Drexel Students, Staff, and Administration. The students are our peers and are also the largest population affected by public smoking. Many members of the staff do not have the freedom that students have to just avoid the areas with excessive public smoking and should not have to pick up the litter of other students. Meanwhile, the administration is the population most

Imagine yourself sitting down to dinner at a restaurant. You are sitting down trying to enjoy your dinner when all you can smell is smoke. Not only are you just breathing in the smoke, it is also damaging your body at the same time. Or imagine yourself at your work place, whether it be a restaurant or office, and you are forced to breathe in second-hand smoke the entire time you are there. In this paper you will be informed of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, and why smoking should be banned from all public places.

Even though there are thousands of smokers in the U.S., we need to consider how much it will help to ban public smoking in more places. Since 2000 over half of the states

As an institution of higher learning, Drexel University is obligated to offer a quality education above all else. When an institution, such as Drexel, is confronted with a serious health epidemic, they are expected to: deal with the issues and maintain an environment for success. Drexel must implement a campus wide no-smoking policy. Those with asthma, or other respiratory issues, are being exposed to health issues that second-hand smoke can create. The odor and sight of cigarette smoke can hinder the serenity of an outdoor study area, thereby making it a distraction for those looking for a place to be productive. In an environment designed for learning, smoking can be self-destructive. Our group proposes the complete elimination of

Smoking is a bad phenomenon has widely spread especially on campus between college students. Despite all doctors and scientist are confirmed health dangers, economic dangers and social dangers for smoking there is a huge numbers of college students smokers. The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review concerning policy implementation in reference to campuses that are smoke-free. In spite of the general success in present decades of curbing the rate of smoking in various countries, the smoking prevalence among the youth aged 20 to 24 is still higher compared to any other demographic age. Addressing the use of tobacco at the university level is imperative. Research shows that even though most youth are categorized as current smokers, another percentage is in a seriously vulnerable experimental puffer group (Ott, et al., pg 232). We worked in this citizen action project to make Concord University free smoking camps.

According to Health Canada, “100 Canadians die of a smoking-related illness” every day (Common). For those who do not smoke, unfortunately, they are not off the hook. According to Health Canada, the mortality rate of second-hand smokers exceeds eight hundred per year (Search). The University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus is considered as a “giant no smoking area” (Smoke), but has seven gazebos located around campus. Though the purpose of the gazebos is to reduce the exposure to smoke for non-smokers, passers-by are still breathing in smoke due to unenclosed designated smoking areas. It is causing inevitable harm for all people on campus. Smoking leads to poor health, plus designated smoking areas on campus have destructively affected campus safety and campus life, it also causes harm to people who do not smoke. Due to all the negative aspects of smoking, universities ought to effectively ban smoking everywhere on

People are educated that smoking is not harming smoker’s health only, but also people who are around smokers. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a research stating that 18 of every hundred adults in the U.S. currently smoke cigarettes, causing more than 480,000 deaths every year (“Current Cigarette Smoking”). There are health issues that occur with smokers and passive smokers. The Clean Indoor Air Act was amended in Washington State on November 8, 2005 in order to protect residents’ health, prohibiting “smoking within 25 feet of entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited” (“Smoking in Public Places Law”). People are not allowed to smoke inside of buildings according to this law, but people are still getting harmed. When they walk on sidewalks and in public space, they are exposed to smoke. And these situation are also exist in South Seattle College. Therefore, South Seattle College should ban smoking in all forms on its campus for people’s health at school, for campus environment and also the cost related involved in health care and purchasing.

Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (WHO).The evidence from these jurisdictions consistently demonstrates not only that smoke free environments are enforceable, but popular and became more so following implementation. These laws have no negative impact and often had positive one. It produces an immediate