![]() |
Communities and Schools Promoting Health
A Gateway to
information on comprehensive school health (CSH) and health promoting
schools (HPS) |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page introduces some of the planning and assessment knowledge tools that are available in Canada and elsewhere. Planning Guide International Agencies
|
|
|
ICAD Hemispheric Guidelines on School-Based Prevention (Organization of American States) |
|
|
School-based Education for Drug Abuse Prevention (UN Office on Drugs & Crime) |
|
|
Preventing Substance Abuse Problems among Young People (Health Canada) |
|
|
Best practice guidelines for mental health promotion programs: Children & Youth (CAMH, Ontario) |
|
|
What Works in SA Prevention for Youth (CAMH, Ontario) |
|
|
When Drugs Come to School: A Resource Manual for Student Substance Use and School-Based Policy Development (Ministry of Health Promotion, Nova Scotia) |
|
|
Prevention Strategies for Teachers (AADAC, Alberta) |
|
|
Principles of Effectiveness for Safe and Drug Free Schools (US Dept of Education) |
|
|
Drug Use Prevention Among Young People: A Review of Reviews. Evidence Briefing Update. (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), U.K). |
|
|
Guidelines for Managing Drug Related Incidents in Schools (New South Wales, Australia) |
|
|
School Drug Education Principles (Australian Government) |
|
|
Guidelines to Support the Development of School-Based Drug Education Policies and Practices (New South Wales, Australia) |
Assessment
Tools
|
|
BC Institute for Safer
Schools
has developed and administered the
Safe School Social Responsibility Survey
for Secondary Students (SSSRS) in 13 BC school districts. Developed in
collaboration with several school districts, this longitudinal survey
measures students’ perceptions of personal safety and belonging, self
concept, social responsibility, substance use, school engagement,
community involvement, and home life. The primary use of this instrument
is to assist school and district planning efforts. |
|
|
The Continuum of Care Approach for Program Evaluation (Addictions Foundation of Manitoba) Agencies that strive to assist individuals with addiction problems have traditionally faced one significant barrier when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of their programs: an inability to specifically attribute a client’s success or failure to a program’s activities. For example, let’s say an alcohol rehabilitation client completes the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba’s (AFM) intensive residential program and is discharged home. Six months later, a follow-up interview determines that the client is abstinent, working steadily at his full-time job and enjoying a healthy, alcohol-free life with his wife and two children. The AFM researchers call their new framework the Continuum of Care Approach for Program Evaluation and Development. This reflects the fact that all programs exist within a continuum of formal and informal supports for clients. Over the past year, the researchers have worked closely with counsellors in various AFM programs to identify short-term objectives. Currently, models are in place for many programs, with the remainder to be completed in the next year or so. |
Online Training