Priority Areas for Change Safety Community Gardens Community Engagement Food Access Revitalizations of Parks Barriers to Change Funding Community social norms Support (resident engagement, volunteers) Background Results The Community Healthy Living Index (CHLI) Tool Developed by the YMCA of the USA, with the support of experts from Stanford, Harvard, and St. Louis universities, through funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Consists of an assessment (quantitative data) to measure opportunities for physical activity and health eating, followed by an improvement planning session (qualitative data) to draft strategies for improving neighborhood health Measures: Neighborhood Design Physical Environment Related to Physical Activity Physical Environment Related to Food/Nutrition Safety Collaborative Capacity/Community Engagement In 2007, over 36% of the children ages 10 to 17 in Alabama were classified as either overweight or obese. The percentage of Alabama adults who are overweight or obese is even higher (65.9%). Obese individuals have been found to have a higher risk for developing cardiovascular disease, including high cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and high blood sugar, an indicator for diabetes. 1 The Community Healthy Living Index (CHLI) was developed to help community members identify opportunities for encouraging and supporting healthy eating and physical activity in environments where people live, learn, work, and play. In order to decrease the number of community members that are overweight and obese, and increase opportunities for physical activity and nutrition, the Health Action Partnership began implementing the CHLI process throughout Jefferson County, AL in While many programs focus on the individual and intrapersonal change levels of the Social Ecological Model, CHLI focuses on policy and community level changes. This population based approach can improve daily access to physical activity opportunities and nutritious food. Discussion Implications Safety is the #1 neighborhood priority area Strategies include increasing lighting throughout neighborhood, installing traffic calming measures (speed bumps), increased enforcement of speed limits and police patrols Improvements in safety may lead to residents engaging in more physical activity outside their home Community gardens are the #2 neighborhood priority area Strategies include establishing a neighborhood garden, supporting an existing community garden, and identify ways of distributing produce to residents (curb markets, mini farmers markets) Having access to a community garden may be especially important in communities that lack access to grocery stores Key Findings Place matters! Suburban areas tended to have more amenities for physical activity and greater access to healthy food sources. Limitations Self-reported data Small sample size Selection bias Next Steps Continue to connect neighborhoods with available resources (grant writing workshops, community advocacy training, community garden groups, etc.) Reassess CHLI neighborhoods in twelve to eighteen months. For Further Information: Monique Mullins, MPH Methodology Stage of Change Planting the Seeds: 1 Neighborhood Nurturing for Growth: 5 Neighborhoods Cultivating Healthy Fruit: 5 Neighborhoods CHLI Tool Implementation Tool facilitators received training from National YMCA staff The following selection criteria was used for neighborhoods: Previous relationship or connections with one of the organizations in the Health Action Partnership. In January 2010, the Health Action Partnership received the Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities grant. At that time, it was decided to focus on three distinct communities in eastern, western and southern Jefferson County. Data Collection: January October 2010 Connect neighborhoods to available resources 1 National Initiative for Children’s Health Care Quality. (2010). Mobilizing healthcare professionals as community leaders in the fight against childhood obesity. Retrieved from Demographics Number of NeighborhoodsN = 11 Number of ResidentsMean = 9,634 Range = 459 – 30,310 Approximately size of neighborhood Mean = 6.1 square miles Range = 3 – 11.5 square miles SettingUrban = 7 Suburban = 2 Rural = 1 Average household income levelLow income = 7 Lower-middle income = 2 Middle income = 2 RaceWhite = 35% Black = 60% Asian = 1% Other = 4% Assessment Results StrengthsOpportunities Neighborhood Design (Q1) 9% Supportive 73% Change likely -Neighborhood parks are provided and within easy walking distance of most homes -Network of sidewalks and bike routes Physical Environment Physical Activity (Q2) 36% Supportive 55% Change likely -Upkeep of neighborhood playgrounds -Publicly available facilities are open throughout the year -Utilization of street safety measures to support walking and biking Physical Environment Food/Nutrition (Q3) 18% Supportive 73% Change likely -Food stores provide price incentives for healthy foods and drinks -Produce available from alternative sources Safety (Q4) 55% Supportive 73% Change likely -Residents feel safe and unlikely to become victims of crime during the day -Motor vehicle speed enforcement -Law enforcement patrols at public sites -Lighting of sidewalks and parks Collaborative Capacity(Q5) 73% Supportive 91% Change likely -Organized neighborhood associations -Healthy food served at neighborhood events Building Healthy Environments with the Community Healthy Living Index Tool Mullins, M., Smith, J. & Wimberly, T.