No result found
As the Greater Philadelphia region's metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) provides technical assistance and services to its member state, county, and local governments; the private sector; and the public. Delaware Valley Data is our periodic series of free data bulletins, data snapshots, and analytical reports. Data Bulletin #097 provides county- and subcounty-level population estimates as of July 1, 2015, for the 28 counties located within DVRPC's extended data services area, released by the U.S Census Bureau in May 2016. The Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program (PEP) produces July 1st estimates for the years following the last published decennial census and, in most cases, simultaneously revises annual estimates released in previous years. Existing data series such as births, deaths, federal tax returns, Medicare enrollment, and immigration are used to update the base counts from the decennial census. PEP estimates are used in federal funding allocations, in setting the levels of national surveys, and for monitoring recent demographic changes.
As the Greater Philadelphia region's metropolitan planning organization (MPO), DVRPC provides technical assistance and services to its member state, county, and local governments; the private sector; and the public. Delaware Valley Data is our periodic series of free data bulletins, data snapshots, and analytical reports. Regional Data Bulletin #098 presents residential building permit data for 2010 through 2015 in the extended 28-county data services area. Residential construction activity data is derived from current reports and publications compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau's Residential Construction Statistics Division. Municipalities provide the Census Bureau with tabulations of the number of housing units authorized, according to types of structures. In the few cases where municipalities reported building permit activity for some months but not for all 12 months, the Census Bureau estimates the total yearly number of building permits based on past building permit activity.
Public Education Network (PEN);
Since 1994, Public Education Network (PEN) has been working with local education funds (LEFs) to engage communities in developing comprehensive school health programs in public schools. The effort follows a research-supported eight-component model developed by CDC, the federal agency funding the initiative.
According to CDC, a comprehensive school health program must have the following elements:
Health Promotion for Staff
Counseling and Psychological Services
Healthy School Environment
Using these criteria, PEN asked eight LEFs to survey and assess the level of school health programs in their communities and to create plans to either establish or enhance comprehensive school health programs. In 1995, six of these sites received three-year implementation grants.
In the 1999-2000 school year, five of the six sites received funds for assessing the capacity of their communities to address and sustain commitments to their comprehensive school health initiatives beyond the life of the PEN grants. These LEFs are located in Buffalo, NY; Lancaster, PA; McKeesport (MonValley), PA; Paterson, NJ; and Atlanta, GA. This edition of Lessons from the Field summarizes the work of four of these LEFs so that others might learn from their experiences.
Public Education Network (PEN);
As the Public Education Network (PEN) and its member local education funds (LEFs) are committed to creating systems of public education that result in high achievement for every child, we believe that equal opportunity, access to quality public schools, and an informed citizenry are all critical components of a democratic society. Part of making available a high-quality public education is ensuring that students and teachers spend their days in safe schools, which are free from violence, free from fear of harassment and threatening situations, and conducive to teaching and learning.
Five local education funds have helped their communities broach these difficult issues with conversations on national and local issues of safety and violence in schools. During the last part of 2000, more than 250 people participated in conversations in Buffalo, NY; Lancaster, PA; McKeesport, PA; and Paterson, NJ. In February 2001, the local education fund in Atlanta, GA hosted a conversation that included students, teachers, principals, law enforcement officials, parents, and other community leaders.
These local education funds conducted their community dialogues on school safety and violence as part of an assessment of their community's readiness and capacity to address the health and well being of children in their public schools. This assessment included looking into issues of health insurance coverage, coordination of health and social services for children and their families, maintaining safe learning environments, and the level of resources devoted to children's health and social services. Participants, therefore, understood that these community dialogues are not just "one-shot" efforts at addressing school safety and violence but as a part of a more comprehensive approach to address the systemic issues affecting children in their public schools.
The local education funds used The 1999 Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher, Violence in America's Public Schools: Five Years Later, as a starting place for their conversations, to ground their local experiences in a national context. This Lessons from the Field provides a summary of the MetLife survey and highlights findings from the conversations in four local education fund communities. (Law enforcement officials are referred to in this publication as "officers." All teachers and students referred to here are from public schools, and all "schools" referred to are public schools.)