The community and the neighborhood




Capella University

November, 2018

The community and the neighborhood

The community has no clear physical boundaries indicating where it starts and ends. The economic boundaries have in it newer high-income housing developments and large apartment complexes. Both low income and high-income housing make up the rural area of the community.

Regarding housing and zoning, the community was made up of house ages ranging from the 1900’s through to the 1980’s to today with old and new homes evenly spread throughout this community. Many rural homes were built in farms. The area also has a few attached housing complexes. Most of the households were single-family homes. Most homes were built on either wood or bricks, aluminum, shake materials and vinyl siding. Most of the old homes that were built on the traditional style of ranches showed signs of disrepair such as broken windows, overgrown lawns and rotting siding with some land having abandoned dilapidated barns while new homes built on bricks. Older houses had comparably larger open front backyards with newer ones having spaces behind in their backyards.

The neighborhood had many retail empty spaces with some abandoned buildings showing little signs of economic slowdown or decay. The liter in the streets was also less with the town area having many new, well maintained and busy shops. The rural area showed some signs of decay with closed and abandoned businesses.

Vulnerable and diverse population

There were noticeable signs of acute or chronic diseases and conditions, in that, a good number of residents were seen gathering around the nearest hospital a few minutes outside the community, and several smokers were walking the streets. The hospital, which was on the northeast of the community, had urgent care Popular Tents and Piedmont Healthcare tents. Social services were also seen that served the abused and abandoned children, adolescents, and adults with counseling centers. Some residents were also seen either walking towards, in the pharmacies or walking from them after being served with drugs.

Demographic changes

James island is among South Carolina areas that have experienced population growth made of migrants from other parts of the United States, most of which are young people seeking education, as have been witnessed in the increase of the numbers in local schools. Generally, the neighborhood has a tipping point with little signs of slow down. There is slowing unemployment and growing traffic in the urban area but signs of poverty and low traffic in the rural. The rural areas showed signs of drug dealing with some suspicious dealers spending long hours walking the streets talking to motorists. Large amounts of state funding are directed to population growth, the building of new schools, renovating and expanding health centers and increasing police and Sherriff patrols in the area.

Health risks

The population of the area had significantly grown with a growing number of younger people, a shift from years ago when the area mostly had senior citizens. There were many smokers spotted in the streets, both in the rural and urban centers. There were also many obese children observed. It was therefore probably that main health risks mostly included such lifestyle conditions including diabetes and high blood pressure (Vernberg, 2014). There is also growing concerns of drug abuse with rehabilitation tents coming up in the local health center. The leading cause of morbidity among adults was cough and cold, a sign of hypertension. Mortality in the area has been attributed to old age with a maximum of eleven deaths each year. A total of 47 young people were incarcerated for drug trafficking with 9 dying in drug and gang-related deaths.

Health disparities and social determinants of health

Lifestyle health behaviors such as drug and alcohol, diet, smoking, physical activity, and other lifestyle were responsible for over 30 percent of premature deaths. Social circumstances accounted for 15 percent, genetic predisposition being responsible for 20 percent and healthcare for only 9 percent of health risk premature death. Behavioral determinants include hand washing, cigarette, alcohol, and other drug use, physical inactivity and diet (Hutchinson & Smith, 2014). Genetic determinants include HIV status, family history of cancer, and heart diseases, sex, age, inherited conditions such as anemia, hemophilia and cystic fibrosis. Environmental determinants encompassed physical barriers for the disabled, homes, housing and neighborhoods, schools, worksites, and recreational centers and the quality if water, air and food.

Health disparities included higher illness burdens, disability, injury, and mortality. These health disparities have persisted across the area, though not so prevalently (Chen, Cheng, Bennett & Hibbert, 2015). Many people seemed to have access to insurance services, and such barriers as transportation did not seem to be a problem. In line with US Department of health 2010 vision of a nation free of disparities, the area authority should come up with set priorities, strategic actions and goals to contain disparities


Chen, B. K., Cheng, X., Bennett, K., & Hibbert, J. (2015). Travel distances, socioeconomic characteristics, and health disparities in nonurgent and frequent use of hospital emergency departments in South Carolina: a population-based observational study. BMC health services research15(1), 203.

Hutchinson, R. N., & Shin, S. (2014). Systematic review of health disparities for cardiovascular diseases and associated factors among American Indian and Alaska Native populations. PloS one9(1), e80973.

Vernberg, F. J. (Ed.). (2014). Environmental adaptations. Elsevier.