Communicating the Value of the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant.

The Preventive Health and Health Services (PHHS) Block Grant (Block Grant) continues to offer public health leadership a major lever to promote health and ensure the delivery of essential public health services. This column describes reasons why public health leaders must maintain strong participation in defining and communicating the collective and localized benefits of this flexible funding program for prevention.

The Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey: The First National Survey of State Health Agency Employees.

CONTEXT: Public health practitioners, policy makers, and researchers alike have called for more data on individual worker's perceptions about workplace environment, job satisfaction, and training needs for a quarter of a century. The Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS) was created to answer that call. OBJECTIVE: Characterize key components of the public health workforce, including demographics, workplace environment, perceptions about national trends, and perceived training needs. DESIGN: A nationally representative survey of central office employees at state health agencies (SHAs) was conducted in 2014. Approximately 25,000 e-mail invitations to a Web-based survey were sent out to public health staff in 37 states, based on a stratified sampling approach. Balanced repeated replication weights were used to account for the complex sampling design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10,246 permanently employed SHA central office employees participated in PH WINS (46% response rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptions about training needs; workplace environment and job satisfaction; national initiatives and trends; and demographics. RESULTS: Although the majority of staff said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their job (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 78-80), as well as their organization (65%; 95% CI, 64-66), more than 42% (95% CI, 41-43) were considering leaving their organization in the next year or retiring before 2020; 4% of those were considering leaving for another job elsewhere in governmental public health. The majority of public health staff at SHA central offices are female (72%; 95% CI, 71-73), non-Hispanic white (70%; 95% CI, 69-71), and older than 40 years (73%; 95% CI, 72-74). The greatest training needs include influencing policy development, preparing a budget, and training related to the social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: PH WINS represents the first nationally representative survey of SHA employees. It holds significant potential to help answer previously unaddressed questions in public health workforce research and provides actionable findings for SHA leaders.

Thinking beyond the silos: emerging priorities in workforce development for state and local government public health agencies.

CONTEXT: Discipline-specific workforce development initiatives have been a focus in recent years. This is due, in part, to competency-based training standards and funding sources that reinforce programmatic silos within state and local health departments. OBJECTIVE: National leadership groups representing the specific disciplines within public health were asked to look beyond their discipline-specific priorities and collectively assess the priorities, needs, and characteristics of the governmental public health workforce. DESIGN: The challenges and opportunities facing the public health workforce and crosscutting priority training needs of the public health workforce as a whole were evaluated. Key informant interviews were conducted with 31 representatives from public health member organizations and federal agencies. Interviews were coded and analyzed for major themes. Next, 10 content briefs were created on the basis of priority areas within workforce development. Finally, an in-person priority setting meeting was held to identify top workforce development needs and priorities across all disciplines within public health. PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from 31 of 37 invited public health organizations participated, including representatives from discipline-specific member organizations, from national organizations and from federal agencies. RESULTS: Systems thinking, communicating persuasively, change management, information and analytics, problem solving, and working with diverse populations were the major crosscutting areas prioritized. CONCLUSIONS: Decades of categorical funding created a highly specialized and knowledgeable workforce that lacks many of the foundational skills now most in demand. The balance between core and specialty training should be reconsidered.

Public health spending in 2008: on the challenge of integrating PHSSR data sets and the need for harmonization.

In recent years, state and local public health department budgets have been cut, sometimes drastically. However, there is no systematic tracking of governmental public health spending that would allow researchers to assess these cuts in comparison with governmental public health spending as a whole. Furthermore, attempts to quantify the impact of public health spending are limited by the lack of good data on public health spending on state and local public health services combined. The objective of this article is to integrate self-reported state and local health department (LHD) survey data from 2 major national organizations to create state-level estimates of governmental public health spending. To create integrated estimates, we selected 1388 LHDs and 46 states that had reported requisite financial information. To account for the nonrespondent LHDs, estimates of the spending were developed by using appropriate statistical weights. Finally, funds from federal pass-through and state sources were estimated for LHDs and subtracted from the total spending by the state health agency to avoid counting these dollars in both state and local figures. On average, states spend $106 per capita on traditional public health at the state and local level, with an average of 42% of spending occurring at the local level. Considerable variation exists in state and local public health funding. The results of this analysis show a relatively low level of public health funding compared with state Medicaid spending and health care more broadly.

Governance typology: a consensus classification of state-local health department relationships.

CONTEXT: Public health practitioners and researchers often refer to state public health systems as being centralized, decentralized, shared, or mixed. These categories refer to governance of the local public health units within the state and whether they operate under the authority of the state government, local government, shared state and local governance, or a mix of governance structures within the state. OBJECTIVE: This article describes the development of an objective method of classifying states as centralized, decentralized, shared, or mixed. We also discuss some initial analyses that have been conducted to identify how public health resources and activities vary across states with different classifications. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: State health agencies. PARTICIPANTS: Survey respondents were organizational leaders from all 50 state health agencies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Total full-time equivalent employees, total health agency expenditures, expenditures on clinical services, and provision of clinical services. RESULTS: Centralized state health agencies employ more full-time equivalent employees, have higher total expenditures, and provide more clinical services than decentralized state health agencies. Although higher expenditures on clinical services were observed, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to take governance classification into account when investigating variation in services, resources, or performance of governmental public health systems. As public health systems and services researchers seek to identify best practices in the organization of public health systems, consistent definition of different types of organization is critical. This system provides an objective and reliable system for classifying governance relationships that allows for comparisons that are meaningful to both practitioners and researchers.

Structure and functions of state public health agencies in 2007.

We sought to document the structure and functions of state public health agencies throughout the United States in 2007 and compare findings with those from a similar 2001 assessment. In 2007 a survey of the structure and functions of state public health agencies was sent to and completed by senior deputies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (a 100% response rate). The results of the survey showed that all emerging practice areas in 2001 had expanded by 2007. Also, state health departments generally had greater levels of responsibility in 2007 than they did in 2001, emphasizing the need for continued support of governmental public health systems and research on the operations of those systems.

State landscape in public health planning and quality improvement: results of the ASTHO survey.

Limited data exist on state public health agencies and their use of planning and quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Using the 2007 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) State Public Health Survey, this article describes how state public health agencies perform tasks related to planning, performance management (PM), and QI. While 82 percent of respondents report having a QI process in place, only 9.8 percent have it fully implemented departmentwide. Seventy-six percent reported having a PM process in place, with 16 percent (n = 8) having it fully implemented departmentwide. A state health improvement plan was used by 80.4 percent of respondents, with 56.9 percent of respondents completing the plan more than 3 years ago. More than two-thirds (68.2%) of the respondents developed the plan by using results of their state health assessment. Analysis of state health department level planning, PM, and QI initiatives can inform states' efforts to ready themselves to meet the proposed national voluntary accreditation standards of the Public Health Accreditation Board.