Recovery and Resiliency in 29 Big Cities: Results From the 2021 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey.

CONTEXT: Big Cities Health Coalition member health departments (BCHC HDs) serve more than 61 million people across their jurisdictions, nearly 20% of the US population. As such, they have particular challenges and opportunities in how they do their work. This article focuses on BCHC HDs that participated in the 2021 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS) and describes workplace perceptions, training needs, COVID-19 efforts, and well-being. OBJECTIVE: To describe key characteristics of the governmental public health workforce among BCHC HDs, including demographics, perceptions, and needs. DESIGN: Using a subsample of data from the 2021 PH WINS that included 29 BCHC HDs, descriptive statistics on many of the topics covered by the 2021 PH WINS were analyzed and compared with the 2017 PH WINS. SETTING: Twenty-nine BCHC HDs in cities across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 7922 of 29 661 staff members (response rate of 27%) from participating BCHC HDs. RESULTS: Most BCHC HD respondents self-identified as a woman (76%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 75%-77%), and as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (69%, 95% CI: 68%-70%), similar to findings from the 2017 PH WINS (75%, 95% CI: 74%-76%; 67%, 95% CI: 66%-69%, respectively). Most respondents believe that their organization prioritizes diversity, equity, and inclusion (70%, 95% CI: 69%-72%). Thirty percent (95% CI: 29%-32%) intend to leave their organizations within 1 year, and 18% (95% CI: 17%-19%) plan to retire within 5 years. Staff connect their work with agency goals and priorities (86%, 95% CI: 85%-87%) and are determined to give their best effort every day (91%, 95% CI: 90%-91%). CONCLUSION: As the need for an all-encompassing focus on COVID-19 lessons, BCHC HDs should continue to focus on prioritizing staff retention, enhancing communication between senior staff and employees, and fostering an environment where innovation and creativity are rewarded.

Tracking COVID-19 Inequities Across Jurisdictions Represented in the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC): The COVID-19 Health Inequities in BCHC Cities Dashboard.

Objectives. To describe the creation of an interactive dashboard to advance the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic from an equity and urban health perspective across 30 large US cities that are members of the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC). Methods. We leveraged the Drexel‒BCHC partnership to define the objectives and audience for the dashboard and developed an equity framework to conceptualize COVID-19 inequities across social groups, neighborhoods, and cities. We compiled data on COVID-19 trends and inequities by race/ethnicity, neighborhood, and city, along with neighborhood- and city-level demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and built an interactive dashboard and Web platform to allow interactive comparisons of these inequities across cities. Results. We launched the dashboard on January 21, 2021, and conducted several dissemination activities. As of September 2021, the dashboard included data on COVID-19 trends for the 30 cities, on inequities by race/ethnicity in 21 cities, and on inequities by neighborhood in 15 cities. Conclusions. This dashboard allows public health practitioners to contextualize racial/ethnic and spatial inequities in COVID-19 across large US cities, providing valuable insights for policymakers. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):904-912. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306708).

Variation Among Public Health Interventions in Initial Efforts to Prevent and Control the Spread of COVID-19 in the 50 States, 29 Big Cities, and the District of Columbia.

US states and big cities acted to protect the residents of their jurisdictions from the threat of SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduce COVID-19 transmission. As there were no known pharmacologic interventions to prevent COVID-19 at the outset of the pandemic, public health and elected leaders implemented a host of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to slow the spread of the virus. This article discusses variation among states and cities in their implementation of 3 NPIs: stay-at-home/shelter-in-place orders, gathering restrictions, and mask mandates. We illustrate how frequently each was used by states and big cities, discuss state and local authorities to implement such interventions, and consider how these NPIs and accompanying public adherence to public health orders may vary considerably in different regions of the country and by local and state laws specific to state preemption of public health authority.

Epidemiology Workforce Capacity in 27 Large Urban Health Departments in the United States, 2017.

OBJECTIVES: The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) has periodically assessed the epidemiological capacity of states since 2001, but the data do not reflect the total US epidemiology capacity. CSTE partnered with the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC) in 2017 to assess epidemiology capacity in large urban health departments. We described the epidemiology workforce capacity of large urban health departments in the United States and determined gaps in capacity among BCHC health departments. METHODS: BCHC, in partnership with CSTE, modified the 2017 State Epidemiology Capacity Assessment for its 30 member departments. Topics in the assessment included epidemiology leadership, staffing, funding, capacity to perform 4 epidemiology-related Essential Public Health Services, salary ranges, hiring requirements, use of competencies, training needs, and job vacancies. RESULTS: The 27 (90%) BCHC-member health departments that completed the assessment employed 1091 full-time equivalent epidemiologists. All or nearly all health departments provided epidemiology services for programs in infectious disease (n = 27), maternal and child health (n = 27), preparedness (n = 27), chronic diseases (n = 25), vital statistics (n = 25), and environmental health (n = 23). On average, funding for epidemiology activities came from local (47%), state (24%), and federal (27%) sources. Health departments reported needing a 40% increase from the current number of epidemiologists to achieve ideal epidemiology capacity. Twenty-five health departments reported substantial-to-full capacity to monitor health problems, 21 to diagnose health problems, 11 to conduct evaluations, and 9 to perform applied research. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to meet 21st century challenges and increase substantial-to-full epidemiological capacity include seeking funds from nongovernmental sources, partnering with schools and programs of public health, and identifying creative solutions to hiring and retaining epidemiologists.

Big City Health Officials' Conceptualizations of Health Equity.

CONTEXT: Senior health officials of local health departments are uniquely positioned to provide transformational leadership on health disparities and inequities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how senior health officials in large US cities define health equity and its relationship with disparities and characterize these senior health officials' perceptions of using health equity and disparity language in local public health practice. DESIGN: In 2016, we used a general inductive qualitative design and conducted 23 semistructured interviews with leaders of large local health departments. Thematic content analysis was conducted using NVivo 11. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of senior health officials from Big Cities Health Coalition cities. RESULTS: Health equity was conceptualized fairly consistently among senior health officials in big cities. Core elements of these conceptualizations include social and economic conditions, the input and redistribution of resources, equity in practice, values of justice and fairness, and equity as an outcome to be achieved. Senior health officials saw health disparity and health inequity as distinct but related concepts. Relationships between concepts included disparities data to identify and prioritize inequities, inequities creating health disparities, health equity to eliminate disparities, and disparities becoming inequities when their root causes are unjust. Some respondents critiqued health equity terminology for representing a superficial change, being inaccessible, and being politically loaded. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how senior health officials conceptualize health equity and disparities can focus policy priorities, resources, and the scope of work undertaken by local health departments. Having a common language for health equity allows for policy and resource advocacy to promote the health of marginalized populations.

The Governmental Public Health Workforce in 26 Cities: PH WINS Results From Big Cities Health Coalition Members.

CONTEXT: More than 80% of Americans live in urban areas. Over the past 20 years, an increasing number of local governmental public health departments, particularly those in big cities, have taken pioneering action to improve population health. This article focuses on members of the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC) who participated in the 2017 Public Health Workforce Interest and Needs Survey (PH WINS). If the impact of these health departments is to be sustained, they will require a workforce prepared for the challenges of 21st-century public health practice. OBJECTIVE: To characterize workforce interests and needs among staff in 26 large, urban health departments who are BCHC members. DESIGN: Administered PH WINS survey to staff in BCHC member health departments to assess perceptions about the workplace environment and job satisfaction; training needs; awareness of national trends; and demographics. SETTING: In total, 26 of 30 BCHC member health departments, United States. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 7453 of 17 613 staff members (response rate 43.4%) from participating departments. RESULTS: The workforce consists predominantly of women (75%) and people of color (68%). Staff is satisfied with their job (81%), the organization (71%), and pay (59%), but more than a quarter are considering leaving within the year. The agency's mission drives staff, but it lacks an environment fostering creativity and innovation. Training needs include budgeting/financial management, change management, and strategic thinking. CONCLUSIONS: BCHC departments must improve retention, provide opportunities for advancement, enhance communication between leadership and staff, foster creativity and innovation, and align labor allocation with disease burden in local communities. Findings from the second iteration of PH WINS allow a comprehensive, comparable analysis of the workforce across the 26 BCHC member health departments that participated. These data expand upon the ability to assess and monitor improvement in the workforce environment, job satisfaction, awareness of national trends, and training needs.

Scarce Resource Allocation During Disasters: A Mixed-Method Community Engagement Study.

BACKGROUND: During a catastrophe, health-care providers may face difficult questions regarding who will receive limited life-saving resources. The ethical principles that should guide decision-making have been considered by expert panels but have not been well explored with the public or front-line clinicians. The objective of this study was to characterize the public's values regarding how scarce mechanical ventilators should be allocated during an influenza pandemic, with the ultimate goal of informing a statewide scare resource allocation framework. METHODS: Adopting deliberative democracy practices, we conducted 15 half-day community engagement forums with the general public and health-related professionals. Small group discussions of six potential guiding ethical principles were led by trained facilitators. The forums consisted exclusively of either members of the general public or health-related or disaster response professionals and were convened in a variety of meeting places across the state of Maryland. Primary data sources were predeliberation and postdeliberation surveys and the notes from small group deliberations compiled by trained note takers. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-four individuals participated in 15 forums. Participants indicated a preference for prioritizing short-term and long-term survival, but they indicated that these should not be the only factors driving decision-making during a crisis. Qualitative analysis identified 10 major themes that emerged. Many, but not all, themes were consistent with previously issued recommendations. The most important difference related to withholding vs withdrawing ventilator support. CONCLUSIONS: The values expressed by the public and front-line clinicians sometimes diverge from expert guidance in important ways. Awareness of these differences should inform policy making.

From patchwork to package: implementing foundational capabilities for state and local health departments.

Daily public health responses are threatened by the inadequate capacity of public health agencies. A 2012 Institute of Medicine report defined a package of foundational capabilities that support all programs and services within a health department. Standardizing foundational capabilities may help address the increasing disparity in health department performance nationally. During the Fall of 2013, we collected information on how much state and local health departments knew about foundational capabilities. To our knowledge, this was the first study to assess current health department infrastructure as it relates to foundational capabilities.

Practitioner perspectives on foundational capabilities.

CONTEXT: National efforts are underway to classify a minimum set of public health services that all jurisdictions throughout the United States should provide regardless of location. Such a set of basic programs would be supported by crosscutting services, known as the "foundational capabilities" (FCs). These FCs are assessment services, preparedness and disaster response, policy development, communications, community partnership, and organizational support activities. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain familiarity with the term and concept of FCs and gather related perspectives from state and local public health practitioners. DESIGN: In fall 2013, we interviewed 50 leaders from state and local health departments. We asked about familiarity with the term "foundational capabilities," as well as the broader concept of FCs. We attempted to triangulate the utility of the FC concept by asking respondents about priority programs and services, about perceived unique contributions made by public health, and about prevalence and funding for the FCs. SETTING: Telephone-based interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty leaders of state and local health departments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practitioner familiarity with and perspectives on the FCs, information about current funding streams for public health, and the likelihood of creating nationwide FCs that would be recognized and accepted by all jurisdictions. RESULTS: Slightly more than half of the leaders interviewed said that they were familiar with the concept of FCs. In most cases, health departments had all of the capabilities to some degree, although operationalization varied. Few indicated that current funding levels were sufficient to support implementing a minimum level of FCs nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were not able to articulate the current or optimal levels of services for the various capabilities, nor the costs associated with them. Further research is needed to understand the role of FCs as part of the foundational public health services.

Financing public health: diminished funding for core needs and state-by-state variation in support.

This article documents the instability and variation in public financing of public health functions at the federal and state levels. Trust for America's Health has charted federal funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, which in turn provides a major portion of financing for state and local public health departments, and has compiled information about state-generated revenue commitments to public health activities nationwide. The federal-level analysis shows that funding has been marked by diminished support for "core" public health functions. The state-level analysis shows tremendous variation in use of state revenues to support public health functions. The combination of these factors results in very different public health capacities across the country, potentially leaving some states more vulnerable, while simultaneously posing a general threat to the nation since public health problems do not honor state borders. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest changes in the financing arrangements for public health, designed to assure a more stable funding stream for core public health functions and a more consistent approach to financing public health activities across the country.