Jiali Ye

Reductions of Budgets, Staffing, and Programs Among Local Health Departments: Results From NACCHOʼs Economic Surveillance Surveys, 2009-2013

OBJECTIVES To provide an overview of budget cuts, job losses, and program reductions among local health departments (LHDs) and to examine the association between LHD infrastructure characteristics and the likelihood of budget cuts. DESIGN Data from 4 waves of the economic surveillance survey (July-August 2009, September-November 2010, January-February 2012, and January-March 2013) conducted by the National Association of County & City Health Officials were analyzed to assess cuts to budgets, jobs, and programs since 2009. Data from the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments survey were used to assess the infrastructural characteristics associated with budget cuts. RESULTS When asked in early 2013, more than a quarter of LHDs (26.9%) reported a reduced budget, continuing the trend of a substantial proportion of LHDs experiencing financial hardship in recent years. The percentages of LHDs that made cuts to programmatic areas fluctuated from year to year but have never been lower than 40%. Maternal and child health services were among areas most often cut during all 4 time points of the survey. Governance type, total expenditures, and percentage of revenues from local sources were significantly associated with LHD budget cuts. CONCLUSIONS Cuts in LHD budgets, staff, and activities have been widespread for a period that lasted long after the official end of the Great Recession. There is a great need for substantive and consistent funding to ensure the retention of the workforce and the delivery of essential public health services.

Local Health Departments' Approaches to Deal With Recession: What Strategies Are Used to Minimize the Negative Impact on Public Health Services to Community?

CONTEXT Local health departments (LHDs) are crucial components in the public health system. As with their state counterparts, operating since the 2008 recession has proven financially difficult for the majority of the nations 2800 LHDs. These health departments have elected to employ a variety of strategies to maintain operations and public-facing services and programs. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to assess strategies used by LHDs to minimize the negative impact on services to community and to examine variation in these strategies by the size of population in LHD jurisdiction. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS The design of this research brief report is observational, based on cross-sectional data from a nationally representative sample of 957 LHDs that enumerates and characterizes the nature of their responses to austerity. OUTCOMES MEASURES The main outcome measures included 19 strategies. We used descriptive and bivariate analyses to highlight our study findings. RESULTS LHDs use a variety of strategies to mitigate negative impacts on the public health services in their communities, focusing on workforce, funding, service referral, and several other areas. The most frequently used strategies include cross-training staff, increasing work hours, pursuing new funding, resource sharing, and seeking fees for services provided. Some minor variation by the size of jurisdiction population existed in frequency of top 10 strategies used by LHDs. CONCLUSIONS Some of the LHD strategies to deal with the impact of recession address immediate issues caused by budget cuts and might be short-term fixes, including increasing workload of employees, and pay freezes. Other strategies, such as seeking new sources of revenues and resource sharing, can have potentially positive effects in the long run.

Perception of Workforce Skills Needed Among Public Health Professionals in Local Health Departments: Staff Versus Top Executives.

OBJECTIVES To examine how top executives and staff from local health departments (LHDs) perceive the importance of various types of workforce skills, and to assess the differences in the perception of the importance of these workforce skills between these 2 groups and among LHDs serving different-sized jurisdictions. DESIGN Data for this study were drawn from the 2014 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS) and the 2015 Forces of Change survey. While PH WINS collected data from LHD staff, the Forces of Change survey was administered to LHD top executives. Ratings of perceived importance of workforce skills from LHD staff and top executives were compared. RESULTS Overall, LHD workers at all levels believe that core competencies are important for their jobs. The perceived importance of these skills differed somewhat across supervisory level (nonsupervisory staff vs supervisory staff vs top executives). Communication was rated as one of the most important skills by all groups. For top executives, ensuring that programs are managed within budget constraints was the most important skill for their employees. However, this skill was rated much lower among staff. Policy development skills were rated to be of lowest importance by LHD leaders and staff. CONCLUSIONS LHD leaders and staff agree on the relative importance of some competencies, although they also show some clear differences in the relative importance that they place on other competencies. It is essential to strengthen the communication between public health leaders and staff regarding the importance of workforce skills. More investigation is needed to assess whether and how gaps in staff competencies are addressed in the workforce development strategies.

Local health department engagement in community physical activity policy

INTRODUCTION This study assessed correlates of self-reported local health department (LHD) participation in community policy/advocacy activities that support physical activity. METHODS In 2014, cross-sectional data from the nationally representative 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments study administered by the National Association of County and City Health Officials were analyzed. Outcomes were participation in policy/advocacy activities related to urban design/land use, active transportation, and access to recreational facilities. Independent variables included structural characteristics, performance improvement efforts, and collaboration. Multivariate logistic regression models were computed. RESULTS Representatives of 490 LHDs participated (79% response rate). Respondents reported similar participation in urban design/land use (25%); active transportation (16%); and recreational facility access (23%) policy/advocacy. LHDs with populations of ≥500,000 were more likely to report urban design/land use (p=0.004) as well as active transportation policy/advocacy participation (p=0.007) compared with those with populations of ≤50,000. LHDs with a community health improvement plan were more likely to participate in urban design/land use policy/advocacy (p=0.001). LHDs who regularly use the Community Guide were more likely to report policy/advocacy activity on active transportation (p=0.007) and expanding access to recreation facilities (p=0.009). LHDs engaged in a land use partnership were more likely to report urban design/land use (p<0.001) and active transportation (p=0.001) policy/advocacy participation. CONCLUSIONS Participation in community physical activity policy/advocacy among LHDs was low in this study and varied by LHD characteristics. Intervention opportunities include assisting smaller LHDs and promoting performance improvement efforts and evidence-based practice resources.

Local Boards of Health Characteristics Influencing Support for Health Department Accreditation

Background: Local boards of health (LBoHs) serve as the governance body for 71% of local health departments (LHDs). Purpose: To assess the impact of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics on the level of LBoH support of LHD accreditation. Methods: Data from 394 LHDs that participated in the 2015 Local Boards of Health Survey were used for computing summative scores for LBoHs for domains of taxonomy and performing logistic regression analyses in 2016. Results: Increased odds of an LBoH directing, encouraging, or supporting LHD accreditation activities were significantly associated with (a) a higher overall combined score measuring performance of governance functions and presence of other LBoH characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05; P < .001); (b) a higher combined score for the Governance Functions subscale (AOR = 1.06; P < .01); (c) the “continuous improvement” governance function (AOR = 1.15; P < .001); and (d) characteristics and strengths such as board composition (eg, LBoH size, type of training, elected vs nonelected members), community engagement and input, and the absence of an elected official on the board (AOR = 1.14; P = .02). Conclusions: LBoHs are evenly split by thirds in their attention to Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation among the following categories: (a) encouraged or supported, (b) discussed but made no recommendations, and (c) did not discuss. This split might indicate that they are depending on the professional leadership of the LHD to make the decision or that there is a lack of awareness. The study findings have policy implications for both LBoHs and initiatives aimed at strengthening efforts to promote LHD accreditation.

Creating a Taxonomy of Local Boards of Health Based on Local Health Departments’ Perspectives

Objectives To develop a local board of health (LBoH) classification scheme and empirical definitions to provide a coherent framework for describing variation in the LBoHs. Methods This study is based on data from the 2015 Local Board of Health Survey, conducted among a nationally representative sample of local health department administrators, with 394 responses. The classification development consisted of the following steps: (1) theoretically guided initial domain development, (2) mapping of the survey variables to the proposed domains, (3) data reduction using principal component analysis and group consensus, and (4) scale development and testing for internal consistency. Results The final classification scheme included 60 items across 6 governance function domains and an additional domain-LBoH characteristics and strengths, such as meeting frequency, composition, and diversity of information sources. Application of this classification strongly supports the premise that LBoHs differ in their performance of governance functions and in other characteristics. Conclusions The LBoH taxonomy provides an empirically tested standardized tool for classifying LBoHs from the viewpoint of local health department administrators. Future studies can use this taxonomy to better characterize the impact of LBoHs.