Nathalie Robin

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.

NACCHOʼs National Profile of Local Health Departments Study: Looking at Trends in Local Public Health Departments

The National Profile of Local Health Departments (Profile) study is the only survey of its kind that collects information on local health department (LHD) infrastructure and practice at the national level. Several characteristics of the study make Profile uniquely valuable to LHDs, policy makers, public health researchers, and the public health community at large. First, the Profile questionnaire is distributed to every LHD in the United States (not a sample), so it provides the most complete picture of local public health. Second, the National Association of County & City Health Officials (NACCHO) has collected data on LHD jurisdictions, finances, workforce, and activities 8 times starting in 1989. These data are used to track how LHD infrastructure and practices have changed over time. Third, Profile adds questions over time to assess emerging and crosscutting areas such as informatics, accreditation, and policy development. Finally, the Profile study captures information on many topics that represent the diversity of public health, making the Profile data one of the most important and frequently used data sets in the field of public health systems and services research. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate how LHD infrastructure and practice have changed over time by presenting select findings from the most recent Profile study.

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.