PACE EHRedefining Local Environmental

Health

PACE EH National SummitLouisville, KentuckyMarch 28-29, 2006

Trends Across PACE EH Sites

PACE EH – The Five Primary Challenges

Data limitationsLack of consensusScientific view v.

public perception

AuthorityIndicators

Data Limitations

• Not Existent

• Not Relevant

• Not Accessible

Lack of Consensus

• Proof that given environmental factor has human health impact

Science versus Perception

• Public health activities driven by science• Interventions tend to be science-based• Communal sense of “health” driven by

perception• Needs of community often not grounded in

“valid” health science

Authority to Determine Environmental Health Agenda

• Disparate local agencies• Distinction between public and

environmental health• State determined funding streams

Indicators

• Choice of indicators• Rationale for indicators• Viability of indicators

PACE EH Demonstration Sites

• Alexandria, Virginia• Blount County, Tennessee• Mahoning County, Ohio• Multnomah County, Oregon• Muskegon County, Michigan• Polk County, Florida• Rock County, Wisconsin• San Juan Basin, Colorado

PACE EH Demonstration Sites: From January 2003 to May 2004 Demonstration Site Last Task Report

CompletedTeam Meeting

Schedule/Hrs.

Homework

Alexandria, Virginia Task 9 Monthly / 1-2 Yes

Blount County, Tennessee

Task 6 Monthly / 1-2 Yes

Mahoning County, Ohio Task 10 Monthly / 1-2 Yes

Multnomah County, Oregon

Task 5 Bi-Monthly / 1-2 Yes

Muskegon County, Michigan

Task 8 Monthly / 1-2 Yes

Polk County, Florida Task 7 Monthly / 1-2 Yes

Rock County, Wisconsin

Task 10 Monthly / 1-2 Yes

San Juan Basin, Colorado

Task 13 Monthly / 1-2 Yes

CEHA TeamsDemo Site # Health

Dept Staff Staff is Lead

# Total Members

Alexandria, VA 1 Yes 15Blount County,

TN 5 Yes 42

Mahoning Co,

OH 6 Yes 11

Multnomah Co,

OR 2 No 6*

Muskegon Co,

MI 3 Yes 27

Polk County, FL 2 Yes 20Rock County,

WI 2 Yes 28

San Juan Basin,

CO 2 Yes 24

Survey Tool and AnalysisSite Surveys

Distributed

Surveys

Analyzed Issue Menus

Open-Ended

Questions

A, VA Unknown 475 Yes Yes

B, TN 2000 252 Yes Yes

M, OH 423 310 Yes Yes

P, FL 391 114 Yes No

R, WI 300 300 Yes Yes

SJ, CO Unknown 75 Yes Yes

Demonstration Site Challenges: Task 6Building a Systems Framwork

• Of the seven sites reporting on Task 6, six of them described it as problematic.

– Loss of momentum

– Unnecessary

– In need of modification

Demonstration Site Challenges: Task 7Indicator Development

• Difficulties with Task 6 spilled over…

– Demonstration sites did not focus their indicator development on the degree to which any chosen indicator served to “complete” a “systems framework”

– All six demonstration sites that completed Task 7 developed logical and strategic local indicators, but none of the six used issue frameworks as a blueprint for identifying “best” potential indicators

Demonstration Site Challenges: Task 8Selecting Standards

• Many sites employed existing standards from Healthy People 2010

– Lacking in environmental health standards related to urban sprawl and decreasing green spaces

– the chosen standards largely are written in the professional language of health and environmental agencies

Demonstration Site Challenges: Task 9Issue Profiles

• Most sites aggregated specific environmental health priorities under broad topic areas (e.g. air, land or water).

• One site chose to develop very specific issue profiles for each of the priority issues across a number of broader topical areas.

Priority Issues at PACE EH Demonstration Sites

• 1. Air Quality• 2. Water Quality• 3. Solid Waste• 4. Land Use• 5. Housing• 6. Animal Vectors• 7. Food Safety

PACE EH Contacts at NACCHO

Jonathan SchwartzSenior AnalystJschwartz@naccho.org(202) 783-5550 x250

Jennifer LiProgram ManagerJli@naccho.org(202) 783-5550 x234

Grace IbangaProgram AssistantGibanga@naccho.org(202) 783-5550 x249

Gea JacksonProgram AssociateGjackson@naccho.org(202) 783-5550 x268