Displaying 1-20 of 30 results for

This report provides critical insight into the top environmental health and natural disaster preparedness concerns across the nation.

Opportunities for Public Health Agencies to Advance Sustainable Financing of Community Health Worker Programs Advancing Sustainable Financing of Community Health Workers Explore how health officials can play key roles as funders, administrators, and policy designers to advance sustainable financing of community health workers. Many states face upcoming funding gaps for community health worker (CHW) positions, with COVID-19 related grant funding streams expiring. Concurrently, many states are rapidly beginning to cover CHW services under Medicaid. In addition, Medicare launched a new reimbursement opportunity for CHWs in January 2024. These factors create an opportunity for state and territorial health agencies to develop or contribute to equitable reimbursement and robust implementation. This report details how health officials can play key roles as funders, administrators, and policy design champions to ultimately advance sustainable financing of CHW services. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

To address the youth tobacco epidemic, jurisdictions filed lawsuits against JUUL to end their marketing practices aimed at youth and to obtain compensation from the financial toll experienced by communities.

While communities transition from emergency response to long-term monitoring and recovery, the federal government and states are taking legislative action to improve emergency preparedness capabilities.

State and Federal Actions to Reduce Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances’ Impact on Public Health safe drinking water act, per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, water supplies, contaminated groundwater, chemical companies, pfas contamination, forever chemicals, synthetic chemicals, maximum contaminant levels, industrial pretreatment program, polyfluoroalkyl substances pfas, chemical sales, chemical industry, bottled water, safe drinking water act sdwa, unregulated contaminants, companies in the world, united states, consumer products, 1996 amendments, national primary drinking water, surface water, water system, largest chemical companies, pfas strategic roadmap, primary drinking water regulations, pfas chemicals, pfoa and pfos, drinking water, testing for pfas, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Maggie Davis, Beth Giambrone State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health Since 2018, when the city of Stuart, Florida filed its lawsuit, communities across the United States have filed lawsuits against manufacturers that produce Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alleging that they contaminated groundwater and exposed residents to these harmful chemicals. In June 2023, manufacturer 3M agreed to pay at least $10.3 billion to settle the Stuart lawsuit and others across the country with public drinking water systems. Similarly, chemical companies DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva reached $1.18 billion settlement with local communities that have detected PFAS in their water supplies. PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in products like nonstick cookware and firefighting foam, which can migrate to soil, water, and air during production and use. Most of these chemicals remain in the environment without breaking down—hence the nickname “forever chemicals”—and can cause harmful health effects (e.g., higher risks of kidney or testicular cancer, and pre-eclampsia or high blood pressure among pregnant people) and are prevalent across the nation. Evidence shows the widespread nature of exposure to the chemicals and the economic costs of exposure. For example, a 2023 USGS study estimated that at least 45% of tap water nationwide could have one or more PFAS, while recent research estimates the annual cost of the disease burden attributable to long-chain (i.e., six or more carbon) PFAS exposure to be at least $5 billion. As communities seek restitution for PFAS contamination, federal and state policymakers are working to eliminate PFAS from ground water and drinking water and to mitigate exposure to these forever chemicals. Eliminating PFAS in Drinking Water Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has the authority to regulate the public drinking water supply in the United States. These regulations establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Treatment Techniques and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for public water systems. EPA’s recently proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation could potentially add six different PFAS compounds to the list of regulated contaminants. Within the PFAS chemical family, PFOA and PFOS are proposed to each have MCLs of 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt), while PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX would be regulated collectively as a mixture using EPA's Hazard Index approach. The proposed rule also could require public water systems to monitor and notify the public of PFAS levels and reduce the levels in drinking water if they exceed proposed standards. According to a survey conducted by the Environmental Council of the States, state guidelines vary; at least eleven states have established statewide MCLs for PFAS in drinking water. Some states prohibit their agencies from setting standards more stringent than federal ones and, in the absence of a federal standard, state agencies may hesitate to establish one that could easily be invalidated. In other cases, a lack of resources inhibits the agency’s capacity to set and enforce a PFAS standard. When a federal standard is established by EPA’s final rule, expected by the end of 2023, state primacy agencies will need to enforce the federal standard and adopt standards aligned with the federal standard or stronger within two years. Additional State Efforts to Reduce PFAS Exposure Even without MCLs, states are finding ways to mitigate the public’s exposure to PFAS. In 2023, states enacted legislation on banning PFAS in consumer products, increased requirements for testing and reporting of PFAS, and PFAS mitigation. Banning PFAS in Products Indiana enacted HB 1341 prohibiting fire departments from purchasing gear unless it contains a permanent label indicating whether it does or does not contain PFAS as of June 30, 2024. Minnesota’s HF 2310 prohibits selling or distributing products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2026. An exception may be made if the manufacturer submits information to the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency such as the product, the amount of PFAS used, and the amount of PFAS in the product. The Oregon legislature enacted SB 543, which prohibits the selling or using polystyrene foam containers for prepared food, food containers containing intentionally added PFAS, and polystyrene packaging peanuts. Washington enacted HB 1047, which prohibits manufacturing, distributing, and selling cosmetic products with PFAS and other chemicals or chemical classes as of January 1, 2025. Testing/Reporting Indiana enacted HB 1219, establishing a pilot program that collects blood samples of previous or current firefighters, analyzes the samples for serum PFAS levels, and determines whether there are corresponding health implications associated with elevated serum PFAS levels. Maine’s LD 1248 requires bottlers who extract water from the state to sell as bottled water to test, regularly monitor, and report the presence of PFAS to the Department of Health and Human Services and post the results on a public-facing website. Sales of bottled water are prohibited if PFAS levels in the water source exceed the state or federal community water system standards, whichever is lower. Currently, Maine has an interim MCL standard of 20 ppt. Virginia’s HB 2189 directs the State Water Control Board to adopt regulations requiring industrial users of publicly owned treatment works to test waste streams for PFAS before and after cleaning, repairing, refurbishing, or processing items the user knows or reasonably should know uses PFAS chemicals. West Virginia’s HB 3189 requires its Department of Environmental Protection to identify and address sources of PFAS in raw sources of public drinking water systems. It also requires facilities to report the use of PFAS if they discharge to surface waters under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works under an industrial pretreatment program. Mitigation Connecticut enacted SB 100 establishing a PFAS testing account, which provides municipalities with grants or reimbursements for testing and remediating PFAS in drinking water. Maine enacted LD 289, which requires the state to purchase the real estate of a commercial farm found to be contaminated by PFAS before January 1, 2023 at the assessed fair market value but at no less than $20,000 per acre, and provides that the fair market value assessment cannot take PFAS contamination into consideration. Two enacted bills in Rhode Island (SB 724 and HB 5861) amend current law to add that if PFAS in drinking water exceed the state’s interim standard of 20 ppt, the state and the public water supply will enter into an agreement that requires dates for submittal of water treatment plans that will reduce the PFAS levels to or below the interim level. As more information emerges about the health effects of PFAS, states will be sure to continue their work to combat, mitigate, and report on their presence in the environment. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on all legislative and regulatory activity around this issue. Special Thanks-Blog - State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health website yes

As the United States begins to see more wildfires, it is important for health agencies to be ready to address concerns from the public and collaborate with other state agencies to mitigate the health risks of wildfire smoke.

Adopting a public health approach to substance use by implementing harm reduction policies across all levels of government can help communities address the overdose crisis. This post analyzes e

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted youth mental health, particularly as a result of school closures, social isolation, family economic hardship, fear of family loss or illness, and reduced access to healthcare. However, states have many strategies to choose from to improve youth mental health and reduce suicide.

Health Agencies Keeping Cottage Foods Safe Heather Tomlinson Rows of homemade jams at the local farmer’s market and a neighbor’s birthday cake on social media have something in common: they are both cottage (or homestead) food products. Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside of a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate on a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods locally. Although cottage foods provide opportunities to small, locally owned businesses, they also create complexity in selling food products to the public that are not inspected and may not meet basic food safety standards. And while home kitchens are not considered food establishments in the FDA Food Code, states are able to define “food establishments” by amending provisions in their food code adoption process or enacting legislation or regulations. In addition to regulating, state health agencies can play a role in keeping cottage foods safe through education, training, and other mechanisms. Cottage Food Regulation Currently, all 50 states and Washington, D.C. allow the sale of cottage food products directly to consumers. Several foodborne illnesses have been linked to products improperly prepared at home, such as botulism outbreaks in home-canned products and E.coli contamination of jerky. Many foodborne illnesses can be prevented by safely preparing, processing, and storing foods, processes often outlined by health regulations. Health agencies use a variety of tools to regulate cottage food production. Types of Foods: The types of foods permitted can vary across jurisdictions with some allowing only non-time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods (e.g., baked goods, jams, candies), while others allow a wide range of products including TCS foods and items that require specialized processes (e.g., pickled vegetables). Some jurisdictions may use an exhaustive or illustrative list outlining permitted foods, while others limit specific food production processes but allow all other food items. Licensing and Inspection: Cottage food producers must follow a variety of rules in the form of permits, licenses, and registration. Although cottage foods are exempt from many inspection requirements, at least fifteen states require an initial inspection of home kitchens before they can sell items. All states allow the investigation of foodborne illness complaints; some states require annual licensure. Food Safety Training: States can require a food safety course to ensure that all cottage food producers understand the basic food safety requirements. Sales Caps: Gross sales caps limit the scale of operations allowed without full food safety precautions. After a cottage food operation exceeds their gross sales cap, they would be required to register as a food establishment and permitting rules would take effect. Sales Venues: States typically only allow direct-to-consumer sale of cottage foods (e.g., farmers’ markets) but some states permit online sales. Federal food safety regulations, which prohibit cottage foods, apply when food products are sold across state lines. Cottage food sales, whether in-person or online, should remain within the state they were created to avoid violating federal regulations. Labeling: All states have a labeling requirement for cottage foods. These labels can vary but typically include the food producer’s name and address, the product name, an ingredients list, allergens, product weight, date of production, and a disclaimer identifying that the product was prepared in a home kitchen that is not inspected. Recent Cottage Foods Legislation in the States Legislators often face tension in weighing the balance between maintaining food safety regulations and supporting small cottage food businesses by reducing the entry barriers (e.g., leasing commercial kitchen space). In recent years, there has been an increase in legislation expanding cottage food parameters ranging from product and preparation inclusions to modifying the gross sales cap. The Arizona House of Representatives passed and the Senate is currently considering HB 2864, which would expand the state’s cottage food item list to include precut and processed freeze-dried fruits and vegetables. Arizona enacted HB 2042, which expands the definition of cottage foods to include foods that require time and temperature control if they're exempt under federal regulations. The Hawaii legislature passed HB 2144 which is now awaiting action from the Governor, which would expand the definition of cottage foods to include pickled products and non-hazardous products that do not contain dried meat or seafood, permit the sale of products in retail stores, and allow for customer delivery via third party vendors or shipping. Several states have introduced legislation to increase the gross sales cap for those who qualify as a cottage food producer. Mississippi (MS SB 2638) and Washington (WA SB 5107) introduced bills that proposed to increase the annual gross sales cap, but both failed in session. There has also been legislation surrounding cottage food preemption. Massachusetts is considering S 2761, which would establish a cottage food regulatory framework and prohibit local health agencies from being able to establish their own cottage food regulations. Microenterprise Home Kitchens In expanding cottage food production, there has been increased legislation on microenterprise home kitchens. Microenterprises typically allow the production of more types of foods, including fully prepared hot meals, but also require stricter regulations (such as preparing and selling the food on the same day). Minnesota (MN SF 4501) and Hawaii (HI HB 1591) have introduced legislation that would allow microenterprise home kitchens and establish a regulatory framework for licensing and safety standards. Raw Milk Considerations Raw milk is an animal milk that has not gone through pasteurization (process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time) to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria that can cause food poisoning and has recently been shown to test positive for the recent highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. As of March 2024, 30 states allow the interstate sale of raw milk. This session, West Virginia passed legislation (WV HB 4911) and at least six states, Michigan (MI HB 5603), Hawaii (HI HB 1989), Missouri (MO HB 1711), Massachusetts (MA S 43), Louisiana (LA HB 467), and New Jersey (NJ A 1086), considered legislation that would allow unpasteurized, raw milk to be sold to consumers. How State Health Agencies Can Keep Cottage Foods Safe Health agencies consider cottage food inclusions based on food production risks. For instance, many agencies will allow baked goods but do not permit pickling due to the botulism risk associated with pickling. Health agencies evaluate food science to educate their legislatures on the considerations of cottage foods and where they would recommend public health regulations. Health agencies also ensure cottage food guidance is easily accessible and written in plain language, so producers have the needed information to follow regulations. Relevant information may include the permitted products, how to become a cottage food producer, and food safety considerations when preparing home-made foods. For example, the Illinois Department of Health, in collaboration with a diverse collection of stakeholders, created a robust cottage food guide to help producers and regulators understand state requirements and cottage food safety standards. Author card spacing 4 State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes

The ASTHO State Health Policy team provides brief updates on 5 of the ten state health policy issues to watch in 2022: mental and behavioral health, rural health, e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products, HIV and PFAS.

Every year in mid-July is National Youth Sports Week—in 2021 it falls on July 19-23. It’s an important health observance because youth sports create strong connections with peers and caring adults, as well as promote socio-emotional skills and positive well-being. The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s National Youth Sports Strategy outlines policies and strategies that support access to youth sports. NYSS Champions, including ASTHO, work to promote participation and recognize the positive health outcomes sports can have on youth, such as limiting the impacts of adverse childhood experiences and building resiliency.

An increasing body of research finds racism can have a significant impact across one’s lifespan. Research shows that persistent exposure to racial discrimination may result in premature aging, poor health outcomes, and increased prevalence of certain chronic diseases. At every level of government, policymakers are seeking to acknowledge the systemic oppression of people of color that persists and to elevate racism as an urgent public health crisis comparable to other public health emergencies.

The 2020 holiday season is coinciding with a nationwide surge of COVID-19 cases. With great concern that holiday travel to see loved ones may exacerbate community spread of the virus, many states are increasing public health measures before the winter holiday season. As of November 16, 2020, 13 states and D.C. had a quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers. The U.S. territories also have instituted travel restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19.

COVID-19 has elevated our nation’s stress level. When not managed properly (or without any buffers like social support) stress is associated with increased depression and anxiety. Because COVID-19 impacts risk factors for suicide, such as depression, anxiety, substance misuse, and unemployment, the implications for suicide prevention are many. And with September being Suicide Prevention month, it’s a good time to take stock of how public health leaders can reduce suicide risk during this pandemic.

Several states and territories, as well as many local governments, are going beyond recommendations and requiring individuals to wear face coverings when they are in public settings and spaces (i.e. grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants, public and private transportation services, parks, etc.). Ongoing research and evidence suggests the relationship between mandatory face coverings and declines in daily COVID-19 growth rates is statistically significant.

Engaging Communities Is a Critical Tobacco Control Strategy Community Engagement Tobacco Control, Menthol Cigarette Disparities, Tobacco Control Learning Collaborative, Culturally Tailored Tobacco Interventions, Flavored Tobacco Product Legislation, United States, Flavored Tobacco Product, Health Equity, Youth and Young Adults, Tobacco Free, Cigarettes Smoked, Community Partners, Young People, Community Health, Youth Tobacco Survey, Flavored E-Cigarettes, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Industry, Smoking Behavior, Study Showed, African American, Smoking Rates, Tobacco Marketing, Minority Populations, Hispanic Black, ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Charla Sutton, Matta Sannoh, Josh Berry, Kenny Ray, Ashley Hebert, Iman Byfield For decades, the tobacco industry has disproportionately targeted communities of color increasing rates of menthol cigarette use and tobacco-related health disparities. By prioritizing community efforts, health agencies can confront these disparities by fostering trust, inclusivity, and cultural responsiveness. Funded by CDC’s Office of Smoking and Health (OSH) and in partnership with The Center for Black Health & Equity (The Center), ASTHO initiated the Increasing State Menthol Capacity Learning Collaborative consisting of eight state tobacco use prevention teams each paired with a local community-based organization. The program fosters strong linkages between state commercial tobacco control programs and community-based partners to reduce menthol and flavored product use. The Role of Community Engagement Community-based initiatives are pivotal in tobacco control efforts, as they enable stakeholders to: Understand history, context, culture, and geography. Underserved communities possess a keen awareness of the origins of their problems and how decision-making processes affect them. Embrace community voices. “No one asked us” is the most common feeling communities most impacted by a problem share when decision-makers act without including them. Build organizational capacity that sustains change, creates credibility with decision-makers, and empowers communities to meet challenges head-on and garner support for their initiatives. Barriers to effective community engagement include insufficient training, funding, communication, and planning, plus disorganization, under-acknowledged communities, over-committed leaders, and inability to change course. Learning Collaborative at a Glance Eight state health teams (IN, MN, NY, PA, RI, MI, WA, WI)—each paired with a community-facing organization—kicked off the Increasing State Menthol Capacity Learning Collaborative in January 2023 with a shared vision and plan to reduce menthol and flavored product use. The Collaborative worked to: (1) improve capacity to identify and implement strategies to prevent menthol and other flavored tobacco product use, (2) strengthen collaboration between state commercial tobacco control programs and community-based partners, (3) tailor interventions to those most affected, and (4) understand the role of policy interventions and/or systems change and culturally-appropriate cessation strategies. ASTHO, OSH, and The Center provided peer-to-peer learning, technical assistance, and networking opportunities to help project teams draw from the group’s various resources, expertise, and experiences. For example, each state team participated in five virtual, expert-led learning sessions, which provided training on SMARTIE goals, equity-centered community engagement strategies, and effective communication messages for policies that restrict or eliminate the sale of flavored tobacco products. In addition, technical assistance provided the project teams guidance on their established workplan objectives and helped them navigate community-specific challenges. Menthol Capacity Building Strategies Each team worked to address health inequities of their chosen target population with culturally-tailored actions in one of three strategies: (1) Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change, (2) Menthol Cessation, or (3) Counter Marketing/Public Education. Teams focused on African Americans (nearly two-thirds of whom start by using tobacco with menthol), youth, Latinx, immigrant populations, and the LGBTQ+ community. Each team curated state-specific infographics, factsheets, webpages, and media campaigns to examine the role of policy in reducing menthol and flavored tobacco product use. Others engaged legislators or held educational events. Key Takeaways and Next Steps Community Engagement and the Menthol Landscape: Despite challenges, preemption should not stop community engagement work. While state or federal laws and regulations may change, the communities most impacted—and their voices, experiences, and advocacy efforts—remain and are essential in driving meaningful change. Ongoing awareness of the disproportionate impact of menthol and other flavored tobacco products on marginalized communities underscore a continuous need for community engagement and policies that prioritize health equity. Partnering for Influence and Advocacy: Community engagement fosters awareness of the unique challenges that marginalized populations face, ensuring that initiatives are tailored accordingly. In the face of preemption and other regulatory challenges, community voices are critical for national change. Mobilizing Support through Collaboration: Partnerships between state agencies and local organizations allow capacity building and resource sharing. Such partnerships help mobilize broader support with both constituents and legislators, share best practices/lessons learned, and collectively address challenges. Funding Local Initiatives: Effective community engagement often requires financial resources. Examples include facilitating quality meetings as needed, developing educational tools for community dissemination, using paid and social media, and obtaining individuals to implement key activities (e.g., employees or subject matter experts). The collaborative’s participants further encourage: Sustaining and strengthening partnerships with community-based organizations, state health agencies, and national partners to leverage stakeholder expertise and insights. Investing in ongoing capacity building efforts to equip communities with the knowledge, skills, and resources to address tobacco-related challenges effectively (e.g., training, resource sharing, offering technical assistance, and funding community-led initiatives). Engaging with policymakers, community leaders, and others to raise awareness about the negative impact of menthol and other tobacco products. Advocate for evidence-based policies (e.g., e-cigarette flavor restriction) at the local and state level to inform national discussion. Sharing lessons learned—both successes and challenges—with others. website yes

Delve into the successes, challenges, and lessons learned to inform/advance FHIR adoption among state and local public health agencies and their health care partners.

Assessment of Foundational Capabilities Assessment of Foundational Capabilities in Public Health Grace Gorenflo, Brian Lentes, Melissa Touma, Anna Bradley Learn how state health departments are implementing the Foundational Public Health Services model to bolster their public health work in this report. The Foundational Public Health Services model serves as the core framework for defining cross-cutting capabilities essential for public health departments to deliver a minimum standard of service. This report compiles examples and assessments from 25 states to illustrate the implementation and progress of these foundational capabilities. Highlighting the importance of public health infrastructure, the report also includes a summary of state activities, showcases models and strategies for modernization and transformation, and reference tools such as cost assessments, legislation, and funding mechanisms used to strengthen public health systems nationwide. Dive into the full report to access these resources. Download the Report (PDF) article yes

ASTHO staff identified a range of evidence-supported policies considered by state legislatures that could prevent ACEs. This report synthesizes these research and policy proposals and is intended for public health practitioners and policymakers who are considering adopting similar policies.

Navigating Public Health Planning with Precision and Purpose Discover examples and best practices for developing strategic plans that enhance community health outcomes. Embarking on the journey of public health planning demands more than good intentions. It requires a meticulous blueprint that encompasses budgetary considerations and strategic timelines, and effectively leverages external support. Across a landscape in which every decision has the potential to uplift entire communities, there are a world of opportunities and details to explore. Included among them are the critical components of crafting a robust plan, the value of engaging contractors, and strategies for optimizing resources. Mining Existing Plans for Insight and Inspiration Organizational strategic plans, Community Health Assessments (CHAs), and Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIPs) can supply guidance and inspiration for comprehensive public health planning. These documents offer both valuable insights into public health initiatives and tangible examples of effective planning frameworks. There are multiple examples of existing plans within health agencies across jurisdictions; when seeking them out, consider various criteria (e.g., population characteristics, geographic location, and specific health priorities). By examining plans tailored to communities with similar demographics or facing comparable health challenges, planners can apply approaches that resonate in their own context. Additionally, understanding the distinctions between strategic plans, CHAs, and CHIPs is essential, particularly for agencies aspiring towards PHAB Pathways Recognition Program or PHAB Accreditation. These plans are separate entities within the PHAB framework, each playing a vital role in shaping public health strategies and fostering community well-being. Strategic Plans Strategic plans outline organizational goals, plans to achieve them, and how to measure success. They drive resource allocation, decision-making, and other priorities organization wide. Examples U.S. Virgin Islands Hawaii Forest County Potawatomi* El Paso County, CO* San Joaquin County, CA* Community Health Assessments Community health assessments offer a complete view of risks, resources, and factors influencing outcomes. Supported by diverse environmental and socio-economic data, CHAs inform health policy, staff protocols, partnerships, program development, funding, resource allocation, and health improvement planning. Examples U.S. Virgin Islands Oneida Nation* Forest County Potawatomi* El Paso County, CO* San Joaquin County, CA* Pierce County, WA* Community Health Improvement Plans Community Health Improvement Plans are strategic, collaborative roadmaps derived from CHAs. They outline how health agencies, partners, and communities will unite to enhance overall health. They guide priorities, resource allocation, and steer project, program, and policy implementation. Examples U.S. Virgin Islands Hawaii Oneida Nation* Forest County Potawatomi* El Paso County, CO* San Joaquin County, CA* Pierce County, WA* *PHAB Accredited Health Department Plan Components, Timeline, and Budget Agencies considering planning processes and examples from other jurisdictions should recognize the diversity in approaches across different agencies and jurisdictions. There truly isn’t a singular “right” way to undertake public health planning. Instead, it’s about tailoring the process to suit the jurisdiction’s unique needs and circumstances. Examples to Guide Plan Development The Kansas Institute of Health’s Strategic Planning in the Public Health Sector Handbook offers a comprehensive breakdown of planning elements and timeframes based on a six-month plan development calendar. Explore Minnesota Department of Health’s Community Health Assessment and Planning Toolkit, a rich resource for navigating the CHA-CHIP process and timeline. Their template includes a detailed approach that considers capacity to accomplish each step within a desired timeline. Given the variation in the depth and breadth of jurisdiction planning processes, it is challenging to pinpoint a specific dollar amount to cover a planning endeavor. NACCHO’s MAPP Budget Template (part of their downloadable MAPP 2.0 process) can help systematically think through the resources necessary for planning processes. Outsourcing Key Support External support—in the form of facilitators, contractors, or other specialized professionals—can play a pivotal role in enhancing public health planning by offering fresh insights, innovative strategies, and diverse perspectives. Such support also allows for full, active organizational participation in the planning process. Moreover, they can provide valuable technical assistance, helping to navigate complex challenges and identify best practices from other contexts. By harnessing external support, organizations can optimize their decision-making processes, foster collaboration, and enhance the delivery of services to communities, thereby promoting better health outcomes for all. Conducting a SWOT Analysis: Contractors can assist in facilitating a thorough analysis of the organization's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). This structured assessment helps identify internal factors that impact the organization's ability to achieve its objectives and external factors that may affect its operations. Proposing Strategic Priorities: Based on the SWOT analysis and input from stakeholders, contractors can help planning teams crystallize priorities aligned with the organization's mission and vision. These priorities serve as the foundation for developing the plan. Facilitating Steering Committee Meetings: Steering committee meetings are crucial for decision-making and guiding the strategic planning process. External facilitators can lead these meetings, ensuring productive discussions, consensus-building, and alignment with organizational goals. Developing Components of the Strategic Plan: Contractors can support in drafting or reviewing various components of the plan, including vision and mission statements, goals, objectives, and action plans. They may ensure these components are clear, concise, and aligned with the overarching strategic direction. Developing a Draft Implementation Plan: An implementation plan outlines how to achieve strategic goals, including timelines, responsible parties, and resource allocation. Contractors can support an organization to develop a draft implementation plan that outlines actionable steps to translate the strategic plan into reality. Developing Quality Improvement Metrics: Contractors can assist in guiding the development of metrics to measure the effectiveness of the strategic plan. These metrics should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART), providing a framework for monitoring progress and making data-driven decisions. Conducting Training Among Organization Staff: To ensure buy-in and understanding of the strategic plan and process itself, contractors can help develop and co-facilitate training sessions for staff members. These sessions may cover strategic objectives, action plans, and their roles in achieving organizational goals. Developing a Communication Plan: Effective communication is an essential key for keeping any strategic plan off the shelf. Contractors can support an organization in developing a comprehensive communication plan that outlines key messages, target audiences, communication channels, and timelines to ensure consistent and transparent communication throughout the organization and with partners. Developing Process Logs, Templates, and Meeting Notes: Contractors can create documentation tools such as process logs, templates for strategic planning documents, and detailed meeting notes. These resources streamline the planning process, capture important discussions and decisions, and serve as valuable references when considering sustainability. In summary, external support brings valuable expertise and resources to public health planning processes, enabling organizations to navigate complexities, engage partners effectively, and develop actionable strategic plans that drive positive health outcomes for communities. OE22-2203 PHIG website yes