Pillars of Governmental Environmental Public Health | A Guide to Scalable Environmental Public Health Programs
Given the fact that body art programs are typically smaller compared to other EPH programs such as food safety, most participants felt that the fees generated from this program were enough to adequately cover the cost of the program. For some programs, however, body art fees were not enough to sustain the program without additional funding from other EPH services that they provide or from local taxes. For participants, being fee funded is favorable as it allows EPH to define itself because it can often fund itself without reliance on grant or state money of which they get very little. This income self-sufficiency also provides a sense of security for the program and the overall department in times of departmental budget reductions.
program. There were considerable differences among par- ticipants in how to group these facilities and what settings should be included. For this survey, those participants who indicated performing tasks related to non-school institu- tions and licensed establishments were asked what set- tings they would include in this ambiguous title. Of the 172 respondents of this question, the most often identified settings included hotels/motels/lodging facilities, nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, hospice, group homes, halfway houses, hospitals, campgrounds, jails/correc- tional/detention facilities, shelters, Greek life organization campus residences (i.e., fraternity and sorority houses), mobile home parks, rehabilitation centers, country clubs, private social clubs, and many more. Given this wide array of settings that could define this title, it is difficult to pinpoint potential priorities or develop a group of questions that could accurately reflect the type and num - ber of activities required of EPH professionals. While many of these settings entail a lodging component, many specifi - cally cater to at-risk populations, meaning specialized train- ing for staff could be beneficial. Future research to classify and define the settings mentioned here might be helpful. 4. Examination of peer-reviewed literature on program effectiveness. 5. Synthesis of common elements from established programs to create scalable recommendations. The recommendations for each secondary EPH program follow the same structure as the core programs, but use the approaches listed above. By using these methods, each secondary program provides recommendation that are scalable to different department sizes and adaptable to various jurisdictional contexts. Each secondary EPH program includes: • Definition • Characteristics of a successful program • Meaningful outcome measures EPH departments can evaluate these secondary programs in the context of their specific community needs, existing regulatory responsibilities, available resources, and strate- gic priorities. While not every department will implement secondary programs, this guidance provides a framework for those seeking to develop or strengthen these import- ant EPH services.
Non-School Institutions and Licensed Establishments
Program Overview and Core Services/Activities The survey section for this program differed from other sections because no qualitative data were collected for this
Secondary Environmental Public Health Programs Introduction to Secondary Program Recommendations
While the core EPH programs form the foundation of gov- ernmental EPH services, secondary programs are meant to address additional environmental health concerns that might be priorities based on specific community needs, geographic considerations, or emerging environmen- tal challenges. This section provides recommendations for four key secondary EPH programs: climate health, air quality, healthy homes, and hazardous materials. Unlike the core program recommendations, which were developed through primary research, including focus groups, key informant interviews, and surveys of EPH professionals, these secondary program recommendations were devel- oped through complementary methodological approaches. These approaches included: 1. Analysis of existing secondary program structures in exemplary EPH departments across various jurisdictions. 2. Review of professional standards and guidance documents from relevant national organizations. 3. Consultation with subject matter experts in each program area.
43
Powered by FlippingBook