ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
Establishing a widely accepted set of scal- able guidelines for the EPH profession will contribute to developing a greater common identity (Gerding et al., 2020) that can allow transferability of skill sets between EPH departments, aid in staff recruitment, and strengthen advocacy for needed resources. This professional standardization is an important step toward protecting families and communities, as it ensures that EPH services are consistent, effective, and delivered by qualified personnel regardless of geographic location or jurisdictional boundaries. The survey developed for this project was informed by focus groups and interviews with senior EPH professionals and adminis- tered to individuals currently working or who have worked in the EPH field. The purpose of this project was to build a foundation for program evaluation, resource allocation, and continuous improvement in governmental EPH service delivery, allowing departments to better serve their communities while also demonstrating their value and impact. Methods We launched a survey to National Environ- mental Health Association (NEHA) mem- bership of all position levels on October 9, 2024 (survey closed November 22, 2024; see Supplemental Appendix 1). The survey was distributed via the NEHA member- ship listserv and NEHA social media posts throughout the 44-day data collection period. Prior to this survey, NEHA worked to identify core EPH programs in 2023; a Delphi panel of senior EPH professionals established 11 core EPH programs (Kim et al., 2023). These previously identified core EPH programs included food safety and pro- tection, potable water, swimming pools and recreational water safety, onsite wastewater, lead prevention, zoonoses and vector con- trol, emergency preparedness, school safety and inspection, early childcare and daycare, body art, and non-school institutions and licensed establishments (Figure 1)—all of which informed our 2024 survey. Qualita- tive overviews of the 11 programs were pro- vided by focus groups and key informant interviews. The survey was subsequently divided into the core EPH programs with the purpose of capturing any aspects of the pro- grams that might have been missed by the qualitative analysis and, most importantly,
FIGURE 2
State Geographic Distribution of Local Environmental Public Health Department Respondents of the Field Survey ( N = 517)
Note. The map does not show the respondents who represent or reside in U.S. territories or reside outside of the U.S.; states with no respondents could be due to a lack of local health departments rather than an unwillingness to participate in the field survey.
TABLE 1
Characteristics of Respondents to the Field Survey for Environmental Public Health Professionals ( N = 523)
Characteristic
#
%
Department governance structure ( n = 523) County
306
59 13 11 10
District
66 59 51 41
City-county combination
City
Other (includes township, tribal jurisdiction, multi-county, or state, but working within a local jurisdiction)
7
Position level ( n = 520) Supervisor/manager
180 178 108
35 34 21 10
Field staff
Director/chief
Other (includes consultants or retirees)
54
gaining the insight of individuals who are actively working in the EPH field. Although survey questions were tailored to each of the 11 core EPH programs, some were consistent across program areas. These consistent questions included perceived rea-
sonableness of optimal workload, credentials/ certifications/trainings required, and educa- tion required. Survey respondents were asked about the type and level of position they cur- rently hold in their EPH department, the state and the size of the population they serve,
22
Volume 88 • Number 1
Powered by FlippingBook