ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
city-county combination level, 10% at the city level, and 8% who identified their work as other (percentages sum to >100% due to rounding). Respondents who chose “other” were from towns/townships, tribal jurisdic- tions, multi-counties and state levels, but they were working within local jurisdictions. State geographic distribution of respondents showed at least one respondent representing at least one local health department from 45 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (Figure 2). More than one half of respondents identi- fied as being at a managerial level (manag- ers), with approximately 35% identified as a supervisor/manager and 21% as a director/ chief (Table 1). Field sta (34%) and indi- viduals holding other positions (10%) made up the remaining respondents (sta). Sta ng Seasonality The EPH program in which most respondents (96%) performed duties year-round was food safety/food protection, followed by body art (95%) and onsite wastewater programs (90%) (Table 2). Respondents who work in food safety/food protection year-round reported working in this program a median of 50% of their weekly work time. Respondents work- ing in this program seasonally reported a median of 11% of their weekly work time. Work Distribution A high proportion (76%) of respondents worked in food safety/food protection pro- grams, spending a median of 50% of their weekly work time on food safety/food pro- tection activities (Table 3). At least 50% of respondents reported spending time on duties in four other programs besides food safety/food protection. The other programs reported included onsite wastewater (median 20% of work time), swimming pools/recre- ational water safety (median 10% of work time), potable water (median 10% of work time), and emergency preparedness (median 5% of work time). Workload Standards Many factors can influence stang levels and perceived workload reasonableness, includ- ing duties in other EPH programs. According to full-time sta working in food safety/food protection, when asked to consider the other duties they perform, they reported that they
TABLE 3
Core and Secondary Environmental Public Health Program Work Distribution ( n = 478)
Program
% of Weekly Work Hours Spent on Program
#
%
Maximum Mean
Median
Core program
Food safety/food protection
100 100 100 100 100 100
52 30 16 18 14 13
50 20 10
361 76 241 50 237 50 253 53 160 33 205 43
Onsite wastewater
Swimming pools/recreational water safety
Potable water
10
Lead prevention
5 5
Zoonoses, vectors, pests (vector control) Non-school institutions and licensed establishments School safety and inspection Emergency preparedness (includes on an as-needed basis)
100
12
5
230 48
100 100
10
5 5
201 42 262 55
9
Body art
100 100
8 9
4 4
197 41 177 37
Early childcare/daycare
Secondary program Climate
95
20 14 16 10
10
55
12
Healthy homes
100 100 100
6 5 5
122 26 132 28 131 27
Hazardous materials
Indoor air quality and radon
would consider performing 3–4 inspections per field day at maximum to be somewhat or extremely reasonable (66%) (Table 4). Man- agers agreed (73%) that performing 3–4 food safety inspections per field day was some- what or extremely reasonable for a full-time EPH professional. Respondents working in potable water programs agreed that 3–4 activities per week for full-time sta were reasonable (agreement of 67% sta, 82% managers). For swimming pools/recreational water safety programs, most respondents agreed that 3–4 facility inspections per field day were reasonable (agreement of 57% sta, 69% managers). Respondents who conducted school safety inspections indicated a lower optimal rate of 2–3 inspections per field day for full-time sta (agreement of 90% sta, 82% managers). For onsite wastewater programs, 4–5 activi- ties per week were recommended by respon-
dents (agreement of 66% sta, 78% manag- ers), whereas 3–4 inspections per week were considered reasonable for early childcare/ daycare facility inspections (agreement of 66% sta, 68% managers). For body art facil- ity programs, 3–4 inspections per week were considered reasonable (agreement of 69% sta, 81% managers), whereas 2–3 activities per week were considered reasonable for EPH professionals in lead prevention programs (agreement of 75% sta, 70% managers). Education Standards Across all programs except emergency pre- paredness, sta and managers agreed that a bachelor’s degree in a field of science should be the minimum education necessary for sta working in an optimally performing EPH department (Table 5). For some pro- grams, the preference for a bachelor’s degree in a field of science was held by >50% of
24
Volume 88 • Number 1
Powered by FlippingBook