Process in Action:
Examples from the Field
Below are examples of how the nation and states
identified and secured resources for assessment, development, and implementation of a
Healthy People plan.
From the National Initiative
Federal statutes
Many federal funding streams can be utilized for
development of state plans. HHS grant announcements reference the relevant Healthy People
2000 priority areas and encourage applicants to obtain the document. In addition, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act requires reporting on progress toward Healthy People
objectives.
Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant
Commonly known as Prevention Block Grants, these
grants are allocated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and give
states wide discretion in fund distribution to ensure the best use of resources. States
are mandated to show how the funds are aligned with Healthy People Objectives. States are
also directed to use the block grants in areas of greatest need, which can mean developing
a state plan.
Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grants
The Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HHS,
distributes Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grants. Money from these block grants
is directed toward improving the health of mothers and children. This grant application
requests funds from Title V of the Social Security Act. Program goals are to be linked to
the nation’s Healthy People goals. There is also an extensive set of reporting
requirements that states must follow for their annual reports.
Resource Development Guide
In 1991 ODPHP published the reference, Locating
Resources for Healthy People 2000 Health Promotion Projects. This 46-page guide helps
make the connection between Healthy People 2000 objectives and searching for funding and
other assistance. It is available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent
of Documents, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. ISBN # 0-16-035928-7.
From State Initiatives 
Allocate Prevention Block Grant funds
Alabama, Colorado, Maine, Kentucky,
Illinois, and West Virginia are among several
states that have used their Prevention Block Grants to fund initiatives tied to their
state objectives. These states require state and local jurisdictions to specify which of
the Healthy People objectives will be addressed with grant funds.
For year 2000, the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment allocated Prevention Block Grant funds to help
local health departments, county nursing services, and local sanitarians develop strategic
plans based upon the year 2000 objectives.
In Maine private community
agencies under contract to deliver public health services must base program-funding
requests on the state’s objectives, similar to the requirements of health department
applicants for Prevention Block Grant funds.
Illinois used a portion of its
Prevention Block Grant to fund the Illinois Project for the Local Assessment of Needs
(IPLAN) initiative. The state set aside funds to actualize local needs assessment
projects, including a statewide, computerized data system and training workshops to
support local planning. The IPLAN process allows local public health jurisdictions to set
priorities and monitor interventions related to year 2000 and year 2010 objectives.
Develop new sources of funding
Iowa’s Barn Raising II, held in
June 1999, promoted the state’s 2010 plan with over 700 participants. With an
anticipated budget of approximately $100,000 for the two-day event, fundraising efforts to
support this event started early in the year. The governor, lieutenant governor, and Iowa
Department of Public Health Director signed a letter requesting organizations to partner
with the state by providing assistance or financial support. The major benefit to the
organizations was the opportunity to showcase their organizations' activities and to
network. Iowa received commitments for support ranging from $50 to $11,500. The Wellmark
Foundation awarded Iowa a grant for $40,000. In order to assist local agency
participation, registration costs were kept low. The $40 registration fee covered the cost
of food. However, the fee did not cover most other costs, including materials and
promotion.
The Rhode Island Prevention Coalition has
leveraged over $550,000 in public and private resources to address physical activity
through grants programs. The Coalition’s focus on physical activity resulted from a
careful review of Rhode Island’s year 2000 health objectives. The Department of
Health initiated the Coalition in 1995 in partnership with Rhode Island HMOs, health
insurers, hospitals, and voluntary health agencies. A private organization, the Rhode
Island Public Health Foundation, serves as the Coalition’s fiscal agent. The
Coalition issues requests for proposals (RFPs) to stimulate local programs promoting
physical activity. Coalition-funded programs have additionally contributed over $225,000
worth of local in-kind resources to address physical activity. In-kind resources include
staff resources from various agencies, as well as materials and public relations services.
A South Carolina coalition became an
independent 501(c) 3 organization, providing the umbrella for single purpose coalitions
and linking their activities. This coalition has now become an important component of a
hospital-supported partnership in the community with continued staff and linkage support.
Oregon secured external state and local
private funders, such as the Oregon Community Foundation and the Portland Area United Way,
by using its benchmarks to focus grantmaking priorities.
Reallocate other types of existing resources
Missouri, New Jersey, and
Wyoming identified and categorized existing resources that were being used to
address health objectives. These resource assessments provided a basis for reallocating
resources to priority areas. For example, Wyoming supplemented carryover funds and human
resources for planning, with some redirection of discretionary funds to oversee some of
the priority areas.
For both year 2000 and year 2010 plans, the Connecticut
Department of Health has committed funds for internal staff resources and production
costs. The Department of Health dedicated two full-time staff to the year 2000 planning
process, who were funded by the agency budget.
Kansas used grant funds awarded
by the Kansas Health Foundation to help support its Healthy Kansans 2000 process. There is
no funding set aside for Healthy Kansans 2010, however enough funds remain from year 2000
planning to start the 2010 plan. The state also plans to help other organizations better
utilize their funding by incorporating Healthy Kansans 2010 objectives into their
workplace objectives.
The Nebraska State Department of
Health reallocated existing resources to develop its year 2000 plan. The Director adopted
the plan as a high priority and strongly advocated using the objectives for local planning
efforts. The objectives were used to structure the guidance for grant applications as
well.
Texas Healthy People 2000
planning activities were supported primarily through existing program budgets. In 1992,
the Texas Department of Health was one of six states awarded a five-year grant by the CDC
to assess progress toward achieving Healthy People 2000 objectives.
Assist local public health agencies in identifying resources
North Carolina has
established two foundations that provide money to counties to implement Healthy
Carolinians projects. The Office of Healthy Carolinians alerts counties to requests for
proposals (RFPs) and other available money.
In California the Office of
County Health Services (OCHS) administers the Health Incentive Program, which provides
funding to local health agencies for disease prevention and health promotion programs and
services in priority areas designated by the federal Healthy People 2000 initiative. OCHS
also provides approximately $300 million in federal, state, and private funding for these
services and related administrative activities, as well as technical assistance to local
health programs.
Generate in-kind support
Vermont did not have
specific budget for either development of a year 2000 plan or year 2010 planning. Although
there is no coordinator or other personnel specifically designated for this job, the
state’s publicity campaign pulls in enough human resources to sustain the Healthy
Vermonters project.
 Sample Budget
Line Items
| Line
Item |
Internal
Resources (new agency budget
allocation) |
Internal
In-kind(reallocation of existing
agency staff, shared budgets, or resources) |
External
Resources (grants or financial
resources: public or private sources) |
External
In-kind (donated services or
non-financial resources) |
Personnel
(Staff or Contractors) |
|
|
|
|
Coordinator
Data manager
Administrative support staff
Technical support/ consultants
Subject matter experts
Meeting facilitators
Graphic designer
Marketing/PR specialist
Copy writer/editor
Web site designer
Fringe benefits |
|
|
|
|
| Services
(Non-Personnel) |
|
|
|
|
| Duplication and
Printing Steering/advisory group
materials
State plan publication
Companion documents
Letterhead
Press kits, marketing materials |
|
|
|
|
| Rental Conference and meeting rooms
Conference booth rental
Computer equipment rental |
|
|
|
|
| Equipment and
Maintenance Audio equipment
Presentation equipment
Other equipment purchase
Computer/copier maintenance |
|
|
|
|
| Advertising Public meeting notices
Promotion of state plan in small media (newsletters, conference programs)
General media placement (radio, print, web, television) |
|
|
|
|
| Postage Steering/advisory group mailings
Overnight delivery services
Meeting announcements
Circulation of drafts
Correspondence to partners
Dissemination of plan and companion documents
Marketing materials |
|
|
|
|
| Utilities,
Telecommunications Conference call
services
Long distance services
Web site service
Electric |
|
|
|
|
| Supplies |
|
|
|
|
Office
supplies
Meeting supplies
Computer supplies
Graphic design software
Data software
Plaques or certificates of thanks for steering group members |
|
|
|
|
| Travel |
|
|
|
|
Staff meeting
travel, lodging, and per diem
Steering group travel and lodging |
|
|
|
|
| Other Direct
Costs |
|
|
|
|
Meeting
refreshments
Literature search/retrieval fees
Incentives for focus group participation |
|
|
|
|
| Indirect
Costs |
|
|
|
|
| TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
