Visit coronavirus.gov for the latest Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) updates.

You are here

Public Health Infrastructure Data Details

Expand All

  • PHI-1 Increase the proportion of Federal, Tribal, State, and local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations

    • PHI-1.1 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of Federal agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      *** Missing ***
      Numerator: 

      *** Missing ***

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      This objective was archived on 6/4/2015.
    • PHI-1.2 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of tribal public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      No
      Measure: 
      *** Missing ***
      Numerator: 

      *** Missing ***

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
    • PHI-1.3 Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations

      • PHI-1.3.1 Increase the proportion of state public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions

        About the Data

        Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

        Data Source: 
        ASTHO Profile of State Public Health
        Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        Yes
        Measure: 
        percent
        Baseline (Year): 
        25 (2012)
        Target: 
        28
        Target-Setting Method: 
        10 percent improvement
        Numerator: 

        Number of state public health agencies that responded that core competencies for public health professionals are used for job descriptions

        Denominator: 

        Number of state public health agencies that responded to this item in the ASTHO Profile survey

        Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
        Not applicable
        Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

          From the 2012 State and Territorial Public Health Survey:

          [NUMERATOR:]

          Indicate the use of various public health competencies in the course of managing your agency personnel: Core compentencies for public health professionals (Council on Linkages)

          1. Not familiar with
          2. Familiar with but have not used
          3. Conducting performance evaluations
          4. Developing training plans
          5. Preparing job descriptions
          6. Other use
        Data Collection Frequency: 
        Periodic
        Methodology Notes: 

          The Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies) are a consensus set of skills for the broad practice of public health, as defined by the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Developed by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice (Council on Linkages), the Core Competencies reflect foundational skills desirable for professionals engaging in the practice, education, and research of public health. These competencies are organized into eight domains, reflecting skill areas within public health, and three tiers, representing career stages for public health professionals.

          The ASTHO Profile Survey is the only comprehensive source of information about State public health agency activities, structure, and resources. ASTHO sends a link to the web-based survey to senior deputies at State health agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The approximately 120-question instrument covers the following topic areas: 1. Structure, governance, and priorities; 2. Workforce; 3. State health agency activities; 4. Planning and quality improvement; 5. Health information management; 6. Finance.

          Along with general instructions, senior deputies received recommendations on the most appropriate staff/departments to fill out each section of the survey. Surveys could be filled out by multiple personnel in multiple sittings. The Profile Survey response rate was 96 percent among the 50 states and DC in 2012. Extensive follow-up was conducted with the states throughout 2013 to verify responses. When response errors were identified, ASTHO’s Survey Research team worked with the state to correct these responses. In instances where the state did not respond to multiple follow-up attempts, the Survey Research team used their expertise to determine whether or not to retain the data.

          State and District of Columbia health agencies that responded "Preparing job descriptions" to the survey question "Indicate the use of various public health competencies in the course of managing your agency personnel: Core compentencies for public health professionals (Council on Linkages)" were counted in the numerator.

        Revision History

        Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

        Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        In 2015, objective PHI-1.3 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations" was split into two objectives and moved to measurable status: PHI-1.3.1 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions" and PHI-1.3.2 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public health Professionals into performance evaluations." The PHI-1.3.1 baseline statement is "25 percent of state public health agencies reported using core competencies for public health professionals into job descriptions by 2012." The PHI-1.3.1 target is 28 percent (10 percent improvement target setting method). The data source is the ASTHO Profile Survey.
      • PHI-1.3.2 Increase the proportion of state public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into performance evaluations

        About the Data

        Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

        Data Source: 
        ASTHO Profile of State Public Health
        Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        Yes
        Measure: 
        percent
        Baseline (Year): 
        15 (2012)
        Target: 
        16
        Target-Setting Method: 
        10 percent improvement
        Numerator: 

        Number of State public health agencies that responded that the core competencies for public health professionals are used for performance evaluations

        Denominator: 

        Number of State public health agencies that responded to this item in the ASTHO Profile survey

        Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
        Not applicable
        Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

          From the 2012 State and Territorial Public Health Survey:

          [NUMERATOR:]

          Indicate the use of various public health competencies in the course of managing your agency personnel: Core compentencies for public health professionals (Council on Linkages)

          • Not familiar with
          • Familiar with but have not used
          • Conducting performance evaluations
          • Developing training plans
          • Preparing job descriptions
          • Other use
        Data Collection Frequency: 
        Periodic
        Methodology Notes: 

          The Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies) are a consensus set of skills for the broad practice of public health, as defined by the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Developed by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice (Council on Linkages), the Core Competencies reflect foundational skills desirable for professionals engaging in the practice, education, and research of public health. These competencies are organized into eight domains, reflecting skill areas within public health, and three tiers, representing career stages for public health professionals.

          The ASTHO Profile Survey is the only comprehensive source of information about State public health agency activities, structure, and resources. ASTHO sends a link to the web-based survey to senior deputies at State health agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The approximately 120-question instrument covers the following topic areas: 1. Structure, governance, and priorities; 2. Workforce; 3. State health agency activities; 4. Planning and quality improvement; 5. Health information management; 6. Finance.

          Along with general instructions, senior deputies received recommendations on the most appropriate staff/departments to fill out each section of the survey. Surveys could be filled out by multiple personnel in multiple sittings. The Profile Survey response rate was 96 percent among the 50 states and DC in 2012. Extensive follow-up was conducted with the states throughout 2013 to verify responses. When response errors were identified, ASTHO’s Survey Research team worked with the state to correct these responses. In instances where the state did not respond to multiple follow-up attempts, the Survey Research team used their expertise to determine whether or not to retain the data.

          State and District of Columbia health agencies that responded "Conducting performance evaluations" to the survey question "Indicate the use of various public health competencies in the course of managing your agency personnel: Core compentencies for public health professionals (Council on Linkages)" were counted in the numerator.

        Revision History

        Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

        Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        In 2015, objective PHI-1.3 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations" was split into two objectives and moved to measurable status: PHI-1.3.1 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions" and PHI-1.3.2 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public health Professionals into performance evaluations." The PHI-1.3.2 baseline statement is "15 percent of state public health agencies incorporated Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into performance evaluations by 2012." The PHI-1.3.2 target is 16 percent (10 percent improvement target setting method). The data source is the ASTHO Profile Survey.
    • PHI-1.4 Increase the proportion of Local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations

      • PHI-1.4.1 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions

        About the Data

        Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

        Data Source: 
        National Profile of Local Health Departments
        Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        Yes
        Measure: 
        percent
        Baseline (Year): 
        13 (2013)
        Target: 
        14
        Target-Setting Method: 
        10 percent improvement
        Numerator: 

        Number of local health agencies that incorporate core competencies for public health professionals into job descriptions

        Denominator: 

        Number of local public health agencies that responded to this item in the NACCHO Profile survey

        Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
        Adapted from HP2010 objective
        Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

          From the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments (LHD):

          [NUMERATOR:]

          Does your LHD use core competencies for public health workers developed by the Council on Linkages (Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice) in any of the following ways? (Select all that apply)

          1. Writing position descriptions
          2. Conducting staff performance evaluations
          3. Assessing staff training needs
          4. Developing staff training plans
          5. Other use (Please specify)
          6. Have not used
        Data Collection Frequency: 
        Periodic
        Methodology Notes: 

          The Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies) are a consensus set of skills for the broad practice of public health, as defined by the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Developed by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice (Council on Linkages), the Core Competencies reflect foundational skills desirable for professionals engaging in the practice, education, and research of public health. These competencies are organized into eight domains, reflecting skill areas within public health, and three tiers, representing career stages for public health professionals.

          The National Profile of Local Health Departments study (Profile) is the most comprehensive source of information on the infrastructure and programs of local health departments in the U.S. All local health departments in the U.S. are surveyed about their organization, responsibilities, workforce, funding, and other topics. The Profile study has been periodically collecting data from local health departments (LHDs) since 1989 and recently completed its seventh wave in 2013.

          The Profile defines a local health department (LHD) as an administrative or service unit of local or state government concerned with health and carrying out some responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the state. The 2013 Profile survey was fielded through an email sent to the top agency executive of every eligible LHD. The email included a link to a web-based questionnaire, preloaded with information specific to the LHD. Paper questionnaires were available upon request for a subset of small LHDs. A core set of questions was sent to all LHDs.

          Local health agencies that responded "Writing position descriptions" to the survey question "Does your LHD use core competencies for public health workers developed by the Council on Linkages (Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice) in any of the following ways? (Select all that apply)" were counted in the numerator.

        Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
        This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-08b in that the numerator was revised from "Number of local health agencies that incorporate core competencies for public health workers (Council on Linkages) into preparing job descriptions" to "Number of local health agencies that incorporate core competencies for public health professionals into job descriptions."

        Revision History

        Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

        Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        In 2015, objective PHI-1.4 "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations " was split into two objectives: PHI-1.4.1 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions" and PHI-1.4.2 "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into performance evaluations." The PHI-1.4.1 baseline statement is "13 percent of local public health agencies incorporated Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions in 2013." The PHI-1.4.1 target is 14 percent (10 percent improvement target setting method). The data source is the NACCHO Profile Survey.
      • PHI-1.4.2 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into performance evaluations

        About the Data

        Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

        Data Source: 
        National Profile of Local Health Departments
        Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        Yes
        Measure: 
        percent
        Baseline (Year): 
        14 (2013)
        Target: 
        15
        Target-Setting Method: 
        10 percent improvement
        Numerator: 

        Number of local health agencies that incorporate core competencies for public health professionals into performance evaluations

        Denominator: 

        Number of local public health agencies that responded to this item in the NACCHO Profile survey

        Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
        Adapted from HP2010 objective
        Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

          From the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments (LHD):

          [NUMERATOR:]

          Does your LHD use core competencies for public health workers developed by the Council on Linkages (Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice) in any of the following ways? (Select all that apply)

          1. Writing position descriptions
          2. Conducting staff performance evaluations
          3. Assessing staff training needs
          4. Developing staff training plans
          5. Other use (Please specify)
          6. Have not used
        Data Collection Frequency: 
        Periodic
        Methodology Notes: 

          The Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies) are a consensus set of skills for the broad practice of public health, as defined by the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Developed by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice (Council on Linkages), the Core Competencies reflect foundational skills desirable for professionals engaging in the practice, education, and research of public health. These competencies are organized into eight domains, reflecting skill areas within public health, and three tiers, representing career stages for public health professionals.

          The National Profile of Local Health Departments study (Profile) is the most comprehensive source of information on the infrastructure and programs of local health departments in the U.S. All local health departments in the U.S. are surveyed about their organization, responsibilities, workforce, funding, and other topics. The Profile study has been periodically collecting data from local health departments (LHDs) since 1989 and recently completed its seventh wave in 2013.

          The Profile defines a local health department (LHD) as an administrative or service unit of local or state government concerned with health and carrying out some responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the state. The 2013 Profile survey was fielded through an email sent to the top agency executive of every eligible LHD. The email included a link to a web-based questionnaire, preloaded with information specific to the LHD. Paper questionnaires were available upon request for a subset of small LHDs. A core set of questions was sent to all LHDs.

          Local health agencies that responded "Conducting staff performance evaluations" to the survey question "Does your LHD use core competencies for public health workers developed by the Council on Linkages (Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice) in any of the following ways? (Select all that apply)" were counted in the numerator.

        Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
        This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-08b in that the objective statement was revised from "Increase the proportion of local health agencies that incorporate core competencies in the essential public health services into job descriptions and performance evaluations" to "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into performance evaluations."

        Revision History

        Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

        Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
        In 2015, objective PHI-1.4 "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions and performance evaluations " was split into two objectives: PHI-1.4.1 "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into job descriptions" and PHI-1.4.2 "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that incorporate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into performance evaluations." The PHI-1.4.2 baseline statement is "14 percent of local public health agencies incorporated Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into performance evaluations in 2013." The PHI-1.4.2 target is 15 percent (10 percent improvement target setting method). The data source is the NACCHO Profile Survey.
  • PHI-2 Increase the proportion of Tribal, State, and local public health personnel who receive continuing education consistent with the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals

    • PHI-2.1 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of tribal public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Numerator: 

      *** Missing ***

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2016, objective PHI-2 "Increase the proportion of tribal, state, and local public health personnel who receive continuing education consistent with the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals" was split into three objectives. Of these, one remained developmental and two became measurable: PHI-2.1 “(Developmental) Increase the proportion of tribal public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel,” PHI-2.2 “Increase the proportion of state public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel,” and PHI-2.3 “Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel.”
    • PHI-2.2 Increase the proportion of state public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      ASTHO Profile of State Public Health
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      52 (2012)
      Target: 
      57
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of state public health agencies responding that Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals were used in developing training plans

      Denominator: 

      Number of state public health agencies responding to this item in the ASTHO Profile Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 State and Territorial Public Health Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Indicate the use of various public health competencies in the course of managing your agency personnel: Core compentencies for public health professionals (Council on Linkages)

        1. Not familiar with
        2. Familiar with but have not used
        3. Conducting performance evaluations
        4. Developing training plans
        5. Preparing job descriptions
        6. Other use
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies) are a consensus set of skills for the broad practice of public health, as defined by the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Developed by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice (Council on Linkages), the Core Competencies reflect foundational skills desirable for professionals engaging in the practice, education, and research of public health. These competencies are organized into eight domains, reflecting skill areas within public health, and three tiers, representing career stages for public health professionals.

        States that responded that they use core competencies for public health professionals in “Developing training plans” were counted in the numerator. “States” includes the 50 states plus DC, for a total of 51 possible respondents.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2016, objective PHI-2 "Increase the proportion of tribal, state, and local public health personnel who receive continuing education consistent with the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals" was split into three objectives. Of these, one remained developmental and two became measurable: PHI-2.1 “(Developmental) Increase the proportion of tribal public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel,” PHI-2.2 “Increase the proportion of state public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel,” and PHI-2.3 “Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel.”
    • PHI-2.3 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Profile of Local Health Departments
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      14 (2013)
      Target: 
      18
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Minimal statistical significance
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      The 10 percent improvement was selected as the most appropriate target setting method for PHI-2.2. Minimal statistical significance was selected for PHI-2.3 to ensure that the target was a statistically significant change from the baseline; a 10 percent improvement would not have resulted in a statistically significant change.
      Numerator: 

      Number of local health departments (LHDs) incorporating Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into developing training plans

      Denominator: 

      Number of local public health agencies responding to this item in the NACCHO Profile Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments (LHD):

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your LHD use core competencies for public health workers developed by the Council on Linkages (Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice) in any of the following ways? (Select all that apply)

        1. Writing position descriptions
        2. Conducting staff performance evaluations
        3. Assessing staff training needs
        4. Developing staff training plans
        5. Other use (Please specify)
        6. Have not used
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies) are a consensus set of skills for the broad practice of public health, as defined by the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Developed by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice (Council on Linkages), the Core Competencies reflect foundational skills desirable for professionals engaging in the practice, education, and research of public health. These competencies are organized into eight domains, reflecting skill areas within public health, and three tiers, representing career stages for public health professionals.

        A local health department (LHD) is defined as an administrative or service unit of local or state government concerned with health and carrying out some responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the state. Local health agencies that responded "Developing staff training plans" to the survey question "Does your LHD use core competencies for public health workers developed by the Council on Linkages (Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice) in any of the following ways? (Select all that apply)" were counted in the numerator.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2016, objective PHI-2 "Increase the proportion of tribal, state, and local public health personnel who receive continuing education consistent with the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals" was split into three objectives. Of these, one remained developmental and two became measurable: PHI-2.1 “(Developmental) Increase the proportion of tribal public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel,” PHI-2.2 “Increase the proportion of state public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel,” and PHI-2.3 “Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that use Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals in continuing education for personnel.”
  • PHI-3 Increase the proportion of Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) accredited schools of public health, CEPH accredited academic programs, and schools of nursing (with a public health or community health component) that integrate Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into curricula

    About the Data

    Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

    Data Source: 
    Council on Linkages Study
    Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
    Yes
    Measure: 
    percent
    Baseline (Year): 
    91 (2006)
    Target: 
    94
    Target-Setting Method: 
    3 percentage point improvement
    Target-Setting Method Justification: 
    The baseline is higher than 90 percent. A 3-percentage point improvement is realistic.
    Numerator: 

    Number of Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) accredited schools of public health, CEPH accredited academic programs, and schools of nursing, with a public health or community health component that integrate the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals into their curricula in at least one way

    Denominator: 

    Number of Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) accredited schools of public health, CEPH accredited academic programs, and schools of nursing, with a public health or community health component

    Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
    Retained from HP2010 objective
    Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

      From the 2006 Council on Linkages Study:

      [NUMERATOR:]

      Have you integrated competencies into your curriculum using the Core Competencies Framework for any of your public health or community health degree programs, in any of the following ways?

      • Added specific content intended to build skills and/or competencies.
      1. Yes
      2. No
    • Designed field placements/internships to build skills and/or competencies.
      1. Yes
      2. No
    • Designed exercises or assignments to build skills and/or competencies.
      1. Yes
      2. No
    • Brought in external speakers/faculty to help teach or address the Core Competencies.
      1. Yes
      2. No
    • Tested students for attainment of skills and competencies during or after completion of a course.
      1. Yes
      2. No
    Data Collection Frequency: 
    Periodic

    Revision History

    Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

    Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
    In 2014, the baseline statement was revised to correct a spelling error. In addition, "Public Health Foundation (PHF)" was added as the data supplier of the Council on Linkages Study.

    References

    Additional resources about the objective

    1. The Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice. Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals [online]. 2010. [cited 2013 Oct 28]
  • PHI-4 Increase the number of public health or related graduate degrees, post-baccalaureate certificates, and bachelor’s degrees awarded

    • PHI-4.1 Increase the number of public health or related graduate degrees and post-baccalaureate certificates awarded

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      number
      Baseline (Year): 
      16,188 (2014–15)
      Target: 
      17,807
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health or related graduate degrees and post-baccalaureate certificates awarded in the U.S.

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2014–2015 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:

        [COUNT:]

        Please enter the awards conferred between JULY 1, 2013 and JUNE 30, 2014 for each 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code and award level combination at your institution. Report Hispanic/Latino individuals of any race as Hispanic/Latino. Report race for non-Hispanic/Latino individuals only.

        • Men, Nonresident alien
        • Men, Hispanic/Latino
        • Men, American Indian or Alaska Native
        • Men, Asian
        • Men, Black or African American
        • Men, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
        • Men, White
        • Men, Two or more races
        • Men, Race and ethnicity unknown
        • Women, Nonresident alien
        • Women, Hispanic/Latino
        • Women, American Indian or Alaska Native
        • Women, Asian
        • Women, Black or African American
        • Women, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
        • Women, White
        • Women, Two or more races
        • Women, Race and ethnicity unknown

        More information on CIP codes are available here: CIP user site.

        IPEDS award levels include:

        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (less than 1 academic year)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 1 but less than 2 academic years)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 2 but less than 4 academic years)
        • Associate's degree
        • Bachelor's degree
        • Master's degree
        • Doctor's degree - research/scholarship
        • Doctor's degree - professional practice
        • Doctor's degree - other
        • Postbaccalaureate certificate
        • Post-master's certificate
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        Data for this objective comes from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collected by the National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education. The IPEDS universe includes Title IV institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions of the United States (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). The four U.S. service academies that are not Title IV eligible are included in the IPEDS universe because they are federally funded and open to the public (U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and U.S. Air Force Academy). One academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, is Title IV eligible. Data for all five institutions are included in the IPEDS universe. Only Title IV institutions (not administrative units) are considered the IPEDS universe for these purposes.

        The Completions component of IPEDS collects data on the number of degrees and certificates officially conferred in postsecondary education programs. Data are collected on the race/ethnicity and gender of recipients and their programs of study using the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes. The data from this component reflect all formal awards (i.e., degrees, diplomas, certificates) received or conferred between July 1 of a given year, and June 30 of the following year.

        The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes for 2010 that are used by the U.S. Department of Education (CIP user site) are used to identify public health and related programs. Public Health programs include all the 51.22 CIP codes:

        • 51.2201 – Public Health, General
        • 51.2202 – Environmental Health
        • 51.2205 – Health/Medical Physics
        • 51.2206 – Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene
        • 51.2207 – Public Health Education and Promotion
        • 51.2208 – Community Health and Preventive Medicine
        • 51.2209 – Maternal and Child Health
        • 51.2210 – International Public Health/International Health
        • 51.2211 – Health Services Administration
        • 51.2212 – Behavioral Aspects of Health
        • 51.2299 – Public Health, Other

        Public Health Related Programs are those whose CIP codes are refer to in any of the 51.22 Public Health CIP codes:

        • 26.1309 – Epidemiology
        • 44.0503 – Health Policy Analysis
        • 51.0504 – Dental Public Health and Education

        Graduate degrees and post-baccalaureate certificates are defined as the following IPEDS award levels:

        • Master's degree
        • Doctor's degree - research/scholarship
        • Doctor's degree - professional practice
        • Doctor's degree - other
        • Postbaccalaureate certificate
        • Post-master's certificate

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the target-setting method was changed from projection/trend analysis to 3 percentage point improvement because the baseline was less than 10. The target itself remains unchanged. In 2017, PHI-4.1, 4.2, 6.1, and 6.2 were revised because the data source was determined to not be reproducible. PHI-4.1, 4.2, and 6.1 objectives were revised to track the number of public health or related degrees and certificates and the data source was revised to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). PHI-6.2 was archived. As a result, the original baseline and baseline year for objective PHI-4.1 were revised from 7% (2008) to 16,186 (2014-15). The target-setting method was revised from 3 percentage point improvement to 10 percent improvement and the target was revised from 10% to 17,805. In 2019, the PHI-4.1 2014-15 baseline was revised from 16,186 to 16,188. In keeping with the target setting method of 10 percent improvement, the target was revised from 17805 to 17807.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. National Center for Education Statistics. 2015-16 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Methodology Report [online]. 2016. [cited 2017 May 03]
      2. National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
    • PHI-4.2 Increase the number of public health or related bachelor’s degrees awarded

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      number
      Baseline (Year): 
      10,722 (2014–15)
      Target: 
      11,794
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health or related bachelor’s degrees awarded in the U.S.

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2014–2015 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:

        [COUNT:]

        Please enter the awards conferred between JULY 1, 2013 and JUNE 30, 2014 for each 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code and award level combination at your institution. Report Hispanic/Latino individuals of any race as Hispanic/Latino. Report race for non-Hispanic/Latino individuals only.

        • Men, Nonresident alien
        • Men, Hispanic/Latino
        • Men, American Indian or Alaska Native
        • Men, Asian
        • Men, Black or African American
        • Men, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
        • Men, White
        • Men, Two or more races
        • Men, Race and ethnicity unknown
        • Women, Nonresident alien
        • Women, Hispanic/Latino
        • Women, American Indian or Alaska Native
        • Women, Asian
        • Women, Black or African American
        • Women, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
        • Women, White
        • Women, Two or more races
        • Women, Race and ethnicity unknown

        More information on CIP codes are available here: CIP user site.

        IPEDS award levels include:

        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (less than 1 academic year)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 1 but less than 2 academic years)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 2 but less than 4 academic years)
        • Associate's degree
        • Bachelor's degree
        • Master's degree
        • Doctor's degree - research/scholarship
        • Doctor's degree - professional practice
        • Doctor's degree - other
        • Postbaccalaureate certificate
        • Post-master's certificate
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        Data for this objective comes from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collected by the National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education. The IPEDS universe includes Title IV institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions of the United States (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). The four U.S. service academies that are not Title IV eligible are included in the IPEDS universe because they are federally funded and open to the public (U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and U.S. Air Force Academy). One academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, is Title IV eligible. Data for all five institutions are included in the IPEDS universe. Only Title IV institutions (not administrative units) are considered the IPEDS universe for these purposes.

        The Completions component of IPEDS collects data on the number of degrees and certificates officially conferred in postsecondary education programs. Data are collected on the race/ethnicity and gender of recipients and their programs of study using the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes. The data from this component reflect all formal awards (i.e., degrees, diplomas, certificates) received or conferred between July 1 of a given year, and June 30 of the following year.

        The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes for 2010 that are used by the U.S. Department of Education (CIP user site) are used to identify public health and related programs. Public Health programs include all the 51.22 CIP codes:

        • 51.2201 – Public Health, General
        • 51.2202 – Environmental Health
        • 51.2205 – Health/Medical Physics
        • 51.2206 – Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene
        • 51.2207 – Public Health Education and Promotion
        • 51.2208 – Community Health and Preventive Medicine
        • 51.2209 – Maternal and Child Health
        • 51.2210 – International Public Health/International Health
        • 51.2211 – Health Services Administration
        • 51.2212 – Behavioral Aspects of Health
        • 51.2299 – Public Health, Other

        Public Health Related Programs are those whose CIP codes are refer to in any of the 51.22 Public Health CIP codes:

        • 26.1309 – Epidemiology
        • 44.0503 – Health Policy Analysis
        • 51.0504 – Dental Public Health and Education

        Only the Bachelor's degree IPEDS awards level was included in this objective.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2017, PHI-4.1, 4.2, 6.1, and 6.2 were revised because the data source was determined to not be reproducible. PHI-4.1, 4.2, and 6.1 objectives were revised to track the number of public health or related degrees and certificates and the data source was revised to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). PHI-6.2 was archived. As a result, the original baseline and baseline year for objective PHI-4.2 were revised from 11% (2008) to 10,722 (2014-2015). The target-setting method was revised from projection/trend analysis to 10% improvement and the target was revised from 15% to 11,794.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. National Center for Education Statistics. 2015-16 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Methodology Report [online]. 2016. [cited 2017 May 03]
      2. National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
  • PHI-5 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of 4-year colleges and universities that offer public health or related majors and/or minors that are consistent with the core competencies of undergraduate public health education

    About the Data

    Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

    Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
    No
    Measure: 
    *** Missing ***
    Numerator: 

    *** Missing ***

    Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
    Not applicable
    Methodology Notes: 

      ASPH is currently developing its core competencies in undergraduate public health (anticipated in 2011). A survey of AACU members is expected after that.

  • PHI-6 Increase the proportion of 2-year colleges that offer public health or related associate degrees and/or certificate programs

    • PHI-6.1 Increase the number of public health or related sub-baccalaureate certificates and associate degrees awarded

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      number
      Baseline (Year): 
      719 (2014–15)
      Target: 
      791
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health or related associate degrees and sub-baccalaureate certificates awarded in the U.S.

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2014–2015 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:

        [COUNT:]

        Please enter the awards conferred between JULY 1, 2013 and JUNE 30, 2014 for each 6-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code and award level combination at your institution. Report Hispanic/Latino individuals of any race as Hispanic/Latino. Report race for non-Hispanic/Latino individuals only.

        • Men, Nonresident alien
        • Men, Hispanic/Latino
        • Men, American Indian or Alaska Native
        • Men, Asian
        • Men, Black or African American
        • Men, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
        • Men, White
        • Men, Two or more races
        • Men, Race and ethnicity unknown
        • Women, Nonresident alien
        • Women, Hispanic/Latino
        • Women, American Indian or Alaska Native
        • Women, Asian
        • Women, Black or African American
        • Women, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
        • Women, White
        • Women, Two or more races
        • Women, Race and ethnicity unknown

        More information on CIP codes are available here: CIP user site.

        IPEDS award levels include:

        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (less than 1 academic year)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 1 but less than 2 academic years)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 2 but less than 4 academic years)
        • Associate's degree
        • Bachelor's degree
        • Master's degree
        • Doctor's degree - research/scholarship
        • Doctor's degree - professional practice
        • Doctor's degree - other
        • Postbaccalaureate certificate
        • Post-master's certificate
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        Data for this objective comes from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collected by the National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education. The IPEDS universe includes Title IV institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions of the United States (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). The four U.S. service academies that are not Title IV eligible are included in the IPEDS universe because they are federally funded and open to the public (U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and U.S. Air Force Academy). One academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, is Title IV eligible. Data for all five institutions are included in the IPEDS universe. Only Title IV institutions (not administrative units) are considered the IPEDS universe for these purposes.

        The Completions component of IPEDS collects data on the number of degrees and certificates officially conferred in postsecondary education programs. Data are collected on the race/ethnicity and gender of recipients and their programs of study using the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes. The data from this component reflect all formal awards (i.e., degrees, diplomas, certificates) received or conferred between July 1 of a given year, and June 30 of the following year.

        The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes for 2010 that are used by the U.S. Department of Education (CIP user site) are used to identify public health and related programs. Public Health programs include all the 51.22 CIP codes:

        • 51.2201 – Public Health, General
        • 51.2202 – Environmental Health
        • 51.2205 – Health/Medical Physics
        • 51.2206 – Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene
        • 51.2207 – Public Health Education and Promotion
        • 51.2208 – Community Health and Preventive Medicine
        • 51.2209 – Maternal and Child Health
        • 51.2210 – International Public Health/International Health
        • 51.2211 – Health Services Administration
        • 51.2212 – Behavioral Aspects of Health
        • 51.2299 – Public Health, Other

        Public Health Related Programs are those whose CIP codes are refer to in any of the 51.22 Public Health CIP codes:

        • 26.1309 – Epidemiology
        • 44.0503 – Health Policy Analysis
        • 51.0504 – Dental Public Health and Education

        Associate’s degrees and sub-baccalaureate certificates are defined as the following IPEDS award levels:

        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (less than 1 academic year)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 1 but less than 2 academic years)
        • Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma of (at least 2 but less than 4 academic years)
        • Associate's degree

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the data source title changed from "Data were compiled by AAC&U and AACC" to "Community College and Public Health." In 2014, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) were added as data suppliers of the Community College and Public Health data source. In 2017, PHI-4.1, 4.2, 6.1, and 6.2 were revised because the data source was determined to not be reproducible. PHI-4.1, 4.2, and 6.1 objectives were revised to track the number of public health or related degrees and certificates and the data source was revised to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). PHI-6.2 was archived. As a result, the original baseline and baseline year for objective PHI-6.1 were revised from 2% (2009) to 965 (2014-2015). The target-setting method was revised from projection/trend analysis to 10% improvement and the target was revised from 3% to 1,062. In 2019, the PHI-6.1 2014-15 baseline was revised from 965 to 719. In keeping with the target setting method of ten percent improvement, the target was revised from 1062 to 791.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. National Center for Education Statistics. 2015-16 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Methodology Report [online]. 2016. [cited 2017 May 03]
      2. National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
    • PHI-6.2 Increase the proportion of 2-year colleges that offer public health certificate programs

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      0.25 (2009)
      Target: 
      1.00
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Projection/trend analysis
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      A recent survey of members of the Association of American Colleges and Universities indicated that 40 percent of schools have an interest in offering undergraduate course work in public health. The target is based on the assumption that the same proportion of schools will implement such programs.
      Numerator: 

      Number of US two-year colleges that offer public health or related certificate programs

      Denominator: 

      Number of US two-year colleges, as defined by the American Association of Community Colleges

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, in the methodology, "Associate degrees" was changed to "certificate programs" to make the methodology specific to this objective. In 2013, the data source title changed from "Data were compiled by AAC&U and AACC" to "Community College and Public Health." In 2014, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) were added as data suppliers of the Community College and Public Health data source. In 2017, PHI-4.1, 4.2, 6.1, and 6.2 were revised because the data source was determined to not be reproducible. PHI-4.1, 4.2, and 6.1 objectives were revised to track the number of public health or related degrees and certificates and the data source was revised to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). PHI-6.2 was archived.
  • PHI-7 Increase the proportion of population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives for which national data are available for all major population groups

    • PHI-7.1 Increase the proportion of population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives for which national data are available by race and ethnicity

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Healthy People 2020 Database
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      39.9 (2013)
      Target: 
      Not applicable
      Target-Setting Method: 
      This measure is being tracked for informational purposes. If warranted, a target will be set during the decade.
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      At this time, we do not propose setting a target for these objectives. While we do not have a clear sense for the potential progress that could be achieved by the end of the decade, the Workgroup’s consensus is that a) the purpose of these objectives is to track and report data on availability of data for measuring health disparities and b) a substantial increase in the availability of these data is not likely. For many surveys, a redesign of the sampling methodology would be needed to effect an increase in the number of objectives that report data by race and ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status. In addition, there are nationally-representative population-based data sources that collect high quality data yet do not meet our proposed definition for collecting data on all major population groups. For example, even though NHANES oversamples African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics and provides nationally-representative data, the NHANES does not collect data on Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders. Therefore, objectives using NHANES data would not meet the Healthy People definition for collecting data on race and ethnicity despite the NHANES’ goal of oversampling racial and ethnic minorities. The goal of PHI-7 is not to single out data sources that do not meet these definitions; rather it is to assess data sources used to measure and track Healthy People objectives to promote availability of data for all major population groups so that health disparities can be accurately measured and tracked over the decade. For this reason, the Workgroup is proposing to move these objectives from developmental to measureable, not set a target.
      Numerator: 

      Number of population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives that report estimates by race and ethnicity

      Denominator: 

      Number of measurable population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        Population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives are defined as objectives where the denominator is a population estimate.

        Objectives are counted in the numerator if data are reported by the six racial and ethnic categories provided in the updated OMB Directive No. 15 “Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity”: (1) American Indian or Alaska Native, (2) Asian, (3) non-Hispanic Black or African American, (4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, (5) non-Hispanic White and (6) Hispanic/Latino.

        The Healthy People 2020 database (DATA2020) is queried to determine the number of objectives that meet the numerator and denominator definitions.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-04 in that 23-04 originally proposed to track objectives with data by major population groups. PHI-7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 were refined to track the proportion of population-based objectives with data by race/ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status, respectively.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2012, this objective became measurable. In 2015, the data for this objective were revised to correct a programming error. The baseline was revised from 46.6 percent to 39.9 percent.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Fed Regist 1997 Oct 30.
    • PHI-7.2 Increase the proportion of population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives for which national data are available by sex

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Healthy People 2020 Database
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      85.7 (2013)
      Target: 
      Not applicable
      Target-Setting Method: 
      This measure is being tracked for informational purposes. If warranted, a target will be set during the decade.
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      At this time, we do not propose setting a target for these objectives. While we do not have a clear sense for the potential progress that could be achieved by the end of the decade, the Workgroup’s consensus is that a) the purpose of these objectives is to track and report data on availability of data for measuring health disparities and b) a substantial increase in the availability of these data is not likely. For many surveys, a redesign of the sampling methodology would be needed to effect an increase in the number of objectives that report data by race and ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status. In addition, there are nationally-representative population-based data sources that collect high quality data yet do not meet our proposed definition for collecting data on all major population groups. For example, even though NHANES oversamples African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics and provides nationally-representative data, the NHANES does not collect data on Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders. Therefore, objectives using NHANES data would not meet the Healthy People definition for collecting data on race and ethnicity despite the NHANES’ goal of oversampling racial and ethnic minorities. The goal of PHI-7 is not to single out data sources that do not meet these definitions; rather it is to assess data sources used to measure and track Healthy People objectives to promote availability of data for all major population groups so that health disparities can be accurately measured and tracked over the decade. For this reason, the Workgroup is proposing to move these objectives from developmental to measureable, not set a target.
      Numerator: 

      Number of population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives that report estimates by sex or are sex-specific objectives.

      Denominator: 

      Number of measurable population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        Population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives are defined as objectives where the denominator is a population estimate.

        Objectives are counted in the numerator if data are reported by sex (female and male) or are sex-specific objectives (for example, C-11: reduce late-stage female breast cancer).

        The Healthy People 2020 database (DATA2020) is queried to determine the number of objectives that meet the numerator and denominator definitions.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-04 in that 23-04 originally proposed to track objectives with data by major population groups. PHI-7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 were refined to track the proportion of population-based objectives with data by race/ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status, respectively.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2012, this objective became measurable. In 2015, the data for this objective were revised to correct a programming error. The baseline was revised from 97.3 percent to 85.7 percent.
    • PHI-7.3 Increase the proportion of population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives for which national data are available by socioeconomic status

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Healthy People 2020 Database
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      57.1 (2013)
      Target: 
      Not applicable
      Target-Setting Method: 
      This measure is being tracked for informational purposes. If warranted, a target will be set during the decade.
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      At this time, we do not propose setting a target for these objectives. While we do not have a clear sense for the potential progress that could be achieved by the end of the decade, the Workgroup’s consensus is that a) the purpose of these objectives is to track and report data on availability of data for measuring health disparities and b) a substantial increase in the availability of these data is not likely. For many surveys, a redesign of the sampling methodology would be needed to effect an increase in the number of objectives that report data by race and ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status. In addition, there are nationally-representative population-based data sources that collect high quality data yet do not meet our proposed definition for collecting data on all major population groups. For example, even though NHANES oversamples African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics and provides nationally-representative data, the NHANES does not collect data on Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders. Therefore, objectives using NHANES data would not meet the Healthy People definition for collecting data on race and ethnicity despite the NHANES’ goal of oversampling racial and ethnic minorities. The goal of PHI-7 is not to single out data sources that do not meet these definitions; rather it is to assess data sources used to measure and track Healthy People objectives to promote availability of data for all major population groups so that health disparities can be accurately measured and tracked over the decade. For this reason, the Workgroup is proposing to move these objectives from developmental to measureable, not set a target.
      Numerator: 

      Number of population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives that report estimates by socioeconomic status (educational attainment or family income)

      Denominator: 

      Number of Healthy People 2020 measurable population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        Population-based Healthy People 2020 objectives are defined as Healthy People 2020 objectives where the denominator is a population estimate.

        Objectives are counted in the numerator if data are reported by socioeconomic status (educational attainment, if 25 years and older, or family income), regardless of the cutpoints used to categorize educational attainment and family income.

        The Healthy People 2020 database (DATA2020) is queried to determine the number of objectives that meet the numerator and denominator definitions.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-04 in that 23-04 originally proposed to track objectives with data by major population groups. PHI-7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 were refined to track the proportion of population-based objectives with data by race/ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status, respectively.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2012, this objective became measurable. In 2015, the data for this objective were revised to correct a programming error. The baseline was revised from 64.9 percent to 57.1 percent.
  • PHI-8 Increase the proportion of Healthy People 2020 objectives that are tracked regularly at the national level

    • PHI-8.1 Increase the proportion of Healthy People 2020 objectives that have at least one data point

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Healthy People 2020 Database
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      81 (2014)
      Target: 
      97
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Projection/trend analysis
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      We propose to set targets for PHI-8 using the projection target setting method. Looking at archived data from Healthy People 2010, we found that 88% of objectives had at least one data point; 76% of objectives had at least two data points; and 60% had data updates at regular intervals. Aiming to improve the availability of data from the previous decade by at least 10%, we propose to set PHI-8 targets as 97% of objectives having at least one data point; 84% of objectives having at least two data points; and 66% of objectives that are tracked at least every 3 years.
      Numerator: 

      Number of Healthy People 2020 objectives with at least one data point

      Denominator: 

      Number of Healthy People 2020 objectives (measurable, developmental, and archived objectives)

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Healthy People 2020 Database (DATA2020) will be queried to determine the number of objectives that meet the numerator and denominator definitions.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, this objective became developmental. In 2014, this objective became measurable. The data source name was revised to reflect the name of the data source (Healthy People 2020 Database (DATA2020), CDC/NCHS), rather than the process of obtaining data (Assessment of Objective Data Availability (AODA), CDC, NCHS).
    • PHI-8.2 Increase the proportion of Healthy People 2020 objectives that have at least two data points

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Healthy People 2020 Database
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      48 (2014)
      Target: 
      84
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Projection/trend analysis
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      We propose to set targets for PHI-8 using the projection target setting method. Looking at archived data from Healthy People 2010, we found that 88% of objectives had at least one data point; 76% of objectives had at least two data points; and 60% had data updates at regular intervals. Aiming to improve the availability of data from the previous decade by at least 10%, we propose to set PHI-8 targets as 97% of objectives having at least one data point; 84% of objectives having at least two data points; and 66% of objectives that are tracked at least every 3 years.
      Numerator: 

      Number of Healthy People 2020 objectives with at least two data points

      Denominator: 

      Number of Healthy People 2020 objectives (measurable, developmental, and archived objectives)

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Healthy People 2020 Database (DATA2020) will be queried to determine the number of objectives that meet the numerator and denominator definitions.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, this objective became developmental. In 2014, this objective became measurable. The data source name was revised to reflect the name of the data source (Healthy People 2020 Database (DATA2020), CDC/NCHS), rather than the process of obtaining data (Assessment of Objective Data Availability (AODA), CDC, NCHS).
    • PHI-8.3 Increase the proportion of Healthy People 2020 objectives that are tracked at least every 3 years

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Healthy People 2020 Database
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      45 (2014)
      Target: 
      66
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Projection/trend analysis
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      We propose to set targets for PHI-8 using the projection target setting method. Looking at archived data from Healthy People 2010, we found that 88% of objectives had at least one data point; 76% of objectives had at least two data points; and 60% had data updates at regular intervals. Aiming to improve the availability of data from the previous decade by at least 10%, we propose to set PHI-8 targets as 97% of objectives having at least one data point; 84% of objectives having at least two data points; and 66% of objectives that are tracked at least every 3 years.
      Numerator: 

      Number Healthy People 2020 objectives where the next-to-last data point is within 3 years of the last data point

      Denominator: 

      Number of Healthy People 2020 objectives (measurable, developmental, and archived objectives)

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        The numerator is defined as the number of objectives where the next-to-last data point is 1, 2, or 3 years prior to the last data point. Objectives using multi-year data will be evaluated using the end year of the next-to-last data point and the beginning year of the last data point.

        The Healthy People 2020 Database (DATA2020) will be queried to determine the number of objectives that meet the numerator and denominator definitions.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-06 in that objectives are weighted equally in Healthy People 2020 (there are no longer "subobjectives").

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, this objective became developmental. In 2014, this objective became measurable. The data source name was revised to reflect the name of the data source (Healthy People 2020 Database (DATA2020), CDC/NCHS), rather than the process of obtaining data (Assessment of Objective Data Availability (AODA), CDC, NCHS).
  • PHI-9 Increase the proportion of Healthy People 2020 objectives for which national data are released within 1 year of the end of data collection

    About the Data

    Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

    Data Source: 
    Healthy People 2020 Database
    Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
    Yes
    Measure: 
    percent
    Baseline (Year): 
    74 (2014)
    Target: 
    81
    Target-Setting Method: 
    10 percent improvement
    Numerator: 

    Number of measurable objectives tracked by a major Healthy People 2020 data source for which national data are released within 1 year of the end of data collection

    Denominator: 

    Number of measurable objectives tracked by a major Healthy People 2020 data source

    Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
    Adapted from HP2010 objective
    Data Collection Frequency: 
    Biennial
    Methodology Notes: 

      Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) objectives are supported by data from over 200 federal and non-federal data systems, including the data systems of CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. This objective monitors the timeliness of HP2020 objectives tracked by major HP2020 data sources. A major HP2020 data source is defined as a data system that is used to monitor 10 or more HP2020 objectives. Approximately 750 of 1,300 objectives are tracked by a major HP2020 data source.

      “Timeliness” is defined as the release data to the public within 1 year of the end of data collection. The end of data collection is defined as the end date of the data cycle. For example, the end of data collection for NHANES 2011-2012 data was 12/31/2012. The data may be released to the public in a data file, in aggregate, or in a report, such as an MMWR.

    Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
    This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-07 in that the numerator was revised from "Number of Healthy People 2010 objectives and lettered subobjectives tracked with major health data systems that release data to the public within 1 year of the end of data collection" to "Number of measurable objectives tracked by a major Healthy People 2020 data source for which national data are released within 1 year of the end of data collection" and the denominator was revised from "Number of Healthy People 2010 objectives and lettered subobjectives that are tracked by major health data systems" to "Number of measurable objectives tracked by a major Healthy People 2020 data source."

    Revision History

    Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

    Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
    In 2015, this objective moved to measurable status. The objective statement is "Increase the proportion of Healthy People 2020 objectives for which national data are released within 1 year of the end of data collection." The baseline statement is "74 percent of objectives were tracked by major data sources whose most recent data were released within 1 year of the end of data collection in 2014." The target is 81 percent under the 10 percent improvement target setting method. The data source is the Healthy People 2020 Database (DATA2020), CDC/NCHS.
  • PHI-10 Increase the number of States that record vital events using the latest U.S. standard certificates and report

    • PHI-10.1 Increase the number of states that record vital events using the latest U.S. standard certificate of birth

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Vital Statistics System-Natality
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      number
      Baseline (Year): 
      28 (2008)
      Target: 
      52
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Total coverage
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      Additional funding is anticipated for the development of birth and death information systems at the State level, including a data entry system for fetal deaths. This funding is expected to help 100 percent of the States implement the U.S. standard certificate and report in the next decade.
      Numerator: 

      Number of reporting areas that use the 2003 U.S. Standard Birth Certificate

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        The 52 reporting areas included in this measure are the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. Reporting areas need to be using the full new certificate beginning on January 1 of the year of record to be included in the numerator.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, the original data were revised to not include U.S. territories. This revision affected the 2008 (baseline), 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 data. The baseline was revised from 29 states to 28 states. The target was not revised.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. 2003 Revisions of the U.S. Standard Certificates of Live Birth and Death and the Fetal Death Report

    • PHI-10.2 Increase the number of states that record vital events using the latest U.S. standard certificate of death

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Vital Statistics System-Mortality
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      number
      Baseline (Year): 
      32 (2008)
      Target: 
      52
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Total coverage
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      Additional funding is anticipated for the development of birth and death information systems at the State level, including a data entry system for fetal deaths. This funding is expected to help 100 percent of the States implement the U.S. standard certificate and report in the next decade.
      Numerator: 

      Number of reporting areas that use the 2003 U.S. Standard Death Certificate

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        The 52 reporting areas included in this measure are the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. Reporting areas need to be using the full new certificate beginning on January 1 of the year of record to be included in the numerator.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, the original data were revised to not include U.S. territories. This revision affected 2012 data. The baseline and target were not revised.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. 2003 Revisions of the U.S. Standard Certificates of Live Birth and Death and the Fetal Death Report

    • PHI-10.3 Increase the number of states that record vital events using the latest U.S. standard report of fetal death

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Vital Statistics System-Fetal Death
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      number
      Baseline (Year): 
      22 (2008)
      Target: 
      52
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Total coverage
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      Additional funding is anticipated for the development of birth and death information systems at the State level, including a data entry system for fetal deaths. This funding is expected to help 100 percent of the States implement the U.S. standard certificate and report in the next decade.
      Numerator: 

      Number of reporting areas that use the 2003 U.S. Standard Report of Fetal Death

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        The 52 reporting areas included in this measure are the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. Reporting areas need to be using the full new certificate beginning on January 1 of the year of record to be included in the numerator.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, the original data were revised to not include U.S. territories. This revision affected 2011 and 2012 data. The baseline and target were not revised.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. 2003 Revisions of the U.S. Standard Certificates of Live Birth and Death and the Fetal Death Report

  • PHI-11 Increase the proportion of Tribal and State public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services to support essential public health services

    • PHI-11.1 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services to support disease prevention, control, and surveillance

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      90 (2008)
      Target: 
      99
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for disease prevention, control, and surveillance

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your laboratory collect information on turn around time (TAT) that is: [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Used internally (for laboratory quality assurance and improvement only) (0.5)
        2. Used externally (to inform submitters in order to improve pre-and post-analytical quality assurance or to measure overall program productivity) (0.5)
        3. Used both internally and externally (1.0)
        4. No (0)

        Does your laboratory procedures manual contain standards for TAT (i.e., maximum acceptable TAT)? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes:] Do you monitor them for quality improvement: [Total possible points: 1]

        1. All tests (1)
        2. Most tests (≥50 percent) (0.67)
        3. Some tests (<50 percent) (0.33)
        4. None (0)

        Does your laboratory participate in the following federal surveillance and informational programs? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. Laboratory Response Network (LRN) (0.08)
        2. Emerging Infections Program (EIP) (0.08)
        3. Epidemiology Laboratory Capacity (ELC) (0.08)
        4. Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) (0.08)
        5. Health Alert Network (HAN) (0.08)
        6. Influenza (CDC/WHO Surveillance Network) (0.08)
        7. Arbovirus Surveillance (ArboNet) (0.08)
        8. National Enteric Respiratory Virus Surveillance System (NERVSS) (0.08)
        9. National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne Disease Surveillance (PulseNet) (0.08)
        10. FERN (Food Emergency Response Network) (0.08)
        11. Elexnet (Electronic Laboratory Exchange Network) (0.08)
        12. DPDx (Laboratory Identification of Parasites of Public Health Concern) (0.08)
        13. Other (Please Specify) (0)

        Do state public health laboratory staff interact with (e.g., meet with or teleconference) the staff for the State Epidemiologist’s office on at least a weekly basis? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your State Public Health Laboratory provide or assure the following? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 3]

        • Confirmatory identification of gonococcal isolates from clinical specimens
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (0)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Confirmatory identification of gonococcal isolates from other laboratories
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (0.75)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing for gonococcal isolates
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (0.75)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)

        Which type of laboratory provides confirmatory identification of gonococcal isolates for family planning and/or STD clinics in your state? [Total possible points: 1]

        • Public Health Laboratories
        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
        3. I don’t know (0)
      • Clinical Laboratories
        1. Yes (0.5)
        2. No (0)
        3. I don’t know (0)
      • National Reference Laboratories
        1. Yes (0.5)
        2. No (0)
        3. I don’t know (0)

        Which type of laboratory provides antibiotic susceptibility testing results for gonococcal isolates for family planning and/or STD clinics in your state? [Total possible points: 1]

        • Public Health Laboratories
        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
        3. I don’t know (0)
      • Clinical Laboratories
        1. Yes (0.5)
        2. No (0)
        3. I don’t know (0)
      • National Reference Laboratories
        1. Yes (0.5)
        2. No (0)
        3. I don’t know (0)

        When is your laboratory available to process and culture specimens for tuberculosis? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. Five (Monday – Friday) (0.5)
        2. Six (Monday – Saturday) (0.75)
        3. Seven (Monday – Sunday) (1)

        Does your laboratory perform fluorochrome acid-fast smears on respiratory specimens submitted for mycobacterial testing? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes:] Are the results of the acid-fast smears reported to the health care provider within 24 hours from the receipt of specimen in the laboratory? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Always (1)
        2. Most of the time (≥50 percent of the time) (0.67)
        3. Some of the time (<50 percent of the time) (0.33)
        4. Never (0)

        Is the culture identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex reported to the submitter within 21 days of specimen receipt in the laboratory? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Always (1)
        2. Most of the time (≥50 percent of the time) (0.67)
        3. Some of the time (<50 percent of the time) (0.33)
        4. Never (0)

        Which type of media is used for primary inoculation of respiratory cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. Broth only (1)
        2. Solid only (0)

        What does your laboratory use to provide identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. HPLC (High Pressure Liquid Chromatography) (1)
        2. NAAT (Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing) [e.g., Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test (MTD), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)] (1)
        3. Biochemicals (1)
        4. Non-amplified probe (e.g., AccuProbe) (1)
        5. Other (Please specify): (1)
        6. None of the above (0)

        Does your laboratory provide or assure testing for the following? [Total possible points: 1]

        • Streptomycin
        1. Provide testing (0.2)
        2. Assure testing (0.2)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Isoniazid
        1. Provide testing (0.2)
        2. Assure testing (0.2)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Rifampin
        1. Provide testing (0.2)
        2. Assure testing (0.2)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Ethambutol
        1. Provide testing (0.2)
        2. Assure testing (0.2)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Pyrazinamide
        1. Provide testing (0.2)
        2. Assure testing (0.2)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)

        Is primary drug susceptibility testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis reported back to the submitter within 30 days of specimen receipt in the laboratory? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Always (1)
        2. Most of the time (≥50 percent of the time) (0.67)
        3. Some of the time (<50 percent of the time) (0.33)
        4. Never (0)

        Does your laboratory regularly provide positive test results of tuberculosis testing to your state Tuberculosis Control Program within 48 hours? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory provide or assure the following for influenza? [Total possible points: 2]

        • Viral Isolation for Influenza
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide or assure (0)
      • Viral Subtyping for Influenza
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide or assure (0)

        What method(s) are used to identify viral isolates for influenza? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. DFA (Direct Fluorescent Antibody) (1)
        2. CPE (Cytopathic Effect) and Hemadsorption (1)
        3. PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) (1)
        4. Other (Please specify:) (1)
        5. None of the above (1)

        What method(s) are used to perform subtyping of influenza isolates? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) (1)
        2. Hemagglutinin (HA) and Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) (1)
        3. IFA (Indirect Fluorescent Antibody) (1)
        4. Other (Please specify:) (1)
        5. None of the above (1)

        For which of the following isolates does your laboratory perform Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) typing? [Check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. Escherichia coli O157:H7 (0.25)
        2. Salmonella serotypes (0.25)
        3. Listeria monocytogenes (0.25)
        4. Shigella (0.25)

        Does your laboratory provide or assure the following laboratory tests? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        • Arbovirus serology
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Hepatitis C serology
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Legionella serology
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Measles serology
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Varicella serology
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Mumps serology
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • N. meningitidis serotyping
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Shigella serotyping
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Salmonella serotyping
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • B. pertussis detection
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • Plasmodium identification
        1. Provide testing (0.09)
        2. Assure testing (0.09)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)

        Does your laboratory provide or assure testing for the following newborn conditions? [Check all that apply. Total Possible Points: 1]

        Core Panel: OA

        • IVA Isovaleric acidemia (Isovaleryl-CoA dehydrogenase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • GA-1 Glutaric acidemia type 1
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • HMG 3-Hydroxy, 3-methylglutaric aciduria (3-Hydroxy 3-methlglutaryl-CoA lyase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • MCD Multiple carboxylase (Holocarboxylase synthetase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • MUT Methymalonic acidemia (methylmalonyl-CoA mutase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • 3-MCC 3-Methylcrotonyl-CoA carboxylase
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • CBL A,B Methylmalonic acidemia (Vitamin B12 Disorders)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • PROP Propionic acidemia (Propionyl-CoA carboxylase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • BKT Beta ketothiolase (mitochondrial acetoacetyl-CoA thiolase; short-chain ketoacyl thiolase; T2)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)

        Core Panel: FAO

        • MCAD Medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • VLCAD Very long-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • LCHAD Long-chain L-3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • TFP Trifunctional protein deficiency
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • CUD Carnitine uptake defect (Carnitine transport defect)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)

        Core Panel: AA

        • PKU Phenylketonuria/hyperphenylalaninemia
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • MSUD Maple syrup urine disease (branched-chain ketoacid dehydrogenase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • HCY Homocystinuria (cystathionine beta synthase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • CIT I Citrullinemia type I (Argininosuccinate synthetase)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • ASA Argininosuccinate academia
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • TYR-1 Tryosinemia Type 1
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)

        Core Panel: Hb Pathies

        • HB S/S Sickle cell disease
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • HB S/A S-Βeta thalassemia 1
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • HB S/C Sickle – C disease
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)

        Core Panel: Others

        • CH Congenital hypothyroidism
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • BIO Biotinidase
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • CAH Congenital adrenal hyperplasia
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • GALT Transferase deficient galactosemia (Classical)
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • HEAR Hearing screening
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      • CF Cystic Fibrosis
        1. Provide testing (0.034)
        2. Assure testing (0.034)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the original baseline was revised from 88 percent to 90 percent to correct a calculation error. The target was adjusted from 97.0 percent to 99 percent to reflect the revised baseline using the original target-setting method.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.2 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services that incorporate integrated data management

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      55 (2008)
      Target: 
      60
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for integrated data management

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your laboratory have a single or multiple Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) that covers all functional areas of the laboratory (e.g., clinical, environmental, newborn screening, etc.)? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes, a single LIMS (1)
        2. Yes, multiple LIMS that are integrated (1)
        3. Yes, multiple LIMS that are not integrated (1)
        4. No (0)

        [If yes to LIMS:] Does your LIMS have the capability to electronically receive and report information (e.g., PHL to physician, Hospital Lab to PHL, PHL to Epidemiology)? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes; bidirectional capability (1)
        2. Receive only (0.5)
        3. Report only (0.5)
        4. No electronic messaging capability (0.5)

        [If yes to LIMS:] Does your LIMS incorporate national data standards? For example HL7, LOINC, SNOMED, ESAR (environmental data registry standards). [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes to LIMS:] Does your laboratory have IT professionals who support your LIMS? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes:] Please select what types of IT professionals your laboratory has on staff. [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. On-staff (laboratory employees) (1)
        2. Contract employees (.75)
        3. Other agency staff (not laboratory employees) (0)

        Did your laboratory purchase or upgrade a LIMS within the past two fiscal years? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If No:] Does your laboratory have a budget in place and a plan to purchase or upgrade a LIMS for your laboratory within the next two fiscal years? [Total possible points: 0.75]

        1. Yes (0.75)
        2. No (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2013, the target was revised from 61% to 60% using the unbiased "round half to even" rounding rule.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.3 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services that support reference and specialized testing

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      78 (2008)
      Target: 
      86
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for reference and specialized testing

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your laboratory provide or assure the following categories? [Total possible points: 13]

        • Antimicrobial susceptibility testing confirmation for vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Botulinum toxin – mouse toxicity assay
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Brucella serology
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Hantavirus serology
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Identification of unusual bacterial isolates
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Identification of fungal isolates
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Legionella (culture or PCR)
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Lyme serology
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Norovirus PCR
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Rabies
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Toxicology (including drug, alcohol, and poison)
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • West Nile virus-human
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • West Nile virus-mosquito
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the target was revised from 1 to 0 decimal places to match the number of decimal places in the measure.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.4 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of environmental health and protection

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      55 (2008)
      Target: 
      60
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for environmental health and protection

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your laboratory provide or assure the following? [Total possible points: 6]

        • Air testing (e.g., particulates, radon, or toxic compounds)
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Environmental samples (e.g., dust, soil, paint chips) for hazardous substances
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Radiation monitoring (environmental)
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Drinking water testing
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Recreational water testing
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • HAZMAT clean-up/site remediation analysis
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)

        Does your laboratory provide or assure testing for the following analytes in clinical samples? [Total possible points: 5]

        • Lead
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Pesticides (including organophosphates)
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Trace metals
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Heavy metals
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Organic chemicals (including volatile organic compounds)
        1. Provide testing (1)
        2. Assure testing (1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2013, the target was revised from 61 to 60 percent using the unbiased "round half to even" rounding rule.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.5 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of food safety

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      27 (2008)
      Target: 
      30
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for food safety

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your state have laws or mandates for the licensure, certification or accreditation of laboratories? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes:] Does the responsibility for licensing, certifying and/or accrediting laboratories reside with the state public health laboratory? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (please state which agency within your state is responsible:) (0)

        Which types of laboratories does your state license, certify and/or accredit? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        • Clinical—Under federal (CMS) regulations
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Clinical—Under state regulations
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Milk/dairy
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Environmental (NELAC)
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Environmental (NonNELAC)
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Other (Specify)
        1. License (0)
        2. Certify (0)
        3. Accredit (0)

        Which of the following provide certification or accreditation of your state public health laboratory? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. College of American Pathologists (CAP) (0.08)
        2. National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) (0.08)
        3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (0.08)
        4. Food and Drug Administration (0.08)
        5. American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) (0.08)
        6. Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) (0.08)
        7. Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT) (0.08)
        8. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) (0.08)
        9. American Association for laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) (0.08)
        10. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (0.08)
        11. International Standards Organization (ISO) (0.08)
        12. Other (Please specify:) (0.08)
        13. None of the above (0)

        Is your state public health laboratory registered by CDC under the Select Agent Rule? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
        3. Application pending (1)

        Does your state public health laboratory have a USDA/APHIS permit for the importation and transportation of controlled materials, and organisms and vectors? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
        3. Application pending (1)

        Has your laboratory sponsored quality assurance forums, seminars or workshops for laboratory staff in your state or region within the last 2 years? [Total possible points: 1[

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Has your laboratory administered any proficiency testing, split samples or round robin exercises for laboratory staff in your state within the last 2 years? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the original baseline was revised from 31 percent to 27 percent to correct a calculation error. The target was adjusted from 34.0 percent to 30 percent to reflect the revised baseline using the original target-setting method.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.6 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services that advance laboratory improvement and regulation

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      43 (2008)
      Target: 
      47
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for laboratory improvement and regulation

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your state have laws or mandates for the licensure, certification or accreditation of laboratories? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes:] Does the responsibility for licensing, certifying and/or accrediting laboratories reside with the state public health laboratory? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (please state which agency within your state is responsible:) (0)

        Which types of laboratories does your state license, certify and/or accredit? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        • Clinical—Under federal (CMS) regulations
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Clinical—Under state regulations
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Forensic—e.g., Alcohol/drug testing
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Milk/dairy
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Environmental (NELAC)
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Environmental (NonNELAC)
        1. License (0.16)
        2. Certify (0.16)
        3. Accredit (0.16)
      • Other (Specify)
        1. License (0)
        2. Certify (0)
        3. Accredit (0)

        Which of the following provide certification or accreditation of your state public health laboratory? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. College of American Pathologists (CAP) (0.08)
        2. National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) (0.08)
        3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (0.08)
        4. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (0.08)
        5. American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) (0.08)
        6. Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) (0.08)
        7. Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT) (0.08)
        8. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) (0.08)
        9. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (0.08)
        10. American Association for laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) (0.08)
        11. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (0.08)
        12. International Standards Organization (ISO) (0.08)
        13. Other (Please specify:) (0.08)
        14. None of the above (0)

        Is your state public health laboratory registered by CDC under the Select Agent Rule? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
        3. Application pending (1)

        Does your state public health laboratory have a USDA/APHIS permit for the importation and transportation of controlled materials, and organisms and vectors? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
        3. Application pending (1)

        Has your laboratory sponsored quality assurance forums, seminars or workshops for laboratory staff in your state or region within the last 2 years? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Has your laboratory administered any proficiency testing, split samples or round robin exercises for laboratory staff in your state within the last 2 years? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the original baseline was revised from 41 percent to 43 percent to correct a calculation error. The target was adjusted from 45.0 percent to 47 percent to reflect the revised baseline using the original target-setting method.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.7 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services that support policy development

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      67 (2008)
      Target: 
      74
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for policy development

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your laboratory regularly provide data for developing health policy at the following levels? For example, providing data on blood lead surveillance that results in specific testing requirements. [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. Locally (City or County) (0.33)
        2. For your state (0.33)
        3. Federal (0.33)
        4. None of the above (0)

        Does your laboratory director or designee regularly participate in establishing health policy for the state? For example, participating in the development or review of public health guidelines. [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory director or designee regularly participate in developing state specific standards for health related laboratories? For example, participating in the development and oversight of regulations that govern laboratory operations. [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Is the laboratory director part of the state health official’s management team? For example, does the laboratory director regularly meet with the state health director/commissioner? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does the laboratory director or designee contribute to the promulgation of state rule making? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Is the laboratory director or designee responsible for developing and justifying the laboratory budget? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the target was revised from 1 to 0 decimal places to match the number of decimal places in the measure.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.8 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of emergency response

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      69 (2008)
      Target: 
      76
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for emergency response

      Denominator: 

      Number of states participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        From July 2006 to July 2008, did your laboratory sponsor any LRN sentinel (clinical laboratory) training in your state? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory have ready access to current contact information as well as the capabilities of all sentinel clinical laboratories in your state? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Do you provide or assure performance measurement in place to assess the competency of sentinel laboratories to rule out BT agents (using mock/surrogate agents)? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Have you utilized your rapid method (Health Alert Network (HAN), blast e-mail or fax) to send messages to your LRN sentinel laboratories and other partners? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes, for outbreaks (0.25)
        2. Yes, or routine updates (0.25)
        3. Yes, for training events, such as providing training calendar (0.25)
        4. Other (Please specify): (0.25)
        5. No (0)

        Do you conduct drills or exercises with your sentinel clinical laboratories, first responders and other state agencies to test your state lab’s 24/7 emergency response system? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory have an emergency response advisory committee or equivalent group in place? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory have a 24/7/365 contact system in place? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your state public health laboratory currently have an intra-state courier system (non-mail) that is available 24 hours/day for specimen pick-up and delivery? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory have a continuity of operations plan (COOP)? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your SPHL have the capability to screen for radionuclides in samples? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory provide or assure testing for the following sample types in the event of suspected chemical terrorism? [Total possible points: 1]

        Clinical Specimens

        • Blood
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Fecal
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Nasal
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Serum
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Urine
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure (0)

        Environmental Samples

        • Air
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Food
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Soil
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Surfaces
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Water
        1. Provide testing (0.1)
        2. Assure testing (0.1)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)
      • Other (Please specify)
        1. Provide testing (0)
        2. Assure testing (0)
        3. Neither provide nor assure testing (0)

        Please indicate the number of preparedness exercises that your SPHL conducted during the past two fiscal years. [In each category, points are awarded for completing at least 1 exercise. Total possible points: 2]

        • Bioterrorism
        1. Table-top exercises (0.25)
        2. Drills (0.25)
        3. Functional Exercise (0.5)
        4. Full-Scale Exercise (0.5)
      • Chemical Terrorism
        1. Table-top exercises (0.25)
        2. Drills (0.25)
        3. Functional Exercise (0.5)
        4. Full-Scale Exercise (0.5)
      • Radiological Terrorism
        1. Table-top exercises (0.25)
        2. Drills (0.25)
        3. Functional Exercise (0.5)
        4. Full-Scale Exercise (0.5)
      • Pandemic flu preparedness
        1. Table-top exercises (0.25)
        2. Drills (0.25)
        3. Functional Exercise (0.5)
        4. Full-Scale Exercise (0.5)
      • Other
        1. Table-top exercises (0)
        2. Drills (0)
        3. Functional Exercise (0)
        4. Full-Scale Exercise (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the original baseline was revised from 61 percent to 69 percent to correct a calculation error. The target was adjusted from 67.0 percent to 76 percent to reflect the revised baseline using the original target-setting method.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.9 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of public health-related research

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      29 (2008)
      Target: 
      32
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of States participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for Public Health Related Research

      Denominator: 

      Number of States participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Which of the following research activities have taken place in your laboratory within the past two calendar years? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 3]

        1. SPHL received grants and/or contracts for applied research related activities from organizations/groups other than CDC (1)
        2. SPHL conducted applied research focused on an evaluation of testing methodologies that support rapid disease detection or surveillance (1)
        3. SPHL conducted applied research resulting in the publication of peer-reviewed article(s) (1)

        Did your laboratory collaborate with any of the following organizations to conduct scientific research projects within the past two calendar years? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 6]

        1. Public/Private Universities (1)
        2. Private research organizations (1)
        3. State agencies (1)
        4. Local agencies (1)
        5. Federal agencies (1)
        6. Other, Please specify (1)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.10 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services that support training and education

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      49 (2008)
      Target: 
      54
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of States participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for training and education

      Denominator: 

      Number of States participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Which of the following is provided by the state as the employer in support of state public health laboratory staff? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. In-house training sessions/workshops (0.25)
        2. Leave-time offered for scientific meetings, seminars and workshops outside of the worksite (0.25)
        3. Travel costs offered for scientific meetings, seminars and workshops outside of the worksite (0.25)
        4. Leadership training for supervisors and managers (0.25)
        5. Other training (Please specify.) (0.25)
        6. None of the above (0)

        Has your laboratory hosted a Fellow (e.g., Infectious Disease, Environmental or International) during the past two years? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory have a designated State Laboratory Training Coordinator? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes to State Training Coordinator:] What percentage of time does the State Laboratory Training Coordinator spend on performing training activities? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. 0 – 25 percent (0.25)
        2. 26 – 50 percent (0.5)
        3. 51 – 75 percent (0.75)
        4. 76 – 100 percent (1)

        [If yes to State Training Coordinator:] Has your laboratory co-sponsored training activities with the NLTN during the past two years? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Is continuing education for your professional laboratory staff required by the following? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. State law/regulation (1)
        2. Laboratory policy (1)
        3. Other (Please specify) (1)
        4. No requirement (0)

        Does your laboratory provide continuing education training to the staff of other laboratories (public or private) in your state? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory have dedicated training facilities? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes to dedicated training facilities:] Does this include classroom facilities? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        [If yes to dedicated training facilities:] Does this include “wet lab” facilities? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the original baseline was revised from 47 percent to 49 percent to correct a calculation error. The target was adjusted from 52 percent to 54 percent to reflect the revised baseline using the original target-setting method.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
    • PHI-11.11 Increase the proportion of tribal and state public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services that foster partnerships and communication

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      61 (2008)
      Target: 
      67
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of States participating in the survey that meet the defined standards/criteria for Partnerships and Education

      Denominator: 

      Number of States participating in the survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Has the state public health laboratory director or designee given any presentations regarding the state public health laboratory functions/services within your state within the past two years? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does the laboratory director or designee meet/teleconference on a regular basis with other public health laboratory directors/representatives within your state or region?

        [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory employ an individual whose sole responsibility is to promote partnerships between public laboratories and private laboratories in your state? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory have a current directory of testing services available to your clients? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory director or designee send regular communications (e.g., newsletters, bulletins, emails) to clinical or hospital laboratories and other health-care organizations in your state? [Total possible points: 1]

        1. Yes (1)
        2. No (0)

        Does your laboratory director or designee regularly meet/teleconference with the following? [Please check all that apply. Total possible points: 1]

        1. Local health departments (0.08)
        2. State epidemiologist (0.08)
        3. State health official, i.e., commissioner/director (0.08)
        4. State HIV/STD program staff (0.08)
        5. Maternal and child health program staff (0.08)
        6. Newborn screening program (0.08)
        7. Agriculture and veterinary officers (0.08)
        8. Public information officer (0.08)
        9. Tuberculosis program staff (0.08)
        10. State terrorism preparedness lead (0.08)
        11. Other in-state government laboratories (0.08)
        12. Other public health laboratories of regional or neighboring states (0.08)
        13. None of the above (0)
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS) is a biennial evaluation of 50 state public health laboratories and the District of Columbia public health laboratory in the provision of comprehensive laboratory services. (For this objective, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia.) Survey questions were developed by a workgroup of the Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). The Committee consists of current and retired public health laboratory directors, members of academia, and other laboratory practitioners.

        In the list of questions used to obtain the baseline data, the point values shown after each response are used to score the questions. A laboratory is determined to provide or assure comprehensive laboratory services in support of the essential public health service if it scores at least 70% of the possible points. The data shown are the percent of state public health laboratories that score at least 70% of the possible points.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      At this time, data for Tribal agencies are not collected. However, if data should become available, the information will be included.
      Trend Issues: 
      Estimates from 2008 are based on DC and 48 states excluding ID and KS. 2010 estimates are based on 49 states excluding FL. DC did not participate in the 2010 survey. Estimates for 2012 are are based on 42 states and DC excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the objective statement was revised so that it could "stand-alone" without the PHI-11 objective header. In 2014, the target was revised from 1 to 0 decimal places to match the number of decimal places in the measure.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
  • PHI-12 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) which perform at a high level of quality in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services

    • PHI-12.1 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in the monitoring of health status to identify and solve community health problems

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      35 (2012)
      Target: 
      38
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in the monitoring of health status to identify and solve community health problems

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: Level of State Public Health Laboratory System partner participation.

        Optimal condition: System partners regularly participate in health initiatives and collaborate to identify health events.

        Question: Indicate the level of frequency that applies to the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System partners participate in health initiatives and collaborate in the identification of health events and in surveillance activities.”?

        1. Almost always
        2. To a considerable degree
        3. Occasionally
        4. Seldom

        Measurement: Existence and functionality of a system-wide laboratory information management system which supports data storage, analysis, reporting and exchange of information among laboratory system partners.

        Optimal condition: A well-defined laboratory-based surveillance system is in place.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System has a well-defined, secure, integrated and comprehensive data/information system which is used by all partners within the system.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes two questions on the monitoring of health status to identify and solve community health problems. These questions solicit Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the monitoring of health status to identify and solve community health problems.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.2 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in support of diagnosing and investigating health problems and health hazards in the community

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      58 (2012)
      Target: 
      64
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in the diagnosing and investigating of health problems and health hazards in the community

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: Capability and capacity of the state public health laboratory system to provide the services needed to diagnose health problems and to contribute to the investigation of health problems and health hazards.

        Optimal condition: Partners within your state are engaged in assuring that the capability and capacity for laboratory services are available, that there is a system in place to evaluate process improvement and that the laboratory system fulfills a consultative function.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System has the capability and capacity to provide testing and respond to health problems and hazards in an effective and high quality manner.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree

        Measurement: Existence and functionality of a public health emergency response plan that clearly defines roles of appropriate system partners.

        Optimal condition: Partners within your state are actively participating in the development of emergency response plans.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System has a public health emergency plan that clearly defines roles for system partners in public health emergency response activities, and that plan is evaluated for effectiveness.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree

        Measurement: Level of the capacity, authority and readiness of the State Public Health Laboratory System to respond to a public health emergency has been exercised and demonstrated to be effective.

        Optimal condition: Partners within your state have the capacity and are authorized to respond to public health emergencies. System partners are engaged in evaluating their readiness to respond to public health emergencies.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "My State Public Health Laboratory System has the capacity and readiness to assure a rapid and effective response to public health emergencies, including disease outbreaks.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes three questions on the diagnosing and investigating of health problems and health hazards in the community. These questions solicit Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the diagnosing and investigating of health problems and health hazards in the community.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2016, the target was revised from 66 percent to 64 percent due to a calculation error. In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.3 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality with respect to informing, educating, and empowering people about health issues

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      28 (2012)
      Target: 
      31
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in informing, educating, and empowering people about health issues

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: The efficacy of outreach and communication is identified and targeted for both incoming and outgoing laboratory information for health and non-health partners in the community to improve health education initiatives with community and system partners.

        Optimal condition: Partners within your state are actively engaged in creating and distributing accurate and relevant information about laboratory issues to health and non-health partners, and soliciting feedback on a regular basis.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The partners in my State Public Health Laboratory System provide information about laboratory-related health issues that are communicated to providers and the general public in a timely fashion.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes one question on the informing, educating, and empowering of people about health issues. This question solicits Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the informing, educating, and empowering of people about health issues.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.4 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in mobilizing community partnerships and action to identify and solve health problems

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      14 (2012)
      Target: 
      15
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in mobilizing community partnerships and action to identify and solve health problems.

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: The existence of a group of key system partners that collaborate and communicate on a regular basis to address health issues dependent on laboratory services.

        Optimal condition: A collaborative group made up of key State Public Health Laboratory System partners exists. This group meets regularly to develop a plan for information sharing and collaboration to discuss issues that affect the laboratory response to solving health problems in a collaborative way with the sharing of resources where possible.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "A collaborative group of laboratory system partners exists in my state that meets regularly to discuss and solve health problems that are dependent on laboratory services.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes one question on the mobilization of community partnerships and action to identify and solve health problems. This question solicits Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the mobilization of community partnerships and action to identify and solve health problems.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.5 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in developing policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      26 (2012)
      Target: 
      29
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in developing policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts.

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: The degree to which laboratory system partners provide data in support of health policy development.

        Optimal condition: The laboratory community has input into the development of evidenced-based public health policy.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System partners provide data that is used to assure the development of health policy.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) has one question on the development of policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts. This question solicits Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the development of policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.6 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in the enforcement of laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      60 (2012)
      Target: 
      66
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in enforcing laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety.

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Level of participation of State Public Health Laboratory System partners in review and revision of laws and regulations that pertain to laboratory practice.

        Optimal condition: Partners within your state are engaged in assuring that appropriate review of applicable laws and regulations is completed, and there is a system in place to evaluate the effectiveness of existing regulations.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System members contribute to the review and revision of health and safety related laws and regulations that pertain to laboratory practice.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree

        Measurement: Level of participation with applicable laboratory accreditation, certification and compliance programs by State Public Health Laboratory System members.

        Optimal condition: All laboratory partners within your state participate in laboratory accreditation, certification and compliance programs that include evaluation and oversight of laboratory testing.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Laboratories in my State Public Health Laboratory System participate in applicable laboratory accreditation, certification and compliance programs.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes two questions on the enforcement of laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety. These questions solicit Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the enforcement of laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.7 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in linking people to needed personal health services and assure the provision of health care when otherwise unavailable

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      35 (2012)
      Target: 
      38
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in linking people to needed personal health services and assure the provision of health care when otherwise unavailable.

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: Varied laboratory services are identified within the state system and access to those laboratory services is made available to communities in need.

        Optimal condition: Partners within your state are routinely engaged in assuring laboratory service needs and resources and collaborate to fill gaps and plan for future capacity needs.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System partners collaborate to assure that essential laboratory services are available to all communities in the state.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes one question on the linking of people to needed personal health services and assure the provision of health care when otherwise unavailable. This question solicits Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the linking of people to needed personal health services and assure the provision of health care when otherwise unavailable.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.8 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in assuring a competent public and personal health care workforce

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      21 (2012)
      Target: 
      23
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in assuring a competent public and personal health care workforce

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: Evidence of a competent and qualified laboratory workforce exists.

        Optimal condition: System partners are in agreement to a standard competency level of the laboratory workforce with the availability of a standard tool to assess the competency.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System has the means to assure that the laboratory workforce is competent.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree

        Measurement: The system is working collaboratively to assure that the workforce is adequate and can respond to all demands of laboratory service.

        Optimal condition: The laboratory system is an active participant in laboratory personnel workforce activities within the state. In addition, the laboratory system promotes a positive work environment and resource allocation to support adequate workforce numbers.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System takes an active role with key workforce partners to assure an adequate supply of laboratorians.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes two questions on assuring a competent public and personal health care workforce. These questions solicit Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in assuring a competent public and personal health care workforce.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.9 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in evaluating effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      5 (2012)
      Target: 
      6
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in evaluating effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: The laboratory system participates in the evaluation of the effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of laboratory services needed in the community.

        Optimal condition: Members of the State Public Health Laboratory System have a mechanism in place to measure and evaluate services and operations in the system to assure that the needs of the community continue to be met, the quality of services provided are high, and changes are made when quality and access objectives are not met.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The partners and stakeholders within my state routinely collaborate to evaluate the effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of laboratory services within the system.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes one question on the evaluation of effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services. This question solicits Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the evaluation of effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
    • PHI-12.10 Increase the proportion of public health laboratory systems (including State, Tribal, and local) that perform at a high level of quality in supporting research into new insights and innovative solutions to health problems

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      5 (2012)
      Target: 
      6
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that perform at a high level of quality in supporting research into new insights and innovative solutions to health problems

      Denominator: 

      Number of public health laboratory systems that respond to the Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Measurement: State Public Health Laboratory System partners collaborate in identifying laboratory-related health problems that can be evaluated through research.

        Optimal condition: Research activities are a routine part of the system’s operations. System partners routinely engage the academic community to identify appropriate research projects, conduct the necessary studies, and disseminate the findings.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “My State Public Health Laboratory System regularly uses collaborative research approaches to identify, evaluate and address health problems.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree

        Measurement: Existence of an established process to identify research resources.

        Optimal condition: There is a plan in place to identify resources to support research.

        Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “A process exists within my State Public Health Laboratory System that facilitates linkages with research funding sources.”?

        1. Strongly agree
        2. Agree
        3. Disagree
        4. Strongly disagree
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Methodology Notes: 

        The Public Health Laboratory Systems Survey (PHLSS) includes two questions on the supporting of research into new insights and innovative solutions to health problems. These questions solicit Likert scale responses, such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Responses of “Strongly Agree” are assigned a score of 2, “Agree” 1, and “Disagree/Strongly Disagree” 0. Scores are then averaged. If the average score is 1.5 or higher, then the laboratory system is deemed to be performing at a high level of quality in the supporting of research into new insights and innovative solutions to health problems.

        The PHLSS was distributed via an Internet survey to all state (and D.C.) public health laboratory directors. The PHLSS has 10 sections that correspond to the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Each section has one to three questions about the relevant Essential Service that solicit Likert scale responses. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) had previously developed a document called the “Key Elements/Capacities for Highly Functioning State Public Health Laboratory Systems” that was the guide in the creation of the PHLSS. The document identifies the capacities that should be in place in a State Public Health Laboratory System in order for that system to be functioning at a high level in support of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. A taskforce composed of APHL members and staff developed questions that asked for the respondent’s level of agreement as it pertained to statements of a State Public Health Laboratory System’s performance based on the “Key Elements” document.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      2012 data were based on DC and 42 states excluding AK, DE, MD, ND, NJ, SC, UT, and WA.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, objective PHI-12 became measurable. Ten new objectives (PHI-12.1 through 12.10) were created, each addressing one of the 10 Essential Public Health Services. Although the objective language includes State, Tribal, and local public health laboratories, the current measure includes only State laboratories.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
      2. National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Public Health System and the 10 Essential Public Health Services [online]. 2013.
  • PHI-13 Increase the proportion of Tribal, State, and local public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive epidemiology services to support essential public health services

    • PHI-13.1 Increase the proportion of State Epidemiologists with formal training in epidemiology in State public health agencies

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Epidemiology Capacity Assessment
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      87 (2009)
      Target: 
      100
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Total coverage
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      Comprehensive epidemiology services are fundamental to public health infrastructure. The target is based on an increased number of Public Health Training Centers, more activity on the part of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the anticipated implementation of State and local health department accreditation.
      Numerator: 

      Number of State Epidemiologists that have received formal training in epidemiology

      Denominator: 

      Number of State Epidemiologists

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2009 Epidemiology Capacity Assessment:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        What is the highest level of epidemiology training you have received?

        1. PhD, DrPh, other doctoral degree in Epidemiology
        2. Professional background (e.g., MD, DO, DVM, DDS, etc) with a dual degrees in Epidemiology
        3. MPH, MSPH, other master degree in Epidemiology
        4. BA, BS, other bachelor degree in Epidemiology
        5. Completed formal training program in Epidemiology (e.g., EIS)
        6. Completed some coursework in Epidemiology
        7. Received on the job training in Epidemiology
        8. No formal training in Epidemiology (i.e., epidemiologist does not fit into any of the above categories)
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        Formal training includes either academic coursework or other training in epidemiology (e.g., the EIS program). On the job training is not considered formal training for this indicator.

      Caveats and Limitations: 
      In 2009, 1,544 individual epidemiologists responded to this survey question. They represented 70% of the state epidemiologists working at the state health departments. In 2013, 1,586 individual epidemiologists responded to this survey question. They represented 58% of the state epidemiologists working at the state health departments.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, the word "Epidemiologist" in the objective block was capitalized to clarify that "State Epidemiologist" refers to directors of epidemiology programs in state health departments.
    • PHI-13.2 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of Tribal public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive epidemiology services to support essential public health services

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      No
      Measure: 
      *** Missing ***
      Numerator: 

      *** Missing ***

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Methodology Notes: 

        Tribal agencies encompass American Indian/Alaska Native health departments, regional tribal organizations, health boards, and Tribal Epidemiology Centers (Epi Centers).

    • PHI-13.3 Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive epidemiology services to support essential public health services

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Epidemiology Capacity Assessment
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      No
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      55 (2009)
      Target: 
      100
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Total coverage
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      Comprehensive epidemiology services are fundamental to public health infrastructure. The target is based on an increased number of Public Health Training Centers, more activity on the part of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the anticipated implementation of State and local health department accreditation.
      Numerator: 

      Number of state health departments who indicated substantial to full epidemiologic capacity to both "Monitoring health status to identify and solve community health problems" and "Diagnosing and investigating health problems and health hazards in the community"

      Denominator: 

      Number of states

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2009 Epidemiology Capacity Assessment:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Does your State Health Department have adequate epidemiologic capacity to provide the following essential public health services?

        • Monitoring health status to identify and solve community health problems
          • Not at all
          • Minimal
          • Partial
          • Substantial
          • Almost Fully
          • Full
        • Diagnosing and investigating health problems and health hazards in the community
          • Not at all
          • Minimal
          • Partial
          • Substantial
          • Almost Fully
          • Full
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Biennial
      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-14c in that the numerator does not include evaluating effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population based health services or researching new insights and innovative solutions to health problems in its definition of essential public health services.
    • PHI-13.4 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that provide or assure comprehensive epidemiology services to support essential public health services

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Profile of Local Health Departments
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      35 (2008)
      Target: 
      100
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Total coverage
      Target-Setting Method Justification: 
      Comprehensive epidemiology services are fundamental to public health infrastructure. The target is based on an increased number of Public Health Training Centers, more activity on the part of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the anticipated implementation of State and local health department accreditation.
      Numerator: 

      Number of local health departments reporting that epidemiology and surveillance services for communicable/infectious diseases, chronic diseases and environmental health are provided at least in part by the local health department

      Denominator: 

      Number of local health departments

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2008 National Profile of Local Health Departments:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        The 2008 National Profile of Local Health Departments asked the respondents to indicate which organization provided epidemiology and surveillance services in six categories. The categories considered essential to be compliant with this objective were:

        1. Environmental health
        2. Communicable/infectious disease
        3. Chronic disease

        The survey allowed for multiple possible responses from the following options:

        1. Performed by LHD directly
        2. Contracted out by LHD
        3. Done by state government agency
        4. Done by another local government agency
        5. Done by someone else
        6. Not available in jurisdiction
        7. Unknown
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Caveats and Limitations: 
      This measure does not assess the comprehensiveness of epidemiologic services provided by local health departments. Therefore, these data may not be comparable to measures of epidemiologic services provided by state health agencies.
      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-14d in that the data source, the National Profile of Local Health Departments, has revised the questions used to obtain the numerator.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2013, the baseline data were revised to only include data on local health departments (not include data on state agencies). The baseline was revised from 64% (2008) to 35.5% (2008). The target was not revised. "State agencies" were removed from the numerator description.
  • PHI-14 Increase the proportion of State and local public health jurisdictions that conduct a public health system assessment using national performance standards

    • PHI-14.1 Increase the proportion of State public health systems that conduct a public health system assessment using national performance standards

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Public Health Performance Standards Program
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      49 (2009)
      Target: 
      78
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Projection/trend analysis
      Numerator: 

      Number of state public health systems that have ever submitted State Public Health System Performance Assessment data to the National Public Health Performance Standards Program

      Denominator: 

      51 (50 States and D.C.)

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        The National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) is a collaborative effort to enhance the nation's public health systems. Seven national public health organizations have partnered to develop national performance standards for state and local public health systems. The NPHPSP helps agencies quantify how well they provide the 10 essential public health services.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-11a in that the numerator was revised from the "Number of State public health systems that use the National Public Health Performance Standards Program" to the "Number of state public health systems that have ever submitted State Public Health System Performance Assessment data to the National Public Health Performance Standards Program." In addition, the measure was revised from a count to a percent.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, the target was revised from 1 to 0 decimal places to match the number of decimal places in the measure.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. The State Public Health System Performance Assessment Instrument

    • PHI-14.2 Increase the proportion of local public health systems that conduct a public health system assessment using national performance standards

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Public Health Performance Standards Program
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      28 (2009)
      Target: 
      50
      Target-Setting Method: 
      Projection/trend analysis
      Numerator: 

      Number of local public health systems that have ever submitted Local Public Health System Performance Assessment data to the National Public Health Performance Standards Program

      Denominator: 

      Number of local public health systems

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        The National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) is a collaborative effort to enhance the nation's public health systems. Seven national public health organizations have partnered to develop national performance standards for state and local public health systems. The NPHPSP helps agencies quantify how well they provide the 10 essential public health services.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, the target was revised from 1 to 0 decimal places to match the number of decimal places in the measure.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) Assessment Instruments

    • PHI-14.3 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of local boards of health that conduct a public health system assessment using national performance standards

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      *** Missing ***
      Numerator: 

      Number of local boards of health that have ever submitted Local Public Health Governance Performance Assessment data to the National Public Health Performance Standards Program

      Denominator: 

      Number of local governing boards of health

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Methodology Notes: 

        The National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) is a collaborative effort to enhance the Nation's public health systems. Seven national public health organizations have partnered to develop national performance standards for State and local public health systems. The NPHPSP helps agencies quantify how well they provide the 10 essential public health services.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2015, this objective was archived.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. For more information regarding the National Public Health Performance Standards Program, go to:

      2. The State Public Health System Performance Assessment Instrument can be found at:

  • PHI-15 Increase the proportion of Tribal, State, and local public health agencies that have developed a health improvement plan and increase the proportion of local health jurisdictions that have a health improvement plan linked with their State plan

    • PHI-15.1 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of Tribal agencies that have developed a health improvement plan

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      *** Missing ***
      Numerator: 

      *** Missing ***

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Retained from HP2010 objective

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2015, the objective statement was revised from "Increase the proportion of Tribal agencies that have implemented a health improvement plan" to "Increase the proportion of Tribal agencies that have developed a health improvement plan."
    • PHI-15.2 Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that have developed a health improvement plan

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      ASTHO Profile of State Public Health
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      49 (2012)
      Target: 
      54
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of States that have developed a health improvement plan within the last 5 years

      Denominator: 

      50 States and the District of Columbia

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 State and Territorial Public Health Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Has your state/territorial public health agency developed or participated in developing a health improvement plan for your state/territory? By “health improvement plan” we mean a series of timely and meaningful action steps that define and direct the distribution of services, programs, and resources to improve your state/territory’s health, or definite strategic action steps to improve health status in the state/territory.

        1. Yes, within the last three years
        2. Yes, more than three but less than five years ago
        3. Yes, more than five years ago
        4. No, but plan to in the next year
        5. No
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        A critical aspect of public health infrastructure assessment is monitoring the status of health improvement plans at the State and local level. A health improvement plan is a long-term, systematic effort to address health problems on the basis of the results of a community needs assessment. This plan is used by health and other governmental education and human service agencies, in collaboration with community partners, to set priorities and coordinate and target resources.

        The ASTHO Profile Survey is the only comprehensive source of information about State public health agency activities, structure, and resources. ASTHO sends a link to the web-based survey to senior deputies at State health agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The approximately 120-question instrument covers the following topic areas: 1. Structure, governance, and priorities; 2. Workforce; 3. State health agency activities; 4. Planning and quality improvement; 5. Health information management; 6. Finance.

        Along with general instructions, senior deputies received recommendations on the most appropriate staff/departments to fill out each section of the survey. Surveys could be filled out by multiple personnel in multiple sittings. The Profile Survey response rate was 96 percent among the 50 states and DC in 2012. Extensive follow-up was conducted with the states throughout 2013 to verify responses. When response errors were identified, ASTHO’s Survey Research team worked with the state to correct these responses. In instances where the state did not respond to multiple follow-up attempts, the Survey Research team used their expertise to determine whether or not to retain the data.

        State and District of Columbia health agencies that responded "Yes, within the last three years" or "Yes, more than three but less than five years ago" to the survey question "Has your state/territorial public health agency developed or participated in developing a health improvement plan for your state/territory?" were counted in the numerator.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-12b in that the numerator was revised from "Number of States, including the District of Columbia, with a health improvement plan" to "Number of States that have developed a health improvement plan within the last 5 years."

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2015, this objective moved to measurable status. The objective statement was revised from "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that have implemented a health improvement plan" to "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that have developed a health improvement plan." The baseline is "49 percent of state public health agencies had developed a health improvement plan in 2012." The target is 54 percent (10 percent improvement target-setting method).
    • PHI-15.3 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that have developed a health improvement plan

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Profile of Local Health Departments
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      55 (2013)
      Target: 
      61
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of local agencies with a health improvement plan created within the last 5 years

      Denominator: 

      Number of local public health agencies

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments (LHD):

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Has your LHD participated in developing a health improvement plan for your community?

        1. Yes, within the last three years
        2. Yes, more than three but less than five years ago
        3. Yes, five or more years ago
        4. No, but plan to in the next year
        5. No
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        A critical aspect of public health infrastructure assessment is monitoring the status of health improvement plans at the State and local level. A health improvement plan is a long-term, systematic effort to address health problems on the basis of the results of a community needs assessment. This plan is used by health and other governmental education and human service agencies, in collaboration with community partners, to set priorities and coordinate and target resources.

        The National Profile of Local Health Departments study (Profile) is the most comprehensive source of information on the infrastructure and programs of local health departments in the U.S. All local health departments in the U.S. are surveyed about their organization, responsibilities, workforce, funding, and other topics. The Profile study has been periodically collecting data from local health departments (LHDs) since 1989 and recently completed its seventh wave in 2013.

        The Profile defines a local health department (LHD) as an administrative or service unit of local or state government concerned with health and carrying out some responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the state. The 2013 Profile survey was fielded through an email sent to the top agency executive of every eligible LHD. The email included a link to a web-based questionnaire, preloaded with information specific to the LHD. Paper questionnaires were available upon request for a subset of small LHDs. A core set of questions was sent to all LHDs.

        The Profile study defines community health improvement plan as a long-term, systematic effort to address health problems. This plan is used by health and other government education and human service agencies, in collaboration with community partners, to set priorities and coordinate and target resources.

        Local health agencies that responded "Yes, within the last three years" or "Yes, more than three but less than five years ago" to the survey question "Has your LHD participated in developing a health improvement plan for your community?" were counted in the numerator.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-12c in that the numerator was revised from "Number of local agencies with a health improvement plan" to "Number of local agencies with a health improvement plan created within the last 5 years."

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2015, this objective moved to measurable status. The objective statement was revised from "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that have implemented a health improvement plan" to "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that have developed a health improvement plan." The baseline is "55 percent of local public health agencies had developed a health improvement plan in 2013." The target is 61 percent (10 percent improvement target-setting method).
    • PHI-15.4 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that have health improvement plans linked to their State plan

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Profile of Local Health Departments
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      64 (2013)
      Target: 
      72
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of LHDs that linked their health improvement plan to the state health improvement plan

      Denominator: 

      Number of LHDs that developed a health improvement plan for the community within the past five years

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Adapted from HP2010 objective
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments (LHD):

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Has your LHD participated in developing a health improvement plan for your community?

        1. Yes, within the last three years
        2. Yes, more than three but less than five years ago
        3. Yes, five or more years ago
        4. No, but plan to in the next year
        5. No

        Is the community health improvement plan linked to the state health improvement plan?

        1. Yes
        2. No
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        A critical aspect of public health infrastructure assessment is monitoring the status of health improvement plans at the State and local level. A health improvement plan is a long-term, systematic effort to address health problems on the basis of the results of a community needs assessment. This plan is used by health and other governmental education and human service agencies, in collaboration with community partners, to set priorities and coordinate and target resources.

        The National Profile of Local Health Departments study (Profile) is the most comprehensive source of information on the infrastructure and programs of local health departments in the U.S. All local health departments in the U.S. are surveyed about their organization, responsibilities, workforce, funding, and other topics. The Profile study has been periodically collecting data from local health departments (LHDs) since 1989 and recently completed its seventh wave in 2013.

        The Profile defines a local health department (LHD) as an administrative or service unit of local or state government concerned with health and carrying out some responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the state. The 2013 Profile survey was fielded through an email sent to the top agency executive of every eligible LHD. The email included a link to a web-based questionnaire, preloaded with information specific to the LHD. Paper questionnaires were available upon request for a subset of small LHDs. A core set of questions was sent to all LHDs.

        The Profile study defines community health improvement plan as a long-term, systematic effort to address health problems. This plan is used by health and other government education and human service agencies, in collaboration with community partners, to set priorities and coordinate and target resources.

        Local health agencies that responded "Yes, within the last three years" or "Yes, more than three but less than five years ago" to the survey question "Has your LHD participated in developing a health improvement plan for your community?" and "Yes" to the question "Is the community health improvement plan linked to the state health improvement plan?" were counted in the numerator.

      Changes Between HP2010 and HP2020: 
      This objective differs from Healthy People 2010 objective 23-12c in that the denominator was revised from "Number of local health agencies" to "Number of local health agencies that have a health improvement plan that was developed within the last 5 years."

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2015, this objective moved to measurable status. The objective statement was revised from "Increase the proportion of local jurisdictions that have linked health improvement plans to their State plan" to "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that have health improvement plans linked to their State plan." The baseline is "65 percent of local public health agencies had a health improvement plan linked to their State plan in 2013." The target is 72 percent (10 percent improvement target-setting method).
  • PHI-16 Increase the proportion of Tribal, State, and local public health agencies that have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process

    • PHI-16.1 (Developmental) Increase the proportion of Tribal public health agencies that have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Numerator: 

      *** Missing ***

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      This objective was added as a new developmental objective in 2015.
    • PHI-16.2 Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      ASTHO Profile of State Public Health
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      27 (2012)
      Target: 
      30
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of State public health agencies that responded that the agency had a formal agency-wide quality improvement program implemented

      Denominator: 

      Number of State public health agencies that responded to this item in the ASTHO Profile survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2012 State and Territorial Public Health Survey:

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Which of the following statements best characterizes your state/territorial health agency’s current quality improvement activities?

        1. State/territorial health agency has implemented a formal quality improvement program agency-wide
        2. Formal quality improvement activities are being implemented in specific programmatic or functional areas of the state/territorial health agency, but not on an agency-wide basis
        3. State/territorial health agency’s quality improvement activities are informal or ad hoc in nature
        4. State/territorial health agency is not currently involved in quality improvement activities
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        “Quality improvement” refers to a formal, systematic approach (such as plan-do-check-act) applied to the processes underlying public health programs and services in order to achieve measurable improvements.

        The ASTHO Profile Survey is the only comprehensive source of information about State public health agency activities, structure, and resources. ASTHO sends a link to the web-based survey to senior deputies at State health agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The approximately 120-question instrument covers the following topic areas: 1. Structure, governance, and priorities; 2. Workforce; 3. State health agency activities; 4. Planning and quality improvement; 5. Health information management; 6. Finance.

        Along with general instructions, senior deputies received recommendations on the most appropriate staff/departments to fill out each section of the survey. Surveys could be filled out by multiple personnel in multiple sittings. The Profile Survey response rate was 96 percent among the 50 states and DC in 2012. Extensive follow-up was conducted with the states throughout 2013 to verify responses. When response errors were identified, ASTHO’s Survey Research team worked with the state to correct these responses. In instances where the state did not respond to multiple follow-up attempts, the Survey Research team used their expertise to determine whether or not to retain the data.

        State and District of Columbia health agencies that responded "State/territorial health agency has implemented a formal quality improvement program agency-wide" to the survey question "Which of the following statements best characterizes your state/territorial health agency’s current quality improvement activities?" were counted in the numerator.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      This objective was added in 2015. The objective statement is "Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process." The baseline statement is "27 percent of State public health agencies have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process in 2012." The target is 30 percent (10 percent improvement target-setting method). The data source is the ASTHO Profile Survey.
    • PHI-16.3 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      National Profile of Local Health Departments
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      23 (2013)
      Target: 
      25
      Target-Setting Method: 
      10 percent improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of local public health agencies that responded that the agency had a formal agency-wide quality improvement program implemented

      Denominator: 

      Number of local public health agencies that responded to this item in the NACCHO Profile survey

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Questions Used to Obtain the National Baseline Data: 

        From the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments (LHD):

        [NUMERATOR:]

        Which of the following statements best characterizes your LHD’s current quality improvement activities? (Select only one)

        1. LHD has implemented a formal quality improvement program agency-wide
        2. Formal quality improvement activities are being implemented in specific programmatic or functional areas of the LHD, but not on an agency-wide basis
        3. LHD’s quality improvement activities are informal or ad hoc in nature
        4. LHD is not currently involved in quality improvement activities
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Periodic
      Methodology Notes: 

        “Quality improvement” refers to a formal, systematic approach (such as plan-do-check-act) applied to the processes underlying public health programs and services in order to achieve measurable improvements.

        The National Profile of Local Health Departments study (Profile) is the most comprehensive source of information on the infrastructure and programs of local health departments in the U.S. All local health departments in the U.S. are surveyed about their organization, responsibilities, workforce, funding, and other topics. The Profile study has been periodically collecting data from local health departments (LHDs) since 1989 and recently completed its seventh wave in 2013.

        The Profile defines a local health department (LHD) as an administrative or service unit of local or state government concerned with health and carrying out some responsibility for the health of a jurisdiction smaller than the state. The 2013 Profile survey was fielded through an email sent to the top agency executive of every eligible LHD. The email included a link to a web-based questionnaire, preloaded with information specific to the LHD. Paper questionnaires were available upon request for a subset of small LHDs. A core set of questions was sent to all LHDs.

        Local health agencies that responded "LHD has implemented a formal quality improvement program agency-wide" to the survey question "Which of the following statements best characterizes your LHD’s current quality improvement activities? (Select only one)" were counted in the numerator.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      This objective was added in 2015. The objective statement is "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process." The baseline statement is "23 percent of local public health agencies have implemented an agency-wide quality improvement process in 2013." The target is 25 percent (10 percent improvement target-setting method). The data source is the NACCHO Profile Survey.
  • PHI-17 Increase the number or proportion of Tribal, State and local public health agencies that are accredited

    • PHI-17.1 Increase the number of Tribal public health agencies that are accredited

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Accredited Health Department List
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      number
      Baseline (Year): 
      2014
      Target: 
      Not applicable
      Target-Setting Method: 
      This measure is being tracked for informational purposes. If warranted, a target will be set during the decade.
      Numerator: 

      Number of Tribal public health agencies that are nationally accredited

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        To be accredited, public health agencies must submit documentation to demonstrate conformity with approximately 100 consensus Standards and Measures, which are based on the 10 Essential Public Health Services, to the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). That documentation is reviewed by a team of peers who also conduct a site visit. That team of peer site visitors develops a report describing the public health agency’s conformity with the Standards and Measures. PHAB’s Accreditation Committee reviews the report and makes a determination about accreditation status.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, Objective 17 moved from developmental to measurable status. Three new objectives were created, addressing the accreditation of Tribal, state, and local public health agencies. The objective statement for objective 17.1 is "Increase the number of Tribal public health agencies that are accredited." The baseline statement is "0 Tribal public health agencies were accredited in 2014." This objective is being tracked for informational purposes; it does not have a target.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Guide to Accreditation. [cited 2014 Nov 18].
      2. Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Standards and Measures. [cited 2014 Nov 18].
    • PHI-17.2 Increase the proportion of State public health agencies that are accredited

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Accredited Health Department List
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      9.8 (2014)
      Target: 
      15.8
      Target-Setting Method: 
      6 percentage point improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of state public health agencies that are nationally accredited

      Denominator: 

      50 states and the District of Columbia

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        To be accredited, public health agencies must submit documentation to demonstrate conformity with approximately 100 consensus Standards and Measures, which are based on the 10 Essential Public Health Services, to the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). That documentation is reviewed by a team of peers who also conduct a site visit. That team of peer site visitors develops a report describing the public health agency’s conformity with the Standards and Measures. PHAB’s Accreditation Committee reviews the report and makes a determination about accreditation status.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, Objective 17 moved from developmental to measurable status. Three new objectives were created, addressing the accreditation of Tribal, state, and local public health agencies. The objective statement for objective 17.2 is "Increase the proportion of state public health agencies that are accredited." The baseline statement is "9.8 percent of state public health agencies were accredited in 2014." The target was set at 15.8 percent using the "6 percentage point improvement" target setting method.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Guide to Accreditation. [cited 2014 Nov 18].
      2. Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Standards and Measures. [cited 2014 Nov 18].
    • PHI-17.3 Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that are accredited

      About the Data

      Description of the data source, numerator, denominator, survey questions, and other relevant details about the national estimate.

      Data Source: 
      Accredited Health Department List
      Changed Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      Yes
      Measure: 
      percent
      Baseline (Year): 
      1.7 (2014)
      Target: 
      3.7
      Target-Setting Method: 
      2 percentage point improvement
      Numerator: 

      Number of local public health agencies that are nationally accredited

      Denominator: 

      Number of local public health agencies

      Comparable Healthy People 2010 Objective: 
      Not applicable
      Data Collection Frequency: 
      Annual
      Methodology Notes: 

        To be accredited, public health agencies must submit documentation to demonstrate conformity with approximately 100 consensus Standards and Measures, which are based on the 10 Essential Public Health Services, to the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). That documentation is reviewed by a team of peers who also conduct a site visit. That team of peer site visitors develops a report describing the public health agency’s conformity with the Standards and Measures. PHAB’s Accreditation Committee reviews the report and makes a determination about accreditation status.

        The denominator is the total number of possible applicants to PHAB from each state and based on the likely unit of applicant (i.e., district, county, etc.). The denominator includes those applying and/or being accredited via all PHAB application processes for local public health units, including single local health department application processes, multi-jurisdictional application processes, and local units within centralized state application processes. This denominator will be monitored and may be adjusted over time, as changes in public health structures occur (e.g., consolidation of public health departments) or new plans develop for application processes to PHAB. In 2014, the denominator was 2,309.

      Revision History

      Any change to the objective text, baseline, target, target-setting method or data source since the Healthy People 2020 launch.

      Description of Changes Since the Healthy People 2020 Launch: 
      In 2014, Objective 17 moved from developmental to measurable status. Three new objectives were created, addressing the accreditation of Tribal, state, and local public health agencies. The objective statement for objective 17.3 is "Increase the proportion of local public health agencies that are accredited." The baseline statement is "1.7 percent of local public health agencies were accredited in 2014." The target was set at 3.7 percent using the "2 percentage point improvement" target setting method.

      References

      Additional resources about the objective

      1. Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Guide to Accreditation. [cited 2014 Nov 18].
      2. Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Standards and Measures. [cited 2014 Nov 18].