Table 1.
State selection criteria matrix
|
Criteria |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Organization of PH systema | Per capita PH expenditureb | Organization of state PH department | Preparedness indicatorsc |
| Michigan | D | 3 | Umbrella/regional | 9 |
| Pennsylvania | M | 2 | Free standing/regional | 10 |
| Connecticut | D | 1 | Free standing/regional | 8 |
| Florida | S | 3 | Free standing | 7 |
| Colorado | S | 2 | Free standing | 9 |
| Oregon | M | 3 | Umbrella | 9 |
| New Mexico | C | 1 | Free standing/regional | 8 |
| Nevada | D | 1 | Regional | 6 |
| California | M | 4 | Umbrella | 8 |
D, decentralized; M, mixed state and local; S, shared state and local; C, centralized.
aPH Foundation. Turning point, survey on performance management practices in states. Available at http://www.turningpointprogram.org/toolkit/pdf/pmc_state_survey.pdf (February 2002). Also based on sources compiled by Michael Meit, PhD (used with author's permission).
bNACCHO, 2005. National Profile of Local Health departments. http://www.naccho.org/pubs/category.cfm?Category_ID=9. Based on a ranking of 1–4, with 1 being a low per capita expenditure.
cTrust for America's Health, Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health from Disease, Disasters and Bioterrorism, 2007. Available at http://healthyamericans.org/reports/bioterror07/. Based on a range of indicators, with six being the lowest category.