TABLE 2—
Priority-Setting Criteria From Interview Data: Budget- and Priority-Setting Criteria at State Health Agencies, United States, 2011
| Criterion | No. Selecting Criterion as Priority |
| Top-tier criteria | |
| Political interests | 23 |
| Magnitude of problem | 17 |
| Is a mandatory match or mandated service | 17 |
| Mission critical | 16 |
| Seriousness of consequence | 16 |
| Delivery by others | 14 |
| Meets federal priorities/guidance | 12 |
| Previous allocation and results | 12 |
| Availability of funds | 11 |
| Prevention and protection | 11 |
| Impact on locals and partners | 10 |
| Second-tier criteria | |
| Unsustainable/crippling cuts | 8 |
| Impact on personnel | 8 |
| Maximize/leverage dollars for other programs (e.g., matching funds) | 8 |
| Emergent issues | 7 |
| Affects a targeted group | 7 |
| Aligned with strategic plan | 6 |
| Affects technical expertise/capacity | 6 |
| Cost-effectiveness | 6 |
| Means of correcting | 5 |
| Strength of evidence | 4 |
| Community interests | 3 |
| Immediate benefit | 3 |
| Equity promoting | 2 |
| Population based | 2 |
| New or expanding program versus maintaining effort | 2 |
| Special interests | 1 |