1 / 13

Defining Policies and Legislation on Environmental Public Health for State Legislatures Environmental Public Health Lead

Defining Policies and Legislation on Environmental Public Health for State Legislatures Environmental Public Health Leadership Institute (EPHLI) Doug Farquhar, JD National Conference of State Legislatures. Problem Statement.

dane
Download Presentation

Defining Policies and Legislation on Environmental Public Health for State Legislatures Environmental Public Health Lead

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Defining Policies and Legislation on Environmental Public Health for State Legislatures Environmental Public Health Leadership Institute (EPHLI) Doug Farquhar, JD National Conference of State Legislatures

  2. Problem Statement Public health, and especially environmental public health (EPH), has no direct contact with state policy makers, unless (or until) a crisis occurs, requiring state resources and reaction, or when a program is created, requiring legislative authorization. EPH programs are designed to avoid crises, and give the public a level of protection from environmental harms. By its structure and mission, EPH is designed to avoid any contact or relationships with state policy makers.

  3. Behavior over Time Graph Level of Interest of EPH among Policy Makers v. Time • Since it began with good support, it was assumed that support for EPH would continue to grow • In reality it grew at first then began to slowly decline as programs become implemented and public demand decreased Level of Interest v. Time

  4. Advocates for Growth Must respond to Constituent Demands Federal Response $$$$$$$$$ CRISES Public Demand for EPH Services State Response EPH Services; Lacking resources and infrastructure Must hold down State costs Local Response Must limit ability to overuse limited resources

  5. What do they think? “I grew up in Kellogg, Idaho. I played in the tailings from the lead mines; I ate fish from the streams laced with lead wastes. And look at me – I’m a state senator.”Senator David Peitch, Idaho “Show me the dead bodies.” Former EPA Region 8 (and former state senator) David Rayley, upon being presented the reasons for regulating toxic wastes

  6. Failure to Agree on Goals“what we have here is a failure to communicate” Lack of clear definition from Public and EPH leads to confused and inadequate Policy response Public’s Demand For Crises Response/ Concerns Addressed Goals Differ: Public expects EPH to respond to Crises and Concerns Policy Makers Response? ? GAP Actual Ability for EPH To Respond to Crises/Concern Goals Differ: EPH cannot respond without adequate resources

  7. The 10 Essential Environmental Health Services

  8. Program Goals • Collect environmental public health statutes from every state and territory WebPage database: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/envhealth/environmentalhealth.cfm EPH Statute Topic Identified:

  9. Program Goals Procedural Efforts • Survey State Legislators • Series of questions designed after consultation with ASTHO, NEHA and state environmental health directors • Survey State Environmental Health Directors • Spoke with Glen Takeoka, CA director; Pat Curran, NC director; Lisa Conti, FL director; Jim Brownlee, NJ director; Walter Combs, RI director

  10. How do you get Policy Makers attention?? • Highlight a crises • Perceived or real • Doomsday threats have limited appeal • Appeal to a higher authority • Moral reasons

  11. Conclusions - Factors to aid enlightening and communicating with state policy makers • Unified mission statements for all EPH agencies, with clear direction and joint goals • Providing basic learning session (EPH 101) to legislative committees with jurisdiction over EPH programs early in the legislative sessions • Requiring legislative review (sunset provisions) of EPH statutes, to ensure relevancy and update provisions • Providing training opportunities for legislative chairs and staff on EPH; give them an overview of EPH programs, funding streams, and effect on public and business community. • Provide indicators (annually, or at least once a session) of the state’s environmental health, the number of people affected by EPH’s efforts, money saved, business benefits (restaurant inspections, food safety), level of federal support • Give EPH directors authority to communicate directly to state legislators, as they do the public

  12. Can we make a change? “Anyone who doesn’t believe in miracles is not a realist.” David Ben-Gurion

  13. Thank You! Doug Farquhar, JD National Conference of State Legislatures 303/856-1397 doug.farquhar@ncsl.org www.ncsl.org www.heartlandcenters.slu.edu/ephli/index.html

More Related