Public Health Institute Capacity Assessment

1. Public Health Institute Capacity Assessment Karen J. Minyard, Ph.D. May 7, 2009 NNPHI Annual Conference New Orleans, LA

2. CDC/RWJF Vision: to have a PHI or similar facilitating entity in every state NNPHI desires to develop high performing PHIs CDC-funded NNPHI contract with GHPC Assess PHI needs at all maturity levels Determine TA capacity Explore context in states without statewide PHI Recommendations to NNPHI board Introduction

3. February 2008 – July 2008 Collaboration with NNPHI staff and Advisory Group Extract and review existing NNPHI data Supplement data with information from PHI websites Conduct a sample of key informant interviews by telephone and/or site visit 11 Site Visits 15 Telephone Interviews Assessment Methods

4. Typology of Institutes • Started with three indicators: Size, Expenditures, Years of existence • 14 characteristics were studied taken from “Keys to Success”

5. Multiple tiers were developed based on the keys to success Tiers fall into three distinct groups Established (Tiers 1-2) Emerging (Tiers 3-5) States w/o an institute (Tier 6) Typology of Institutes

6. Data Collection • Technical assistance capacity/need assessed according to Board-identified core competencies • Fiscal/Administrative Management • Population-based Health Programs • Health Policy Development • Training/Technical Assistance • Research/Evaluation • Health Informatics • Social Marketing/Health Communications • Convening/Partnering

7. Data Collection Tier 1: Site visits on TA capacity, needs & recommendations Tier 2: Telephone interviews on TA capacity, needs & recommendations; site visits w/sample PHIs Tiers 3-5: Telephone interviews on general capacity, needs & recommendations Tier 6: Compile data on indicators, exploratory telephone interviews with national experts; site visit with NM

8. Vision Key partner involvement Entrepreneurial leadership Funding: core, project & unrestricted Organizational and program capacity Cross-cutting competencies Findings: Core Elements of Successful Institutes

9. Boards not selected to raise funds Expansion from crisis Affiliates State subcontracting as hiring vehicle CDC policies to: Clarify PHI eligibility for federal funds Support collaboration between PHIs & PRCs Trend areas: workforce development, IT & accreditation Findings: Additional Observations

10. Findings: Additional Observations Core Funding/Center Directed Projects Deliverable Based Projects

11. Findings: Additional Observations • Starting a PHI is like merging onto a freeway • Issues of image and politics at stake • Not a part-time endeavor

12. Developing leadership skills in: Problem solving, vision development, capacity bldg, etc. Potential training methods: Peer mentoring, experiential learning, group problem solving, and networking Enabling Options to Consider: Enhancing Leadership

13. Foster development of: Unrestricted core funding Diversified public/private funding portfolios Secure service contracts Seed capital that supports new PHIs and innovation PHI staff skills Infrastructure for information exchange Enabling Options to Consider: Developing Resources

14. Enabling Options to Consider: Documenting Impact • PHI evaluation • Developmental or systems approach • Enhance peer learning community • Translate unique contribution of PHIs

15. Enabling Options to Consider: Reinforcing Relationships • National level: • NACCHO & ASTHO • Collaborate on multi-state projects • Data & best practices exchange • Peer learning • State/local level: • Aligned vision & mission w/partners • Share credit • Neutral convener • Visible & active in public health community

16. Enabling Options to Consider: NNPHI’s Role • Continue to foster and develop as: • Convener for PHIs • PHI advocate • Hub for resources & training • Promoter of collaborative initiatives & multi-sector partners • Source for pilot/seed funds

17. CDC NNPHI PHI and national leader participants Advisory Group: Experts from CDC, NNPHI, RWJF & GSU Acknowledgements