Evaluating the Impact of National Public Health Department Accreditation ― United States, 2016

Abstract

In 2011, the nonprofit Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) launched the national, voluntary public health accreditation program for state, tribal, local, and territorial public health departments. As of May 2016, 134 health departments have achieved 5-year accreditation through PHAB and 176 more have begun the formal process of pursuing accreditation. In addition, Florida, a centralized state in which the employees of all 67 local health departments are employees of the state, achieved accreditation for the entire integrated local public health department system in the state. PHAB-accredited health departments range in size from a small Indiana health department that serves approximately 17,000 persons to the much larger California Department of Public Health, which serves approximately 38 million persons. Collectively, approximately half the U.S. population, or nearly 167 million persons, is covered by an accredited health department. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia now have at least one nationally accredited health department. In a survey conducted through a contract with a social science research organization during 2013-2016, >90% of health departments that had been accredited for 1 year reported that accreditation has stimulated quality improvement and performance improvement opportunities, increased accountability and transparency, and improved management processes.

Public Health 3.0: A Call to Action for Public Health to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century

“…The vision of ensuring that every community is protected by an accredited local or a state health department (or both) requires major investment and political will to enhance existing infrastructure. Although research found accreditation supports health departments in quality improvement and enhancing capacity (20), the health impact and return on investment of accreditation should be evaluated on an ongoing basis.…”

Local Boards of Health Characteristics Influencing Support for Health Department Accreditation

“…Also, comparisons between results of this study and previous, as well as future, studies may be made with caution due to increasing awareness and acceptance of accreditation, broader attention to PHAB requirements, and growing body of evidence about accreditation benefits. 1 …”

“…1,2 All state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments are eligible for accreditation, although the majority of participation to date has been among local and state health departments. Accreditation involvement among the nation’s diverse local health departments (LHDs) is especially interesting to assess, as it offers opportunities for analyzing the many factors at play that determine LHD accreditation activities.…”

“…Implementation of and adherence to accreditation principles and standards can lead to informed and evidence-based decision making, competitiveness for funding, workforce improvement, and, in turn, increased public recognition of LHDs’ role and value. 1,5–8 PHAB-accredited health departments already report that accreditation has led to numerous benefits. These benefits include health departments’ improved collaboration with other health departments and with community partners, enhanced sense of accountability, improved awareness concerning the need for engagement in quality improvement (QI) initiatives, and shared understanding of organizational strengths and weaknesses outlined as a result of formal strategic planning.…”

“…These benefits include health departments’ improved collaboration with other health departments and with community partners, enhanced sense of accountability, improved awareness concerning the need for engagement in quality improvement (QI) initiatives, and shared understanding of organizational strengths and weaknesses outlined as a result of formal strategic planning. 1,2 Also, some LHD leaders believe that accredited LHDs are more likely to receive future funding, 1,9 and there is some evidence to indicate the protective effect of accreditation on funding. 10 …”