Authors

  1. Friedman, Daniel J. PhD
  2. Parrish, Roy Gibson MD

Article Content

Twenty years have passed since the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published its seminal report on The Future of Public Health, naming assessment as one of three core public health functions.1 In the past 20 years, we have MAPPed and we have reached the APEX.2-4 A Google search on "community health assessment" returns more than 71 000 results. In 2005, more than half of local health departments reported completing a community health assessment (CHA) within the past 3 years and almost two-thirds planned to complete CHAs in the next 3 years.5 Federal programs such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Protection and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau's Maternal and Child Health Title V block grants require community assessments.6-8

 

But in the 20 years since publication of The Future of Public Health, what verifiable, objective evidence have we collected that informs health departments about what types of assessments are more effective, under what circumstances is assessment more effective, and how does assessment impact population health? Is assessment worthwhile in and of itself, or is it an activity that should be conducted only if evaluations reveal that it has verifiable, positive intermediate and long-term impacts on population health?

 

The purpose of this article is to present a brief intellectual history of assessment since the publication of The Future of Public Health, examine unanswered questions about assessment, and propose a public health services and systems research agenda for assessment.

 

Intellectual History of Assessment

Assessment assumed a prominent place in the public health vocabulary following the release in 1988 of the IOM's landmark report titled The Future of Public Health. The report defined assessment as the regular and systematic collection, assembly, analysis, and communication of "information on the health of the community, including statistics on health status, community health needs, and epidemiologic and other studies of health problems."1(p7) It characterized assessment as one of three major functions of public health and highlighted the need for increased emphasis on assessment to provide a sound basis for the two other major functions of public health: policy development and assurance.

 

Since 1988, both the concept and the practice of assessment have evolved with experience at the national, state, and local levels. To facilitate and guide assessment, various tools and frameworks have been developed including the Assessment Protocol for Excellence in program and workbook (APEXPH), the community health improvement process (CHIP), and Mobilizing Action through Planning and Partnership (MAPP).1-4,9 These and other milestones in assessment are summarized in Table 1.

  
Table 1 - Click to enlarge in new windowTABLE 1 Milestones in assessment, 1983-2008

Current Perspectives on CHA

In 2008, assessment is more complex and varied-and possibly confused-than it was when it entered the public health lexicon in 1988. Its initial focus on information about the health of the community has been broadened to include information on organizations, resources, public health infrastructure, budgets, contextual factors, risk factors, community themes, and forces of change. The rich intellectual history has helped generate equally rich and varied applications of assessment. The articles included in this special focus issue illustrate the current practice and impact of assessment, with articles focusing on broad impacts of assessments,16 impacts relating to specific programmatic areas,17,18 and tools relating to communicating, monitoring, and evaluating assessments.19-21 Yet, the richness of assessment as it has evolved over the last 20 years masks five fundamental questions that should be addressed before public health agencies devote additional scarce budgetary and staff resources to it.

 

Question 1: What is assessment?

In 1988, the IOM defined assessment as including "all the activities involved in the concept of community diagnosis, such as surveillance, identifying needs, analyzing the causes of problems, collecting and interpreting data, case-finding, monitoring and forecasting trends, research, and evaluation of outcomes."1(p44) It also delineated the responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments in assessment: the federal government should support "knowledge development and dissemination through data gathering, research, and information exchange"; each state should assess "health needs within the state based on statewide data collection"; and local public health units should assess, monitor, and conduct surveillance for "local health problems and needs and of resources for dealing with them".1(pp143-145) Although federal and state governments provide information and support, the focus of assessment efforts and the locus at which action takes place are the community. Assessment is, thus, a set of activities that produces information on community health; when focusing on the community level, it is appropriately called "community health assessment."*

 

The process and products of assessment do not, however, occur in isolation. Assessment is part of a larger, more comprehensive process of community health improvement; regrettably, the distinction between assessment, on the one hand, and this larger process, on the other hand, has become blurred. As indicated by Myers and Stoto,15 current definitions of assessment include various aspects of process, product, or both. Among other activities, assessment has been interpreted to encompass primary and secondary data collection, setting intervention priorities, planning interventions, and perhaps even implementing interventions.

 

Evidence-based decisions about whether and how to conduct assessment cannot be made until a clear, workable, and focused consensus definition of assessment is developed. Such a definition could be worthwhile if it fulfilled two criteria. First, the definition should clearly identify, define, and distinguish individual components of both the assessment process and the assessment product. Each individual component of assessment could be individually evaluated in a given setting and a given implementation. Second, and again to enable evaluation, the process and products of assessment must be accompanied by a detailed, and hopefully results-based, logic model.25-28 Such a logic model would detail areas of control internal to health departments (inputs/resources, activities, and outputs) and areas of influence external to health departments (immediate direct outcomes, intermediate indirect outcomes, and final outcomes). Given that the assessment process and products are part of a larger process, care must be taken when building a logic model for assessment to distinguish between assessment products and the processes to produce those products, on the one hand, and the processes, products, and outcomes of the larger process, on the other hand.*+ the same time, it should be recognized that some activities undertaken as part of the assessment process, such as identifying important community stakeholders and building community partnerships and alliances, are also critical to formulating and implementing the community health improvement process.

 

Question 2: What is the impact of assessment on community health and processes intended to improve it?

What have we learned about the impacts of CHAs since 1988? What lessons can local health departments take from the literature in deciding whether and how to conduct CHAs? What is the nature and scale of investments in CHAs that produce the greatest impacts on the community health improvement process, and hopefully, on community health? Given the complexity and variety of definitions of assessment as they have evolved and been applied since 1988, it comes as no surprise that comprehensive evaluations of CHAs are difficult, if not impossible, to locate.15(p40)

 

In a context other than CHA, the Center for Global Development has pointed to the existence of "an 'evaluation gap' [that] has emerged because governments, official donors, and other funders do not demand or produce enough impact evaluations and because [those] that are conducted are often methodologically flawed."29 The American Public Health Association (APHA) recognized this "evaluation gap" in its 2006 policy statement on the need to "Conduct research to build an evidence-base of effective community health assessment practice,"30 and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) made similar points in its 2007 position statement on "Research to study and disseminate evidence of effective community health assessments."4,31++

 

Asking that the CHA demonstrate a direct impact on community health may, however, be asking more of it than we should. Given that it is a tool within a larger health improvement process, it may not be reasonable to expect the CHA to directly impact community health. A more reasonable approach may be to evaluate the CHA on its own terms, that is, both on the quality of the information that it produces and on its usefulness to a larger community process. In fact, Curtis argues that "assessment has value independent of action taken to correct community health problems."32(p25) By identifying the health problems of a community, the CHA must remain at the core of the practice of public health. The question is not "should we conduct a CHA," but "what products presented and communicated in what ways are most effective in identifying the health problems of a community?"

 

Question 3: How should a CHA be evaluated?

This special focus issue provides examples of attempts to evaluate the process or products of a CHA,21 or both its process and products,20 and the impact of its products on other community health improvement processes.16-19 Articles in this special focus issue also illustrate the use of multisite comparative quantitative evaluations of assessment processes, tools, or products,19-21 multisite case studies,16 and single-site case studies.17,18 Useful as the individual articles are, we can justifiably ask: How do the articles in this special focus issue, taken together as a body of literature, provide health departments with future directions for evaluating CHAs? As both the APHA and the CSTE recently pointed out, the criteria for conducting useful research on CHAs remain to be defined.30,31

 

Solet and colleagues16 sensibly suggest developing "core standards" and "systematic and consistent guidelines for evaluation" of CHAs. To build an evidence base useful for health departments, we suggest seven characteristics for such evaluations. The first and second characteristics are based on the definitional criteria: evaluations use a clear, focused definition of CHA; and evaluations rely on a logic model for describing the inputs, activities, outputs, and potential impacts of the assessment and the relationship of the assessment to other components of the CHIP. Third, the evaluation must include testable hypotheses concerning successful assessments. Fourth, the process that is used to conduct the assessment is sufficiently documented to allow identification of factors that could be evaluated as predictors of the success or the failure of the assessment.16 Fifth, the outputs and outcomes of the assessment are sufficiently documented to allow their analysis against the postulated predictors of the success or the failure of the assessment. To realize the fourth and fifth characteristics, a sixth characteristic has been suggested: evaluations should be based on validated and replicable instruments and methods, whether the evaluations are based on single- or multisite case studies or quantitative data collection, or some combinations of case studies and quantitative data collection. Finally, to provide sufficiently robust evaluations to identify successful assessments and assessment strategies, multisite and multistate evaluations are required regardless of whether the evaluations are qualitative or quantitative.*

 

The article in this issue by Snyder and Spice20 identifies 12 categories for summarizing positive outcomes or impacts of CHAs, and the article by Solet et al16 suggests 7 categories. Based partly on their findings, we propose a series of measures for evaluating the outputs and outcomes of CHAs that may be useful in operationalizing characteristics 5 and 6 (Table 2).+

  
Table 2 - Click to enlarge in new windowTABLE 2 Possible questions and measures for evaluating the outputs and outcomes of community health assessments

Question 4: What tools should be developed and shared to foster evaluation of the CHA?

The articles in this special focus issue include various tools that can support evaluations of CHAs, including local health department surveys,19,36 Google searches,19 Web-based questionnaires for evaluating CHA reports,21 and forms for ongoing tracking of CHA impacts.20,37

 

To be useful, instruments for evaluating assessments must fulfill at least three conditions. First, they must be easily available from a central source.* Second, each instrument must clearly pertain to specific assessment processes or products and their associated logic model. Third, they must be verified or verifiable for internal and external validity and reliability, with their supporting data easily available.

 

Question 5: Who should evaluate CHAs?

The role of communities as partners in evaluating CHAs remains to be thoroughly discussed. In a 2004 policy statement, the APHA pointed out that "this lack of involvement of community members in the conduct of research [horizontal ellipsis] has resulted in distrust of and reluctance to becoming involved in such research."38Community-based research in public health has been defined as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves, for example, community members, organizational representatives, and researchers in all aspects of the research process."39 Requirements for and issues relating to community-based research have been explored in both clinical medicine and public health generally,39-43 and should also be explored for evaluations of CHAs.44

 

In considering community-based research and participatory evaluation as models for evaluating CHAs, it is important to realize that assessment practice and expertise remain largely based in state and local health departments. Hence, it is neither surprising nor inappropriate that most assessment-related evaluation is also based in health departments. As an example, seven of the eight articles in this special focus issue are authored by individuals with responsibilities for conducting the evaluated assessments.

 

Neither community-based research nor participatory evaluation is self-defining, and both rubrics include a range of community participation, purposes, and methods.45-47 Given the current and likely future mixed responsibilities of the evaluators, different types of community-based participatory research and participatory evaluation should be explored such as empowerment evaluation, practical participatory evaluation, and transformative participatory evaluation.45,48-50

 

A Public Health Services and Systems Research Agenda for Evaluating CHAs

Both the APHA and the CSTE have called for research on effective CHA. Twenty years after the publication of The Future of Public Health, it is clearly time to establish and embark upon a formal public health services and systems research evaluation agenda for the CHA.51-53 A preliminary agenda could include the elements delineated in this commentary: a clear definition of CHA that identifies its components; logic models for CHA that include each component; testable hypotheses concerning successful assessments; multisite and multistate analyses; and validated and replicable instruments. Given the obvious centrality of communities in CHAs, its evaluation should include communities throughout the evaluation process.

 

REFERENCES

 

1. Institute of Medicine. The Future of Public Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1988. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1091. Accessed January 30, 2008. [Context Link]

 

2. National Association of County and City Health Officials. APEXPH: Assessment Protocol for Excellence in Public Health. Washington, DC: National Association of County and City Health Officials; 1991. Summary: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000089/p0000089.asp. Accessed January 30, 2008; Workbook: http://www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/APEXPH.cfm. Accessed February 1, 2008. [Context Link]

 

3. National Association of County and City Health Officials. A Strategic Approach to Community Health Improvement: MAPP Field Guide. Washington, DC: National Association of County and City Health Officials; 2001. http://www.naccho.org/pubs/product1.cfm?Product_ID=38 Accessed February 1, 2008. [Context Link]

 

4. National Association of County and City Health Officials. Achieving Healthier Communities Through MAPP: A User's Handbook. Washington, DC: National Association of County and City Health Officials; 2004. http://www.naccho.org/pubs/product1.cfm?Product_ID=66. Accessed February 1, 2008. [Context Link]

 

5. National Association of County and City Health Officials. 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments. Washington, DC: National Association of County and City Health Officials; 2006. http://www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/2005Profile.cfm. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

6. Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Learn More Block Grant Program. https://perfdata.hrsa.gov/mchb/mchreports/LEARN_More/Block_Grant_Program/block_g. Accessed May 6, 2008. [Context Link]

 

7. Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Needs assessments. https://perfdata.hrsa.gov/mchb/mchreports/needsAssessment.asp. Accessed May 6, 2008. [Context Link]

 

8. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Communities that care community planning system. https://preventionplatform.samhsa.gov/Macro/CSAP/dss_portal/Templates_redesign/s. Accessed May 6, 2008. [Context Link]

 

9. Institute of Medicine. Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance Monitoring. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1997. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5298. Accessed February 1, 2008. [Context Link]

 

10. Kreuter MW. PATCH: its origin, basic concepts, and links to contemporary public health policy. J Health Educ. 1992;23:135-139. http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000064/p0000064.asp. Accessed April 4, 2008.

 

11. Stoto MA. Public health assessment in the 1990s. Annu Rev Public Health. 1992;13:59-78. https://preventionplatform.samhsa.gov/Macro/CSAP/dss_portal/Templates_redesign/s. Accessed February 1, 2008.

 

12. German RR, Janes GR, Romaguera RA. Lessons learned from the first funding period of the CDC assessment initiative. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2001;7(5):50-57.

 

13. Keppel KG, Freedman MA. "What is assessment?" J Public Health Manag Pract. 1995;1:1-7.

 

14. Institute of Medicine. The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10548. Accessed February 1, 2008.

 

15. Myers SS, Stoto MA. Criteria for Assessing the Usefulness of Community Health Assessments: A Literature Review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2006. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR314.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2008. [Context Link]

 

16. Solet D, Ciske S, Gaonkar R, et al. Effective community health assessment in King County, Washington. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(1):33-40. [Context Link]

 

17. Gizzi C, Klementiev A, Britt J, Cruz-Uribe F. The use of assessment in promoting secondhand smoke policy in a local health jurisdiction. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(1):41-46. [Context Link]

 

18. Kruger DJ, Shirey L, Morrel-Samuels S, Skoorcz, Brady J. Using a community-based health survey as a tool for informing local health policy. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(1):47-53. [Context Link]

 

19. Rohan AMK, Booske BC, Remington PL. Using the Wisconsin Health Rankings to catalyze community health improvement. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(1):24-32. [Context Link]

 

20. Snyder K, Spice CL. Reviewing self-reported impacts of community health assessment in local health jurisdictions. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(1):18-23. [Context Link]

 

21. Stoto MA, Straus SG, Bohn C, Irani P. A Web-based tool for assessing and improving the usefulness of community health assessments. J Public Health Manag Pract 2009;15(1):10-17. [Context Link]

 

22. New York State Department of Health. Community Health Assessment Clearinghouse Glossary. Albany: New York State Department of Health. http://www.health.state.ny.us//statistics/chac/glossary.htm. Published September 2006. Accessed January 10, 2008. [Context Link]

 

23. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy Carolinians. North Carolina community health assessment. http://www.healthycarolinians.org/assess.htm. Accessed March 31, 2008. [Context Link]

 

24. Washington State Department of Health. Assess Now. Olympia: Washington State Department of Health. http://AssessNow.info/. Published February 13, 2008. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

25. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Guide for the Development of Results-Based Management and Accountability Frameworks. Ottawa, Ontario: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; 2001. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/RMAF-CGRR/rmafcgrr_e.asp. Published August 21, 2002. Accessed March 3, 2008. [Context Link]

 

26. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension. Program Development and Evaluation Logic Model. Madison: University of Wisconsin. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

27. Watson DE, Broemeling AM, Reid RJ, Black C. A Results-Based Logic Model For Primary Health Care. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: College of Health Disciplines, University of British Columbia; 2004. http://www.chspr.ubc.ca/files/publications/2004/chspr04-19.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

28. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek, MI: WK Kellogg Foundation; 2004. http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf. [Context Link]

 

29. Center for Global Development. When Will We Ever Learn: Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation. Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development; 2006. http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/7973. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

30. American Public Health Association. Conduct Research to Build an Evidence-Base of Effective Community Health Assessment Practice. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2006. Policy Statement Database, Policy No. 20066. http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1330. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

31. Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Research to Study and Disseminate Evidence of Effective Community Health Assessments. Atlanta, GA: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Position Statement 07-EC-01. http://www.cste.org/PS/2007ps/2007psfinal/EC/07-EC-01.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

32. Curtis DE. Evaluation of community health assessment in Kansas. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2002;8(4):20-25. [Context Link]

 

33. Zahner SJ. Local public health system partnerships. Public Health Rep. 2005;120:76-83. [Context Link]

 

34. Zahner SJ, Kaiser B, Kapelke-Dale J. Local partnerships for community assessment and planning. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005;11(5):460-464. [Context Link]

 

35. Kegler MC, Steckler A, McLeroy K, Malek SH. Factors that contribute to effective community health promotion coalitions: a study of 10 Project ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25(3):338-353. [Context Link]

 

36. Peppard PE, Kindig DA, Dranger E, Jovaag A, Remington PL. Ranking community health status to stimulate discussion of local public health issues: the Wisconsin County Health Rankings. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:209-212. [Context Link]

 

37. Washington State Department of Health. Community Health Assessment in Washington State: Ongoing Reports of the Impacts of Community Health Assessment Activities. Olympia: Washington State Department of Health. http://www.assessnow.info/impactsofcha.doc. Published March 2007. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

38. American Public Health Association. Support for Community-Based Research in Public Health. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2004. Policy Statement Database, Policy No. 2004-12. http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1298. Accessed March 27, 2008. [Context Link]

 

39. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173-202. [Context Link]

 

40. Institute of Medicine. Exploring Challenges, Progress and New Models for Engaging the Public in the Clinical Research Enterprise: Clinical Research Roundtable Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [Context Link]

 

41. Lasker RD, Weiss ES. Broadening participation in community problem-solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. J Urban Health. 2003;80(1):14-60. [Context Link]

 

42. Minkler M, Blackwell AG, Thompson M, Tamir H. Community-based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(12):1984-1985. [Context Link]

 

43. Green LW, Mercer SL. Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? Am J Public Health. 2001;91(12):1926-1929. [Context Link]

 

44. Gebbie KM, Rosenstock L, Hernandez L. Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2003. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10542#toc. Accessed May 5, 2008. [Context Link]

 

45. Burke B. Evaluating for a change: reflections on participatory methodology. New Dir Eval. 1998;80:43-56. [Context Link]

 

46. Cousins JB, Whitmore E. Framing participatory evaluation. New Dir Eval. 1998;80:5-23. [Context Link]

 

47. Marti-Costa S, Serrona-Garcia I. Needs assessment and community development: an ideological perspective. Prev Hum Serv. 1983:75-88. [Context Link]

 

48. Fetterman DM, Kaftarian SJ, Wandersman A, eds. Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-assessment and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996. [Context Link]

 

49. Fetterman DM, Wandersman A, eds. Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. [Context Link]

 

50. Wandersman A, Snell-Johns J, Lentz BE, et al. The principles of empowerment evaluation. In: Fetterman DM, Wandersman A, eds. Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press; 2005:27-41. [Context Link]

 

51. Mays GP, Halverson PK, Scutchfield FD. Making public health improvement real: the vital role of systems research. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2004;10:183-185. [Context Link]

 

52. Scutchfield FD, Patrick K. Public health systems research: the new kid on the block. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32:173-174. [Context Link]

 

53. Scutchfield FD, Marks JS, Perez DJ, Mays GP. Public health services and systems research. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:169-171. [Context Link]

 

*Community health assessment is the ongoing process of regular and systematic collection, assembly, analysis, and distribution of information on the health needs of the community. This information includes statistics on health status, community health needs/gaps/problems, and assets. The sharing of findings with key stakeholders enables and mobilizes community members to work collaboratively toward building a healthier community.22[Context Link]

 

*The IOM's CHIP model represents such an attempt. [Context Link]

 

+An alternative to a separate logic model for assessment would be to include assessment activities and products within a logic model for the CHIP. Assessment activities could be listed with other activities of the CHIP, and assessment products could be listed as outputs of the CHIP. [Context Link]

 

++Regrettably, neither the APHA nor the CSTE policy statement clearly distinguished between the assessment and the CHIP. For example, the APHA statement defined CHA as "collecting, analyzing and using data to educate and mobilize communities, develop priorities, garner resources, and plan actions to improve public health," and described it as the "first phase in planning and policy development."30[Context Link]

 

*Examples of evaluations that meet several of these criteria include "A Web-based tool for assessing and improving the usefulness of community health assessments"21 by Stoto and colleagues, evaluations of local partnerships by Zahner,33,34 and evaluations of local partnerships by Kegler and colleagues.35[Context Link]

 

+Snyder and Spice20 also identify 10 factors associated with positive outcomes of CHAs including a focus on specific subpopulations or health issues, broad community and health department participation, the use of multiple sources of data and multiple strategies for communicating results, and the collection and use of local data.20 These factors should be considered in constructing instruments for future evaluations of the CHA. [Context Link]

 

*The New York and Washington State Departments of Health, with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Assessment Initiative, have taken important steps by establishing Web-based information clearinghouses on the CHA.22,24[Context Link]