Module 4 — Tasks 10-13
Using the profiles, the team ranks according to health impact only. Of the 10 to 20 issue profiles, which ones have the most detrimental impact on local human health. This task tends to unite and focus the team. Also, it can start frustrating the single issue advocates. Team members by now have developed "pet" issues and ranking can ruffle their feathers.
Keep in mind, PACE EH offers one pretty simple ranking methodology. Other ranking methodologies exist and may be more useful for for the needs of a specific team. Ranked profiles are now “prioritized” according to factors outside of health impact (political support, economic feasibility, legal ramifications, etc.)
Similar to Task 10, this task can lead to tense meetings and, other priority setting exercises may be worth considering. Elements of an effective environmental health action plan can be found in PACE EH on pages 60-63.
We suggest no more than two to four action plans be developed and implemented based on highest prioritized issue profiles. The resulting action plans need to balance long and short term goals, make sure they identify some “low hanging fruit.” Keep in mind, the local health agency need not be the primary agency responsible for developing and implementing the action plans.
To set the stage for the future, the team needs to establish a process for evaluating their PACE EH work. The guidebook includes some sample considerations on page 64 of the guidebook. It can be hard to maintain momentum and new members can help. The authors of PACE EH envision the methodology as an ongoing process, completed every three to five years. Completed once, PACE EH it is a snapshot. Only through multiple iterations can PACE EH demonstrate change over time.