Evaluate your community and identify types of social work micro practice settings and social agencies
Social Work in Public Health, 28:685–693, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1937-1918 print/1937-190X online
DOI: 10.1080/19371918.2011.619460
Generation Y, Shifting Funding Structures, and Health Care Reform: Reconceiving the Public Health Paradigm
through Social Work
Eric Gass
City of Milwaukee Health Department and Zilber School of Public Health, University of
Wisconsin Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Maureen P. Bezold
Department of Health Sciences, Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois, USA
Public health agencies are facing a convergence of forces that require a reexamination of the existing
paradigm. The need to replace an aging workforce with a new generation that possesses a different
worldview, in the context of budget austerity, will be challenging. In addition, the uncertainty of
health care reform poses a challenge for public health leadership. This “perfect storm” provides the
opportunity for the social work paradigm to come in and fill the void.
Keywords: Workforce, millenials, budget cuts, future of public health
Currently the field of public health is facing a number of major transitions including changing
funding structures, shifting demographics of the American workforce, and health care reform.
These changes provide local health departments (LHDs) an opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive in ensuring continued, and perhaps even improved, provision of public health
services. There have been some anticipatory warnings of the workforce challenges facing LHDs
(Association of Schools of Public Health [ASPH], 2008; Association of State and Territorial Health Officials [ASTHO], 2007; Institute of Medicine, 2002). However, none of this work examines the
impact these demographic changes will have on the public health paradigm. This work will fill
that gap. It begins with an examination of current public health priorities followed by a brief
review of public health funding challenges. The article then addresses the potential impact of this demographic shift by providing an overview of the characteristics and values of the generations
that compose the public health workforce, placing particular emphasis on Generation Y, or those
born between 1980 and 2000. This article concludes by proposing a shift in the current public
health paradigm that improves the likelihood of attracting and retaining a new generation of workers, proactively addresses new funding structures, and anticipates the impact of health care
reform.
Address correspondence to Eric Gass, PhD, Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, 841
N. Broadway, 3rd Floor, Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA. E-mail: ergass@milwaukee.gov
685
686 E. GASS AND M. P. BEZOLD
CURRENT PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
National, state, and local governments; advocacy organizations; and stakeholders have used a
standard framework for understanding the core functions and essential services of public health.
Within individual jurisdictions variations in the wording or specific number of essential services
are observed. However, the basic framework for all jurisdictions is outlined below:
Assessment: Determine community strengths and identify current and emerging threats to
the community’s health through regular and systematic review of the community’s health indicators with the public health system partners.
Assurance: Address current and emerging community health needs and threats through gov-
ernmental leadership and action with the public health system partners. Take necessary
and reasonable action through direct services, regulations, and enforcement. Evaluate the improvement plan and actions and provide feedback to the community.
Policy development: Establish a community health improvement plan and action steps with the
public health system partners to promote and protect the health of the community through
formal and informal policies, programs, guidelines, environmental changes, and programs and services. (Wisconsin Division of Public Health, 2005)
To realize the core functions, the American Public Health Association (APHA; 1998) describes
the 10 essential public health services as follows:
1. Monitor health status to identify community health problems.
2. Diagnose and investigate health problems and health hazards in the community.
3. Inform, educate, and empower people about health issues. 4. Mobilize community partnerships to identify and solve health problems.
5. Develop policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts.
6. Enforce laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety. 7. Link people to needed personal health services and assure the provision of health care
when otherwise unavailable.
8. Assure a competent public health and personal healthcare workforce.
9. Evaluate effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services.
10. Research for new insights and innovative solutions to health problems.
Together the core functions and essential services have guided local public health practitioners for nearly two decades.
Activities LHDs engage in to fulfill the core functions and essential services may include
immunizations; epidemiology; outbreak management; food, water, and environmental safety; as-
sessment and education; licensing and statute enforcement; collaboration with the community; and more recently, bioterrorism and disaster preparedness.
Although the burden on LHDs has been increasing, the field of public health is currently being
affected by two forces that require further analysis. First, community residents, policy makers,
and other stakeholders need to gain a more robust understanding of how local public health is supported financially, especially in the context of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Second, LHDs will be faced with replacing retiring Baby Boomers over the course of the next
15 years. The differences in demographics and personal values between the future workforce and
the current workforce are an issue that will be explored. These two forces are linked in such a way that it will require LHDs to reexamine core functions and essential services, redefine the job
descriptions and skill sets of public health workers, and prepare for a major generational shift by
SHIFTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH PARADIGM 687
creating work environments that are attractive to Generation Y workers. Part of that generational shift may be a move away from the public health nursing model and toward a social work model.
To accomplish this, LHDs need to seek out funding sources that allow for greater flexibility than
had been afforded by traditional funding sources.
SHIFTS IN FUNDING SOURCES
The National Association of City and County Health Officers (NACCHO) regularly publishes a
report on the state of LHDs. A review of this data makes clear that a significant shift in funding sources has occurred among LHDs beginning in 1992 and continuing through 2008. Table 1
shows the percentages of budget sources from 1992, 2005, and 2008. In looking at the funding
trends over time, tax dollars, as a proportion of budget, are decreasing while fees and grants are
increasing (NACCHO, 1995, 2006, 2009). The funding terms hard money and soft money could be applied to Table 1. Specifically, the local tax levy and state and federal pass-through funds can
be viewed as hard money. More specifically, hard money refers to taxpayer dollars provided to
LHDs for essential services, often required by federal state or local law. Barring a policy change,
these services and funds would be available year after year. Other sources of funding identified in Table 1, such as grants, insurance reimbursements,
or fees, vary depending on demand, socioeconomic conditions of the LHD jurisdiction, and
economic and political factors at the state and national level. These funding sources can change
depending on federal funding priorities, charitable foundation priorities and financial strength, and reimbursement rates. These funding sources can be thought of as soft money. Over time, LHDs
have become more dependent on soft money. To maintain the core functions and essential services
required of LHDs, new streams of revenue had to be tapped.
This analysis leads to the essential question surrounding public health funding which is , Is the current model of public health core functions and essential services sustainable? Part of the
answer can be found by examining the values and characteristics of the current and the next
generation of public health workers.
THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE
The public health workforce is aging. The NACCHO (2010) found that, on average, 20% of LHD
employees will be eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. NACCHO (2010) also reported that nearly 90% of top executives at LHDs are either Baby Boomers or Gen Xers. Although data is
not available, one could infer that this holds true for the majority of local public health workers
TABLE 1
Changes in Local Health Department Funding
Funding Source 1992 2005 2008
Local tax levy 34% 29% 25%
State government & federal pass through 40% 36% 37%
Licensing and personal fees for service 7% 6% 11%
Federal grants or contracts awarded directly to LHD 6% 7% 2%
Other (private foundations, private insurance, etc.) 3% 12% 7%
Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement 10% 11% 15%
Source: National Association of County and City Health Officials (1995, 2006, 2009).
688 E. GASS AND M. P. BEZOLD
as well. But who are these people? Note that the literature differs on the years that define a generation by a year or two. However, there is general agreement on the basic timeframes that
represent each generation.
Baby Boomers
Baby Boomers were born from 1945 through 1964. Approximately 78 million Americans between
the ages of 46 and 65 constitute this generation, the second largest cohort group addressed in this article (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Characteristics and values of Boomers, as they are commonly
called, include a tendency to micromanage others and a lack of respect for authority (Blythe
et al., 2008; McGuire et al., 2007). They also dislike laziness and believe in paying one’s due to earn respect and seniority. Boomers tend to be competitive and are master networkers. Despite
their competitiveness, they seek consensus when making decisions in the workplace (Blythe et al.,
2008; McGuire et al., 2007).
Generation X
Gen Xers were born between 1965 and 1980 and represent approximately 48 million Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). A much smaller generational cohort than Boomers, Gen Xers are be-
tween age 30 and 45. Common characteristics and values of this generation include a willingness to
take risks and an emphasis on teamwork and collaboration. They tend to be less socially adept than their Boomer counterparts but are relatively comfortable with technology. Quality of life is impor-
tant to them, and they are not loyal to their employers (Blythe et al., 2008; McGuire et al., 2007).
Baby Boomers and Gen Xers fill the majority of management positions in LHDs, yet the
literature points out that the next generation of public health workers, Generation Y, has its own characteristics and values that differ significantly from those of the two generations dominating
the public health workforce. Current public health managers will need to accommodate these dif-
ferences if only because of the sheer numbers of Gen Y workers entering workforce (Crumpacker
& Crumpacker, 2007).
Generation Y
Generation Y includes nearly 80 million Americans representing approximately 27% of the U.S.
population, whereas Boomers represent about 78 million Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
Generation Y is entering the workforce with different expectations, communication styles, and work styles. Generation Y also has different values, norms, and attitudes regarding authority,
acceptance of change, and work–life balance as compared to previous generations (Hu et al.,
2004). Of paramount concern to Generation Y is flexibility (Sherman, 2006). Generation Y is
confident and optimistic and wants, perhaps even expects, to progress rapidly in the organization. However, their confidence is coupled with a need for “immediate feedback and almost continuous
recognition” (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). Ironically, though Gen Ys tend to be well
educated and often multitask using several modes of communication simultaneously, they need
to work on their communication skills (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Tyler, 2007). For example, text and instant messaging requires judicious use of space. As a result a whole lexicon
for communicating in these media has developed. This, in turn, has led to a generation of young
people who rely on technology to ensure correct spelling and grammar when communicating in
other media (Tyler, 2007). They also need to hone their problem-solving skills (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Tyler, 2007). Generation Y employees like challenges but resist authority and
prefer managers who serve as mentors and coaches (Hu et al., 2004). They also prefer managers
SHIFTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH PARADIGM 689
who work collaboratively with their staff (Center for State and Local Government Excellence [CSLGE], 2008). They dislike being micromanaged and are most comfortable in environments in
which they can demonstrate their expertise (Sherman, 2006). Work–life balance is very important
to Generation Y, and if pushed to choose between “work” and “life” at any given moment they
will most likely choose “life” (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). Multiculturalism has always been part of the Gen Y world so a diverse workplace seems is normal to them (Sherman, 2006).
Finally, if their needs and those of customers and clients are not met, organizations can expect
high turnover of Generation Y employees, as they are loyal to their careers, and their professional
growth, not to their employers (Sherman, 2006). Crumpacker and Crumpacker (2007) suggest that
as Generation Y gains a foothold in the workplace, organizations will need to change to accommodate
their norms instead of expecting young workers to change to accommodate existing organizational
norms. In this regard, sheer numbers and skills alone provide Generation Y employees leverage.
(p. 363)
Given this, it would be fair to assume that recruiting, retaining, and managing Gen Y workers
provides an interesting opportunity for LHD management. Perhaps most significant for current
public health managers is Gen Y’s loyalty to their careers and their ideals, not to their employers. If Gen Y recruits do not believe the LHDs they work for are meeting the needs of the populations
they serve as well as their personal career goals and aspirations, Gen Y employees will leave
for employment opportunities that do. Despite this, one survey by the Center for State and Local
Government Excellence (CSLGE, 2008) found that the majority of respondents would be interested in working for local (58%) government. Even so, 52% to 57% of the American public perceives
it to be difficult to get jobs with state and local governments (CSLGE, 2007). Not only do people
perceive the governmental hiring process to be complicated, many applicants enter the private
sector instead due to the long lag time from initial interest in a position to being hired (CSLGE, 2008).Adding to the challenge of recruiting and training Gen Y is the fact that many people
feel there are few opportunities for innovation or creativity in state and local government, which
is not attractive to Gen Y employees looking for opportunities to demonstrate their expertise (CSLGE, 2007). LHDs that are successful in managing a multigenerational workforce will exhibit
characteristics of transformational leadership.
THE UNKNOWN IMPACT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM
As the Affordable Care Act (ACA) began to be rolled out in 2010, more questions than answers arose in the public health community. Although it is understood that ACA will cover more
uninsured when the health insurance exchanges become operational by 2014, and that there are
new financial incentives for physicians to engage in more preventive care; the role of local public
health practice was not clearly defined. In theory, near universal coverage may eliminate the need for LHDs to provide such services as free immunizations, well-baby services, cancer screening,
and smoking cessation programs, especially if physicians and health systems are incented to
provide more access to preventive care.
In the future, LHDs may be focused more on environmental issues and consumer protection activities such as food and restaurant inspections, air and water quality, and case managing people
in the health care exchange environment. The continued blurring of the lines between public health
and social services agencies may result in more merging of departments and municipal, county,
and state level. More nurses will be needed in the private sector to offset the increased demand placed on health systems by the increase of 30 million new customers in the private insurance
market. Thus, in the next 20 years, fewer clinical services, more levels of government bureaucracy,
690 E. GASS AND M. P. BEZOLD
and an increasingly diverse U.S. population means that social work will play a greater role in the provision of public health.
A NEW PARADIGM FOR LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
Previous sections of this article highlight how public health efforts are funded and how different
generations of Americans’ perceptions of work are affected by personal values, attitudes, and
beliefs. Based on the above demographic and economic trends, both of which are happening
concurrent health care reform debate, LHDs would benefit from a paradigmatic shift in the way it conceives of its core functions and essential services. Although the core functions and essential
services remain relevant, workforce issues and funding cuts have made providing services to all
residents a challenge. In addition, we know that social determinants of health are strong predictors of poor health outcomes. Researchers have found that poverty, when controlling for education and
health behavior, is a predictor of poor health outcomes (Lantz et al., 2001). Thus, to have a more
impactful role in the future, public health needs to reconceive the delivery of core functions and
essential services to address the socioeconomic and “upstream” contributors that factor into health. This requires a new perspective and a sense of urgency among LHD leadership to address these
challenges now—especially in the context of the new health care reform law.
New Strategic Focus Areas
The current core functions of assurance, assessment, and policy development are not meant
to be replaced. However, the combination of reduced funding, the values of the Generation Y
workforce, and the scope of need warrant a reprioritization. Through a variety of tools including
the Mobilizing for Action and Partnership Program (MAPP), LHDs have begun to develop strategic policy focus areas for 21st-century LHDs (Gass et al., 2010). These strategic policy focus areas
include addressing health equity, optimizing the use of technology, and enhancing and mobilizing
partnerships (Fairchild et al., 2010). These strategic focus areas can serve as a guide to action, a
new way of operating and of disseminating information about the old core functions of assessment, assurance, and policy development. For example, addressing health equity would incorporate a
social justice component. As for optimizing technology, public health must begin to look past
traditional forms of communication. Newer technologies, favored by Generation Y, must be
explored. YouTube, podcasts, text messaging, and targeted Facebook and Twitter campaigns will reach a wider audience of young people. Finally enhancing and mobilizing partnerships will be the
only way local public health will be able to sustain itself in the future. Leveraging the resources
of technology firms, advocacy and religious groups, colleges and universities, foundations, and
other governmental agencies such as police, fire, and public works will stretch funds and show the value of LHD contributions to the larger population.
Conceptualizing strategic focus areas necessitates adjustments to the essential services as they
are currently presented. These proposed changes are not meant to eliminate the traditional essential
services, but to serve as reframing the work of local governmental public health in a way that is attractive to future generations of public health workers. The services provided by public health
entities of the 21st century can be articulated in the following five categories:
1. Environmental stewardship is an important part of the future of public health. Generation
Y has no memory of a world where global warming was not an issue. In today’s society, where willful ignorance toward the issues affecting our climate and environment occurred,
Generation Y has the human capital to finally end the debate about pollution. But it is
SHIFTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH PARADIGM 691
not just global warming, previous generations have abandoned industrial worksites all over the United States. Although rehabilitation of brownfields has occurred, it will be up to
Generation Y to make sure that the land is used responsibly and equitably.
2. Responsible urban development is linked with environmental stewardship, such that new
development must be green, energy efficient, and sustainable. In addition, LHDs can work with developers, city development authorities, and academics to development and implement
Health Impact Assessments for new projects, similar to environmental impact assessments.
3. Quality, affordable housing is something that LHDs can ensure. Through lead abatement and
indoor air quality initiatives, LHDs can work to eliminate many chronic diseases attributable to older housing stock. Technology innovation such as portable lead testers, free distribution
of high-quality vacuum cleaners, and partnerships with “green” contractors can improve the
health of the population with no direct medical intervention.
4. Access to healthcare. With the increased attention to prevention prominent in the new health care law, LHDs should be front and center in implementing prevention efforts. Working with
the community, local public health can serve as the gateway to preventive services. LHDs,
in concert with Federally Qualified Health Centers, should be the focal point of prevention,
and providing access to care for those who need it. 5. Responsible economic development addresses issues related to the rebuilding of America’s
economic infrastructure. One example that affects many urban and rural areas is a lack
of healthy food options. The goal is to provide access to fresh produce, dairy, and other
quality foods at competitive prices. Either through grocery stores or farmer’s markets, this type of development will create jobs while alleviating the shortage of healthy foods. Another
example would be for LHDs to champion the expansion of “green” manufacturers, such as
wind, solar, and battery. Again, this will create jobs while developing technologies that will improve the health and well-being of the entire population.
DISCUSSION
This article calls for LHDs to reconceptualize the core functions and essential services that guide
the work of public health agencies. This reconceptualization into strategic policy focus areas
recognizes that LHDs need to do things differently to proactively respond to two fundamental changes confronting virtually all organizations, changes in funding structures and changes in the
workforce. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers currently hold leadership positions in LHDs. However
Gen Ys are coming and have very different expectations. Their values are consistent with the
strategic policy focus areas outlined above. Gen Ys are technologically savvy and are engaged in their communities using their expertise to fight for social justice. They seek a balance in their lives,
focusing on their careers but also on their personal lives. To inspire them to achieve great things in
the workplace, LHDs must view them as just one of the many “communities of partners” (Fairchild
et al., 2010) with whom they partner to realize successful outcomes for each of the strategic policy focus areas. Inspiring young workers requires LHDs to rethink how they lead people.
Traditionally administration of public agencies has been characterized by bureaucratic processes
focused on rationality and efficiency and concomitant leadership practices. This can unwittingly
undermine morale, particularly that of the Gen Y workforce, and, in turn, the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency. Leadership in public health agencies must instead share a vision of the
future as articulated in the strategic policy focus areas and provide workers the resources to make
that future a reality. Leadership must also create a workplace culture that is collaborative and
empowers employees. Leaders must also show that they respect their employees as individuals, openly communicating with them including listening respectfully to what they have to say. Finally
leaders need to be open, trusting and ethical.
692 E. GASS AND M. P. BEZOLD
The challenge for public health leaders is to make these changes in an uncertain budget envi- ronment. Over the past decade, disproportionate increases in funding for terrorism preparedness
have crippled the ability of local public health departments to focus on disease prevention (Levi
et al., 2007). However, this should not be seen as a complete setback for public health because it
exposed how vulnerable our population is when the focus shifts from disease prevention. Between the need to increase local public health budgets and capacity through grants and new opportunities
to transform the focus of the American health care system to a prevention-focused model, a once
in a generation opportunity to shape the future of our country lies at the feet of current local
public health leadership. By embracing the flexibility that exists outside of traditional local tax levy funding, local public health leadership can ensure the viability of local public health for years
to come.
Public health has a vital role to play in the future viability of the U.S. and other nations around
the world. However public health must capitalize on the convergence of two powerful forces, changing funding structures and a changing workforce, to ensure its viability well into the future.
Reconceptualizing the Core Functions and Essential Services into strategic policy focus areas is a
first step in formulating a new future for public health agencies and the populations they serve. To
realize the desired outcomes, public health agencies need to embrace a social work paradigm and a workforce with dramatically different values, attitudes and beliefs that what currently exists.
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. (1998). 10 essential public health services. Retrieved from http://www.apha.org/
programs/standards/performancestandardsprogram/resexxentialservices.htm
Association of Schools of Public Health. (2008). ASPH policy brief: Confronting the public health workforce crisis. Wash-
ington, DC: Association of Schools of Public Health. Retrieved from www.asph.org/UserFiles/WorkforceShortage2010
Final.pdf
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. (2007). 2007 state public health workforce survey results. Washing-
ton, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.astho.org/Programs/Workforce-and-Leadership-Development/2007-State-Public-
Health-Workforce-Survey-Results/
Blythe, J., Baumann, A., Zeytinoglu, I. U., Denton, M., Akhtar-Danesh, N., Davies, S., & Kolotylo, C. (2008). Nursing
generations in the contemporary workforce. Public Personnel Management, 37, 137–159.
Center for State and Local Government Excellence. (2007). Security: What Americans want from a job. Washington, DC:
Author.
Center for State and Local Government Excellence. (2008). Facing the future: Retirements, second careers to reshape
state and local governments in the post-Katrina era. Washington, DC: Author.
Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J. D. (2007). Succession planning and generational stereotypes: Should HR consider
age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public Personnel Management, 36, 349–369.
Fairchild, A. L., Rosner, D., Colgrove, J., Bayer, R., & Fried, L. P. (2010). The EXODUS of public health: What history
can tell us about the future. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 54–63.
Gass, E., Nannis, P., Kessler, C., Koltun, R., & Perry, S. (2010). City of Milwaukee Health Department planning and
policy recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.milwaukee.gov/MAPPCommunityHealthA23210.htm
Hu, J., Herrick, C., & Hodgin, K. A. (2004). Managing a multigenerational nursing team. The Health Care Manager, 24,
334–340.
Institute of Medicine. (2002). Who will keep the public healthy?: Educating public health professionals for the 21st
century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Lantz, P. M., Lynch, J. W., House, J. S., Lepkowski, J. M., Mero, R. P., Musick, M. A., & Williams D. R. (2001).
Socioeconomic disparities in health change in a longitudinal study of US adults: The role of health-risk behaviors.
Social Science & Medicine, 53, 29–40.
Levi, J., Juliano, C., & Richardson, M. (2007). Financing public health: Diminished funding for core needs and state-by-
state variation in support. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 13, 97–102.
McGuire, D., By, R. T., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Towards a model of human resource solutions for achieving intergener-
ational interaction in organisations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31, 592–608.
SHIFTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH PARADIGM 693
National Association of County and City Health Officials. (1995). National profile of local health departments, 1992–
93. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/profile/resources/upload/1992-
1993NationalProfileofLocalHealthDepts.pdf
National Association of County and City Health Officials. (2006). National profile of local health departments, 2005. Wash-
ington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/profile/upload/naccho_report_final_000.
National Association of County and City Health Officials. (2009). National profile of local health departments, 2008. Wash-
ington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/profile/resources/2008report/upload/
NACCHO_2008_ProfileReport_post-to-website-2.pdf
National Association of County and City Health Officials. (2010). The local health department workforce: Findings from
the 2008 national profile of local health departments. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.naccho.
org/topics/infrastructure/profile/upload/NACCHO_WorkforceReport_FINAL.pdf
Sherman, R. O. (2006). Leading a multigenerational nursing workforce: Issues, challenges and strategies. Online Journal
of Issues in Nursing, 11(2). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu
Tyler, K. (2007). The tethered generation. HR Magazine, 52(5). Retrieved from www.shrm.org/Publications/hrmagazine/
EditorialContent/Pages/0507cover.aspx
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). 2006–2008 American Community Survey. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
factfinder.census.gov
Wisconsin Division of Public Health. (2005). Core functions and essential services for public health in Wisconsin. Retrieved
from http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/statehealthplan/shp-pdf/corefunctions.pdf
Copyright of Social Work in Public Health is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.