Improving integration and coordination of funding, technical assistance, and reporting/data collection: recommendations from CDC and USAPI stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Current US Federal funding mechanisms may foster program silos that disable sharing of resources and information across programs within a larger system of public health services. Such silos present challenges to USAPI communities where human resources, health infrastructure, and health financing are limited. Integrative and coordinated approaches have been recommended. The CDC Pacific Islands Integration and Coordination project was initiated by the CDC Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC). The project aim was to identify ways for the CDC to collaborate with the USAPI in improving CDC activities and processes related to chronic disease. This article focuses on recommendations for improving coordination and integration in three core areas of health services programming: funding, program reporting/data collection and analysis, and technical assistance. METHOD: Preliminary information on challenges and issues relevant to the core areas was gathered through site visits, focus groups, key informant interviews, and other sources. This information was used by stakeholder groups from the CDC and the USAPI to develop recommendations in the core programming areas. Recommendations generated at the CDC and USAPI stakeholder meetings were prepared into a single set of recommendations and stakeholders reviewed the document for accuracy prior to its dissemination to CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion programs management and staff. RESULTS: Key recommendations, include: (1) consideration of resources and other challenges unique to the USAPI when reviewing funding applications, (2) consideration of ways to increase flexibility in USAPI use of program funds, (3) dedication of funding and human resources for technical assistance, (4) provision of opportunities for capacity-building across programs and jurisdictions, (5) consideration of ways to more directly link program reporting with technical assistance. CONCLUSIONS: This project provided a unique opportunity for CDC and USAPI stakeholders to share diverse perspectives on challenges to public health programs in the USAPI. Despite diverse experiences, the final set of recommendations reflected a high level of concordance between USAPI and CDC stakeholders. Recommendations have informed or reinforced actions initiated by the DCPC, including the dedication of funds for leadership institutes aimed at enhancing USAPI capacity for sustainable, integrated regional and jurisdictional cancer control infrastructure. Such efforts are an important beginning, but more remains to be done. Indicated is the need for continuous dialogue and collaboration. While this project focused on the USAPI, our results may be relevant to those interested in inter-organizational collaborations, medically underserved areas, public health services programs, and community-based participatory approaches.

Improving integration and coordination of funding, technical assistance, and reporting/data collection: recommendations from CDC and USAPI stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Current US Federal funding mechanisms may foster program silos that disable sharing of resources and information across programs within a larger system of public health services. Such silos present challenges to USAPI communities where human resources, health infrastructure, and health financing are limited. Integrative and coordinated approaches have been recommended. The CDC Pacific Islands Integration and Coordination project was initiated by the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC). Its project aim was to identify ways for the CDC to collaborate with the USAPI in improving CDC activities and processes related to chronic disease. This article focuses on recommendations for improving coordination and integration in three core areas of health services programming: funding, program reporting/data collection and analysis, and technical assistance. METHOD: Preliminary information on challenges and issues relevant to the core areas was gathered through site visits, focus groups, key informant interviews, and other sources. This information was used by stakeholder groups from the CDC and the USAPI to develop recommendations in the core programming areas. Recommendations generated at the CDC and USAPI stakeholder meetings were prepared into a single set of recommendations and stakeholders reviewed the document for accuracy prior to its dissemination to CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion programs management and staff. RESULTS: Key recommendations, include: (1) consideration of resource s and other challenges unique to the USAPI when reviewing funding applications, (2) consideration of ways to increase flexibility in USAPI use of program funds, (3) dedicate funding and human resources for technical assistance, (4) provide opportunities for capacity-building across programs and jurisdictions, (5) consider ways to more directly link program reporting with technical assistance. CONCLUSIONS: This project provided a unique opportunity for CDC and USAPI stakeholders to share diverse perspectives on challenges to public health programs in the USAPI. Despite diverse experiences, the final set of recommendations reflected a high level of concordance between USAPI and CDC stakeholders on ways to improve coordination and integration of CDC processes and activities in the three core areas. Recommendations have informed some actions already initiated by the DCPC, including the dedication of funds for leadership institutes aimed at enhancing USAPI capacity for sustainable, integrated regional and jurisdictional cancer control infrastructure. Such efforts are an important beginning, but more remains to be done. Indicated is the need for continuous dialogue and collaboration. While this project focused on the USAPI, our results may be relevant to those interested in inter-organizational collaborations, medically underserved areas, public health services programs, and community-based participatory approaches.