Cross-Jurisdictional Public Health Sharing Arrangements in Kansas

Public health funding in Kansas and the nation has decreased in recent years, while the responsibilities of public health agencies have not. As resources become more limited, public health departments must explore alternate ways to effectively and efficiently provide foundational public health services to their communities. Some counties in Kansas are responding to this challenge by pooling public health resources with other counties. By sharing services, functions and programs with other jurisdictions, public health departments and policymakers can create economies of scale that allow for a larger impact on the health and well-being of their communities.

Available online: http://www.khi.org/policy/article/kansas_cjs

It is included in the CJS Resource Library under the categories listed below. Select a link to find other resources in that category.

  • Background / History: The Kansas Health Institute (KHI) recently looked inside the development, progression and future of several public health CJS arrangements in Kansas and documented the findings in four case studies.
  • Governance: Gaining and keeping political support from county commissioners is important in CJS arrangements.
  • Rural / Small Jurisdictions: All of the arrangements are located in rural settings. Three of the four collaborations each serve combined populations of around 35,000−40,000.

 
This resource is also linked to the Roadmap. Select a link below to read more about each area.

  • Why? / Phase One: Because these areas had limited resources to fund public health activities, leaders considered pooling resources and populations with other counties in order to build economies of scale or meet minimum program requirements.
  • Fiscal and Service Implications / Phase Two: The cost to administer programs can be reduced since it saves time on administration when one entity can coordinate services to the residents of multiple counties.
  • Governance / Phase Two: Gaining and keeping political support from county commissioners is important in CJS arrangements.
  • Communications / Phase Two: Constant communication between counties in a collaborative arrangement can be difficult and requires additional effort to ensure that critical items are clearly communicated to all staff.
  • Monitoring / Phase Two: Conducting regular evaluations of the CJS arrangements could reveal opportunities for these arrangements to increase their efficiency and effectiveness in the community and show value for more widespread adoption.
  • Monitoring and Improving / Phase Three: Throughout the years, the partnerships have gone through several transformations. Some CJS arrangements lost partner counties due to financial and political pressures. Many CJS arrangements made shifts in personnel and operations in order to accommodate new shared services.