Skip to main content
King County logo

The PHOMP will be a two-year planning effort conducted in two phases. Phase I will establish broad policies on the provision of public health services in King County . Phase II will result in recommendations regarding operational implementation and funding.

The outcomes of Phase I and Phase II shall reflect the flexibility needed to accommodate dynamic and changing community health conditions and emerging health issues. Moreover, the work product shall be presented in language and concepts that can readily be understood by those not in the public health field in order to provide uniform understanding. Work on the PHOMP will use as a starting point existing work and products developed by the Department. Review of this existing work will help to educate non-Department staff working on the PHOMP and will form a basis for developing outcomes in Phase I and Phase II.

The scope of work for the PHOMP will not include operations of Jail Health, which has undergone a review through the Jail Health Services Strategic Business Plan process from which recommendations are currently being implemented, and Emergency Medical Services, which annually updates its EMS Strategic Plan in partnership with the participating cities and fire districts in King County.

Phase I

The outcome of Phase I will be the establishment of a broad policy framework to prioritize and guide decision making regarding the provision of public health services in King County . The framework will include:

  1. The mission and goals for the County's provision of public health services;
  2. The roles and responsibilities of the Department , including a set of needed and evidence-based public health services and functions;
  3. Policy guidelines addressing practices such as performance measurement, evaluation, budget and financial accountability.
  4. Policy guidelines regarding funding.

The framework will be developed through:

  1. Reviewing the current vision, mission, goals, priorities, and existing policies and work of the Department such as the 2003 Proviso Report Public Health-Seattle & King County Public Health Priorities and Funding Policies;
  2. Reviewing national and state standards, mandates and frameworks for evaluating public health services;
  3. Understanding the role of a major metropolitan health department in a regional government, including functions, mandates, environment, and funding:
    • Major Metropolitan Health Departments (MMHD) Comparisons
      The Public Health Operational Master Plan will take an external look at how other Major Metropolitan Health Departments operate, what services they provide, and how they are funded. The Major Metropolitan comparison is currently underway, and the following 5 health authorities are being reviewed in depth by our consultants, Milne & Associates for inclusion in the Phase I background reports.

      The five major health departments chosen for comparison are:
  1. Establishing a comparison, among major metropolitan health departments serving regions of similar size and complexity to King County, of public health functions and services, best practices, and methods to analyze and report on the health status of the community;
  2. Conducting a baseline assessment of health in the County against which progress can be measured and forecasting the region's future public health needs;
  3. Understanding the Department's current services, programs, budgets, expenditures, and revenues;
  4. Forecasting major revenue sources and understanding what services are most at risk of reduced funding;
  5. Soliciting input from stakeholders and monitoring changes in their systems that have prospective potential impacts on the Department.

The framework resulting from Phase I is to be adopted by the both the Board of Health and the King County Council. The framework will provide a basis for the work in Phase II.

Phase II

The outcome of Phase II will be recommendations regarding operational implementation and funding that are consistent with the Phase I framework. These recommendations will include:

  1. Options regarding service level and delivery of regional public health services;
  2. Options for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of regional public health services and functions such as performance measurement and evaluation, organizational structure, contracting and budgetary and financial accountability;
  3. Options for stable funding for public health services.

These recommendations will build on the work in Phase I and be developed through:

  1. Identifying gaps in services or duplication of effort;
  2. Evaluating and comparing operations of major metropolitan health departments, including public health services provided, organizational structure, and functions such as performance measurement and evaluation, contracting and budgetary and financial accountability;
  3. Identifying linkages with other service providers or County functions and evaluating possibilities for collaboration and alternative means of providing services;
  4. Identifying services that support the effectiveness of other County functions;
  5. Evaluating and comparing the funding of major metropolitan health departments;
  6. Soliciting input from stakeholders and monitoring changes in their systems that have prospective potential impact on the Department;
  7. Analyzing the impacts of and estimating the revenues generated by alternative funding mechanisms.