Target Journal: Journal of Public Health Management and Practice / American Journal of Public Health 

Category: Policy Analysis, Health Systems Governance, & Public Health Law 

Abstract 

For more than a generation, the governmental public health enterprise in the United States has grappled with profound, geographic disparities in service delivery, institutional capacity, and population health outcomes. When the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued its landmark 1988 indictment declaring that public health was “in disarray,” it pinpointed two structural root causes: an absence of consensus regarding the core mission of public health and systemic organizational fragmentation across governmental tiers. This article traces the historical and constitutional architecture of that disarray. We examine how the historical trajectory of public health—evolving through reactive, episodic crises ranging from 18th-century maritime quarantine to 21st-century environmental and biological threats—resulted in a fragmented, piecemeal scope of practice. We further analyze how constitutional federalism and the Tenth Amendment institutionalized lateral and vertical fragmentation, producing profound structural divergence across centralized, decentralized, and mixed jurisdictional models, while fiscal federalism (categorical and block grant mechanisms) inadvertently fortified programmatic silos. Finally, we demonstrate how voluntary national accreditation administered by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB), built upon the foundation of the 10 Essential Public Health Services and the National Public Health Performance Standards, effectively resolves this historic paradox. By establishing nationally recognized standards and Foundational Capabilities without infringing upon sovereign state police powers, accreditation harmonizes local autonomy with rigorous, standardized quality assurance and continuous quality improvement. 

Introduction: The Enduring Paradox of Public Health “Disarray” 

In 1988, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published what remains the most influential diagnostic evaluation of the American governmental public health infrastructure: The Future of Public Health. The committee’s opening diagnosis was unsparing: 

“This nation has largely lost sight of its public health goals and has allowed the system of public health activities to fall into disarray.” (IOM, 1988, p. 19) 

At the epicenter of this disarray was an acute structural failure: massive, unjustifiable variability in the scope, capacity, and quality of public health protections afforded to Americans depending entirely on the jurisdiction in which they resided. Where one county enjoyed robust chronic disease surveillance, comprehensive maternal-child health clinics, and rigorous environmental code enforcement, an adjacent municipality or neighboring state lacked even rudimentary sanitary oversight or communicable disease tracking. 

The IOM attributed this systemic inequality to two foundational vulnerabilities: 

1. The lack of consensus on the content of the public health mission, which allowed the purview of public health to be defined ad hoc by local politics, selective crises, and fiscal convenience. 

1. Organizational fragmentation, which fractured relationships between local, state, and federal levels of government and insulated internal programs from one another (IOM, 1988, p. 107). 

Over the intervening decades, public health researchers, state health officers, and federal leaders recognized that resolving this disarray required more than incremental grant investments. It demanded a structural mechanism capable of reconciling two seemingly incompatible imperatives: respecting the constitutional sovereignty of states while guaranteeing a standard baseline of public health protection for every American. The realization of that mechanism is the national voluntary public health accreditation program governed by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). 

To understand why accreditation represents such a transformative institutional breakthrough, one must examine the dual engines that historically generated variability in American public health: the reactive trajectory of public health history and the constitutional mechanics of American federalism. 

Part I: The Reactive Evolution of the Public Health Mission 

The contemporary lack of consensus regarding what constitutes an essential baseline of public health services is not an accident of administrative neglect. Rather, it is the direct consequence of how governmental public health evolved in the United States: not through deliberate, forward-looking strategic design, but through episodic, reactive responses to acute crises. 

1. Maritime Containment in the Eighteenth Century

In the pre-industrial and colonial eras, governmental public health intervention was conceived almost exclusively as an emergency border defense. Spurred by devastating outbreaks of yellow fever, cholera, and smallpox brought by maritime trade and immigration, colonial and early municipal assemblies enacted ad-hoc quarantine and isolation mandates (Hanlon & Pickett, 1984; IOM, 1988). Early boards of health were temporary committees established in coastal entry ports, such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, tasked with inspecting incoming ships and isolating infected travelers. Because inland settlements and rural agrarian hubs faced different exposure vectors, they developed no corresponding public health infrastructure. From the republic’s inception, public health was defined geographically and episodically. 

2. Urbanization and the 19th-Century Sanitary Awakening

The industrial revolution of the nineteenth century spurred unprecedented urban crowding, industrial exploitation, and squalor. Filth, contaminated shallow wells, uncollected animal carcass refuse, and absent sewage disposal generated endemic outbreaks of typhus, tuberculosis, and infant diarrhea. 

Prompted by landmark sanitary investigations, most notably Edwin Chadwick’s 1842 report in Great Britain and Lemuel Shattuck’s 1850 Report of the Sanitary Commission of Massachusetts, public health transformed from episodic maritime quarantine into environmental and municipal sanitation (Winslow, 1923; Shattuck, 1850). Jurisdictions created permanent local boards of health to oversee refuse management, clean municipal water distribution, drainage engineering, and the systematic collection of vital statistics. Yet, implementation remained wildly uneven: affluent, progressive municipalities invested in complex water filtration and sanitary police, while rural districts and economically depressed regions retained negligible governmental presence. 

3. The Bacteriological Revolution and Clinical Expansion in the 20th Century

The dawn of the germ theory of disease (pasteurization, Koch’s postulates, immunology) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries radically redefined the public health portfolio. Quarantine and general environmental cleanliness were augmented, and frequently overshadowed, by laboratory science, targeted immunization campaigns, contact tracing, and personal clinical care (Winslow, 1923; Starr, 1982). 

State and local agencies established diagnostic laboratories, sanatoria for tuberculosis, maternal-child health clinics, and dispensaries for venereal diseases. As the century progressed, the boundaries between population-based prevention and individual clinical medical care blurred. Some health departments functioned primarily as safety-net medical providers for the impoverished, while others restricted their activities strictly to regulatory inspections and vital records. 

4. The 21st-Century Horizon: All-Hazards, Climate, and Informatics

In the modern era, the scope of public health expanded further still. The 2001 anthrax attacks and subsequent federal legislation catalyzed the institutionalization of public health emergency preparedness (PHEP), demanding complex bioterrorism and disaster readiness capabilities (Kapur & Smith, 2011). Simultaneously, rising chronic disease burdens, structural racism, global warming, and the COVID-19 pandemic compelled agencies to integrate climate resilience, health equity, and sophisticated informatics into their operational portfolios (CDC, 2015; DeSalvo et al., 2016). 

The Cumulative Consequence: Severe Scope Heterogeneity 

Because each successive functional layer was added incrementally during acute moments of social vulnerability, public health infrastructure stratified unevenly across the country: 

“All of the states in the United States are involved in some manner in sanitation, laboratory investigation, collecting vital statistics, regulation of the environment, epidemiology, administering vaccines, maternal and child health, mental health, and care of the poor. How local systems conduct these programs differs greatly from area to area. Changing values over both time and place have allowed great variety in the implementation of public health programs across the country.” (IOM, 1988, p. 71) 

Without an authoritative, structural definition of what an American public health department fundamentally owes its community, local political convenience dictated whether an agency provided comprehensive, population-level health promotion or merely inspected septic tanks. 

Part II: Constitutional Federalism and Structural Disintegration 

If historical reactivity explains why the scope of public health became so fragmented, the constitutional doctrine of American federalism explains why this fragmentation became permanently institutionalized within governmental structures. 

1. The Tenth Amendment and Sovereign Police Powers

The United States Constitution makes no direct textual reference to health or public health. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. Consequently, the primary legal authority to enact laws protecting the public’s health, safety, and general welfare, the sovereign police power, resides exclusively with the fifty states (Gostin & Wiley, 2016; Parmet, 2007). 

While this constitutional allocation provides vital flexibility, permitting states and municipalities to tailor legal and health responses to local cultural and ecological contexts (Gerston, 2007; Lister, 2005), it introduces severe structural side effects: 

• Vertical Disconnect: The federal government possesses no direct constitutional power to command state or local health departments to execute specific health mandates or adhere to standardized operational protocols (Turnock & Atchison, 2002). 

• Lateral Disconnect: Each state legislature independently determines how, or even if, it delegates its public health authority to local subdivisions (counties, municipalities, or regional districts). 

2. The Tripartite Governance Typology

As states exercised their sovereign authority over two centuries, they constructed vastly different governance configurations for local public health delivery. As Wasserman et al. (2006) and ASTHO (2020) have codified, governmental public health operates across three dominant archetypes: 

This structural divergence gave rise to the enduring public health adage: “If you’ve seen one health department, you’ve seen one health department” (Turnock, 2015, p. 114). The lack of structural uniformity means that a local health department in Massachusetts (where hundreds of municipal boards govern independent towns) bears virtually no institutional resemblance to a local health unit in Florida (where all 67 county health departments are direct operational extensions of the state health agency). 

3. The Unintended Stovepipes of Fiscal Federalism

Precluded from exerting direct command-and-control oversight under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government historically relied on the power of the purse, fiscal federalism, to steer state and local health practice toward national goals (IOM, 1988; Dilger, 2015). 

Beginning with the Title V provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935, the 1966 Partnership for Health Act, and expanding exponentially through late-20th-century CDC and HRSA investments, the federal government distributed billions of dollars through two primary fiscal mechanisms: 

1. Categorical Grants (Programmatic Stovepipes): Categorical awards provide restricted funding earmarked exclusively for narrowly delineated statutory purposes (e.g., childhood lead poisoning, Ryan White HIV/AIDS care, Title X family planning) (Kenadjian, 1966; Fowler, 1993). While highly effective at scaling up specific clinical or surveillance capabilities, categorical grants generate what Conlan (1984) identified as the “maladies of program fragmentation and inadequate coordination” (p. 250).[Text Wrapping Break]Because federal rules strictly prohibit commingling funds, local health departments organized their physical and personnel infrastructure into rigid administrative silos. An agency’s immunization team was legally and operationally walled off from its chronic disease staff. Rather than building holistic, institutional capacity across the agency, categorical funding created isolated pockets of operational excellence while leaving baseline agency leadership, informatics, and governance hollowed out (IOM, 2003). 

1. Block Grants (Inter-Jurisdictional Divergence): In contrast, block grants, such as the Preventive Health and Health Services (PHHS) Block Grant, afford states broad discretion to allocate dollars across broad priority areas (Dilger, 2015). While block grants mitigated internal intradepartmental stovepiping by allowing agency leaders to invest flexibly, they simultaneously amplified inter-departmental variability. Because each recipient state established its own spending priorities, baseline services across neighboring states diverged even further. 

Thus, federal grant incentives reached a threshold of diminishing structural returns: they incentivized compliance with discrete, vertical programmatic checkboxes while systematically failing to cultivate a standardized, resilient public health operational infrastructure. 

Part III: The Evolution of Standards: Defining Scope vs. Assuring Quality 

By the early 1990s, public health leaders acknowledged that neither categorical grants nor episodic crisis funding could overcome the systemic disarray of the system. The field required an overarching taxonomical architecture. 

1. Codifying the Scope: The Core Functions and the 10 EPHS

To build a shared vocabulary, the IOM (1988) first synthesized governmental public health into Three Core Functions: 

• Assessment: The systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of community health data. 

• Policy Development: The formulation of evidence-informed public policies to serve the public interest. 

• Assurance: The statutory guarantee that high-priority personal and community-wide services are accessible and executed. 

In 1994, the Public Health Functions Steering Committee (comprising federal agencies, ASTHO, NACCHO, and academic leaders) operationalized these three functions into the 10 Essential Public Health Services (EPHS) (revised with an equity core in 2020) (CDC, 2020; McCullough & Fenton, 2011). 

The 10 EPHS represented a monumental conceptual leap forward: for the first time in American history, there was a universal consensus regarding the scope of services a governmental public health system was expected to deliver. 

2. The Quality Gap and the National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS)

However, an essential problem persisted: the 10 EPHS defined what public health did, but provided no metrics to assess how well it did it (Luo, 2013). The adoption of the framework was entirely voluntary, and without concrete operational thresholds, agencies could claim adherence to “EPHS 1: Monitor Health Status” by simply publishing an outdated decennial census report once a decade. 

To bridge this operational void, the CDC and national partners launched the National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS) between 1998 and 2002 (Milhon, 2011). The NPHPS established instruments to evaluate the performance capacity of state and local public health systems against the 10 EPHS. While the NPHPS provided valuable self-assessment data, it lacked external accountability mechanisms, independent peer validation, and statutory incentives. It answered what communities could reasonably expect from public health, but lacked the institutional leverage to ensure agencies built the capacity to deliver it. 

Part IV: National Accreditation as the Structural Solution 

The historical quest to overcome the constraints of federalism without destroying local autonomy culminated in the founding of the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) in 2007, which launched the national voluntary public health accreditation program in 2011 (PHAB, 2022). 

Accreditation represents the systemic, constitutional solution to the century-old problem of public health variability. It succeeds precisely where traditional federal regulation fails, utilizing a voluntary, peer-reviewed, standards-based framework that transcends federal, state, and local structural boundaries. 

1. Standardizing Foundational Capabilities Across Heterogeneous Typologies

PHAB standards do not prescribe how a health department must be organized politically. A decentralized board of health in Ohio and a centralized state district office in South Carolina can both achieve accreditation. Instead of regulating organizational structure, PHAB standardizes Foundational Capabilities—the non-negotiable operational capacities required to protect any community, including: 

• Public health surveillance, laboratory investigation, and epidemiological analytics. 

• Community health assessment (CHA) and collaborative improvement planning (CHIP). 

• Health communication, emergency preparedness, and environmental hazard containment. 

• Evidence-based policy development, accountability, and ethical governance. 

By shifting the benchmark from structural morphology to functional operational capability, PHAB ensures that regardless of whether an agency is centralized, decentralized, or hybrid, its residents receive an assured, reliable baseline of protection. 

2. Dismantling Programmatic Stovepipes

PHAB accreditation deliberately dismantles the categorical silos fostered by 80 years of federal grantmaking. Under PHAB Standards , an agency cannot demonstrate operational excellence through a stellar, isolated lead-poisoning grant while its infectious disease and administrative operations struggle. 

Measures across Domain 8 (Workforce Development), Domain 9 (Performance Management & Quality Improvement), and Domain 10 (Leadership and Governance) mandate cross-departmental coordination: 

• Clinical teams must share data with epidemiologists. 

• Environmental health inspection findings must inform the Community Health Improvement Plan. 

• Quality improvement projects must be executed across administrative, environmental, and clinical units alike. 

Accreditation forces the health department to operate as an integrated, unified system rather than a holding company for disparate federal grants. 

3. Institutionalizing the Trajectory of Practice and Continuous Quality Improvement

Crucially, PHAB accreditation shifts governmental public health from a reactive posture into an institutionalized, proactive learning organization. 

Domain 9 enshrines what scholars define as The Trajectory of Practice: the continuous, systematic translation of routine data (Inquire), into inter-disciplinary Public Health Intelligence (Synthesize), into transparent administrative and policy choices (Formulate), and into measurable, evaluated interventions (Actuate). By requiring accredited agencies to maintain active Performance Management systems that benchmark routine operational metrics and trigger structured Quality Improvement (QI) projects when performance lags, accreditation embeds daily accountability directly into institutional DNA. 

Conclusion: Bridging the Constitutional Divide Through Practice Excellence 

The history of governmental public health in the United States has been a continuous struggle between the imperative for nationwide health protection and the centrifugal forces of constitutional federalism. For more than two centuries, the reactive emergence of public health functions combined with the legal dispersion of police powers to create a fractured, unpredictable landscape, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to preventable inequities simply by virtue of their zip code. 

Federal grants, the IOM Core Functions, and the 10 Essential Public Health Services made monumental contributions toward diagnosing this fragmentation and defining the intended boundaries of public health practice. However, none possessed the structural capacity to bridge the gap between aspirational scope and verified quality. 

National public health accreditation through PHAB has resolved this historic dilemma. By establishing a rigorous, evidence-based, peer-reviewed standard of practice that applies universally across diverse governance structures, accreditation preserves constitutional state sovereignty while securing nationwide consistency. It transforms public health departments from isolated, compliance-driven bureaucracies into agile, accountable, and high-performing engines of community health assurance. In doing so, accreditation fulfills the unfinished promise first articulated by the Institute of Medicine in 1988: moving public health out of disarray and establishing an enduring, equitable architecture of public health excellence across the nation.  

Next week, we will look at the The Trajectory of Practice, and you can learn more at AccredQi Academy (accrediqi.com). 

References 

• Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. (2020). ASTHO profile of state and territorial public health (Volume 5). ASTHO. https://www.astho.org/ 

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). The public health system and the 10 Essential Public Health Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Climate and health: Building resilience against climate effects. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). 10 Essential Public Health Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/publichealthgateway/publichealthservices/essentialhealthservices.html 

• Conlan, T. J. (1984). The politics of federal block grants: From Nixon to Reagan. Political Science Quarterly, 99(2), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2150404 

• DeSalvo, K. B., O’Carroll, P. W., Koo, D., Auerbach, J. M., & Monroe, J. A. (2016). Public Health 3.0: Time for an upgraded operating system for addressing social determinants of health. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13, E178. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160124 

• Dilger, R. J. (2015). Federal grants to state and local governments: A historical perspective on contemporary issues (CRS Report No. R40638). Congressional Research Service. 

• Fowler, B. A. (1993). Mechanisms of lead-induced toxicity: An overview. Environmental Health Perspectives, 100, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9310029 

• Gerston, L. N. (2007). American federalism: A concise introduction. M.E. Sharpe. 

• Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2016). Public health law: Power, duty, restraint (3rd ed.). University of California Press. 

• Greer, S. L., & Jacobson, P. D. (2010). Health care reform and federalism. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 35(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2009-048 

• Hanlon, J. J., & Pickett, G. E. (1984). Public health: Administration and practice (8th ed.). Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. 

• Institute of Medicine. (1988). The future of public health. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1091 

• Institute of Medicine. (2003). The future of the public’s health in the 21st century. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10448 

• Kapur, G. B., & Smith, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). Emergency public health: Preparedness and response. Jones & Bartlett Learning. 

• Kenadjian, B. (1966). Federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments: An analysis of their development and present status. National Tax Journal, 19(4), 438–446. 

• Lister, G. (2005). The future of the public’s health in the 21st century: A review. Health Education Research, 20(1), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg104 

• Luo, H. (2013). Implementing the 10 Essential Public Health Services: An empirical assessment of local health department variation. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 19(4), 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e31826f43e1 

• McCullough, J. M., & Fenton, K. A. (2011). The National Public Health Performance Standards: Ten years of progress and future directions. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 17(4), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182188ff6 

• Milhon, F. (2011). Performance standards and accreditation: Moving the needle on public health quality. Public Health Reports, 126(1), 2–5. 

• New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). The 10 Essential Public Health Services and local public health systems. State of New Hampshire. 

• Parmet, W. E. (2007). Legal power and legal rights—Thinking about the legal foundations of public health. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, 10(2), 209–224. 

• Public Health Accreditation Board. (2022). Standards & measures for initial accreditation (Version 2022). PHAB. https://phaboard.org/ 

• Salinsky, E. (2010). Governmental public health: An overview of state and local public health agencies. National Health Policy Forum. 

• Shattuck, L. (1850). Report of a general plan for the promotion of public and personal health: Devised, recommended and submitted by the Sanitary Commission of Massachusetts. Dutton & Wentworth. 

• Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine: The rise of a sovereign profession and the making of a vast industry. Basic Books. 

• Turnock, B. J. (2015). Public health: What it is and how it works (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. 

• Turnock, B. J., & Atchison, C. G. (2002). Governmental public health in the United States: The implications of federalism. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 8(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124784-200201000-00010 

• Wasserman, J., Ricciardi, R., Dahl, C. A., & Blevins, S. (2006). Organizing state and local health departments: The implications of governance structure for public health performance. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 12(6), X1–X12. 

• Winslow, C.-E. A. (1923). The evolution and significance of the modern public health campaign. Yale University Press. 

• World Health Organization. (2015). Public health services: What they are and how they work. WHO Regional Office for Europe.