Cross-Sector Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: Social, Economic, and Health Conditions Impacted During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Public Health 3.0 approaches are critical for monitoring disparities in economic, social, and overall health impacts following the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated policy changes to slow community spread. Timely, cross-sector data as identified using this approach help decisionmakers identify changes, track racial disparities, and address unintended consequences during a pandemic. We applied a monitoring and evaluation framework that combined policy changes with timely, relevant cross-sector data and community review. Indicators covered unemployment, basic needs, family violence, education, childcare, access to health care, and mental, physical, and behavioral health. In response to increasing COVID-19 cases, nonpharmaceutical intervention strategies were implemented in March 2020 in King County, Washington. By December 2020, 554 000 unemployment claims were filed. Social service calls increased 100%, behavioral health crisis calls increased 25%, and domestic violence calls increased 25%, with disproportionate impact on communities of color. This framework can be replicated by local jurisdictions to inform and address racial inequities in ongoing COVID-19 mitigation and recovery. Cross-sector collaboration between public health and sectors addressing the social determinants of health are an essential first step to have an impact on long-standing racial inequities. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(S3):S215–S223. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306422 )

Social, Economic and Overall Health Impacts of COVID-19 on People Living with Disabilities in King County, WA

“…While the general public shared many of the impacts described above [ 1 ], some impacts were uniquely experienced by people living with disabilities—due not only to having a disability but also to the unaddressed inequities that existed before the pandemic, and to having insufficient support [ 11 ]:…”

“…Ideally, this study would have been designed and implemented in the first year of the pandemic for an opportunity to adjust the processes more readily. The data about the impacts of COVID-19 for the general population were used in policy decisions and resource allocation for specific communities for which data were available [ 1 ]. In some cases, the study participants did not know about the programs and services that they would have been eligible to receive, so future outreach should involve improved information sharing.…”

“…The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as well as individual and community level mitigation strategies to reduce disease, affected the social, behavioral, economic, and non-COVID-19-related health outcomes. These impacts extended beyond the period of the mitigation policy and the effects on different populations were experienced in disparate ways [ 1 ]. Starting in May 2020, Public Health–Seattle and King County (PHSKC), the local public health agency for King County, Washington, leveraged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Community Mitigation Strategy framework [ 2 ] to create a local project monitoring timely data to: (i) understand the impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) mitigation approaches; (ii) inform public health policy and community decision making; and (iii) monitor community-level disparities that may occur during the pandemic [ 1 ].…”

“…These impacts extended beyond the period of the mitigation policy and the effects on different populations were experienced in disparate ways [ 1 ]. Starting in May 2020, Public Health–Seattle and King County (PHSKC), the local public health agency for King County, Washington, leveraged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Community Mitigation Strategy framework [ 2 ] to create a local project monitoring timely data to: (i) understand the impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) mitigation approaches; (ii) inform public health policy and community decision making; and (iii) monitor community-level disparities that may occur during the pandemic [ 1 ]. Monitoring and addressing health disparities—i.e., differences in risk factors, health outcomes, and access to services—is a fundamental principle of PHSKC [ 3 ].…”

What is the current state of public health system preparedness for infectious disease emergencies? A scoping review

“…Compared to the literature identified on frameworks and priority areas for preparedness, there were comparatively fewer indexed and grey literature records identified that describe qualitative and quantitative preparedness indicators. Five indexed studies [30,31,34,37,41] and three grey literature documents [58][59][60] either included or focused on describing indicators for pandemic and infectious disease preparedness. It is worth noting that the quantitative indicators identified in the publications (i.e., budget, vaccination targets) largely did not provide specific quantitative thresholds, allowing them to be tailored to various public health agencies' contexts (e.g., local, regional or provincial).…”