Assessment of the Uses and Users of Healthier US and Healthy People 2010. Barriers and Recommendations


HP2010 users provided feedback about the barriers to greater implementation of the initiative at their organization. The only barrier imposed by the initiative itself was the inability to easily implement the initiative. As Exhibit 29 demonstrates, there were several barriers where states and tribes differed significantly. More state, local, and tribal users reported organizational issues as barriers than barriers related to the HP2010 initiative itself. Over 70 percent of users at the state, local, and tribal level cited a lack of financial resources, staff resources, and competing priorities as barriers. State users differed from local and tribal users, both of whom cited a lack of buy-in from primary decision makers as a barrier (p≤.05).

Exhibit 29: Barriers to HP2010

bar chart of state, local, and tribal, divided into four categories:insuff. finacial resources(82%,83%,89%)respectively;insuff. staff resources(85%,95%,90%),respectively;lack of buy-in 17%,43%,58%),respectively;competing priorities(76%,79%,100%),respectively

HP2010 users identified different types of technical assistance (TA) that might improve overall the organization’s ability to further implement the initiative. There were a few differences between the types of TA valued by the organization depending on its size in FTEs. Despite these few differences, users were interested in opportunities for assistance with implementation and with tools for data collection and evaluation.



Large (n=38)


Medium (n=63)


Small (n=22)

Exhibit 30: HP2010 Technical Assistance

Translating HP210 into action




Guidance on collecting data to track progress toward HP2010 objectives




Examples of how others are using HP2010




HHS contacts




Curriculum materials




Data collection tools




Data evaluation tools




Using HP2010 for partnering/coalition building




Examples of programs demonstrating progress toward HP2010’s goals




Respondents were also given the opportunity to comment in a free-text field about other ways HHS could help users progress toward reaching the HP2010 goals. Increased funding or alternative funding mechanisms were suggested by 57 percent of the respondents. Looking beyond the provision of resources, the top suggestion, cited by twelve users in state, local, and tribal organizations, was to provide guidance on how to adapt national goals to local conditions. Along with this suggestion were several comments that access to regionally and locally tailored data needs to be improved.

Six respondents noted that HP2010 seemed to be losing visibility and that HHS should do more outreach to state and local leaders outside of the health departments, such as state legislators and mayors. This theme reemerged during the structured interviews. Some HP2010 users reported overall declines in HP2010-related activities as HP2010 reached the midpoint. Reported reasons included funding cuts, lack of regional data, and their state/locality only using HP2010 as a benchmark rather than as a long term planning aid. Other users reported HP2010 activities to be ongoing and the backbone of all of their efforts. These were typically local respondents with a strong state-based HP2010 program. One frequent HP2010 local user with a strong, active state HP2010 program stated, “Every year when we do our planning and work initiatives, we have to set up our goals and objectives; we have to show how each one directly relates to HP2010. We have to demonstrate at the end which objective each thing is addressing for HP2010 and [State] 2010.” This type of requirement helped this respondent be a regular user of HP2010 as well as DATA2010 and reported sharing HP2010 information with the community agencies in the county. Another local user reported their HP2010 usage to be more inconsistent, based on need rather than regular use. The respondent stated, “I use it sporadically, in spurts. There are times when I need to look at it a lot, like when we’re in the middle of community assessment work or a specific project. I normally do not use it every day or every week, but in a high-usage period, I’ll use it weekly.” Another local user felt that they were a more frequent HP2010 user when their locality was funded to conduct community assessments, but after funding was lost in 2002, they did not access HP2010 very often.

View full report


"HUS-HP Users Assessment 9-29-05 (3).pdf" (pdf, 731.33Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®

View full report


"Appendix 1 - Healthy People Final Quex.pdf" (pdf, 262.13Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®