Healthy Campus 2020 – Setting Targets for Objectives Worksheet | 1
Healthy Campus 2020 has one national target for each student and faculty/staff objective, but the national target need not be the one that campuses will use for campus-level planning and tracking. Many college health professionals struggle with setting achievable, realistic targets for outcome, performance, and process objectives. The tips below focus primarily on setting targets for health outcomes and performance.
Using Peer Communities
You can set targets by comparing your campus with others like it. Year in college, age, major, co-curricular activity, place of residence, race/ethnicity, and population size may define peer communities. The following may be used to describe one’s peers: typical values for a specific objective, means or medians, or the variation among peers.
Comparable data for campuses like yours may be found using the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA)(see Group Reportsposted at help you get started. Healthy Campus 2020 lists the data sources you can use. Demographics of participating institutions include type, location, size, setting, and Carnegie Classification.
Setting Targets for Objectives
Whenever possible, objectives should use current best scientific evidence andSMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound)targets (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2009a).To set targets, planners should consider the current status (baseline), seek stakeholder input on the desired level of improvement, and assess what can realistically be accomplished based on the availability of financial resourcesand people’s time and energy in order to have a good balance between adaptability to your population/setting and fidelity to following prescribed protocolsof evidence-based interventions(Veney & Kaluzny, 1998).
To help you and your stakeholders make a realistic assessment of what can be accomplished,determine:1) prioritystudent audiences or segments of the student population (the ones with unique needs for improved social and physical environments,or for whom there are special concerns);and,2) priority behaviors(determinants of health). Select stakeholders that allow you to use the Healthy People 2020 health-in-all-policies concept (HHS, 2009b). Include departments whose policies and activities may affect the health status and behavior of students they serve.
Using Performance Measures
Performance measurement responds to the need to ensure efficient and effective use of resources, particularly financial resources (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1997). It links the use of resources with health improvements and the accountability of individual partners. Performance measures can be incorporated within or based on Healthy Campus objectives. Please see the following pages for a detailed description of setting performance measures.
Healthy Campus 2020 – Setting Targets for Objectives Worksheet | 1
Setting Performance Measures Step by Step
The following examples area composite of experiences of over a dozeninstitutions of higher education with a combined 100+ years of experienceincoalition building and application of evidence-based interventions. Not all campuses will be able to follow the examples exactly; therefore examples should be used as needed.
Step / Ask / Example1. Relate the performance measure to an important national, state, or local health priority area. / What national, state,
or local health priority will our plan address? / The university used here as an example has undertaken work related to the national Healthy Campus 2020 objective to reduce the proportion of students whose academic performance and success and faculty and staff whose productivity are adversely affected by stress, the first of the top five health impediments to academic performance.
2. Measure a result that can be achieved in five years or less. / How will we measure our progress?
Can a change be measured in five years or less? / The university has identified an achievable result that is linked scientifically to the Healthy Campus 2020 Academic Impediments topic area objective:
AI 1.1 - Reduce the proportion of students who reported that their academic performance was adversely affected in the past 12 months by stress.
3. Ensure that the result is meaningful
to a wide audience
of partners. / Who are all the potential partners that have a stake in this health issue? / Target partners are essentially all students, faculty, and staff, plus members of the community surrounding the campus. The strategic planning process mobilized partners with the Healthy People 2020 MAP-IT* (HHS, n.d.)process; interdepartmental “health-in-all-policies” determinants of health and ecological approaches; and use of evidence-based activities.
Eleven years earlier the university president established an advisory committee and coalition. The Advisory Committee on Health and Wellness has six members with expertise in areas related to health promotion and disease prevention. The Campus Community Coalition for Health and Wellness was established to connect and collaborate with the campus community to create sustained healthier social and physical environments. A Steering Committee is charged with the prioritization and development of an action plan to address the leading health and wellness issues that affect academic performance, success, and productivity. The Steering Committee has seven Priority Action Groups to address the 11 Healthy Campus 2020 topic areas.
See the organization chart on page seven.
The Mental Health Priority Action Group created the Stress Committee. Its members met monthly for over a year to collect data on student, and faculty and staff stress and develop a comprehensive strategic plan.
* MAP-IT: Mobilize, Assess, Plan, Implement, Track
4. Define the strategy that will be used to reach a result. / What strategies will be effective for addressing this health issue?
What does your review of evidence-based literature tell you about interventions that 1) indicate the proportion in each priority audience may change behavior or health status and 2) balance fidelity and adaptation to your campus environment?
Do we have the fiscal and human resources to implement these strategies?
What do cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analysis of strategies tell you about best strategies to use for your population and priority audiences? / The university used the Healthy People 2020
MAP-IT approach and selected three strategies:
1) Assess needs and assets (resources) of the campus community to determine key stressors, underlying issues of stress, and, if more realistic based on resource, priority student and faculty/staff groups for interventions.
2) Find evidence-based strategies and assess the balance of adaptability to the campus environment
and ability to maintain fidelity to the strategies,
3) Adapt, implement and track evidence-based policies and interventions to address health issues in relation to social and physical environment.
5. Define the accountable entities. / Who is responsible for implementing the different activities in each strategy? / The accountable entities depend on the strategy used to achieve results and the way in which a particular campus is organized. A key to the effectiveness of the strategic planning process reported here is that the Stress Committee was involved during all stages of the process from data collection, interpretation of data, development of the intervention strategies and tracking. The members informed and received feedback from the Campus Community Coalition quarterly.
The Steering Committee members, assisted by the university’s Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) office, gathered and analyzed focus groupand ACHA-NCHA data. Additionally, the committee members and IRP developed and implemented a student stressor inventory. The committee reported results to the Advisory Committee, Campus Community Coalition, faculty, staff, student and the community. They also used health communication, social marketing, and health marketing (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.), plus a variety of health promotion theories to move the campus community to support the university efforts.
The Advisory Committee looked for evidence-based strategies
to address student stress at four determinants of health levels of intervention (policymaking, social (social and physical factors), health services, and individual. For these proposals, it started by usingthe interventions listed in Healthy People 2020’s Educational and Community Based Programs and Mental Healthtopic areas and by using Healthy People 2020 “Planning Resources.”
6. Draft measures
that meet statistical requirements for validity and reliability and have an existing source of data. / What is our objective?
Is it specific, measurable, achievable, realist, and time-phased (SMART)?
Is there an existing data source for our measure? / In consultation with IRP the Steering Committee drafted measures that are statistically sound, SMART, and maximize fidelity to evidence-based strategies.The following targets were selected.
Assessment results found four underlying causes of stress that were significantly associated with several groups of students. Overall, 32% of the students’ academics were adversely affected by stress. The underlying causes and the percent of the entire student body affected by them were: sleep difficulties (47%), depression (23%), finances (17%) and relationship difficulties (14%). Additional findings helped to clarify underlying causes significantly related to specific priority groups of students by residence, major, use of services, etc.
The university’s Human Resource Department conducted an assessment of health risks of faculty and staff. One of the findings was that 51% said they were less productive at work as a result of stress. Forty-four percent said they had gained weight in their current job and 32% said that work related stress contributed to their weight gain (American Psychological Association Practice Organization, 2010). Additional findings clarified priority faculty/staff groups by faculty; administrative academic, administrative non-academic, and support staff.
Four sets of evidence-based strategies for students
and one for faculty and staff were developed. Based
on human and fiscal resources available, only two
of these strategies were implemented first. The underlying cause(s) of stress, priority audiences, accountable entities, and evidence-based strategies implemented include:
Cause(s) of Stress: sleep, finances, depression, relationship difficulties
Priority Audience: students in residence halls
Accountable Entities: resident hall advisors and faculty teaching freshmen courses
Strategies Implemented: A resource smart phone app similar to those would be developed for Healthy People 2020’s Leading Health Indicator apps. The app covers physical, social, emotional, environmental spiritual intellectual, financial, and occupational wellness topics. It provides phone numbers, websites, office locations, and weblinks to consumer information.All first year/ transfer students would receive the app. Resident advisors and professors teaching freshmen would be trained on how to use the app, the social determinants of health, and ecological model. Theory-and evidence-based actions, policies, interventions, health communication, and social marketing presentations in halls would be additional strategies.
Cause(s) of Stress: depression
Priority Audience: student patients/consumer
Accountable Entities: Student Health and Counseling Services (SHCS)
Strategies Implemented: Policies would include using new procedure manual guidelines for assessing depression, adding depression screening questions to patient intake forms, and streamlining collaboration between clinical and counseling staff.
The university’s performance measure is to “in three years reduce to 30.1% the proportion of all students who report academics were adversely affected by stress.” (baseline: 32%, 5.9% improvement) (ACHA-NCHA, Spring 2010)
Baselines and targets for the strategies implemented for the following priority audiences are:
Sleep, Finances, Depression, Relationship Difficulties: Students in residence halls (10%*)
- 37% to 31%
- 16.2% improvement
- 34% to 33%
- 2.9% improvement
- 37% to 30%
- 18.9% improvement
- 27.5% to 27%
- 1.8% improvement
NOTE: Higher percent improvement for priority audiences than overall population results from targeted interventions that are adapted to the campus social and physical environment with fidelity to evidence-based protocols, greater intensity of effort due to targeted interventions, and more financial and human resources directed to those audiences.
Sample Organization Chart
Advisory Committee on Campus Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Strategies: A public advisory committee involved in planning Healthy Campus. The six committee members are prominent campus and community experts in their fields, tapped to share their expertise in areas related to health promotion and disease prevention, including health policy, state and local public health, business, outcomes research, health economics, health communication, special populations, biostatistics, international health, health behaviors, environmental health, health systems, and epidemiology. These individuals serve in a variety of professional settings, including public, private, foundation, community-based, and academic organizations.
Campus Community Coalition on Health and Wellness: Key campus and local community stakeholders who develop and monitor a strategic plan. The intersectoral group applies a health-in-all-policies concept that includes students, faculty, and staff representing academic, housing, human resources, campus safety, and engineeringdepartments, plus local business, city and county leaders.
Steering Committee: A committee with approximately 60 student, faculty, and staff members. It is charged with the prioritization and development of an action plan to address the leading health and wellness issues that affect academic performance and success.
Institutional Research and Planning Office: The office collects, aggregates, statistically analyzes, and reports data to support short- and long-range planning, budget and enrollment management, program review, and assessment. The office provides services to enable campus users to conduct their own data collection and statistical analysis and serves as the operational lead for the university in fiscal management, space management, and information technology support.
Priority Action Groups: Groups of 8–12 members (often Steering Committee members) charged with assessing, planning, implementing and tracking interventions for a single issue.
References:
American Psychological Association Practice Organization. (2010). Psychologically healthy workplace program fact sheet: By the numbers. Retrievedfrom Accessed on June 25, 2012.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009a).Tenth meeting: March 26, 2009: Secretary’s Advisory Committee on
National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009b).Fifteenth meeting: September 17-18, 2009: Secretary’s Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.).Healthy People 2020: Implementing Healthy People 2020 – MAP-IT: A guide to using Healthy People 2020 in your community. Retrieved from Accessed on June 25, 2012.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.).Gateway to health communication & social marketing practice. Retrieved from Accessed on June 25, 2012.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (1997).Winter 1997 prevention report: Improving the nation's health with performance measurement. Retrieved from
Veney, James., A. Kaluzny. Evaluation & Decision Making for Health Services. Health Administration Press, Chicago. 1998. p 379-405.
Adapted from material in the public domain:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (n.d.). Healthy People 2020 Program Planning Tools. Retrieved June 2012, from
Original source:
Public Health Foundation, under contract with the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Public Health and Science, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, February). Healthy People 2010 Toolkit: A Field Guide to Health Planning (pp. 93-98). Washington, DC: Public Health Foundation.
1362 Mellon Road, Suite 180
Hanover, MD21076
(410) 859-1500
June 2012
American College Health Association |