Title V MCH Services Block Grant Oral Health Toolkit
In 2015, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau revised the process that states use for the Title V maternal and child health (MCH) block needs assessment, grant application, and reporting. This transformation aimed to increase accountability by showing the contributions of Title V programs more directly while still maintaining flexibility for the states and reducing their reporting burden. Under the new process, there are fewer performance measures, but those remaining are more closely tied to Title V activities, and evidence-based or evidence-informed strategy measures are state identified. In addition, data prepopulates from federal sources, wherever possible.
- Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Program
- National Performance Measure Distribution
The processes states use for the Title V MCH block needs assessment, grant application, and reporting are based on a three-tiered framework:
- National outcome measures (NOMs)
- National performance measures (NPMs)
- Evidence-based or -informed strategy measures (ESMs)
NOMs primarily include population-level measures of health outcomes for which Title V programs are expected to drive improvements over the 5-year reporting period. View the list of NOMs.
NOM: Oral Health
The percentage of children and adolescents ages 1–17 who have decayed teeth or cavities in the past year.
NPMs reflect short- and medium-term outcomes of health behaviors and health care access/quality measures that can show progress toward NOMs. NPM selection is based on the priority needs identified in the state’s 5-year needs assessment. View the list of NPMs.
NPM: Oral Health
NPM 13A: The percentage of women who had a dental visit during pregnancy.
NPM 13B: The percentage of children and adolescents, ages 1–17 who had a preventive dental visit in the last year.
ESMs assess the impact of the Title V program’s strategies and activities contained in the state action plan. ESMs should be measurable and meaningful (relate to NPM, based on or informed by evidence of effective practice). Many strategies may not have strong evidence of effectiveness with replicated and robust evaluation methods. The term “evidence informed” is meant to convey that there is information suggesting that a strategy could be effective in addressing a NPM, but evaluation data are limited. Evidence-informed strategies may include emerging practices and expert opinion.
Thirty-one states and jurisdictions selected the National Performance Measure (NPM) on oral health, NPM 13:
Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Federated States of Micronesia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Marshall Islands, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia.