| Course | HD440 Health Education Program Assessment and Planning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Data source review |
| Length | About 610 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health and Wellness |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HD440 Unit 2
Six Sources, Six Views of One County: A Unit 2 Data Source Review for Alcohol-Involved Crashes in Composite Ridley County
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD440: Health Education Program Assessment and Planning
Unit 2 Data Source Review
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ridley County and its figures are composite; the data sources named are real public systems, and the review of interventions and the planning text cited are real.
Why Review the Sources First
A planning group that uses one source alone will see only what that source can measure. Assessment texts recommend combining sources and stating each one's limits before drawing conclusions (Issel & Wells, 2018).
Source 1: Federal Fatal Crash Data
What it measures: every motor vehicle crash on a public road in which someone died within thirty days, with details on drivers, vehicles and blood alcohol tests where available. Geography: county and crash location. Years: annual, with a lag of about a year to two. Where it stops being reliable: alcohol results are missing for some drivers and estimated statistically; it counts deaths only, so it misses the injury crashes that are far more common. For Ridley, [11] deaths in five years is a small number that swings widely from year to year.
Source 2: State Crash Reports
What it measures: all police-reported crashes, with a field for suspected alcohol involvement. Geography: crash location to the road segment. Years: annual, available within months. Limits: alcohol involvement depends on the officer's judgment and on whether a test was done; crashes with no injury and no police call are missing. Useful for mapping where crashes happen, such as the two highways and three rural roads near the bars.
Source 3: County Health Rankings
What it measures: the share of driving deaths that involved alcohol, among other county measures (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2025). Geography: county. Years: five-year combined periods. Limits: built from federal crash data, so it inherits that source's small numbers and adds a delay; useful for comparing Ridley with the state and with similar counties, not for tracking change year to year.
Source 4: State Health Survey
What it measures: self-reported binge drinking and, in some years, driving after drinking too much. Geography: usually region or state; county estimates are modeled. Years: annual. Limits: self-report understates drinking and driving; county figures are estimates, not counts; the driving question is not asked every year.
Source 5: Hospital and Emergency Records
What it measures: injuries treated, with codes for motor vehicle crashes and, sometimes, alcohol. Geography: patient residence. Limits: alcohol is not tested or coded consistently, and residents injured in neighboring counties may be treated there.
Source 6: Court Records
What it measures: arrests and convictions for driving under the influence, repeat offenses and ignition interlock orders. Geography: county court. Limits: reflects enforcement effort as much as drinking and driving; a rise in arrests can mean more patrols rather than more impaired drivers.
No single source tells the whole story: the fatal crash data are reliable but rare, the crash reports are common but depend on an officer's judgment, and the court records show enforcement rather than behavior.
How the Sources Fit Together
For Ridley, the review recommends using state crash reports as the main measure of injury crashes, federal fatal data and county rankings for comparison with the state, court records to track enforcement and interlock use, and the state survey for drinking patterns. Hospital records can fill gaps but need careful coding review. Evidence reviews of interventions rely on crash outcomes from these same kinds of sources, which makes them the right measures for evaluating any program the county chooses (Shults et al., 2001).
References
Issel, L. M., & Wells, R. (2018). Health program planning and evaluation: A practical, systematic approach for community health (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Shults, R. A., Elder, R. W., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., Alao, M. O., Carande-Kulis, V. G., Zaza, S., Sosin, D. M., & Thompson, R. S. (2001). Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(4 Suppl.), 66-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00381-6
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. (2025). County health rankings and roadmaps: Alcohol-impaired driving deaths. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org
Reading the HD 440 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 typically asks for a review of several data sources for a community and a health problem, describing what each source measures, its geography and timing, and its limits. Reviews usually cover four to six sources in two to four pages. Credit goes to accurate descriptions of each source, specific limits rather than generic ones, attention to small numbers and suppression in small places, and a recommendation about how the sources work together. Many sections reward noting when a source measures something different from what its name suggests, such as enforcement rather than behavior. Name each source precisely. Cite a planning text for the assessment approach and the source's own documentation where possible.
Inside the HD440 Unit 2 example
The review opens with why sources should be reviewed before conclusions are drawn, citing a planning text. Six sections take each source in turn, with what it measures, geography, years and limits, including small numbers for the fatal crash data, officer judgment in crash reports, the delay in county rankings, self-report in the survey, coding gaps in hospital data and enforcement effects in court records. The highlighted sentence summarizes why no single source tells the whole story. A closing section recommends crash reports as the main injury measure, fatal data and county rankings for comparison, court records for interlock tracking and the survey for drinking patterns.
HD440 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
Data source reviews are commonly scored on accuracy, specificity of limits, attention to the community's size, and the recommendation for combining sources. Specificity of limits usually carries the most weight, because generic limits such as possible error say nothing a planner can use. Accuracy rewards correct descriptions of what each source contains. Attention to size earns credit when small-number problems and suppression are addressed. The recommendation is rewarded when it assigns each source a role. Citations to a planning text and source documentation support the review. A consistent set of questions for every source makes the comparison easy to follow and usually earns organization marks.
HD440 Unit 2 help from the desk
The most frequent weakness is describing each source's contents without saying where it fails. Another is treating arrests or diagnoses as if they measured the underlying behavior. Some students use national or state sources without checking whether county figures exist or are reliable. Others review sources in different formats, so they cannot be compared. Ending without a recommendation leaves the review unused. If your problem is different, perhaps diabetes or teen births, list the sources you have found, and each can be reviewed with the same four questions. Citing a source by a general name, such as state data, rather than the specific system, makes it impossible for a reader to find. Mixing years across sources without saying so can also produce comparisons that do not line up.
Get an HD440 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
For the community your HD440 section assigned, send the Unit 2 prompt and rubric, and any datasets your instructor listed. You receive a free first custom sample in 24-48h: each source identified by publisher and year, rated for geography and method, and paired with the limitation that actually matters for planning. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HD440 papers and BS in Health and Wellness samples
- HD440 Unit 1: Community Priorities Discussion Post
- HD440 Unit 3: Community Assessment Summary
- HD440 Unit 4: Priority Setting Matrix
- HD440 Unit 5: Goal and Objective Set
- HD440 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HD440 Unit 7: Intervention Selection Paper
- HD440 Unit 8: Resource and Partner Plan
- HD440 Unit 9: Program Plan Draft
- HD440 Unit 10: Planning Document
- HD420 Unit 2: Determinants Analysis
HD440 Unit 2 questions, answered
How many sources does a data source review need?
Whatever your prompt specifies, and four to six is common. More important than the count is range: at least one ranking or modeled source, one administrative record such as hospital or death data, and one demographic source. A review built entirely from one publisher's products cannot show how different collection methods change the picture.
What if my county's data is suppressed?
Small counties often hit suppression rules for deaths and rare conditions. Pool several years, use a regional or multi-county figure, or report the count as fewer than ten, and say which you chose. Treat suppression as a finding in itself: it tells a planner that county-level trends for that outcome cannot be tracked reliably.
Can I use a hospital's community health needs assessment as a source?
Yes, and it is often the most local source available, but review it like any other. Note who conducted it, when, how respondents were recruited and whether its priorities came from data, a survey or both. Many such assessments reuse public datasets, so trace their figures back to the original source where you can.
Where can I find a free HD440 Unit 2 sample paper?
You can read the full Unit 2 review here, comparing six sources that describe drinking and driving in one composite county.
Why can arrest records mislead about a health behavior?
Arrests reflect how much enforcement takes place as well as how common the behavior is, so a rise can mean more patrols rather than more impaired drivers.