| Course | HD440 Health Education Program Assessment and Planning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Intervention selection paper |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 7 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 7
Evidence the County Can Staff: A Unit 7 Intervention Selection Paper Comparing Four Ways to Reduce Alcohol-Involved Crashes
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD440: Health Education Program Assessment and Planning
Unit 7 Intervention Selection Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ridley County, its staffing and costs are composite; the systematic reviews and the planning text cited are real.
Comparing the Options Side by Side
Read together, the four options sort into two pairs. The first pair, publicized enforcement and interlock follow-through, act directly on the decision to drive after drinking, either by raising the expected chance of being caught or by making it physically impossible for a known offender. Both have systematic review evidence of fewer crashes or fewer repeat offenses. The second pair, server training and safe rides, act on the circumstances around that decision, by reducing how much people drink before leaving or by giving them another way home. Both are reasonable ideas with weaker evidence on crash outcomes when used alone. The pairs also differ in who carries them out: the first relies on public agencies with legal authority, the second on private businesses and volunteers.
What the Community Said
At two public meetings, residents were asked which options they preferred. The safe ride program was the most popular, followed by server training. Checkpoints drew mixed views: some residents welcomed them, while others worried about being stopped on their way home from church suppers or ball games. Several residents who had lost family members spoke strongly in favor of enforcement. The planning group took these views seriously, which is why the selected program includes server training and leaves the door open to a ride program, and why the publicity campaign explains checkpoints as protection rather than punishment.
Selection Criteria
Four tests are applied to every option, following the planning text's guidance on choosing interventions (Issel & Wells, 2018): strength of evidence that it reduces alcohol-involved crashes; fit with the county's crash pattern, concentrated on Friday and Saturday nights along a handful of routes leading out of town; feasibility with the county's staff and partners; and cost. Evidence carries the most weight, since the program's purpose is fewer deaths and injuries.
Option 1: Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints With a Media Campaign
What it is: checkpoints where officers stop drivers at a set location to check for impairment, along with saturation patrols, announced in advance through radio, social media and print so that drivers expect to be checked.
Evidence: a systematic review of interventions found sobriety checkpoints effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes and recommended them (Shults et al., 2001). A separate review found that mass media campaigns, when carefully planned and paired with other efforts such as enforcement, also reduce alcohol-involved crashes (Elder et al., 2004). Much of the effect comes from deterrence: people who believe they may be stopped are less likely to drive after drinking.
Fit: strong. Checkpoints can be placed on the roads and nights where crashes concentrate.
Feasibility: moderate. The sheriff's office has only nine deputies, but the state highway patrol can join, and a checkpoint can be staffed by a small team. Publicity costs little through the local radio station.
Cost: moderate, mainly overtime, about [$36,000] a year for twelve operations.
Option 2: Ignition Interlock Follow-Through
What it is: devices that prevent a car from starting if the driver's breath shows alcohol, ordered by courts after a conviction for impaired driving. In Ridley, the court orders them but about two thirds are never installed.
Evidence: a Community Guide review found that interlocks reduce rearrest for impaired driving while installed (Elder et al., 2011). The effect depends on installation, which is the county's gap.
Fit: good. About a third of drivers in county crashes had a prior arrest.
Feasibility: high. A probation officer could track installation and report noncompliance to the court.
Cost: low for the county, about [$15,000] a year for part of a probation officer's time; offenders pay for the devices, with a fund for those who cannot.
Option 3: Responsible Beverage Service Training
What it is: training bar staff to check identification, recognize intoxication and refuse service.
Evidence: weaker. The review found insufficient evidence that server training alone reduces alcohol-impaired driving, though it may help when combined with enforcement (Shults et al., 2001).
Fit: moderate, since most crash drivers had been at a local bar.
Feasibility: high. The tavern owners' association is willing.
Cost: low.
Option 4: Safe Ride Program
What it is: free or subsidized rides home from bars on weekend nights.
Evidence: limited. Reviews of designated driver and ride programs have found insufficient evidence of reduced crashes, though such programs may change some trips.
Fit: good in principle, since the county has no rides after ten.
Feasibility: moderate. Requires drivers, insurance and a vehicle.
Cost: moderate to high, about [$40,000] a year.
The two options with the strongest evidence, publicized enforcement and interlock follow-through, are also the two the county can staff with existing agencies, while the two the community likes most have the weakest evidence on their own.
Selection
The program will combine Option 1 and Option 2. Publicized checkpoints and patrols deter drinking and driving among everyone on the roads; interlock follow-through reduces risk among the drivers most likely to offend again. Together they address both the general pattern and the repeat offenders the crash data identified.
Option 3, server training, will be included as a low-cost supporting activity because the tavern owners support it and it may strengthen enforcement, with the explicit understanding that it is not expected to reduce crashes by itself. Option 4 will not be funded in the first year; the planning group will revisit it if a partner offers vehicles and drivers.
Risks
Checkpoints require steady cooperation between the sheriff and highway patrol; if either withdraws, the number of operations falls. Some residents may object to checkpoints as intrusive; the publicity campaign will explain their purpose and legal basis. Interlock follow-through depends on the court acting on noncompliance reports.
Conclusion
The selected combination matches the strongest evidence to the county's crash pattern and capacity. It is modest in cost and builds on agencies that already exist, which makes it more likely to last beyond the first year of funding. If the first year shows that the checkpoints are well publicized but residents still do not expect to be stopped, the coalition will know the problem lies in the message rather than the enforcement, and can change the campaign before changing the program. Likewise, if interlock installation rises but repeat arrests do not fall, the group will look at whether devices are being removed early.
References
Elder, R. W., Shults, R. A., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., Thompson, R. S., & Rajab, W. (2004). Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(1), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.03.002
Elder, R. W., Voas, R., Beirness, D., Shults, R. A., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., & Compton, R. (2011). Effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes: A Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(3), 362-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.11.012
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
Reading the HD 440 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 typically asks you to compare several evidence-based interventions for the chosen priority and select one or a combination, with reasons. Five or six pages is common. Good papers include criteria stated before the comparison, each option described accurately with its evidence and its fit with local conditions, feasibility and cost considered honestly, and a selection that follows from the criteria. Many sections reward acknowledging popular options with weak evidence and explaining how they are handled. Cite systematic reviews for each option's evidence rather than single studies or program websites. Close with risks to the selected approach and how they will be watched.
How the HD 440 Unit 7 example is put together
The paper states four criteria with evidence weighted most, citing a planning text. Four sections describe each option with what it is, its evidence from systematic reviews, its fit with the county's crash pattern, feasibility with local staff and cost. A comparison section sorts the options into two pairs by how they act on drinking and driving and who delivers them. A section reports residents' views from public meetings. The highlighted sentence contrasts the evidence-backed options with the popular ones. The selection combines enforcement and interlock follow-through, with server training as support and rides deferred, followed by risks and a conclusion about learning from the first year.
HD440 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
Intervention selection papers are usually scored on the clarity of criteria, accuracy of evidence for each option, fit with local conditions, honesty about feasibility and the soundness of the selection. Accuracy of evidence and the soundness of the selection tend to carry the most weight, since the unit asks whether students can match proven approaches to a real community. Criteria earn credit when stated before options are judged. Fit rewards linking each option to the assessment's findings. Feasibility points go to realistic staffing and cost. Handling popular but weaker options transparently, rather than ignoring them, usually lifts a paper from good to strong. A short account of how the community's views shaped the final package shows the selection balanced evidence with acceptance.
Common HD440 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent problem is choosing the intervention first and writing criteria to justify it. Another is citing a program's own website as evidence instead of a systematic review. Some students compare options without any reference to the community's crash pattern or capacity. Others dismiss community preferences entirely, which can doom a program that needs local support. Leaving out risks suggests the choice is safer than it is. Selecting among different interventions, perhaps for prenatal care or youth vaping? Share the options and the assessment findings, and the comparison can be set up criterion by criterion. Treating cost as the deciding factor before evidence has been weighed is another common slip.
Get an HD440 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Carry over the priority and objectives from earlier in your HD440 plan, list any programs your section suggests, and attach the Unit 7 prompt and rubric. Delivered free within 24-48h, the first custom sample compares candidate interventions on trial evidence and local fit, then selects one with its tradeoffs stated. 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 2: Data Source Review
- HD440 Unit 3: Community Assessment Summary
- HD440 Unit 4: Priority Setting Matrix
- HD440 Unit 5: Goal and Objective Set
- HD440 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection on Priorities
- HD440 Unit 8: Resource and Partner Plan
- HD440 Unit 9: Program Plan Draft
- HD440 Unit 10: Planning Document
- HD420 Unit 7: Health Equity Paper on Disability
HD440 Unit 7 questions, answered
How many interventions should I compare?
Three or four is typical and gives the selection real meaning. Fewer than three makes the comparison thin; more than five tends to crowd out depth. Choose candidates that genuinely compete for the same objective, so the comparison tests something, and include at least one that looks attractive but fails a criterion you can explain.
Can I adapt a program to fit my community?
Usually, within limits. Most evidence-based programs identify core elements that must be kept for the evidence to apply, such as session number and content, and adaptable elements such as venue or scheduling. Say which elements you would change and confirm they are adaptable; altering a core element means the trial evidence no longer supports your version.
Where can I find a free HD440 Unit 7 sample paper?
You can read the complete Unit 7 paper on this page, comparing four ways to reduce alcohol-involved crashes in a composite county.
Do sobriety checkpoints reduce crashes?
Systematic reviews have found that sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes, largely by making drivers expect they might be stopped.
Why include an option with weaker evidence?
When it is popular and cheap and may support stronger measures, it can be kept in a supporting role, as long as no one expects it to reduce crashes by itself.