| Course | HD570 Health Education Leadership and Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Organizational placement analysis |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Health Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HD570 Unit 2
Four Levels Down, One Seat in Seven: A Unit 2 Organizational Placement Analysis of a Health Plan's Health Education Department
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD570: Health Education Leadership and Management
Unit 2 Organizational Placement Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ashcombe Health Plan, its structure, committees and costs are composite; the organizational theory sources cited are real.
The Current Position
Health Education has a manager, six health educators, a materials specialist and a coordinator. The manager reports to the director of member engagement, above whom sit the vice president of member services, then the chief operating officer, then the chief executive. That is four levels between the department and the person who sets the plan's priorities.
Seven standing committees allocate money and attention: the executive leadership team, the finance committee, the quality improvement committee, the population health steering group, the compliance committee, the provider network committee and the member experience committee. Health Education sits only on the last. Its manager learns of quality priorities from minutes, of budget decisions from a director two levels up and of compliance deadlines when another department sends a notice to be reviewed.
How the Department Got Here
Health Education was placed in member services in 2014, when the plan treated it mainly as a source of newsletters, classes and health fair booths, activities seen as part of the member experience. Since then, the plan's accountability has shifted toward quality measures tied to state payments, and much of the department's work, especially outreach to pregnant and postpartum members, now affects those measures. The placement reflects the department's past role, not its present one.
What the Position Costs
Three costs can be traced in the past year.
Late information. The department learned that postpartum visits had become the plan's most expensive quality gap from a forwarded email in May, four months after the quality committee set it as a priority. By then, quality improvement had already contracted a vendor for reminder calls.
Late requests. As the Unit 1 post showed, the department's staffing request reached the finance committee after the budget lock. Nobody on the committee knew the department's case, and nobody was in the room to make it.
Invisible work. About 17 percent of the department's budget goes to reviewing other departments' member notices for readability and required languages. That work keeps the plan compliant with federal rules on member information (Information Requirements, 2024), but it appears in no committee report and is credited to the departments that send the notices.
A department that cannot see priorities as they form, cannot make its case before money is committed and does work that others take credit for is not merely low on the chart; it is outside the places where its future is decided.
Strategic Contingencies Theory
Strategic contingencies theory holds that a subunit's power within an organization depends on how well it copes with the uncertainties that matter most to the organization, how hard it is to replace and how central its work is to the organization's flow of activity (Hickson et al., 1971). Units gain power when they solve the problems that leaders most need solved (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977).
Coping with uncertainty. The plan's most pressing uncertainty is its quality withhold, about $1.46 million of which depends on one postpartum measure. Health educators already call new mothers to schedule visits, so the department could help solve that problem. But because it is not on the quality committee, the plan does not see it as part of the solution. Its coping capacity is real but unrecognized.
Substitutability. Outreach calls can be bought from vendors, which makes the department look replaceable. Its distinctive skills, plain-language materials, community relationships and Spanish-language education, are harder to buy, but they are not what leaders see.
Centrality. Notice review is central in one sense, since many departments depend on it, but it is routine and invisible. The theory suggests that routine work, however necessary, confers little power unless its absence would be felt immediately.
The theory points to a simple conclusion: the department's influence depends less on where it sits on the chart than on whether it is connected to the plan's main uncertainty. Placement matters because it determines that connection.
Three Possible Homes
Option A: stay in member services and gain a seat on the quality improvement committee. Cost: none in money; about four hours a month of the manager's time. Influence gain: the department hears quality priorities as they form and can offer its outreach capacity. Risk: a seat without a voice; the department remains four levels from the chief executive and outside the finance committee.
Option B: move under the chief quality officer, who sits on the executive leadership team and the finance committee. Cost: about $8,000 a year to regrade the manager's position to match peer roles in quality, plus transition time. Influence gain: two levels from the chief executive, direct access to the quality budget and a natural role in the withhold measures. Risk: the department's work may narrow to measures, and community classes or materials work not tied to a measure may be squeezed.
Option C: move under the chief medical officer, within population health. Cost: about $5,000 a year in reporting changes, mostly time. Influence gain: alignment with clinical programs and the population health steering group. Risk: clinical priorities may dominate, and health education could be treated as support for nurses rather than as its own discipline.
What Peer Plans Do
The manager asked counterparts at three other Medicaid plans in the region where their health education teams sit. Two report to quality leaders and one to a population health director under the chief medical officer. None sits in member services. This is a small sample, but it suggests that Ashcombe's placement is unusual and that Options B and C are both common.
Recommendation
Option B, with a condition. The department should move under the chief quality officer, because that is where the plan's most important uncertainty is managed, and the theory suggests influence will follow. The condition is a written agreement that at least a quarter of the department's hours remain available for work not tied to a quality measure, including plain-language materials and community partnerships. If leadership will not accept the move, Option A is the minimum: a seat on the quality committee by the next quarter.
Limits
The analysis relies on the department's own records and on a composite reading of committee minutes. It cannot predict how a new reporting line would work in practice, and the chief quality officer's own priorities could change. Theory explains patterns of power; it does not guarantee that a move will produce influence.
References
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies' theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 216-229. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391831
Information Requirements, 42 C.F.R. ยง 438.10 (2024). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-C/part-438/subpart-A/section-438.10
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power and how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(77)90028-6
The Purdue Global HD570 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 commonly asks students to analyze the organizational position of a health education unit and its effect on the unit's ability to do its work. Prompts may ask for a description of structure, an analysis using a theory of power or structure, and options for change. Map the reporting line and the committees or forums where decisions are made. Trace concrete costs of the current placement using events from the past year. Apply a theory to explain why the costs arise. Price each option in money, time, influence and risk. Recommend something, even if it is a modest change. State what you could and could not verify. Six to nine pages is typical, and a simple organization chart often helps.
How the HD 570 Unit 2 example is put together
The analysis opens with the department's staff and its reporting chain, then lists the seven committees and the single seat. A section explains how the placement dates from 2014, when the department was seen mainly as a source of newsletters and fairs. Three costs follow: learning of a quality priority four months late, a request reaching finance after the lock and notice review that others take credit for. The highlighted sentence summarizes what the position costs. Strategic contingencies theory is applied through coping with uncertainty, substitutability and centrality. Peer plans are compared, three options are priced and Option B is recommended with a protected share of hours, followed by limits.
HD570 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
In this unit, credit typically goes to an accurate picture of structure, concrete evidence of what placement costs, a theory applied to the specific case, options that are genuinely priced and a closing choice the evidence actually supports. Analyses that describe the chart without showing consequences tend to score lower. A theory earns its place when its concepts, such as substitutability or centrality, are applied to the unit's actual work. Pricing options in influence and risk, not only in money, shows management thinking. A recommendation with conditions or a fallback is often valued over one stated as certain. A clear chart and correct APA citations account for the rest.
Common HD570 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent weakness is a description of the organization chart with no evidence that placement matters. Another is a theory summarized at length and then not used. Some papers recommend a move without saying what it would cost or risk. Others overlook informal channels, such as committees, where influence often lives. Writing down three things that went wrong last year and asking whether placement played a part is a good starting point. If you are analyzing your own unit, sketch the reporting line and the committees, and a writer can help you connect them to a theory. Asking peers at similar organizations where their units sit can add useful comparison.
Get an HD570 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Where does your health education function sit, and which meetings decide its money? Sketch the reporting line and the committees you know of, then include the HD570 Unit 2 prompt and rubric. A free first custom sample, ready in 24-48h, audits that position's influence, scores the realistic alternatives on shared criteria, and names who would object to each. 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 HD570 papers and MS in Health Education samples
- HD570 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HD570 Unit 3: Budget Construction
- HD570 Unit 4: Budget Reduction Memo
- HD570 Unit 5: Staffing Plan
- HD570 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HD570 Unit 7: Supervision and Performance Case
- HD570 Unit 8: Resource Proposal to Leadership
- HD570 Unit 9: Partnership Negotiation Plan
- HD570 Unit 10: Unit Strategic Plan
- HD560 Unit 2: Evaluation Question Paper
- HD520 Unit 2: Design Rationale Paper
- HD550 Unit 2: Policy Process Analysis
- HD535 Unit 2: Theory Selection Paper
HD570 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which theory suits an organizational placement analysis?
Any theory about power or structure that your section's readings support. Strategic contingencies theory works well because its three dimensions, coping with uncertainty, substitutability and centrality, can each be tested against evidence from your own organization. Resource dependence or a structural frames approach also fit. Choose one, apply it throughout, and cite the original source rather than a summary.
What if I do not know my organization's full structure?
Describe what you can verify and label what you infer. Committee membership and reporting lines are often visible from meeting invitations or published charts, and budget authority can be described in general terms. A composite organization built from your own experience is acceptable in most sections, as long as the analysis stays internally consistent.
Should the analysis recommend a move?
It should recommend something, even if that is staying where the unit sits with one change such as a committee seat. The prompt usually asks what position costs, so the recommendation needs a price: who loses staff or authority, what the transition requires, and what the unit risks becoming in its new home.
Where can I find a free HD570 Unit 2 sample paper?
A full Unit 2 organizational placement analysis is posted here, examining a health plan's health education department four levels below the chief executive.
What is strategic contingencies theory?
It holds that a unit's power depends on how well it handles the uncertainties that matter most to the organization, how hard it is to replace and how central its work is.