| Course | PU501 Fundamentals of Public Health and Health Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Core functions analysis |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU501 Unit 2
Needles, Ink and an Inspection Every Year: A Core Functions Analysis of How a Composite City Protects People Getting Tattoos, Naming for Assessment, Policy Development and Assurance Who Performs Each, What They Rely On and Where the Function Is Thin
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU501: Fundamentals of Public Health and Health Systems
Unit 2 Core Functions Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The city, its agencies and every figure are composite and bracketed for the writer's own data; the outbreak and framework cited are real.
The Problem as a Rate
In [year], the city's communicable disease program recorded [14] confirmed skin and soft tissue infections linked to tattoos, [3.4] per [100,000] residents, and the environmental health division received [37] complaints about studios. Both figures undercount: most infections are treated without a culture, and many people never link a rash to a recent tattoo.
Why the Setting Concentrates Risk
Tattooing pierces the skin thousands of times with needles that carry ink. Risks come from reused or poorly sterilized equipment, from artists without training in bloodborne pathogens and from contaminated ink. In one investigation, [19] people developed persistent rashes after receiving tattoos from a single artist who used a premixed gray ink; the bacterium was traced to the ink itself, which had been contaminated before it reached the studio (Kennedy et al., 2012).
Assessment
Who: the communicable disease program and the environmental health division of the city health department. What they rely on: reportable disease rules, which capture some infections, and a complaint line. The gap: there is no routine linkage between infection reports and studio licenses, so a cluster tied to one studio could go unnoticed unless a clinician makes the connection, and no one tracks unlicensed tattooing in homes.
Policy Development
Who: the board of health and the city council. What they rely on: the state's enabling statute, which lets cities license body art, and the city's [2014] body art ordinance setting sterilization, single-use needle, record-keeping and age rules. The gap: the ordinance is still in its original form, says nothing about ink sourcing or lot numbers and does not require reporting of client infections. No local inspection can find bacteria inside a sealed bottle of ink, so the policy gap is partly one the city cannot close alone.
Assurance
Who: environmental health inspectors, who license and inspect studios. What they rely on: annual licensing fees, which fund [1.5] inspector positions for [96] licensed studios, and the ordinance's training requirement for artists. The gap: inspections occur once a year, follow-up after complaints averages [19] days, and enforcement against unlicensed operators depends on complaints that rarely come.
Who Else Holds a Piece
The city does not act alone. The state health department sets the reportable disease list and could add tattoo-associated infections. The federal government regulates tattoo inks as cosmetics, so contamination at the factory falls outside any city's reach; the city's tool is to require studios to record ink lot numbers so that a recall or an outbreak can be traced to clients quickly. Physicians and urgent care clinics are the first to see infections and need to know that a history of a recent tattoo is worth reporting. Studio owners, finally, are partners as well as regulated businesses: the owners' association asked the city last year for clearer rules on aftercare instructions.
What Studio Owners and Inspectors Said
In interviews, [five] studio owners said annual inspections were predictable and fair, but that unlicensed artists working from homes undercut them and were rarely pursued. Inspectors agreed and added that complaints about home tattooing seldom included an address. Both groups supported ink lot recording, which several licensed studios already do. Their views point to the same conclusion as the data: the city's weakest function is knowing where problems are, not deciding what to require. Public health agencies increasingly act as convenors that link data and partners across sectors, which fits this gap (DeSalvo et al., 2017).
Comparing Capacity Across Functions
Policy development is the strongest function, with a working ordinance and clear authority. Assurance is moderate, limited by staff. Assessment is the weakest, because the data that would reveal problems sit in separate systems. The core functions were defined to show that public health needs all three working together (Institute of Medicine, 1988); here the weakest link is the information that should tell the other two where to act.
Recommendations
1. Assessment: add a field for recent tattoo or piercing to the skin infection case report and match cases to studio licenses quarterly.
2. Policy: revise the ordinance to require ink lot numbers in client records and reporting of client infections that studios learn of.
3. Assurance: move to risk-based inspection, visiting studios with complaints or infections twice a year.
Limits
Infection counts are small and uncertain, so a single cluster could double the rate in a year. The analysis interviewed owners and inspectors but did not survey clients, whose experience of aftercare and complaints may differ.
Conclusion
The city has the authority it needs. What it lacks is the assessment that would tell it where to use that authority.
References
DeSalvo, K. B., Wang, Y. C., Harris, A., Auerbach, J., Koo, D., & O'Carroll, P. (2017). Public Health 3.0: A call to action for public health to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Preventing Chronic Disease, 14, E78. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd14.170017
Institute of Medicine. (1988). The future of public health. National Academy Press.
Kennedy, B. S., Bedard, B., Younge, M., Tuttle, D., Ammerman, E., Ricci, J., Doniger, A. S., Escuyer, V. E., Mitchell, K., Noble-Wang, J. A., O'Connell, H. A., Lanier, W. A., Katz, L. M., Betts, R. F., Mercurio, M. G., Scott, G. A., Lewis, M. A., & Goldgeier, M. H. (2012). Outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae infection associated with tattoo ink. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(11), 1020-1024. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205114
Reading the PU 501 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 in PU 501 typically asks students to apply the three core functions of public health to a specific health problem. Instructions usually require stating the problem with data, explaining why the setting concentrates risk, analyzing assessment, policy development and assurance in turn, identifying gaps and recommending improvements. Organize the paper by function rather than by background, causes and solutions, so each function must actually be applied. In every section, name who performs the function, what data or legal authority they rely on, and where it falls short. Compare capacity across the three functions at the end. Cite the original core functions framework and at least one study of the problem in APA style, and keep recommendations tied to the specific gap each one addresses.
How this PU501 Unit 2 example is built
The sample states the problem as a rate of tattoo-linked infections and complaints, with a margin note on why organizing by function matters. A section explains how tattooing concentrates risk, citing an outbreak traced to contaminated ink. Assessment, policy development and assurance each get a section with the same three questions: who, what they rely on and the gap. A highlighted line notes that no local inspection can find bacteria in a sealed bottle. Sections on other actors and on interviews with owners and inspectors follow, with a margin note. A comparison across functions finds information is the weakest link, with a third margin note, before three recommendations, limits and a conclusion.
Reading the PU501 Unit 2 grading rubric
PU 501 core functions rubrics generally award points for a clearly defined problem, accurate explanation of the functions, application of each function to the problem, identification of responsible actors, analysis of gaps, practical recommendations, use of sources and presentation. Problem points go to a rate with its source and year. Function points reward correct definitions. Application points depend on each section naming an actor, a resource and a gap. Gap points go to specific weaknesses rather than general ones. Recommendation points require one change per gap. Analyses that compare capacity across the three functions and find where the system is weakest tend to receive the strongest grades, because that is where action matters most.
Common PU501 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Core functions papers often lose points by describing a problem at length and mentioning the functions only in passing. Others list agencies without saying what each relies on or where it falls short. Organize the paper by function. In each section, answer the same three questions: who does it here, with what data or authority, and where is it thin. Include actors outside the health department, such as state and federal agencies or the businesses being regulated. Compare the three functions to find the weakest. Then recommend changes that address that weakness first. Keep the problem specific enough that each function can be applied concretely, and cite a real example of the risk you describe.
Get a PU501 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
The desk can build a core functions analysis around whichever issue your PU501 section assigned, lead or otherwise. Share the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric. That first custom sample is free, turns around within 24-48 hours, and places each function with offices in the jurisdiction you choose, so the performers it names are ones you can actually source. 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 PU501 papers and MPH samples
- PU501 Unit 1: Population Health Question Post
- PU501 Unit 3: Community Health Snapshot
- PU501 Unit 4: Agency Profile
- PU501 Unit 5: Essential Services Audit
- PU501 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU501 Unit 7: Health System Comparison
- PU501 Unit 8: Prevention Level Analysis
- PU501 Unit 9: Policy Scan
- PU501 Unit 10: Public Health Issue Paper
PU501 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PU501 Unit 2 sample paper?
The complete PU501 Unit 2 core functions analysis is here, applying assessment, policy development and assurance to tattoo safety in a composite city.
Which framework organizes the PU501 Unit 2 analysis?
The core functions named in the 1988 national report on public health: assessing problems, developing policy and assuring services.
What gap does the PU501 Unit 2 analysis find?
Infection reports are not linked to studio licenses, so the city cannot easily see where problems occur.
Why can local inspections not catch contaminated ink?
Contamination can happen at the factory, inside sealed bottles that inspectors cannot test.
How long is the PU501 Unit 2 analysis?
About five pages with a section for each function.