HEP 452 Module 3 Module 3 Assignment: Policy Brief Plan Example

Reviewed by Emmett Rockwell, MBA Arizona State University Updated October 2026

This HEP 452 Module 3 sample is the Policy Brief Plan in Health Advocacy in Health Education, an advocacy course that Health Education and Health Promotion majors at ASU take in their senior year. The ASU HEP 452 plan begins the term's main project, an evidence-informed policy brief that grows through two drafts to a final version by Module 6. The composite student plans a brief for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on preventing indoor heat deaths among older adults. The plan defines the issue, studies the audience and what it cares about, states the policy ask, lists evidence in hand and still needed, sketches three options, names partners and sets out the outline and drafting schedule the later modules will follow.

CourseHEP 452 Health Advocacy in Health Education
ModuleModule 3
Paper typePolicy brief plan
LengthAbout 490 words, 4 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolArizona State University
ProgramBS in Health Education and Health Promotion
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HEP 452 Module 3

1

Planning a Policy Brief on Older Adults Dying of Heat at Home in Maricopa County

Student Name

BS in Health Education and Health Promotion, Arizona State University

HEP 452: Health Advocacy in Health Education

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the issue and the place, and says this is the plan rather than the brief.
2

Planning a Policy Brief on Older Adults Dying of Heat at Home in Maricopa County

Issue

Older adults in Maricopa County are dying of heat inside their homes. County surveillance from 2006 to 2016 recorded 920 heat-associated deaths, 38% of them indoors, and 58% of indoor deaths were among people aged 65 and older (Iverson et al., 2020).

Audience

The primary audience is the five-member Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, which sets the county budget and oversees county departments, including public health and human services. Secondary audiences are supervisors' staff, who often read briefs first, and the county's Area Agency on Aging partner. Board members care about cost, measurable results, constituent safety and avoiding duplication of city and state programs.

Policy Goal

Ask the Board to fund a three-part indoor heat protection initiative for residents aged 65 and older, starting in the next fiscal year.

Evidence in Hand

SourceWhat it shows
(Iverson et al., 2020)Number and share of indoor heat deaths and the age of victims in Maricopa County
(Semenza et al., 1996)Working air conditioning and social contact protected against heat death in Chicago
(Bouchama et al., 2007)Pooled studies: home cooling, visits to cool places and social contact reduced risk
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025)County estimates of loneliness, utility shut-off threats and lack of transportation
What this page is doingListing the evidence in a table at the planning stage shows the instructor where the brief is strong and where it still needs work.
3

Evidence Still Needed

I still need recent county counts of indoor heat deaths, the cost of an average cooling repair, the current hours of Heat Relief Network sites, how much federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program money the county receives for cooling and an example of a check-in program run elsewhere.

Options to Compare

Option A: Fund a cooling repair and replacement program for residents aged 65 and older below a set income.

Option B: Fund a summer check-in program that calls or visits older adults who live alone on extreme heat days.

Option C: Extend evening hours at selected cooling sites and provide rides.

I expect to recommend all three as a package, with Option A first if funding is limited, because working home cooling had the strongest protective association in the studies.

Partners and Allies

Possible partners are the county Department of Public Health, the regional Area Agency on Aging, the Maricopa Association of Governments, which coordinates the Heat Relief Network, faith communities and utilities. I will contact one aging services program to test whether the options are practical.

Outline

1. Title and one-sentence summary. 2. The problem, with local data. 3. Who is at risk and why. 4. What works, from the evidence. 5. Options with costs and trade-offs. 6. Recommendation. 7. References. The brief will fit on two pages with one figure.

Schedule

Draft One in Module 4 will cover sections 2 to 4. Draft Two in Module 5 will add options and the recommendation. The Final Draft in Module 6 will be tightened to two pages and formatted for the Board.

References

Bouchama, A., Dehbi, M., Mohamed, G., Matthies, F., Shoukri, M., & Menne, B. (2007). Prognostic factors in heat wave related deaths: A meta-analysis. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(20), 2170-2176. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.20.ira70009

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). PLACES: Local data for better health, county data, 2025 release [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/500-Cities-Places/PLACES-Local-Data-for-Better-Health-County-Data-20/swc5-untb

Iverson, S. A., Gettel, A., Bezold, C. P., Goodin, K., McKinney, B., Sunenshine, R., & Berisha, V. (2020). Heat-associated mortality in a hot climate: Maricopa County, Arizona, 2006-2016. Public Health Reports, 135(5), 631-639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354920938006

Semenza, J. C., Rubin, C. H., Falter, K. H., Selanikio, J. D., Flanders, W. D., Howe, H. L., & Wilhelm, J. L. (1996). Heat-related deaths during the July 1995 heat wave in Chicago. New England Journal of Medicine, 335(2), 84-90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199607113350203

What the HEP 452 Module 3 instructions ask for

The Module 3 Policy Brief Plan in HEP 452 launches the term-long project: a policy brief drafted in Module 4, revised in Module 5 and finalized in Module 6. A plan lets your instructor confirm that the issue is narrow enough, that the audience is a real decision maker and that evidence exists before you invest in drafting. Follow the instructor's planning template if one is posted in Canvas. A good plan names the issue, the audience and what they care about, the specific policy you will ask for, the evidence you have and need, the options you will compare and an outline. Keep the plan short; it is a map, not a draft. Save your plan; the drafts will be judged against it.

Inside the HEP 452 Module 3 example

The sample states the issue in two sentences with local data, then profiles the Board of Supervisors and its secondary readers. A one-sentence policy goal follows. Evidence appears in a table, with a separate list of what is still missing. Three options are described briefly with a tentative recommendation and its reason. Partners, a seven-part outline and a schedule tied to the coming modules complete the plan. The plan is honest about gaps: it lists five facts the student still needs, from repair costs to cooling site hours, which turns the plan into a research checklist for Draft One. Naming a tentative recommendation early lets the instructor push back before drafting begins.

HEP 452 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks

Graders read the plan as a forecast of the brief it will produce. Instructors look for a narrow issue, a named decision maker with power over the policy, a specific ask, credible evidence and a realistic outline. Plans lose marks when the audience is "the public" or "the government," when the ask is vague, such as "raise awareness," when evidence is listed without saying what it shows and when no options are considered. A schedule that ties each coming draft to specific sections also shows the instructor that the project is manageable within the term. Plans that identify partners and allies reveal an understanding of how policy is actually made.

HEP 452 Module 3 help with common mistakes

Ask who can actually say yes to your policy, and write for that person. Keep the issue to one population and one problem. List your evidence with one line on what each source shows. Write down what you do not know yet; it becomes your research list. Sketch the outline before Draft One. If two issues both appeal to you, the desk can compare the evidence behind each. Read two published policy briefs from a public health agency to see their length and layout. Find out when your decision maker sets its budget or votes, and mention it; timing is part of advocacy. Keep your plan to two pages.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

Request this one custom, free All HEP 452 module samples

More HEP 452 and BS in Health Education and Health Promotion sample papers

HEP 452 Module 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HEP 452 Module 3 sample paper?

This page holds the whole Module 3 plan for a brief to Maricopa County supervisors.

What goes into a policy brief plan?

The issue, the audience and their interests, the policy ask, evidence in hand and needed, options and an outline.

Who should a policy brief be written for?

A specific decision maker who can adopt the policy, such as a county board or legislator.

How many drafts does the HEP 452 policy brief go through?

Two drafts in Modules 4 and 5 and a final draft in Module 6.

Should a policy brief compare options?

Yes; comparing options shows the recommendation was chosen, not assumed.