| Course | HEP 452 Health Advocacy in Health Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Policy brief |
| Length | About 586 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Health Education and Health Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HEP 452 Module 6
Preventing Indoor Heat Deaths Among Older Adults: A Three-Part Plan for 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
Preventing Indoor Heat Deaths Among Older Adults: A Three-Part Plan for Maricopa County
Bottom Line
Most indoor heat deaths among older adults can be prevented. We recommend that the Board fund cooling repair, summer check-ins and evening cooling access for residents aged 65 and older, beginning before the next heat season.
The Problem
From 2006 through 2016, more than a third of Maricopa County's heat deaths with a known location happened inside a home or other building, and well over half of the people who died indoors were at least 65 (Iverson et al., 2020). Unlike outdoor deaths, which mostly involved working-age men, indoor deaths reflect failed cooling, isolation and illness in people who stayed home.
Who Is at Risk
Older residents who live alone, cannot care for themselves, are confined to bed or have heart, lung or mental illness face the greatest danger (Bouchama et al., 2007; Semenza et al., 1996). County estimates suggest these conditions are common: about a third of adults report loneliness, a quarter lack emotional support and roughly one in sixteen had been warned their utilities could be cut off (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025).
What Protects People
Pooled case-control evidence shows three strong protections: a working home air conditioner, time spent in cool places and regular social contact, each linked with odds of death well under half those of people without it (Bouchama et al., 2007).
Options
Cost figures are planning estimates for discussion and should be confirmed by county staff.
| Option | What it does | Rough first-year cost | Trade-offs |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Cooling repair and replacement | Repairs or replaces failed units for residents 65+ below an income limit, within five days | About $1.5 million for 1,000 homes at an assumed $1,500 each | Strongest evidence; needs contractors and quick eligibility checks |
| B. Summer check-in program | Calls or visits isolated older adults on every extreme heat day | About $250,000 for coordinators, training and volunteer support | Low cost and builds contact; depends on volunteers and accurate contact lists |
| C. Evening cooling access | Keeps selected Heat Relief Network sites open until 10 p.m. and provides rides | About $400,000 for staffing and transport | Reaches people without working cooling; many frail adults will not travel |
Recommendation
Fund all three options as a single initiative, with Option A first if the budget allows only one. Option A addresses the protection with the largest effect; Option B finds the people Option A needs to reach; Option C covers the days when repairs cannot happen fast enough. Federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funds, which may be used for cooling, should be coordinated with county money to stretch both.
Implementation
1. Assign the Department of Public Health to lead, with the regional Area Agency on Aging running check-ins.
2. Open a single phone line in April for repair requests and check-in sign-ups.
3. Pre-qualify contractors before May.
4. Share lists, with consent, between the repair program and check-in callers.
5. Report weekly to the Board from May through September.
Measuring Success
Number of repairs completed and days from request to repair; number of older adults enrolled in check-ins and calls completed on extreme heat days; evening cooling site visits and rides; and, over three years, indoor heat deaths among residents aged 65 and older compared with prior years.
What Changed From Draft Two
Following feedback, the brief now leads with a two-sentence bottom line, labels costs as planning estimates, drops a long history of the surveillance system and adds measures the Board can track during the season.
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
Reading the HEP 452 Module 6 assignment instructions
The Module 6 Policy Brief Final Draft in HEP 452 is the finished version of the brief you planned in Module 3 and drafted in Modules 4 and 5. Revise using every comment from both drafts, then format the brief for its real audience: a short bottom line at the top, brief sections with headings, a comparison of options and a clear recommendation. Most policy briefs run two pages or less, so cut background that does not change the decision. Check your instructor's format requirements in Canvas, including length and whether a figure or table is expected, and keep a complete reference list.
Inside the HEP 452 Module 6 example
The sample leads with a two-sentence bottom line. The problem, risk and evidence sections each run one short paragraph with sources. A table compares three options by what they do, rough cost and trade-offs, with a note labeling costs as estimates. The recommendation explains the order of priority, an implementation list names who does what and when, and measures of success give the Board figures to track. A brief closing note records what changed after feedback. Every number in the brief is either sourced or labeled as an estimate, and the options table lets a supervisor compare choices in one glance. The implementation steps are numbered and dated, which turns the recommendation into a plan someone could start on Monday.
Reading the HEP 452 Module 6 grading rubric
The final brief is graded on persuasiveness and quality. Instructors look for a clear, specific recommendation directed at a decision maker, strong and current evidence, options with honest trade-offs, practical implementation steps and a professional format. Briefs lose marks when they are too long, when the recommendation is buried, when options are straw men, when costs or feasibility are ignored and when earlier feedback is not addressed. Clean formatting and correct citations matter in a document meant for officials. Strong briefs also anticipate the questions a decision maker will ask, such as who runs the program, how fast it starts and how success will be judged, and answer them before they are asked. A short note on revisions shows the instructor how feedback shaped the final.
HEP 452 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Read your brief as a busy official with three minutes. Put the ask in the first two sentences. Cut every sentence that does not support the decision. Give each option a fair trade-off. Label any estimate you make. Add measures the decision maker can watch. Proofread headings and tables last. If your brief keeps growing past two pages, the desk can help you trim it. Ask a classmate who has not read your drafts to tell you, after one minute, what you are asking for and why. If they cannot, move the ask higher and make it shorter. Match each in-text citation to an entry in your references.
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.
More HEP 452 and BS in Health Education and Health Promotion sample papers
- HEP 452 Module 2: Module 2 Assignment: Opinion Editorial with SMOG Readability Assessment
- HEP 452 Module 3: Module 3 Assignment: Policy Brief Plan
- HEP 452 Module 4: Module 4 Assignment: Policy Brief Draft One
- HEP 466 Module 6: Module 6 Artifact: Stakeholder Relationship and Meeting Plan
- HEP 454 Module 4: Assignment 4: Intervention Design
- HEP 251 Module 5: Harm Reduction Program Rationale: A Mobile Outreach Van for West Phoenix
- HEP 456 Module 1: Section 4: Background and Significance of the Health Problem
HEP 452 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HEP 452 Module 6 sample paper?
The complete final brief, a three-part plan for Maricopa County supervisors, appears on this page.
How long should a policy brief be?
Usually two pages or less; follow your instructor's limit.
What is a bottom line in a policy brief?
A one- or two-sentence statement of the problem and the recommended action at the very top.
Should a policy brief include costs?
Yes; rough, clearly labeled estimates help decision makers weigh options.
What changes between the drafts and the final policy brief?
The final adds polish, a firm recommendation and responses to all feedback.