| Course | MPH 510 Public Health Professional Practice (MPH/510) |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | National health objectives paper |
| Length | about 1,154 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MPH |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 510 Week 2
What the Last Decade's Scorecard Says About the Next: Using Healthy People Results to Set a County Health Department's Objectives Through 2030
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MPH/510: Public Health Professional Practice
Week 2 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The county health department, its data and chosen objectives are composites written for a model paper; national results come from the data set and sources cited.
At a board of health meeting in a composite southern Colorado county of about 170,000 residents, a board member asked the health department's deputy director a pointed question: national objectives are set in Washington for 330 million people, so what do they mean for us? The department was preparing its plan for the next ten years, and the deputy director answered by looking at how the nation had done on its last set of objectives and what that meant for local choices. This paper presents her analysis.
The National Objectives Framework
Every decade since 1980, the federal government has published national health objectives with measurable targets for improving the nation's health. The current framework sets overarching goals, hundreds of measurable objectives across topic areas and a smaller set of leading health indicators meant to focus attention on high-priority issues. The objectives give public health agencies, health systems and community organizations shared targets and common measures.
Why Look Back First
Objectives are promises. Before adopting new ones, the department wanted to know how well the previous decade's promises had been kept and what separated objectives that succeeded from those that failed.
The Previous Decade's Scorecard
Final progress data for the previous decade's objectives show a mixed record. Of 985 trackable objectives, 334, or 33.9%, met or exceeded their targets; 205, or 20.8%, improved without reaching them; 305, or 31.0%, showed little or no detectable change; and 141, or 14.3%, got worse (National Center for Health Statistics, 2021).
A Success: Tobacco
Adult cigarette smoking fell from 20.6% in 2008 to 13.9% in 2018, close to the target of 12.0%, and secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmoking adults fell from 37.6% to 22.6%, surpassing its target (National Center for Health Statistics, 2021). These gains followed decades of taxes, smoke-free laws and advertising limits.
A Failure: Suicide
Suicide moved the wrong way, rising from 11.3 per 100,000 in 2007 to 14.0 in 2017, against a target of 10.2 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2021). A national objective to reduce suicide was set, and suicide rose by nearly a quarter over the decade.
Another Failure: Obesity and Infections
Adult obesity rose from 33.9% to 38.6%, moving away from its target, and new cases of primary and secondary syphilis among males more than doubled, from 7.4 to 16.9 per 100,000 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2021).
Why Some Objectives Moved and Others Did Not
The pattern is instructive. Objectives with strong, sustained policy action behind them, such as tobacco control, tended to succeed. Objectives shaped by deep social and economic conditions, such as suicide, obesity and overdoses, often worsened. Setting a target does not move a trend; action does.
The Mortality Backdrop
The national setbacks fit a broader pattern. The mortality study discussed in the first week showed American life expectancy, after climbing for decades to 78.9 years in 2016, declined for three consecutive years, driven by rising deaths in midlife from overdoses, alcohol, suicide and a range of organ diseases (Woolf & Schoomaker, 2019). The objectives that failed were tracking this deeper decline.
The New Decade's Focus
For the current decade, a National Academies committee advised on the leading health indicators, framing them around advancing health, equity and well-being (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). The emphasis on equity and well-being reflects lessons from the previous decade: averages can improve while some groups fall behind.
Comparing the County With National Targets
The deputy director compared county data with national targets. Adult smoking was 17%, higher than the national figure. The suicide rate was 22 per 100,000, well above the national rate. Adult obesity was about 34%. Uninsured adults under 65 were 11% of the county's adult population. Childhood vaccination coverage at kindergarten entry was below the national target, with wide differences between schools.
Criteria for Choosing Local Objectives
The department chose objectives using four criteria: the size of the gap between local data and national targets, the severity of harm, community priorities from the health assessment and the department's ability to act.
Local Objective One: Suicide
Reduce the county's age-adjusted suicide rate from 22 to 17 per 100,000 by 2030, measured with state vital statistics, through a coalition with schools, veterans' groups, health care and firearm retailers on safe storage and crisis response.
Local Objective Two: Adult Smoking
Reduce adult smoking from 17% to 12% by 2030, measured with the state's behavioral risk factor survey, through cessation support, tobacco retail licensing and smoke-free multiunit housing.
Local Objective Three: Kindergarten Vaccination
Raise kindergarten vaccination coverage to at least 95% by 2028, measured with state school immunization data, through school-based clinics and reminder systems.
Local Objective Four: Health Insurance
Reduce uninsured adults from 11% to 7% by 2030, measured with census survey data, through enrollment assistance at clinics and community events.
Local Objective Five: Equity
Reduce the gap in premature death rates between the county's highest and lowest income neighborhoods by one quarter by 2030, measured with vital statistics by census tract.
Why Not Adopt Every Objective
The department's first draft listed nineteen objectives. The deputy director cut it to five, arguing that a small health department with 90 employees could not make meaningful progress on nineteen fronts and that spreading effort thin had contributed to the national record of stalled objectives. The other fourteen remain on a watch list reported annually but without dedicated programs.
Data Limits
County-level estimates are less precise than national ones. The suicide rate, based on about 37 deaths a year, can swing noticeably from one year to the next, so the department will report three-year averages. Survey-based measures such as smoking come with margins of error that the scorecard will show.
Partners for Each Objective
None of the five objectives belongs to the health department alone. Each has a named lead partner: the school district for vaccination, the community health center for insurance enrollment, a suicide prevention coalition for suicide and a housing authority for smoke-free housing. Shared ownership reflects the lesson that objectives move when many organizations act.
Reporting Progress
The department will publish an annual scorecard for each objective, using the same measures each year, and report to the board of health every six months, including objectives that are falling behind.
Answering the Board Member
National objectives matter locally because they provide tested measures, comparison points and evidence about what has worked. But they only move when communities choose the ones that matter to them and act.
Conclusion
The previous decade's scorecard showed that about a third of national objectives met their targets while some of the most serious, such as suicide and obesity, got worse. Success followed sustained action; failure tracked deeper social and economic decline. Using that lesson, the department chose five measurable local objectives aligned with the national framework and committed to reporting on them every year.
References
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Leading health indicators 2030: Advancing health, equity, and well-being. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25682
National Center for Health Statistics. (2021). Healthy People 2020 final progress table [Data set]. data.cdc.gov. https://data.cdc.gov/d/x749-vh2i
Woolf, S. H., & Schoomaker, H. (2019). Life expectancy and mortality rates in the United States, 1959-2017. JAMA, 322(20), 1996-2016. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.16932
What the MPH 510 Week 2 instructions ask
In MPH 510 Week 2, students generally explain the national goals and objectives that guide public health practice for the decade and explain how they apply to communities and organizations. Prompts may ask students to summarize the framework's overarching goals and leading indicators, assess progress on previous objectives, select objectives relevant to a community and explain how local practice can contribute. A few versions narrow the task to a single topic area such as tobacco or maternal health. Look at your version's requirements before choosing. Strong papers use actual progress data rather than descriptions alone, recognize both successes and failures, explain why some objectives moved and others did not and set local objectives that are specific, measurable and linked to national targets.
How this MPH 510 Week 2 example is built
The paper opens with the department's board of health asking whether national objectives mean anything for a county of 170,000 people. The national objectives framework and its purpose are described. Final results from the previous decade show which kinds of objectives succeeded and which failed, with examples from tobacco, mental health and nutrition. National mortality trends explain the context. A national committee's recommendation to focus leading indicators on health, equity and well-being frames the new decade. County data are compared with national targets, and five local objectives, each with a baseline, target and data source, close the paper, with a plan to report progress publicly each year.
MPH 510 Week 2 grading rubric: where the points go
The national objectives week is typically assessed on accurate description of the framework, use of real progress data and sound application to a community. Graders look for the framework's purpose and structure explained correctly, progress on prior objectives reported with data, analysis of why some objectives improved and others worsened, local objectives chosen with justification and objectives written in measurable form. Official data sources strengthen the paper considerably. Candid discussion of objectives that got worse earns credit. Correct APA citation and clear organization account for the remaining credit. Papers that describe national goals only in general terms, or set local objectives without baselines, commonly lose points.
MPH 510 Week 2 help: mistakes to avoid
Many MPH 510 Week 2 papers describe the national objectives without ever looking at the results. Find the actual progress data: which objectives met targets, which improved and which got worse. Ask why: tobacco objectives improved after decades of policy change, while obesity, suicide and some infections worsened as underlying conditions deteriorated. Then turn to your community: compare local data with national targets, choose objectives where local action can make a difference and write them with a baseline, target, date and data source. Finally, explain what the organization will actually do to move each objective, and how progress will be reported to the public and to the governing board.
Related MPH 510 sample papers
Other MPH 510 week samples
- MPH 510 Week 1: Milestones in Public Health History
- MPH 510 Week 3: Ethics in Public Health Decisions
- MPH 510 Week 4: Professional Values and Standards
- MPH 510 Week 5: Community Stewardship
- MPH 510 Week 6: Accountability and Fairness
MPH 510 Week 2 questions, answered
What does MPH/510 Week 2 usually ask for?
The second paper typically asks students to describe the national health objectives for the decade, assess progress and apply the objectives to a community or organization.
Where can I find a free MPH 510 Week 2 sample paper?
The national objectives paper above can be read without charge, and every local objective has a note. Send your community's data, and we draft the opening paper at no cost.
How did the US do on Healthy People 2020?
Of 985 trackable objectives, 33.9% met or exceeded their targets, 20.8% improved, 31.0% showed little or no detectable change and 14.3% got worse.
Which Healthy People 2020 objectives got worse?
Examples include suicide, which rose from 11.3 to 14.0 per 100,000 between 2007 and 2017, adult obesity, which rose from 33.9% to 38.6%, and primary and secondary syphilis.
What makes a public health objective measurable?
It names a baseline value, a target value, a date and a data source, so progress can be tracked with the same measure over time.
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 University of Phoenix 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 MPH 510 week samples · All courses