| Course | PHE 423 Evaluation Methods in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | undergraduate evaluation report with findings, recommendations and a dissemination plan |
| Length | About 1,060 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | BS Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHE 423 Module 7
Working Alarms in Nine of Ten Homes: First-Year Evaluation Report of the River City Smoke Alarm Program
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
PHE 423: Evaluation Methods in Public Health
Project Two
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Working Alarms in Nine of Ten Homes: First-Year Evaluation Report of the River City Smoke Alarm Program
Executive Summary
In its first year, the city's free smoke alarm program installed long-life sealed alarms in 712 of 1,140 eligible rental homes in two neighborhoods. A year later, about nine in ten revisited homes still had a working alarm, compared with fewer than half in a similar neighborhood the program has not yet reached. The program missed nearly four in ten eligible homes, most of them on streets where tenants move often, and some alarms were taken down because cooking set them off. We recommend continuing the program into the third neighborhood next year with evening visits, better placement near kitchens and a second alarm for two-story homes. Fire injuries were too few to judge whether the program saves lives; that question needs several years of data.
Background
The program began after a winter in which three residents were killed by fires in homes lacking a working alarm. City firefighters and county public health staff run it together, funded jointly by the city and the county commission. Crews knock on every eligible door, install alarms with the household's and landlord's consent and give a short talk on escape planning. The evaluation was planned with an advisory group that included a landlord and two residents, following the CDC framework's advice to involve those affected from the start (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999).
What We Asked and How We Found Out
The evaluation asked whether the program reached eligible homes, whether alarms were installed as intended and whether homes still had working alarms a year later. Crew logs recorded every visit. Inspectors checked one in ten installations. At twelve months, health department staff who had not installed the alarms visited random samples of homes in the program neighborhoods and in the third neighborhood, which will be served next year, and pressed each alarm's test button. Both groups had been surveyed before installation began, so changes could be compared from the same starting point.
Findings
Table 1 summarizes the main results. The gap in working alarms between served homes and the neighborhood still waiting was 44 points, and even the lowest plausible estimate, about 34 points, is large. Because the comparison neighborhood barely changed, the gain is unlikely to come from citywide events such as news coverage of the fatal fires.
Table 1. First-year results
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Eligible homes served | 712 of 1,140 (62%) |
| Installations meeting protocol | 64 of 71 checked (90%) |
| Working alarm at 12 months, served homes | 89.9% (85.3 to 94.4) |
| Working alarm at 12 months, comparison | 45.8% (37.3 to 54.3) |
| Households with an escape plan, served vs. comparison | 36% vs. 22% |
| Fire injuries in program neighborhoods | 2 (3 the year before) |
Note. Ranges are 95% confidence intervals.
What the Results Mean
The program is doing the thing earlier efforts often failed to do. When free alarms were simply handed out in London, a large share ended up in drawers or were switched off, and injuries did not fall (DiGuiseppi et al., 2002). Installing alarms in the home, and checking them, appears to keep them working. But reach limits the program's effect on the city as a whole. Glasgow et al. (1999) describe impact as the combination of how many people a program touches and how well it works for them; a program that works for nine in ten homes it serves but serves six in ten eligible homes protects a little over half of them.
Limits of This Evaluation
The neighborhoods were not chosen at random, so some of the difference could reflect differences between them, though they started within two points of each other. About one in six sampled served homes could not be reached at follow-up; even assuming every one of those lacked a working unit, served homes would still be well ahead. Escape plans were self-reported. And one year of injury data from two neighborhoods cannot show whether fewer people are hurt.
What Residents and Crews Told Us
Visitors noted comments at the twelve-month revisits, and crews met with the evaluator twice. Several older residents said the alarm made them feel safer living alone, and two asked for a second unit near a bedroom. Tenants who had taken down a kitchen alarm said it went off whenever they fried food, and most were glad to have it moved rather than removed. Crew members said the hardest homes were those where nobody answered during the day and those where the landlord lived out of state. These comments are not data in the same sense as the test-button results, but they explain the numbers and point to the fixes recommended below.
Recommendations
The recommendations are ranked from least to most costly.
Table 2. Recommendations ranked by cost
| Recommendation | Reason | Added cost |
|---|---|---|
| Mount alarms away from cooking appliances | Most removals were kitchen nuisance alarms | None |
| Carry a second alarm on every visit | Two-story homes received only one | About $25 per home |
| Ask landlords for consent through the rental registry | 56 landlords refused at the door | Staff time |
| Add evening and weekend visits on high-turnover streets | Most unanswered doors were there | About $6,000 a year |
| Track injuries and deaths over three to five years | One year is too short to judge | Data staff time |
Note. Costs are estimates for one year in the third neighborhood.
Sharing the Results
Findings are worth little until those with the power to change the program have them in hand. The Kellogg guide advises tailoring communication to each audience's needs and uses (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004), and the CDC framework treats sharing lessons as a step of its own. Table 3 sets out the plan.
Table 3. Dissemination plan
| Audience | Format | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| County commission | Two-page brief and a ten-minute briefing | Before budget hearings |
| Fire department crews | Short meeting on placement and second alarms | Before third-neighborhood visits |
| Landlords | Letter with results and the registry consent form | One month after the report |
| Residents | One-page flyer and a talk at two neighborhood churches | Within two months |
| Advisory group | Full report reviewed in draft | Before release |
Note. Each format matches what the audience will read or hear.
Conclusion
The program keeps working alarms in the homes it reaches, which the evidence suggests many alarm programs do not. Its next challenge is reaching the renters it missed. Yellman et al. (2018) found that a large installation program returned far more in prevented harm than it cost, and a few changes would bring the river city's program closer to that model. We recommend funding the third neighborhood with the changes in Table 2 and repeating this evaluation there.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
DiGuiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Wade, A., Sculpher, M., Edwards, P., Godward, C., Pan, H., & Slater, S. (2002). Incidence of fires and related injuries after giving out free smoke alarms: Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 325(7371), 995-998. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7371.995
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Yellman, M. A., Peterson, C., McCoy, M. A., Stephens-Stidham, S., Caton, E., Barnard, J. J., Padgett, T. O., Florence, C., & Istre, G. R. (2018). Preventing deaths and injuries from house fires: A cost-benefit analysis of a community-based smoke alarm installation programme. Injury Prevention, 24(1), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042247
What the PHE 423 Module 7 instructions ask for
PHE 423 Project Two asks for a final evaluation report, typically five to seven pages in APA 7, written for the people who will make decisions about the program. Begin with an executive summary that states the main findings and recommendations. Briefly describe the program, the evaluation questions and the methods in plain language. Present process and outcome findings clearly, with tables where they help, and interpret what they mean for the program and the community. State the limits of the evaluation honestly. Give specific, feasible recommendations, and finish with a dissemination plan that matches each audience with a suitable format and timing. Keep the summary to one paragraph.
How this PHE 423 Module 7 project two example is built
This PHE 423 report on the Missouri river city's smoke alarm program opens with a summary a commissioner can read quickly: alarms installed in 712 of 1,140 eligible homes and nine in ten still working a year later, against fewer than half in the waiting neighborhood. Methods are described without jargon, and one table holds the results. DiGuiseppi and colleagues' London trial explains why installation matters, and Glasgow and colleagues' RE-AIM shows how reach limits impact. Five recommendations are ranked by cost, and a dissemination table pairs the commission, crews, landlords, residents and advisers with formats and dates. Residents' and crews' comments explain the gaps. The close asks the commission to fund the next neighborhood.
Where the PHE 423 Module 7 rubric puts the points
The PHE 423 Project Two rubric usually rewards an executive summary that leads with findings, a clear and brief account of methods, accurate presentation of results, interpretation that links process to outcomes, honest limits, specific and feasible recommendations, and a dissemination plan matched to audiences. The strongest reports read as if written for decision makers, not for a journal. Graders mark down reports that bury the answer, overstate the evidence or recommend changes with no link to the findings. Consistent figures with the earlier analysis, accurate APA 7 citations and readable tables complete stronger reports. Brief quotes or comments from participants can strengthen interpretation. A clear request at the end helps the reader decide.
PHE 423 Module 7 help: the mistakes that cost points
Final evaluation reports for PHE 423 often lose points when the summary repeats the methods instead of the findings, recommendations float free of the data or the dissemination plan treats every audience alike. If you are reporting on a class case or a real program, send the prompt, your plan, your results and who will read the report, and the report will be organized around what those readers need to decide. Recommendations will be ranked and costed where possible. Our PHE 423 reports keep figures consistent with your earlier analysis and include a dissemination table with formats and timing. Comments from participants are used to explain results.
Get PHE 423 Module 7 written to your instructions
Send the PHE 423 Project Two prompt with your evaluation plan and results. The report will lead with findings, explain methods simply, state limits, rank recommendations and match each audience with a format and timing, and it will be written within about two days. Your first sample is free. Tell us the audiences your instructor wants addressed. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
More PHE 423 papers and related BS Public Health samples
- PHE 423 Module 1 Discussion: Why Handing Out Alarms Is Not Enough
- PHE 423 Module 2 Frameworks Short Paper: Planning the Evaluation With CDC and RE-AIM
- PHE 423 Module 3 Logic Model Short Paper: From Crews and Alarms to Fewer Deaths
- PHE 423 Module 4 Discussion: Choosing a Design the City Can Live With
- PHE 423 Module 5 Project One: An Evaluation Plan for a Smoke Alarm Program
- PHE 423 Module 6 Analysis Short Paper: What the Follow-Up Visits Found
- PHE 423 Module 8 Discussion: Closing Reflection on Evaluation That Gets Used
- PHE 101 Module 4 Discussion: Rules, Liberty and the Family Farm
- PHE 340 Module 3 Planned Behavior Short Paper: Attitudes, Norms and Control Behind the Wheel
- PHE 321 Module 3 Host Response Short Paper: From a Silent Infection to a Failing Heart
- PHE 330 Module 2 Audience Short Paper: Who Is in the Water and How to Reach Them
PHE 423 Module 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PHE 423 Module 7 Project Two sample?
This page carries a full PHE 423 Project Two evaluation report for a city smoke alarm program, with ranked recommendations and a dissemination plan.
What goes in an executive summary of an evaluation report?
The main findings and recommendations in a few sentences, written so a decision maker can act without reading the rest.
What is a dissemination plan?
A plan that matches each audience for the findings with a format, a messenger and a time when they can use the results.
How should limitations be written for decision makers?
In plain words, saying what the evaluation cannot show and how much that should change confidence in the findings.
Why rank recommendations by cost?
It helps decision makers act on low-cost changes quickly and plan for those that need funding.