| Course | HLTH 5083 Capstone in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Capstone implementation and evaluation plan |
| Length | 1,350 words, about 5 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 5083 Module 4
Test, Fix, Build It Right: A Five-Year Implementation, Budget and RE-AIM Evaluation Plan for a County Residential Radon Program
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5083: Capstone in Public Health
Module 4 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 26, 2026
From Recommendation to Program
Module 3 recommended a combined approach to residential radon in the composite Upper Midwest county: free test kits through trusted channels, a targeted mitigation fund, an electronic record reminder for clinicians who see smokers, radon-resistant construction standards for new homes, a rental requirement introduced gradually once landlords have been consulted, and advocacy for a state law on disclosure at sale. This paper turns that recommendation into a program the county health department can run. It sets goals, assigns partners and roles, lays out a five-year timeline, presents a budget and funding plan, anticipates risks and describes how the program will be evaluated.
The program, called Test, Fix, Build It Right, has one overall goal: to reduce residents' exposure to high indoor radon, particularly among renters, low-income households and smokers. Its measurable objectives are to double the share of county homes with a known radon result within five years, to see that at least 60% of tested homes above the action level are mitigated or retested within two years, and to have radon-resistant construction required in jurisdictions covering at least 80% of new housing permits by year three.
Partners and Roles
The county health department's environmental health division will lead the program, with a half-time radon coordinator responsible for day-to-day management. Public libraries and the three federally qualified health center sites will distribute kits, and the state tobacco quitline will offer a kit to every county caller who lives in a house. The regional hospital system and the health center will build and maintain the electronic health record prompt and train clinicians, a step supported by evidence that providers who screen for lung cancer rarely counsel on radon and feel less confident doing so than for tobacco (Stanifer et al., 2025). The state radon program will supply laboratory analysis at a negotiated rate and maintain the results database. The county community action agency, which already runs weatherization, will verify income eligibility for mitigation grants and schedule work. Certified mitigation contractors will install systems under a fixed-price agreement. The county building official and city building departments will lead code adoption, and a landlord association and tenant advocates will sit on an advisory group for the rental requirement.
Timeline
Year one focuses on launch. In the first six months the coordinator is hired, partner agreements are signed, the kit distribution system and online result portal are set up and the clinician prompt is built and tested at one clinic. Kits become available at libraries and health centers in month six, timed to the start of the heating season when radon levels are usually highest. The mitigation fund opens in month nine. Building officials begin consultations on radon-resistant construction standards.
Year two expands and adds policy. The clinician prompt is extended to all health center and hospital primary care sites. Code amendments are brought to the county and the two largest cities. The advisory group drafts the rental requirement, with an education period for landlords. In years three through five, the rental requirement takes effect for new licenses and then for renewals, kit distribution continues each heating season with targeted outreach to ZIP codes with low testing, and the mitigation fund continues at the level funding allows. Throughout, the county supports state disclosure legislation through its annual legislative agenda.
Budget and Funding
The five-year budget totals about $1.5 million. Personnel, a half-time coordinator and a quarter-time epidemiologist for evaluation, account for about $310,000. Test kits and laboratory analysis for 8,000 households account for $120,000. The mitigation fund, the largest item, is budgeted at $900,000 for about 750 grants averaging $1,200. The clinician prompt and training require about $25,000, communications and outreach materials in English and Spanish about $60,000, and rental program inspections and administration about $85,000 in years three through five. Evaluation, including the follow-up household survey, adds about $30,000.
Funding will come from several sources: the state indoor radon grant, which passes federal funds to local programs, the county's comprehensive cancer control grant, the hospital system's community benefit commitment, which it has agreed in principle to direct partly toward mitigation grants, and a request for an annual county appropriation of $80,000. If funding falls short, the mitigation fund will be scaled down first, with eligibility limited to households with the highest results and lowest incomes, while kit distribution and policy work continue.
Risks and Responses
Several risks could undermine the program. Households may take a kit and never return it; the portal will send reminders by text and email, and outreach staff will follow up with kit holders at high-radon addresses identified by ZIP code. Mitigation contractors may not have capacity for a surge in demand; the fixed-price agreement will include several contractors and the state program will be asked to certify more. Landlords may oppose the rental requirement; the phased timeline, landlord education and the option to use mitigation grants for small landlords serving low-income tenants are intended to reduce opposition. Systems may fail over time; homeowners will be reminded to retest after installation and every two years thereafter, as federal guidance advises (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2016), and contractors will be asked to confirm post-mitigation levels, since even well-installed systems sometimes need adjustment or a second method to stay below the action level (Khan et al., 2019).
Evaluation Framework
The program will be evaluated with RE-AIM, which Glasgow et al. (1999) developed so that programs are judged on their population impact and not only on efficacy. Its five letters stand for reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance. RE-AIM suits this program because its success depends not only on whether mitigation lowers radon, which is well established, but on the number of residents it touches, whether partners adopt it and whether it lasts.
For reach, the team will count county households receiving a kit and returning it, with the share among renters, households in low-income ZIP codes and quitline callers reported separately; the baseline is the 22% of adults in the 2025 county survey who reported a tested home, and the target is 44% by the 2030 survey. Effectiveness will be measured by the proportion of high-result homes mitigated or retested within two years, against a baseline of about one third, and by pre- and post-mitigation levels in grant-funded homes, with a target that 95% fall below the action level. Adoption covers the count of clinics running the prompt, the share of clinicians recording a radon recommendation at screening visits and the share of new housing permits covered by radon-resistant standards. Implementation will be tracked through kit return times, grant processing times, contractor completion rates and costs against budget. Maintenance will be assessed through retest results two years after mitigation, the continuation of the prompt and code standards after year five and the county's funding commitment.
Data Sources and Reporting
Evaluation data will come from the kit portal and state results database, grant records from the community action agency, electronic health record reports from the health center and hospital, building permit records, rental licensing files and a repeat of the county household survey in 2028 and 2030. The quarter-time epidemiologist will prepare a short dashboard each quarter for the advisory group and an annual report to the board of health. Because lung cancer takes decades to develop, the program will not claim changes in cancer incidence during its five years; its outcomes are reductions in exposure, which the evidence already links to lower risk.
Conclusion
Test, Fix, Build It Right turns an evidence-based recommendation into a program with clear roles, a realistic timeline, a budget tied to named funding sources and a plan for handling the risks most likely to derail it. Its RE-AIM evaluation measures what matters for a problem whose solution is known but rarely used: whether residents are reached, whether high homes are fixed, whether partners take it up and whether it lasts. The final module will bring the full capstone together in a report and an executive summary for the board of health.
References
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
Khan, S. M., Gomes, J., & Krewski, D. R. (2019). Radon interventions around the globe: A systematic review. Heliyon, 5(5), e01737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01737
Stanifer, S. R., Rademacher, K., Sedio, W., Cheek, N., Wiggins, A. T., Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J. (2025). Radon and tobacco risk counseling during lung cancer screening shared decision-making. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 22(12), 1473-1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2025.08.052
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). A citizen's guide to radon: The guide to protecting yourself and your family from radon (EPA 402/K-12/002). https://www.epa.gov/radon/citizens-guide-radon-guide-protecting-yourself-and-your-family-radon
The HLTH 5083 Module 4 assignment instructions
The fourth capstone module usually asks you to plan how your recommended intervention would be carried out and evaluated. Prompts commonly expect measurable objectives, partners and responsibilities, a timeline, a budget with funding sources, anticipated barriers and an evaluation plan with specific measures, data sources and targets. Many instructors also ask for a logic model or a named evaluation framework such as RE-AIM. Base the plan on the option you chose in Module 3, and keep it realistic for the organization you named and its current staff. Check Canvas for whether tables for the budget and timeline are required and whether a Gantt chart or logic model should be attached as an appendix.
How this HLTH 5083 Module 4 example is built
The example converts the Module 3 recommendation into a named program with one goal and three measurable objectives. It assigns roles to each partner, lays out year-by-year steps, itemizes the budget with funding sources and a fallback if money falls short, and pairs each major risk with a response. The evaluation uses RE-AIM, with a baseline, target and data source for each dimension, and the paper explains why exposure rather than cancer incidence is the right outcome for a five-year program. The conclusion looks ahead to the final report, so the reader sees how this plan will be presented to the board of health.
Where the points sit in the HLTH 5083 Module 4 rubric
Graders typically look for objectives that are specific and measurable, partners whose roles are clear and a timeline that is realistic. Budgets should show amounts, the basis for them and where the money will come from, including what happens if a source falls through. Naming risks and responses shows practical judgment, especially when each response has an owner and a trigger for using it. The evaluation plan is often weighted heavily: use a recognized framework, define measures and data sources and set baselines and targets. Consistency with earlier modules, clear organization and APA 7 citations complete a strong paper. Keep the plan readable by a busy director: short sections, tables where they help and no measure without a data source.
Common HLTH 5083 Module 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The implementation module asks for the practical detail that many capstone students have not written before: budgets, timelines and evaluation measures. If your intervention is chosen but the plan feels vague, we can help you set objectives, estimate costs, find likely funding sources and build an evaluation with real baselines. Share your earlier capstone papers, the organization you are writing for and the rubric, and our writers can prepare a Module 4 plan that an agency could actually use. Every target in it will have a baseline, a data source and a date, so your instructor can see exactly how success would be judged.
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 American College of Education 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 HLTH 5083 and Master of Public Health sample papers
- HLTH 5083 Module 1: Capstone Problem Definition
- HLTH 5083 Module 2: Capstone Evidence Synthesis
- HLTH 5083 Module 3: Capstone Options Analysis
- HLTH 5083 Module 5: Final Capstone Report
- HLTH 5063 Module 1: Disease Biology and Transmission
- HLTH 5043 Module 3: Evaluation Approach Comparison
- HLTH 5053 Module 4: Risk Communication Plan
- HLTH 5013 Module 5: Epidemiologic Research Proposal
HLTH 5083 Module 4 questions, answered
What does HLTH5083 Module 4 usually ask for?
In HLTH5083, Module 4 generally asks you to turn your recommended intervention into a plan: goals and objectives, partners and roles, a timeline, a budget with funding sources, risks and an evaluation with measures.
What is RE-AIM?
An evaluation framework that judges public health programs on reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance, so that a program is assessed on its real-world impact, not only on whether it works under ideal conditions.
How detailed should a capstone budget be?
Detailed enough to show the plan is feasible: main cost categories with amounts, the basis for each estimate and named funding sources. Follow your rubric on whether a table is required.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5083 Module 4 sample paper?
You can read a whole Module 4 plan on this page, setting out a five-year county radon program with partners, timeline, a $1.5 million budget, risks and a RE-AIM evaluation with baselines and targets.
Can a capstone evaluation measure long-term outcomes like cancer?
Often not within the program's time frame. Measure exposure or behavior outcomes that evidence links to the long-term result, and explain why.