| Course | DPH 840 Strategic Planning and Financial Management in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Strategic plan |
| Length | About 1,119 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 840 Module 3
Closing the Gap: Five Years of Priorities for a Local Health Department
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 840: Strategic Planning and Financial Management in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Closing the Gap: Five Years of Priorities for a Local Health Department
A strategic plan turns analysis into commitments. It states what the organization will achieve, how it will measure progress and who is responsible. This paper sets out five years of priorities for the health department of a composite county with 420,000 residents, built on an environmental scan that identified a nine-year life expectancy gap between the east side and the healthiest part of the county, restricted funding and workforce risks.
Mission, Vision and Values
Mission: to safeguard and advance the health of all county residents, with particular attention to communities facing the greatest barriers. Vision: a county in which your address does not determine how long you live. Values: equity, science, partnership, accountability and respect. The vision names the equity goal directly so that every priority can be tested against it.
Four Strategic Priorities
The plan adopts four priorities from the strategic analysis: reduce the east-side life expectancy gap; lead countywide action on hypertension and overdose; diversify and stabilize funding; and build a skilled, stable workforce. Each priority has one or two goals, measurable objectives, evidence-based strategies and a named executive owner.
Objectives and Measures
The table lists key objectives with baseline, five-year target, data source and owner.
| Objective | Baseline | Target | Data source | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypertension control among adults in east-side clinics | 52% | 70% | Shared clinical data | Chronic disease director |
| Overdose deaths countywide per year | 118 | 85 | Medical examiner | Behavioral health director |
| Share of budget in flexible funds | 34% | 45% | Budget records | Finance director |
| Staff turnover rate per year | 16% | 10% | Human resources | Deputy director |
| East-side residents reached by place-based initiative | 0 | 12,000 | Program records | Health equity manager |
Priority One: The Life Expectancy Gap
The department will launch a place-based initiative in the three east-side neighborhoods, co-designed with residents, combining community health workers, housing navigation, blood pressure programs and overdose prevention. Life expectancy changes slowly, so intermediate measures such as hypertension control and overdose deaths will track progress, with life expectancy reported every three years.
Priority Two: Leading Shared Action
The department will convene a hypertension partnership with the hospital system, federally qualified health centers and pharmacies, using shared data to track control rates across the county. For overdose, it will lead a coalition to expand naloxone distribution, treatment access and follow-up after emergency visits. These roles reflect the chief strategist function described in Public Health 3.0 (DeSalvo et al., 2017).
Priority Three: Funding
The department will pursue flexible funding through state overdose settlement funds, hospital community benefit investments and a request for stable local support linked to measurable results. Evidence that increased local public health spending is associated with fewer preventable deaths (Mays & Smith, 2011) will anchor the case to county commissioners.
Priority Four: Workforce
The department will create career ladders, a data fellowship with a local university, cross-training to reduce dependence on single grants and a succession plan for managers nearing retirement. An annual staff survey will measure engagement and intent to stay.
Evidence-Based Strategies
Strategies were chosen by combining research evidence, community preferences and practical feasibility, the core of evidence-based public health (Brownson et al., 2009). For example, community health worker programs for hypertension have strong evidence, and residents asked for workers from their own neighborhoods.
Alignment With Partners
The plan aligns with the county's community health improvement plan and the hospital system's implementation strategy, which share priorities for hypertension, overdose and housing. Shared indicators allow partners to report progress together rather than separately.
Resource Allocation
A plan that does not move money is a wish list. In year one, the department will redirect $1.2 million from lower-priority activities and new flexible funds toward the east-side initiative and data capacity. Each annual budget will show how spending aligns with the four priorities.
Equity Commitments
Every objective will be reported by neighborhood and, where data allow, by race and ethnicity. Community members from the east side will sit on a plan oversight group that reviews progress twice a year. These commitments keep the plan focused on reducing gaps rather than raising averages.
Implementation Phases
Year one builds partnerships, data systems and the east-side initiative. Years two and three expand programs and refine them using data. Years four and five focus on sustainability and a full evaluation. Each phase has milestones reviewed by the board of health.
Engaging Staff and Partners
The plan was developed through staff workshops, partner interviews and three community meetings on the east side. Staff at every level helped write objectives for their programs, and residents shaped the place-based initiative's design. This engagement builds ownership needed for implementation.
Why Four Priorities
Early drafts listed nine priorities, reflecting every program's hopes. Leaders cut the list to four by asking which issues were most important to population health, where the department could make a distinct contribution and what the budget could realistically support. Fewer priorities mean more resources and attention for each, and clearer messages to staff and partners.
Objectives That Can Be Measured
Each objective names a baseline, a target, a data source and an owner, so progress can be judged without debate. Where data are weak, as for neighborhood reach, the plan commits to building a measurement system in year one rather than leaving the objective vague.
Communicating the Plan
The plan will be summarized on a single page for staff and the public, with the vision, four priorities and key targets. Each program will display how its work contributes. A plain-language version in English and Spanish will be distributed at east-side community sites.
Risks to the Plan
The plan's main risks are cuts to local funding, delays in new revenue, staff turnover and weak partner commitment. Each risk has a named response, such as a reserve fund, bridge funding from partners, succession planning and formal partnership agreements signed in year one.
Governance of the Plan
The board of health approved the plan and will review progress twice a year. A plan oversight group of staff, partners and east-side residents meets quarterly. The director is accountable for the plan overall, and each priority has an executive owner who reports on objectives, risks and needed changes.
Linking Plan and Budget
Each budget request will include a table showing spending by priority, so commissioners can see how resources follow the plan. Programs outside the four priorities will be reviewed for continued need, and savings will be redirected where possible.
Conclusion
The five-year strategic plan commits the county health department to four priorities with measurable objectives, named owners, evidence-based strategies and budget alignment. Centered on closing the east-side life expectancy gap, it links the department's work to partners and to the community most affected, and it sets out how progress will be measured and reported.
References
Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: A fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 175-201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134
DeSalvo, K. B., Wang, Y. C., Harris, A., Auerbach, J., Koo, D., & O'Carroll, P. (2017). Public Health 3.0: A call to action for public health to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Preventing Chronic Disease, 14, Article E78. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd14.170017
Mays, G. P., & Smith, S. A. (2011). Evidence links increases in public health spending to declines in preventable deaths. Health Affairs, 30(8), 1585-1593. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0196
DPH 840 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
Developing and implementing strategy sits at the center of Aspen's DPH 840 description, and since the module's own wording stays with enrolled students, this example writes a complete plan. Strategic plan assignments typically ask for mission and vision, a small number of priorities, measurable objectives, strategies, owners, resources and a way to monitor progress. Build priorities from your analysis rather than from program wish lists. Give every objective a baseline, target, data source and owner. Show how the budget will change. Include equity commitments that can be measured. Describe how staff and community shaped the plan. Keep the plan short enough that staff will actually read it.
Inside the DPH 840 Module 3 example
Over seventeen headings and about a thousand words, the plan sets mission, vision and values, names four priorities and presents a five-column objectives table. Each priority is then developed in its own section, followed by evidence-based strategies, alignment with partners, resource allocation, equity commitments, implementation phases and engagement. Why four priorities, measurable objectives, communicating the plan, risks, governance and linking plan to budget follow. In the margin, a comment notes that a vision tied to a measurable gap commits the plan to results. The conclusion restates the plan's commitments. The objectives table is the plan's backbone, and each later section explains how one or more of its rows will be achieved and paid for.
Where the marks sit in the DPH 840 Module 3 rubric
Strategic plans are judged on focus, measurable objectives, links to evidence, alignment with partners, resource commitments and accountability. Evidence comes from three APA-cited sources: the chief strategist framework, a longitudinal study of spending and mortality, and a review of evidence-based practice. The objectives table makes accountability concrete. Resource allocation shows the plan will move money. Equity reporting by neighborhood keeps the gap in view. The explanation of why nine draft priorities became four shows the judgment instructors look for. Its governance section names who reviews progress and how often, closing the loop between writing a plan and managing it. Named owners for every objective make it clear who answers for results.
DPH 840 Module 3 help from the desk
Many plans list too many priorities and objectives that cannot be measured. Others never mention money. Limit yourself to three to five priorities. Write objectives with baselines and targets. Name an owner for each. Show a budget shift in year one. Describe how you will report progress publicly. If writing measurable objectives feels difficult, a tutor can help you turn broad goals into specific targets. End with the one objective that would tell you the plan is working. Read your objectives aloud to someone outside public health; if they cannot tell what success looks like, rewrite them. Check that every objective has a data source you can actually obtain each year.
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 Aspen 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 DPH 840 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 840 Module 1: Strategic Planning in Public and Private Health Organizations
- DPH 840 Module 2: Environmental Scan and Strategic Analysis
- DPH 840 Module 4: Monitoring and Revising Strategy
- DPH 840 Module 5: Public Budgets and Population Health
- DPH 840 Module 6: Health Economics Applied to a Decision
- DPH 840 Module 7: Strategy for a Vulnerable Population
- DPH 840 Module 8: Immersion and DPH Project Progress
- DPH 860 Module 7: The Analysis Plan for the Doctoral Project
- DPH 830 Module 8: Human Rights and Ethics in Global Health
- DPH 850 Module 4: Planning an Information System
- DPH 820 Module 3: Consumer Power and Community Voice
DPH 840 Module 3 questions, answered
What does DPH 840 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 840 covers developing and implementing strategy, so a strategic plan with goals and measures is a typical assignment. Follow your classroom prompt.
What belongs in a strategic plan?
Mission, vision, values, priorities, goals, measurable objectives, strategies, owners, resource allocation and a monitoring process.
How many priorities should a plan have?
Usually three to five, so that resources and attention are not spread too thin.
Where can I find a free DPH 840 Module 3 sample paper?
This page holds the five-year strategic plan and its table of objectives, baselines, targets, data sources and owners.
How do you write a strategic plan for DPH 840 Module 3?
State mission, vision and values, choose a few priorities from your analysis, set measurable objectives with owners, align resources and describe monitoring.