| Course | D396 Evidence-Based Practice for Health and Human Services |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 2 |
| Paper type | Evidence-based advocacy plan |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | BS Health and Human Services |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D396 Task 2
From One Family to One Ordinance: An Evidence-Based Advocacy Plan for Proactive Rental Housing Inspection on Behalf of Children With Asthma
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
D396: Evidence-Based Practice for Health and Human Services, Task 2
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
From One Family to One Ordinance: An Evidence-Based Advocacy Plan for Proactive Rental Housing Inspection on Behalf of Children With Asthma
From Practice Question to Advocacy
The evidence review for this project examined whether medical-legal partnerships help low-income families of children with asthma who live in substandard rental housing. It found consistent but limited evidence that legal help improves housing and reduces urgent asthma care, and strong trial evidence that reducing home triggers reduces urgent care (Krieger et al., 2005). One study also showed that a single complaint can reveal a cluster: one referral led a partnership to 15 more affected units owned by the same landlord (Beck et al., 2012). That finding points beyond individual referrals. If a problem is concentrated in buildings rather than in families, a response that waits for each family to complain will always be late, and families who fear eviction will never complain at all.
This paper therefore sets out an advocacy plan at the level of city policy: a proactive rental inspection ordinance, under which the city inspects rental housing on a regular schedule rather than only after a tenant complaint.
The Population and the Problem
In the composite city of about 180,000 served by the clinic, roughly half of households rent, and much of the rental stock was built before 1960. The clinic's community health workers found moisture, mold or pests in 41% of the homes of children with asthma they visited last year. Housing code inspections happen only when a tenant files a complaint, and the city's own data show that complaints come disproportionately from neighborhoods with more homeowners and fewer immigrant families. Poor housing is linked to asthma, respiratory infection, lead poisoning and injury, and public health has a long history of acting through housing codes and their enforcement (Krieger & Higgins, 2002). National data suggest that asthma trends follow housing features such as ventilation and windows, and that housing-related health disparities have changed little over three decades (Jacobs et al., 2009).
The Advocacy Goal
The goal is for the city council to adopt, within eighteen months, an ordinance requiring registration of all rental units and inspection of each unit at least once every five years, with more frequent inspection of properties with prior violations, and with protections against retaliation for tenants.
Stakeholders
Support is likely from the clinic and hospital system, the local health department, legal aid, tenant organizations, parent groups for children with asthma and school nurses, who see absences caused by asthma. Opposition is likely from some landlords and property management associations, who will raise costs and fees, and possibly from city staff concerned about inspection workload. Neutral but influential are council members from districts with many renters, the city manager's office and local media.
The plan treats landlords as a stakeholder to engage rather than an enemy. Many small landlords maintain their properties well and would be inspected infrequently under a risk-based schedule; they may accept an ordinance that concentrates enforcement on repeat violators.
Advocacy Strategies
Coalition. The clinic will convene a coalition of health, legal, tenant and parent organizations so that the council hears one consistent message from many voices. A human services professional is well placed to coordinate because the role already bridges clients, agencies and community groups.
Evidence brief. The coalition will prepare a two-page brief for council members summarizing the local data, the evidence linking housing conditions to asthma and urgent care, and the experience of other cities with proactive inspection programs. The brief will be honest about the limits of the evidence: most of it shows that better housing improves health, not that a particular ordinance design produces better housing.
Family voice. With consent and preparation, two or three parents will be invited to speak at a council meeting. Stories do not replace evidence, but decision makers remember them. Families who are undocumented or fear retaliation will not be asked to speak publicly; their experiences can be shared anonymously by staff.
Meetings with decision makers. Coalition members will meet individually with council members before any vote, beginning with the representatives of districts with the most renters, and with the city's code enforcement director to address workload concerns.
Anticipating the Opposition's Case
The strongest arguments against the ordinance deserve serious answers. Landlords will say inspection fees raise rents. The coalition can propose a modest fee scaled to the number of units, waived for owners with clean inspection records, and ask the city to estimate the cost per unit per year so that the debate rests on numbers rather than fears. City staff will say they lack inspectors. The coalition can support a phased start, beginning with buildings that have prior violations or complaints, and point out that registration fees can fund inspectors. Some council members will say that complaint-based enforcement already exists. The answer is the clinic's own data: families in the worst housing are the least likely to complain, so a system that waits for complaints misses exactly the homes that harm children most.
Ethical Considerations
Advocacy on behalf of clients carries obligations. Families must never be exposed to retaliation for the sake of a campaign, so no identifying information will be shared without informed consent. The coalition should avoid overstating the evidence, since credibility with decision makers is its most valuable asset. And the ordinance itself must include protections so that inspections do not lead to displacement: tenants should not lose their homes because a unit is found unsafe.
Measuring Success
Short-term measures are the number of council members who state support, the number of coalition organizations and the scheduling of a council vote. If the ordinance passes, longer-term measures include the percentage of rental units registered and inspected, the number of violations corrected, and, working with the clinic and hospital, asthma-related ED visits among children living in rental housing in the city, compared with the years before the ordinance.
Conclusion
The evidence review showed that fixing housing can help children breathe, and that problems cluster by building. Advocacy for proactive inspection applies that evidence to everyone in the city's rental housing, including the families least able to complain.
References
Beck, A. F., Klein, M. D., Schaffzin, J. K., Tallent, V., Gillam, M., & Kahn, R. S. (2012). Identifying and treating a substandard housing cluster using a medical-legal partnership. Pediatrics, 130(5), 831-838. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0769
Jacobs, D. E., Wilson, J., Dixon, S. L., Smith, J., & Evens, A. (2009). The relationship of housing and population health: A 30-year retrospective analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(4), 597-604. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800086
Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). Housing and health: Time again for public health action. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 758-768. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.5.758
Krieger, J. W., Takaro, T. K., Song, L., & Weaver, M. (2005). The Seattle-King County Healthy Homes Project: A randomized, controlled trial of a community health worker intervention to decrease exposure to indoor asthma triggers. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 652-659. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.042994
What the D396 Task 2 instructions ask
The second D396 task asks you to use evidence to advocate for change on behalf of clients. Most versions ask you to connect the evidence to an advocacy goal, describe the population and problem, identify stakeholders, plan advocacy strategies, anticipate opposition, address ethical considerations and explain which indicators will show progress. The goal should be specific enough that someone could say whether it was achieved. Evaluators look for advocacy grounded in the evidence from Task 1, strategies matched to the decision makers, opposition taken seriously, and ethical protections for the clients whose stories may be used. Most versions expect the advocacy target to be named.
How this D396 Task 2 example is built
The plan begins by explaining how the evidence review led to advocacy, since fixing homes one at a time cannot reach every child. The population section uses city housing data to show the scale. The goal is written as an ordinance with a deadline. Stakeholders are sorted by likely position. Strategies include building a coalition, preparing testimony and presenting data by neighborhood. A separate section states the opposition's strongest arguments and answers each. Ethics addresses consent and retaliation risk for families. Measures are divided into short-term signs of progress, such as council support, and long-term outcomes, such as inspections completed and asthma visits. The opposition section is as long as the strategy section.
Where the D396 Task 2 rubric puts the marks
D396 Task 2 aspects are rated competent, approaching competence or not evident. An evidence link aspect checks that advocacy follows from the Task 1 review. A goal aspect rewards a specific, achievable aim. A stakeholder aspect looks for supporters and opponents identified with reasons. A strategies aspect wants actions suited to the decision makers. An opposition aspect asks for counterarguments answered fairly. Ethics and measurement aspects look for protections and indicators. Evaluators notice whether the advocacy goal is realistic for a human services professional and expect evidence and policy sources to be cited. Evaluators also notice when the plan names the date or meeting at which the decision will be made, since advocacy aimed at a specific vote is easier to judge. Plans that describe how clients will be protected from retaliation earn the ethics aspect.
D396 Task 2 help: what sends it back
Advocacy plans come back most often when the goal is too broad, such as better housing for everyone. Name the policy change and the body that decides it. Second, opponents are ignored. State their strongest arguments and your response. Third, strategies are generic, such as raise awareness. Describe coalitions, testimony and data you will bring. Fourth, clients are used as examples without protection. Plan consent and avoid identifying details. Finally, measure progress in steps, since policy change takes time and short-term indicators show whether the campaign is on track. Test your arguments on a colleague who disagrees.
Get a D396 Task 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Task 2 instructions and rubric aspects from your D396 course of study. We write a custom advocacy or practice plan to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
More D396 papers
Other Health and human services sample papers
- D405 Task 1 Health Plan Comparison
- D390 Task 1 Client Support Analysis
- D406 Task 1 Family Health Literacy Resource
- D579 Task 2 Equitable Access Pathway Proposal
D396 Task 2 questions, answered
Does D396 Task 2 have to be advocacy?
Most versions ask for an evidence-based advocacy or action plan. The sample advocates for a city ordinance because the evidence showed housing problems cluster by building. Check your version's wording, since some ask for an action plan instead.
Should D396 Task 2 reuse Task 1 sources?
Yes, where they support the advocacy goal, and add sources on policy or implementation as needed. The sample builds on the Task 1 review and adds housing inspection research.
How do I measure success for D396 advocacy?
Use short-term indicators, such as council support and coalition size, and long-term outcomes, such as inspections completed and fewer asthma emergencies, as the sample does. Report short-term measures first, since policy outcomes take time to appear.
Is the D396 city in the sample real?
No. The city and its rental figures are hypothetical. The research on housing and asthma cited in the plan is real and listed in the references.
Where can I find a free D396 Task 2 sample paper?
The whole advocacy plan is reproduced above with margin notes. Send your D396 task and cause, and a first tailored advocacy plan is prepared for you without charge.