| Course | HLTH 6205 Assessing Health and Wellness Needs for Communities |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Community profile |
| Length | About 650 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6205 Week 2
Calumet County Adults in Published Figures: A Community Profile of Composition, Living Conditions and Health Measures, Each Figure Tied to Its Producer and Its Collection Period
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6205: Assessing Health and Wellness Needs for Communities
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Calumet County Adults in Published Figures: A Community Profile of Composition, Living Conditions and Health Measures, Each Figure Tied to Its Producer and Its Collection Period
Population and Sources
The population is every resident of Calumet County, Wisconsin, aged 18 or over. Composition figures come from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2020 to 2024, the most recent release covering the county (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025). Health figures come from PLACES, CDC's model-based county estimates, whose 2025 release uses Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System responses collected in 2023, or in 2022 for a few measures (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025). Wisconsin comparisons come from the state's 2023 survey results as published by CDC (CDC, 2026). The collection years differ from the publication years throughout, and each table states the collection period.
Composition
The county's age structure is close to the state's except at one point: young adults aged 18 to 24 make up a smaller share of the county than of Wisconsin as a whole. No large residential university sits inside the county, so the students who swell that age band in Dane or Eau Claire County are mostly counted elsewhere. Income runs higher than the state figure and poverty is a little over half the state rate, while the share of adults with a bachelor's degree is almost identical.
Table 1
Population Composition, Calumet County and Wisconsin, ACS 2020-2024
| Measure | Calumet County | Wisconsin | |
|---|---|---|
| Total population | 52,942 | 5,914,872 | |
| Under 18 years, % of total | 22.2 | 21.4 | |
| Aged 18 to 24, % of total | 7.4 | 9.3 | |
| Aged 25 to 44, % of total | 24.9 | 25.2 | |
| Aged 65 and older, % of total | 17.2 | 18.5 | |
| Median household income, dollars | 88,810 | 77,485 | |
| Adults 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher, % | 33.0 | 33.4 | |
| Adults 25 and older with high school completion or higher, % | 95.1 | 93.6 | |
| People below the poverty level, % of those with poverty status determined | 5.9 | 10.6 | |
Percentages computed from ACS tables B01001, B15003 and B17001; income from B19013.
Health Measures
Two features of the table matter for what follows. First, binge drinking is the measure on which the county sits furthest above the state, by two percentage points, while the county's obesity and inactivity estimates sit below the state's. Second, every county interval is wide, roughly seven points for binge drinking, because the estimates are modeled from a statewide sample rather than counted locally (Zhang et al., 2014). The state intervals are narrow by comparison.
The social measures in the last two rows have no state figure in the same CDC table, which is itself a finding for the source review: loneliness among more than a quarter of county adults can be described but not yet compared.
Table 2
Selected Adult Health Measures, Calumet County (PLACES) and Wisconsin (BRFSS), 2023
| Measure, adults 18+ | Calumet County, % (95% CI) | Wisconsin, % (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking | 20.4 (17.1-24.1) | 18.4 (17.4-19.5) | |
| Current cigarette smoking | 12.9 (10.1-15.9) | 12.0 (11.2-12.8) | |
| Ever told depression | 23.4 (19.8-26.9) | 22.6 (21.5-23.6) | |
| Frequent mental distress, 14+ days | 15.1 (12.8-17.3) | 14.7 | |
| Obesity | 33.3 (26.4-40.5) | 35.9 (34.7-37.2) | |
| No leisure-time physical activity | 25.3 (20.5-30.4) | 26.8 (25.7-27.9) | |
| Loneliness | 28.9 (24.4-33.7) | Not published in this table | |
| Lack of social and emotional support | 18.6 (15.5-22.1) | Not published in this table | |
County values are crude model-based estimates; state values are direct survey estimates. The two methods differ, so the columns are set side by side for orientation, not subtraction.
What the Profile Does Not Say
The profile describes; it does not explain. The higher income figure and the binge drinking estimate appear in the same document, and Wisconsin's own 2023 survey reports binge drinking among 29.7% of adults in households earning $200,000 or more against 13.9% of those under $15,000 (CDC, 2026), but this profile does not test that relationship for Calumet County. That waits for the analysis weeks.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). PLACES: Local data for better health, county data, 2025 release [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/d/swc5-untb
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) prevalence data (2011 to present) [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/d/dttw-5yxu
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2020-2024 [Data set]. https://data.census.gov/
Zhang, X., Holt, J. B., Lu, H., Wheaton, A. G., Ford, E. S., Greenlund, K. J., & Croft, J. B. (2014). Multilevel regression and poststratification for small-area estimation of population health outcomes: A case study of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevalence using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(8), 1025-1033. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu018
What the HLTH 6205 Week 2 instructions ask for
The second week's profile asks students to describe their defined population in numbers. Composition comes first: age, income, education, poverty or language, each with its denominator visible. Health measures follow, usually from a state registry, a national survey or a model-based small area source. Every figure needs its producer and its collection period, which is often different from the year the data were published. Tables carry most of the content, and each one needs a source note. The prose between tables should interpret relationships rather than restate rows, pointing out where measures move together or where the population differs from a reference group. Instructors also expect the profile to say what it cannot explain, since causes come later in the course. Real figures should never be invented for a real place; if numbers are illustrative, the profile must say so.
How the HLTH 6205 Week 2 example is put together
The sample opens by naming its three sources and their collection years before any number appears. Table 1 lists nine composition measures for Calumet County and Wisconsin from ACS tables B01001, B15003, B17001 and B19013, and a paragraph notes the smaller share of residents aged 18 to 24, linking it to the absence of a large residential university. Table 2 sets eight PLACES measures with their 95% intervals beside state BRFSS values, including smoking, depression, obesity, inactivity, loneliness and lack of emotional support. The prose observes that binge drinking is where the county sits furthest above the state and that county intervals run about seven points wide because they come from a model. A short closing section notes that higher income and state income gradients appear in the same document without being tested against each other.
HLTH 6205 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Profiles earn most of their marks for sourcing, not volume. A document with ten clean, attributed measures and one consistent geography outranks a long one with gaps in its source notes. Graders check that collection years are stated, that counts and rates are not mixed, and that no table quietly switches geography. They also look for intervals or other signs of precision where the source provides them. The prose between tables is judged on interpretation: a paragraph that points out a relationship earns credit, while one that repeats the table's numbers earns little. Adjectives that run ahead of the evidence, such as calling a county "unhealthy" before any comparison, cost points. A brief statement of what the profile cannot explain shows restraint. APA citations for each data set, with producer, year and access link, complete the expectations.
Common HLTH 6205 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Profiles are commonly returned for three reasons. Figures appear without a year or a producer, so a reader cannot check them. Tables mix county and state values in a single column, or switch from residents to adults without saying so. And the prose narrates every number again, which adds length without insight. Start by deciding your geography and sticking to it in every table. Record the collection period for each figure as you pull it, not afterward. Put intervals in when the source gives them. Write one paragraph per table that names a relationship, not a list. Close with what the profile does not explain. If you need a profile built from real data for your own county, our writers can assemble one from ACS and CDC sources and document each figure.
Get a HLTH 6205 Week 2 example written to your instructions
A sample profile written against your prompt and rubric comes back at no charge the first time, inside 24-48h, at the table density your section expects. Figures in it are marked as stand-ins throughout, because no desk should be putting numbers against a real place, and agency records you hold stay with the agency that released them.
More HLTH 6205 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6205 Week 1: Population Boundary Discussion Post
- HLTH 6205 Week 3: Binge Drinking Data Source Review
- HLTH 6205 Week 4: County Binge Drinking Comparison
- HLTH 6205 Week 5: Drinking Patterns Survey Instrument
- HLTH 6205 Week 6: Age Structure Comparison Peer Reply
- HLTH 6205 Week 7: Key Informant Interview Plan
- HLTH 6205 Week 8: Adult Needs Prioritization Brief
- HLTH 6205 Week 9: Binge Drinking Needs Assessment
- HLTH 6205 Week 10: Binge Drinking Findings Report
- HLTH 6205 Week 11: Needs Assessment Summary Paragraph
- HLTH 6112 Week 2: Inspection Frequency Post
- HLTH 6110 Week 2: Ethics Provision Standards Analysis
- HLTH 6051 Week 2: Rights Claim Discussion Post
- HLTH 6038 Week 2: Behavior Specification Post
HLTH 6205 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6205 Week 2 sample paper?
The full Week 2 community profile of Calumet County adults, with two source-noted tables and four references, can be read here in full.
What data sources does the HLTH 6205 Week 2 profile use?
The American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2020 to 2024, CDC's PLACES 2025 county release built on 2023 survey data, and Wisconsin's 2023 BRFSS results.
How does Calumet County compare with Wisconsin on income and poverty?
Median household income is $88,810 against $77,485 statewide, and poverty is 5.9% against 10.6%, while bachelor's degree attainment is nearly the same at 33.0% and 33.4%.
What is the binge drinking estimate in the profile?
PLACES estimates 20.4% of county adults binge drank in 2023, with a 95% interval of 17.1% to 24.1%, compared with Wisconsin's direct estimate of 18.4%.
Why does the profile warn against subtracting the two columns?
County figures are model-based estimates and state figures are direct survey estimates, so the methods differ even though both come from the same survey system.