My health promotion program involved environmental health among low income families. Environmental health happens to be a critical issue among low income families owing to poor conditions the said population live in. For instance, low-income families tend to be more susceptible to environmental conditions owing to poor housing conditions. According to Kriegler and Higgins (2002), housing happens to be a major predictor of health. Some of the health conditions that low-income families face are inclusive of, but they are not limited to; mental health, injuries, stress pollution, lead poisoning, respiratory risks, and asthma (Kriegler and Higgins, 2002). The said risks are as a result of various hazards and exposures from the environment. In addition, low-income families are exposed to use of pesticides, pest allergens, second hand smoke, and other byproducts of combustion (Adamkiewicz et al, 2014). Various studies have in the past been conducted in an attempt to explore the environmental health conditions in low-income families. One such study was carried out in the Boston area whereby 211 participants from 20 low-income households were involved between 2005 and 2009 (Adamkiewicz et al, 2014). The study involved household exposures inclusive of inadequate ventilation, pests, chemicals, secondhand smoke, combustion byproducts, and molds. From the studied population, the said exposures were related to poor health conditions in low-income families.

The mission of the health promotion program is to educate families with low-incomes on various ways of avoiding and preventing exposures in their households. To promote health among low-income families, outcome goals and objectives which included health and quality of life goals were set. The health goal was to reduce indoor exposures from pests and molds that were the leading causes of cancer and asthma in low-income families (Adamkiewicz et al, 2014). To achieve the set goal, the following measurable steps and actions were set. They included:

Providing low-income families with integrated pest management supplies, cleaning kits, doormats, vacuum cleaners, and bedding covers within a year.

Repair all minor holes and leaks in low income households within one year.

To improve the quality of life among low-income families, the program aimed at improving their housing conditions. The following activities were to be carried out to ensure that the said goal would be achieved.

Deal with all concerns related to households which have been identified by Kriegler and Higgins (2002) to be inclusive of; occupation, sanitation, and plumbing in 20% of low-income households within one year.

Remedy seventy homes of low-income families at an average cost of $8000 within three years.

To determine whether the interventions put in place were providing the desired effect on behavior and environment, impact goals which included sample goals, behavioral goals, predisposing goals, and reinforcing goals were set. The sample goal for the program was to reduce indoor exposures in low-income households. The skill for achieving the said goal was to educate low-income families about safe and quality houses. Resources from public health were to be used to improve safety. The said resources were to educate low-income families on indoor quality of air, infant and toddler safety issues, and how to address fall hazards within one year.

The behavioral goal involved the process of identifying and reducing secondhand smoke exposure. First, smoke detectors would be distributed in low income households. Second, educational materials in print and web would be distributed to low-income families. With the said interventions, any secondhand exposure to smoke in children below 5 years would be reduced within a year. In addition, all tobacco users in low-income families would have been educated on behavioral change within one year. Centers for Disease Control and...

…of information on quality houses and time constraint. Process evaluation helped solve the said issues by engaging various entities (so as to mobilize the necessary resources) and rewarding staff workers to ensure that they are available when needed. Second, impact evaluations determine the immediate effect of a program through objectives (Performance, Risk and Social Science Office, 2017). Therefore, impact evaluations would determine whether the set objectives were met at the end of the program. On this front, it would be prudent to note that the program was able to meet its objective by increasing safety in homes and reducing exposures.

On the other hand, outcome evaluations determines the impact of a program to a specified group by determining whether the overall goal of the program was achieved (Performance, Risk and Social Science Office, 2017). Like impacts evaluation, outcomes evaluation would involve gathering of information at the end of the program. Therefore, outcome evaluation would help assess changes in behavior such as smoking and use of chemical pesticides among low-income families. In addition, attitudes of residents towards health promotion program would be evaluated. Further, the said method would evaluate for changes in skills and knowledge in low-income families. It is important to note that the program was able to achieve its main goal of changing the conditions, behavior, attitudes, and knowledge of low-income families at the end of the program. At the end of the program, families who had relocated to standard houses were seen to be enjoying better health outcomes. In addition, the said families had fewer outpatient visits and lower mortality rates. However, it would also be prudent to note that outcome evaluations can pose challenges in terms of lack of time, resources, and expertise knowledge. For this reason, it is important to overcome the said challenges through proper allocation of…