| Course | HLTH 6207 Grant Writing |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Logic model |
| Length | About 690 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 6207 Week 5
Logic Model for the Aitkin County Carbon Monoxide Alarm Project: Resources to Longer-Term Outcomes in Five Columns, Each Row Traceable Left to Right, With the Assumptions That Hold the Arrows Together
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6207: Grant Writing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Logic Model for the Aitkin County Carbon Monoxide Alarm Project: Resources to Longer-Term Outcomes in Five Columns, Each Row Traceable Left to Right, With the Assumptions That Hold the Arrows Together
How to Read the Model
The model runs in five columns, from resources on the left to longer-term outcomes on the right, and each of its four rows follows one strand of the project across all five. The terms match the objectives exactly: "visited homes," "in-date alarm," "recheck" and "presentation" mean the same thing in every section of the proposal. Outputs are things the project counts; outcomes are changes in homes and residents (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
The Model
Table 1
Logic Model, Aitkin County Carbon Monoxide Alarm Project, 24 Months
| Row | Resources | Activities | Outputs | Short-term outcomes, months 1-15 | Longer-term outcomes, months 16-24 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Alarms | Two home safety visitors, 0.75 FTE each; 1,500 sealed 10-year alarms; mileage | Home visits to check, place and replace alarms near each sleeping room | 600 visited homes; alarms installed per home | 600 homes where each bedroom has an in-date alarm working inside the ten-foot limit | At least 85% of 300 rechecked homes keep every alarm mounted and passing a test | |
| B. Resident skills | Visit checklist; printed one-page guide; visitor training | Teach-back on the test button and replacement date at every visit | Teach-back completed in each visited home | At least 90% of homes have a member who can test the alarm and read its date | Residents report chirping or expired alarms without waiting for a visit | |
| C. Outreach | Project coordinator, 0.5 FTE; fire department volunteers | 30-minute presentations at senior centers, meal sites, churches, fire department events | 16 presentations; 400 adults aged 62+ reached | Visit requests from presentation attendees | Alarm checks requested by neighbors and family members | |
| D. Follow-up | Random sample list; recheck protocol | Recheck visits 9 to 12 months after first visit | 300 rechecks; reasons for removed alarms recorded | Removed or failed alarms replaced at recheck | Project data inform the fire departments' ongoing home safety visits | |
Row labels and terms match the objectives and the method narrative.
Tracing the Rows
Row A is the project's core. Its output, visited homes, becomes its short-term outcome only when a visitor verifies placement against Minnesota's ten-foot rule (Minn. Stat. § 299F.51); an alarm in a box on the counter counts as an output but not an outcome. Its longer-term outcome is the 12-month persistence measured in row D.
Row B exists because installing an alarm does not teach anyone to keep it. Federal guidance notes that the test button checks the circuitry rather than the sensor, and that each alarm carries a manufacturer's replacement age (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC], n.d.), so the teach-back covers both. Its longer-term outcome, residents acting on a chirping alarm without help, is the hardest to measure and is captured only through recheck interviews.
Row C feeds row A. Presentations are counted as outputs; their outcome is the visit requests they produce, which the coordinator logs by source.
Row D measures whether the earlier rows held. It also produces the one outcome that reaches beyond the grant: a record of why alarms come down, shared with the fire departments that will keep doing home safety visits after the project ends.
Assumptions and External Factors
Three assumptions hold the arrows together. First, residents will admit visitors; presentations and fire department involvement are meant to make that more likely, but some households will refuse, and their homes are not counted. Second, sealed 10-year alarms, which need no battery changes, will reduce removals prompted by low-battery chirps; the rechecks will test this. Third, the hazard is real in these homes: more than half heat with bottled gas and more than a tenth with wood (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025).
Two external factors could break a row. A severe winter could cancel visits for weeks, which the schedule absorbs by front-loading visits in late summer and fall. And a change in state alarm law would change the placement standard row A is measured against.
The model contains no column for impact on poisonings, because no county measure could show such a change within 24 months.
References
Requirements for carbon monoxide alarms, Minn. Stat. § 299F.51 (2025).
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2020-2024 [Data set]. https://data.census.gov/
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (n.d.). Carbon monoxide questions and answers. https://www.cpsc.gov/Safety-Education/Safety-Education-Centers/Carbon-Monoxide-Information-Center/Carbon-Monoxide-Questions-and-Answers
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. https://wkkf.issuelab.org/resource/logic-model-development-guide.html
HLTH 6207 Week 5 instructions, in plain terms
The fifth week asks students to build a logic model for their proposal. Columns run left to right in the order the announcement names; without one, the usual sequence is inputs, activities and outputs, then outcomes split into near and later stages. Cells hold short phrases, and each phrase uses exactly the same term the narrative and objectives use for that thing. Outputs are counted products such as sessions held or homes visited; outcomes are changes in the population that match the objectives. Every row should be traceable without a gap, so a reader can see how a resource leads to an activity, an output and an outcome. A short paragraph under the model usually explains the rows and states assumptions and external factors that could affect the arrows. Instructors may ask why any column, such as impact, is left out. Sources support the logic.
Inside the HLTH 6207 Week 5 example
The sample begins by telling the reader to read across and by fixing four terms used throughout. The table holds four rows labeled alarms, resident skills, outreach and follow-up, with the visitors, coordinator and supplies on the left and outcomes such as 85% of rechecked homes keeping their alarms on the right. Tracing paragraphs explain that an uninstalled alarm counts as an output but not an outcome, that teach-back exists because installation does not teach maintenance, that presentations feed visit requests, and that rechecks test whether earlier rows held. An assumptions section names resident willingness to admit visitors, the effect of sealed batteries on removals and the reality of the hazard given heating fuels. Two external factors, winter weather and changes in state law, follow. A final line explains the missing impact column.
Reading the HLTH 6207 Week 5 rubric
A logic model is graded on traceability and consistency. Faculty read each row from left to right and deduct where a gap appears, such as an outcome with no activity behind it. Using the same terms as the objectives and narrative earns credit, since mismatched vocabulary suggests the parts were written separately. The distinction between outputs and outcomes carries significant weight; counting sessions as an outcome is a frequent deduction. Stating assumptions and external factors shows understanding of what could break the logic. Restraint about impact earns credit when the project period is too short to show it. The explanatory paragraphs should add reasoning, not repeat the cells. A legible single-page table and APA citations for any framework or data used complete the expectations.
HLTH 6207 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Logic models often lose marks because outputs and outcomes are mixed, with "workshops delivered" appearing in the outcomes column. Another common issue is a row that skips a step, such as resources linked directly to outcomes with no activity in between. Some students also use different words in the model than in their objectives, which makes reviewers wonder whether the two describe the same project. Before building the table, list your objectives and copy their exact terms. Fill one row at a time across all columns. Ask of each outcome which activity and output produce it. Write two or three assumptions that must hold. Explain any column you leave empty. Our team can build a logic model for your own proposal that matches your objectives and evaluation plan.
Get a HLTH 6207 Week 5 example written to your instructions
The inputs are simple: the Week 5 instructions and your classroom's rubric, with the first custom sample free and returned inside 24-48h. Sections vary on whether the model is submitted as a table, a figure or an appendix, and the sample arrives in whichever form the prompt names. A model built for an application an organization means to file falls outside this desk's work.
More HLTH 6207 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6207 Week 1: Federal Funding Opportunity Search
- HLTH 6207 Week 2: Funder Choice Discussion Post
- HLTH 6207 Week 3: Carbon Monoxide Need Statement
- HLTH 6207 Week 4: Grant Goal and Objectives Draft
- HLTH 6207 Week 6: Grant Method Narrative
- HLTH 6207 Week 7: Grant Budget Justification
- HLTH 6207 Week 8: Grant Evaluation Plan
- HLTH 6207 Week 9: Grant Draft Peer Review
- HLTH 6207 Week 10: Grant Sustainability Plan
- HLTH 6207 Week 11: Full Grant Proposal
- HLTH 6205 Week 5: Drinking Patterns Survey Instrument
- HLTH 6112 Week 5: Correction Order Delegation Memo
- HLTH 6110 Week 5: Competency Evidence Map
- HLTH 6051 Week 5: Health Disparity Brief
HLTH 6207 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6207 Week 5 sample paper?
The complete Week 5 logic model for the alarm project, a four-row table with tracing paragraphs and four references, can be studied here.
What columns does the HLTH 6207 Week 5 model use?
Resources, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes for months 1 to 15, and longer-term outcomes for months 16 to 24.
How does the model tell outputs from outcomes?
Outputs are counts, such as visited homes; outcomes are changes, such as a home where every bedroom now has a working alarm nearby.
What assumptions does the model state?
That residents will admit visitors, that sealed 10-year alarms will reduce removals caused by low-battery chirps, and that the hazard is real given the county's heating fuels.
Why is there no impact column?
No county measure could show a change in carbon monoxide poisonings within the 24-month project period.