HLTH 6207 Week 8 Grant Evaluation Plan Example

Course	HLTH 6207 Grant Writing
Week	Week 8
Paper type	Evaluation plan
Length	About 1,160 words, 7 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 8

Evaluation Plan: A Measure for Each of Four Objectives, Who Collects It and When, Process Kept Apart From Outcome, and What the Funder Hears at Each Reporting Period of the Aitkin County Carbon Monoxide Alarm Project

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 6207: Grant Writing

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title ties the plan to the objectives already written and promises a reporting schedule, which is the promise a funder can later collect on.

Approach

This plan measures the four objectives already set for the project, using the targets already promised, and adds no new claims. Each objective has one primary indicator, a data source, a collector and a schedule. Process measures, which show whether activities happened as planned, are reported separately from outcome measures, which show whether homes and residents changed. The design is a one-group comparison of each home against its own condition at the first visit, with a 12-month recheck of a random sample. A comparison group of unvisited homes was considered and rejected: recruiting households to receive no alarms in a county where most homes burn fuel for heat would be hard to justify, and the visit itself is the only way to learn a home's alarm status.

What this page is doingExplaining why a stronger design was ruled out keeps the reviewer from assuming it was never considered.

Instruments

Two instruments supply nearly all the data. The visit checklist, built by the evaluation contractor and tested on ten pilot visits in month 3, records for each home the heating fuel, the number of rooms used for sleeping, every existing alarm with its location and printed date, every alarm installed, whether each sleeping room has a working, in-date alarm within ten feet, the teach-back result and any referral made. The ten-foot standard is taken from Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 299F.51), so a home's status is judged against a rule that already applies to it. The checklist runs on the visitors' tablets and uploads at the end of each day.

The second instrument is the presentation sign-in sheet, which records each attendee's age group and whether they asked for a visit. Recheck visits reuse the checklist with an added section recording the reason any alarm is missing or failed.

Objective 1 Measure: Homes Meeting the Placement Rule

Indicator: number of visited homes in which each bedroom ends the visit with an in-date, working alarm inside the state's ten-foot limit. Target: 600 homes by month 15. Source: visit checklist. Collector: home safety visitors, at every first visit. Schedule: tallied monthly by the coordinator.

Baseline: the same checklist records each home's status before any alarm is installed. The share of homes already compliant at arrival is unknown today and is itself a finding the funder will receive. An English study of 6,043 emergency department attendees reported that more than a third owned no alarm and that a fifth of owners had never tested one (Jarman et al., 2025); the Aitkin County baseline will show whether conditions here are better or worse than that.

Classification rule: an alarm with no readable date counts as out of date, because federal guidance ties each alarm's useful life to its manufacturer's stated replacement age (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC], n.d.).

Objective 2 Measure: Teach-Back Passes

Indicator: share of visited homes in which someone living there works the test button and then reads out the alarm's replacement date. Target: at least 90% by month 15. Source: teach-back section of the checklist. Collector: visitors. Schedule: monthly.

The checklist records a pass only when both parts are done unprompted on the first or second try. Homes where a family member or caregiver completed the teach-back instead of the resident are counted separately and reported alongside the main figure.

Objective 3 Measure: Persistence at Recheck

Indicator: share of 300 randomly selected homes in which every alarm installed by the project is mounted in its original location and passes a test-button check 9 to 12 months after the first visit. Target: at least 85% by month 24. Source: recheck section of the checklist. Collector: visitors. Schedule: rechecks run months 13 to 24; the contractor reports results at month 24.

Sampling: the contractor draws the sample from the visit log, stratified by month of first visit, so that early and late homes are equally represented. Homes that refuse a recheck are replaced by the next home on a randomly ordered reserve list, and refusals are reported with the result so a reader can judge any bias.

Reasons for loss: each missing or failed alarm is coded into one of six reasons: chirp-related removal, relocation during remodeling, dislike, a failed test, a resident moving away, or other. These codes answer the question a reviewer is most likely to ask about a recheck figure below target: why.

Objective 4 Measure: Older Adults Reached

Indicator: number of adults aged 62 or older signed in at project presentations. Target: 400 by month 12 across 16 presentations. Source: sign-in sheets. Collector: coordinator. Schedule: after each presentation.

A secondary measure links reach to Objective 1: the share of first visits whose request came from a presentation, recorded on the checklist as the referral source.

Process Measures

Table 1

Process Measures, Reported Separately From Outcomes

Measure	Source	Frequency \|
Presentations delivered against the plan of two a month	Coordinator log	Monthly \|
First visits completed against the planned monthly pace	Visit log	Monthly \|
Alarms installed per home, average and range	Checklist	Monthly \|
Rechecks completed against 25 a month	Visit log	Monthly from month 13 \|
Heating contractor referrals made	Checklist	Quarterly \|
Visits halted for an alarm sounding or a meter reading	Checklist and fire department report	As they occur \|

Process measures show whether the plan ran as written; they are not evidence that homes changed.

What the Funder Is Told and When

The coordinator submits progress reports every six months, at months 6, 12, 18 and 24, in the format the award requires. Each report gives the count toward each objective, the process measures and any change to the plan. The month 12 report adds the baseline share of compliant homes from the first year's visits. The month 24 report adds the recheck result, the reasons for loss and a short account of what the fire departments will continue. Because the most recent FEMA announcement directs funding toward reaching high-risk groups (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2025), every report breaks its counts down by household heating fuel and by whether a resident is 75 or older.

Data Handling

Checklists record street addresses so that rechecks can find homes, but reports contain only aggregate counts. Data sit on an encrypted, password-protected cloud account held by the collaborative; the contractor receives a file with addresses removed and replaced by home numbers.

What This Plan Cannot Show

Fewer poisonings or deaths lie beyond its reach, since such events are too rare in a county of about 16,000 people to measure over two years; a national analysis could not detect an effect of state alarm laws on deaths even across all states (Hampson, 2023). Teach-back measures what a resident can do on the day, not what they do later. And a one-group design cannot separate the project's effect from other changes in the county, such as a utility's alarm campaign, which the coordinator will watch for and report.

References

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2025). Fiscal year 2024 Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program (Opportunity No. DHS-24-GPD-044-00-97) [Notice of funding opportunity]. Grants.gov. https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/359058

Hampson, N. B. (2023). Carbon monoxide poisoning mortality in the United States from 2015-2021. Clinical Toxicology, 61(7), 483-491. https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2023.2237667

Jarman, H., Atkinson, R. W., & Machado, M. (2025). Carbon monoxide alarm ownership and maintenance in patients attending the emergency departments: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Public Health, 47(4), 791-797. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaf091

Requirements for carbon monoxide alarms, Minn. Stat. § 299F.51 (2025).

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

The Walden HLTH 6207 Week 8 instructions

Week 8 asks students to write an evaluation plan organized around the objectives they have already set. Each objective gets an indicator, a data source, a named collector, a schedule and the target already promised. Process measures, which track whether activities happened, are separated from outcome measures, which track change. The design is stated plainly, whether pre and post, comparison with a baseline or monitoring, and if a stronger design is ruled out the plan should say why. Instruments are identified with their origin and any testing. The plan describes what the funder will be told and when, and how data will be protected. Limits belong at the end. Instructors expect the plan to add no new claims beyond the objectives. References support instruments, standards and any evidence used for comparison.

Inside the HLTH 6207 Week 8 example

The sample opens by naming its design and explaining why unvisited comparison homes were rejected. An instruments section describes the tablet checklist, its fields and its pilot test, and the sign-in sheet. Each objective then gets its own entry: indicator, target, source, collector and schedule, with notes on the baseline share of compliant homes, a rule that undated alarms count as out of date, a pass rule for teach-back, a stratified random recheck sample with a reserve list and coded reasons for lost alarms, and a link between presentations and visit requests. A table lists six process measures. The reporting section sets reports at months 6, 12, 18 and 24 with breakdowns by fuel and age. Data handling and three limits close the plan.

Reading the HLTH 6207 Week 8 rubric

Evaluation plans are graded on alignment, clarity and honesty. Each objective should have a measurable indicator, a named source and collector and a schedule, and missing pieces cost credit. Faculty look for process and outcome measures kept apart, since activity counts cannot show change. A stated design, with reasons for rejecting stronger options, earns credit; silence on design suggests it was not considered. Instruments should be described well enough that a reviewer can judge their quality. Reporting schedules that match the funder's expectations add value. Attention to data protection shows responsibility. Limits stated plainly, especially about outcomes too rare to measure, demonstrate judgment. Citations for standards and comparison evidence, in APA, complete the evaluation of this assignment.

HLTH 6207 Week 8 help: mistakes that cost marks

Evaluation plans often fall short by measuring only outputs, such as homes visited, and calling them results. Another frequent problem is an indicator with no collector or schedule, which leaves reviewers unsure whether anyone will gather the data. Some plans also promise to show reductions in rare events that the project could never detect. Begin by copying each objective and writing its indicator, source, collector, timing and target in a row. Separate process measures into their own list. State your design in one sentence and say why you did not choose a stronger one. Describe your main instrument and how you tested it. Set a reporting schedule. End with honest limits. For an evaluation plan matched to your own objectives, we can prepare a draft for your section.

Get a HLTH 6207 Week 8 example written to your instructions

Everything needed sits in the Week 8 instructions and your classroom's rubric; the first custom sample against them is free, returned inside 24-48h. Assignments requiring a specific framework or a fixed table format get an example matching it. What an organization actually reports to its funder is that organization's record, and no part of it is rebuilt here.

More HLTH 6207 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples

HLTH 6207 Week 8 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 6207 Week 8 sample paper?

A complete Week 8 evaluation plan for a carbon monoxide alarm proposal, with indicators for four objectives, a process measures table and five references, is on this page.

What design does the HLTH 6207 Week 8 plan use?

A one-group design comparing each home with its own status at the first visit, plus a 12-month recheck of 300 randomly selected homes.

Why was a comparison group rejected?

Recruiting households to receive no alarms in a county where most homes burn fuel for heat would be hard to justify, and only a visit can reveal a home's alarm status.

How are lost alarms explained at recheck?

Each missing or failed alarm is coded as removed after chirping, moved during remodeling, disliked, failed test, resident moved or other.

What does the funder receive and when?

Progress reports at months 6, 12, 18 and 24 with counts toward each objective, process measures and breakdowns by heating fuel and resident age.