| Course | PUBH 6213 Public Health Grant Writing |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Grant work plan |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 6213 Week 5
Every Promise With an Owner and a Month: A Two-Year Work Plan With Three SMART Objectives for a Composite County's School-Based Tele-Audiology Follow-Up Program
Student Name
Walden University
PUBH 6213: Public Health Grant Writing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Every Promise With an Owner and a Month: A Two-Year Work Plan With Three SMART Objectives for a Composite County's School-Based Tele-Audiology Follow-Up Program
Goal
Children in Tamarack County who fail a school hearing rescreen will receive a diagnostic hearing evaluation quickly, close to where they learn, whatever their family's distance from a specialist or insurance status.
Objectives
The three objectives below follow the SMART pattern: each is specific, measurable, achievable within the grant, relevant to the announcement's purpose and bound to a date. Each also has a baseline drawn from last school year's nurse referral logs, in which 54 of 168 referred children, about 32%, had any documented evaluation before June.
Objective 1, timely access. By month 12, no fewer than 85% of children who fail a school hearing rescreen in the four participating districts will be offered a tele-audiology appointment at their school within 30 days of referral. Baseline: no school-based option existed, so the baseline is 0%.
Objective 2, completed evaluation. Within the first 12 months, 65% or more of referred children will complete a diagnostic hearing evaluation within 90 days of referral, rising to 75% by the end of month 24. Baseline: about 32% completed an evaluation at any point in the school year.
Objective 3, results reach the family and school. By the end of month 12, 100% of children diagnosed with a hearing loss will have results explained to a parent or guardian and, with written permission, shared with the school's student support team within 14 days of diagnosis.
The targets in Objective 2 are set below the 68.5% follow-up rate achieved through school-based telemedicine in rural Alaska (Emmett et al., 2022), because Tamarack's program is new and its first semester will be spent building the referral routine. Setting a target the program can plausibly reach protects credibility with the funder and with partners.
Activities
Table 1
Work Plan by Objective, Activity, Responsible Position and Months
| Objective | Activity | Responsible position | Months | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | Hire and train care coordinator | Program manager | 1 to 3 | |
| All | Sign data sharing agreements with four districts | Program manager; district superintendents | 1 to 3 | |
| 1 | Purchase and calibrate four tablet audiometer kits and video otoscopes | Care coordinator; contracted audiologist | 2 to 3 | |
| 1 | Train school nurses on rescreen protocol and referral form | Contracted audiologist | 3 | |
| 1 | Schedule tele-audiology clinic days at each school, twice monthly | Care coordinator | 4 to 24 | |
| 2 | Conduct school-based evaluations with remote audiologist review | Care coordinator; contracted audiologist | 4 to 24 | |
| 2 | Call families before each clinic day; arrange consent and insurance information | Care coordinator | 4 to 24 | |
| 2 | Refer children needing medical or further audiology care and track completion | Care coordinator | 4 to 24 | |
| 3 | Explain results to the family, by call or visit, inside 14 days | Contracted audiologist; care coordinator | 4 to 24 | |
| 3 | Share results with school support team when families permit | Care coordinator; school nurses | 4 to 24 | |
| All | Maintain referral log and submit quarterly data to evaluator | Care coordinator | 4 to 24 | |
| All | Quarterly partner meeting to review data and adjust schedule | Program manager | 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 | |
| All | Annual report to funder | Program manager; evaluator | 12, 24 | |
Note. Months count from the award start date.
How the Plan Fits Together
The first three months build the system before any child is seen. Hiring, data agreements, equipment and training must all be finished by month 3, which is why the first clinic days start in month 4, not month 1. A reviewer will look for that sequence because programs that schedule services in month 1 often spend their first quarter explaining delays.
The care coordinator appears in most rows, which is intentional. The single most important change from current practice is that one person owns each referral from the day it is made until the family has results. In the current system, the referral letter goes home in a backpack and no one is responsible for what happens next. A review of school hearing screening programs worldwide described follow-up losses in nearly every setting and found that few programs gave anyone responsibility once a referral was made (Yong et al., 2020). The work plan answers that finding by putting a name on every step.
Risks to the Timeline
Two risks could delay the plan. Hiring in a rural county can take longer than three months, so the program manager will advertise in the regional nursing and health technician networks before award and will cover clinic days personally if needed. The second risk is district approval of data sharing, which depends on four school boards meeting on their own calendars. Letters of commitment from all four superintendents are already being requested, and the agreements will follow the same template to speed review.
Alignment With the Logic Model
Each activity in the table links to an output (clinic days held, children evaluated, results shared) and each output to an objective. The one-page logic model attached to the application lists the same activities in the same words, as recommended in the guidance the department follows for program planning (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004), so that reviewers can move between documents without translating.
References
Emmett, S. D., Platt, A., Turner, E. L., Gallo, J. J., Labrique, A. B., Inglis, S. M., Jenson, C. D., Parnell, H. E., Wang, N.-Y., Hicks, K. L., Egger, J. R., Halpin, P. F., Yong, M., Ballreich, J., & Robler, S. K. (2022). Mobile health school screening and telemedicine referral to improve access to specialty care in rural Alaska: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Global Health, 10(7), e1023-e1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00184-X
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. https://wkkf.issuelab.org/resource/logic-model-development-guide.html
Yong, M., Panth, N., McMahon, C. M., Thorne, P. R., & Emmett, S. D. (2020). How the world's children hear: A narrative review of school hearing screening programs globally. OTO Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2473974X20923580
Reading the PUBH 6213 Week 5 instructions
Work plan assignments ask students to lay out what their program will do, by whom and when. Prompts typically require a goal, two to four SMART objectives with baselines, activities for each objective, responsible persons or positions, timelines and sometimes outputs or measures. A table is expected, usually with a short narrative explaining the sequence. Many instructors ask that objectives be realistic and tied to evidence, and that the work plan align with the budget and evaluation. Expect two to four pages. Strong work plans show setup time, assign ownership clearly and anticipate risks to the timeline, while weak ones list activities without owners or schedule services before the staff and equipment needed for them exist.
How this PUBH 6213 Week 5 example is built
The brief states a plain goal, then three numbered objectives, every one carrying a target, a date and a baseline from last year's logs. A paragraph explains why one target sits below the trial benchmark. The activity table follows, organized by objective, with a responsible position and months for every row, including setup tasks, clinic operations, family contact, results sharing, data reporting and partner meetings. A section explains the sequence and why the care coordinator appears in most rows, connecting that choice to evidence on loss to follow-up. A section names two timeline risks with responses, and a final paragraph links the plan's wording to the logic model.
Where the marks sit in the PUBH 6213 Week 5 rubric
Graders evaluate whether objectives are truly SMART, with measurable targets, deadlines and baselines, and whether they connect to the need statement. The activity table is judged on completeness and logic: every objective needs activities, every activity needs an owner and timeline, and setup must come before services. Realism carries weight, so targets should be justified by evidence or local data. Credit also goes to anticipating risks and to alignment with the logic model, budget and evaluation. A clear table and a short narrative that explains rather than repeats it are expected. APA citations support targets drawn from published studies. Plans that include partner meetings to review data and adjust schedules show the reviewer a program that expects to learn as it runs. A missing owner on even one row tends to cost more than a missing month, since ownership is what reviewers test first.
Common PUBH 6213 Week 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Common problems include objectives that describe activities rather than results, targets with no baseline and activities that begin on the first day of the grant. Write objectives as changes in the people you serve, with a number and a date. Give every row in your table one responsible position. Leave time at the start for hiring, agreements and equipment. Check that each activity has a cost in the budget and a measure in the evaluation. Explain how you chose your targets. Name what could delay the plan and how you will respond. We can help shape a work plan from your own program idea and your instructor's template.
Get a PUBH 6213 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Paste the work plan prompt, its rubric and your objectives in draft, and a table assigning each activity to a position and a span of months arrives in 24-48h; the first comes free. The coordinator, hygienist and health worker are positions in a fictional program, so the roles in your plan reflect the staffing your proposal can actually support.
More PUBH 6213 papers and MPH samples
- PUBH 6213 Week 1: Announcement Read
- PUBH 6213 Week 2: Eligibility Memo
- PUBH 6213 Week 3: Criteria Map
- PUBH 6213 Week 4: Problem Narrative
- PUBH 6213 Week 6: Measurement Section
- PUBH 6213 Week 7: Budget Narrative
- PUBH 6213 Week 8: Peer Reply
- PUBH 6213 Week 9: Attachments and Letters
- PUBH 6213 Week 10: Project Summary
- PUBH 6213 Week 11: Submission Package
- PUBH 6331 Week 5: Two-Country Comparison
- PUBH 6036 Week 5: Experimental Design Memo
- PUBH 6333 Week 5: Pretest Plan
- PUBH 6005 Week 5: APA Practice Piece
PUBH 6213 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 6213 Week 5 sample paper?
The full Week 5 work plan is printed above, with three SMART objectives for a school-based tele-audiology program.
What makes an objective SMART?
It names a specific change, a number, a realistic level, a link to the need and a date, ideally against a baseline.
Why do clinic days start in month 4?
Hiring, data sharing agreements, equipment and training must be finished first, and starting services early often leads to delays.
Why is the evaluation target below the trial's result?
A new program needs time to build routines, so a realistic target protects credibility with the funder and partners.
Why does one position appear in most rows of the plan?
The program's key change is that one person owns each referral from the failed rescreen until results reach the family.