| Course | PUBH 6213 Public Health Grant Writing |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Grant attachments package |
| Length | About 1,210 words, 7 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 9
Proof Behind the Promises: An Attachments Package With a Keyed Checklist, Two Partner Commitment Letters, a One-Page Logic Model and Staffing Documents for a County's School Hearing Follow-Up Request
Student Name
Walden University
PUBH 6213: Public Health Grant Writing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Proof Behind the Promises: An Attachments Package With a Keyed Checklist, Two Partner Commitment Letters, a One-Page Logic Model and Staffing Documents for a County's School Hearing Follow-Up Request
Why Attachments Decide So Much
An application's narrative describes what a program will do. Its attachments prove that the applicant can do it: that partners have committed, that staff roles exist, that the organization is legally what it says it is. The invented state announcement this package answers lists eight required attachments and states that an application missing any of them "will be deemed incomplete and will not be forwarded for review." This package assembles all eight for the Tamarack County Health Department's school-based tele-audiology program and keys each to the clause that requires it.
Attachment Checklist
Table 1
Required Attachments Keyed to the Announcement
| No. | Attachment | Announcement clause | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Partner commitment letters | Section 4.2: one per named partner, stating role and resources | Four districts and audiology practice signed | |
| 2 | Logic model, one page | Section 4.3 | Complete | |
| 3 | Organizational chart | Section 4.4 | Complete | |
| 4 | Position descriptions for funded staff | Section 4.4 | Coordinator and program manager complete | |
| 5 | Proof of nonprofit or governmental status | Appendix B, item 5 | County board resolution attached | |
| 6 | Federal registration confirmation with Unique Entity Identifier | Section 3.1 | Renewed; confirmation page attached | |
| 7 | State budget form | Section 5.1 | Matches budget narrative totals | |
| 8 | Rural designation | Section 3.1 | Office of Rural Health list page attached | |
Note. Clause numbers refer to the composite announcement.
Partner Commitment Letter 1: School District
The first letter comes from the superintendent of the largest of the four districts. The other three districts' letters follow the same structure with their own figures.
"Dear Review Committee: The Pine Ridge School District commits to the following roles in the Tamarack County Health Department's school-based hearing follow-up program. Our school nurses will rescreen every student who does not pass the annual hearing screen within two weeks and will complete the program's referral form for each student who does not pass the rescreen. We will provide a private, quiet room at each of our four schools on scheduled clinic days, valued at $750 for the year, and our technology office will configure secure network access for the program's tablets, valued at $450. Nurse time for rescreens and referrals beyond our usual duties is estimated at 50 hours, valued at $2,250. We will share referral information with the health department under a written data sharing agreement and only with written parental consent. Last year our nurses referred 61 students after a failed rescreen, and we know that many of these families could not travel to the nearest audiologist. We are committed to this program because our students cannot learn what they cannot hear. Sincerely, Superintendent."
Partner Commitment Letter 2: Audiology Practice
"Dear Review Committee: Valley Audiology Associates commits to serving as the clinical partner for the Tamarack County Health Department's program. Our licensed pediatric audiologists will review tablet audiometry results and video otoscopy images remotely on scheduled clinic days, speak with families by video or phone, and recommend next steps for each child. We will bill public and private insurers for every covered diagnostic service and will charge the grant only for services to uninsured children, case conferences and staff training, at $95 per hour for an estimated 120 hours. We will calibrate all four audiometer kits before use and annually. We will report each child's results to the care coordinator within five business days. Our practice has seen many children from Tamarack County after long delays, and we welcome the chance to see them sooner. Sincerely, Clinical Director."
These letters do more than express support. Each names specific roles, quantifies resources and, for the districts, values the in-kind match that appears in the budget narrative. General letters of support, which praise a program without committing anything, do not meet the announcement's requirement.
Logic Model
The one-page logic model follows the structure in the guide the department uses for program planning (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004): resources, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes and long-term outcomes, read left to right.
The long-term outcomes reflect evidence that unrecognized hearing loss matters for learning. In one school district study, children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss were more likely than their peers to have repeated a grade, with 37% having failed at least one (Bess et al., 1998). The program will not measure grade retention, which is too distant from its activities to attribute, but the logic model names the outcome so reviewers can see why the short-term outcomes matter.
Table 2
Logic Model Summary
| Column | Content | |
|---|---|
| Resources | Grant funds; care coordinator; program manager; audiology practice; four tablet audiometer kits; school nurses and rooms | |
| Activities | Rescreen and refer; schedule school clinic days; remote evaluations; family contact; results sharing | |
| Outputs | Clinic days held; children offered appointments; evaluations completed; results shared | |
| Short-term outcomes | More referred children evaluated within 90 days; fewer days from referral to evaluation | |
| Long-term outcomes | Children with hearing loss supported at school earlier; fewer children with unrecognized loss | |
Note. The attached logic model uses the same activity wording as the work plan.
Organizational Chart and Position Descriptions
The organizational chart places the program within the department's Division of Community Health. The program manager reports to the division director, and the care coordinator reports to the program manager. Dotted lines show the coordination relationships with school nurses and the audiology practice, which are partners rather than supervised staff.
The care coordinator description lists duties (scheduling, family contact, operating tablet audiometry under remote audiologist supervision, maintaining the referral log), qualifications (health technician or medical assistant credential, valid driver's license, Spanish fluency preferred) and supervision. The program manager description lists grant management, partner coordination and reporting, and requires a registered nurse license and two years of public health program experience.
Proof of Governmental Status
As a unit of county government, the department holds no 501(c)(3) determination letter. The announcement's Appendix B accepts "evidence of governmental status," and the package includes the county board resolution establishing the health department. The cover note on that page quotes the appendix clause so that intake staff do not mistake the missing determination letter for an omission.
What the Package Leaves Out on Purpose
The announcement allows optional attachments, and the team decided against adding any. Letters of support from the county commission and a state legislator were offered, but they commit no resources and would add pages a reviewer must open without gaining points. Resumes for the audiology practice's staff were also left out, since the announcement asks for position descriptions only for staff funded by the grant. Keeping the package to what is required makes every attachment one a reviewer is looking for.
Final Check
Before upload, the program manager and grants coordinator will check each attachment against the checklist, confirm that figures in the letters match the budget narrative and that the logic model uses the work plan's wording, and confirm that file names follow the portal's rules. The tele-audiology approach itself is grounded in trial evidence that school-based telemedicine referral doubled timely follow-up in rural Alaska (Emmett et al., 2022), and the attachments are what allow a reviewer to believe the department can deliver it.
References
Bess, F. H., Dodd-Murphy, J., & Parker, R. A. (1998). Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: Prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear and Hearing, 19(5), 339-354. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199810000-00001
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
What the PUBH 6213 Week 9 instructions ask for
Attachment assignments ask students to prepare the supporting documents a funder requires, often including partner letters, a logic model, organizational chart, staff descriptions and proof of legal status. Prompts usually ask for a checklist matched to the announcement, at least two complete letters and a one-page logic model, with a brief explanation of how each attachment supports the narrative. Expect four to six pages including the documents. Instructors look for letters that commit specific resources, a logic model that matches the work plan's wording and a checklist that makes completeness easy to verify. Strong submissions also explain choices, such as leaving out optional letters that add pages without adding points.
How the PUBH 6213 Week 9 example is put together
The paper opens by explaining why attachments can end an application and quotes the incompleteness clause. A checklist table keys eight attachments to announcement clauses with their status. Two full letters follow, one from a district superintendent and one from the audiology practice, each naming roles, hours and values that match the budget. A logic model table summarizes resources, activities, outputs and outcomes, and a paragraph explains why one long-term outcome is named but not measured. Sections describe the organizational chart and position descriptions and explain proof of governmental status. A section on what was left out on purpose and a final check before upload close the package.
PUBH 6213 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders check completeness against the announcement, the quality of letters and the alignment of attachments with the narrative and budget. Letters should commit specific roles and resources; general support letters score poorly. The logic model should be clear, fit one page and use the work plan's language. Position descriptions should list duties and qualifications for funded staff. Credit goes to students who anticipate intake problems, such as a missing determination letter, and solve them. Consistency of figures across letters, budget and narrative is checked closely. Professional formatting and correct citations round out the score. Packages whose checklist cites the clause number for each item make intake review faster and leave no doubt about completeness. A logic model squeezed onto one page with unreadable text defeats its purpose, so graders favor plain, legible boxes.
PUBH 6213 Week 9 help from the desk
A common mistake is collecting supportive letters that commit nothing. Send partners a template that asks for their role, resources, values and data sharing terms. Build your checklist from every section of the announcement, including appendices. Make the logic model match your work plan word for word. Check that every figure in a letter matches the budget. Explain any requirement your organization meets in an unusual way. Leave out attachments the funder did not ask for. An attachments package can be prepared from your proposal and partners' details if you share them. Ask each partner to sign on letterhead and date the letter within the funder's required window.
Get a PUBH 6213 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Share the attachments prompt and rubric along with the announcement's list of required documents, and a keyed checklist with draft commitment letters and a logic model follows in 24-48h; the first carries no charge. The WIC agency, the dental clinic and their letters are imaginary; your partners have to agree to what your letters say before anything is signed.
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 5: Work Plan
- PUBH 6213 Week 6: Measurement Section
- PUBH 6213 Week 7: Budget Narrative
- PUBH 6213 Week 8: Peer Reply
- PUBH 6213 Week 10: Project Summary
- PUBH 6213 Week 11: Submission Package
- PUBH 6036 Week 9: Qualitative Design
- PUBH 6005 Week 9: Determinants Discussion
- HLTH 6800 Week 9: Full Capstone Draft
- HLTH 6475 Week 9: Training Program Evaluation Plan
PUBH 6213 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 6213 Week 9 sample paper?
The Week 9 package is shown above in full, with a keyed checklist, two partner letters and a one-page logic model for a hearing follow-up grant.
What should a partner commitment letter include?
The partner's specific role, the resources committed with their value, and terms such as data sharing or billing arrangements.
Why does the logic model use the work plan's wording?
So reviewers can move between documents without translating, which avoids mismatched scoring.
Why leave out optional letters of support?
Letters that commit no resources add pages reviewers must open without earning points.
How does a public agency show tax-exempt status?
Many announcements accept evidence of governmental status, such as the resolution creating the agency, instead of a 501(c)(3) letter.