HD460 Unit 5 Problem Response Memo Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN Health Education Program Implementation and Evaluation Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Six weeks into Healthy Days at Home, one counselor carried twenty-four participants against a planned eighteen and visits were slipping from every two weeks to every three, and the HD460 Unit 5 problem response memo records the fix and its price. Purdue Global HD 460 asks BS in Health and Wellness students to respond to implementation problems and document the trade-offs. The memo traces the overload to a referral partner that sent nearly twice the expected referrals, explains why longer gaps and missed case reviews threaten the model, and reports three changes: a waiting list with safety calls, phone visits for stable participants' later sessions, and case review by priority. It names what phone visits lose, reports the results and asks for a third counselor.

CourseHD460 Health Education Program Implementation and Evaluation
UnitUnit 5
Paper typeProblem response memo
LengthAbout 610 words, 5 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Health and Wellness
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HD460 Unit 5

1

Too Many Referrals, Not Enough Visits: A Unit 5 Problem Response Memo on a Counselor Caseload That Outgrew the Plan

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HD460: Health Education Program Implementation and Evaluation

Unit 5 Problem Response Memo

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The program, caseloads and figures are composite; the fidelity framework, the implementation review and the home-based trial cited are real.

What this part is doingStating the cost in the lead's last clause signals that the memo will be honest about trade-offs, not just report a fix.
2

Memo Header

To: Director, East Side Senior Services From: Program Manager, Healthy Days at Home Date: [date] Re: Caseload problem and changes made in week six

The Problem

The home-delivered meals program referred far more people than expected: [38] referrals in five weeks against a planned [20]. The two counselors enrolled everyone eligible. Counselor A, who covers the neighborhoods with the most meal clients, reached [24] active participants. Visits for her participants were averaging nineteen days apart instead of fourteen, and three participants had gone a month without a visit. The weekly case review with the psychiatric consultant ran out of time before all of her cases were discussed.

Why It Matters

The program's evidence comes from a model with regular visits and weekly consultant review (Ciechanowski et al., 2004). Longer gaps weaken the problem-solving and activity planning that are its core, and cases not reviewed may miss a participant who needs more help. Dose is one of the main dimensions of fidelity (Carroll et al., 2007).

What Was Done

1. A waiting list. New referrals are enrolled only when a counselor's active caseload is eighteen or fewer. People on the list receive a call every two weeks from the program manager, and anyone whose questionnaire score rises above 19 or who reports thoughts of self-harm is referred directly to the mental health center.

2. Phone visits for later sessions. Participants who have completed four home visits and whose scores have fallen may have visits five through eight by phone, if they agree. This frees about [30] minutes of travel per visit.

3. Case review priority. Cases are reviewed in order of score and time since last review, so no participant goes more than two weeks without review.

The phone visits keep the schedule, but one core element cannot travel over a phone line: the counselor no longer sees whether the participant has actually gone to the senior center or the church supper planned at the last visit, and can only take their word for it.

What this part is doingThe highlighted sentence names the specific element lost, which is what makes the memo honest about the change's cost.
3

What the Change Cost

The waiting list delays help for some people who need it; [9] people were on it at the end of week eight. Phone visits lose the counselor's view of the home: whether the person is eating, whether the house is cluttered or cold, whether a planned activity actually happened. They also exclude participants with significant hearing loss, who must continue in person. The fidelity checklist will record which visits were by phone so that the evaluation can compare outcomes.

What It Gained

By week eight, Counselor A's average visit gap was back to fifteen days, and every active case had been reviewed within the past two weeks. No participant had gone more than three weeks without contact.

What this part is doingReporting what the change achieved alongside what it cost lets the director judge the trade-off directly.
4

What Is Still Unresolved

Referrals continue to exceed capacity. A third counselor at half time would clear the waiting list in about two months. The memo asks the director to request that from the funder. Implementation research suggests that programs adapted under pressure should document what changed and why, so that later evaluations can account for it (Durlak & DuPre, 2008).

Recommendation

Keep the waiting list and phone option in place until a third counselor is funded. Track outcomes for participants with phone visits separately.

5

References

Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40

Ciechanowski, P., Wagner, E., Schmaling, K., Schwartz, S., Williams, B., Diehr, P., Kulzer, J., Gray, S., Collier, C., & LoGerfo, J. (2004). Community-integrated home-based depression treatment in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 291(13), 1569-1577. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.13.1569

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 327-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0

What the HD460 Unit 5 assignment asks for

In Unit 5, students write a memo about a problem that surfaced while the program was running, the response chosen and its consequences, written for supervisors or partners. Two or three pages is normal. Marks reward a factual account of the problem with figures, an explanation of why it threatens the program's core, a response with specific changes, an honest statement of what the response costs, early results, and what remains unresolved. Many sections reward naming alternatives considered. Assume the reader missed every meeting where the problem was discussed. Cite a fidelity framework or implementation source to explain why the problem matters, and the program's evidence base for the elements at risk.

How the HD 460 Unit 5 example is put together

The memo opens with a header addressed to the agency director. The problem section gives referral counts against plan, the counselor's caseload, average visit gaps and incomplete case reviews. A section explains why longer gaps threaten the model, citing the trial and a fidelity framework's attention to dose. Three numbered changes follow: a waiting list with safety calls, phone visits for later sessions, and prioritized case review. The highlighted sentence names the element phone visits cannot carry. Sections report what the change cost, including the waiting list and excluded participants, what it gained by week eight, what remains unresolved, and a recommendation.

Reading the HD460 Unit 5 grading rubric

Problem response memos are typically marked on the clarity of the problem, the link to the program's core, the specificity of the response, honesty about costs and attention to what remains open. Honesty about costs usually separates strong memos from adequate ones, because any adaptation gives something up and readers need to know what. Clarity rewards figures and timing. The link to the core earns credit when the memo explains which element was at risk. The response is rewarded when it is specific and safe. Reporting early results and an open request shows the memo is part of ongoing management. Citations support the reasoning about fidelity. A request at the end, such as funding for added staff, shows the memo is a step in managing the program rather than a closing report.

HD460 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points

A common mistake is a memo that reports the problem and the fix but not what the fix cost. Another is describing the problem without numbers, which makes its size impossible to judge. Some students make changes that quietly drop a core element without saying so. Others leave out safety measures for people placed on a waiting list. Ending without saying what is still unresolved implies the problem is solved when it may not be. If your program faced a different problem, perhaps low attendance or a lost venue, describe what happened and what you changed, and the memo can weigh the trade-off honestly.

Get an HD460 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Describe the problem your HD460 program ran into, the options you weighed and what you decided, then add the Unit 5 memo prompt and rubric. Drafted from exactly that, a free first custom sample arrives in 24-48h with figures up front, the options compared fairly, and the decision's cost stated plainly. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All HD460 units Finished samples

More HD460 papers and BS in Health and Wellness samples

HD460 Unit 5 questions, answered

Who is a problem response memo written for?

Usually the people who share responsibility for the program: partners, a supervisor or a funder's program officer, depending on the prompt. Write for readers who were not present when the problem appeared. They need the facts, the decision and its effect quickly, with the supporting evidence available underneath for anyone who wants to check the reasoning.

Should the memo include options I rejected?

Yes. Showing the alternatives and why they lost makes the decision defensible and tells readers what else was considered if conditions change again. Two or three realistic options compared on the same criteria is typical. A memo presenting only the chosen path invites the question of whether anything else was ever weighed.

What if I do not know the consequence yet?

State what you expect and when you will know. Some prompts ask for a memo written at the moment of decision, in which case the consequences section becomes a prediction with a date for checking it. Name the measures you will watch, such as attendance or a fidelity score, so the follow-up is concrete rather than hopeful.

Where can I find a free HD460 Unit 5 sample paper?

You will find the complete Unit 5 memo here, on a counselor caseload that outgrew the plan and the changes made in response.

What does a phone visit lose compared with a home visit?

The counselor cannot see the person's home, mood or whether planned activities happened, and people with hearing loss may struggle to take part.