| Course | HD460 Health Education Program Implementation and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder report |
| Length | About 640 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health and Wellness |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HD460 Unit 9
The Hard News on Page One: A Unit 9 Stakeholder Report to the Foundation Funding a Late-Life Depression Program
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD460: Health Education Program Implementation and Evaluation
Unit 9 Stakeholder Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The foundation, the program and every figure are composite; the home-based trial and the RE-AIM framework cited are real.
To the Board of the East Side Community Foundation
Thank you for funding the first year of Healthy Days at Home. This report tells you what happened, in plain terms, on one page, with details behind it.
The Short Version
What went well. Forty-one older adults on the east side received home visits for depression. Ninety-two percent of planned visits happened. Most participants felt substantially better: their depression scores fell by about six points on average, and about two in three ended below the level that suggests moderate depression.
What we cannot yet claim. Similar older adults who waited for a place also improved, by about three and a half points. The difference between the groups favors the program, but it is small and not certain. We cannot yet say how much of participants' improvement the program caused.
What fell short. The program served older women who live alone well, and it reached older men and Spanish-speaking residents far less often than their numbers in the neighborhood would predict.
What we propose. A second year with a third counselor, recruitment through new partners, and a fairer test of whether the program works.
We are telling you plainly that we cannot yet prove the program caused the improvement, because the next decision you make should rest on what we know, not on what we hoped.
What Participants Said
"She listened, and then she made me plan something for Thursday." "I went to the lunch at the center for the first time since my husband died." "The phone calls were fine, but I liked it better when she came."
Why We Believe the Program Is Worth Continuing
The model we use was tested in a randomized trial, where older adults receiving community services who got the program improved more than those receiving their usual care (Ciechanowski et al., 2004). Our results point the same way, though less firmly. The program was delivered close to plan, which is the necessary first step, since programs delivered as designed tend to produce stronger results (Durlak & DuPre, 2008).
What the Money Bought
Year one funding of [$148,000] paid for two counselors, a part-time program manager, psychiatric consultation, materials and the evaluation. The cost per participant served was about [$3,600].
The Second-Year Request
[$171,000] for: a third counselor at half time, to clear the waiting list; a Spanish-speaking counselor or contractor; outreach through a veterans' organization and senior housing staff to reach men; and an evaluation in which the order of the waiting list is decided by lottery, so that we can compare fairly without denying anyone a place.
How We Will Report Next Year
Each quarter: participants enrolled, visits delivered, waiting list, and share of men and Spanish speakers. At year end: depression scores compared with the fair comparison group, and a nine-month follow-up to see whether improvements last. The RE-AIM framework we use treats reach and maintenance as seriously as effect (Glasgow et al., 1999), and next year's report will show progress on each.
What We Learned About Ourselves
The year showed us that the hardest part of the program was not the visits but the capacity around them. Our referral partner was more successful than we planned for, and we did not have a plan for staff turnover. We have written both lessons into our procedures for next year, and we would welcome the board's advice on either.
Contact
The program manager is available to meet with the board or its program committee at any time.
References
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
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
Reading the HD 460 Unit 9 instructions
Unit 9 typically asks for a report to a specific stakeholder, often a funder, summarizing implementation and outcome findings in plain language and making a request or recommendation. Reports commonly run two to four pages, with technical detail kept out of the main text. Graders reward a short version a board member could read in a minute, honest treatment of weak or uncertain results, plain translation of statistics, participants' voices, costs and a clear next step. Many sections reward explaining how the next cycle will answer questions this one could not. Address the actual reader by name or role. Cite sparingly, but do cite, wherever the report rests on research about the model.
How this HD460 Unit 9 example is built
The report opens with thanks and a promise of plain terms. A short version follows in four labeled parts: what went well, what cannot yet be claimed, what fell short and what is proposed; the highlighted sentence explains why uncertainty comes first. Three short participant quotes follow. A section explains why the program is worth continuing, citing the trial behind the model and research on implementation. Costs and cost per person served come next. The second-year request names a third counselor, a Spanish speaker, outreach to men and a lottery-based comparison. A reporting plan, a section on what the agency learned about itself and contact details close it.
HD460 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
Stakeholder reports are usually judged on audience fit, honesty, clarity of the short version, treatment of evidence and the strength of the request. Honesty and the short version tend to carry most of the marks, since a funder deciding from page one needs the truth in plain words. Audience fit rewards language and length suited to a board. Evidence credit goes to translating results without overstating them and citing the model's research base. The request is rewarded when it responds to the findings, such as funding a fairer test. Including participants' words and costs per person adds credit. A reporting plan for next year shows accountability. Ending with an offer to meet shows the report invites questions rather than closing them off.
HD460 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
A common weakness is a report that leads with successes and hides uncertain results in an appendix. Another is copying statistical tables into the main text, which most board members will skip. Some students make a funding request that ignores the weaknesses just reported. Others leave out costs, which funders always ask about. A report addressed to no one in particular reads like a term paper. If your stakeholder is different, perhaps a city council or partner agency, describe what decision they face, and the report can be shaped around that decision. Promising results the next year cannot deliver sets the program up for a harder conversation later.
Get an HD460 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Name who funded or oversees your HD460 program and what decision they face, then include your evaluation findings and the Unit 9 prompt and rubric. Within 24-48h, a free first custom sample puts the outcome answer on page one, gives delivery and results equal room, and prices the program per completer. 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.
More HD460 papers and BS in Health and Wellness samples
- HD460 Unit 1: Program Implementation Discussion Post
- HD460 Unit 2: Implementation Checklist
- HD460 Unit 3: Partner and Role Agreement
- HD460 Unit 4: Fidelity Monitoring Plan
- HD460 Unit 5: Problem Response Memo
- HD460 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection on Staff Turnover
- HD460 Unit 7: Process Evaluation
- HD460 Unit 8: Outcome Evaluation
- HD460 Unit 10: Implementation and Evaluation Portfolio
- HD440 Unit 9: Program Plan Draft
- HD420 Unit 9: Intervention Level Proposal
HD460 Unit 9 questions, answered
How honest should a report to funders be?
Fully honest, and clear about uncertainty. Funders read many reports and tend to trust organizations that state weak results plainly and explain what they learned. Hiding a null result risks credibility if the full evaluation is ever read. Framing still matters: pair each disappointing finding with what it teaches and what you would change.
Should the report include technical statistics?
Put them in an appendix and translate them in the body. A board member needs to know whether a difference could be due to chance, not how the interval was calculated. One plain sentence per result, with a pointer to the technical tables, usually serves both the general reader and anyone who wants to check the work.
Who counts as a stakeholder?
Anyone with a stake in the program's decisions: funders, partner organizations, participants, and sometimes a health department or board. Prompts usually name the audience. If yours does not, choose one primary reader, often the funder, and write for that person's decision, noting where other stakeholders would want different detail. The CDC's framework for program evaluation treats engaging these groups as part of evaluation itself, not a courtesy at the end.
Where can I find a free HD460 Unit 9 sample paper?
The complete Unit 9 report to a funder is on this page, leading with uncertain results for a home-based depression program.
Should a funder report include results that look bad?
Yes. Funders tend to trust organizations that report weak or uncertain results plainly and explain what they will change.