| Course | HD535 Health Education Program Planning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Program plan |
| Length | About 890 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Health Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HD535 Unit 10
Three Reasons to Say No on Page One: A Unit 10 Program Plan Asking a Foundation to Fund Two in the Bag
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD535: Health Education Program Planning
Unit 10 Program Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The foundation, the program, the neighborhood and every figure are composite; the theory, equity and food allergy sources cited are real.
Decision Summary
Request: $134,900 over eighteen months. Population: caregivers of the [412] children aged two to twelve with food allergy and a prescribed auto-injector at Heights Community Health Center, with a target of 150 families. Mechanism: hands-on practice, peer modeling and pharmacy navigation give caregivers the skill, confidence and equipment to inject epinephrine promptly. A second caregiver in each family is trained so that a capable adult is present after school. Cost: about $899 per enrolled family and $1,124 per family completing both sessions. Conditions for declining: the foundation should not fund the program if the pharmacy agreement is not signed by March, if fewer than four peer instructors are recruited by February, or if the emergency data agreement with Marlow General is refused, since without it the program's most important outcome could not be observed.
Need
Roughly one in four of the county's children aged two to twelve live in Marlow Heights, yet those children account for two in five emergency visits for food-induced anaphylaxis. Only about one in five of their visits followed an injection at home or school, compared with nearly half elsewhere. The equity analysis traced the gap to four causes: no allergist east of the river since 2009, fewer households with two unexpired injectors, after-school caregivers who were never trained, and caregivers' fears of hurting the child or being judged when they call for help. Nationally, epinephrine is often not given in children's severe reactions (Fleischer et al., 2012), and fatal reactions frequently involve delayed treatment (Pumphrey, 2000). These are differences produced by access and circumstance, the kind equity work exists to address (Braveman, 2006).
Theory
The listening survey found that caregivers already fear severe reactions, believe their children are at risk and trust epinephrine. The program therefore uses Social Cognitive Theory, which targets self-efficacy, skill, modeling and the environment (Bandura, 2004), rather than a model built on raising beliefs. The construct table maps six activities to named constructs.
Program
Session one: each caregiver practices on a trainer until three clean injections, beginning on a thigh pad. Session two: scenario drills with the second caregiver. Peer instructors from Marlow Heights co-teach every session. A pharmacy navigator resolves fills and refills. A refrigerator card and monthly text support carrying two injectors. A six-month refresher closes the program, with recognition for those who complete it. Spanish-language cohorts are taught by a bilingual peer instructor.
Logic Model
The model appears in full in the body of the plan, not in an appendix. Its arrow from trained caregivers to prompt injection in a real reaction is drawn dashed, because the evidence behind that step is the thinnest in the model, so the evaluation measures it directly.
Objectives
Nine objectives, each naming a construct, include: 75 percent of caregivers scoring 32 or higher on the confidence scale by session two; 85 percent completing all trainer steps; 80 percent choosing to inject before calling; 65 percent retaining skill at six months; two unexpired injectors at 80 percent of bag checks; and 70 percent of families training a second caregiver. Process objectives cover enrollment of 150 families and navigation resolved within seven days.
Timeline
Agreements and hiring take January to March, with peer instructors trained in March. Cohorts one to four run April to July, before the first school year. Cohorts five to eight run September to March, and nine and ten in April and May of year two. The health center will run refreshers for the last two cohorts after the grant ends.
Budget
The largest lines are the pharmacy navigator ($34,500), nurse educator ($28,800), evaluation ($20,000) and peer instructor stipends ($18,000). Every line in the detailed budget shows its quantity and rate. A third site was considered and dropped to stay within the fund's ceiling, rather than cutting the second-caregiver session.
Evaluation
Process measures track reach, attendance and navigation. Construct-level measures test each objective. Two outcomes are monitored without targets because one neighborhood produces too few such events to show reliable change in eighteen months: epinephrine given before emergency arrival among panel children, and emergency visits and admissions for food-induced anaphylaxis. Each result will be shown for the neighborhood and for the county outside it.
A plan that names how it could fail, and measures the one link it is least sure of, gives a funder more reason to trust it than one that promises every arrow will hold.
Governance
The fourteen-member stakeholder group continues as an advisory board, meeting quarterly, with five caregiver seats. It reviews data at each meeting and must approve any change to the core activities.
Sustainability
The health center has agreed to absorb the nurse educator time for refreshers after the grant. The main Medicaid plan is reviewing whether the navigator role can be billed as a community health worker service. Practice injectors stay with families.
Appendices
A: stakeholder decision log. B: construct table. C: confidence scale, trainer checklist and scenario card. D: detailed budget. E: letters of commitment.
References
Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660
Braveman, P. (2006). Health disparities and health equity: Concepts and measurement. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 167-194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102103
Fleischer, D. M., Perry, T. T., Atkins, D., Wood, R. A., Burks, A. W., Jones, S. M., Henning, A. K., Stablein, D., Sampson, H. A., & Sicherer, S. H. (2012). Allergic reactions to foods in preschool-aged children in a prospective observational food allergy study. Pediatrics, 130(1), e25-e32. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1762
Pumphrey, R. S. H. (2000). Lessons for management of anaphylaxis from a study of fatal reactions. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 30(8), 1144-1150. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00864.x
What the HD535 Unit 10 assignment asks for
Unit 10 usually asks for a complete program plan assembled from earlier units and revised in response to feedback. Prompts commonly ask for an executive summary, needs statement, theoretical basis, program description, logic model, objectives, timeline, budget, evaluation plan and sustainability. Some sections ask that it be written for a specific funder. Revise earlier units rather than pasting them, so figures and terms agree. Put the most important information on the first page. State your assumptions and how they could fail. Keep the logic model and key tables in the body. Many sections expect fifteen to twenty pages plus appendices, so check the range you were given.
How this HD535 Unit 10 example is built
A one-page decision summary gives the request, population, mechanism, cost per family and three conditions for declining. The need section compresses the equity analysis into a paragraph. The theory section explains why Social Cognitive Theory fits a population that already fears the reaction. The program, logic model, objectives, timeline and budget follow in short sections. Evaluation separates process, construct-level and monitored outcomes. The highlighted sentence ties the conditions for declining to the dashed arrow. Governance keeps caregivers on an advisory board, and sustainability names what the health center and the Medicaid plan will carry forward. Each section is short because the detail lives in earlier units and the appendices, and the plan points to them rather than repeating them.
Where the points sit in the HD535 Unit 10 rubric
Final program plans are generally graded on completeness, coherence across sections, strength of the needs case, alignment of theory, objectives and evaluation, feasibility and professional presentation. Coherence often carries the most weight, because figures and terms that change between sections suggest the plan was assembled rather than integrated. A needs case scores well when local data lead. Alignment rewards objectives that trace to the theory and logic model. Feasibility is judged on budget, timeline and partners. Stating risks and conditions openly earns credit with many instructors. Writing quality and APA format complete the grade. Instructors also check that the cost per family and the totals match the budget unit exactly.
HD535 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points
The usual trouble is a final plan built from pasted units with conflicting numbers. Another is a needs statement made of national statistics that never reaches the local population. Some plans put the logic model in an appendix where reviewers may miss it. Others promise outcomes the evaluation cannot measure. Leading with a decision summary, and checking every figure against one source sheet, prevents most of these. Once your earlier units and the instructor's comments are in hand, send them over, and our team can help you shape them into a single plan. A plan that a stranger could read in ten minutes and understand is usually a plan that scores well.
Get an HD535 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Collect your HD535 work so far, the theory, construct table, logic model, objectives and budget, and name the funder or reviewer your plan addresses. Add the Unit 10 prompt and rubric. A free first custom sample returns in 24-48h as one plan that holds together, with a decision page and its weak links shown honestly. 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 HD535 papers and MS in Health Education samples
- HD535 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HD535 Unit 2: Theory Selection Paper
- HD535 Unit 3: Stakeholder Priority Process
- HD535 Unit 4: Construct Mapping Table
- HD535 Unit 5: Logic Model
- HD535 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HD535 Unit 7: Equity Analysis
- HD535 Unit 8: Objective and Indicator Set
- HD535 Unit 9: Resource and Timeline Plan
- HD520 Unit 10: Assessment Protocol
HD535 Unit 10 questions, answered
Should the final plan include every earlier assignment?
It should draw on them, revised, rather than reproduce them. Earlier work was written before later units changed the design, so objectives, activities and costs usually need bringing into line. Supporting material such as the stakeholder log or instruments can sit in appendices. Check whether your section allows reuse of prior submissions, since policies on that differ.
Where can I find a free HD535 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page carries a complete Unit 10 program plan asking a foundation for $134,900 to fund a caregiver epinephrine program.
Why list reasons a funder should decline?
It shows the plan's assumptions can be tested. Naming conditions such as an unsigned pharmacy agreement tells the funder what the program depends on.
Should the logic model go in an appendix?
Place it in the body. It is the one-page account of the program's reasoning, and reviewers should see it alongside the objectives and evaluation.
How much evaluation detail does a final plan need?
Enough to show what will be measured, how and when, and what results could and could not establish. Separating monitored outcomes from targeted ones helps.