HW499 Unit 2 Project Proposal Example

One Population, One Problem, Everything Else Left Out: A Unit 2 Capstone Project Proposal for After-School Activity at Six Park Sites

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HW499: Bachelor's Capstone in Health and Wellness

Unit 2 Project Proposal

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Cotter Bend, its parks department, sites and figures are composite; the guideline and after-school research cited are real.

Population

The project concerns the 412 children enrolled in kindergarten through fifth grade at the six after-school sites operated by the composite Cotter Bend Parks and Recreation Department. Four sites operate inside elementary school buildings, using a cafeteria and, when available, a gym; two operate in city recreation centers with their own gyms and outdoor fields. All six are open from school dismissal, about 2:45, until 6:00 p.m. on school days. The department employs 31 part-time recreation leaders and six site supervisors, overseen by one program manager.

Problem Statement

Children at these sites spend most of the program afternoon sedentary, and the one scheduled activity period comes after many have already gone home.

Preliminary Support

The following support is preliminary and will be tested by the needs assessment in Unit 4.

1. Federal guidance asks that school-age children get an hour of heart-pumping activity every day (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018).

2. Accelerometer work in other after-school programs put children's in-program activity at roughly a third of that hour, higher in free play than in organized games (Trost et al., 2008).

3. A single afternoon of informal observation at one Cotter Bend site counted about eleven minutes when most children were moving, and found the scheduled activity period at 5:00, after a third of the group had been picked up.

4. The department's current schedule, used at all six sites, places homework and crafts before activity.

Purpose

This capstone sets out to raise the active minutes children get during the program afternoon at the six Cotter Bend sites through changes the department controls: schedule, game selection and staff practice.

What the Project Leaves Out

Each exclusion has a reason.

1. Summer camp. The summer program runs on a different schedule, with different staff and full-day hours. Including it would double the scope.

2. Children's diets and the drinks sent from home. These matter for health but are outside what the program controls during the afternoon.

3. Screen time and activity at home. Again important, but outside the program's control.

4. Middle school programs. The department runs separate programs for older children with different staff and activities.

5. Weight and body mass index. The project aims to change activity, which the program controls, not body composition, which depends on much more and would require measuring children's bodies, raising consent and privacy concerns.

6. Fitness testing. Measuring fitness would add burden for children and staff without telling the department whether its afternoons have changed.

Writing the exclusions down before any evidence is gathered keeps the project from growing to fit whatever the literature review turns up, and it tells the department exactly what it is and is not being asked to change.

Why This Problem and Not Another

The writer considered two other problems before settling on this one: sugary drinks sent from home and children's screen time outside the program. Both affect children's health, and both came up in conversations with parents at pickup. Neither is something the department controls during the afternoon. A capstone that tried to change what families buy or how much television children watch at home would depend on decisions made far from the program, and its results would be hard to attribute to anything the department did. The afternoon schedule, the games and the way leaders run them, by contrast, are decided by the department and could be changed next month.

The problem is also measurable without touching children. Activity can be observed and counted at the group level, which means the project can show whether anything changed without weighing, testing or tracking individual children.

Stakeholders

Several parties will feel any change to the afternoon. The program manager and site supervisors would carry out any change. Recreation leaders, most of them part-time college students, would run the new afternoon. Parents value the homework period and would notice any change to it. The school principals at the four school sites control gym access. They will be brought in at different points: supervisors and leaders during the needs assessment, principals before the design is final and parents through a letter before launch.

Approach

The project will follow a standard planning sequence: a review of the evidence on after-school activity, a needs assessment at all six sites using direct observation and program records, a program design based on both, a budget and logistics plan, an evaluation framework and a summary for decision makers. Direct observation will use a structured protocol for recording children's activity and staff behavior in after-school settings (Weaver et al., 2014).

How Success Will Be Defined

Success will be defined before any change is made, in the evaluation framework, and it will be measured during the program afternoon, the only time the department controls. The project will not judge itself by children's weight, fitness or activity at home, which it cannot measure or influence directly. Defining success this narrowly is a strength: it means that whatever the evaluation finds can be attributed, with appropriate caution, to what the department did.

Feasibility

The program manager has agreed in writing to the project and to observation at all six sites, with the department's approval. Observation records group activity, not individual children, and no names will be collected. The writer works at one site and will not serve as an observer there.

Deliverables

Unit 3, evidence review. Unit 4, needs assessment report. Unit 5, program design. Unit 7, budget and logistics plan. Unit 8, evaluation framework. Unit 9, executive summary. Unit 10, capstone portfolio.

Risks

School buildings may restrict gym access on some days. Staff turnover may make training difficult to sustain. Observers may be hard to schedule across six sites. Each risk will be addressed in the design and logistics plans, and any that cannot be solved will be named in the final limits chapter rather than left unstated.

Timeline

Evidence review in Unit 3, needs assessment in October and Unit 4, design in Unit 5, budget and logistics in Unit 7, evaluation framework in Unit 8 and summary in Unit 9. Any program the department approves would launch after the capstone ends, in the new calendar year.

Significance

If the project works, it offers a model the department could use at its summer and middle school programs later, and it addresses a problem the department's own schedule has created. The evidence suggests that after-school programs can contribute meaningfully to children's daily activity when time is used well (Trost et al., 2008).

References

Trost, S. G., Rosenkranz, R. R., & Dzewaltowski, D. (2008). Physical activity levels among children attending after-school programs. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(4), 622-629. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318161eaa5

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Physical activity guidelines for Americans (2nd ed.). https://health.gov/our-work/nutrition-physical-activity/physical-activity-guidelines

Weaver, R. G., Beets, M. W., Webster, C., & Huberty, J. (2014). System for Observing Staff Promotion of Activity and Nutrition (SOSPAN). Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(1), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2012-0007