| Course | NS410 Integrative Nutrition Planning and Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Program logic model |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Nutrition Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NS410 Unit 3
From Thursday's Truck to a Family's Skillet: A Unit 3 Program Logic Model for the Family Table Pilot
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NS410: Integrative Nutrition Planning and Management
Unit 3 Program Logic Model
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Family Table, the pantry and every figure are composite; the logic model sources and the reviews cited are real.
Problem Statement
Households with a child under five make up about 35.6 percent of the families the Harrow Street pantry serves each month. In the Unit 2 survey, 64.1 percent of those households had taken produce in the past month they did not know how to prepare, and 40.6 percent had no working oven. Over four weeks, 30.8 percent of the produce the pantry received was discarded. Family Table is designed to help these families cook the produce they already take, using one burner and a skillet.
Inputs
Inputs are listed in enough detail that the Unit 5 budget can price each one later. Following the form set out by McLaughlin and Jordan (1999), resources come before any activity.
1. A part-time coordinator for about ten hours per session.
2. A demonstration cook for four hours per session.
3. A registered dietitian on contract to review recipes and lead two sessions per cohort.
4. A Spanish interpreter at every session.
5. A childcare provider so parents can cook without supervising toddlers.
6. The church kitchen upstairs, offered in kind.
7. Thursday produce from the regional food bank, already delivered to the pantry.
8. One take-home skillet and a set of measuring tools for each enrolled household.
9. The extension nutrition educator's monthly visit, offered at no cost.
Activities
This column lists the work Family Table carries out with its resources.
1. Enroll 20 households with a child under five in each of two cohorts, 40 in all, from the pantry line.
2. Hold six sessions per cohort every other Saturday, twelve sessions over 24 weeks.
3. In each session, cook one recipe frame with that week's produce, taste it together and send each family home with a bag holding the ingredients to cook it again.
4. Teach safe preparation of vegetables for toddlers, including size and texture.
5. Screen each household for WIC and offer a warm referral where a family appears eligible.
Outputs
Outputs count what was delivered, never what changed.
1. Twelve sessions held.
2. Two hundred forty ingredient bags distributed, six per enrolled household.
3. Forty skillets distributed.
4. Number of households attending four or more of six sessions, with a target of 30 of 40.
5. Number of WIC referrals made.
Short-Term Outcomes
Short-term outcomes are changes expected by the last session of each cohort.
1. Parents report confidence preparing at least three vegetables they had not cooked before.
2. Parents report cooking the take-home recipe at home in the week after a session.
3. Parents can describe how to cut vegetables safely for a child under three.
Medium-Term Outcomes
Medium-term outcomes are changes expected within three months after a cohort ends.
1. Enrolled households take more of the produce offered at distribution.
2. The share of received produce discarded at the pantry falls from the baseline.
3. More eligible households are enrolled in WIC.
Long-term impact on child diet quality or food security is left off the model on purpose. A 24-week pilot with 40 households cannot show it, and naming it would promise more than the evaluation can measure.
Assumptions
Each arrow in the model holds only if its assumption holds, so the assumptions are written down where a reviewer can test them rather than left inside the arrows.
1. Between inputs and activities: the food bank's Thursday delivery will include enough fresh produce to stock each session, even though the pantry does not choose what arrives.
2. Between activities and outputs: parents can attend on Saturday mornings if childcare is provided, as focus group parents said.
3. Between outputs and short-term outcomes: cooking a dish once in a group, then again at home with the same ingredients, builds lasting confidence. Reviews of cooking programs report gains in confidence and home cooking, though many studies were small and short (Reicks et al., 2014).
4. Between short-term and medium-term outcomes: a parent who can cook a vegetable will take it at the pantry. Pantry-based nutrition education has improved produce intake in several trials, which supports this link without proving it (An et al., 2019).
5. Throughout: the discard count reflects produce left behind rather than produce that arrived spoiled. The evaluation plan in Unit 9 tests this by weighing at arrival.
Outside Influences
Some forces beyond Family Table's reach could move its numbers. The food bank could cut produce deliveries. A family could lose housing or move. WIC office hours could limit referrals. Seasonal shifts in produce, from summer squash to winter roots, will change which vegetables are hardest to cook. The model names these so the evaluation does not credit or blame the program for them.
Using the Model Next
Nothing in these columns is a promise yet. Logic models are meant to expose the reasoning behind a program before money is spent (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004), and this one will be revised as later units add detail. The objectives memo in Unit 4 will turn each outcome into a measurable objective, and the budget in Unit 5 will price each input.
References
An, R., Wang, J., Liu, J., Shen, J., Loehmer, E., & McCaffrey, J. (2019). A systematic review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA. Public Health Nutrition, 22(9), 1704-1716. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019000144
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1
Reicks, M., Trofholz, A. C., Stang, J. S., & Laska, M. N. (2014). Impact of cooking and home food preparation interventions among adults: Outcomes and implications for future programs. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(4), 259-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.001
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Reading the NS 410 Unit 3 instructions
In the third unit, NS410 asks students to turn the priority need from the needs assessment into a program logic model. Expect the prompt to name the columns, usually inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes, and sometimes impact. Start with a short problem statement that carries the key figures forward from Unit 2. List inputs specifically, by role and resource, because the budget in Unit 5 will price them. Write activities as actions the program takes. Outputs stay as delivery counts; outcomes describe what shifts for families. Split outcomes by time frame. Write down the assumption behind each link, since a model without them cannot be tested. Add external factors the program cannot control. Cite evidence where an assumption rests on research, and keep long-term claims within what a pilot could show.
Inside the NS410 Unit 3 example
The paper begins with a four-sentence problem statement using the survey and discard figures. Inputs come next as nine numbered items, from the coordinator's hours to the extension educator's monthly visit, citing a classic article on logic models for the order. Activities set the scale: two cohorts of 20 households, six sessions each over 24 weeks. Outputs stay as counts, such as 240 ingredient bags and 40 skillets. Short-term outcomes describe confidence and home cooking by the last session, and medium-term outcomes describe pantry produce uptake and WIC enrollment within three months. A note explains why long-term impact is absent. The highlighted sentence explains why assumptions get their own section, and the five assumptions follow in order of the arrows. Outside influences and a short note on how the model will be revised close the paper.
NS410 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Logic models in NS410 are typically assessed on the clarity of each column, the logic connecting them, and how realistic the outcomes are for the program's size and length. The largest share of points tends to go to the distinction between outputs and outcomes, which many drafts blur. Specific inputs, named by role and resource, earn credit because they prepare the budget. Outcomes should be measurable and placed in time. Written assumptions are what separate a strong model from a diagram, and instructors reward assumptions supported by evidence. External factors show awareness of what the program cannot control. A brief problem statement linking back to the needs assessment adds coherence across units. APA 7 citations matter even in a short document, and planning sources from established foundations or journals carry the most weight.
Common NS410 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent logic model error is listing outputs, such as sessions held, in the outcome column. Another is an impact column promising reduced obesity or improved food security from a six-week program, which no pilot evaluation could show. Many drafts leave assumptions out entirely or write one generic line about participation. Inputs are often too vague to budget, such as staff or space with no detail. Activities are sometimes written as goals rather than actions. External factors get skipped. Some writers copy a template's wording without adapting it to their program. If you have the needs assessment finished and know what the program will do but cannot get the columns to line up, we can help you separate outputs from outcomes and write the assumptions that connect them.
Get an NS410 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Whether your section supplies a logic model template or leaves the format open, send what applies together with two or three sentences on the program being planned, plus the prompt and rubric for Unit 3. The model gets built from outcomes backward with assumptions stated under each arrow. A first custom sample is free, and delivery runs 24-48h. 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 NS410 papers and BS in Nutrition Science samples
- NS410 Unit 1: Food Pantry Needs Post
- NS410 Unit 2: Pantry Needs Assessment
- NS410 Unit 4: Objectives and Indicators Memo
- NS410 Unit 5: Budget Justification
- NS410 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- NS410 Unit 7: Menu and Session Plan
- NS410 Unit 8: Staffing and Training Plan
- NS410 Unit 9: Evaluation Plan
- NS410 Unit 10: Integrated Program Proposal
- NS325 Unit 3: Breastfeeding Myths Memo
- NS310 Unit 3: Five-Pass Recall
- NS305 Unit 3: Rental Kitchen Audit
- NS235 Unit 3: Bioavailability Comparison
NS410 Unit 3 questions, answered
What is the difference between an output and an outcome?
An output counts what the program did, such as sessions held or bags handed out. An outcome describes a change in the people or conditions the program serves, such as more households cooking vegetables at home. The test is whether the item could be achieved even if nobody benefited; if it could, it is an output.
Should the model include long-term impact?
Only impact the program could plausibly contribute to within its time frame, or impact clearly labeled as aspirational. Many templates have an impact column, and leaving it empty looks careless, so the stronger approach is to fill it modestly or strike an item through with a reason, as this sample does with child weight status.
How detailed should the inputs column be?
Detailed enough that a budget can be built from it later. Naming staff roles, the space, the food source and the equipment gives later budget work a list to price. Dollar figures usually wait until then, though some instructors want an estimated total in the model, and the prompt will say which.
Where can I find a free NS410 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full Unit 3 logic model for a pantry cooking program, built column by column from nine inputs to medium-term changes, with five written assumptions and the outside forces that could alter results.
Why are assumptions written separately in the NS410 Unit 3 logic model?
Each link between columns only holds if something is true, such as parents being able to attend on Saturdays. Writing these down lets the instructor and the evaluation test them, which a diagram with unlabeled arrows cannot do.