| Course | PU605 Public Health Programming |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Program plan document |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU605 Unit 10
One Program, Two Funders Who Cannot Pay for the Same Things: A Unit 10 Program Plan Document Splitting a Composite City's Window Guard Program Across a Safety Office That Will Not Buy Hardware and a Foundation That Will
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU605: Public Health Programming
Unit 10 Program Plan Document
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Welbourne, its funders and its budget are composite; the program design, the restrictions described and the research cited are real.
The Problem, in Four Sentences
Nine children in composite Welbourne have fallen from apartment windows in four years, two fatally, six of them under five. Every one happened on a second or third floor of housing predating 1940, and in five cases a bug screen was in the frame at the time. Across the four affected tracts, only 4 percent of windows above ground level carry a guard. City code reaches only buildings of four units and up, so the three-deckers where these children fell are outside it.
The Program
Window Guards for Welbourne installs guards in units with children under six in the four tracts, obtains landlord consent building by building, explains at the door that a screen is not a barrier, and pursues a code amendment so that any building holding two units or more falls under the guard rule. Two years, 800 units, 2,400 windows, with a referral pathway from the trauma center and a one-year retention check.
What Each Funder Is Asked For
State injury prevention office, 92,000 dollars over two years: coordinator salary and benefits, 0.4 of a public health nurse, interpretation and translation, tenant advisor payments, the evaluation's independent sidewalk survey, and staff time on the code amendment including drafting and briefings. All of it staff and policy work, none of it equipment. Regional health foundation, 56,000 dollars over two years: 2,400 guards at 38 dollars installed, installation consumables, the pilot's forty units, address signage, and the printed materials. All of it goods and direct service, none of it advocacy. Trauma center, 18,000 dollars in kind and cash: data agreement, referral pathway staffing, and half of the retention inspections. Fire department, in kind: installation crews and hardware sign-off. Neither funder can pay for the whole program, and a plan that hid the split would end with hardware nobody can install or staff with nothing to fit.
Why the Split Works
The two halves meet at the installation appointment: the foundation's guard arrives in a household whose consent the state-funded coordinator obtained, fitted by the fire department. The plan shows that joint in a single sentence in each funder's budget narrative, so that neither is funding a fragment. It also states what happens if only one award comes through: with staff and no hardware, the program runs the code amendment and a referral-only installation service at about 90 units; with hardware and no staff, it becomes a supply program through the two associations at about 290 units and no policy track. Both fallbacks are smaller than the program and neither is useless, and saying so is more honest than presenting a plan that collapses without full funding.
Logic, Compressed
Inputs are the two awards, the in-kind crews and the trauma center's budget. Activities are consent, installation, the doorstep conversation and the amendment track. Outputs are 800 units, 2,400 windows, 12 landlord agreements, one window register and nine council briefings. In the short term, the share of guarded windows should climb from 4 percent toward 35 percent inside participating buildings and the share of parents believing a screen will hold a child falling below 20 percent. The long-term outcome, fewer falls, is stated and deliberately not promised inside two years. Delivery and intermediate change are what this plan commits to measuring, which is the defensible position when the injury itself is rare and the mechanism is established elsewhere (Victora et al., 2004).
The Twenty-Four Month Shape, for a Funder Reading Only This Page
A program officer should be able to see the sequence without turning to the implementation plan. Months one to three buy nothing and sign everything: two association agreements covering about 290 units, written approaches followed by calls to the 42 owners holding five units or more, the fire marshal's sign-off on hardware, and two tenant meetings. Month four runs a 40-unit pilot that produces a corrected protocol and a real time-per-unit figure. Months five to nine install about 320 units, weighted to the warm months when windows are open. Winter is deliberately quiet, carrying one-year checks, the drafted ordinance and nine council briefings. Months thirteen to twenty-one install the largest block, about 440 units, with the public hearing timed to follow 400 completed installations. The final quarter closes the register, hands the referral pathway to the trauma center's discharge process and reports. The shape matters to both funders: the state office's deliverable is heaviest in the quiet months, and the foundation's hardware moves in two summer blocks rather than evenly.
Evaluation, in Brief
An independent August sidewalk survey of guard prevalence, the program's own register, a one-year retention inspection of 200 units, consent rates by owner type, and a two-question belief survey. Reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance are each represented, so the final report cannot rest on the single most flattering figure (Glasgow et al., 1999). The plan includes the sentence it will use to decline attributing any change in the injury count, drafted now.
Sustainability, Honestly
One of the program's four parts can outlive the grant: the code amendment, which would reach about 11,400 units at every change of occupancy, fourteen times the program's own capacity. The coordinator, the free hardware and the donated crew hours all end with the money. The lease addendum inside the two associations is a second partial survivor. The plan states this rather than offering the usual paragraph about seeking continued funding, because the amendment is the actual sustainability plan and the installations are partly its evidence base.
What the Plan Asks Each Funder to Accept
The state office is asked to accept that its money funds the slower half, where the deliverable is nine briefings and a drafted ordinance rather than a count of children served. The foundation is asked to accept that hardware alone would not have produced 800 installations, and that its guards are being fitted into a consent process it is not paying for. Both are asked to accept an evaluation that will not claim a fall was prevented. The evidence that guards work at city scale is strong enough to carry that modesty: the campaign that first proved the point recorded far fewer fall deaths among small children once guards had been fitted through high-risk housing (Spiegel & Lindaman, 1977).
References
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
Spiegel, C. N., & Lindaman, F. C. (1977). Children can't fly: A program to prevent childhood morbidity and mortality from window falls. American Journal of Public Health, 67(12), 1143-1147. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.67.12.1143
Victora, C. G., Habicht, J. P., & Bryce, J. (2004). Evidence-based public health: Moving beyond randomized trials. American Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 400-405. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.400
The Purdue Global PU605 Unit 10 instructions
Unit 10 usually asks for a complete program plan aimed at a real funder. Open with the problem in a few sentences carrying the numbers that justify the program. Describe the program concretely, then split the budget along each funder's restrictions and show, in one sentence per narrative, where the two halves join. State what the program becomes under partial funding rather than presenting a plan that collapses without everything. Compress the logic, the evaluation and the sustainability sections, and be honest about which parts end with the money. Finish by telling each funder what it is being asked to accept, including any claim the evaluation will decline to make.
How the PU 605 Unit 10 example is put together
The plan on this page states the problem in four sentences, then the program, then each funder's request itemized by what it is allowed to buy. A highlighted line says that neither funder can pay for the whole program. A margin note explains the split along restrictions. A section shows the joint at the installation appointment and gives both single-funder fallbacks, 90 units with staff only and 290 through associations with hardware only, flagged by a second note. A compressed logic section, a twenty-four month shape, a brief evaluation and an honest sustainability paragraph follow, and the closing section tells each funder what it gives up under a third note.
PU605 Unit 10 rubric: what earns full points
Credit here follows funder realism. The strongest plans split a budget along actual restrictions and demonstrate that the halves form one program rather than two fragments. Marks go to stating the partial-funding fallbacks with numbers, since that is the question a program officer asks internally. Points follow for a compressed but complete logic chain, an evaluation that names what it will not claim, and a sustainability section that identifies which single element outlives the grant. Telling each funder what it is accepting is rewarded as professional candor. Papers that promise a reduction in a rare injury inside the funding period lose marks, however well written.
Common PU605 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The usual failure is one undifferentiated budget sent to two funders with different rules, which invites both to decline. Itemize by restriction. The second is a plan that works only if every award lands; write the fallbacks. Third, do not claim sustainability through a paragraph about seeking further funding, when the real answer is the one permanent element, here a code amendment. Avoid promising the injury count will fall inside two years. And say what each funder gives up, because that conversation happens either in the plan or awkwardly after the award. Send your program and its two funders and we will write the document. Two smaller problems also cost marks: a budget whose lines do not add to the amount requested, which a program officer checks first, and a timeline that appears nowhere in the narrative, leaving a reader unable to see when the money is spent.
Get a PU605 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Collect the PU605 pieces from earlier units, the final project instructions, the rubric and the funder or audience the plan addresses. One edited document comes back within 24-48 hours as the free first custom sample, with figures consistent across sections, a budget matched to that funder's rules and a sustainability plan naming who carries each component forward. 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 PU605 papers and MPH samples
- PU605 Unit 1: Program Framing Discussion Post
- PU605 Unit 2: Community Assessment
- PU605 Unit 3: Priority Setting Analysis
- PU605 Unit 4: Program Logic Model
- PU605 Unit 5: Intervention Design
- PU605 Unit 6: Implementation Seminar Reflection
- PU605 Unit 7: Stakeholder Engagement Plan
- PU605 Unit 8: Implementation Plan
- PU605 Unit 9: Evaluation Design
- PU580 Unit 10: Vapor Intrusion Investigation Report
- PU570 Unit 10: Epidemiological Report
- PU565 Unit 10: Mixed Methods Methods Paper
- PU555 Unit 10: Research Proposal
PU605 Unit 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PU605 Unit 10 sample paper?
The entire program plan, both funder requests and the fallbacks, is published on this page.
Why split a plan between funders?
Because their restrictions differ. One pays for staff and policy work, the other for equipment and direct service, and neither can fund the whole program.
What if only one funder says yes?
The plan states both fallbacks: about 90 referral-only installations with staff alone, or about 290 through two associations with hardware alone and no policy track.
What is the real sustainability plan?
The code amendment, which would reach about 11,400 units at change of occupancy, against the program's own capacity of 800.
What does the plan refuse to promise?
Any measurable fall in the injury count inside two years. The sentence declining that attribution is drafted in advance and included in the funder agreement.