| Course | PU615 Grant Writing for Health Promotion Projects |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Goals and objectives section |
| Length | About 960 words, 6 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 PU615 Unit 4
One Uptake Rate Sets Every Target: A Unit 4 Goals and Objectives Section Where a Single Unmeasurable Goal Sits Above Six Objectives, Each Carrying the Number It Came From
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU615: Grant Writing for Health Promotion Projects
Unit 4 Goals and Objectives Section
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Brackley County and its figures are composite; the uptake evidence, the retrofit availability and the research cited are real.
The Goal
Reduce death and serious injury from tractor overturns among Brackley County's farm operators. That sentence is unmeasurable inside two years and belongs at the top anyway. Four deaths in ten years cannot be shown to fall in twenty-four months, and a proposal that writes its goal as a measurable outcome either promises what it cannot deliver or shrinks its ambition to fit the grant.
Objective One: Retrofits Completed
By month 22, 38 of the 126 retrofittable tractors in the county will have a rollover protective structure installed and inspected. Where 38 comes from: a 30 percent uptake rate among eligible operators, applied to 126 machines. The 30 percent figure sits in the middle of what evaluated incentive programs in the field have achieved (Sorensen et al., 2011), and the proposal uses the middle rather than the best reported result.
Objective Two: Cost-Share Delivered
By month 22, the program will have issued cost-share payments averaging 70 percent of installed cost, with no operator paying more than 420 dollars out of pocket. Where 420 comes from: the mean quoted installed cost in the county is 1,180 dollars for the available kits, and 30 percent of that is 354, with a cap set slightly above to absorb the highest quote.
Objective Three: Operators Reached
By month 12, 110 of the 214 operations in the inventory will have received a direct contact from the program, defined as a conversation rather than a mailing. Where 110 comes from: two outreach workers at 0.5 full-time equivalent each can complete about 55 visits a quarter at the county's travel distances, based on extension's own 2024 figures. Every number in these objectives is a published rate or a local count multiplied out, and the proposal shows the multiplication.
Objective Four: Installer Capacity
By month 6, at least three installers within 60 miles will be enrolled, up from the two who currently do this work without advertising it. Where three comes from: 38 installations over 16 active months is about 2.4 a month, which two installers can absorb only if neither is unavailable, so the objective is written against the risk rather than the average.
Objective Five: Awareness, Measured Honestly
By month 18, among operators contacted, the share who can name a kit as available for their own machine will rise from 46 percent to 75 percent, measured by the same two questions used at baseline. Where 46 percent comes from: among the 41 operators interviewed, 19 were unaware that any structure was sold for their model, which is the only baseline the program has and is reported as a small sample rather than a county estimate.
Objective Six: Verification
By month 24, 100 percent of cost-share payments will be supported by an installer invoice and a photograph of the installed structure with the tractor's serial number visible. Where 100 percent comes from: this is a compliance objective rather than an outcome, and anything less than complete verification is a finding in an audit.
What Is Deliberately Not an Objective
1. Seat belt use, which matters enormously and cannot be verified without observation the program will not fund. It appears in the methods as a fitting requirement and not as a measured objective.
2. A reduction in overturn events, for the reasons given under the goal.
3. Operator attitudes beyond the single awareness question, since the program's mechanism is a cost-share rather than persuasion, and the social marketing evidence suggests a neighbor's installed structure does more than a message anyway (Sorensen et al., 2008).
What Happens if the Uptake Rate Is Wrong
A proposal built on one borrowed rate should say what it will do if the rate does not hold locally, and this section does. If uptake runs below 20 percent by month twelve, which is 25 completed retrofits on the trajectory, the program will do three things rather than restate the target. It will raise the cost-share cap toward 85 percent for operators reporting gross farm income under 40,000 dollars, using money the slower retrofit pace has not spent. It will shift outreach from individual visits to two equipment dealer days and one dairy cooperative meeting, on the evidence that a visible installed structure persuades more effectively than a conversation. And it will report the revised target to the program officer in the quarterly report rather than at closeout. If uptake instead exceeds 35 percent, the constraint becomes installer capacity, which is what objective four was written against, and the program will add a fourth installer before increasing the outreach rate. Protective structures are close to fully effective when fitted with a belt, so the program's whole value is in completed installations rather than in contacts made, and the contingencies are written to protect that (Murphy et al., 2010).
How the Objectives Map to the Scored Criteria
Objectives one and two answer the approach criterion's requirement for a measurable deliverable. Three and four answer the reach and capacity questions a panel asks about rural distance. Five and six belong to the evaluation criterion, which is why each names its data source in the objective itself rather than leaving it to the evaluation section. Each objective carries a month, a number and a source, which is the format this notice's approach criterion asks for in its own language.
References
Murphy, D. J., Myers, J., McKenzie, E. A., Cavaletto, R., May, J., & Sorensen, J. (2010). Tractors and rollover protection in the United States. Journal of Agromedicine, 15(3), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2010.484309
Sorensen, J. A., Jenkins, P. L., Emmelin, M., Stenlund, H., Weinehall, L., & Earle-Richardson, G. B. (2011). The social marketing of safety behaviors: A quasi-randomized controlled trial of tractor retrofitting incentives. American Journal of Public Health, 101(4), 678-684. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.200162
Sorensen, J. A., May, J., Ostby-Malling, R., Lehmen, T., Strand, J., Stenlund, H., Weinehall, L., & Emmelin, M. (2008). Encouraging the installation of rollover protective structures in New York State: The design of a social marketing intervention. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36(8), 859-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494808081653
The Purdue Global PU615 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 usually asks you to write the goals and objectives for your proposal. A goal may be broad and long-term, but each objective should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. Most instructors expect a mix of process objectives, which count what the project does, and outcome objectives, which measure change. Base every target on something checkable: your own baseline, a published result from a similar program, or the arithmetic of your staffing and reach. Show where each number comes from. Say which objectives the evaluation will measure and with what data. Consider explaining what you chose not to measure, and why. A short contingency paragraph describing what you will do if your targets turn out to be wrong often strengthens the section considerably.
How this PU615 Unit 4 example is built
The sample states its goal in one sentence and then explains why it remains unmeasurable over two years. Six objectives follow, each with a heading, a dated target and a paragraph titled where the number comes from. Objective one multiplies a mid-range uptake rate from incentive program evaluations by the 126 eligible tractors. Objective two derives the 420 dollar cap from the mean quoted cost. Reach is built from what two half-time workers can visit in a quarter, and installer capacity is set against the risk of one installer being unavailable. Objective five reports its small baseline honestly, a choice the margin note explains. A list of things deliberately not measured, a contingency plan for uptake below 20 percent, and a map to the scored criteria finish it.
Reading the PU615 Unit 4 grading rubric
Purdue Global graders tend to put the largest share of points on whether objectives are measurable and time-bound, so a target without a date or a number costs marks immediately. Credit then follows the justification of each target: an objective tied to published evidence or local data scores higher than one that simply sounds reasonable. Alignment counts, meaning that objectives match the need described earlier and the activities and budget that come next. Instructors reward a sensible balance of process and outcome objectives and an honest treatment of what cannot be measured within the award period. A section that promises a drop in deaths over two years usually loses points for feasibility. Clear structure and APA citations take the remaining credit, and consistent numbers across sections help.
PU615 Unit 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Students frequently write objectives that restate activities, such as holding workshops, without saying what result the activity should produce. Others pick round targets with no source, which a reviewer will question first. Be careful with outcome objectives that the award period cannot show, such as a fall in rare injuries; keep them in the goal and measure the intermediate change instead. A small baseline should be labeled as small rather than presented as representative. Check that your numbers match across the need, objectives, methods and budget, because a mismatch suggests the sections were written separately. And avoid a long list of objectives with no data source named. If your goals feel vague, send them over and we will turn them into objectives with traceable figures behind each one.
Get a PU615 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Share the goal the PU615 proposal is working toward, any baseline figures already in hand, plus the Unit 4 instructions and rubric. A free first custom sample comes back within 24-48 hours with SMART objectives whose targets are derived from one another, each one sourced, typed as process or outcome, and matched to what the funder asks grantees to report. 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 PU615 papers and MPH samples
- PU615 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- PU615 Unit 2: Solicitation Analysis
- PU615 Unit 3: Need Statement
- PU615 Unit 5: Methods Narrative
- PU615 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU615 Unit 7: Budget and Justification
- PU615 Unit 8: Evaluation Section
- PU615 Unit 9: Reviewer Critique
- PU615 Unit 10: Complete Grant Proposal
- PU605 Unit 4: Program Logic Model
- PU580 Unit 4: Dose-Response Analysis
- PU570 Unit 4: Causal Reasoning Paper
- PU565 Unit 4: Sampling Strategy Plan
PU615 Unit 4 questions, answered
How many objectives should a grant proposal have?
Enough to cover what the budget pays for and what the evaluation will measure, which for a single project is often four to eight. Too few leave activities unaccountable; too many scatter the evaluation. A useful test is whether every major budget line supports at least one objective, and whether every objective has a data source you can actually name.
What is the difference between a process objective and an outcome objective?
A process objective measures what the project does or reaches, such as children screened or consent forms returned. An outcome objective measures a change in the people served, such as sealants still in place a year later. Funders want both, and a proposal offering only process objectives leaves reviewers unsure what difference the money would make.
Where should target numbers come from?
From something a reviewer could check: a baseline in your need data, results from a similar program, a published standard, or the arithmetic of your own reach. State the source beside the target. Round numbers with no basis, such as a 50 percent improvement, read as guesses, and reviewers tend to discount the whole objective once they suspect one.
Where can I find a free PU615 Unit 4 sample paper?
The full Unit 4 goals and objectives section, with all six objectives and the arithmetic behind each target, is on this page.
Can a goal be unmeasurable?
Yes. A goal states the long-term change the project serves, and it can be beyond the award period. The objectives under it are what must be measurable within the grant.