| Course | PU615 Grant Writing for Health Promotion Projects |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Reviewer critique |
| Length | About 1,260 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 PU615 Unit 9
Eighty-One Out of a Hundred, and the Points Come Off Where the Writer Was Most Confident: A Unit 9 Reviewer Critique Scoring a Classmate's Rural Well Water Proposal Criterion by Criterion as a Panel Member Would
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU615: Grant Writing for Health Promotion Projects
Unit 9 Reviewer Critique
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The reviewed proposal is a classmate's composite document; the review criteria, the arsenic science and the research cited are real.
What the Proposal Proposes
Free arsenic testing for 900 private wells in a composite county of 14,000, a cost-share toward point-of-use or whole-house treatment for households above the federal standard of 10 micrograms per liter, and two rounds of retesting. Two years, 198,000 dollars.
Need, 23 of 25
Strong. County-level data from a state well survey showing 18 percent of tested wells above the standard against 7 percent statewide, a map of the affected geology, and a count of households on private wells. The science is cited properly: long-term exposure at these concentrations carries established risks, and private wells are outside the regulatory framework that protects public systems (Ahsan et al., 2006). Two points off for one gap. The proposal does not say how many of the 900 wells have ever been tested, and the answer matters: in a county where almost nobody tests, the program's first job is testing, while in a county where half have tested and done nothing, the problem is treatment uptake and the approach should change.
Approach, 22 of 30
This is where the proposal loses most, and where its author was most sure. Three problems. First, the testing logistics are described in nouns. Samples will be collected and analyzed does not tell a reviewer who draws the sample, whether the homeowner does it, what the hold time is, or which laboratory. For arsenic the collection protocol matters, and a reviewer in this field will notice its absence. Second, the cost-share is a flat 50 percent with no cap and no income tiering, against installed costs the proposal itself puts at 350 to 4,800 dollars. A household at 4,800 pays 2,400, which the need statement's income figures suggest almost nobody in the target group can pay. The program will fund cheap installations for people who could afford them and miss the households the need statement describes. Third, no plan for households above the standard who decline treatment, which in published experience is a substantial group, and which raises a duty-of-care question the proposal does not notice. The approach section describes what will be done and not who does it, which is the commonest reason a strong idea scores in the low twenties.
Capacity, 18 of 20
Good. A named county environmental health director with two prior awards of similar size, a laboratory contract already in place, and a letter of commitment rather than support from the laboratory. One point off for not naming who holds the award if the director retires, which the proposal mentions is possible within the period, and one for a partner list that includes an agency with no stated role.
Evaluation, 11 of 15
Mixed. Wells tested and households above the standard are countable and well specified. Retesting at twelve months after treatment is the right outcome measure and is correctly presented as a water measure rather than a health measure. Four points off for two things. The proposal promises a reduction in arsenic-related disease, which no two-year design can show and which this course teaches not to claim. And it has no measure of whether installed treatment is maintained, when the published weakness of point-of-use systems is cartridge replacement, so a twelve-month retest of a neglected filter will read as a program failure the proposal cannot interpret.
Budget, 7 of 10
Arithmetic is shown and the object classes are correct. Three points off: the laboratory contract at 61,000 dollars exceeds the notice's prior-approval threshold for contracts and the proposal does not request approval; the indirect calculation uses the county's negotiated rate rather than the notice's capped rate, which overstates the request by about 7,400 dollars; and participant retesting incentives are budgeted at 75 dollars, above the notice's 50 dollar maximum.
How I Scored, So the Writer Can Argue With the Method
A critique is only useful if its method is visible, so here is mine. For each criterion I read the notice's requirement list first, then the proposal's corresponding section, and I awarded the top band only where every listed requirement was answered in words a reader could act on. Where a requirement was addressed in principle but not in practice, I moved to the next band down rather than splitting a point. Where a sentence promised something the design cannot deliver, I deducted even though nothing was missing, because an unsupportable claim costs credibility across the whole application. I did not deduct twice for the same fault, so the cost-share design costs points in approach only, although it also weakens the need section's argument about who can pay. And I recorded two deductions as threshold matters rather than scored ones, since a contract above the prior-approval level and an incentive above the stated maximum are compliance problems that a panel may treat as fatal regardless of score. The one place I am least sure is the evaluation section, where another reviewer might take only two points for the disease-reduction claim rather than four.
Why Private Wells Make This a Hard Proposal to Score
Context a panel will supply even if the applicant does not. Private wells sit outside the federal drinking water framework, so nobody is required to test them and no agency holds the results, which means a county genuinely cannot know its own exposure distribution without a program like this one. The published argument for universal screening of private wells rests on exactly that gap (Zheng & Flanagan, 2017). That makes the testing half of this proposal valuable even if the treatment half is mistargeted, and it is why my score sits at 81 rather than in the sixties. A reviewer who dislikes the cost-share design should still see that the county will finish the award knowing something it has never known.
Summary Score and the Panel Conversation This Would Produce
Eighty-one of 100. In a panel, this proposal would be discussed as fundable with conditions, and the conversation would center on the cost-share design rather than on the science, because the science is sound and the instrument is mistargeted. A reviewer who has read retrofit and incentive evaluations in adjacent fields will say what I would say: an incentive without income tiering reaches the households that least need it, which is the finding that shaped the rural retrofit literature (Sorensen et al., 2011).
The Three Changes I Would Ask For
1. Tier the cost-share by income with an out-of-pocket cap, and show the arithmetic for the highest installed cost.
2. Write the sampling and laboratory logistics as a sequence with named actors and hold times.
3. Add a maintenance measure, and remove the claim about disease reduction, replacing it with the water concentration outcome the design can actually produce.
What the Proposal Does Better Than Mine
Two things, recorded because a critique that finds nothing to borrow is not a serious review. Its laboratory commitment letter is a model of what the notice asks for, naming turnaround times and a per-sample price. And its need section includes a map, which my own proposal does not, and which answers the geography question a reviewer of any rural application will ask.
References
Ahsan, H., Chen, Y., Parvez, F., Zablotska, L., Argos, M., Hussain, I., Momotaj, H., Levy, D., Cheng, Z., Slavkovich, V., van Geen, A., Howe, G. R., & Graziano, J. H. (2006). Arsenic exposure from drinking water and risk of premalignant skin lesions in Bangladesh: Baseline results from the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(12), 1138-1148. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj154
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
Zheng, Y., & Flanagan, S. V. (2017). The case for universal screening of private well water quality in the U.S. and testing requirements to achieve it: Evidence from arsenic. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(8), 085002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP629
PU615 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
The Unit 9 critique usually asks you to review a classmate's proposal, or a sample one, using the funder's published criteria. Score each criterion with its weight and justify every deduction by pointing to a specific passage, not a general impression. Note real strengths as well as weaknesses, because a review that finds nothing to praise is not credible. Explain your scoring method so the writer can see how you reached each number. Avoid deducting twice for the same fault. Finish with a short list of the most important changes, ranked by their effect on the score, and summarize how a panel would likely discuss the application. Use NIH criteria only if the proposal answers a research announcement. A professional, constructive tone is expected throughout, since the writer will read every line.
Inside the PU615 Unit 9 example
The critique begins by summarizing what the proposal requests: testing for 900 wells, a cost-share above the 10 microgram standard, retesting and a budget of 198,000 dollars. Each criterion then receives its own heading with the score. Need loses two points for not saying how many wells were ever tested. Approach loses eight for testing logistics described in nouns, a flat 50 percent cost-share with no income tiers, and no plan for households who decline treatment; a highlighted line names the pattern. Capacity, evaluation and budget deductions each cite the sentence or threshold at fault, including a claimed disease reduction and an incentive above the notice's limit. A method section, a note on why private wells are hard to judge, three requested changes and two borrowed strengths close it.
Where the points sit in the PU615 Unit 9 rubric
PU 615 rubrics for the review assignment typically give the most points to accurate application of the stated criteria and to evidence for every score. A deduction that names its passage earns more than one that states an opinion. Credit also goes to balance, meaning genuine strengths identified alongside weaknesses, and to recommendations the writer could act on. Instructors value a review that shows understanding of the course content, such as recognizing an indirect rate above a cap or an outcome the design cannot support. Points are available for a clear summary score with a short explanation of how a panel would respond. Professional tone, organization, and APA citations for any outside sources make up the rest, and harsh language loses credit even when the scoring is accurate.
PU615 Unit 9 help from the desk
The biggest risk here is vague commentary, such as the approach needs more detail, without saying which detail or where. Name the sentence and what it lacks. Another problem is grading by personal preference for the topic rather than the published criteria. Students also tend to be either too generous to a classmate or too severe; tie each number to a requirement and the tone takes care of itself. Avoid penalizing the same issue under several criteria. Check the notice's thresholds yourself, because budget errors are where reviewers deduct without discussion. And include what the proposal does well, since a one-sided review loses credibility. If you have the proposal you were assigned, send it with the notice and we will write a scored critique that names each passage.
Get a PU615 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
A critique scores someone else's work against a funder's published criteria. Supply the proposal under review, the solicitation it answers, and the Unit 9 rubric for PU615. In 24-48 hours a free first custom sample arrives, organized by those criteria, citing pages for every strength and weakness, with a summary statement in the form review panels use. 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 4: Goals and Objectives
- PU615 Unit 5: Methods Narrative
- PU615 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU615 Unit 7: Budget and Justification
- PU615 Unit 8: Evaluation Section
- PU615 Unit 10: Complete Grant Proposal
- PU605 Unit 9: Evaluation Design
- PU580 Unit 9: Cancer Cluster Letter
- PU570 Unit 9: Prevention Strategy Brief
- PU565 Unit 9: Mixed Methods Matrix
PU615 Unit 9 questions, answered
Should a reviewer critique use NIH review criteria?
Only if the proposal answers an NIH research announcement. NIH criteria such as significance, innovation and approach are built for research applications. Service and community grants publish their own criteria, often need, approach, evaluation, capacity and budget, and a critique should use exactly those. Borrowing a framework the funder never named judges the proposal against a standard its writers were never asked to meet.
How harsh should the critique be?
Accurate rather than harsh. Every weakness should rest on something in the document, located by page, and every strength should be one a skeptical reader would grant. Reviewers who soften real problems help nobody, and neither do reviewers who list every stylistic quibble. The test is whether the applicant could use your critique to produce a stronger resubmission.
Can I critique my own proposal for this assignment?
Check your prompt. Some sections assign a classmate's proposal or a published sample precisely because reviewing one's own work honestly is hard. Where self-review is allowed, the same rules apply: score against the funder's criteria, cite pages, and resist explaining what you meant. A reviewer has only the document, and the critique should read as if you did too.
Where can I find a free PU615 Unit 9 sample paper?
The full Unit 9 critique of the arsenic testing proposal, with every criterion scored and each deduction explained, is open on this page.
Should a critique include strengths?
Yes. A review that names nothing worth keeping reads as biased, and noting strengths helps the writer know which sections to leave alone while revising the rest.