Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / Assignment #3: Grant Analysis You will write an analysis paper on the strengths and weaknesses of a real social/behavioral health intervention grant proposal

Assignment #3: Grant Analysis You will write an analysis paper on the strengths and weaknesses of a real social/behavioral health intervention grant proposal

Health Science

Assignment #3: Grant Analysis

You will write an analysis paper on the strengths and weaknesses of a real social/behavioral health intervention grant proposal.  You may choose from a set of proposals provided by the instructor for analysis.

The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate your ability to identify theory, assess the use of theory, and assess the practical considerations of a public health approach using professional and scientific writing style.

Instructions:

Format?:  Papers should be 5-10 pages long, double-spaced, 12-font and 1” margins all around. APA format should be followed throughout, including all cited references.  Citations are not included in the 10-page limit. You should have many citations to support your ideas.

 

To cite the grant: ?Proposals aren’t usually cited in peer reviewed literature. Do not include in-text citations since the grant is the topic of your paper. In your reference section, you may cite the proposal as “Title of document. Retrieved from ?http://engage.smumn.edu? on (date).” 

 

Contents:  ?Please follow the below outline as a guide.  In each section, first reflect briefly what you read in the grant narrative and then spend the bulk of your paper discussing the strengths and limitations of each aspect of the grant. Offer your original thoughts throughout, but provide strong justifications and citations for your arguments. 

 

Writing tips: ?Do not use direct quotes from the grant, but instead briefly summarize contents in your own words. Do not use first-person language (i.e., “I think that the grant succeeds at summarizing the public health problem.”), but rather use third person to discuss your analysis (i.e., “The grant successfully summarizes the public health problem.”). 

 

Required Sections: 

 

  1. Contextual analysis 

In this section, briefly summarize the public health issue being addressed by the proposal. In your own words, describe the public health significance of the issue and health disparities potentially addressed or impacted by the proposal. Discuss whether the proposal sufficiently describes the importance of this topic. Use citations to support your position. 

 

  1. Program Objectives and Outcomes

In this section, clearly state the health outcome(s) of interest, behavioral outcome(s) of interest, and environmental outcome(s) of interest based on the grant proposal. Discuss whether these outcomes are clearly stated, how they relate to each other, whether they are measurable, and any other important strengths and weaknesses of the objectives. 

 

  1. Theoretical Basis and Logic Models

In this section, identify the key behavioral theories that are being applied in this grant. Identify specific constructs from those theories that are being addressed by the activities described in the tis proposal. Discuss the strengths and limitations of the proposal in terms of theory: does the proposal make sense, according to theory? Which theories support or refute the ideas in the proposal? 

 

Create a Logic Model of the Problem ? ?based on the proposal's description. Clearly identify the health outcome(s), behavioral outcome(s), environmental outcome(s) as well as the determinants in your models. Then, propose in your text what you believe the authors seek to change in this model and how they propose to create the change they seek. 

 

Justify the content of your logic models based on the grant proposal and supporting evidence in your text. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the model, including the completeness of the models and whether the proposal is successfully addressing the problem.

 

  1. Design and Implementation Plan

In this section, briefly describe the contents of the intervention program itself and what it entails. Describe clearly how each component of the intervention plan relates to the logic model and behavioral theory. Discuss the feasibility of the plan, any risks that may cause the plan to fail, and other strengths and limitations of the design or plan for implementing the program.

 

  1. Discussion and next steps

In this final section, briefly summarize the main strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, touching on each of the above sections. Offer a conclusion about whether or not this grant should be funded as-is, funded with improvements, or not funded. Justify your position and offer constructive reasoning.

 

DUE DATE: Papers should be uploaded via Engage by 11:59pm on Sunday of Week 6. If you have questions about this assignment, please post them in Engage.

 

               

 

Grading

criteria

Excellent

Competent  

Developing

Weak

Content 

 

5pts possible

 

Paper soundly addresses all required topics. Demonstrates a strong understanding of the grant narrative and related concepts. Minimal need for improvement.  (4.5-5)

Paper adequately addresses all required topics. Demonstrates a good understanding of the grant narrative and related concepts. A few

areas need improvement. (4)

Paper addresses some of the required topics. Demonstrates a developing understanding of the grant narrative and related concepts. Several

areas need improvement. (3.5)

Paper does not address most required topics. Demonstrates weak understanding of the grant narrative and related concepts. Major components are missing or need improvement. (0.5-3)

Use of theory and logic model  

 

10pts possible

Several theories accurately identified and appropriately discussed related to the grant narrative. Student provides a strong theoretical perspective. A clear logic model is successfully reproduced or created from the text. (9-10)

Theories accurately identified and appropriately discussed related to the program. Student provides an adequate theoretical perspective. An adequate logic model is reproduced or created

from the text. (8-8.5)

 

Theories identified and discussed. Student provides a basic application of theory and demonstrates a simplistic theoretical perspective that needs development. A logic model is reproduced or created from the text, but it needs improvement. (7-7.5)

Theory used simplistically or not properly discussed, or no theory is present at all. A logic model is not reproduced or constructed from the text, or it is unclear and poorly executed. (0.5-6.5)

Strength of

argument

 

5pts possible

Clearly argued original thought with direct citations. Strong reasoning and conclusions. (4.5-5)

Offers original thoughts that are well supported by theory and citations. (4)

Relies heavily on grant text rather than original thoughts. Does not justify thoughts with supporting citations. (3.5)

Relies too heavily on personal opinion and the grant text. Little to no justifications provided.

(0.5-3)

Critical

Thought 

 

5pts possible

High quality critical thinking, connecting the program to theory. Strengths and weaknesses in the program’s approach are thoughtfully discussed. (4.5-5)

Basic logic and reasoning is displayed connecting the program to theory. At least some discussion of strengths and weaknesses in the intervention approach is presented. (4)

Simplistic reasoning and biased or unclear thinking demonstrated. An opinion based perspective is used. Strengths and weaknesses in intervention approach not thoughtfully discussed. (3.5)

Weak reasoning with biased or unclear thinking is demonstrated. Adequate discussion of strengths and weaknesses of intervention approach is not provided.

(0.5-3)

Academic writing quality and

APA

 

5pts possible

Excellent academic writing quality. Concise scholarly tone, well organized, uses appropriate vocabulary and standard English. Clear, logical, and coherent flow. Strong skill, proper APA.

(4.5-5)

Good writing quality. Professional tone, well organized and rarely strays from appropriate vocabulary or standard English. Clear and logical flow. The introduction and conclusion frame the paper well. (4)

Acceptable writing quality. Communicates ideas, but lacks professional or academic tone.

Organization, clarity, and flow need improvement. Strays from standard English and/or writing quality interferes with comprehension. (3.5)

Inadequate writing quality.

Inappropriately casual tone. Not organized clearly or lacks clarity or flow. The introduction and conclusions are weak or absent. Strays from standard English. The writing quality is in the way of understanding the argument.

(0.5-3)

Total points earned (out of 30)

 

 

Late adjustment (-10% or 3pts  for each day late unless other arrangements were made) 

 

Final grade

 

A: 90-100% (27-30 points) / B: 80-89% (24-26 points) / C: 70-79% (21-23 points) / BC below 70% (20.5 points or below)

 

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

19.99 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Already member?


Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE

Related Questions