DPH 805 Module 7 Writing a Grant Proposal Example

Neighbors for Healthy Hearts: Funding Community Health Workers for Blood Pressure and Diabetes Care

Student Name

Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University

DPH 805: Organizational and Systems Leadership in Public Health

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Neighbors for Healthy Hearts: Funding Community Health Workers for Blood Pressure and Diabetes Care

Grant writing turns plans into funded programs. A strong proposal shows a clear need, a credible design, measurable objectives, a rigorous evaluation, a realistic budget and the organization's capacity to deliver. This paper presents a proposal from a composite county health department to a regional health foundation for a community health worker program addressing hypertension and diabetes in two neighborhoods.

Statement of Need

In two neighborhoods of the composite county, rates of uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes are nearly twice the county average, emergency visits for these conditions are high and many residents lack a regular source of primary care. Residents in listening sessions described cost, transportation and distrust as barriers, and asked for help from people who know the community.

Goals and Objectives

The goal is to improve control of hypertension and diabetes among residents of the two neighborhoods. Over two years, the program will enroll 400 adults with uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes; connect 80% to a primary care home; increase the share with blood pressure below 140/90 from 35% to 55%; and reduce emergency visits for these conditions among participants by 20%.

Program Design

Four community health workers from the neighborhoods will receive certification training, then recruit participants through clinics, churches and door-to-door outreach. They will help participants obtain insurance, schedule appointments, understand medications, use home monitors and access food and transportation resources, with monthly home visits and phone contact. Workers will carry caseloads of about 50 participants each, allowing regular contact.

Logic Model

The table summarizes the logic model.

Evaluation Plan

Evaluation will follow CDC's 2024 program evaluation framework, engaging partners in defining questions and using findings for improvement (Kidder et al., 2024). Questions are organized by reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (Glasgow et al., 1999). Data will come from enrollment records, clinic blood pressure and A1C results, emergency visit data and participant surveys, compared with residents in similar neighborhoods.

Organizational Capacity

The health department has managed federal and state grants for fifteen years, holds national accreditation and employs an epidemiologist and a grants manager. It has existing partnerships with two federally qualified health centers and a faith-based health network in the target neighborhoods.

Budget and Justification

The two-year request totals $612,000: $384,000 for four community health workers; $72,000 for a part-time supervisor; $36,000 for training and certification; $40,000 for home monitors and educational materials; $30,000 for transportation assistance; $50,000 for evaluation; and indirect costs capped at 10%. Each item is tied to an activity in the logic model.

Sustainability

The department will pursue Medicaid reimbursement for community health worker services, where state policy allows, and has secured a letter of support from a health plan interested in paying for improved outcomes. The county has committed to fund one position after the grant if targets are met. A sustainability plan will be updated at the midpoint of the grant.

Equity

The program prioritizes neighborhoods with the greatest need, hires workers from those neighborhoods and involves residents in an advisory group. Evaluation results will be reported by race, ethnicity, age and insurance status.

What Reviewers Look For

Foundations typically score proposals on need, fit with the funder's priorities, design quality, evidence base, evaluation, capacity, budget realism and sustainability. Clear writing, consistent numbers across sections and letters of support strengthen scores. Public health returns on investment are generally favorable, which supports the case to funders (Masters et al., 2017).

Fit With Funder Priorities

The regional foundation's priorities include reducing chronic disease disparities and investing in community-based workforce. The proposal explicitly links its objectives to these priorities and uses the foundation's preferred outcome measures, increasing its competitiveness.

Evidence Base

Community health worker programs have been linked in studies to better chronic disease control, improved access to primary care and reduced hospital use, particularly when workers come from the communities they serve and are integrated with clinical teams. The proposal cites this evidence in its design rationale.

Letters of Support

Letters from the two health centers, the faith-based network, a health plan and a neighborhood association will demonstrate partnerships and commitments, such as referral agreements and space for community health workers.

Timeline

Months one to three: hire and train community health workers. Months four to twenty-one: enroll and serve participants. Months twenty-two to twenty-four: complete evaluation and sustainability transition.

Common Weaknesses Avoided

Proposals often fail because objectives are vague, the budget does not match activities, evaluation is weak or sustainability is unclear. This proposal addresses each: SMART objectives, a budget tied to the logic model, a structured evaluation and a concrete sustainability plan.

Communication and Dissemination

Results will be shared with participants, partners and the foundation through quarterly updates, an annual community meeting and a final report. The department will also present findings at a state public health conference to support replication.

Reviewer-Friendly Writing

The proposal uses headings that match the funder's guidelines, short paragraphs, tables for the logic model and budget and consistent figures across sections, making it easy for reviewers to score.

Risk Management in the Proposal

The proposal acknowledges risks, such as difficulty hiring bilingual workers or slow Medicaid enrollment, and describes responses, including partnering with community organizations for recruitment and assigning a staff member to billing setup. Naming risks candidly increases reviewers' confidence.

Staffing and Management

A part-time supervisor with community health worker experience will provide weekly case reviews, field observation and support. Workers will use a shared electronic record with the health centers to coordinate care, under data-sharing agreements.

Budget Narrative Example

For instance, the $40,000 for home monitors and materials covers validated monitors for 400 participants at about $60 each plus printed education materials in three languages, directly supporting the objective on home monitoring.

Conclusion

The proposal presents a community health worker program grounded in documented need and residents' requests, with measurable objectives, a logic model, a structured evaluation, a justified budget, strong organizational capacity and a sustainability plan. Together these elements give reviewers confidence that the foundation's investment will improve health in two neighborhoods that need it most.

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

Kidder, D. P., Fierro, L. A., Luna, E., Salvaggio, H., McWhorter, A., Bowen, S.-A., Murphy-Hoefer, R., Thigpen, S., Alexander, D., Armstead, T. L., August, E., Bruce, D., Clarke, S. N., Davis, C., Downes, A., Gill, S., House, L. D., Kerzner, M., Kun, K., ... Young, K. (2024). CDC program evaluation framework, 2024. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 73(6), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7306a1

Masters, R., Anwar, E., Collins, B., Cookson, R., & Capewell, S. (2017). Return on investment of public health interventions: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71(8), 827-834. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208141