LEAD 6503 Module 2 Need Statement Example

Toothaches in Third Grade: A Need Statement for School-Based Dental Sealants in Four Mississippi Delta Counties

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD6503: Grant Writing and Alternative Funding

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

October 19, 2026

Introduction

Reviewers read the need statement first and often decide there whether a proposal is worth their attention. A strong statement shows that a problem exists, that it matters, that it is worse for the people the applicant serves and that the applicant's approach fits it. This paper drafts the need statement that the Delta sealant program will adapt for each funder identified in Module 1. The statement appears first, in the form it will take in a proposal, followed by notes explaining the evidence and choices behind it. Because several funders will read versions of the same statement, its numbers and claims must hold up under scrutiny from all of them.

Draft Need Statement: The Problem

No chronic condition touches more children than tooth decay, yet most of it can be prevented. Dental sealants, thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of permanent molars, prevent most cavities in those teeth in the years after they are placed. Yet sealants reach children unequally. In national data, sealants were less common, and untreated cavities more common, among children from low-income households than among their better-off peers (Griffin et al., 2016). In the four Delta counties we serve, where most children qualify for free school meals, that national pattern is sharper.

Draft Need Statement: Local Evidence

Last school year our team screened 4,108 children in 31 elementary schools. Among third graders, the grade in which first permanent molars should already be sealed, 46% had untreated decay and only 21% had a sealant on at least one molar before our visit. One child in nine needed urgent care for pain or infection. Two of the four counties have no dentist who accepts new Medicaid patients under age six, and families in the most rural communities drive more than forty minutes to the nearest dental office. School nurses in our partner districts report dental pain as one of the most common reasons children are sent home early. These are not distant statistics; they are children in classrooms we visit, many of whom have never seen a dentist.

Draft Need Statement: Why It Matters

Untreated decay does not stay in the mouth. In a study of North Carolina schoolchildren, poor oral health went along with more missed school days and weaker grades, and children with dental pain had lower academic performance than their peers (Jackson et al., 2011). Pain interrupts sleep, eating and concentration. For families without dental insurance or nearby providers, a toothache can become an emergency room visit that treats pain but not the decay. Each of these consequences falls hardest on the children the program serves.

Draft Need Statement: The Gap and Our Response

The gap is access, not knowledge: sealants work, but children in our counties do not reach the dental offices that place them. School-based sealant programs close that gap by bringing care to where children already are, and evidence shows they reach children at higher risk of decay (Siegal & Detty, 2010). A systematic economic review found that school sealant programs were cost-saving when they served children at high risk, recovering their costs through averted treatment (Griffin et al., 2017). Our program has delivered this model in the Delta for six years. We are trusted by school districts, hold signed agreements with all 31 schools and bill Medicaid for eligible services. What we lack is stable funding to keep the van on the road through the full school year and to add the eleven schools on our waiting list.

Notes on the Evidence

Three kinds of evidence support the statement. National data establish that the disparity is real and documented by a credible public health source. Local screening data show the problem in the specific population and are the statement's strongest asset, because no outside source describes these schools. Research on consequences and cost answers the question every funder asks: why should this problem, among many, receive our money? The local figures come from the program's own records and are presented as such; any figures used in a proposal will be checked against the latest screening year before submission.

Notes on Choices

Four choices shaped the draft. It describes children rather than the organization in its opening sentences, because funders invest in outcomes for people, not in organizations. It uses the third grade as a reference point, because sealing first permanent molars by that age is the program's target and makes the local figures interpretable. It avoids language that blames families, framing the problem as access and distance. And it ends by naming exactly what is missing, stable funding and eleven waiting schools, so that the reviewer reaches the methods section already knowing what the grant would buy.

Limits of the Local Data

The screening data are strong but not perfect, and a careful reviewer may ask about them. Screenings are visual, performed in school settings without X-rays, so they likely undercount decay between teeth. Children whose parents did not return consent forms, about one in five, were not screened, and they may differ from those who were. And the figures describe one school year; trends over time are not yet available because earlier years used a different recording form. The statement does not hide these limits. Instead, the proposal's evaluation section will commit to consistent screening forms and to reporting consent rates, which turns a weakness into a plan.

Testing the Draft With Readers

Before finalizing, the draft was read by three people outside the program: a school principal, a board member who is an accountant and a retired foundation program officer. Each was asked to state the problem in one sentence and say what they would want to know next. The principal and the accountant both described the problem as children in pain missing class, which confirmed the draft's emphasis. The program officer wanted to know why existing dentists could not meet the need, which led to adding the sentence on Medicaid acceptance and travel distance.

Adapting the Statement

The core statement runs about 500 words, suitable for most foundation proposals. For the federal application, which allows more space and scores need heavily, it will add county-level data on child poverty and dental workforce shortage designations and a paragraph on the consortium partners. For the bank foundation's two-page form, it will shrink to three sentences: the disparity, the local screening figure and the waiting list. Keeping one master version, with shorter and longer forms derived from it, prevents numbers from drifting between proposals.

Conclusion

The draft need statement combines national evidence on sealant disparities with the program's own screening of more than 4,000 children, explains consequences for school and health, identifies access as the gap and positions the program's established school-based model as the response. Notes on evidence and choices explain why it is built this way, and planned adaptations keep it consistent across funders. Module 3 sets the goals, objectives and program design that the need statement leads into.

References

Griffin, S. O., Naavaal, S., Scherrer, C., Patel, M., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2017). Evaluation of school-based dental sealant programs: An updated Community Guide systematic economic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(3), 407-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.004

Griffin, S. O., Wei, L., Gooch, B. F., Weno, K., & Espinoza, L. (2016). Vital signs: Dental sealant use and untreated tooth decay among U.S. school-aged children. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65(41), 1141-1145. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6541e1

Jackson, S. L., Vann, W. F., Kotch, J. B., Pahel, B. T., & Lee, J. Y. (2011). Impact of poor oral health on children's school attendance and performance. American Journal of Public Health, 101(10), 1900-1906. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.200915

Siegal, M. D., & Detty, A. M. R. (2010). Do school-based dental sealant programs reach higher risk children? Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 70(3), 181-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2009.00162.x