| Course | LEAD 6503 Grant Writing and Alternative Funding |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Goals, objectives and program design |
| Length | 1,160 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LEAD 6503 Module 3
From 31 Schools to 42: Goals, Measurable Objectives and Program Design for a Grant to Expand School-Based Dental Sealants
Student Name
American College of Education
LEAD6503: Grant Writing and Alternative Funding
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 26, 2026
Introduction
The need statement showed that most third graders screened in four Delta counties lacked sealants and nearly half had untreated decay, and that eleven schools are waiting for the program. Funders now need to know what the program will do with their money and how they will know it worked. This paper sets two goals and six objectives, describes the expanded program step by step, explains the clinical basis for its protocol, presents a logic model and lays out staffing, partners and a twelve-month work plan. Each element is written so it can be lifted into proposals with little change.
Goals
Goals state the lasting change the program seeks. Goal 1: Reduce new decay in the permanent molars of children attending participating elementary schools in the four-county service area. Goal 2: Connect children with urgent or ongoing dental needs to treatment and a regular source of dental care. The first goal is preventive and the second is about access; together they answer both halves of the need statement, the missing sealants and the untreated decay.
Measurable Objectives
Every objective spells out the change sought, the children it applies to, the size of the change and the deadline. Objective 1.1 (year one): expand service from 31 to 42 elementary schools. Objective 1.2 (year one): return signed consent forms for at least 75% of enrolled children in participating schools, up from 61%. Objective 1.3 (annual): place sealants on at least 85% of eligible permanent molars in second and third graders with consent. Objective 1.4 (follow-up): find at least 85% of placed sealants fully or partially retained. Objective 2.1 (60 days): connect at least 80% of children identified with urgent needs to a treating dentist, confirmed by the family or the dental office. Objective 2.2 (year two): assist at least 300 eligible households in signing children up for, or renewing, Medicaid or CHIP coverage. Every objective can be counted from records the program already keeps or will begin keeping in month one.
How the Program Works
The program runs in five steps at each school. Consent: two weeks before a visit, consent forms in English and Spanish go home with every child, followed by a text message reminder and a call from the school nurse to families who have not responded. Screening: a hygienist examines each consented child visually and records decay, existing sealants and urgency on a standard form. Prevention: hygienists apply fluoride varnish to all screened children and place sealants on eligible molars. Referral: children with urgent needs leave with a note for the family, and the program's care coordinator calls the family within two school days to arrange treatment. Follow-up: a year later, the team rechecks sealants on returning children and repairs any that have been lost.
Clinical Basis
The protocol follows national recommendations for school-based sealant programs. A CDC-convened panel of experts recommended placing sealants on sound and noncavitated surfaces of permanent molars, found that visual assessment without radiographs is adequate to decide where sealants go and supported cleaning teeth with a toothbrush rather than more elaborate preparation (Gooch et al., 2009). These recommendations allow the program to work efficiently in a school setting with portable equipment. The economic case is equally strong: an updated systematic economic review found school sealant programs cost-saving when they served high-risk children (Griffin et al., 2017), which describes every school the program serves.
Logic Model
The program's logic model follows the standard chain (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Resources: dental team, van and portable equipment, care coordinator, school agreements, Medicaid billing. Activities: consent outreach, screening, varnish, sealants, referral coordination, insurance enrollment help and retention checks. Outputs: schools served, children screened, sealants placed, referrals made, families assisted with enrollment. Short-term outcomes: more children with sealed molars and urgent needs treated. Long-term outcomes: less new decay in permanent molars and more children with a regular dentist. Each objective maps to a link in this chain, so the evaluation in Module 4 can test the chain at several points rather than waiting years for decay rates to change.
Staffing and Partners
Expanding to 42 schools requires one additional half-time hygienist and a full-time care coordinator, a position that now exists only part time. The supervising dentist's hours increase modestly. Three partners make the design work: the four school districts provide space, schedule visits and send nurse calls for consent; a federally qualified health center accepts urgent referrals regardless of insurance and offers a dental home; and the county health departments host insurance enrollment events. Each partner has signed or will sign a letter describing its role, which will accompany every proposal. The program's existing van can serve the larger route if visits are scheduled by geography, so no second vehicle is needed in year one.
Reaching the Hardest to Reach
Averages can hide children the program misses. Three design choices address them. Schools on the waiting list will be added in order of the share of students eligible for free meals, so that the highest-need schools come first. Children absent on visit day, often those with the most disrupted lives, will be seen at a makeup visit scheduled with the next nearby school. And consent outreach will include Spanish-language calls by a bilingual staff member, because consent return has been lowest in the two schools with the most Spanish-speaking families. Consent rates and screening rates will be reported by school so that gaps are visible rather than averaged away.
Twelve-Month Work Plan
Months 1 and 2: hire the hygienist and expand the coordinator role; finalize agreements with the eleven new schools; launch the new consent process. Months 3 to 9: complete visits to all 42 schools during the school year, with the original schools visited first in the fall to maintain follow-up schedules. Month 6: midyear review of consent rates and referral completion. Months 10 to 12: retention checks in schools visited the previous year; summer analysis and reporting; planning for year two.
What the Grant Buys
Each new cost maps to an objective. The added hygienist time makes Objectives 1.1 and 1.3 possible across eleven more schools. The full-time care coordinator drives Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, since referral follow-up and insurance enrollment depend on someone with time to call families. Translated forms, text reminders and the bilingual outreach calls serve Objective 1.2. Retention checks under Objective 1.4 use existing staff on return visits. Module 5 turns these links into a line-item budget and justification.
Conclusion
Two goals, one preventive and one about access, translate the need into change, and six objectives with numbers and dates make that change measurable. The five-step program, grounded in national recommendations and economic evidence, expands to eleven waiting schools with modest added staff and three committed partners, and a logic model and work plan show how activities lead to results within a school year. Module 4 builds the evaluation, sustainability and alternative funding sections.
References
Gooch, B. F., Griffin, S. O., Gray, S. K., Kohn, W. G., Rozier, R. G., Siegal, M., Fontana, M., Brunson, D., Carter, N., Curtis, D. K., Donly, K. J., Haering, H., Hill, L. F., Hinson, H. P., Kumar, J., Lampiris, L., Mallatt, M., Meyer, D. M., Miller, W. R., ... Zero, D. T. (2009). Preventing dental caries through school-based sealant programs: Updated recommendations and reviews of evidence. Journal of the American Dental Association, 140(11), 1356-1365. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0070
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
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
LEAD 6503 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
By the third module of LEAD 6503, the proposal needs its core: what the project will achieve and how. Prompts generally ask for goals, objectives written so they can be measured and a description of the activities, often with a logic model, staffing plan and timeline. Each objective should say what is to change and for whom, by what amount and by what date, drawing on data you can actually collect. The program description should be detailed enough that a reviewer can picture it running. Cite evidence or recommendations that support your approach, and make sure every activity connects to an objective and every objective to the need you described earlier. Explain how the design reaches the hardest-to-reach children, not only the average child.
Inside the LEAD 6503 Module 3 example
Two goals open the section, each tied to half of the need statement. Six objectives follow, each with a number, population and deadline, from expanding to 42 schools to helping 300 families with insurance enrollment. The program is described in five steps, consent, screening, prevention, referral and follow-up, with practical details such as bilingual forms and nurse calls. A clinical basis section cites national recommendations and an economic review. The logic model maps resources through long-term outcomes, staffing and partner roles are specified and a month-by-month work plan fits the expansion into the school calendar before a short conclusion. Sections on equity and on what the grant buys connect the design to the budget.
Where the points sit in the LEAD 6503 Module 3 rubric
Reviewers and faculty grade this section on clarity, measurability and coherence. Goals should be broad but meaningful; objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable and time-bound, with data sources implied or stated. The program description should show how activities produce the intended results and be supported by evidence. Logic models, staffing plans and timelines that align with objectives earn credit, as do realistic partner roles confirmed by letters. Objectives that measure activity only, vague program descriptions or activities that do not connect to the need tend to lose points, and sloppy referencing undercuts even a sound design. Attention to equity in who the program reaches is increasingly part of the score.
LEAD 6503 Module 3 help from the desk
Objectives are where many grant proposals stumble, with targets that cannot be measured or activities that do not lead anywhere. If your goals and objectives need sharpening, or your program design lacks detail, our writers can help. Describe your project, the need it addresses and the data you can collect, attaching the prompt; our writers will shape goals, objectives, a program design, a logic model and a work plan that fit together. Health, education and community projects all fit this assignment. Clear objectives make the evaluation section almost write itself. We also map each budget line to an objective.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More LEAD 6503 and Doctor of Business Administration sample papers
- LEAD 6503 Module 1: Funder Research and Strategy
- LEAD 6503 Module 2: Grant Need Statement
- LEAD 6503 Module 4: Evaluation and Sustainability
- LEAD 6503 Module 5: Grant Proposal and Budget
- PNP 6023 Module 2: Board Recruitment Plan
- PNP 6023 Module 3: Board Orientation Plan
- PNP 6013 Module 2: Structures and Roles Comparison
- PNP 6003 Module 5: Leadership Action Plan
LEAD 6503 Module 3 questions, answered
What does LEAD6503 Module 3 usually ask for?
The third LEAD6503 module usually asks for the goals, measurable objectives and program design of your grant proposal, often with a logic model and work plan.
What is the difference between a goal and an objective in a grant?
A goal states the broad, lasting change sought; an objective states a specific, measurable result for a defined group by a set date that shows progress toward the goal.
How many objectives should a grant proposal have?
Usually a handful, often two to four per goal, each measurable with data the applicant can actually collect.
Where can I find a free LEAD 6503 Module 3 sample paper?
This page has one: two goals and six measurable objectives for expanding school dental sealants from 31 to 42 schools, with a five-step design, logic model and work plan.
Should a grant program design cite research?
Yes. Citing recommendations or evidence for your approach shows reviewers the design is sound, not just well intentioned.