| Course | LEAD 6503 Grant Writing and Alternative Funding |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Evaluation and sustainability plan |
| 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 4
Proving It Works and Keeping It Running: Evaluation, Sustainability and Alternative Funding for a Delta School Sealant Program
Student Name
American College of Education
LEAD6503: Grant Writing and Alternative Funding
Module 4 Assignment
Instructor Name
November 2, 2026
Introduction
Two questions follow every program design a funder reads: how will you know it worked, and what happens when our money ends? This paper answers both for the Delta school sealant program. It first designs an evaluation that measures each objective set in Module 3 and checks whether the program is delivered as planned. It then sets out a sustainability plan built on earned revenue, noncompetitive public funding, a possible health center partnership and smaller alternative sources, so that the expansion to 42 schools does not depend on any single grant.
Evaluation Questions
The evaluation asks four questions. Was the program delivered as designed, in the schools and to the children planned? Did children receive the preventive services and referrals the objectives promised? Did sealants stay in place and did children with urgent needs get treatment? And over time, is decay in permanent molars declining among children in participating schools? The first two are process questions, answered within the year. The third concerns short-term outcomes. The fourth concerns long-term outcomes and can only be approached after several years of consistent data. Answers to the first two questions will guide mid-year adjustments, such as moving a school's visit date if consent returns are low, while the third and fourth are reported annually.
Measures and Data Sources
Each objective has a measure, a source and a reporting schedule. School expansion (Objective 1.1) is tracked from the visit schedule and reported monthly. Consent return (1.2) is counted from forms received divided by enrollment lists supplied by each school, reported after every visit. Sealant placement (1.3) comes from the standard screening form, which records eligible molars and sealants placed for each child. Retention (1.4) is measured at the one-year recheck using the same form. Referral completion (2.1) comes from the care coordinator's log, which records each contact and confirmation from the family or dentist. Insurance enrollment help (2.2) is counted from the coordinator's log and county enrollment event sign-ins. None of these measures requires new paperwork for schools; each comes from a form or log the program already uses or will use from the first month.
Long-Term Outcomes and Their Limits
Showing that the program reduces decay is harder. The plan compares the share of third graders with untreated decay or fillings in permanent molars across successive years in schools that have participated for several years, using the same screening form throughout. This design has limits that the evaluation will state openly. It compares different children each year, so changes could reflect shifts in who enrolls; visual screening misses some decay; and other influences, such as fluoride in community water or a new dental clinic, could change decay rates. The evaluation will therefore present trends as consistent with program effect, not as proof, and will lean on the strong existing evidence that school sealant programs prevent decay and save money among high-risk children (Griffin et al., 2017).
Who Evaluates
Program staff will collect and enter the data. A public health professor at a nearby university has offered to review the data annually, check a random sample of screening forms against the database and write a short independent summary, in exchange for de-identified data her students can use for class projects. The arrangement costs the program only the time to prepare data and adds credibility that funders value. Reports go to the board twice a year and to each funder on its schedule.
Sustainability: Earned Revenue
The largest sustainable source is the program's own Medicaid billing. Last year the program billed for about 60% of the children it served who were eligible, because enrollment could not be verified at the time of service or forms were incomplete. Verifying enrollment during consent outreach and checking forms before billing could raise the share to 85% and increase annual Medicaid revenue by an estimated $45,000. Insurance enrollment help under Objective 2.2 further enlarges the billable base. Because this revenue follows services, it grows with the program rather than ending on a funder's schedule.
Sustainability: Public and Partner Funding
The state oral health program's per-school sealant support, available to programs that meet its standards and reporting rules, is a noncompetitive source the program will apply for this year. A larger option is a formal partnership with the federally qualified health center that already accepts the program's urgent referrals. Health centers often receive higher Medicaid payment rates than independent providers and can sometimes operate school-based services as an extension of their sites. Under such a partnership, the health center might employ or contract with the program's dental team and bill at its rates, while the nonprofit continues to manage school relationships. The two boards will study the legal, financial and mission questions this raises before any decision.
Sustainability: Alternative Funding
Smaller sources add stability. A fee-for-service contract with a network of four private schools that want on-site sealants for their students would generate modest income from families who can pay. An annual giving campaign will invite local businesses to sponsor a school's visits, with recognition on the consent form and the van. County contributions, now from two of four counties, will be sought from all four, framed around reduced emergency room visits for dental pain. Spreading income across sources has been linked to steadier revenue (Carroll & Stater, 2009) and, more modestly, to better financial health (Hung & Hager, 2019); that is why these small sources matter even though none is large.
If the Assumptions Fail
Two assumptions carry most of the sustainability plan, and each has a fallback. If Medicaid billing improves less than expected, the program will narrow its expansion to the eight highest-need waiting schools rather than all eleven, protecting quality in the schools it serves. If the health center partnership does not form, the program will pursue the federal rural outreach grant identified in Module 1, which favors exactly the kind of school-health center consortium already in place for referrals. Stating these fallbacks tells a funder that the plan has been tested against its weakest points.
The Sustainability Picture
If the plan succeeds, by year three Medicaid reimbursement would provide about 40% of the expanded budget, state sealant funding about 12%, a health center partnership or competitive grants about 30% and local giving, county support and contracts about 18%. No single grant would exceed a third of revenue. Funders will see a program that uses their grant to grow capacity and revenue, not one that will return to them for the same costs indefinitely.
Conclusion
The evaluation measures every objective from forms and logs the program already uses, adds an independent university reviewer and is honest about what trend data can and cannot show. The sustainability plan builds on Medicaid revenue that grows with services, adds noncompetitive state funding, explores a health center partnership and diversifies with smaller local sources. Module 5 assembles the complete grant proposal and budget.
References
Carroll, D. A., & Stater, K. J. (2009). Revenue diversification in nonprofit organizations: Does it lead to financial stability? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 947-966. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun025
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
Hung, C., & Hager, M. A. (2019). The impact of revenue diversification on nonprofit financial health: A meta-analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018807080
The LEAD 6503 Module 4 assignment instructions
The fourth module of LEAD 6503 generally asks how you will judge success and how the project will continue. Expect to write an evaluation plan that links measures to each objective, names data sources and timing and says who will collect and review the data. Most prompts also ask for a sustainability plan describing how the work will be funded after the grant, and some ask specifically about alternative funding such as earned income, partnerships or individual giving. Be realistic: name sources and estimated amounts, and be honest about what your evaluation design can and cannot show. Funders trust candor more than promises. If your organization earns any revenue from services, show how the grant could help it grow.
How this LEAD 6503 Module 4 example is built
Four evaluation questions open the paper, divided into process, short-term and long-term. Each objective then receives a measure, a data source and a reporting schedule, all drawn from existing forms and logs. A section on long-term outcomes explains a year-over-year comparison and its three limits. An outside reviewer arrangement adds credibility at low cost. Sustainability is built in three layers: earned Medicaid revenue raised by better enrollment checks, public and partner funding including a possible health center arrangement and smaller alternative sources such as sponsorships and a fee contract, ending in a projected revenue mix for year three. Percentages for each source show how the grant fits a path toward independence. A brief conclusion follows.
Reading the LEAD 6503 Module 4 rubric
Evaluation and sustainability sections are judged on alignment, feasibility and honesty. Reviewers look for measures tied to each objective, specific data sources, realistic timing and clear responsibility, along with recognition of what the design can and cannot demonstrate. Sustainability plans earn credit when they name concrete sources with estimated amounts and show how the grant builds capacity rather than dependence. Plans that rely on applying for more grants, or evaluation sections that count activities without linking them to objectives, tend to score lower. Precise prose and correct APA 7 referencing round out the assessment. Plans that explain what would happen if a key assumption failed, such as a partnership not forming, show foresight.
LEAD 6503 Module 4 help from the desk
Evaluation and sustainability are the sections many proposals leave for last and write in a hurry. If yours needs measures tied to objectives, honest limits or a sustainability plan with real numbers, our writers can help. Send your goals, objectives, current revenue and the prompt; our writers will produce an evaluation plan and a sustainability section with named sources and a projected revenue mix. Health, education and community programs all suit this assignment. Funders often decide between strong proposals on exactly these two sections. We can also project a revenue mix for future years. Fallbacks are included.
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 3: Goals, Objectives and Design
- LEAD 6503 Module 5: Grant Proposal and Budget
- PNP 6013 Module 4: Collective Action Paper
- PNP 6013 Module 1: Stakeholder Map and Analysis
- PNP 6023 Module 3: Board Orientation Plan
- PNP 6013 Module 3: Collaboration Analysis
LEAD 6503 Module 4 questions, answered
What does LEAD6503 Module 4 usually ask for?
In many sections the fourth LEAD6503 module asks for the evaluation and sustainability sections of a grant proposal, often including alternative funding sources beyond grants.
What is the difference between process and outcome evaluation?
Process evaluation checks whether a program was delivered as planned to the intended people; outcome evaluation checks whether it produced the changes it aimed for.
What do funders want in a sustainability section?
A realistic plan, with named sources and estimated amounts, for keeping the program running after the grant ends, rather than a promise to keep applying for grants.
Where can I find a free LEAD 6503 Module 4 sample paper?
This page has one: a school sealant program ties every evaluation measure to an objective and builds sustainability on Medicaid billing, state funds, a health center partnership and local giving.
Do I need an outside evaluator for a small grant?
Not always, but even a modest arrangement, such as a university faculty member reviewing data annually, adds credibility at little cost.