Project on National Dementia Support Program
HLTH 5195 – Assignment 1 Assessment Task: Assignment 1 - Evaluation Proposal Value & Length 50% / 2,000 words Task Description Develop a proposal to undertake an evaluation of a program. The proposal requires a program logic model. The proposal will be submitted on the provided template. Rationale This assignment provides an opportunity for you to demonstrate an understanding of program logic and how an over-arching framework can support the evaluation work. The work will be presented in a professional style. The following course objectives are linked to this assessment: CO1, C04, C05 Marking Criteria & standards of performance Your performance in this assessment will be assessed against the rubric (detailed below). The weightings are provided for each section of the task in the rubric. To enhance the academic integrity of your project, it is important to undertake additional research for appropriate resources to support your proposal. Independent research and the use of critical thinking of a variety of literatures to substantiate your response will be linked to higher performance. Criteria Section Weighting HD D CR PASS 1 PASS2 F1 F2 1. Project Title & sponsors identified as per proposal template 4% All required components are presented clearly and accurately. Required components are present. One required component is missing Two required components are missing Three required components are missing Several required components are missing Not presented 2. Background – About the Program 5% Exceptionally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the project’s goal/s and importance Highly logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the project’s goal/s and importance Generally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the project’s goal/s and importance Describes the project’s goal/s and importance but may be unclear and/or incomplete in places Basic description of the project’s goal/s and importance, with lack of logic, completeness and/or coherence Inadequate information presented to verify project proposal intent for this criteria Not presented 3. Evaluation required 1% Exceptionally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed evaluation Highly logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed evaluation Generally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed evaluation Describes the proposed evaluation but may be unclear and/or incomplete in places Basic description of the proposed evaluation, with lack of logic, completeness and/or coherence Inadequate information presented to verify the proposed evaluation Not presented 4. Approach(es) to be used in the evaluation 25% Exceptionally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed framework(s) and tool(s) that will underpin the evaluation. Highly logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed framework(s) and tool(s) that will underpin the evaluation. Generally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed framework(s) and tool(s) that will underpin the evaluation. Describes the proposed framework(s) and tool(s) that will underpin the evaluation but may be unclear and/or incomplete in places. Basic description of the proposed framework(s) and tool(s) that will underpin the evaluation, with lack of logic, completeness and/or coherence. Inadequate information presented to verify the proposed framework(s) and tool(s) that will underpin the evaluation. Not presented 5. Program Logic Model 25% Exceptionally logical, comprehensive and well-presented logic model. Any assumptions are entirely appropriate. Highly logical, comprehensive and well-presented logic model. Some assumptions may inappropriate. Generally logical, comprehensive and well-presented logic model. Assumptions made cannot be well justified. A logic model is provided but may be unclear or incomplete in places. Assumptions made are poor. A logic model is provided but lacks clarity and is incomplete. Assumptions made are poor. Inadequate information presented to evaluate the logic model Not presented 6. Recommend data and measures required to support the evaluation 20% Exceptionally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed evaluation data and measures. Highly logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed evaluation data and measures. Generally logical, comprehensive and coherent description of the proposed evaluation data and measures. Describes the proposed evaluation data and measures but may be unclear and/or incomplete in places. Basic description of the proposed evaluation data and measures, with lack of logic, completeness and/or coherence. Inadequate information presented of the proposed evaluation data and measures. Not presented 7. Referencing & Academic Integrity Adherence to UniSA Harvard author-date system 5% Located, evaluated and synthesised highly relevant information from subject and local sources that substantially supported the evaluation proposal. Accurately and consistently adhered to UniSA/Harvard referencing conventions. Located, evaluated and synthesised relevant information from subject and local sources that supported the evaluation proposal. Almost always accurately and consistently adhered to UniSA/Harvard referencing conventions. Located, evaluated and incorporated a range of relevant information from subject and local sources that supported the evaluation proposal. Accurately adhered to UniSA/Harvard referencing conventions. Located and collated partly relevant information from subject and local sources that provided some support for the evaluation proposal. Attempt made to adhere to UniSA/Harvard referencing conventions. Used information from sources that are tenuously related to the evaluation proposal. Did not adhere to UniSA/Harvard referencing conventions. Non-related information used. Did not adhere to UniSA/Harvard referencing conventions. Not presented 8. Writing 15% Exemplary: sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation. The sections on Approach(es) to be used in the evaluation and Recommend data and measures required to support the evaluation are well-sequenced with logical flow Excellent: sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation. The sections on Approach(es) to be used in the evaluation and Recommend data and measures required to support the evaluation are well-sequenced with logical flow. Good: sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation. The sections on Approach(es) to be used in the evaluation and Recommend data and measures required to support the evaluation are clear & logically sequenced. Fair: sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd Word limit met. The sections on Approach(es) to be used in the evaluation and Recommend data and measures required to support the evaluation are mostly logically sequenced. Some problems with sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation. The sections on Approach(es) to be used in the evaluation and Recommend data and measures required to support the evaluation are not always logical or well sequenced. Paper poorly written re: sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation. Inadequate number of words used, poorly sequenced, poor logical flow. Very poor writing & presentation with inadequate sentence & paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation. Well below/well above word limit, not sequenced, no logical flow. Date Marked Marker Grade Achieved IMHM Project Proposal for Assignment 1, HLTH 5195 Assignment 1 – Creation of a proposal and program logic model Due date – midday, 28th of April 2021 Percentage of your course grade – 50% Equivalent word count – 2,000 words In this assignment you will need to submit a portion of a proposal to undertake an evaluation of a program. You will be given limited details about a real program (see allocations at the end of this document). The details include a description of the program, the goals of the program and why it is important. Note – you must use the program that you have been assigned for this assignment. You will need to provide some limited background about the framework(s) and tool(s) that will underpin the evaluation that you will be proposing. This section of the proposal will be supported by appropriate references. You have been provided with references that may be appropriate for this work during the lectures. You may, however, wish to augment these references. From these details about the program, you will need to create a program logic model. It will not be a perfect model and will be reasonable given the information available. If you make any assumptions about the model these will need to be detailed. You will need to use the template provided. The template provides you with details about what you will need to include in each section of the template. Not all sections are equally weighted in terms of the final grade you will receive. However, as you are undertaking a health services management degree, presentation (including grammar and referencing) is considered important. For details – see the rubric. Project Proposal Template Project name: A brief descriptive phrase usually is the basis for the title Date: Version: A means of controlling the version (e.g., draft 1, … , final – often with a date) Project sponsors List the organisation that is running the program. If it is not possible to identify the key executive that would sponsor for the evaluation, assume that it is the head of the organisation (you will need to check the title – it may not be “chief executive” if it is a government organisation Key people involved For example: Sponsor (key project person) – only required if the project is being conducted with an external organisation The project leader The project team members Others … must be listed (not just written as “others”) If you cannot derive this information from the information provided, you will need to list general roles of people who would be involved and state it the assumption. These will need to be reasonable. Background – About the Program Key - What is the problem and why is this project important? You might include the following: · What is the program? · Why is the program important? · What the goals of the program? · How is the program implemented or delivered (how it works)? · What are the resources committed to the program (if known)? Note: do not simply cut and paste large chunks of material from the specified program websites. You will be heavily penalised for doing this and may be referred for an academic integrity investigation if you just “cut and paste” material from the program website. You will have to write this section in your own words and reference appropriately. You can use quotes but use them appropriately. Remember to reference the material. Evaluation required State that you have been engaged to conduct an evaluation into the program by the sponsor. You may need to limit the extent or scope of the evaluation (e.g., if the program is delivered across Australia or there are several aspects to the program, you will need to think of what might be reasonably suggested as the scope of the evaluation). The extent of the evaluation should be reasonable. Approach(es) to be used in the evaluation – this is a key section This is where you will specify the key frameworks and tools (i.e., program logic model) that will underpin your work. You will need to define the frameworks and tools. You will need to detail the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches – you are justifying the use of the frameworks and tools. You may wish to limit some aspects of the tools. Think of this as a small literature review – so this section should be referenced. There should be