HLTH 491 LU Grants Gov and Candid Investigative Report

HLTH 491 LU Grants Gov and Candid Investigative Report

HLTH 491 LU Grants Gov and Candid Investigative Report

HLTH 491 INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS OVERVIEW

Grant funding is essential for many organizations who seek to implement social projects that address various needs in a variety of settings. Funding to implement these programs can be obtained through a public or private source. Public funding is typically granted through government agencies or other local agencies and entities, and private funds are donated mainly through private corporations or organizations. When applying for public funding, the process can be a bit more rigorous and the application process may even take a long time. Private funding, while it can take a little more time to find because they might serve a specific geographic region, population, and provide limitations on giving, the application process may be less rigorous. To understand these 2 major types of funding streams, it is important to take the time to conduct effective research on whether public or private funding is the best route for an organization to take depending on the established criteria. INSTRUCTIONS You will investigate and report about two grant information data reservoirs: one public, Grants.gov, and the other private, Candid, designed to inform organizations about acquiring grant money. Links to these two resources will be provided in the Learn section of the assigned Module: Week. For each reservoir, you will provide answers to the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What is it? Where do I find it? Why does it exist? Who authorized or sponsored it? And how do I access the data from it? The assignment should be viewed and written as an investigative report [e.g., include a recanting of your methodology, the sources of your data, and include a section at the end comparing the two reservoirs and stating your opinion as to the value of each one]. You are researching the two organizations, the Foundation Center and the Federal Register, NOT any one grant. Note: “Public” is a reference to tax dollars and “private”, non-tax dollars. • • • • Length of Assignment: 3-5 pages double-spaced. A title page and reference page should also be included. Use each question as a heading. Format of Assignment: Use current APA style when citing your work. Number of Citations: Use at least 3 supplementary sources. Acceptable Sources: Use current data and references published within the last 5 years. Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

HLTH 491 LU Grants Gov and Candid Investigative Report
HLTH 491 LU Grants Gov and Candid Investigative Report

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:HLTH 491 LU Grants Gov and Candid Investigative Report

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Postinga 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100