| Course | D585 Program Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 1 |
| Paper type | Program evaluation plan and findings |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | BS Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D585 Task 1
Vouchers Issued, Vouchers Used: An Evaluation Plan, First-Year Findings and Dissemination Strategy for a Produce Prescription Program at a Composite Community Health Center
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
D585: Program Evaluation, Task 1
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Vouchers Issued, Vouchers Used: An Evaluation Plan, First-Year Findings and Dissemination Strategy for a Produce Prescription Program at a Composite Community Health Center
The Program
Riverbend Community Health Center, a composite health center funded in part through the federal health center program, launched a produce prescription program last year for adult patients with type 2 diabetes whose A1C was 8% or higher and who screened positive for food insecurity on a two-question screener. Enrolled patients receive $80 a month for six months on a card redeemable for fresh fruits and vegetables at two partner grocery stores and a weekend farmers market, along with a monthly visit with a dietitian. The program is funded by a two-year foundation grant, and the foundation has asked for an evaluation before deciding on renewal.
Programs like this have promising evidence behind them. In a multisite evaluation of nine produce prescription programs in the United States, participation was associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake, one-third lower odds of food insecurity and, among adults with poorly controlled diabetes, a decline in A1C of about 0.29 percentage points (Hager et al., 2023). Riverbend's evaluation asks whether its own version is producing similar results and how it can be improved.
Evaluation Plan
The plan follows the CDC Program Evaluation Framework, which organizes evaluation around engaging interested parties, describing the program, focusing the design, gathering credible evidence, justifying conclusions and ensuring the findings are used (Kidder et al., 2024). The program was described with a logic model built with staff, patients and the grocery partners.
| Inputs | Activities | Outputs | Short-term outcomes | Longer-term outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grant funds, dietitians, grocery and market partners, screening tools | Screen and enroll patients; load monthly benefits; monthly dietitian visits | Patients enrolled; dollars issued and redeemed; visits completed | More fruit and vegetable intake; less food insecurity | Lower A1C; fewer diabetes complications |
Evaluation questions and measures follow the logic model. Process questions ask whether the program reached the intended patients and was used as designed, measured by enrollment against eligible patients, six-month retention, benefit redemption from the card vendor's data and dietitian visit completion from the scheduling system. Outcome questions ask whether patients ate more produce, were less food insecure and had better blood sugar control, measured by a short validated fruit and vegetable intake questionnaire, the food insecurity screener repeated at six months and A1C from the electronic health record at enrollment and six months.
Engaging the People the Evaluation Serves
Before any data were collected, the team met with the groups who would use the results. The foundation wanted to know whether health outcomes improved. Clinicians wanted to know which patients benefited most, so they could refer the right ones. The grocery partners wanted to know whether the program brought steady business. Patients on the health center's advisory council asked a question no one else had raised: whether people were actually able to use the benefit. That question became a formal process measure, redemption of issued dollars, and it turned out to be the most revealing measure in the evaluation. Engaging these groups early also meant each already expected to receive findings, which made the dissemination strategy easier to carry out.
First-Year Findings
Using the plan, the evaluation team analyzed illustrative data for the first 240 enrolled patients.
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Patients enrolled out of about 610 eligible | 240 (39%) |
| Completed six months | 212 (88%) |
| Share of issued benefit dollars redeemed | 58% |
| Patients redeeming at least 75% of benefits | 98 of 212 (46%) |
| Patients redeeming under 25% of benefits | 66 of 212 (31%) |
| Screened food insecure at six months (all were at enrollment) | 61% |
| Average change in daily fruit and vegetable intake | +0.7 cups |
| Average A1C change, patients redeeming 75% or more | -0.4 percentage points |
| Average A1C change, patients redeeming under 25% | -0.1 percentage points |
The program reached a meaningful share of eligible patients and kept almost nine in ten for six months, and food insecurity and produce intake moved in the right direction. The most important finding is the gap in use. Nearly a third of participants redeemed less than a quarter of their benefits, and their A1C barely changed. Interviews with 15 of these patients found a common reason: the two partner stores were across town, and the farmers market ran only on Saturday mornings, when many worked.
Two cautions limit these conclusions. The evaluation had no comparison group, so some improvement might have occurred without the program. And because patients were enrolled when their A1C was high, some decline was expected from regression to the mean alone, the tendency of extreme measurements to move toward the average on repeat testing (Barnett et al., 2005). The larger improvement among frequent users is encouraging but could reflect differences between patients who used the benefit and those who did not. The overall judgment is that the program is partly successful and worth continuing, with one clear improvement needed: making produce easier to reach. The team recommends a weekly mobile produce stand at the health center on clinic days, adding a third store on the bus line and sending text reminders when benefits are loaded.
Dissemination Strategy
Findings will be shared in forms that fit each audience.
| Audience | What they need | Format | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation program officer | Whether the program worked and what renewal would fund | Four-page report with the data table and improvement plan | Within 60 days |
| Health center board and leaders | Results, costs and the case for sustaining the program | Ten-minute presentation at the board meeting | Next quarterly meeting |
| Clinicians and dietitians | Which patients benefit and how to encourage use | Staff meeting summary and a one-page referral guide | Within 30 days |
| Grocery and market partners | Redemption patterns and the plan to add a store | Meeting with a short data summary | Within 45 days |
| Patients and community | What the program achieved and what will change | Plain-language flyer in English and Spanish; patient advisory council discussion | Within 60 days |
The evaluation team will also submit a short summary to the state primary care association's newsletter so other health centers can learn from Riverbend's experience, and will repeat the analysis after the improvements to see whether the gap in benefit use narrows.
References
Barnett, A. G., van der Pols, J. C., & Dobson, A. J. (2005). Regression to the mean: What it is and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(1), 215-220. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh299
Hager, K., Du, M., Li, Z., Mozaffarian, D., Chui, K., Shi, P., Ling, B., Cash, S. B., Folta, S. C., & Zhang, F. F. (2023). Impact of produce prescriptions on diet, food security, and cardiometabolic health outcomes: A multisite evaluation of 9 produce prescription programs in the United States. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 16(9), e009520. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009520
Kidder, D. P., Fierro, L. A., Luna, E., Salvaggio, H., McWhorter, A., Bowen, S.-A., Murphy-Hoefer, R., Thigpen, S., Alexander, D., Armstead, T. L., August, E., Bruce, D., Clarke, S. N., Davis, C., Downes, A., Gill, S., House, L. D., Kerzner, M., Kun, K., . . . Young, K. (2024). CDC program evaluation framework, 2024. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 73(6), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7306a1
What the D585 Task 1 instructions ask
The first D585 task asks you to plan and report a public health program evaluation. Expect to describe the program, choose an evaluation framework, write evaluation questions and measures, explain how interested parties were engaged, analyze findings and plan dissemination. Data may be supplied or illustrative. Graders want a named framework applied step by step, questions and measures linked to a logic model, findings interpreted with the design's limits and dissemination tailored to each audience. An evaluation that reports numbers without judging what they mean, or claims the program caused changes that the design cannot show, falls short of the evaluation aspects. Separating process questions from outcome questions keeps the plan clear.
How this D585 Task 1 example is built
The evaluation opens with the program's purpose, funding, eligibility and what patients receive. The plan names the framework and explains each step briefly. Questions and measures follow the logic model, so readers can see what each measure tests. A section describes meetings with the funder, clinicians and patients before data collection and what each group wanted to learn. Findings appear in a table, followed by a paragraph that judges reach, retention and changes in food insecurity and produce intake, and names limits including the lack of a comparison group. The dissemination section gives each audience a different product, from a funder report to a patient flyer, with timing and responsibility.
Where the D585 Task 1 rubric puts the marks
D585 Task 1 aspects are rated competent, approaching competence or not evident. A program aspect asks for a clear description. A framework aspect rewards a recognized model applied correctly. A questions and measures aspect looks for links to program logic. An engagement aspect wants interested parties involved in shaping the evaluation. A findings aspect asks for interpretation with limits. A dissemination aspect looks for audience-specific plans. Graders notice when causal language matches the design, since a before-and-after study cannot prove a program caused change, and they expect evaluation frameworks and produce prescription research to be cited. Clear tables linking questions, measures and data sources make the plan easy to follow.
D585 Task 1 help: what sends it back
D585 evaluations lose marks when the framework is named but its steps are skipped. Walk through each. They also lose marks when measures float free of the program's logic; tie each to an activity, output or outcome. Findings are often overstated, so describe changes as associated with the program unless the design includes a comparison group. Engagement may appear as a single sentence; say who was consulted and what they asked for. Dissemination is frequently one report for everyone. Give each audience the message and format it can use, since the same findings mean different things to a funder and a patient. Name who is responsible for each dissemination product and when it goes out.
Get a D585 Task 1 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D585 course of study. We write a custom program evaluation plan to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
Other Public health sample papers
- D619 Task 1 Global Health Problem Analysis
- D620 Task 1 Public Health Leadership Case
- D591 Task 1 Grant Proposal and Revision
- D589 Task 1 Disease Prevention Strategy
D585 Task 1 questions, answered
Are the D585 data real?
No. The first-year figures are illustrative, created to show how findings are read. The evaluation framework and research on produce prescription programs cited in the plan are real.
Can a D585 evaluation prove the program caused the change?
Not without a comparison group or stronger design. The sample describes improvements as associated with the program and names limits such as regression to the mean. Stating that limit honestly strengthens the evaluation.
What is a produce prescription in D585?
A program in which clinicians give patients vouchers or credits for fresh fruits and vegetables, usually for people with food insecurity or diet-related conditions such as diabetes.
Which evaluation framework does the D585 sample use?
The CDC Program Evaluation Framework, which moves from engaging interested parties and describing the program to focusing the design, gathering evidence, justifying conclusions and ensuring use. Each step is applied in the plan.
Where can I find a free D585 Task 1 sample paper?
The produce prescription evaluation, from plan to dissemination, appears above with notes. Tell us about the program your D585 task covers, and your first custom evaluation is free.