| Course | D591 Grant Writing |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 1 |
| Paper type | Grant proposal components and revision |
| 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 D591 Task 1
Bringing the Mammogram to the Clinic Parking Lot: Funder Research, Proposal Components and a Revised Need Statement for a Composite Rural Health Network's Mobile Mammography Program
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
D591: Grant Writing, Task 1
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Bringing the Mammogram to the Clinic Parking Lot: Funder Research, Proposal Components and a Revised Need Statement for a Composite Rural Health Network's Mobile Mammography Program
The Organization and Its Need
Three Rivers Rural Health Network is a composite network of six primary care clinics serving four rural counties with about 58,000 residents. Its clinic data show that 61% of women aged 40 to 74 are up to date on screening mammograms, compared with 74% statewide, and women in the network's service area travel an average of 48 miles to the nearest mammography facility. National guidance now advises a mammogram every other year for women from their 40th to their 74th birthday (US Preventive Services Task Force et al., 2024), so the gap represents about 1,900 women who are behind on a recommended screening. The network wants to contract with a regional hospital's mobile mammography unit to bring screening to its clinic parking lots each month and to hire a patient navigator.
Researching Grant Opportunities
Three possible funders were compared for fit, size, timing and requirements.
| Funder | Priorities | Award size | Timing | Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A federal rural health outreach program | Rural networks improving access; requires a formal consortium of at least three organizations | Up to $200,000 a year for four years | Annual deadline eight months away | Strong fit, but the network would need to form a consortium first |
| A statewide cancer coalition's small grants | Cancer screening education and awareness | Up to $25,000 | Rolling | Good mission fit, but too small to fund the unit and navigator |
| A regional health foundation | Access for rural women; community partnerships; measurable outcomes | Up to $250,000 over two years | Deadline in ten weeks | Best fit for size, timing and priorities |
The regional foundation is the first choice: its priorities match the project closely, its award size covers two years of service and its deadline is within reach. The cancer coalition grant will be pursued as a smaller complement for community education, and the federal program is a target for expansion in two years, once the network has formal partners and results to show.
Components of the Proposal
Summary. A one-paragraph overview of the need, the project, the partners, the amount requested and the expected results.
Need statement. Evidence of the screening gap and its consequences, described below and then revised.
Goals and objectives. Goal: increase breast cancer screening among women in the service area. Objectives: provide 1,400 screening mammograms on the mobile unit over two years; raise the share of eligible women patients up to date from 61% to 70% by the end of year two; ensure that 95% of women with abnormal results complete diagnostic follow-up within 30 days.
Methods. The hospital's mobile unit will visit each clinic monthly on a rotating schedule. The navigator will identify women due for screening from clinic records, schedule appointments, arrange rides and follow every abnormal result to completion.
Evaluation plan. Screening numbers from the unit, up-to-date rates from clinic records every six months and follow-up completion tracked by the navigator.
Budget and justification. Navigator salary and benefits, mobile unit service fees not covered by insurance, transportation vouchers, outreach materials and evaluation time, totaling $246,000 over two years.
Sustainability. Screening mammograms are billed to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers, which will cover most unit costs after year two; the network will fund the navigator from its operating budget if the evaluation shows results.
Partners and Letters of Support
Foundations expect partners to show real commitment, not only goodwill. The proposal will include letters of support from three partners, each describing a specific contribution. The regional hospital will commit the mobile unit's schedule, its radiologists' readings within 48 hours and priority diagnostic appointments for women with abnormal results. The county transit service will commit to free rides on screening days for women referred by the navigator. The county extension office, which runs popular homemaker and farm family programs, will commit to announcing screening days at its meetings. The network's board chair will sign a letter confirming that the navigator position will continue after the grant if the evaluation targets are met. Together, the letters turn the partnership described in the need statement into commitments reviewers can check.
Revising the Need Statement for the Funder
The first draft of the need statement read: "Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States. National data show that rural women are screened at lower rates than urban women. Three Rivers Rural Health Network requests funding to address this national problem in its service area."
The revised need statement reads: "Women in the four counties Three Rivers serves drive an average of 48 miles for a mammogram, and only 61% of our women patients aged 40 to 74 are up to date, compared with 74% across the state. Research on rural breast cancer control points to shortages of providers and distance from facilities as key barriers, and to a rural disadvantage in survival among women diagnosed with breast cancer (Sprague et al., 2021). In a statewide analysis in Tennessee, geography explained about a quarter of the variation in screening between census tracts (Namin et al., 2026). Our patients tell us the same thing: one woman at our Millstone clinic said she had skipped her mammogram for three years because the trip meant a day's lost wages. With the foundation's partnership, the regional hospital, our clinics and the county transit service will bring screening to the places rural women already go for care."
Why the Revision Fits the Funder Better
Each change answers one of the foundation's stated values. The foundation's priority is access for rural women, so the revision leads with local distance and local rates instead of national statistics, which the reviewers already know. The foundation values community voice, so the revision includes a patient's words, shared with permission. The foundation emphasizes partnerships, so the revision names the hospital and the transit service as partners. And the foundation funds measurable outcomes, so the revised statement sets up the objectives that follow with a clear baseline. The first draft described a national problem; the revision describes a local one the foundation can help solve.
References
Namin, S., Wall, J. S., Heidel, R. E., Brooks, A., Allen, S., & Ferris, J. (2026). Mammography screening in Tennessee: A tract-level spatial analysis of geographic and socioeconomic disparities. Cancer Causes & Control, 37(7), 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-026-02190-9
Sprague, B. L., Ahern, T. P., Herschorn, S. D., Sowden, M., Weaver, D. L., & Wood, M. E. (2021). Identifying key barriers to effective breast cancer control in rural settings. Preventive Medicine, 152(Pt 2), 106741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106741
US Preventive Services Task Force, Nicholson, W. K., Silverstein, M., Wong, J. B., Barry, M. J., Chelmow, D., Coker, T. R., Davis, E. M., Jaén, C. R., Krousel-Wood, M., Lee, S., Li, L., Mangione, C. M., Rao, G., Ruiz, J. M., Stevermer, J. J., Tsevat, J., Underwood, S. M., & Wiehe, S. (2024). Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 331(22), 1918-1930. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.5534
What the D591 Task 1 instructions ask
The first D591 task asks you to research grant opportunities, plan a proposal and revise part of it for a specific funder. Expect to describe the organization and need, compare funders, choose one, outline the proposal's components, explain partner support and revise a section with an explanation of the changes. The organization may be real or composite. Graders want funders compared on clear criteria, components described with what each must contain, partner letters that show real commitment and a revision that visibly adapts to the funder. A revision that only fixes grammar, or a funder chosen without comparison, will not satisfy the proposal aspects. Show the original and revised text so the changes are easy to see.
How this D591 Task 1 example is built
The paper opens with the network, its counties and the screening data that define the need. A table compares three funders, and a paragraph explains the choice. Each proposal component, from summary to budget and evaluation, is described with what it will contain for this project. The partners section explains that foundations want specific commitments, such as a hospital providing the mobile unit, not general goodwill. The revision section shows the first draft need statement, which opened with national statistics, and the revised version, which opens with local distance to screening and clinic data. A final section links each change to one of the foundation's values. Headings mirror the funder's application sections.
Where the D591 Task 1 rubric puts the marks
D591 Task 1 aspects are rated competent, approaching competence or not evident. A need aspect asks whether the problem is described with data. A funder research aspect rewards comparison on fit, size, timing and requirements. A components aspect looks for each part of the proposal described. A partners aspect wants letters that show commitment. A revision aspect asks for meaningful changes and an explanation tied to the funder. Graders notice when local data replace national figures, since funders want to know what their money changes in one community, and they expect screening data and funder guidelines to be cited. A funder comparison presented in a table is easy to check. Proposal components described with content specific to this project read as far stronger than a generic outline. Clear, persuasive writing in the revised section shows the skill the course is built around.
D591 Task 1 help: what sends it back
D591 proposals lose marks when funders are named without comparison. Use criteria and a table. They also lose marks when the need statement relies on national figures; lead with local data. Components are sometimes listed by name only; describe what each will say for this project. Partner letters may be generic, so describe what each partner commits. The revision is the part graders read most closely. Show both versions and explain each change in terms of the funder's priorities, since the task tests whether you can write for a specific reader. Keep the revised section within the funder's page or word limits, and use the funder's own language for its priorities where it fits naturally. Check deadlines and eligibility rules, since a strong proposal sent to an ineligible funder cannot succeed.
Get a D591 Task 1 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D591 course of study. We write a custom grant proposal and revision to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
Other Public health sample papers
- D589 Task 1 Disease Prevention Strategy
- D625 Task 1 Epidemiological Analysis
- D593 Task 1 Global Health Issue Analysis
- D584 Task 1 Public Health Program Plan
D591 Task 1 questions, answered
Are the D591 funders real?
No. The three funders are composites created to show how comparison works. When you write your own, research real funders and use their published priorities and deadlines.
What should a D591 need statement include?
Local data on the problem, who is affected, why current services fall short and what the project would change. Lead with the evidence the funder cares about most.
How should a D591 revision be shown?
Present the original and revised versions together, then explain each change and the funder priority it answers. The sample shows both need statements before explaining the revision.
Why do letters of support matter in D591?
They show funders that partners will contribute something specific, such as equipment, staff or referrals, which makes the project more likely to succeed. Funders read them closely.
Where can I find a free D591 Task 1 sample paper?
The mobile mammography proposal plan, with both need statements, appears above with notes. Send your D591 organization and need, and your first custom proposal plan is written free.