A finished HA 695 Unit 2 evidence and oversight plan: the project classified, data sources named with their custodians, permissions treated as dependencies, and gathering scheduled across the term. Searches like "ha 695 unit 2 assignment example", "ha695 unit 2 sample" and "ha 695 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished HA 695 Unit 2 evidence and oversight plan looks like
The finished plan reads like preparation somebody could start acting on at once. It states the project question again in one line, then works through the determination that matters most at this stage: whether the work is improvement inside the organization, evaluation, or research involving human subjects, with the reasoning written out rather than asserted. Data sources are listed individually, each with the system it lives in, the person who controls access and what has to be asked of them. Permissions appear as dependencies with dates, since a request that sits in another department's queue for a month decides the shape of the term. Any interview or survey component is described down to who is approached and what they are told. De-identification is settled before collection rather than afterward.
How a HA 695 Unit 2 example is structured
The example is sequenced by what blocks what. It opens with the question and the determination, because the classification decides whether an application is needed and no schedule can be written until that is answered. A sources section follows in a repeating format, one entry per source, each naming the system, the custodian, the request that has to be made and how long it usually takes. The plan then converts those entries into a schedule laid across the term, with the slowest permission started first and the analysis placed after the point every source could realistically arrive. A protection section covers de-identification, storage and what stays inside the organization. A contingency section names the source most likely to be refused and states what the project does instead. The closing hands the next stage the questions this evidence is meant to answer.
Improvement or research, decided in writing
The plan reasons through the classification and states the answer plainly, since that decision governs what approvals are needed before anything is collected.
Sources named with their custodians
Every data source carries the system it sits in and the person who controls access, rather than an assurance that records are available.
Permissions treated as dated dependencies
Requests are placed on the schedule with realistic waiting periods, because an approval nobody started is the usual reason a capstone stalls mid-term.
Protection settled before collection
Storage and de-identification rules are written in advance, including what will never leave the organization, which is easier to defend than a decision made later.
The refusal the plan expects
One source is identified as likely to be declined, with a stated alternative, so a single no does not bring the project to a halt.
Where marks go in HA 695 Unit 2
This one loses marks by staying hypothetical. A plan saying that data will be obtained from the organization names no system, no custodian and no request, and the feasibility criterion has nothing to weigh. The determination is the second common loss: papers mentioning oversight in a sentence, without reasoning through why the work is improvement rather than research, leave the section unearned even when the conclusion is right. Schedules that assume instant access are a third, since permissions move at the pace of other people's meetings. Plans with no protection section read as careless with information that belongs to patients. The versions that grade highest state what happens when the best source is refused, and make that answer sound like a plan rather than a hope.
Get a HA 695 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric from your HA 695 classroom, plus the problem you scoped and the records you expect to use. We write a custom example with the determination reasoned, sources named with custodians and permissions scheduled as dependencies, returned in 24 to 48 hours. Real approvals and real data stay yours. The first custom sample is free.
HA 695 Unit 2 questions, answered
Does a capstone project need ethics approval?
That depends on what it is, which is why the determination sits in this stage. Work aimed at improving a process inside one organization is commonly handled as quality improvement, while anything intended to produce generalizable findings usually goes further. Your instructions and your organization both have a say, and the application, if there is one, is yours to submit under your own name.
What if my organization will not release the data?
Plan for that here rather than discovering it two stages later. Aggregate reports that already exist are often obtainable when record-level access is not, and a department may run a summary for you that they would never let you extract yourself. Name the alternative in the plan, and if nothing is available at all, say so early enough that the project can be rescoped.
Can you gather the evidence for me?
No. The records, the approvals and any conversation with people inside the organization are yours, and a sample written by someone outside your setting could not honestly contain them. What we model is the plan: how a determination is argued, how sources are named with custodians, and how permissions are scheduled so the term does not run out while you wait.