| Course | NU 780 Population Health |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Coalition and partnership plan |
| Length | About 550 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 780 Unit 6
Coalition Plan for a Community Falls Prevention Program for Older Adults in a Rural County
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 780: Population Health
Instructor Name
March 4, 2026
Coalition Plan for a Community Falls Prevention Program for Older Adults in a Rural County
The Program the Coalition Serves
The coalition will deliver Stepping On, a seven-week community falls prevention workshop for adults 65 and older, with a home visit and a booster session, in a composite rural county of 42,000 residents. In a randomized trial, the program reduced falls among community-dwelling older adults by about 31% compared with a control group (Clemson et al., 2004). The county's emergency medical services responded to 612 fall-related calls among adults 65 and older last year, including 188 "lift assist" calls in which the person was uninjured but could not get up. No single organization in the county can deliver the program alone: it needs trained leaders, venues, referral streams, transport, and a way to reach older adults who are not already connected to services.
Partners: What Each Controls, Gives, Gains, and Would Leave Over
Each partner is treated as an organization with its own priorities, not as a supporter of the nursing program.
| Partner | What it controls | What it contributes | What it gains | What would make it withdraw |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County public health department | Grant funds, data, credibility | Coordinator at 0.4 FTE; licensed program materials; evaluation data | Progress on its community health plan goal for older adult falls | Grant loss; coalition drifting from falls prevention |
| Area Agency on Aging | Older Americans Act funds for evidence-based health promotion; client lists | Funding for leader training; referrals from case managers | A proven program counting toward its federal health promotion requirement | Reporting burden without shared data |
| Hospital (nursing department) | Clinical expertise; staff | Two nurse leaders trained; home visit clinicians; referrals from discharge planning | Fewer fall-related readmissions and emergency visits | Staffing crisis; no visible return on staff time |
| County emergency medical services | Lift-assist and fall call data; access to homes | Referrals of people after lift-assist calls, with consent | Fewer repeat calls from the same addresses | Referrals that go nowhere |
| Senior center and two churches | Venues; trusted relationships | Rooms and refreshments; outreach to members | Programs that bring people in; service to their members | Scheduling conflicts; feeling used for space only |
| Rural transit service | Van routes and schedules | Rides to workshops at reduced cost | Increased ridership and a community partner | Unpaid trips beyond its budget |
Governance
A coalition has no shared reporting line, so governance is specified in a two-page memorandum of understanding signed by each partner's director. The public health coordinator convenes a steering group of one representative from each partner monthly for the first six months and quarterly thereafter. Decisions about program delivery, such as sites and schedules, are made by the coordinator with the delivering partners. Decisions that commit partners' resources, such as expanding to a second series or seeking new funding, require agreement of the steering group by consensus, and if consensus fails, a majority of partners, with any partner free to decline to contribute its own resources to a decision it opposes. Disagreements between two partners go first to the coordinator and then to the steering group; no partner can be required to act against its own policies. Collaborative partnerships are more likely to produce community change when they have clear structures and shared measures than when they rely on goodwill (Roussos & Fawcett, 2000).
Shared Measures
Every partner agrees to report, and the coordinator compiles and circulates quarterly to all partners: number of workshop participants and completion rate; referrals received from each source and how many enrolled; falls reported by participants at the six-month booster, compared with their report at enrollment; and emergency medical services fall and lift-assist calls among adults 65 and older in the county. A shared measurement system of this kind, in which partners agree on what counts as progress, is one of the conditions for collective impact identified in studies of cross-sector initiatives (Kania & Kramer, 2011).
Keeping Partners at the Table
Each partner's gain is reported back to it in terms it cares about: the Area Agency on Aging receives participant counts formatted for its federal report; emergency medical services receives the number of lift-assist callers who enrolled; the hospital receives readmission data for participants. The coordinator meets with each partner's director once a year to ask whether the partnership still serves the organization, because a partner that only contributes will quietly stop attending. The same meeting asks what the partner would need in order to do more, since several partners, notably the churches and the transit service, have capacity the coalition has not yet asked for, such as volunteer drivers and additional evening space.
References
Clemson, L., Cumming, R. G., Kendig, H., Swann, M., Heard, R., & Taylor, K. (2004). The effectiveness of a community-based program for reducing the incidence of falls in the elderly: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(9), 1487-1494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52411.x
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36-41.
Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369-402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369
The Herzing NU 780 Unit 6 instructions
This unit asks you to plan a coalition or partnership to carry out a population health program. Expect to identify partners and their roles, explain what each contributes and gains, describe governance and decision making, define shared measures and plan how to sustain participation. Many versions ask you to use a collaboration model such as collective impact or the community coalition action theory. Check whether your section wants community members as partners as well as organizations. Specific commitments, such as meeting space or referral pathways, are more convincing than general support. A coalition plan should show why each partner would stay involved, not only why the program needs them, since partnerships often fade when an organization stops seeing a benefit.
How this NU 780 Unit 6 example is built
The plan opens with the program the coalition serves, briefly, so partner roles have a clear purpose. The partner table uses four columns for every organization: what it controls, what it gives, what it gains and what it would leave unfinished by withdrawing. That last column is unusual and makes each partner's stake visible. Governance is set out in practical terms: who convenes, how often, how decisions are made and what the memorandum covers. Shared measures are few and reported by everyone, which keeps the coalition focused. The final section explains how results are reported back to each partner in its own format, such as participant counts for a federal report, which is how the plan keeps partners engaged after the first year.
Where the points sit in the NU 780 Unit 6 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a coalition plan typically covers partner identification, roles and contributions, governance, shared goals and measures, sustainability, and writing. Partner points reward a mix of organizations appropriate to the program, with reasons. The roles criterion gives full credit when each partner's contribution and benefit are specific. Governance points go to clear structures for meetings, decisions and conflict. Shared measures are scored on whether they are agreed, collected and reported across partners. Sustainability criteria look for strategies to keep partners involved over time. Some rubrics add community engagement. The writing criterion covers organization and APA 7 citations, including Roussos and Fawcett's review of collaborative partnerships and Kania and Kramer on collective impact.
NU 780 Unit 6 help before you submit
Coalition plans in Unit 6 frequently describe partners as supporting the program without saying what each one actually commits. Another common problem is ignoring what partners gain, which makes the coalition fragile. Governance is often missing, leaving decision making unclear. Measures owned by the nursing program alone are not shared measures. Students sometimes list a dozen partners when four or five with real roles would be stronger. Community members are often left out of decisions. Sustainability sections that rely on future grants alone are weak. Finally, base the program on evidence, such as the Stepping On trial, because a coalition built around an untested intervention puts every partner's effort at risk.
Get a NU 780 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your NU 780 classroom, plus your program and the organizations you would work with. We write a custom example that states each partner's exchange, sets governance and puts community members in the decisions, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 780 papers and MSN samples
- NU 780 Unit 1: Community assessment
- NU 780 Unit 2: Epidemiologic profile
- NU 780 Unit 3: Population health paper
- NU 780 Unit 4: Determinants and disparities analysis
- NU 780 Unit 5: Prevention program proposal
- NU 780 Unit 7: Culturally adapted implementation plan
- NU 780 Unit 8: Population outcome evaluation
- NSG 521 Unit 6: Vital signs interpretation set
- NU 700 Unit 6: Ways of knowing paper
- NU 725 Unit 6: Access and privacy audit
- NU 726 Unit 6: Interprofessional collaboration analysis
NU 780 Unit 6 questions, answered
What counts as a partner commitment?
Something specific, from somebody with authority, that could be written into an agreement. Two hours of a health worker's week, use of a hall on Thursdays, a referral pathway with an agreed response time. Support for the program's goals is not a commitment, and coalitions built on that discover it in the second month rather than the first.
Why does a coalition need governance?
Because it has no shared hierarchy. When two member organizations disagree about who runs an event or how funds are spent, there is no common superior to decide, so the disagreement either escalates or the coalition drifts. A convening role, a stated decision rule and a named dispute route are usually enough, and they are far easier to establish before the first conflict.
How do community members participate in decisions?
By holding seats and votes rather than being consulted. A resident advisory group that reviews plans after they are made is participation in name; residents on the coalition's decision-making body, with the same standing as the organizations, is participation in fact. Say which you are proposing, because the difference is visible to the community either way.
Where can I find a free NU 780 Unit 6 sample paper?
The whole NU 780 Unit 6 falls prevention coalition plan is on this page for you to read free, partner table and governance included. Ask for a custom coalition plan if your program or partners differ.
What should a community coalition plan include for a nursing course?
Name each partner and what it controls, contributes and gains, set governance with meeting and decision rules, agree a few shared measures and plan how partners stay involved. This sample does all of that for a rural falls prevention workshop.