Instructions:
I. Policy Issue (briefly defines the issue and why it is important and needs action). Discusses the impact of equity/health equity upon the identified issue.
II. Background (pertinent social, cultural, ethical, political, historical, and economic contexts that are related to this issue; the current political feasibility of addressing this issue in terms of factors that prevent or facilitate movement, as well as any environmental obstacles affecting it)
III. Strategic Factors (stakeholders [pro and con], economics, resources, values, and power sources—these are key, impactful factors that you need to identify and address when considering a strategy for developing a successful policy to address your issue) THIS IS THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE ANALYSIS
IV. Goals and Solutions (identify the goal of addressing this issue [what will change once a policy has been created] and then develop/analyze 2-3 possible solutions to achieve this goal). Clearly delineates who the policy recommendation is directed (who has authority to make the policy change – board, county or state legislative or regulatory entity, federal entity or U.S. Congress/Senate).
V. Summary (summarize the key areas of the paper and recommend your preferred solution and how it best addresses the policy issue and analysis). Clearly states to whom policy recommendations are being directed. Such as “The U.S. Congress should ….” Or the “Round Rock School Board should…”
Rubric to follow:
|
10 to >9.0 pts Meets or Exceeds High Expectations
Defines the issue. States what public health problem is associated with this issue. Addresses issues related to health equity. Uses active language that persuades the reader that this issue is important and that action is needed to solve this issue. Incorporates research to support position
|
9 to >7.0 pts Meets Minimum Expectations
Addresses the issue. Either does not identify it as a public health problem, does not link it to a public health problem, fails to address health equity or does not make a case for why action is needed. Language is active and persuasive overall Alludes to research, but does not cite specifically
|
7 to >0 pts Needs Improvement
– Issue is not defined at beginning of paper in a manner the reader understands. – Does not state public health problem related to this issue – Writes in passive voice overall – No mention of experts opinion or research studies to back up assertions
|
|
10 to >9.0 pts Exceptional
– Addresses the historical, social-cultural aspects or inequities associated with this issue, including relevant health consequences related to not addressing the identified issues. – Describes the current political feasibility of addressing this issue, including relevant political, legal, ethical, and/or economic barriers and facilitators; environmental obstacles; or other identified factors. – Cites evidence from credible referenced sources. Clearly and concisely explains situation without inflammatory language.
|
9 to >7.0 pts Meets Minimum Expectations
-Addresses historical health inequities overall – Political feasibility addresses 1-3 factors stated in first column. Identifies barriers and facilitators to addressing this issue – Incorporates evidence from referenced sources – Explains without inflammatory language
|
7 to >0 pts Needs Improvement
– Background does not address health inequity factors that influence the issue. – Little to no discussion to support political feasibility. Does not identify barriers and facilitators for addressing this issue – Lacking evidence to support assertions – Biased, judgmental, crude language
|
|
40 to >36.0 pts Exceptional
Incorporates an assessment of each of the following in discussion: 1. Stakeholders (pro & con, including network or coalitions if applicable) and a Power Analysis of these stakeholder groups. 2.Economics/costs/other resources needed 3.Values assessment
|
36 to >31.0 pts Meets Minimum Expectations
– Assesses 2 of the 3 criteria in the first column OR – Assessments of all lacks clarity or persuasiveness.
|
31 to >0 pts Needs Improvement
– Assesses 0-1 of the criteria in the first column OR – Evaluator is unable to follow reasoning for the assessment.
|
|
25 to >23.0 pts Exceptional
– Identifies the goal of the policy—what problem (identified in the introduction) will it solve or assist in solving? – Clearly identifies the policy maker/s to whom the policy recommendations will be made, – Proposes 3 or more plausible solutions to reach the goal and solve the public health problem identified in the introduction.
|
23 to >20.0 pts Meets Minimum Expectations
– Identifies the goal of the policy—may not be clear on how it links to solving a health problem. – Identifies policy maker but is not aligned to appropriate policy level or incorrect policy maker identified to achieve policy change – Proposes 2-3 solutions to reach the goal. Solutions are very broad not able to be considered until narrowed in focus
|
20 to >0 pts Needs Improvement
– No clear goal OR – Goal is for personal gain, but does nothing for society in general. – Policy maker/s not identified who have authority to make change. – Proposes 0-1 solution. Solution(s) are very broad and not able to be considered until narrowed in focus.
|
|
10 to >9.0 pts Exceptional
– Summarizes the key points made (the issue, background context, key strategic factors, & the goal of the policy) – Concludes with recommending your preferred solution
|
9 to >8.0 pts Meets Minimum Expectations
– Summarizes 3 of the 4 previous sections – Concludes with recommending your preferred solution
|
8 to >0 pts Needs Improvement
– No summary of key points. – Summarizes 1-2 sections only – No recommendation made
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts Exceptional
– Uses correct English grammar – free of typographical errors (i.e. spellchecked) – Uses correct sentence structure – Follows APA style for headings and subheadings – Follows APA style for citations within the text of the paper – Follows APA style for references – 4 or more references from peer-reviewed journals, national guidelines, governmental databases/warehouses. – Few references are from textbooks – References are relevant to the policy topic & timely – References over 5 years old are justified in the text – Includes a cover sheet
|
4 pts Meets Minimum Expectations
Follows 8 of the criteria in column one.
|
4 to >0 pts Needs Improvement/Repeats APA Errors from Mod 1
Follows 0-7 of the criteria in column one. *Note: Repeat of APA errors noted in Module 1 Leadership Paper result in an addition loss of points – up to 10 additional points as determined by faculty. Total possible reduction in grade related to failure to respond to previous feedback = 15 points.
|