10 Aug Develop a Policy Analysis of 1,200 to 1,500 words taking a position and recommending a policy to advocate for political, social, or economic policies and programs that will improve health i
For the final paper assignment, develop a Policy Analysis of 1,200 to 1,500 words taking a position and recommending a policy to advocate for political, social, or economic policies and programs that will improve health in diverse populations. In the Policy Analysis, you will need to address the conflicting concerns regarding the health impacts of the policy. You will need to take a position on a policy opportunity that addresses your defined issues. The paper should incorporate terms and concepts from the course. Expectations: Identification of a topic area that focuses on improving health in diverse populations from the NRHA Policy Agenda (provided in Week 4 Lecture Materials) Problem statement section with at least two problem statements Background section with at least four references to peer-reviewed material and two references to existing NRHA-associated policy efforts Landscape section with at least two stakeholders and two areas (i.e., political and economic) and four fact
The problem statement section identifies the topic area with a focus on improving health in diverse populations and includes at least two problem statements.
8 pts
Meets Expectations
Includes a cursory review of the three components or is missing one of the components.
2 pts
Communications Issues
Comprehending what has been written is difficult because of spelling, grammar, or other errors.
Background
40 pts
Excellent Work
The background section includes at least four references from peer reviewed material and two references to existing NRHA associated policy efforts. Conflicting information is incorporated with evidence supporting both positions.
30 pts
Meets Expectations
Includes a cursory review of components or is missing one of the components.
20 pts
Needs Improvement
Includes four or five of the expectations of the Excellent Work or includes a cursory review of all of the aspects.
4 pts
Communications
Comprehending what has been written is difficult.
Landscape
20 pts
Excellent Work
Two stakeholders and two factor areas with four factor areas for each factor area are covered.
16 pts
Meets Expectations
The stakeholders or factors are incomplete OR the section is not well organized.
10 pts
Needs Improvement
The stakeholders or factor areas are missing.
2 pts
Communications
Comprehending what has been written is difficult.
Options
20 pts
Excellent Work
The options section presents three options and uses a side-by-side table with a review of associated ethical principles.
16 pts
Meets Expectations
The section does not provide three options, use a side-by-side table, OR does not address ethical principles associated with the policy options.
10 pts
Needs Improvement
The summary is incomplete AND organization is lacking.
2 pts
Communications
Comprehending what has been written is difficult.
Recommendations
20 pts
Excellent Work
The recommendation summarizes the option with a review of who, what, which, why, and how.
15 pts
Meets Expectations
The summary is incomplete or the recommendation is not supported.
12 pts
Needs Improvement
The summary is incomplete and the recommendation is not supported.
2 pts
Communications
Comprehending what has been written is difficult.
Communications
20 pts
Excellent Work
The format and length (1200 to 1500 words) communicate points in a compelling and concise manner. Proper citations are used. The composition conveys information in an appropriate context in a professional and engaging manner.
16 pts
Meets Expectations
The policy analysis conveys information in a professional manner but it exceeds 1500 words.
10 pts
Needs Improvement
There are minor problems with spelling, grammar, or typographical errors. Proper references are not used.
2 pts
Communications
Comprehending what has been written is difficult.
Contrasting Positions
20 pts
Excellent Work
The contrasting positions are clearly defined, relevant to the policy, and each position is supported by at least two peer reviewed sources. Further, both positions are presented without bias.
16 pts
Meets Expectations
The presentation of the conflicting positions is accented by biases of the author.
10 pts
Needs Improvement
The conflicting positions either have obvious and substantial bias or are not supported by evidence gathered from at least two peer reviewed sources.
