MSW 513 Module 5 Assignment Evaluating Social Policies
Purpose
The purpose of this paper assignment is to have students will apply their knowledge of Jansson (2018) and CDC (2016) policy analysis and evaluation frameworks against their selected social issue, target population and applicable social policies.
The student will also discuss the use of social media to promote awareness about the social issue and social policy for a vulnerable population.
The students will use recent research evidence, facts, and relevant statistics to support the information presented in the paper.
Course Outcome
CO 5: Use research evidence to evaluate the applicable policies to address specific social issues for populations.
Requirements
1. This assignment is worth 250 points and will be graded on use of citations, use of Standard English grammar, sentence structure, and overall organization based on the required components as summarized in the directions and grading criteria/rubric.
2. Create your exercise using Microsoft Word.
3. Follow the directions and grading criteria closely. Any questions about your assignment may be posted under the Q & A Forum.
4. The length of the exercise is to be no less than 2500 words excluding title page and reference pages.
5. APA format is required with both a title page and reference page. Use the required components of the review as Level 1 headings (upper and lower case, centered, boldface):
Criteria for the Content (Guidelines)
Write a 2500 word minimum/10-page minimum (count does not include reference page) paper that evaluates applicable federal policies for a specific social issue. The paper should consist of the following content:
1. Selection of one contemporary social issue of national magnitude.
(
OPIOID USE ADOLESCENCE)
2. The introduction should include the identification of the target population affected by the social issue. Use of recent research evidence, facts, and relevant statistics to demonstrate the severity of the social issue and its impact on the target population.
3. Identification of 2 federal policies that attempt to address the social issue for the target population. Provide a comprehensive overview of the two policies.
This overview should include critical background information such as the year the policy was enacted, how the policy is FUNDED, identification of the POLITICIANS, LEGISLATOR, and STAKEHOLDERS that developed the policy. Also, provide information related to individuals and groups that actively oppose the policy, including the reasons for the opposition.
4. Use Jansson (2018) and CDC (2016) policy frameworks to analyze, interpret, and summarize the benefits and limitations associated with each of the three social policies.
Discuss the need to address policy gaps and deficiencies. Use recent research evidence, facts, and statistics to support your analysis and interpretation of the 2 policies.
5. Use the CDC (2016) evaluation framework to assess each policy and compare and contrast the 2 federal policies. Use a table to create a visual depiction of the compare and contrast of the 2policies.
6. Determine and discuss which policy presents the best legislative solution to help the target population.
Likewise, discuss the policy that is least likely to support the needs of the target population in the long run.
The CDC policy analysis table can be used as a tool to complete this section of the paper.
7. Discuss the role of social media in providing information, advocacy, or opposition for the selected social issue and each of the social policies.
Provide a recommendation to improve future social media campaigns to promote the social issue and social policy.
8. Include a conclusion statement recapping the key elements of the paper (items 1-7).
Directions and Grading Criteria
|
Category
|
Points
|
Description
|
|
Social Issue Overview
|
20
|
· Introduction section should clearly identify the social issue, target population. Uses research evidence and statistics to demonstrate the magnitude.
|
|
Policy Overview
|
50
|
· Provides a comprehensive overview of two federal policies that addresses the social issue for the target population.
|
|
Policy Analysis
|
40
|
· Uses Jansson (2018) or CDC (2016) policy framework to analyze different aspects of the two selected federal policies.
|
|
Policy Evaluation
|
40
|
· Use CDC policy framework to evaluate different aspects of the two policies.
|
|
Social Media
|
25
|
· Discuss the role of social media to promote the policy.
|
|
Conclusion
|
25
|
· Provide a brief conclusion statement that includes all the key elements discussed in the paper.
|
|
Clarity of Writing
|
25
|
· Use of standard English grammar and sentence
· No spelling errors or typographical errors.
|
|
APA Style
|
25
|
· All information taken from another source, even if summarized, must be appropriately cited in problem Statement and listed in the references using APA format:
· Document Set up
· Title and reference pages
· Citations in the text and references
|
|
Total
|
250
|
A quality essay will meet or exceed all of the above requirements.
|
Rubric
Assignment: Evaluating Social Policies
|
|
|
Criteria
|
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Social Issue
|
|
20 pts
Highest Level of Performance
Provides a thorough description of a contemporary social issue and describes the effects on a vulnerable target population; Uses research evidence, facts, and relevant statistics to establish the severity of the social issue and its impact on the target population.
|
15 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
Provides a good description of a contemporary social issue and describes some effects on the target population; Uses research evidence, facts, and relevant statistics to demonstrate the severity of the social issue and its impact on the target population
|
10 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
Provides an adequate description of a contemporary social issue but does not adequately address the impact on the target population; Uses some research evidence, facts, and statistics to demonstrate the severity of the social issue and its impact on the target population.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
Fails to identify social issue and target population; Does not use relevant research evidence, facts, and relevant statistics to show the severity of the social issue and its impact on the target population.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Policy Overview
|
|
50 pts
Highest Level of Performance
Provides a comprehensive overview of two applicable federal social policy that addresses the selected social issue; Uses research evidence to corroborate statements about the relevancy or irrelevancy of the social policy.
|
30 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
Provides a good overview of two applicable federal social policy that addresses the selected social issue; Uses research evidence to provide support for statements about the relevancy or irrelevancy of the social policy.
|
20 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
Provides an adequate overview of two applicable federal social policy that addresses the selected social issue; Uses some research evidence to provide minimal support for statements about the relevancy or irrelevancy of the social policy.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
Fails to identify and describe social policies related to the selected social issue; Fails to provide relevant research evidence to support statements.
|
|
50 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Policy Analysis
|
|
40 pts
Highest Level of Performance
Provides a critical analysis, interpretation, and comprehensive summary of the benefits and limitations associated with each social policy; Discusses policy gaps and deficiencies; Uses recent research evidence, facts, and statistics to support analysis and interpretation of the 2 policies.
|
24 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
Provides a good analysis, interpretation, and summary of the benefits and limitations associated with each social policy; Discusses policy gaps and deficiencies; Uses research evidence, facts, and statistics to support analysis and interpretation of the two policies.
|
16 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
Provides a basic analysis, interpretation, and summary of the benefits and limitations associated with each social policy; Discusses policy gaps and deficiencies; Uses research evidence, facts, and statistics to provide minimal support for analysis and interpretation of the two policies.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
Fails to identify sufficiently detail thee analysis, interpretation of two policies; Fails to provide relevant research evidence to support statements.
|
|
40 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Policy Evaluation
|
|
40 pts
Highest Level of Performance
Uses the CDC evaluation framework to thoroughly evaluate and present information 2 federal policies for the selected social issue; Uses a table to comprehensively to compare and contrast the two policies; Provides comprehensive discussion on the determination of the best and worst legislative solutions for the target population.
|
24 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
Uses the CDC evaluation framework to evaluate and present information for the selected social issue; Uses a table to compare and contrast the two policies; Discusses the determination of the best and worst legislative solutions for the target population.
|
16 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
Uses the CDC evaluation framework to evaluate and present information for the selected social issue; Presents basic information on a table to compare and contrast the two; Provides limited information to support the determination of best and worst legislative solutions for the target population.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
Fails to use the CDC evaluation framework to evaluate and present information on two federal policies; Does not use a table to compare and contrast the two federal policies; Does not discuss the determination of the best and worst legislative solutions for the target population.
|
|
40 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Social Media
|
|
25 pts
Highest Level of Performance
Identifies and thoroughly describes the existing social media campaigns to provide awareness on the social issue and promotes social policy; Provides a comprehensive recommendation on how to leverage social media to improve future awareness campaigns.
|
15 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
Identifies and provides a good description of existing social media campaigns to provide awareness on the social issue and promote social policy; Provides a recommendation on how to improve future social media campaigns.
|
10 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
Identifies and provides a basic overview existing social media campaigns to provide awareness on the social issue and promote social policy; Provides a generic recommendation for the improvement of future social media campaigns.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
Fails to identify and describe information on existing social media awareness campaigns for the social issue or applicable social policies; Does not provide a recommendation to improve future social media campaigns.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Conclusion
|
|
25 pts
Highest Level of Performance
Provides a comprehensive conclusion statement, which concisely summarizes the social issue, target population, applicable policy, policy analysis, policy evaluation and social media strategy.
|
15 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
Provides a good conclusion statement, which summarizes the social issue, target population, applicable policy, policy analysis, policy evaluation and social media strategy.
|
10 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
Provides a generic conclusion statement, which provides some information about the social issue, target population, applicable policy, policy analysis, policy evaluation and social media strategy.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
Does not provide a conclusion statement to summarize information about the social issue, target population, applicable policy, policy analysis, policy evaluation and social media strategy.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Clarity of Writing
|
|
25 pts
Highest Level of Performance
Excellent use of standard English showing original thought. No spelling or grammar errors. Well organized with proper flow of meaning.
|
15 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
Some evidence of own expression and competent use of language. No more than three spelling or grammar errors. Well organized thoughts and concepts.
|
10 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
Language needs development. Four or more spelling and/or grammar errors. Poorly organized thoughts and concepts.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
Language needs significant development. Five or more spelling and/or grammar errors; fails to have organized thoughts and concepts.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
APA Style
|
|
25 pts
Highest Level of Performance
APA format is correct with no errors.
|
15 pts
Very Good or High Level of Performance
APA format is mostly correct, with no more than 1 to 2 minor errors.
|
10 pts
Acceptable Level of Performance
APA formatting contains multiple errors and/or several citations are missing.
|
0 pts
Failing Level of Performance
APA formatting not present and citations are not included.
|
|
25 pts
|
phaynes
MSW513SYLLABUSModule5AssignmentEvaluatingSocialPolicies.docx
