Case Study 1

Criteria

Excellent

Outstanding

Acceptable

Needs Improvement

Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or Unacceptable

Introduction or Overview for the Case Study

20 points

Provided an excellent overview of privacy which provided definitions for key terms and addressed the legal requirements for protecting personal information about individuals which is stored in federal IT systems and databases. The overview appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding overview of privacy which provided definitions for key terms and addressed the legal requirements for protecting personal information about individuals which is stored in federal IT systems and databases. The overview appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an overview of privacy which provided definitions and addressed legal requirements for protecting personal information about individuals which is stored in federal IT systems and databases. The overview appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an overview but the section lacked important details about the case. Information from authoritative sources was cited and used in the overview.

10 points

Attempted to provide an introduction to the case study but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic.

Overview / Summary of Privacy Impact Assessments

20 points

Provided an excellent discussion of  the content required in a Privacy Impact Assessment for a federal IT system (per OMB M03-22 and other authoritative sources). Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of  the content required in a Privacy Impact Assessment for a federal IT system (per OMB M03-22 and other authoritative sources). Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided a discussion of  the required contents for Privacy Impact Assessments for federal IT systems. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided a discussion of required contents for Privacy Impact Assessments but the discussion lacked important details. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

9 points

Provided a discussion of privacy requirements for federal IT systems. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about privacy considerations for federal IT systems.

Use of Privacy Impact Assessments (Privacy Advocates & General Public)

15 points

Provided an excellent discussion of  how the content of Privacy Impact Assessments is or can be used by privacy advocates and members of the public to influence public policy and policy makers. Discussion included 3 or more examples. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of  how the content of Privacy Impact Assessments is or can be used by privacy advocates and members of the public to influence public policy and policy makers. Discussion included 2 or more examples. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

13 points

Discussed how the content of Privacy Impact Assessments is or can be used by privacy advocates and members of the public to influence public policy and policy makers. Discussion included at least one example. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Discussed how the content of Privacy Impact Assessments is or can be used by privacy advocates and members of the public to influence public policy and policy makers. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

4 points

Mentioned the use of Privacy Impact Assessments by privacy advocates and/or members of the public to influence public policy and policy makers.

0 points

Section was missing or off topic.

Best Practices and Recommendations for Ensuring Privacy

15 points

Provided an excellent discussion of 5 or more best practices (with recommendations) which could be implemented to improve privacy of personally identifiable information in the context of federal IT systems and databases. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of 3 or more best practices (with recommendations) which could be implemented to improve privacy of personally identifiable information in the context of federal IT systems and databases. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

13 points

Provided a discussion best practices and recommendations for improving privacy of personally identifiable information in the context of federal IT systems and databases.  The discussion was supported by information drawn from 1 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Discussion provided some information about best practices and included recommendations for improving privacy in the context of federal IT systems and databases. Mentioned information obtained from authoritative sources.

4 points

Included recommendations for improving privacy in the context of federal IT systems and databases but the discussion lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to address best practices and/or recommendations for privacy in the context of federal IT systems and databases.

Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology

5 points

Demonstrated excellence in the integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

4 points

Provided an outstanding integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

3 points

Integrated standard cybersecurity terminology into the into the case study

2 points

Used standard cybersecurity terminology but this usage was not well integrated with the discussion.

1 point

Misused standard cybersecurity terminology.

0 points

Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion.

APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List

5 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.

4 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

3 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

2 points

Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

1 point

Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

0 points

Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.

Professionalism Part I: Organization & Appearance

5 points

Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.

4 points

Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).

3 points

Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.

2 points

Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.

1 point

Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.

Professionalism Part II: Execution

15 points

No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

14 points

Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.

13 points

Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.

11 points

Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.

4 points

Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.

Overall Score

Excellent

90 or more

Outstanding

80 or more

Acceptable

70 or more

Needs Improvement

56 or more

Needs Significant Improvement

36 or more

Missing or Unacceptable

0 or more