Write a five to six (5-6) page paper in which you: (Note: Refer to Review Question 8 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 1-3. Select two (2) editorials / essays / columns (by staff or freelance writers) on a current issue of public policy from two (2) different publications (large metropolitan or national newspaper such as Washington Post or the New York Times or national magazines such as Newsweek, Time, and The New Republic.)
1. Apply the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 8. 2. Rate the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”) 3. Determine which arguments are the most plausible. Provide a rationale for your views. (Note: Refer to Demonstration Exercise 1 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 4-6. Examine Box 3.0 – Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Choose one of the following policy issues in the U.S. gun control, illegal drugs, medical insurance fraud, and environmental protection of waterways, job creation, affordable health care, or Medicare.) 4. Apply the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. (Note: Refer to page 111 of the textbook for a step-by-step process on stakeholder analysis.) 5. After creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list, discuss new ideas generated by each stakeholder. (Note: The ideas may be objectives, alternatives, outcomes causes, etc.; ideas should not be duplicates.) 6. Write an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? (Note: Compare your work with Case Study 3.1 at the end of the chapter.) 7. Include at least two (2) peer-reviewed references (no more than five [5] years old) from material outside the textbook to support your views. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental Websites. Do not use open source Websites such as Wikipedia, Sparknotes.com, Ask.com, and similar Websites are not acceptable resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: • Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. • Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: • Examine the nature, characteristics, models, and / or methods pertinent to the structuring of policy problems. • Use technology and information resources to research issues in policy analysis and program evaluation. • Write clearly and concisely about policy analysis and program evaluation using proper writing mechanics.
Rubric
Assignment 2 Rubric
Assignment 2 Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Apply the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1. Weight:15%
Thoroughly applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1 23.0 pts
Satisfactorily applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1 20.0 pts
Partially applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1. 17.0 pts
Did not submit or incompletely applied the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 1. 0.0 pts
23.0 pts
Rate the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”) Weight: 10%
Thoroughly rated the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”) 15.0 pts
Satisfactorily rated the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”) 13.0 pts
Partially rated the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”) 11.0 pts
Did not submit or incompletely rated the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”) 0.0 pts
15.0 pts
Determine which arguments are the most plausible. Provide a rationale for your views. Weight:15%
Thoroughly determined which arguments are the most plausible. Thoroughly provided a rationale for your views. 23.0 pts
Satisfactorily determined which arguments are the most plausible. Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your views. 20.0 pts
Partially determined which arguments are the most plausible. Partially provided a rationale for your views. 17.0 pts
Did not submit or incompletely determined which arguments are the most plausible. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for your views. 0.0 pts
23.0 pts
Apply the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. Weight:15%
Thoroughly applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. 23.0 pts
Satisfactorily applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. 20.0 pts
Partially applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. 17.0 pts
Did not submit or incompletely applied the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen 0.0 pts
23.0 pts
After creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list, discuss new ideas generated by each stakeholder. Weight:15%
Thoroughly discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list. 22.0 pts
Satisfactorily discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list. 19.0 pts
Partially discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list. 16.0 pts
Did not submit or incompletely discussed new ideas generated by each stakeholder after creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list. 0.0 pts
22.0 pts
Write an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? Weight:15%
Thoroughly wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? 22.0 pts
Satisfactorily wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? 19.0 pts
Partially wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? 16.0 pts
Did not submit or incompletely wrote an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? 0.0 pts
22.0 pts
2 references Weight: 5%
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. 7.0 pts
Meets number of required references; most references quality choices 6.0 pts
Meets the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices. 5.0 pts
Does not meet the required number of references 0.0 pts
7.0 pts
Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10%
0-2 errors present 15.0 pts
3-4 errors present 13.0 pts
5-6 errors present 11.0 pts
More than 6 errors present 0.0 pts
15.0 pts