- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Policy Issue Paper Stage 3 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Policy Issue Paper Stage 3 Policy Issue Paper Stage 3 Third and final stage of policy issue paper integrating stages 1 and 2 and adding recommendations. Rubric Code: L48XW7 By joeleneberg Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Political Science Type: Writing Grade Levels: (none)

Issue paper stage 3 Final paper with recommendations
	2 Needs improvement. 2 pts	3 Below expectations. 3 pts	4 Meets expectations. 4 pts	4.5 Above expectations. 4.5 pts
Background
Background 1 pts Describes problem dimensions	2 Omits significant dimensions of the problem.	3 Omits minor dimensions of the problem. Discussion of problem dimensions lacks organization or focus.	4 Describes all significant dimensions of the problem.	4.5 Demonstrates original creativity in identifying problem dimensions.
Outcomes of prior interventions 1 pts Describes results of what has been tried before.	2 Description of prior interventions is missing or omits significant prior interventions.	3 Discussion of prior interventions lacks organization or focus.	4 Provides a coherent description of the major types of prior policy interventions in this area and their outcomes.	4.5 Description is not only coherent but exceptionally thorough.
Performance of prior policy 1 pts Assesses how well prior policy has addressed the issue.	2 No conclusions are drawn about past policy performance. Conclusions about past policy performance lack support.	3 Conclusions drawn about past policy performance are unclear or have only modest support.	4 Past policy performance is assessed clearly.	4.5 Assessment of past policy performance demonstrates original analytical thinking.
Scope and Severity
Scope and severity 1 pts Assesses the scope and severity of the problem.	2 Does not quantify scope and severity. Assessment of scope and severity lacks support.	3 Assessment of scope and severity is unclear or has only modest support.	4 Clearly describes the scope and severity.	4.5 Assessment of scope and severity demonstrates an exceptional level of quantitative analysis or creative insight into additional areas of problem impact.
Problem statement
Problem statement 1 pts States the general policy problem clearly.	2 Fails to state the problem.	3 Problem statement is unclear.	4 Clearly states the problem.	4.5 States the problem with exceptional clarity or persuasion.
Issue statement 1 pts States the specific policy issue clearly.	2 Fails to state the issue.	3 Issue statement is unclear.	4 States the issue clearly in terms of a specific policy action to consider.	4.5 States the issue with exceptional clarity.
Approach to analysis 1 pts Specifies an approach to analyzing the problem.	2 Approach to analysis is not stated. Approach to analysis is unsuitable for the policy issue.	3 Discussion of approach to analysis is unclear or incomplete.	4 Clearly specifies an appropriate approach to analysis.	4.5 Specifies the approach to analysis with exceptional creativity or insight.
Stakeholders 1 pts Identifies stakeholders.	2 Omits discussion of stakeholders. Omits key stakeholders. Fails to prioritize stakeholders.	3 Discussion of stakeholders and their priority is unclear.	4 All stakeholders are identified and omission of any stakeholders from further analysis is justified by prioritization.	4.5 Discussion of stakeholders demonstrates exceptional insight into how they affect and/or are affected by the issue.
Goal statement 0.5 pts States the general policy goal.	2 Goal of policy not stated.	3 Goal of policy only unclearly stated.	4 Goal of policy clearly stated.	4.5 Goal of policy stated with exceptional clarity or persuasion.
Objective statement 0.5 pts States the specific policy objective.	2 Objective of policy not statement.	3 Objective of policy only unclearly stated.	4 Objective of policy clearly stated.	4.5 Objective of policy stated with exceptional quantitative rigor.
Measures of effectiveness 1 pts Describes proposed measures of effectiveness.	2 Measures of effectiveness not included.	3 Measures of effectiveness unclearly stated or lacking in support.	4 Measures of effectiveness clearly described and effectively supported.	4.5 Measures of effectiveness clearly described and effectively supported with exceptional realism.
Alternatives
Sets of potential solutions 1 pts Provides general categories of relevant policy approaches.	2 Omits significant sets of potential solutions.	3 Discussion of sets of potential solutions is unclear.	4 Provides a coherent description of all significant sets of potential solutions.	4.5 Description is not only coherent but also demonstrates exceptional creativity in identifying new sets of potential solutions.
Alternative solutions 1 pts Describes potential solutions in terms of specific policy actions.	2 Omits significant alternative approaches. Does not frame alternatives in terms of policy actions.	3 Discussion of policy alternatives is unclear or unbalanced.	4 Describes all significant alternatives in a clear, balanced way.	4.5 Provides a clear, balanced description of policy alternatives and also demonstrates exceptional creativity in articulating new approaches.
Comparison of alternatives 1 pts Systematically compares alternatives.	2 Does not compare alternatives. Comparison of alternatives is not systematic.	3 Systematic comparison of alternatives is poorly organized or logically inconsistent.	4 Provides a clear discussion of a logically sound comparison of alternatives.	4.5 Discussion is clear and logically sound, and demonstrates an exceptional level of analytical thinking.
Spillovers and externalities 1 pts Considers policy impacts beyond original policy situation.	2 Ignores significant spillovers or externalities.	3 Discussion of spillovers and externalities is unclear or lacks support.	4 Clearly describes policy impacts beyond the original problem situation in terms of spillovers and externalities.	4.5 Provides a clear discussion of relevant spillovers and externalities that demonstrates exceptional insight or analysis.
Constraints 1 pts Describes financial legal, political, and other constraints on solving the problem.	2 Ignores significant constraints. Assumes additional constraints that shouldn't limit the solution.	3 Discussion of constraints is unclear.	4 Clearly discusses relevant constraints and challenges questionable constraints as appropriate.	4.5 Clearly discusses relevant constraints and demonstrates exceptional creativity in challenging questionable constraints.
Political feasibility 1 pts Systematically compares alternatives in terms of political feasibility.	2 Fails to address the question of political feasibility.	3 Discussion of political feasibility is unclear or lacks support.	4 Provides a clear, well-supported discussion of political feasibility.	4.5 Provides an exceptionally insightful discussion of political feasibility.
Recommendations
Criteria 2 pts Specifies criteria for comparing alternatives.	2 Fails to specify criteria for comparing alternatives.	3 Alternatives for comparing alternatives are unclear or incomplete.	4 Clearly specifies criteria for comparing alternatives.	4.5 Clearly specifies criteria with exceptional creativity and analysis.
Preferred alternative 2 pts Describes a preferred alternative.	2 Fails to state a preferred alternative.	3 Statement of preferred alternative is unclear or lacks support.	4 Clearly describes a preferred alternative.	4.5 Description of preferred alternative includes exceptionally strong support.
Implementation strategy 2 pts Outlines an implementation strategy.	2 Fails to outline an implementation strategy.	3 Implementation strategy is unclear.	4 Clearly outlines an implementation strategy.	4.5 Clearly outlines an implementation strategy with exception sensitivity to the context of implementation.
Monitoring and evaluation 2 pts Makes provisions for monitoring and evaluating after implementation.	2 Does not include ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans.	3 Plans for monitoring and evaluation are unclear.	4 Describes a clear plan for ongoing monitoring and evaluation.	4.5 Describes a clear plan for ongoing monitoring and evaluation with exceptional analytic rigor.
Limitations 2 pts Accounts for limitations and possible unintended consequences.	2 Ignores significant limitations and possible unintended consequences.	3 Description of limitations and possible unintended consequences is unclear or incomplete.	4 Clearly accounts for limitations and possible unintended consequences.	4.5 Accounts for limitations and possible unintended consequences with clarity and exceptional insight.
General
References and style guide 0.5 pts Adheres to style guide.	2 Missing references. Major inconsistencies in citation styles. Cites sources that lack credibility. Omits required elements of assignment. Spelling and/or grammar unsuitable for a professional document.	3 Minor inconsistencies in citation styles. Other minor style guide inconsistencies. Minor spelling or grammar problems.	4 References appropriately cited and all required elements of paper formatted according to style guide of writer's choice.	4.5 References and paper appropriately formatted and references demonstrate exceptionally well-chosen support from a variety of sources.
Appendixes 0.5 pts Includes necessary supporting tables and figures.	2 Necessary supporting information is omitted. Source of supporting information not clearly identified. Irrelevant supporting information included.	3 Supporting information not clearly organized. Supporting information not formatted according to style guide.	4 Supporting information clearly formatted, appropriately documented, and relevant to the topic.	4.5 Exceptionally strong and well-organized supporting documentation. Supporting information resulting from synthesis of multiple sources.
Prior feedback 1 pts Incorporates feedback from stages 1 and 2	2 Fails to address areas that needed improvement or were below expectations in stages 1 and 2.	3 Only partially addresses concerns raised in stages 1 and 2.	4 Addresses any concerns raised in stages 1 and 2.	4.5 Incorporates feedback from stages 1 and 2 to create a significantly stronger paper in stage 3.
Integration 1 pts Integrates problem statement, alternatives, and recommendations into a coherent whole.	2 The paper is not integrated into a coherent whole.	3 The paper is only somewhat integrated into a coherent whole.	4 Integrates problem statement, alternatives, and recommendations into a coherent whole.	4.5 Integrates problem statement, alternatives, and recommendations into a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Keywords:

Policy issue paper, recommendations

Subjects:

Political Science

Types:

Writing

Discuss this rubric