7-3 Final Project Two Milestone Three: Policy Recommendations

7-3 Final Project Two Milestone Three: Policy Recommendations

Overview: It is not uncommon for health professionals to testify on policies in front of committees or policy making bodies, like the United States Senate. In order to participate in this type of advocacy, you must be able to speak for vulnerable populations by demonstrating your understanding of population needs and how policy measures can help or further harm a situation. You must also be able to make recommendations for developing, revising, or eliminating policy

Connect with a professional writer in 5 simple steps

Please provide as many details about your writing struggle as possible

Academic level of your paper

Type of Paper

When is it due?

How many pages is this assigment?

Prompt: In this assignment, you will evaluate the efficacy of the policy you analyzed and propose recommendations for or against the policy. Concentrate on how to improve the chosen policy in order to limit negative impact to the target population or other populations while increasing the positive impact. Take a stand on the policy and advocate for or against it; make sure to support your position with research. When thinking about your recommendations, think about how the policy affects the population’s well-being and health. How could you decrease inequalities and improve health outcomes by modifying the policy?

Rubric for this assignment is attached below.

IHP 501 Final Project Two Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric

Policy Recommendations

Overview: It is not uncommon for health professionals to testify on policies in front of committees or policymaking bodies, like the United States Senate. In order to participate in this type of advocacy, you must be able to speak for vulnerable populations by demonstrating your understanding of population needs and how policy measures can help or further harm a situation. You must also be able to make recommendations for developing, revising, or eliminating policy. Prompt: In this assignment, you will evaluate the efficacy of the policy you analyzed and propose recommendations for or against the policy. Concentrate on how to improve the chosen policy in order to limit negative impact to the target population or other populations while increasing the positive impact. Take a stand on the policy and advocate for or against it; make sure to support your position with research. When thinking about your recommendations, think about how the policy affects the population’s well-being and health. How could you decrease inequalities and improve health outcomes by modifying the policy? Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

III. Recommendations A. Evaluate the efficacy of the policy in addressing population needs without negatively impacting the target population or other populations. B. Justify key areas of improvement that could better the policy, supported with evidence. C. Recommend an appropriate policy improvement supported by your research. D. Advocate for or against the policy in a concise, supported statement.

Rubric

Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be submitted as a 2- to 3-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format.

Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (75%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Recommendations: Efficacy

Evaluates the efficacy of the policy in addressing population needs without negatively impacting the population or other populations

Evaluates the efficacy of the policy in addressing population needs without negatively impacting the population or other populations, but evaluation is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies

Does not evaluate the efficacy of the policy in addressing population needs without negatively impacting the population or other populations

25

Recommendations: Improvement

Justifies key areas of improvement that could better the policy, supported with evidence

Justifies areas of improvement that could better the policy, but justification is unfocused or illogical, lacks supporting evidence, or contains inaccuracies

Does not justify areas of improvement that could better the policy

20

 

 

Recommendations:

Recommend Recommends a policy improvement supported by research

Recommends a policy improvement, but recommendation is illogical, contains inaccuracies, or has insufficient supporting research

Does not recommend a policy improvement 20

Recommendations: Advocate

Advocates for or against the policy in a concise, supported statement

Advocates for or against the policy, but statement is long-winded, lacks support, is illogical, or contains inaccuracies

Does not advocate for or against the policy 25

Articulation of Response

Submission has no major errors related to APA citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to APA citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to APA citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

10

Total 100%