PUBH6001: Health Policy and Advocacy

PUBH6001: Health Policy and Advocacy
Assessment
Assessment 2: Policy Analysis Essay
Individual/Group
Individual
Length
2000 words (+/-) 10%)
Learning Outcomes
This assessment addresses the following learning outcomes:
Analyse different theories and approaches to policy agenda setting
Apply knowledge of policy development to a public health policy issue
Analyse issues in contemporary Australian health care policy
Develop processes for the evaluation of and
accountability for policy
Critique the role of networks and coalitions in the policy agenda setting process
Submission
Sunday of week 8 at 11.55pm*
Weighting
40%
Total Marks
100 marks
*Please Note: This time is Sydney time (AEST or AEDT). Please convert to your own time zone (eg. Adelaide = 11:25pm).
Instructions:
In this Assessment, you will engage in policy analysis. Choose a health policy (either current or past), either at the state or federal level, to analyse in this Assignment (eg, mental health policy, women’s health policy,
preventative health policy, men’s health policy, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy).
The Assignment should be approximately 2,000 words (+/- 10%) and presented in essay form. Address the following questions in your Assessment but please do not answer the questions as a series of short answers:
Firstly, provide a short introduction to your essay. Then proceed to analyse your chosen policy, and in doing so, consider the following issues:
The Problem and Context
•Describe the current and historical policy context of the problem.?
•What is the problem which the policy seeks to address?
What problems are highlighted???
•What problems have been overlooked??
Frame of Reference/Dominant Discourse
•What is the common frame of reference or dominant discourse evidence within this policy???
•Are certain words and phrases commonly used???
•Are there any underlying assumptions behind these??
Targets, Stakeholders and their Representation
•Who is the target of the policy (the subject of the discourse)???
•Who are the other stakeholders identified in the policy? Describe key institutional structures, agencies and workforce capacity building.?
•How are the subjects of the policy being represented???
•How are different social groups portrayed in this policy and what implications does this have??
•Are there any moral judgements expressed in this representation??
Policy process
•Who were the stakeholders involved in the development of the policy? Who was overlooked??
?•Whose interests were represented in the development of the policy? Which voices were not heard???
•What were the potential competing interests and power differentials of those involved in the development of the policy???
•What was the motivation for stakeholders in creating this policy???
•Were there any particular windows of opportunity that enabled the development of this policy??
Policy Solutions
•What solutions are put forward to address the problems?
What alternative solutions might have been overlooked??
•Are there any social/power/ethical implications of this policy?
Effectiveness
•Consider the implementation of the policy. How effectively do you think the current policy has been implemented???
•What are the accountability processes for the policy???
•Consider evaluation measures (indicators) and any evaluation which has been undertaken.
•How effective has the policy proven to be?
Finally, finish your essay with a conclusion.
Assessment Criteria:
• Knowledge and understanding of the policy issue (30%)??
• Critical analysis of the problem, frames of reference used, the policy process
• and policy solutions (30%)??
• Application and synthesis of knowledge about policy theories (25%)??
• General Assessment Criteria (15%) Assessment fulfills general academic standards, including:
• Provide an introduction and conclusion
• Complies with academic standards of writing, including legibility, clarity, accurate spelling, presentation and grammar.
• Uses appropriate APA 6 style for citing and referencing research
• Upholds standards of academic integrity, as demonstrated by acceptable report from text-matching software (e.g Safe Assign).
Marking Rubric:
Assessment attributes F2 0-34 F1
35-49 Pass 50-64 Credit 65-74 Distinction 75-84 High Distinction (HD) 85-100
Grade description
Evidence of unsatisfactory achievement of one or more of the learning objectives of the subject, insufficient understanding of the subject content and/or unsatisfactory level of skill development.
Evidence of satisfactory achievement of subject learning outcomes and adequate knowledge and critical analysis skills.
Evidence of a good level of understanding, knowledge and skill development in relation to the content of the subject. Demonstration of a good level of critical analysis. Evidence of a high level of achievement of the learning objectives demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, use of methodology and communication skills.
Evidence of an exceptional level of achievement of the learning objectives across the entire content of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, creativity, originality, use of methodology and communication
skills.
Knowledge and understanding of the
policy issue (30%)??
The assessment does not demonstrate knowledge or understanding of the
policy issue.
The assessment demonstrates some knowledge and understanding of the policy issue, but this is limited. Claims regarding the policy are anecdotal and not well linked to relevant literature (either grey or peer review). The assessment demonstrates a good level of knowledge and understanding of the policy issue. This is reasonably well linked to relevant literature. The assessment demonstrates a high level of knowledge and understanding about the policy issue. This understanding is well
supported by relevant
literature. The assessment demonstrates an exceptional level of knowledge and understanding about the policy issue. This understanding is very well supported by relevant literature, which shows extensive research has been conducted.
Critical analysis of the problem, frames of reference used, the policy process and policy solutions
(30%)??
The assessment does not demonstrate any
critical analysis. The assessment demonstrates some attempts at critical analysis, but the discussion of the policy problem, frames, policy process and policy solutions is mostly descriptive. The assessment demonstrates a reasonable critical analysis of the policy, including the policy problem, frames of reference, policy process and policy solutions. Alternative ways to approach the policy issue are discussions. The assessment demonstrates a very good critical analysis of the policy, with an analysis of the policy problem, frames of reference, policy process and policy solutions that considers alternative ways to approach this
policy issue. The assessment demonstrates a well developed and comprehensive critical analysis of the policy, with an analysis of the policy problem, frames of reference, policy process and policy solutions that considers alternative ways to approach this
policy issue.
Application and synthesis of knowledge about
policy theories (25%)??
The assessment does not demonstrate any application of policy theories.
The assessment displays attempts to apply policy theories in the discussion of the policy issue. The understanding of policy theories is limited.
The assessment displays a reasonable application of policy theories in the analysis of the policy issue.
There are some minor limitations in knowledge of policy theories. The assessment displays a very good application and synthesis of policy theories in discussion the policy issue. This demonstrates a very good level of understanding of policy theories. The assessment displays an excellent application of policy theories in the discussion of the policy issue. The discussion demonstrates an excellent and comprehensive knowledge of policy theories.
General Assessment
Criteria (15%) Assessment fulfills general academic standards, including:
Provide an introduction and conclusion Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar.
The assessment has no
introduction or
conclusion.
Demonstrates Is written according to academic genre
(e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has
accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and Is well-written and adheres to the academic genre
(e.g. with introduction, conclusion or
summary).
Demonstrates Is very well-written and adheres to the
academic genre.
Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research Expertly written and adheres to the academic
genre.
Demonstrates expert use of highquality, credible and relevant research
Complies with academic standards of writing, including legibility, clarity, accurate spelling, presentation and grammar.
Uses appropriate APA 6 style for citing and referencing research
Upholds standards of academic integrity, as demonstrated by acceptable report from text-matching software (e.g Safe
Assign).
inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas.
There are mistakes in
using the APA style.
There may be questions regarding the academic
integrity of the assessment. paragraph
construction.
Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or
well developed.
There are no mistakes in using the APA style.
The assessment upholds standards of academic integrity. consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop
ideas.
There are no mistakes in using the APA style.
The assessment upholds standards of academic integrity. sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key reading
There are no mistakes
in using the APA style.
The assessment upholds standards of academic integrity. sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key reading
There are no mistakes in using the APA
Style.
The assessment upholds standards of academic integrity.