Benchmark: Policy Brief

A detailed description of the policy issue is presented. The origin of the policy is described and a strong correlation between the policy and the health issue for the population selected is established. The level at which this occurs is discussed. Strong rationale and evidence are offered for support. Insight into the policy health issue is demonstrated.

A general description of the policy issue is presented. The origin of the policy is described and a correlation between the policy and the health issue for the population selected is established. The level at which this occurs is discussed. Some rationale or detail is needed for clarity.

A description of the policy issue is summarized. The origin of the policy is described, but it is unclear why the policy creates a health issue for the population selected. The level at which the issue occurs is identified. There are some inaccuracies. More information and rationale are needed.

An incomplete description of the policy issue is presented. The origin of this policy is unclear. There is no evidence that this policy creates a health issue, or that it is an issue for the population selected. The level at which the issue occurs has not been identified. There are major inaccuracies.

Description of the policy issue is omitted.

A problem statement is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

A problem statement is included, and subject knowledge is competent.

A problem statement is present. Some subject knowledge is evident.r

A problem statement is present but lacks detail or is incomplete. Subject knowledge is unclear or inconsistent.

A problem statement is not included.

Suggestions for addressing the issue are thoroughly developed with supporting details. All assignment criteria are met and well-supported. The suggestions are well-supported and offer clear steps for initiating policy change.

Suggestions for addressing the issue are present, and subject knowledge is competent. All assignment criteria are met. The suggestions outline steps for policy change. Minor detail is needed for clarity.

Suggestions for addressing the issue are present. Some subject knowledge is evident. Most assignment criteria are met. The suggestions generally outline steps for policy change. More information or evidence is needed.

Suggestions for addressing the policy health issue are incomplete. Suggestions do not include all assignment criteria. The suggestions do not support policy change for the policy health issue.

Suggestions for addressing the policy health issue are not included.

A discussion on the impact on the health care delivery system is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

A discussion on the impact on the health care delivery system is present, and subject knowledge is competent.

A discussion on the impact on the health care delivery system is present. Some subject knowledge is evident.

A discussion on the impact on the health care delivery system is present but lacks detail or is incomplete. Subject knowledge is unclear or inconsistent.

A discussion on the impact on the health care delivery system is not included.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

All format elements are correct.

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are not documented.