Policy Question: How do we improve public engagement in local government meetings?
Choose a policy topic related to your chosen MPA Certificate. You will be required to develop a policy brief related to the topic. Assume as if you are a government administrator in charge of an agency. You should write the policy brief to an elected policymaker in state or local government in Florida with regard to the initiation of a NEW, but politically and policy realistic course of action for the government agency.
For example, a hot topic in public finance and human resources is the future of the traditional defined benefit pension system. Assume you are Florida’s Senior Defined Contribution Programs Officer (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (yes, this is a real position). You could then write a piece titled “What form of pensions should public agencies adopt?” You could define the problems facing public pensions and give the pros and cons of adopting the form of pension that is typically given.
Another example is from the emergency management realm. A major question for an emergency manager/ resiliency officer/ chief planner in a coastal city in Florida could be: “What should the city do to combat sea level rise?” You might outline the pros and cons of various methods and speculate on how we could do it better. Ideally, you should use some form of weighing between the alternatives (e.g. cost-benefit analysis, SWOT analysis) to arrive at your recommendation. (Yes, you might do well to revisit the materials from the Policy Analysis course.)
Your policy brief should:
- lay out the nature of the problem
- provide extensive background analysis drawing from real data and actual policy information from relevant agencies
- present policy alternatives (more than one) to address the problem being discussed (including those individuals or groups likely to support or oppose each of the policy options)
- evaluate the alternatives on certain independent criteria
- advocate what appears to you to be the best possible solution to the problem.
The analysis should include the political implications of the course of action that you propose. This paper will have a one or two page executive summary at the beginning. The major focus of this assignment is a complete and comprehensive review of the nature of the problem and evaluation of the policy alternatives.
- The paper should be 20 pages long (not including bibliography).
- You MUST support your arguments with peer reviewed readings and additional library sources (When doing library research, you should use legitimate sources of information: scholarly books and academic journals only.).
- Please edit your memo.Your final memo should be done at least 5 days before deadline. In the 5 days leading up to the deadline, you should edit your memo repeatedly. There are absolutely no excuses for submitting poorly edited papers. No excuse whatsoever for typos, grammar, no flow, etc. You could have a brilliant paper and still receive a bad grade for not editing it well.
- By the same token, you could have a perfectly edited memo and get a bad grade for poor substance. You must have good arguments, based on good quality peer reviewed materials.
- You need to demonstrate: a) your understanding of the subject you are writing about; b) good writing skills; and c) ability to craft good arguments.
- Use APA style for citations.See the OWL Citation Guide (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
- Use APA style for citations. See the OWL Citation Guide (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Click here for the Rubrics for grading the Policy Brief
GRADING RUBRIC FOR THE POLICY BRIEF
|Executive Summary Findings||5%||Does not include an executive summary||
Between Poor and Average
|Includes an executive summary but the summary does not mention problem, alternatives, criteria & recommendation||
Between Average and Excellent
|Includes a well laid out, precise executive summary that briefly mentions the problem, alternatives, criteria and recommendation|
|Problem Justification||10%||Does not include a justification of why the issue is a public problem||Provides a justification of why the issue is a public problem, but does not provide supporting evidence||Provides a good justification of why the issue is a public problem, with adequate supporting evidence|
|Background Analysis of the Problem||15%||Provides unclear/confusing problem analysis without supporting research (e.g. no case study)||Provides problem analysis that is somewhat supported by research (e.g.undeveloped case study, not related to policy alternatives)||Problem analysis that is well supported by research (e.g. a relevant case study that informs policy alternatives)|
|Evaluative Criteria||10%||Provides unclear/confusing criteria||Provides criteria (up to four) that are relevant to the topic but does not say how the criteria is measured||Provides clear relevant criteria (up to four) and clear measurements of each criterion|
|Policy Alternatives||20%||Provides unclear/confusing policy alternatives for the problem||Provides clear alternatives for the problem but the alternatives are not mutually exclusive||Provides clear, original, creative and mutually exclusive alternatives|
|15%||Does not evaluate the outcomes of each alternative with respect to each criterion||Briefly evaluates the outcomes of each alternative with respect to each criterion only||Thoroughly evaluates the outcomes of each alternative with respect to each criterion and explains the comparison|
|Data/ Evidence for alternatives
|10%||Does not provide any data or evidence for alternatives||Shows minimal data or evidence for alternatives (e.g. secondary data)||Shows original data or evidence for alternatives (e.g.student has interviewed at least one expert)|
|Criteria Alternatives Matrix||10%||Does not provide the Criteria Alternatives Matrix||Provides a minimally justified Criteria Alternatives Matrix||Provides a well-developed Criteria Alternatives Matrix|
|Conclusion/ Recommendations||5%||Has no final conclusion/ recommendation section||Has a few issues in the conclusion/ recommendations||Has well-developed conclusion/ recommendations|