- Governmental Accounting OfficeLinks to an external site.
- Public AgendaLinks to an external site.
- RAND CorporationLinks to an external site.
- Policy LibraryLinks to an external site.
- American Enterprise InstituteLinks to an external site.
- Cato InstituteLinks to an external site.
- Economic Policy InstituteLinks to an external site.
- The Heritage FoundationLinks to an external site.
Scenario
Use the policy you selected from the
Scenario
Use the policy you selected from the Policy Identification and Analysis assignment in Week 3 to research a published study related to your chosen area of focus. Then, prepare an Executive Summary with the following criteria listed for this assignment.
Write a 2–3 page paper in which you:
- Establish the purpose(s) of the executive summary.
- Provide the background to the issue.
- Discuss the results of the research, identifying the models used to obtain the results.
- Discuss appropriate economic predictors.
- Propose at least two reliable, implementable recommendations.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
- Appropriately incorporate at least two quality sources. A quality source can be either grey literature, such as a news article, or scholarly, such as peer-reviewed/professional industry references. In the case of public administration, government or nonprofit websites are appropriate quality resources.
- Wikipedia, SparkNotes, and similar websites do not qualify as academic resources. Visit the Strayer University Library to conduct research.
- This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The library is your home for SWS assistance, including citations and formatting. Please refer to the Library site for all support. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
The course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
- Create persuasive and targeted communications informed by policy analysis and research.
| Week 10 Assignment – The Executive Summary | ||
|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
|
Establishes the purpose(s) of the executive summary.
view longer description
|
22.5 to >20.25 pts
Exemplary
Thoroughly established the purpose(s) of the executive summary. 20.25 to >18 pts
Competent
Satisfactorily established the purpose(s) of the executive summary. 18 to >15.75 pts
Needs Improvement
Partially established the purpose(s) of the executive summary. 15.75 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not submit or incompletely established the purpose(s) of the executive summary. |
/ 22.5 pts
|
|
Provides the background to the issue.
view longer description
|
22.5 to >20.25 pts
Exemplary
Thoroughly provided the background to the issue. 20.25 to >18 pts
Competent
Satisfactorily provided the background to the issue. 18 to >15.75 pts
Needs Improvement
Partially provided the background to the issue. 15.75 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not submit or incompletely provided the background to the issue. |
/ 22.5 pts
|
|
Discusses the results of the research, identifying the models used to obtain the results.
view longer description
|
22.5 to >20.25 pts
Exemplary
Thoroughly discussed the results of the research, identifying the models used to obtain the results. 20.25 to >18 pts
Competent
Satisfactorily discussed the results of the research, identifying the models used to obtain the results. 18 to >15.75 pts
Needs Improvement
Partially discussed the results of the research, identifying the models used to obtain the results. 15.75 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not submit or incompletely discussed the results of the research, identifying the models used to obtain the results. |
/ 22.5 pts
|
|
Discusses appropriate economic predictors.
view longer description
|
30 to >27 pts
Exemplary
Thoroughly discussed appropriate economic predictors. 27 to >24 pts
Competent
Satisfactorily discussed appropriate economic predictors. 24 to >21 pts
Needs Improvement
Partially discussed appropriate economic predictors. 21 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not submit or incompletely discussed appropriate economic predictors. |
/ 30 pts
|
|
Proposes at least two reliable, implementable recommendations.
view longer description
|
30 to >27 pts
Exemplary
Thoroughly proposed at least two reliable, implementable recommendations. 27 to >24 pts
Competent
Satisfactorily proposed at least two reliable, implementable recommendations. 24 to >21 pts
Needs Improvement
Partially proposed at least two reliable, implementable recommendations. 21 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not submit or incompletely proposed at least two reliable, implementable recommendations. |
/ 30 pts
|
|
Two references.
view longer description
|
7.5 to >6.75 pts
Exemplary
Exceeded the number of required references; all references were high-quality choices. 6.75 to >6 pts
Competent
Met the number of required references; most references were quality choices. 6 to >5.25 pts
Needs Improvement
Met the required number of references; some or all references were poor-quality choices. 5.25 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not meet the required number of references. |
/ 7.5 pts
|
|
Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements.
view longer description
|
15 to >13.5 pts
Exemplary
0-2 errors present. 13.5 to >12 pts
Competent
3-4 errors present. 12 to >10.5 pts
Needs Improvement
5-6 errors present. 10.5 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
More than 6 errors present. |
/ 15 pts
|
| Total Points: 0 |
Choose a submission type