Module 8 Peer Evaluation: Analyzing and Evaluating Social Policies Purpose The Peer Evaluation is a culmination exercise to demonstrate the student's successful application of all the knowledge acquired between Module 1 and 7. Students will use this knowledge to analyze and evaluate two Module 7 PowerPoint Presentations. Students will complete a peer evaluation review for two Module 7 PowerPoint Presentations. Students are required to provide a written peer evaluation review based on the Peer Evaluation Review Framework (Links to an external site.).

Requirements

1. The two Peer Evaluations are worth 190 points and will be graded on use of citations, use of Standard English grammar, sentence structure, and overall organization based on the required components as summarized in the directions and grading criteria/rubric.

2. Create your exercise using Microsoft Word. 3. Follow the directions and grading criteria closely. Any questions about your

assignment may be posted under the Q & A Forum. 4. APA format is required for all citations as well as the title page and reference

page. Use the required components of the review as Level 1 headings (upper and lower case, centered, boldface):

Criteria for the Content (Guidelines) Review the two Module 7 PowerPoint Presentations that you have been assigned, then complete a separate Peer Evaluation document for each of the PowerPoints. The Peer Evaluation document can be found in an embedded link at the end of this document.

See the detailed directions and grading criteria in the table below.

Directions and Grading Criteria Category Points Description

Comple Complete Peer Evaluation Framework

Review *Provides a thorough review of all 8 sections of the Peer Evaluation Framework Review*

40 • Provides a thorough review of all 8

sections of the Peer Evaluation

Framework Review.

Comprehensive justification of Peer Evaluation

Review Framework (8) sections **Advocacy Rationale, Policy Making Process, Building Policy Agenda, Fake News, Policy Key Questions and Analysis, Policy Changes, Policy Type, and Policy Reform (15 points each)*

120 • Provides a comprehensive

justification for of each section of

the Peer Evaluation Framework

Clarity of Writing 15 • Use of standard English grammar

and sentence

• No spelling errors or typographical

errors.

APA Style 15 • All information taken from another

source, even if summarized, must

be appropriately cited in problem

Statement and listed in the

references using APA format:

o Document Set up

o Title and reference pages

o Citations in the text and

references

Total 190 A quality assignment will meet or

exceed all of the above requirements.

Rubric Peer Evaluation: Analyzing and Evaluating Social Policies

Peer Evaluation: Analyzing and Evaluating Social Policies

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is

linked to a Learning

Outcome

Complete peer

evaluation framework

review

40 pts

Highest Level of

Performance

Thoroughly

reviews the two

assigned

PowerPoints and

provides

applicable Peer

Evaluation

Review.

30 pts

Very Good or

High Level of

Performance

Reviews the two

assigned

PowerPoints and

provides

appropriate review

for each item,

based on each

PowerPoint’s

content.

20 pts

Acceptable Level

of Performance

Reviews the two

assigned

PowerPoints, and

provides some

appropriate review

for some items,

based on each

PowerPoint’s

content.

0 pts

Failing Level of

Performance

There is little to no

indication that the

two assigned

PowerPoints were

reviewed, and ratings

were not appropriate

as they do not seem

to be based on each

PowerPoints content.

40 pts

Peer Evaluation: Analyzing and Evaluating Social Policies

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is

linked to a Learning

Outcome

Comprehensive

justification of Peer

Evaluation Review

Framework (8)

sections… Advocacy

Rationale, Policy

Making Process,

Building Policy

Agenda, Fake News,

Policy Key

Questions and

Analysis, Policy

Changes, Policy

Type, and Policy

Reform (15 points

each)

120 pts

Highest Level of

Performance

Provides thorough

justification for

each section; Uses

relevant course

reading citations

and concepts to

support statements

for each section.

100 pts

Very Good or

High Level of

Performance

Provides good

justification for

each section review

item; Uses course

relevant reading

citations and

concepts to support

statements for each

section.

80 pts

Acceptable Level

of Performance

Provides adequate

justification for

some sections of the

review; Uses

relevant course

reading citations

and concepts to

support some

statements for some

rating.

0 pts

Failing Level of

Performance

Fails to provide

justification for

rating scale items

for each

PowerPoint; Fails

to provide relevant

citations to support

statemen for each

rating.

120 pts

This criterion is

linked to a Learning

Outcome

Clarity of Writing 15 pts

Highest Level of

Performance

Excellent use of

standard English

showing original

thought. No

spelling or

grammar errors.

Well organized

with proper flow of

meaning.

10 pts

Very Good or High

Level of

Performance

Some evidence of

own expression and

competent use of

language. No more

than three spelling

or grammar errors.

Well organized

thoughts and

concepts.

5 pts

Acceptable Level

of Performance

Language needs

development. Four

or more spelling

and/or grammar

errors. Poorly

organized

thoughts and

concepts.

0 pts

Failing Level of

Performance

Language needs

significant

development. Five

or more spelling

and/or grammar

errors; fails to have

organized thoughts

and concepts.

15 pts

Peer Evaluation: Analyzing and Evaluating Social Policies

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is

linked to a Learning

OutcomeAPA Style 15 pts

Highest Level

of Performance

APA format is

correct with no

errors.

10 pts

Very Good or High

Level of

Performance

APA format is

mostly correct, with

no more than 1 to 2

minor errors.

5 pts

Acceptable Level of

Performance

APA formatting

contains multiple

errors and/or several

citations are missing.

0 pts

Failing Level of

Performance

APA formatting

not present and

citations are not

included.

15 pts

Module 1: Leveraging Social Work Practice and Policy Four Rationales of Advocacy

POLICY

In Module 1, we briefly discuss how social work advocates act as change agents to leverage Policy to foster social justice. We discuss micro (interactions with clients and their families), macro (local, state, and federal), and mezzo (organizations and communities) levels of advocacy (Jansson, 2018, pg. 32). We review Chapters 2 and 3 of the Jansson (2018) text. We review Jansson's four Rationales for Participating in Policy Advocacy: Ethical Rationale, Analytic Rationale, Political Rationale, and Electoral Rationale.

The ethical rationale for advocacy is foundational to social work practice. It focuses on combating disparities related to inequality, oppression, underrepresentation, and discrimination, leading to restricted opportunities and feelings of powerlessness. Ethical advocacy imagines a better tomorrow for the that: (1) respects the client's right to autonomy or self-determination and (2) empowers the client to advocate for themselves.

The analytic rationale is an evidence-based policy approach, focused on research and science (Jansson, 2018). Research can be used to justify the use of a certain treatment methodologies, programs and products. Depending on the Policy, special interest groups, legislators, and politicians can present research results to support or refute the credibility and feasibility of social policies.

The social work advocate who uses the political rationale wants to make to have a significant impact on the greatest number of people on the state or national level. To successfully execute such a significant endeavor, the social worker must work with individuals, communities, special interest groups, stakeholders, government officials, politicians, and legislators.

While the political rationale advocacy approach requires that the advocate be at the peripherals of the political process, the electoral process is a true deep dive into the political process. This approach requires formal affiliations with specific political parties (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) (Jansson, 2018). Application of the electoral rationale may require that advocates to set aside ethical considerations and sometimes analytical reasoning aside, in support of party affiliation (Jansson, 2018).

1. Advocacy Rationale !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After reviewing the two peer policy PowerPoints, what type of advocacy rationale do you think is being applied?

Does your peer clearly state what rationale they are applying to justify the new Policy, or did you have to come to a conclusion about the rationale on your own?

If your peer did provide a rationale, do you agree with the justification provided by your peer???

Diversity, Contextual Factors, and Policy

Context Matters when constructing Policy. All three levels, micro, mezzo, and macro, include internal factors, external factors, opportunities, and constraints. The consideration of contextual factors, opportunities, and constraints are foundational elements of Jansson's (2018) eight-task Systems Approach to Policy Making. The eight tasks of the policy are as follows (p. 71):

• Task 1: Deciding what is right and wrong • Task 2: Navigating policy and advocacy systems • Task 3: Agenda-setting • Task 4: Problem-analyzing • Task 5: Proposal writing • Task 6: Policy-enacting • Task 7: Policy-implementing • Task 8: Policy-assessing

The successful execution of the eight policy-making tasks required the application of the four rationales (ethical, analytic, political, and electoral) of advocacy at some point in the process. According to Jansson (2018), four policy skills or competencies must also be applied. These four essential competencies are (Jansson, 2018, p.80):

• Analytic skills to critically analyze the components of Policy • Political skills to leverage power with different groups of stakeholders • Interactional skills to collaborate with different groups such as committees and

coalitions • Value-clarifying skills to "identify relevant ethical principles when engaging in

policy practice"

2. Policy-Making Process!!!! !!!!!

After your review of the two-peer policy PowerPoints, has all eight tasks of the policy making process been applied to analysis and evaluation of existing policies?

What are the skills and essential competencies applied by your peer to develop the new social policy?

Module 2: Building Policy Agenda and Analyzing Policy

Module 2 focused on building policy agenda, which starts with identifying critical stakeholders like agency executives, community activists, and government officials. Even with the help of stakeholders, there will be challenges to building a compelling legislative agenda to develop meaningful policy. Jansson (2018) proposes a

three-phase model to help social work practitioners assess potential challenges. Policy advocates can embark on a three-phased approach to build policy agendas (p. 181):

• Diagnose the context • Soften and Moderate the context • Activate Change

Building Policy

The diagnosing the context is a "listening stage." (Jansson, 2018, p. 183), where policy advocates collect as much information as possible about the history of existing and emerging problems, as well as solutions, in the form of existing programs and policies. Advocate will apply several competency skills (political, analytic, interactional, and value-clarifying) to elicit information and gain awareness on important issues to develop a comprehensive policy agenda.

The soften and moderate the context phase is task 8 od Jansson's (2018) policy making process discussed in Module 1. Task 8 is the policy assessing task, which is a utilitarian, data-driven, research, and solution focused approach.

The activate change phase of the policy agenda building model is focused ona variety ofimportant actions including the following ten components identified by Jansson (2018, p. 189-190):

• Timing and windows of opportunity • Coupling • Framing and funding a title • Negotiating and bargaining • Assembling early sponsors • Routing • Media coverage • Setting key endorsements • Coalition building • Building momentum

The ten components identified by Jansson (2018) are not listed in sequential order, nor do they all have to occur to successfully build policy agenda. The components that the policy advocate must focuses on are dependent on the policy topic, the social issue, the target population, the stakeholders, special interest groups, legislators and politicians. Available funding, sponsorship and opposition should also be considered.

In Module 2, we also reviewed and discussed Jansson's (2018) Six Step Policy Analysis, Proposal-Writing, and Presentation Framework which includes the following steps:

• Familiarizing oneself with a social problem and set a goal or goals • Identify an array of relevant options • Comparing the relative merits of competing options

• Drafting proposals • Seeking supporters or funders for specific proposals • Making key presentations

To successfully complete the six steps policy advocates must identify and define the rationale for their policy advocacy efforts, as applying the appropriate skills and competencies.

3. Building New Policy Agenda

During your review of the two peer policy PowerPoints, can you clearly see the diagnosis, softening and moderating of context and activation of change to build new policy agenda?

Does the PowerPoint clearly apply the six steps of the Policy Analysis, Proposal-Writing, and Presentation Framework for Existing Policy and their Newly Created Policy?

Module 3: Impact of Social Media on Social Issues In Module 3, we examined how social media coverage, exchange of information and ideas influence perceptions of contemporary social issues that inform social policies. We defined and discussed the proliferation of fake news, misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and alternative facts. We also discussed how policy advocates are leveraging social media to provide awareness and promote social justice. We concluded Module 3 with a discussion on how to combat fake news.

There is no universal definition for fake news. For this course, we use the Webopedia (2019) definition of fake news:

Fake news, or hoax news, refers to false information or propaganda published under the guise of being authentic news. Fake news websites and channels push their fake news content in an attempt to mislead consumers of the content and spread misinformation via social networks and word-of-mouth.

Dictionary.com (2019) defines misinformation as "false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead, while Collins dictionary (2019) defines misinformation as "wrong information which is given to someone, often in a deliberate attempt to make them believe something which is not valid." Misinformation is often, does not start as intentionally malicious. Instead, it starts as news that people find interesting, concerning, and ultimately important enough to share with other people. As the information is shared, the misinformation spreads rapidly, quickly creating a group of people who genuinely believe it to be factual. The key to the spread of misinformation is successfully tapping into the shared biases of individuals and groups

Dictionary.com (2019) defines disinformation as "deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda, while Merrimack Webster dictionary (2019) defines disinformation as:

False information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth; false information that is given to people in order to make them believe something or to hide the truth.

Disinformation starts as intentional and is meant to be biased, and creators of the information fully understand that they may engage in propaganda. Disinformation campaigns are meant to influence perceptions with information that is manipulated and may be demonstrably false. Disinformation is intentionally malicious, meant to hurt or disadvantage specific individuals and particular groups.

Alternative facts are a subcategory of disinformation. Alternative facts are information that intentionally altered to present information favorable to a political or special interest group (Walters, 2019). Alternative facts are meant to confuse about basic facts, which then turns into misinformation that spreads, which thereby creates a new alternative reality made of false information that is experienced as genuine content by masses of social media users (Walters, 2019).

In the same way that information can be used to proliferate fake news, it can also be used responsibly to promote awareness about social policy. Social media can be used to educate the masses on policy objectives, goals, stakeholders, sponsors, supporting politicians, how to access services, register and utilize services. In the absence of bipartisan congressional efforts to pass policies to regulate the proliferation of fake news, disinformation campaigns and alternative facts, we have non-partisan, non- politically affiliated fact checker sites, such as PolitiFact, diligently investigate mistruths and present facts to the public.

4. Fake News

Does the TWO assigned peer policy PowerPoints, identify fake news, misinformation, or disinformation campaigns for existing policies?

How does the PowerPoint address how social media will be leveraged to promote the new policy?

Module 4: Analyzing Policy Options In Module 4, we used the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) methods and tools to analyze existing policy critically. Students completed a six-part CDC training: Introduction to Policy Analysis in Public Health. The public health and social work fields both focus on contextual factors, personal demographics, and personal histories that influence the sociological psychological, physical, and economic well- being of vulnerable populations. Students also reviewed the policy analysis table and policy analysis key questions as tools to analyze policy. The CDC tools will be used through Module 8 for the evaluation of existing and newly developed policies.

CDC Policy Making Process

The CDC (2016a) proposes five elements of Policy Making Process (slide 6):

• Policy identification • Policy analysis • Strategy and policy development • Policy enactment • Policy implementation

The CDC elements have some similarities to Jansson's (2018) policy agenda, policy making elements, and competencies from Module 1 and two. CDC also presents similar skills and competencies to accomplish the policy making process. The CDC key behaviors for the Policy Analysis Competency include the ability to (CDC, 2016a, slide 7):

• Develop a problem definition. (Describe a public health problem in terms of magnitude, population, and time and place, including associated risk and protective factors.)

• Collect and analyze background information relevant to the cause of the problem. • Identify policy options. and assess policy options against relevant criteria,

including benefits, risks, costs, and feasibility. • Select course(s) of action, including the preparation of communications regarding

the selected course(s) of action (e.g., presentations, decision memos, or policy briefs, which include a recommendation for action).

• Identify and understand the roles and perspectives of key stakeholders at federal, state, or local levels.

• Understand economic analysis methodologies (e.g., cost-benefit analysis or cost- effectiveness analysis) and their use in assessing policy options or existing policies.

The timing and windows of opportunity, (also identified in Jansson's (2018) "activate change phase) is crucial to the CDC policy development. The key condition "window of opportunity" can occur when the policy: (1) is congruent with the national mood; (2) enjoys interest group support; (3) lacks organized opposition; (4) fits the orientation of the prevailing legislative coalition or administration; (5) is technologically feasible; and (6) has budget workability(slide 10) (2016b).

Key Questions and Ranking Criteria

The CDC uses key questions and a ranking system to rate existing policies against established criteria. CDC (2018) developed two tools to help with this process:

• Policy Analysis: Key Questions • Policy Analysis Table

Both tools assist policy advocates with selecting the best policy options. This information can be presented to stakeholders and decision-makers. We reviewed the policy analysis key questions tool to help analyze the impact and feasibility of a policy. The tool poses several critical questions that policy makers should consider when assessing the benefits and limitations of policy options. We reviewed the policy analysis table, which rates the three criteria as low, medium, high. Both tools should be used, and the results included in the Module 7 PowerPoint to select the best policy options.

5. Policy Key Questions and Analysis

Does the two peer policy PowerPoints, use the Policy Key Questions and Policy Analysis tools?

What do the results tell you about existing policy options and the new policy presented by your peer?

Module 5: Evaluating Social Policies

In Module 5, we continued our use of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) methods and tools to evaluate existing policy critically. Students completed a six- part CDC online training: Introduction to Policy Evaluation in Public Health. We review the CDC (2016c) Framework for Evaluation in Public Health, which provides six practical steps and four sets of standards for designing and implementing an evaluation for social policies. The six steps of the CDC Evaluation framework are as follows (2016c):

• Engage stakeholders • Describe the program • Focus evaluation design • Gather credible evidence • Justify conclusions • Ensure use of findings and sharing lessons learned

The CDC framework provides four standards, which should be administered as a "lens to help" categorize and "isolate the best approaches at each step" (2016c, p. 10). These four standards are:

• Utility • Feasibility • Proprietary • Accuracy

The CDC also proposes five considerations for the Policy Making process (2016c):

• Identifying Impact • Collecting data • Working with stakeholders • Complying with Laws and Regulations • Dealing with Uncertainty

Policy evaluation can have many uses include the following outcomes (2016c):

• Document and inform the policy development, adoption, and implementation process.

• Determine policy effectiveness at improving targeted health outcomes. • Gauge support for proposed policies. • Assess compliance within existing policies. • Contribute to the evidence base. • Inform future policies and policy efforts. • Help identify results of policy efforts, including health outcomes.

The considerations for policy evaluation for the describing the policy effort domain includes a critical analysis of several components (2016d):

• Goals and Objectives of the Policy • Content of the Policy • Context Surrounding the Policy • Underlying Logic and Casual Pathways Supporting the Policy

Considerations for policy evaluations in the focusing the evaluation design domain of the evaluation process starts with reviewing the (2016d):

• Purpose of the policy evaluation • The user of the information • The use of the information

Gathering credible evidence in the policy evaluation is important to the policy evaluation framework. Selecting the right type of measures to accurately define outcome data is paramount. The CDC (2016d) evaluation framework presents two types of measures (p.22):

• Process measure – measures activities/outputs that have been developed correctly.

• Outcomes measure – measures the extent to which objectives are achieved.

There are three primary data collection methods: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Qualitative data collection methods include structured

interviews, Semi-structured interviews, focus groups, case studies and narratives. Quantitative data method includes surveys, questionnaires, and tracking tools that gather information on numerical. Qualitative data can be quantified but is initially collected as textual data. Mixed methods combine both qualitative and quantitative methods. The CDC (2016d) presents four types of data sources: surveillance data, administrative data, legislative or policy database, interview with stakeholders and focus groups (p. 22).

Justifying conclusions during the evaluation process includes, but is not limited to the following actions (CDC, 2016d, p. 21):

• Assess external and internal contextual factors related to policy changes • Explain results to develop evaluation questions, policy goals and logic models • Analyze and equate results to resolve inconsistencies from multiple data sources • Present data results to stakeholders in a way that is meaningful and

understandable

Presenting the evaluation results to stakeholders, policy makers, colleagues, partners and the public is critical. To ensure, that findings are reported and presented well, the CDC (2016d) recommends that the presenter adhere to four following:

• Know your audience. • Identify objectives of communications. • Consider the best frame for your message to meet the communication objectives. • Consider the methods you will use to deliver your message.

In an ideal world, policy evaluation would be a seamless process, with no deviations from CDC's (2016d) recommended six steps. However, this not a perfect world, and challenges to the policy evaluation process will arise. CDC (2016d) identifies nine common challenges:

• Fear of Evaluation and Lack of Familiarity with Policy Evaluation Methods • Lack of Control over Policy Implementation • External and Contextual Factors • Lack of Resources or Clear Responsibility for Evaluation • Conflicting Results • Occasional Rapid Pace of Policy; Desire for Quick Production of Results • Lack of Strong Evidence Base, Access to Appropriate Data, and Appropriate

Measures • Lag in Availability of Data • Challenges in Finding an Equivalent Comparison Group

6. Policy Challenges

After reviewing the two peer policy PowerPoints, what are the common policy challenges that you have identified for the new policy presented in each of the PowerPoints?

Module 6: Evidenced-Based Policies In Module 6, we discussed different types of evidence-based policies, supportive evidence for research evidence, and barriers to evidence-based policies. During the policy evaluation phase of policy making, policy advocates must be prepared to defend their arguments and debate the merits and drawbacks for specific policies. Evidence- based research provides the support needed to gain support and funding for social policies.

Evidence-Based Research

There are a whole host of policy types that can be assessed. Jansson (2018) lists the following eleven policy types:

• Needs meeting policies • Opportunity-enhancing policy • Social service policies • Referral and linkage policies • Civil rights policies • Human rights policies • Equality-enhancing policies • Asset accumulation policies • Infrastructure development policies • Economic development policies • Budget policies

Policy advocates must evaluate the effectiveness of programs throughout their career. Policy evaluations can be done on the micro, macro and mezzo levels. One of the first steps to organize research is to select what type of policy one is focused on constructing, analyzing and evaluating