Instructions: Policy RecommendationBased on your evaluation of the policy initiative in two states, choose the best policy model that would work in your state. Construct an argument for why it is the

POL 309 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview Professionals in state and local government encounter all kinds of policy challenges, from road -funding issues to environmental regulations to navigating state healthcare exchanges mandated by the federal government. Many times, policy makers look to other state governments to find model programs that can be used to address policy problems in their own states or cities. In this respect, practitioners must have the research skills necess ary to look a t other state and local government policies for realistic models that may work in their own state or locality. Imagine you are making a policy recomm endation to your supervisor, either in the state legislature, city council, or a state government agency, r egarding a policy initiative that would be most viable in your home state. The assessment for this course involves researching a state policy issue and how two states have addressed this issue; analyzing why policy deci sions and outcomes differ based on po litical culture, partisan balance, and public opinion; and recommending which policy initiative is the most realistic or work able solution for policy change in your home state. Topic: The first decision you need to make is selecting a policy issue. Below is a list of possible policy issues to ch oose from. This is not an exhaustive list. You will need to narrow down the chosen policy issue to a specific area or concentration that you can research within eight weeks. Education (K -12) Driver Licensing Health care Property Taxes Criminal Justice Sales Tax Transportation / Road Funding Insurance Regulation Welfare Child Care Higher Education Child Protective Services Gun Rights / Gun Control State Parks and Recreation Tourism Hunting and Fishing Environment SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program ) Natural Resources Income Tax Reform Agriculture Consumer Protection Energy This project will assess your mastery with respect to the following course outcomes:  POL -309 -01: Analyze the relationship between modern federalism and current economic, political, and social state policy issues  POL -309 -02: Evaluate various state legislative outcomes based on differences in political cultures throughout the United States  POL -309 -03: Compare and contrast state election and voting patterns based on partisanship, political cultures, and institutional rules  POL -309 -04: Assess the effects of state and federal policy mandates on local government organizational structures  POL -309 -05: Analyze state policy -making processes from the perspectives of state legislatures, gubernatorial powers, state judicial systems, and citizens  POL -309 -06: Propose viable policy solutions based on an analysis of political, institutional, and electoral cond itions Prompt Your paper should answer the following questions: How do states compare in addressing a particular policy issue? How do polic y decisions and outcomes differ based on political culture, partisan balance, and public opinion? Which policy init iative is the most realistic or workable solution for policy change in your home state? Specifically , the following critical elements must be addressed: I. Introduction: Policy Problem A. What is the policy problem that needs to be addressed? B. How long has this policy been in place? In other words, outline the history of the policy at the federal level and in your individual states. C. Have there been recent attempts at reforms or changes at the state or federal level? Why? If so, what happened? If not, why? D. Why is the policy problem important in your chosen states? In other words, why does it need to be addressed? Be sure to i nclude other information that will establish a robust context for analyzing the policy problem within your chosen states. II. Comparative Analysis, State: What are the two states that you will be evaluating? How are these states similar to or different from your home state, making them a useful comparison for study? In other words, how does each state (your two chosen states and your home state) compare and contrast to the other s relative to the following: A. Political cultures B. Local governments C. Structure of state legislatures D. State judicial systems E. Geographic areas (urban/rural states) F. Gubernatorial (governor) powers G. Do your states use citizen initiatives ? If so, how difficult is it for initiatives to be placed on the ballot? How do initiative results serve as examples of the level of popular control over policy making in the states chosen? How do they differ? If your chosen states d o not use citizen initiatives, why do they not? H. Analyze each state by comparing and contrasting state referendums that were used in the past. Historically, did any of your states vote on referendums that produced completely different results? What happened ? Why did this occur? What factors impacted the results ? I. Discuss issue -related federal mandates, grant programs, or federal court rulings that have pushed your states or local governments to address the policy problem. If they are not applicable to either of your chosen states, discuss how federal mandates, grant programs, or federal court rulings have affected other states in relation to the policy problem. III. Comparative Analysis, Policy: Compare each policy outcome within each state. In other words, how di d the outcome of ad dressing the policy issue yield differences in results relative to variations in: A. Political cultures B. Structure of state legislatures and partisan balance C. State judicial systems D. Geographic areas (urban/rural states) E. Local governments F. Gube rnatorial powers G. The states’ levels of party competition IV. Policy Recommendation: Based on your evaluation of the chosen policy initiative in two states, choose the best polic y model that would work in your state. Construct an argument for why it is the most viable choice for your state. A. What policy do you recommend for your home state? How would your policy recommendation address the problem in your state ? Provide rationale for your recommendations. B. Would your recommendation likely pass the state legisla ture and be supported by the governor in your state? If so, why? If not, why do you anticipate a lack of support for this initiative? C. What will be required at the local -government level to implement this policy? Why are these actions necessary? D. How will th is policy initiative be funded : federal, state, o r both? Will federal grants or waivers need to be acquired? If so, which types of grants would be necessary to implement this policy change? V. Support of Policy Recommendation: Predict whether or not this pol icy would be supported by the public. A. Based on state election and voting patterns , predict how your policy recommendation will fare in your home state. B. Based on the institutional rules in your home state, predict how your policy recommendation will fare in this region Milestones Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading One Introduction (Draft) One Graded separately; Milestone One Rubric Two Comparative Analysis I Two Graded separately; Milestone Two Rubric Three Comparative Analysis II Three Graded separately; Milestone Three Rubric Four Comparative Analysis III Four Graded separately; Milestone Four Rubric Five Comparative Analysis IV Five Graded separately; Milestone Five Rubric Final Project Submission : State Policy Seven Graded separately; Final Project Rubric Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your final paper should be a 10 - to 12 -page Microsoft Word document. Use double spacing, 12 -point Times New Roman font, and one -inch margins. You must have a minimum of three scholarly article s and three government document s for your paper . Cite all references in APA format. Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Pro ficient ( 85 %) Needs Improvement ( 55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Introduction: Policy Problem Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Identifies a policy problem within home state and explains why it needs to be addressed using supporting evidence Identifies a policy problem within home state, but submission lacks supporting evidence as to why the policy needs to be addressed Does not identify a policy problem that needs to be addressed 3.7 Introduction: History of the Policy Meets “Proficient” criteria and describes cultural shifts and trends that influenced the identified key events Describes history of identified policy problem at the federal and state level through the identification of key events Describes history of identified policy problem, but lacks key events Does not describe the history of identified policy problem 3.7 Introduction: Policy Reforms Meets “Proficient” criteria and describes how changes (or a lack of change) impacted federal, state, and local government using scholarly research Describes attempts at reform or recent changes to the policy, and the reasons for the attempted changes are c learly explained If no changes have been made to the policy, reasons why the policy has remained the same are clearly explained Describes attempts at reform or recent changes to the policy, but lacks explanations for why changes were or were not attempted Does not identify whether or not changes to the identified policy have been attempted 3.7 Introduction: Policy Importance Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Describes the importance of the policy problem on feder al, state, and local government, and the value of changing the identified policy is clearly identified Describes the importance of the policy problem on one level of government and/or does not clearly identify the value of changing the identified policy Does not describe the importance of the identified policy on government or the value in changing the policy 3.7 Comparative Analysis, State: Political Cultures Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes each state b y comparing and contrasting political cultures Analyzes each state by compari ng and contrasting political cultures, but overlooks relevant factors Does not analyze each state’s political cultures 3.7 Comparative Analysis, State: Local Governments Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research and examples Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting local government structures and methods of implementing policies Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting loc al government structures, but does not discuss the methods of implementing policies Does not analyze differences in state local governments 3.7 Comparative Analysis, State: State Legislatures Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research on state legislatures Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state legislatures Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state legislatures, but overlooks important characteristics of state legislatures Does not analyze each state’s state legislature 3.7 Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Pro ficient ( 85 %) Needs Improvement ( 55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Comparative Analysis, State: Judicial Systems Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research on state judicial systems Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state judicial systems Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state judicial systems, but overlooks important characteristics of state judicial systems Does not analyze each state’s judicial system 3.7 Comparative Analysis, State: Geographic Areas Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research on how differences in state geography affect policy making Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting geographic differ ences that play an important role in shaping public policy Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting geographic dif ferences that play an important rol e in shaping public policy, but overlooks important geographic characteristics that are relevant Does not ana lyze state geographical differences 3.7 Comparative Analysis, State: Gubernatorial Powers Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research on differences in gubernatorial powers Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state gubernatorial (governor) powers Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state gubernatorial (governor) powers, but the analysis lacks key similarities and differences Does not analyze state gubernatorial powers 3.7 Comparative Analysis, State: Citizen Initiatives Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research on similarities and differences in citizen initiatives Analyzes each state’s level of public pol icy making by comparing and contrasting whether the state uses citizen init iatives and ho w difficult it is for initiatives to be placed on the ballot, and compares and contrasts initiative results as examples of the level of popular control over policy making in the states chosen If the chosen states do not use citizen initiatives, the analysis includes a discussion of why this is the case Analyzes each state’s level of public policy making by comparing and con trasting whether the state uses citizen initiatives, but lacks impor tant differences in states’ use of these initiatives Does not analyze states’ use of citizen initiatives 3.7 Comparative Analysis, State: Referendums Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research on differences in state referendum use Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state referendums that were used in the past Analyzes each state by comparing and contrasting state referendums used in the past, but overlooks relevant factors Does not analyze states’ use of referendums 3.7 Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Pro ficient ( 85 %) Needs Improvement ( 55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Comparative Analysis, State: Federal Mandates, Grant Programs, Federal Court Rulings Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with specific, relevant examples Discusses federal mandates, grant programs, or court rulings and their effects on state or local government in relation to the policy problem Discusses federal mandates, grant programs, or court rulings, but misses key effects on state or local government in relation to the policy problem Does not discuss federal mandates, grant programs, or court rulings 3.7 Comparative Analysis, Policy: Political Cultures Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes policy outcome differences with respect to variations in political culture Analyzes policy outcome differences with respect to varia tions in political culture, but ana lysis is not clear and lacks sufficient detail Does not analyze policy outcome differences with respect to variations in political culture 3.7 Comparative Analysis, Policy: State Legislatures and Partisan Balance Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in state legislature structure and partisan balances Analyzes pol icy outcome differences based on variations in state legislature structure, but does not analyz e partisan balances, or lacks sufficient detail Does not analyze policy outcome differences based on variations in state legislature structure and partisan balan ces 3.7 Comparative Analysis, Policy: Judicial Systems Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in state judicial systems Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in state judicial systems, but lacks sufficient detail Does not analyze policy outcome differences based on variations in state judicial systems 3.7 Comparative Analysis, Policy: Geographic Areas Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in state geographic area s Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in state geographic areas, but lacks sufficient detail Does not analyze how state policy outcomes differ in relation to geographic areas 3.7 Local Governments Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in local governments Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in local governments, but lacks sufficient detail Does not analyze policy outcome differences based on variations in local governments 3.7 Comparative Analysis, Policy: Gubernatorial Powers Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in gubernatorial powers and gubernatorial policy leadership Analyzes policy outcome differences based on variations in gubernatorial powers, but overlooks key differences in policy leadership Does not analyze policy outcome differences based on variations in gubernatorial powers 3.7 Comparative Analysis, Policy: Party Competition Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates claims with scholarly research Analyzes state policy outcome differences in relation to variations in party competition levels Analyzes state policy outcome differences in relation to variations in party competition levels, but overlooks relevant factors Does not explain policy outcome differences in relation to differences in state party competition 3.7 Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Pro ficient ( 85 %) Needs Improvement ( 55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Policy Recommendation: Addressing the Problem in Your State Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates argument with in - depth analytical detail Makes a policy recommendation for the student’s home state, explains how the recommendation addresses the problem in this state, and provides rationale for the recommendation Makes a policy recommendation for the student’s home state, but does not explain how the recommendation addresses the problem in this state , or does not provide rationale for the recommendation Does not make a policy recommendation 3.7 Policy Recommendation: Legislature Support Meets “Proficient” criteria and substantiates argument with extensive supporting evidence and examples of why this would be supported Explains whether or not the selected policy recommendation would be supported by the legislature and governor and provides rationale for the recommendation Explains whether the selec ted policy model would be supported by the legislature and governor, but does not provide rationale for the recommendation Does not explain whether the selected policy would be supported by the legislature and governor 3.7 Policy Recommendation: Local Government Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides in -depth explanation for what would be needed to achieve policy coordination between local, state, and federal governments to enact the policy; u ses examples from the model states studied Explains what wo uld be required for local governments in the student’s home state to implement this policy model and why these actions are needed Explains what would be required for local governments in the student’s home state to implement this policy model, but does not explain why these actions are needed Does not explain what would be required at the local level to implement the selected policy model 3.7 Policy Recommendation: Funding Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides well -supported examples for why the grants and waivers identified would be most effective for this policy model to work in the student’s home state Explains how the policy initiative would require federal or state funding, and whether or not federal grants or wai vers would need to be acquired —and i f so, explains which types of grants would be necessary to implement this policy change Explains how the policy initiative would require federal or state funding, but does not address whether or not federal grants or waivers would need to be acquired , or does not explain which types of grants would be necessary to implement this policy change Does not explain what types of state funding or federal grants and waivers would be needed to enact the selected policy model 3.7 Support of Policy Recommendation: Election and Voting Patterns Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides credible evidence in the form of public -opinion, election, and initiative data to support the case for why the policy model would or would not be supported Predicts whether or not the pu blic would support this policy model based on state election and voting patterns Predicts whether or not the public would support this policy model based on state election and voting patterns, but there are gaps in logic Does not predict whether or not the recommended policy would be supported by the public 3.7 Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Pro ficient ( 85 %) Needs Improvement ( 55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Support of Policy Recommendation: Institutional Rules Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides relevant, concrete examples to substantiate claims Predicts how the policy recommendation would fare in the region based on institutional rules Predicts how the policy recommendation would fare in the region based on institutional rules, but there are gaps in logic Does not predict how the policy recommendation would fare in the region 3.7 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy -to-read format Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organizati on Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organizatio n that prevent understanding of ideas 3.8 Total 100%