SRAP5001 Policy Analysis
Last Modified: 19 March 2024
Assessment Brief
Summary of Information
Course and Term: SRAP5001 Policy Analysis – T1 2024
Title: Assessment 3 Policy Brief
Weighting: 50 %
Assessment type: Policy brief
Total word count: 2000 words ( +/- 10% )
Group work: No
Due date: 24 April 2024, 11:59pm
Assessment Description:
In this written assessment task, you will present a policy brief in two parts on a current issue of your choice. The brief will
provide policy analysis for two different audiences.
The two parts of your policy brief will be roughly equal in length or word count, and will address the same policy issue. Both
parts should conclude with clear recommendations for the chosen audience.
1. Part 1 - Analysis for policy: This first piece will be written for a layperson audience (such as a briefing for or on behalf of
a community organisation or interest group), using style and language appropriate for a non-expert audience. Do not
assume that your audience has any prior knowledge of the issue. You should aim to make your writing as accessible
and readable as possible, using headings, dot points, images and graphs where appropriate. You should show your
sources using hyperlinks in the text, and naming key authors or experts in your text. You must include all your
sources written out in full in a reference list.
2. Part 2 - Analysis of policy: The second piece will be written for an academic audience (such as a research centre or
think tank), using academic written conventions. This piece will be written in the style of a short essay or editorial,
and can draw explicitly on relevant policy theory. You must include in-text citations and a bibliography (following the
SOSS Referencing Guide).
References and bibliographic material are not counted in the word limit.
How to complete the assessment:
This task is designed to demonstrate your understanding of the policy process, drawn from the course materials throughout
the term. You should think critically and analytically about the concepts, models and theories that explain how policy is made,
and use this understanding to develop your policy analysis in the policy brief.
Some tips and advice:
• First, choose your policy issue: this should be a policy issue that has been publicly debated in the last 3 to 6 months
in Australia. Pay careful attention to whether the issue is a federal or state government responsibility.
• Research your issue carefully. You should collect a variety of relevant information and evidence, including scholarly
and non-academic sources.
• Clarify the issue that is at stake, and narrow your scope. Do not try to cover too much, or too big an issue (e.g.
‘climate change’). The more tightly focused your problem definition is (e.g. low uptake of electric vehicles), the more
persuasive you can be.
• Reflect on the political context, and make sure that you align your recommendations with the interests, ideology and
priorities of the person/organisation for whom you are writing the brief.
• Clearly identify the audience that you are writing for, in each part of your brief.
• Make sure your recommendations are realistic and precise, and written in dot points, as imperatives – e.g. “That the
Department allocate funding to…”
• Note that a significant part of this task is about distilling complex evidence and competing perspectives into a clear,
coherent and well-supported argument. It can take much longer than you think to draft and edit an effective brief.
Make sure you allow yourself time to revise and edit your work.
2
Samples of policy brief work from previous classes can be found on Moodle.

Course Learning Outcomes addressed in this task:
• CLO1 : Apply relevant theoretical concepts to explain how policy is made
• CLO2 : Analyse the role of different actors and institutions in influencing policy in a specific policy context
• CLO3 : Critically evaluate different kinds of evidence and use this to develop coherent and persuasive policy advice
• CLO4 : Communicate research findings accurately and clearly using a range of techniques (written, spoken, visual)

Submission requirements:

Electronic Submission:
What to submit: Please submit your assessment as a Word document. Do not submit a PDF.
Where to submit: Submit via Turnitin, in the Assessments Hub on Moodle Note that you can only submit your document
once, and you will not be able to see the Turnitin similarity report.
Due date: Wednesday 24 April 2024 11:59 PM
Please note:
• The standard UNSW penalty for late submission applies to this task – 5% per calendar day up to a cap of 5 days
(120 hours) after the deadline. No work can be accepted for marking after this time.
• Please familiarise yourself with the information on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism in the Course Outline.
Short Extensions:
A short extension of up to 5 days is allowed for this task. You must apply for this before the due date and time through the
Short Extension portal on the Special Consideration website, here https://specialconsideration.unsw.edu.au/
Acceptable use of Generative AI:
Drafting assistance
As this assessment task involves some planning or creative processes, you are permitted to use software to generate initial
drafts, ideas or layout (though you are not required to do so). However, you must develop or edit those ideas to such a
significant extent that what is submitted is your own work, i.e., what is generated by the software should not be a part of your
final submission. It is a good idea to keep copies of your initial drafts to show your lecturer if there is any uncertainty about
the originality of your work.
Please note that your submission will be passed through an AI-text detection tool. If your marker has concerns that your
answer contains passages of AI-generated text that have not been sufficiently modified you may be asked to explain your
work, but we recognise that you are permitted to use AI generated text as a starting point and some traces may remain. If you
are unable to satisfactorily demonstrate your understanding of your submission you may be referred to UNSW Conduct &
Integrity Office for investigation for academic misconduct and possible penalties.
How you will receive feedback for this task:
Students will receive written feedback and a numerical grade through the Turnitin Feedback Studio in Moodle. These will be
released when end of term results are finalised.
The marking rubric for this task can be found on the next page.
3
Assessment Criteria:
Criterion Fail < 50% Pass 51-64% Credit 65-74% Distinction 75-84% High Distinction 85% +
Argument Does not present a clear
argument and/or provides
an inadequate argument in
terms of relevance, logic
and consistency.
Recommendations are
unsupported and/or
unrealistic.
Some argument presented,
but with weaknesses in
relation to relevance, logic,
consistency, coherence
and sustainability.
Recommendations are
realistic and broadly
supported by the
argument.
Puts forward a competent
argument which is logical,
consistent, coherent and
sustained throughout the
brief. Some attempt to use
relevant theoretical
concepts.
Recommendations are
realistic and well
supported by the
argument.
Strong argument in terms
of complexity, logic,
consistency and coherence
that makes good use of
relevant theoretical
concepts.
Recommendations are
attuned to the political and
policy context and
effectively supported by
the argument.
Argument is highly
complex, logical, consist,
and engaging. Shows a
strong development of
conceptual/ theoretical
points. Recommendations
are highly attuned to the
political and policy context
and highly persuasive.
Critical
Analysis
No real attempt at critical
analysis of opposing
viewpoints. Highly
descriptive.
Analysis at a largely
descriptive level. Does
makes some attempts at
critical analysis of
opposing viewpoints but
with deficiencies in terms
of logic, rigor and fairness.
Good analysis of opposing
views - logical, consistent
and fair evaluation of
opposing arguments.
Attempts to provide some
original and creative
contribution to debate.
Strong critical analysis,
well evaluated in terms of
logic, rigour and fairness.
Attempts to get behind the
evidence via engagement
with underlying
assumptions. An original
and creative contribution to
debate.
Sharp and insightful critical
analysis, excellent
interrogation of underlying
assumptions and
contested concepts. Highly
original and creative
contribution to debate.
Knowledge &
Understanding
Content based on shallow
reading, demonstrates
poor understanding of
topic and the policy
context, substantial
inaccuracies in knowledge.
May paraphrase to an
unacceptable level.
Work demonstrating a
largely broad and
descriptive knowledge of
the relevant subject matter
and the policy context but
with overall accuracy.
Tendency to over-
paraphrase in parts.
Highly competent work
showing a deep and
accurate understanding of
the subject matter and the
policy context. Evidence of
relatively wide reading.
Also attempts to apply
theoretical knowledge.
Superior work showing in-
depth and highly accurate
knowledge of relevant
subject matter and the
policy context. Evidence of
wide reading and
understanding of
theoretical concepts and a
good attempt to apply this
knowledge.
Exceptional in-depth
knowledge of the relevant
subject matter and the
policy context. Clearly
demonstrated
understanding of
theoretical concepts and
applies this knowledge in a
sophisticated manner.
Evidence of very wide
reading and insightful
interpretation of evidence.
Evidence/
Resources
Evidence used is largely
irrelevant, arguments not
supported by evidence, use
of non-academic sources
to an unacceptable level.
Evidence used is relevant
to the topic, on the whole,
and provides support for
the arguments made, but
with some weaknesses.
Some use of relevant
examples. Use of scholarly
sources most of the time.
Arguments supported by
solid range of relevant
academic/scholarly
sources. Good use of
relevant examples.
Use of a wide range of
highly relevant academic
sources. Insightful use of
relevant examples.
Evidence clearly supports
the arguments presented.
Use of a very wide range of
highly relevant academic
sources which clearly
support the arguments
presented. Insightful and
creative use of relevant
examples.
Adapted to
audience
Has not addressed policy
brief to 2 different
audiences (lay person and
academic). Language and
presentation poorly
targeted to needs of
different audiences
Has addressed same issue
in policy briefs to 2
different audiences (lay
person and academic).
Language is adapted to
needs of different
audiences, but with some
weaknesses.
Has addressed same issue
in policy briefs to 2
different audiences (lay
person and academic).
Language and style are
appropriately adapted to
needs of the different
audiences.
Has addressed same issue
in policy briefs to 2
different audiences (lay
person and academic).
Language and style are
appropriately and
effectively adapted to
needs and expectations of
different audiences.
Has addressed same issue
in policy briefs to 2
different audiences (lay
person and academic).
Language and style are
effectively and
imaginatively adapted to
needs and expectations of
different audiences.
Structure/
Organisation
Inconsistent and illogical
structure, purpose of large
sections is unclear. Poor
use of sign-posting making
the argument very difficult
to follow. Ineffective use
of introduction and
conclusion. May be over or
under the required word
length.
Structure is generally
logical and consistent but
with some weaknesses
with coherence and clarity.
Attempt made to use
introduction and
conclusion to structure
ideas raised but with
deficiencies. May be over
or under required word
length.
Majority of the brief is well
organised with logic and
coherence, evidence of
linkages/signposting of
arguments. Good use of
introduction and
conclusion as structuring
tools. Keeps within
required word length.
Logical, coherent and
consistent structure
throughout, supportive of
main arguments
presented. Purpose of
paragraphs/subsections
clear through good use of
signposting. Developed
use of introduction and
conclusion to structure
argument made. Keeps
within required word-
length.
Highly logical and
consistent structure
throughout which strongly
supports the arguments
presented. Content highly
purposeful with excellent
use of signposting.
Excellent use of
introduction and
conclusion as structuring
tools. Keeps within
required word length.
Style &
Presentation
Serious problems with
grammar and expression
making the argument very
difficult or impossible to be
understood.
Correct English grammar
and expression on the
whole. Meaning is
generally clear, but with
some minor problems.
Low level of spelling and
typographical errors.
Correct English Grammar
and expression throughout.
Meaning is clear. Rare
spelling and typographical
errors.
Correct use of English
grammar and expression.
Language used is clearly
understandable, with
evidence of creativity and
flair.
Correct use of English
grammar, clear expression,
shows high level of
creativity and flair in the
use of language.
Referencing Significant levels of
incorrect academic
referencing and/or
plagiarism.
Fair use of sources, most
of the time. Correct use of
referencing styles with
some minor errors.
Fair use of sources
throughout, referencing
styles used correctly with
rare errors.
Fair use of sources, no
evidence of plagiarism,
correct use of referencing
styles throughout.
Fair use of sources with no
evidence of plagiarism,
correct use of referencing
styles throughout.