Practical and Theoretical Policy Evaluation
7QQMM418 Assessment 2 – Policy Brief
1
7QQMM418 – Practical and Theoretical Policy
Evaluation
Assessment 2 – Individual Coursework
(80% of total module grade)
Lead Instructor: Dr Clare FitzGerald
Dr Chiamaka Nwosu
Instructor’s email: clare.fitzgerald@kcl.ac.uk
chiamaka.2.nwosu@kcl.ac.uk
Submission
Deadline:
via KEATS by 10:00
on Monday 24th
April 2023
Submission checklist 1. File saved as
[ModuleCode_CandidateNumber]
2. Word count (3,500 words)
3. File format for submission (.pdf /
.docx)
The Task
The policy brief is worth 80% of your assessed grade for this module. To successfully write the policy brief,
you will respond to either topic A or B below (not both). You will supplement module reading with
additional literature relevant to your topic. You may draw on published evaluations and data to support
your arguments.
Using an existing evidence base to select a programme Topic A:
A minister has approached you to inform them on their decision of whether to fund a particular
intervention to address a particular policy problem (both defined by you). Draft a briefing note
which critically assesses the existing evidence base on this intervention, provides insight on the
potential costs and benefits of funding it in context, and makes a concrete recommendation on
funding to your minister.
Example interventions could include (but are not limited to): Housing First, Functional Family
Therapy, Mockingbird Foster Care, Nurse Family Partnership.
Expanding the existing evidence base using evaluation Topic B:
A minister has approached you to help them design an evaluation for a soon-to-be launched
programme. Draft a briefing note which outlines key evaluation questions, suggests methods for
addressing them, and makes concrete recommendations to your minister on how they should
move forward with evaluation efforts.
You may choose from any of the aforementioned interventions or suggest your own. You might
even consider fleshing out the evaluation approach first outlined in your policy brief from The Public
Policy-Making Process 7SSMM417.
2
Module Learning Outcomes Assessed
1. Your ability to articulate useful evaluation questions
2. Your ability to select appropriate evaluation methods aligned to priority evaluation question(s)
3. Your ability to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different methodological approaches
4. Your ability to design and/or interpret evaluation outputs to inform decisions
5. Your ability to produce written work that communicates complex information in a clear and
accessible way to a specialised audience.
Assignment Details and Structure
How you structure your policy brief is up to you, but keep in mind your audience: ministers are informed
readers, but rarely experts in a field and notoriously short on time. Your briefing note should consistently
guide the reader through the most important elements of each section and clearly support a particular
recommendation for future action. It is also critical that your note is fully and consistently referenced.
Subject to whether you choose topic A or B, you may include some discussion of the following in an order
that supports your recommendation:
• The policy problem being addressed
• The context in which the policy, intervention or programme would/will operate
• A description of the proposed intervention and its causal theory
• What is already known about the efficacy of the intervention including:
o A summary of the existing evidence base including central evaluation questions which
have been addressed
o An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing evidence base
o A summary of any contextual and subgroup considerations (under what conditions does
the intervention work and for whom)
o How the performance of the programme in other contexts likely compares to yours
o What is not known about the efficacy of the intervention as relevant to your context
• How your minister should move forward
o Topic A: Your recommendation on whether to fund the intervention
o Topic B: Your evaluation design
General Submission Requirements
Assessment submission instructions:
1. File saved as [ModuleCode_CandidateNumber]
2. Word count (3,500 words)
3. File format for submission (.pdf / .docx)
Further particulars about the assessment:
• The essay should be no longer than 3,500 words. References are not included in the word count.
Beyond the 10% leeway, there are penalties for exceeding the stated word limit.
• The essay must be submitted before 10am 24 April 2023.
• If you have legitimate reasons for submitting your essay late, please follow procedure and submit a
mitigating circumstances form.
• Do not plagiarise. For more on what constitutes plagiarism, go here:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/orgstructure/ps/acservices/conduct/student-guidanceon-
plagiarism.pdf
3
Assessment Support Information
Throughout the module, pre-recorded lectures and workshops have been designed to develop your
knowledge of key ideas, theories and concepts of policy evaluation along with your evaluation synthesis
and design skills. This assessment requires you to demonstrate the breadth and depth of knowledge you
have gained over the term in an applied format. In particular, feedback on your case study reflection and
the taught case study on children’s welfare services in Essex are structured to support you to develop your
ability to synthesize evaluation evidence and design well-specified evaluation approaches.
Practical and Theoretical Policy Evaluation
7QQMM418 Assessment 2 – Policy Brief
4
Marking Criteria
Distinction 70+: An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability
Understanding Depth of Knowledge Structure General
Advanced, in-depth, authoritative,
full understanding of key issues
with evidence of originality
Complex work and key issues
analysed Wide range of sources
used selectively to support
argument/discussion
Strong evidence of critical
approach to key issues and ability
to evaluate arguments
Coherent and compelling work
logically presented
90-100: Insightful work displaying in-depth knowledge.
Publishable quality, outstanding research potential,
originality and/or independent thought, ability to make
informed judgements. Highest standards of presentation.
80-89: Insightful work displaying in-depth knowledge. Work
of publishable quality, excellent research potential,
originality and/or independent thought, ability to make
informed judgements. Highest standards of presentation.
70-79: Thoughtful work displaying in-depth knowledge.
Good research potential, evidence of independent
thought, ability to make informed judgments. High
standards of presentation.
Merit 60-69: A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation
Understanding Depth of Knowledge Structure General
In-depth understanding of key
issues with evidence of some
originality
Key issues analysed. Relevant
sources used effectively to support
argument/discussion
Clear evidence of critical approach
to key issues and some ability to
evaluate arguments
Coherent work logically
presented
65-69: Thoughtful work displaying good knowledge and
accuracy. Some evidence of research potential, clear
thinking and/or ability to make informed judgments. Good
standards of presentation.
60-64: Work displays good knowledge and accuracy.
Some evidence of clear thinking and/or ability to make
informed judgments. Good standards of presentation.
Pass 50-59: A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles
Understanding Depth of Knowledge Structure General
5
Understanding of some key
issues with evidence of ability to
reflect critically
Some key issues addressed.
Relevant sources used to support
argument/discussion
Some evidence of critical approach
to key issues and ability to evaluate
arguments
Competent work in places but
lacks fluency/coherence
55-59: Work displays knowledge and understanding in
most areas but the standard of work is variable. Evidence
of clear thinking in places but lacks insight. Satisfactory
standards of presentation.
50-54: Work displays knowledge and understanding in
some areas but some key issues are not addressed.
Some evidence of clear thinking but lacks insight and
fluency. Satisfactory standards of presentation.
Fail (condonable) 40-49: A superficial answer with limited knowledge of core material and limited critical ability
Understanding Depth of Knowledge Structure General
Superficial understanding of
some key issues, lack of focus
Key issues not always understood
or addressed, gaps in the use of
relevant sources used to support
work
Limited evidence of a critical
approach to key issues and ability
to evaluate arguments
Weaknesses in structure,
fluency, and/or coherence
40-49: Work displays patchy knowledge and
understanding and some key issues are not addressed.
Limited evidence of clear thinking, insight and/or fluency.
Presentational weaknesses
Fail 0-39: An answer almost entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding
Understanding Depth of Knowledge Structure General
Lack of understanding of or focus
on key issues
Key issues misunderstood or not
addressed. Limited or no use of
relevant sources to support work
No evidence of a critical approach
to key issues or ability to evaluate
arguments
Work is confused and
incoherent
33-39: Incomplete answers with only peripheral
knowledge relevant to the questions Displays poor,
disorganized presentation
20-32: Some attempt to write something relevant but with
many flaws, nothing of substance
0-19: Serious errors, largely irrelevant material or
unacceptably brief
Practical and Theoretical Policy Evaluation
7QQMM418 Assessment 2 – Policy Brief