5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style.) No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.

5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment.) Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use.) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

20.0 %Content Comprehension The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear. The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources. The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.

30.0 %Health Care Reform Plan Analysis Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the reform plan is poorly presented. Suggestions for plan improvement are missing. Superficially evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the reform plan. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic concerning suggestions for plan improvement. Some sources have questionable credibility. Surface-level evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the reform plan is present. Presents minimal justification of claims. Logically, but not thoroughly, provides suggestions for plan improvement. Sources used are credible. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate of the strengths and weaknesses of the reform plan. Plan improvement suggestions and ideas are supported. Uses knowledge of public health reform. Most sources are authoritative. Thoughtfully analyzes strengths and weaknesses of the reform plan. Demonstrating a deep understanding of the impact from public health reform. Clearly and convincingly presents suggestions in a distinctive and compelling manner for plan improvement. All sources are authoritative.

Public Health Reform 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 65.00% 3 Satisfactory 75.00% 4 Good 85.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 100.0 %HLT 605 Public Health Reform Rubric 20.0 %Public Health Reform - Current Status of Public Health in the U.S. Includes little knowledge about the topic. Subject knowledge is not evident. Includes little knowledge about the topic with few supporting details and examples. Little subject knowledge is evident. Includes knowledge about the topic with supporting details and examples. Some subject knowledge is evident. Includes essential knowledge about the topic with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be good. Covers topic in-depth with extensive details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent.