CRJ 560 Saint Leo University The Pocatello Prison Siting Story Case Study Analyze the mini-case study titled, “The Pocatello Prison Siting Story: A Case of

CRJ 560 Saint Leo University The Pocatello Prison Siting Story Case Study Analyze the mini-case study titled, “The Pocatello Prison Siting Story: A Case of Politics.” Your essay must incorporate the concepts from this week’s readings and must state how they relate to the rational or non-rational (i.e., political) approaches to policy analysis. At a minimum, your case study analysis essay must follow the following steps: Identify the key issue or issues.Identify the likely root causes of the issues or problems.Determine the viable solutions to address or resolve the issues.Assess the likely ramifications of all your suggested solutions (consider the risks and cost-benefit of each course of action).State your final recommendations. Your narrative should go beyond the obvious and be written at a graduate level. Your paper should be no less than 1,200 words, and no more than 2,500 words, and should include at least two sources in addition to your textbook. Any sources including but not limited to journals, magazine, and/or books must be properly cited using the APA style. Must include title, abstract and reference pages. Case Study Analysis Grading Rubric
Ratings
Criteria
Not Achieved
Novice
Basic
2
Proficient
Exceptional
0
1
3
4
Provided a brief
background description
of the situation that is
being examined.
Did not provide a brief
background
description of the
situation that is being
examined.
Provided a brief
summary that did
not adequately
describe the depth
of the situation.
Provided a brief
background
description of the
situation that is
being examined.
Provided a brief
background
description of the
situation that is being
examined and framed
the key issues.
Provided a brief background
description of the situation that
is being examined and framed
the key issues in relation to the
participants and stakeholders
involved.
Identified possible
contributory factors or
root causes of the
problems.
Did not Identify the
possible contributory
factors or root causes.
Identified some of
the possible
contributory
factors, but missed
the most obvious
or critical ones.
Identified possible
contributory
factors or root
causes of the
problems.
Identified possible
contributory factors or
root causes of the
problems consistent
with the key issues
previously identified.
Identified many contributory
factors or root causes of the
problems consistent with the
key issues previously identified,
and noted the
interdependencies between
those factors.
Analyzed contributory
factors and determined
lessons learned and best
practices.
Did not analyze any
contributory factors.
Analyzed some
contributory
factors, but did not
determine lessons
learned or best
practices.
Analyzed
contributory
factors and
determined
lessons learned
and best practices.
Analyzed contributory
factors and
determined lessons
learned and best
practices. Considered
one or more possible
outcomes.
Analyzed a number of
contributory factors. Used an
analytical approach that
considers either risk analysis,
cost-benefit analysis, or SWOT
analysis (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats).
Offered
recommendations or
practical courses of
action based on the
conclusions of the
analysis.
Did not offer any
recommendations or
practical courses of
action based on the
conclusions of the
analysis.
Offered
recommendations
that were not
practical, or were
not in alignment
with the factors in
the case study.
Offered
recommendations
or practical courses
of action based on
the conclusions of
the analysis.
Offered
recommendations or
practical courses of
action based on the
conclusions of the
analysis. Considered
possible barriers to
implementation and
ways to overcome
them.
Offered recommendations or
practical courses of action based
on the conclusions of the
analysis. Considered possible
barriers to implementation and
ways to overcome them.
Considered the potential
ramifications associated with
the recommended courses of
action.
Continued below…
Continued below…
Continued below…
Continued below…
Continued below…
Continued below…
Submitted a well
written product using
proper terminology,
grammar, and sentence
structure.
Submitted a very poor
written product that
does not meet the
minimum standards of
a college scholastic
work.
Submitted a poorly
written product
containing
numerous
grammatical
errors, poor
syntax, and
inappropriate
terminology.
Total Points =
Total Maximum Points = 20
Conversion Table (from 20 point scale to a 25 point scale)
Rubric Score
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Percentage
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Gradebook Score
50
48
45
43
40
38
35
33
30
28
25
23
20
18
15
13
10
8
5
1
0
Submitted a well
written product
using proper
terminology,
grammar, and
sentence structure.
Submitted a well
written product using
proper terminology,
grammar, and
sentence structure
with no, or very few
errors.
Submitted an outstanding
written product using proper
terminology, grammar, and
sentence structure with no
errors. Avoided very long
paragraphs and were logically
divided. The syntax and tone of
the narrative was consistent
throughout the work.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment