DNP 840 Topic 5: political activism assignment
This is a plan aimed at somebody. The step most submissions skip is finding out who actually decides the thing they want changed.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Determine what — the assignment names a target
The assignment is preparatory — it exists to get you ready to do something rather than to reflect on whether advocacy matters. So build it around a specific issue and a specific decision-maker. Choose an issue you can speak to from evidence and from standing: a scope provision that stops you practising to your preparation, a reimbursement rule, a staffing requirement, a funding line for a service you can show works. Then state a position, unhedged. Advocacy documents that survey both sides read as neutral analysis, which is a different genre and does not move anyone. Be realistic about scale as well. An assignment-length advocacy plan aimed at national reform will be thin everywhere; one aimed at a single regulatory provision or a single organisational policy can be specific enough to be genuinely actionable, which is what the exercise is training. Smaller targets make better assignments because the legwork is finishable.
The step most submissions skip is identifying who actually decides. This is legwork rather than thinking, and it is what separates a plan from an aspiration. Is your issue set by statute, by regulation, by a board rule, or by an organisation's own policy? Each has a different decision-maker, a different timeline and a different route in — a bill needs a sponsor and a committee, a regulation needs a comment period you can find the date of, a board rule needs a meeting agenda that is usually public. Name the person or body, name the moment they will decide, and name what you are asking for in one sentence they could act on. Then say what evidence moves that specific audience, because a legislator responds to constituent impact and cost, a regulator to safety data and legal authority, and an executive to risk and margin. The same issue needs three different arguments; knowing which you are writing is the assignment.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Select an advocacy issue within your evidence and standing.
- 02Identify the level of government or governance that decides an issue.
- 03Match an argument to the audience that will decide.
- 04State an ask specific enough to be acted on.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Assignment Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: Assignment Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A specific issue with a stated position.
- 02The decision-maker and the level at which the issue is decided.
- 03The decision point or window.
- 04An ask in one actionable sentence.
- 05Evidence chosen for that audience.
Issue, position, actor, ask
The issue and your position
State the problem and where you stand, without hedging.
Who decides
Identify the statute, regulation, board rule or policy that governs it.
The window
Establish when the decision is made and how input enters.
The argument for that audience
Select evidence and framing for the specific decision-maker.
The ask
State in one sentence what you want them to do.
Finding out who actually decides
Recommended databases
- Your state legislature's bill tracker
- Your board of nursing's meeting agendas
- Federal Register comment periods
- Your professional association's policy team
Search sequence
- 1.Establish whether your issue is statutory, regulatory or organisational.
- 2.Find the named committee, board or officer with authority over it.
- 3.Locate the next decision point and any comment window.
- 4.Ask your association whether they already have a position and a contact.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Policy Advocacy and Nursing Organizations: A Scoping Review
Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice · 2021
On how nursing organisations actually pursue policy change, including the routes and their timelines.
- 02
SCOPE OF PRACTICE
Nursing Fundamentals, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
On scope of practice as a regulated object, which is the commonest issue in this assignment and shows where authority sits.
- 03
Value-Based Programs
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services · 2025
Federal programmes whose rules are set through processes with published comment periods.
- 04
Provision of evaluation and management visits by nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the USA from 2013 to 2019: cross-sectional time series study
BMJ · 2023
Provision data of the kind that moves a regulator or legislator, as distinct from a clinical argument.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Writing a balanced survey where a position was required.
- Naming an issue without identifying who decides it.
- Using the same argument for legislators, regulators and executives.
- Leaving the ask implicit.
Submission checklist
- Is there an unhedged position?
- Have you named the actual decision-maker?
- Do you know when they decide?
- Is your evidence chosen for that audience specifically?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.