Since ratification of the U.S. Constitution, relations among state governments and the national government have grown to be much more interdependent. Whereas states once enjoyed greater autonomy (dual federalism), the additional demands placed on government (at all levels) has fostered an evolution of federalism, whereby the federal government now plays a much more pronounced role in local and state affairs, with respect to a whole host of issues (including healthcare, education, public safety, transportation, etc.).
- Describe block grants, categorical grants, and unfunded mandates. How do they demonstrate fiscal federalism?
- Explain which funding mechanism states prefer. Why? Which funding mechanism does the federal government prefer? Why?
- Describe how both state and federal governments participate in the provision of medical care to low-income residents.
- In Arizona, low-income residents receive healthcare coverage through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). How is AHCCCS funded (e.g., categorical grants)? What are the eligibility requirements, and who sets them? How do the basic conditions set by the federal government constrain AHCCCS?
- Assess the effectiveness of federal aid to state and local communities, particularly as it relates to healthcare coverage.
Use two to three scholarly resources to support your explanations.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Rubric Criteria
Collapse All Rubric CriteriaCollapse All
Describe Grants
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Describe block grants, categorical grants, and unfunded mandates. How do they demonstrate fiscal federalism?
5. Target
22.5 points
Description of block grants, categorical grants, and unfunded mandates are clear, concise, and include how the grants and mandates demonstrate fiscal federalism.
4. Acceptable
19.58 points
Description of block grants, categorical grants, and unfunded mandates are present, clear, and include how the grants and mandates demonstrate fiscal federalism.
3. Approaching
17.78 points
Description of block grants, categorical grants, and unfunded mandates are present and include how the grants and mandates demonstrate fiscal federalism.
2. Insufficient
16.65 points
Description of block grants, categorical grants, and unfunded mandates are vague and inconsistent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of block grants, categorical grants, and unfunded mandates are missing.
States Funding Mechanisms
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Explain which funding mechanism states prefer. Why? Which funding mechanism does the federal government prefer? Why?
5. Target
22.5 points
Explanation of which funding mechanism states prefer and why is present. Explanation also includes which funding mechanism is preferred by the federal government and why.
4. Acceptable
19.58 points
Explanation of which funding mechanism states prefer and why is present. Explanation also includes which funding mechanism is preferred by the federal government and why.
3. Approaching
17.78 points
Explanation of which funding mechanism states prefer and why is present. Explanation also includes which funding mechanism is preferred by the federal government and why.
2. Insufficient
16.65 points
Explanation of which funding mechanism states prefer and why is vague and inconsistent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of which funding mechanism states prefer and why is missing.
State and Federal
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Describe how both state and federal governments participate in the provision of medical care to low-income residents.
5. Target
22.5 points
Description of how both state and federal government participate in the provision of medical care to low-income residents is clear and concise.
4. Acceptable
19.58 points
Description of how both state and federal government participate in the provision of medical care to low-income residents is present and clear.
3. Approaching
17.78 points
Description of how both state and federal government participate in the provision of medical care to low-income residents is present.
2. Insufficient
16.65 points
Description of how both state and federal government participate in the provision of medical care to low-income residents is vague and inconsistent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of how both state and federal government participate in the provision of medical care to low-income residents is missing.
AHCCCS (B)
22.5 points
Criteria Description
In Arizona, low-income residents receive healthcare coverage through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). Describe how AHCCCS funded (e.g., categorical grants)? What are the eligibility requirements, and who sets them? How do the basic conditions set by the federal government constrain AHCCCS? (C 4.1)
5. Target
22.5 points
Description of how AHCCCS is funded, including the eligibility requirements are present and include a discussion on if the basic conditions set by the federal government constrain AHCCCS. Discussion and description is supported with current research.
4. Acceptable
19.58 points
Description of how AHCCCS is funded, including the eligibility requirements are present and include a discussion on if the basic conditions set by the federal government constrain AHCCCS.
3. Approaching
17.78 points
Description of how AHCCCS is funded, including the eligibility requirements are present and include a discussion on if the basic conditions set by the federal government constrain AHCCCS.
2. Insufficient
16.65 points
Description of how AHCCCS is funded, including the eligibility requirements are vague and inconsistent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of how AHCCCS is funded, including the eligibility requirements are missing.
Federal Aid
15 points
Criteria Description
Assess the effectiveness of federal aid to state and local communities, particularly as it relates to healthcare coverage.
5. Target
15 points
Assessment of the effectiveness of federal aid to state and local communities is clear and concise.
4. Acceptable
13.05 points
Assessment of the effectiveness of federal aid to state and local communities is present and clear.
3. Approaching
11.85 points
Assessment of the effectiveness of federal aid to state and local communities is present.
2. Insufficient
11.1 points
Assessment of the effectiveness of federal aid to state and local communities is vague and inconsistent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Assessment of the effectiveness of federal aid to state and local communities is missing.
Thesis Development
10.5 points
Criteria Description
Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.
5. Target
10.5 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience.
4. Acceptable
9.14 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.
3. Approaching
8.3 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.
2. Insufficient
7.77 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.
Development, Structure, and Conclusion
12 points
Criteria Description
Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.
5. Target
12 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
4. Acceptable
10.44 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
3. Approaching
9.48 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
2. Insufficient
8.88 points
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.
Evidence
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.
5. Target
7.5 points
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively.
4. Acceptable
6.53 points
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated.
3. Approaching
5.93 points
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.
2. Insufficient
5.55 points
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.
Mechanics of Writing
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.
5. Target
7.5 points
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable
6.53 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.
3. Approaching
5.93 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
5.55 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
Format/Documentation
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target
7.5 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.
4. Acceptable
6.53 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching
5.93 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.
2. Insufficient
5.55 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
