Course code:<\/strong> PUBH 310 (or equivalent \u201cPublic Health Policy\u201d or \u201cHealth Policy and Advocacy\u201d at undergraduate level)<\/p>\n Course title:<\/strong> Public Health Policy and Advocacy<\/p>\n Assessment title:<\/strong> Assessment 2 \u2013 Policy Brief on Youth Mental Health Inequities<\/p>\n Assessment type:<\/strong> Individual written policy brief for decision makers<\/p>\n Weighting:<\/strong> 20\u201330% of final grade (mid semester assignment)<\/p>\n Length:<\/strong> 1,200\u20131,500 word brief (approximately 2\u20133 pages, excluding references)<\/p>\n Due:<\/strong> End of Week 7 (see course schedule)<\/p>\n You will prepare a succinct policy brief that addresses a clearly defined public health problem related to mental health inequities among young people, such as adolescents or young adults, within a specific jurisdiction. The brief must describe the problem and its significance, analyse the current policy context, propose evidence informed policy options, and present a focused recommendation aimed at a realistic decision making audience such as a health department, education ministry, or local government.<\/p>\n Choose a specific mental health inequity<\/strong> affecting young people, such as higher rates of depression among LGBTQ+ youth, suicide risk in rural adolescents, unmet need for counselling in low income urban communities, or mental health impacts of climate related disasters on young people.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Specify the geographic context<\/strong>, for example a state or province, an Australian state, a UK nation, or a defined city or region.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Identify a realistic primary policy audience<\/strong>, such as senior officers in a state health department, a parliamentary committee, a school board, or a youth affairs ministry.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Use clear headings and subheadings as outlined below.<\/p>\n Write a concise, informative title that signals the issue, population, and main policy focus, for example \u201cClosing the Gap in Depression Care for Rural Adolescents in Victoria\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Provide a short overview of the problem, who is affected, why it matters now, and your key policy recommendation or recommendations.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Write this section last but place it at the beginning of the brief.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Define the public health problem precisely, including how it manifests as an inequity between groups such as age, gender, socio economic status, location, or ethnicity.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Present key data on prevalence, trends, and consequences for young people and for systems such as education, justice, or employment, drawing on recent epidemiological or survey data.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Explain briefly why the issue is urgent or politically salient, such as post pandemic mental health impacts, recent inquiries, or rising service demand.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Summarise existing relevant policies, programs, or funding streams in your chosen jurisdiction, such as national youth mental health strategies, school based wellbeing programs, or telehealth initiatives.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Identify gaps, limitations, or implementation issues, including uneven geographic coverage, long waiting times, lack of youth participation, or barriers for marginalised groups.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Note briefly any key stakeholders and their interests, such as youth organisations, professional bodies, parent groups, or non government organisations.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Present two to three evidence informed policy options<\/strong> that could reduce the identified inequity, such as expanding school based mental health teams in low income areas, funding peer led digital support programmes, or integrating mental health screening into primary care for young people.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n For each option, describe what it involves and how it would work, the expected benefits and supporting evidence, and key challenges or risks such as workforce capacity, costs, or political feasibility.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Select one preferred option<\/strong>, or a small package of complementary actions, and justify your choice with reference to impact, equity, feasibility, and alignment with existing strategies.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n State clearly what you want the target decision makers to do, within what timeframe, and at what level, such as policy change, pilot funding, regulatory adjustment, or cross sector collaboration.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Outline key steps for implementation, including which agencies or partners would need to be involved and how young people could be engaged in design and delivery.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Suggest a small set of measurable indicators to monitor progress and equity impacts, such as service access by demographic group, waiting times, or self reported wellbeing.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n 1,200\u20131,500 words (2\u20133 pages), typed, single or 1.15 spacing, 11\u201312 point font, with clear section headings.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Write for an informed but non specialist policy audience, avoid unnecessary jargon and define technical terms briefly.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Use visuals only where they add clear value, such as one small table or figure summarising key statistics.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Use APA 7th edition<\/strong> for in text citations and the reference list.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Include at least 8\u201310 recent scholarly and grey literature sources<\/strong> from 2018\u20132026, including peer reviewed articles, government reports, and reputable NGO publications.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n High distinction:<\/strong> Provides a precise, compelling problem statement that clearly articulates the inequity and its significance, supported by high quality and recent evidence.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Pass:<\/strong> Identifies a relevant problem with some supporting evidence, though clarity or depth may be limited.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Problem is vague or weakly evidenced, with limited or inappropriate sources.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n High distinction:<\/strong> Demonstrates strong understanding of the policy context and develops realistic, evidence informed policy options with critical analysis.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Pass:<\/strong> Describes current policies and options with some analytical commentary.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Limited policy context and poorly developed or unsupported options.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n High distinction:<\/strong> Clear brief format, concise language, and strong alignment with the intended policy audience.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Pass:<\/strong> Generally clear structure with minor issues in flow or focus.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Poor organisation or inappropriate tone for policy audiences.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n High distinction:<\/strong> Accurate and consistent APA referencing with all claims properly attributed.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Pass:<\/strong> Adequate sources with minor referencing errors.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Insufficient sources or frequent citation errors.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Rates of psychological distress and suicidal ideation among young people have risen markedly over the past decade, yet these increases are not evenly distributed across populations. Evidence from high income countries indicates that young people experiencing intersecting disadvantages, including poverty, minority status, or rural residence, are significantly more likely to report unmet mental health needs and delays in accessing care. Service gaps are particularly visible during the transition from child to adult mental health services, where age based eligibility criteria and fragmented commissioning models result in discontinuity of care. Expanding youth friendly mental health hubs in underserved communities offers a practical and evidence informed response. These hubs integrate clinical care with outreach, peer support, and social services, reducing barriers related to cost, stigma, and service navigation. Targeted investment in such models, combined with routine collection of disaggregated data, would support progress toward reducing inequities while aligning with broader commitments to parity between mental and physical health.<\/p>\n International evidence shows that early intervention and community based youth mental health services are associated with improved access, better continuity of care, and reduced severity of mental health outcomes among disadvantaged young people. Evaluations of integrated youth mental health models demonstrate positive impacts on service engagement and client satisfaction, particularly when services are designed with active youth participation and delivered in non clinical settings (McGorry et al., 2019).<\/p>\n World Health Organization. (2021). Guidance on mental health policy and service development for adolescents and young people<\/em>. Geneva: WHO.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Patel, V., Saxena, S., Lund, C., Thornicroft, G., Baingana, F., Bolton, P., et al. (2018). The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development. The Lancet, 392<\/em>(10157), 1553\u20131598. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0140-6736(18)31612-X<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n O\u2019Dea, B., O\u2019Young, M., Hughes, T., & Batterham, P. J. (2021). Youth mental health service models and outcomes: A systematic review. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 15<\/em>(3), 595\u2013608. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/eip.12966<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Shaw, S., Mather, S., & Kelly, C. (2020). Policy responses to rising youth mental health problems: A scoping review of high income countries. Health Policy, 124<\/em>(11), 1207\u20131218. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.healthpol.2020.07.007<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n American Public Health Association. (2025). Proposed public health policy briefs outline<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\nAssessment Description<\/h2>\n
\nTask Instructions<\/h2>\n
Step 1: Select Topic, Population and Audience<\/h3>\n
\n
\nStep 2: Structure Your Policy Brief (1,200\u20131,500 words)<\/h3>\n
i. Title<\/h4>\n
\n
ii. Executive Summary (approximately 150\u2013200 words)<\/h4>\n
\n
iii. Problem Statement and Background (approximately 300\u2013350 words)<\/h4>\n
\n
iv. Current Policy Context (approximately 250\u2013300 words)<\/h4>\n
\n
v. Policy Options (approximately 300\u2013350 words)<\/h4>\n
\n
vi. Recommendations (approximately 150\u2013200 words)<\/h4>\n
\n
vii. Implementation and Evaluation Considerations (approximately 150\u2013200 words)<\/h4>\n
\n
\nFormatting and Referencing Requirements<\/h2>\n
\n
\nMarking Criteria \/ Rubric<\/h2>\n
Criterion 1: Problem Definition and Use of Evidence (30%)<\/h3>\n
\n
Criterion 2: Policy Analysis and Options (35%)<\/h3>\n
\n
Criterion 3: Audience Focus, Structure and Style (20%)<\/h3>\n
\n
Criterion 4: Referencing and Academic Integrity (15%)<\/h3>\n
\n
Sample Analytical Passage (Problem and Recommendation)<\/h2>\n
Learning Resources \/ References<\/h2>\n
\n