Capstone Project 2: Policy Brief

"Policy is where values meet power." — Sofia Reyes (DataRights Alliance), throughout this textbook

Overview

In this capstone project, you will draft a professional policy brief on a data governance challenge — translating the knowledge you've gained across this textbook into a concise, persuasive document targeted at a specific decision-maker. The goal is to practice the art of moving from analysis to advocacy: making complex ethical and governance arguments accessible, actionable, and compelling.

Estimated Time: 25-40 hours over 3-5 weeks Deliverable: Policy brief (3,000-5,000 words) plus supporting appendix Assessment Criteria: Clarity, evidence quality, stakeholder awareness, feasibility of recommendations, persuasiveness

Phase 1: Issue Selection and Audience Identification (Week 1)

Choose Your Issue

Select a specific data governance challenge — not a broad topic ("AI ethics") but a defined problem with identifiable stakeholders and actionable solutions.

Suggested Issues: - Should your city adopt a facial recognition moratorium? - Should your state pass a comprehensive data privacy law? What should it include? - How should your university govern student learning analytics data? - Should there be a federal algorithmic accountability law in the United States? - How should gig economy platforms be required to share data with workers? - What data governance framework should apply to direct-to-consumer genetic testing? - Should the EU AI Act's approach to high-risk AI be adopted in your jurisdiction? - How should children's data be protected on social media platforms? - Should data brokers be required to register and allow consumers to opt out? - What governance framework should apply to generative AI training data?

Identify Your Audience

A policy brief is only effective if it speaks to a specific decision-maker. Choose one:

  • A state or national legislator (and specify which committee)
  • A city council or municipal government
  • A corporate executive (CEO, CDO, or CISO)
  • A university administration
  • A regulatory agency (FTC, DPA, sector-specific regulator)
  • A civil society organization (advocacy group, community organization)
  • An international body (UN, OECD, AU)

Deliverable: One-page issue statement and audience profile.

Phase 2: Research and Evidence Gathering (Week 1-2)

Build the evidence base for your brief:

  1. Regulatory landscape: What laws currently apply? What gaps exist? What other jurisdictions have addressed this issue?
  2. Empirical evidence: What research studies support your analysis? (Use Research Spotlights from the textbook as models)
  3. Stakeholder mapping: Who supports your proposal? Who opposes it? What are their arguments?
  4. Case studies: What precedents exist? What can we learn from previous attempts?
  5. Economic analysis: What are the costs of action? Of inaction? Who bears each?

Deliverable: Annotated evidence inventory (2-3 pages).

Phase 3: Policy Analysis (Week 2-3)

Develop your analysis using the frameworks from this textbook:

  1. Problem definition: What is the problem, specifically? Why does it matter? Who is harmed?
  2. Root cause analysis: What structural factors create this problem? (Use Chapter 5's power analysis)
  3. Policy options: Identify at least 3 policy approaches, ranging from minimal intervention to comprehensive reform
  4. Evaluate each option against criteria: - Effectiveness: Will it solve the problem? - Feasibility: Can it be implemented politically, technically, and economically? - Equity: Who benefits and who bears costs under each option? - Proportionality: Is the intervention proportionate to the harm? - Unintended consequences: What might go wrong?
  5. Recommend a preferred option with justification

Deliverable: Policy options matrix and recommendation.

Phase 4: Drafting the Policy Brief (Week 3-4)

Write the brief following this professional structure:

Executive Summary (1 page)

  • The problem in 2-3 sentences
  • Your recommendation in 1-2 sentences
  • Key evidence supporting your recommendation
  • Call to action

Background (1-2 pages)

  • Context the reader needs to understand the issue
  • Current regulatory status
  • Why this issue is urgent now

Analysis (1-2 pages)

  • The specific harms or risks you've identified
  • Evidence supporting your analysis
  • Stakeholder perspectives (including opposing views)

Policy Options (1 page)

  • Brief presentation of 2-3 options
  • Comparative evaluation

Recommendation (1-2 pages)

  • Your preferred option, described in detail
  • Implementation steps
  • Timeline
  • Funding/resource requirements
  • How to address opposition arguments

Appendix

  • Detailed evidence summaries
  • Comparative regulatory tables
  • Stakeholder map
  • Cost estimates (if applicable)

Writing Guidelines

Policy briefs are not academic papers. They must be:

  • Concise: Every sentence must earn its place
  • Clear: No jargon without definition; no abstractions without examples
  • Evidence-based: Claims supported by data, research, or precedent
  • Action-oriented: The reader should know exactly what you're asking them to do
  • Honest about trade-offs: Acknowledge costs, risks, and opposing arguments

Tone: Professional, authoritative, respectful. You are advising a decision-maker, not lecturing a student.

Phase 5: Peer Review and Revision (Week 4-5)

Exchange your draft with a peer (classmate, colleague, or mentor):

  1. Does the brief clearly state the problem and recommendation?
  2. Is the evidence persuasive?
  3. Are opposing arguments addressed fairly?
  4. Would the target audience find this useful and actionable?
  5. Is the writing clear, concise, and professional?

Revise based on feedback.

Deliverable: Final policy brief with peer review reflection (1 paragraph on what you changed and why).

Assessment Rubric

Criterion Excellent (A) Good (B) Adequate (C) Needs Improvement
Clarity Crystal clear; any reader can follow Clear with minor ambiguities Generally understandable Confusing or jargon-heavy
Evidence Strong, diverse, well-cited Adequate evidence base Some evidence, gaps noted Weak or missing evidence
Analysis Multi-framework, nuanced, honest Solid analysis with some depth Basic analysis Superficial or one-sided
Feasibility Specific, implementable, addresses obstacles Generally feasible Somewhat practical Impractical or vague
Persuasiveness Compelling; anticipates and addresses objections Persuasive with minor gaps Somewhat persuasive Unconvincing

Tips for Success

  • Know your audience. A brief for a city council member reads differently from one for a CEO. Match your language, examples, and framing to the reader.
  • Lead with the recommendation. Policy readers are busy. Don't make them wait until page 5 to find out what you want.
  • Address the strongest counterargument. Ignoring opposition makes your brief less credible, not more.
  • Use numbers when you can. "This affects 2.3 million residents" is more compelling than "this affects many people."
  • End with a specific ask. "We recommend that the Council vote to adopt Ordinance 2026-47 at the March session" is stronger than "We recommend the Council consider action."