For the state of California, the work provides a thoughtful public policy proposal to modify Senate Bill 1299. The work includes compelling data about the state’s three year total of violence cases within healthcare settings. The paper makes an interesting analysis of the data’s impact on the provision of quality healthcare. The ethical principles of justice and beneficence are legitimately used to underpin the paper’s perspective. However, an organization that has an expressed interest in the policy is not clearly identified. Consequently, several additional aspects of the paper require revision. Adequately detailed evidence supporting why the organization has expressed interest in the issue is not apparent. Additionally, the aspect regarding approaching and collaborating with the organization could not be fully evaluated without an identified organization. Similarly, how the organization’s goals align with the paper’s goals could not be fully evaluated without a clear identification of the organization. Aside from the identification of the organization, when describing the possible roles/responsibilities of organizational members, an adequately detailed discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities to include problem-solving and capacity-building roles is not apparent. Next, a discussion of the key elements of developing an evaluative plan is not evident. Lastly, how the plan will be evaluated using a bottom-up approach is not sufficiently developed.

C1. Identified Organization or Community – A California based organization that deals with the mental health care of healthcare practitioners is aptly noted. However, the identification of the organization could not be located. Please clearly identify the organization that has an expressed interest in the public policy issue.

C1a. Summary of Expressed Interest – Potential challenges that the organization may face in meeting the needs of the numerous nurses and healthcare providers who present are credibly described to support why there is interest in the public policy issue. However, adequately detailed evidence supporting why the organization has expressed interest in the issue is not apparent. Additionally, the organization is not clearly identified.

C2a. Approach and Collaboration – A valid discussion of how to approach the organization by sending a written concept and having a physical meeting to approach it is presented. However, the organization is not clearly identified therefore, this aspect cannot be fully evaluated. Please clearly identify the collaborating organization.

C2b. Goal Alignment – The goals of an improved workplace environment and stable mental and social health (among nurses and healthcare practitioners) are specifically reflected as being in alignment. However, the organization is not clearly identified so this aspect cannot be fully evaluated.

C2d. Roles/Responsibilities – The organization taking part in campaigns and persuasive roles that reveal violence scenarios is logically identified as potential responsibilities. However, an adequately detailed discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities to include problem-solving and capacity-building roles is not apparent. Additionally, the organization is not clearly identified so the possible organizational roles cannot be fully evaluated.

C2e. Key Elements of Evaluation Plan – Partnership, assessments and accountability, and by comparison and the attainment of goals are logically identified as the CBPR principles. However, an adequately detailed discussion of the key elements of developing an evaluative plan is not evident.

C2f. Community/Organization Plan – A practical discussion of how the organizational plan will be evaluated by reviewing the increase or decrease in incidences of mental issues is noted. However, an adequately detailed discussion of how the plan will be evaluated using a bottom-up approach is not sufficiently developed.