Evaluating Social Policy Websites Using the CRAAP Method
This paper applies the CRAAP method (Currency, Reliability, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose) to evaluate three policy-oriented websites used by human services professionals: ACLU.org, ProCon.org, and VaccineResistanceMovement.org. Using a 0–3 scoring rubric for each criterion, the paper demonstrates how the tool helps practitioners assess the credibility and usefulness of online information. ProCon.org scored highest at 11 points, ACLU.org followed with 10 points, and VaccineResistanceMovement.org scored lowest at 6 points. The paper discusses the practical implications of these findings for human services professionals who rely on internet sources to inform their work with clients and communities.
- Introduction: Why human services professionals need credible online sources
- CRAAP Method and Scoring Strategy: Criteria, rubric, and scoring scale explained
- Website Analysis: Scores and rationale for all three websites
- Implications for Human Services Professionals: How each site's score affects professional use
- Conclusion: Summary of findings and professional takeaways
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly defines each CRAAP criterion before applying it, giving readers both a conceptual framework and a practical demonstration in a single document.
- The structured scoring rubric (0–3 per criterion) makes the evaluation transparent and reproducible, allowing readers to understand exactly why each site received its score.
- Connecting the evaluation results to real professional practice—explaining how ACLU and ProCon content relates to human services work—grounds the analysis in applied context rather than leaving it abstract.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates criterion-based evaluation: selecting an established analytical framework (CRAAP), operationalizing each dimension with a numeric rubric, applying it systematically across multiple cases, and then interpreting results for a specific professional audience. This technique is widely used in information literacy instruction and applied research methodology courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clear four-part structure: (1) an introduction that establishes the problem and previews the paper's organization; (2) a methodology section that explains the CRAAP tool and scoring rubric in detail; (3) an analysis section that applies the rubric to each of the three websites using scored tables; and (4) a discussion section covering professional implications, followed by a brief conclusion that recaps key findings.
Introduction
In the course of their work, human services professionals rely on information from a variety of sources, including books, journal articles, agency publications, and the internet. The internet has particularly become a common source of information for human services professionals. Nonetheless, given the high possibility of information inaccuracy in the online environment, human services professionals must carefully evaluate the credibility of internet sources. The CRAAP method provides an appropriate framework for assessing the credibility of information obtained from websites. CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Reliability, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose (University, 2016). As human services professionals deal with policy information relating to a wide range of issues affecting the public, this tool is important for ensuring that internet information is correct and reliable.
The aim of this paper is to describe the CRAAP method and demonstrate its usefulness in analyzing selected policy-oriented websites. First, a more detailed description of the CRAAP method is provided, clearly highlighting the scoring strategy used to evaluate the websites. Next, three policy-oriented websites are identified and analyzed using the CRAAP tool, with specific examples drawn from each website. Finally, implications for human services professionals are discussed.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.