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.
CRAAP Method and Scoring Strategy
The CRAAP tool provides five criteria for evaluating website information: Currency, Reliability, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose (University, 2016). The criterion of currency refers to how up-to-date the information is. Policy information changes frequently, creating a clear need for human services professionals to access current information. Reliability refers to how dependable, accurate, and error-free the information is. Reliability is also determined by the consistency of the information with other sources and by the availability of links to supporting data.
Determining the authority of the author is equally important. This involves establishing whether the author's name is identifiable and what qualifies them as an expert in the subject matter. It is also crucial to assess the authority of the organization behind the information—specifically, who owns the website and whether that organization is reputable. For human services professionals, reliability and authority are vital for avoiding the spread of misinformation to clients and the public.
Accuracy concerns the extent to which the information is correct, supported by evidence, and free from errors. Finally, the criterion of purpose involves examining the content of the website to assess its motive, objectivity, potential conflicts of interest, and bias. Because the human services field addresses a broad array of social issues, locating objective and unbiased information is essential.
Based on these criteria, the usefulness of a website can be determined by ranking it on each criterion using a predefined scale. In this paper, a scale of 0–3 was used, with 0 representing a total absence of the quality being measured and 3 representing sufficient or acceptable quality. Scores for all five criteria were then summed to produce an overall score for each website. The maximum possible score is 15 points and the minimum is 0 points. The scoring rubric is summarized in the table below.
| Criteria / Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Currency | The date the site was created or updated has not been indicated | The date exceeds 3 years | The date is within the last 3 years | The date is less than 2 years old |
| Reliability | Links to sources of information are not provided | Source of information provided in general, but no specific links | Links to sources are provided | Links to sources are provided and information is consistent with other sources |
| Authority of Author | Content suggests author is a student or not an expert | Author is not identified and credentials are not provided | Author identified but credentials not provided | Credentials are provided and suggest the author is an expert |
| Authority of Organisation | Website owned by an individual without affiliation to an institution | Domain name is .com, .org, or unknown | A reputable organisation (e.g., professional association or museum) | Government agency or domain is .edu |
| Purpose | Purpose is self-centred or involves excessive advertising | Purpose is to sell or promote something, or to provide a biased opinion | Provides factual information; unbalanced or contains some bias | Supports scholarly information; balanced and unbiased coverage |
| Total Score | Sum of scores for all five criteria | |||
Scoring guide: 12–15 points = Excellent source for research. 8–11 points = Good source for a research paper or academic project; verification with other sources is required. 4–7 points = Useful for casual projects; should not be cited in a research paper or project. 0–3 points = Questionable source.
Adapted from the C.R.A.P. Test rubric (Qakseclib.weebly.com, n.d.).
Website Analysis
The Vaccine Resistance Movement (vaccineresistancemovement.org)
The mission of this website is to rally the public against vaccines. The site's content is overtly persuasive in tone, urging readers to resist vaccination.
| Criteria / Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Currency | ✓ The date the site was created or updated has not been indicated | |||
| Reliability | ✓ Links to sources are provided (e.g., World Health Organization and United Nations) | |||
| Authority of Author | ✓ Author identified but credentials not provided | |||
| Authority of Organisation | ✓ Domain name is .org | |||
| Purpose | ✓ Purpose is to persuade (e.g., persuades the public to resist vaccines) | |||
| Total Score | 6 points | |||
ProCon.org (procon.org)
The mission of ProCon.org is to provide balanced information on controversial social issues such as gun control and immigration, presenting both sides of each debate.
| Criteria / Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Currency | ✓ The date is less than 2 years old (last updated in 2017) | |||
| Reliability | ✓ Links to sources are provided (e.g., journal articles and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration) | |||
| Authority of Author | ✓ Author identified but credentials not provided | |||
| Authority of Organisation | ✓ Domain name is .org | |||
| Purpose | ✓ Information supports scholarly research, with clearly balanced coverage (pros and cons) for every social issue | |||
| Total Score | 11 points | |||
ACLU (aclu.org)
The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website is to promote respect for individual rights and liberties as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
| Criteria / Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Currency | ✓ The date is less than 2 years old (last updated in 2017) | |||
| Reliability | ✓ Links to sources are provided (e.g., journal articles and government publications) | |||
| Authority of Author | ✓ Author identified but credentials not provided | |||
| Authority of Organisation | ✓ Domain name is .org | |||
| Purpose | ✓ Though the site provides factual information, there is little or no balanced coverage | |||
| Total Score | 10 points | |||
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to evaluate the usefulness of three selected policy-oriented websites using the CRAAP method. The selected websites were ACLU.org, ProCon.org, and VaccineResistanceMovement.org. Scoring 11 points in total, ProCon.org was found to be the most useful website. ACLU.org scored slightly lower at 10 points. Although both ProCon.org and ACLU.org achieved relatively high scores, it would be prudent to confirm their information with additional sources, as neither reached the threshold for an excellent source of information (12–15 points). VaccineResistanceMovement.org scored the lowest at 6 points, meaning it would be inappropriate to cite information from this website in a research paper or academic project. Overall, human services professionals must ensure that the information they use in the course of their work is correct, current, credible, and verifiable.
References
University. (2016). How to evaluate resources. Retrieved from https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot
Qakseclib.weebly.com. (n.d.). The C.R.A.P. test. Retrieved from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.