| A thorough community overview that clearly orients the audience to the community. |
The presentation offers a limited or unclear description of the community, covering fewer than five aspects or presenting information in a way that does not meaningfully orient the audience. |
The presentation describes the community from at least five different aspects. The overview provides a basic sense of the community but leaves significant gaps in the audience’s understanding. |
The presentation describes the community from at least eight different aspects. The overview is generally clear and informative but may lack depth or detail in some areas. |
The presentation provides a robust overview of the community, describing it from at least ten different aspects (e.g., location, population characteristics, income level, housing, geography, history, educational opportunities, social/cultural systems, commerce and industry, religion, government, political factors, health systems, distribution of power, etc.). The overview provides a well-rounded picture that clearly orients the audience. |
| The assessment process is described and connections are drawn to theory. |
The presentation provides a limited or unclear account of the assessment process, with little indication of what the group did to gather information and no connection to theory. |
The presentation describes the assessment process but does not connect the work to any theoretical framework from the textbook. |
The presentation describes the assessment process and identifies a relevant theoretical framework, but the connection between theory and the assessment is surface-level or lacks detailed explanation. |
The presentation clearly articulates the steps and actions taken to understand the community and its needs. Artifacts of the assessment process (such as photos done during windshield survey) are included. The description of the community is connected to at least one theoretical framework drawn from the textbook (e.g., Warren’s five functions of community, social stratification, power dynamics, ecological perspective, etc.), with explanation of how the theory informed the assessment. |
| A set of findings and their analysis is presented. |
The presentation identifies one or fewer findings, or findings are presented in a way that is unclear or unsupported. |
The presentation identifies two findings. Discussion or analysis of the findings is minimal or one-sided. |
The presentation identifies at least three findings, but the discussion does not provide a balanced analysis. |
The presentation clearly describes at least three findings about the community (these can be strengths or needs). Each finding includes discussion that provides a balanced picture, considering factors such as strengths, gaps, opportunities, and challenges related to that finding. |
| Potential actionable macro interventions are identified. |
One or fewer interventions are identified, or proposed interventions are unclear and disconnected from the assessment. |
Two potential interventions are identified. Descriptions may be vague or lack clear connection to the assessment findings. |
At least three potential interventions are identified, but descriptions are limited. For example, the audience may understand what is being proposed but not how it connects to findings or how it would be carried out. |
At least three potential macro-level interventions are identified. They fit with the identified needs, build on community strengths, and are described in enough detail to understand how they might be accomplished. |
| The presentation is professionally delivered. |
The presentation is unclear, highly disorganized, or difficult to follow throughout. |
The presentation has noticeable problems with organization, clarity, or delivery that make it difficult to follow at times. |
The presentation is organized and clear but lacks smooth flow. Visual aids are present but may not enhance the presentation effectively. |
The presentation is professionally delivered, clearly conveys the assessment’s details, and demonstrates strong presentation skills including organization, pacing, and visual aids. |
| A high-quality pamphlet is created. |
The pamphlet is not included or is incomplete to the point that it does not function as a meaningful product. |
The pamphlet is difficult to follow, unclear in its presentation, or missing key information about the community’s findings and proposed actions. |
The pamphlet includes relevant information but has limitations in design, readability, or completeness. It may be difficult to follow in places or lack sufficient detail to stand alone as a useful product. |
The pamphlet is well designed and visually appealing, clearly showcases key information about the community (including findings and proposed actions), and could realistically be shared with community members or stakeholders as a useful resource. |