1. Briefly recap the issue you identified for change in your community in assignment one (about 200 words) – what are you trying to change? 2. Identify a theoretical perspective and overall framework∗ that will inform your strategy and give a rationale for why you have chosen this – why does it suit the issue? (about 500 words) 3. Describe the specific practical actions and tasks that the strategy will involve – what are the practical things you will do and who will they involve? (about 500words) 4. Present ideas about the expected outcomes and how you might demonstrate that an improvement had been brought about – what would show it worked? (about 300 words) The assignment is all about thinking through the process from identifying an issue, to planning and implementing a strategy that would resolve the issue in a way that can be shown to have made a difference. It requires you to not only put forward a strategy, but to rationalise why you would do what you propose to do

A community issue is identified and described (5 marks) HD – The community issue is identified succinct, complex description D – The community issue is identified with a and succinctly described C – The community issue is identified with a sound description P – The community issue is identified with limited description F – The community is not adequately identified A clear theoretical perspective and framework is described with a rationale for its choice (20 marks) HD – A sophisticated theoretical perspective and framework is identified with a sound rationale and a well put argument. D – The framework and rationale is identified and well articulated. C – A clear framework is identified with a clear rationale. P – Framework is identified, but with little rationale. F – No framework is identified Clear practical actions, strategies and tasks are defined with the relevant stakeholders identified (20 marks) HD – Strategic direction and stakeholder involvement are sophisticated, critically appraised and clearly put. D – Strategic complexities are soundly and analytically articulated. C – Sound strategies are identified with clear indications of stakeholder involvement. P – Strategies are identified, but with limited indication of stakeholder involvement. F – No strategies are discernible. Ideas about expected outcomes are presented, with suggestions about how the outcomes might be evaluated. (5 marks) HD – Well justified expectations about likely outcomes and why the expectations are well founded. Critical evaluating is rationalised. D – Clear ideas about outcomes expressed with complex understanding about how they could be evaluated. C – Clear ideas about outcomes expressed with good ideas about what should be evaluated. P – Rudimentary ideas about outcomes with limite