Community windshield survey Healthy People objective guide
A direct observational assessment of your own community on a supplied form: introduce the community, complete the windshield survey categories, identify a vulnerable population and one priority community health problem stated as a diagnosis, then match it to a numbered Healthy People objective and complete the summary of learning.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 12, 2026
Why does the brief forbid demographic data?
One instruction near the top disqualifies most of what students instinctively bring: do not include epidemiological or demographic data, because this is based on what you observe. That is an unusual constraint and it is the assignment. Almost every other community assessment task rewards you for finding statistics; this one forbids them in the introduction and builds the whole exercise on direct observation instead. The reasoning is sound — a nurse who reads the county profile first will see the county profile when they drive through, and the point of a windshield survey is to notice what the data does not record. The reference section repeats the constraint from the other end: outside sources other than Healthy People should not be used. Take both at face value rather than treating them as guidance you can improve on, because a submission padded with county statistics has answered a different, easier assignment.
The chain from observation to objective is the structure, and it has to hold at every link. You observe something; from that observation you identify an aggregate or vulnerable population; from that population you name one priority community health problem; and you state that problem as a nursing diagnosis in the form the brief demonstrates — problem, related to aetiology, as evidenced by the signs you observed. The worked example is precise about this: risk of unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls in a named community, related to specific factors, as evidenced by observation of pregnant teens during the survey. Note what the evidence clause cites: the survey itself, not a source. If your "as evidenced by" clause cites a statistic rather than something you saw, you have broken the chain the whole assignment is built on, and the break is visible in a single line.
The Healthy People step is mechanical and is where marks are lost carelessly. The brief tells you to state an objective number, not a goal — objectives are the numbered, measurable targets inside a topic area, and goals are the aspirational headings above them. It walks you through the site navigation click by click, which is a reasonable sign that people have got this wrong before. Two practical notes. The assignment names Healthy People 2020, which has been succeeded by Healthy People 2030, so check with your instructor whether the older framework is still required or whether the current one is expected; the objective numbering differs between them. And the objective has to match the population you identified, not just the topic area, which usually means reading several objectives inside the topic before choosing one. Family Planning contains objectives about contraception, about adolescent pregnancy and about intended pregnancy, and only one of them will name your aggregate.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Assess a community by direct observation without substituting published data.
- 02Identify a vulnerable aggregate from observed evidence.
- 03State a community health problem as a nursing diagnosis with problem, aetiology and evidence.
- 04Distinguish a numbered Healthy People objective from a topic-area goal.
- 05Match an objective to a population rather than to a topic.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An introduction identifying the community by city and state, in one paragraph, without epidemiological or demographic data.
- 02A completed windshield survey covering community vitality, social and economic conditions, health resources, environmental conditions, social functioning and attitude toward healthcare.
- 03The vulnerable population or aggregate observed, and what you observed about it.
- 04One priority community health problem, stated as a nursing diagnosis.
- 05A numbered Healthy People objective matched to the population.
- 06The summary of learning section, completed on the form.
- 07No outside sources other than Healthy People.
Observation to population to diagnosis to objective
Choose the area and observe it twice
Pick where you live or work, large enough to answer the survey, including residential streets; observe at two different times.
Introduce the community
One paragraph: city, state, and a description built from what you saw.
Work the six categories
Community vitality, social and economic conditions, health resources, environment, social functioning, attitude to healthcare — including what is missing.
Identify the aggregate
Name the vulnerable population you observed and describe what you saw about it.
State the diagnosis
Problem, related to aetiology, as evidenced by the signs recorded in your survey.
Match the objective
Navigate to the topic area, read the objectives, and select the numbered one that fits your population.
Summary of learning
Complete the form's summary section on what the survey taught you about assessing a population.
Finding the numbered objective, not the goal
Recommended databases
- Healthy People (odphp.health.gov)
Search sequence
- 1.Do the survey before opening anything, since the brief's design depends on observation coming first.
- 2.Identify the population and draft the diagnosis before browsing the objectives.
- 3.Browse the topic area that matches the population, then read the objectives inside it rather than stopping at the goal.
- 4.Confirm with your instructor whether the 2020 or the 2030 framework is required, as the numbering differs.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Social Determinants of Health
Healthy People 2030, odphp.health.gov · 2024
The current framework's structure, showing where numbered objectives sit relative to goals — the distinction the brief asks you to get right.
- 02
Overweight and Obesity Objectives
Healthy People 2030, odphp.health.gov · 2024
A worked example of a topic area's objective list, so you can see the numbering convention before you go looking for your own.
- 03
Osteoporosis Objectives
Healthy People 2030, odphp.health.gov · 2024
A second objective list, useful for seeing how narrowly an objective specifies its population — which is the match your diagnosis has to make.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Opening with census figures, which the brief explicitly excludes from the introduction.
- Citing a statistic in the "as evidenced by" clause instead of the observation.
- Naming a Healthy People goal rather than a numbered objective.
- Choosing an objective that matches the topic but not the population identified.
- Skipping the survey items that record what is missing from the community.
- Adding outside sources when the brief says only Healthy People should be used.
- Conducting the survey once, when the brief recommends observing at different times.
Submission checklist
- The community is named by city and state, and the introduction contains no epidemiological data.
- All six windshield survey categories are addressed.
- Items observed to be missing are recorded, not just those present.
- The vulnerable population is identified from something observed.
- The nursing diagnosis has all three parts and its evidence clause cites the survey.
- A numbered objective is stated, not a goal.
- The objective matches the population, not just the topic area.
- The summary of learning is complete and no non-Healthy People sources have crept in.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.