Directions;  Please read the case analysis and follow the Case Assessment Checklist. Page Amount is 1and a half pages.  I will upload the case analysis after I have chosen the individual to complete the assignment.  Case Analysis Assessment Checklist Criteria Poor/ Not met Fair/ Partially met Good/ Partially met Better/ Partially met Best/ Fully met I.   Introduction. A well-written introduction   succinctly identifies the setting, key people, and current situation. The   introduction: Is succinct Identifies the setting Identifies key people Summarizes the current situation II.   Problem Formulation. To set the   stage for action, a strong problem formulation explains what causes the problem in a concise, thoughtful,   critical, and useful way. The problem   formulation: Includes essential elements of the case: ·   ·   ·   ·   ·   ·   ·   Incorporates attention to the presenting problem, why this   was a problem, and the need to act. Asserts explanatory relationships between elements in the   simplest, appropriate way. Clarifies why deciding and/or acting was difficult for the   protagonist (i.e., decision maker) in the situation. Impartial to strategies (i.e., it does not presume a   strategy)  Frames the problem in a way amenable to intervention by   the protagonist (i.e., decision-maker) at the time. III.   Contextual Analysis. A strong,   comprehensive contextual analysis provides an argument explaining how essential elements relate, and justifying the problem formulation.   The contextual analysis: Is factually correct.  Explains how and why the facts of the case matter. Attends to multiple system levels (e.g., micro, meso,   macro) and integrates thinking across those levels. Uses topic sentences that make a clear and sequential   argument.  Provides support for each part of the argument using   analysis of case data, relevant theory, practice/empirical knowledge, and/or   ethics. Attends fairly to strengths and weaknesses of the   argument. Offers a compelling argument. IV.   Alternative Strategies. After   identifying a successful outcome, a   strong set of alternative strategies will represent plausible options for   responding to the presenting problem and underlying issues.  Identifies what a successful outcome requires. As a group, the strategies: Address the presenting problem as well as underlying   causes. Are unique and distinct from each other. Are something the protagonist (i.e., decision-maker) can   do or facilitate at the time. Discussion of each strategy (distinguished by strategy   number 1, 2, and 3 below): Responds to all essential elements of the problem   formulation. Considers relevant ethical principles and legal and policy   contexts, ...

1. Directions; Please read the case analysis and follow the Case
Assessment Checklist. Page Amount is 1and a half pages. I will
upload the case analysis after I have chosen the individual to
complete the assignment.
Case Analysis Assessment Checklist
Criteria
Poor/
Not met
Fair/
Partially met
Good/
Partially met
Better/
Partially met
Best/

2. Fully met
I. Introduction.
A well-written introduction succinctly identifies the setting,
key people, and current situation. The introduction:
Is succinct
Identifies the setting
Identifies key people

3. Summarizes the current situation
II. Problem Formulation.
To set the stage for action, a strong problem formulation
explains
what causes the problem in a concise, thoughtful, critical, and
useful way. The problem formulation:
Includes essential elements of the case:
·

4. ·
·
·
·

5. ·
·
Incorporates attention to the presenting problem, why this was
a problem, and the need to act.
Asserts explanatory relationships between elements in the
simplest, appropriate way.

6. Clarifies why deciding and/or acting was difficult for the
protagonist (i.e., decision maker) in the situation.
Impartial to strategies (i.e., it does not presume a strategy)
Frames the problem in a way amenable to intervention by the
protagonist (i.e., decision-maker) at the time.
III. Contextual Analysis.
A strong, comprehensive contextual analysis provides an
argument
explaining
how essential elements relate, and

7. justifying
the problem formulation. The contextual analysis:
Is factually correct.
Explains how and why the facts of the case matter.
Attends to multiple system levels (e.g., micro, meso, macro)
and integrates thinking across those levels.
Uses topic sentences that make a clear and sequential
argument.

8. Provides support for each part of the argument using analysis
of case data, relevant theory, practice/empirical knowledge,
and/or ethics.
Attends fairly to strengths and weaknesses of the argument.
Offers a compelling argument.

9. IV. Alternative Strategies.
After identifying a successful outcome, a strong set of
alternative strategies will represent plausible options for
responding to the presenting problem and underlying issues.
Identifies what a successful outcome requires.
As a group, the strategies:
Address the presenting problem as well as underlying causes.
Are unique and distinct from each other.

10. Are something the protagonist (i.e., decision-maker) can do or
facilitate at the time.
Discussion of each strategy (distinguished by strategy number
1, 2, and 3 below):
Responds to all essential elements of the problem formulation.
Considers relevant ethical principles and legal and policy
contexts, as appropriate.

11. Considers unintended consequences, as appropriate.
Considers why the problem is difficult for the protagonist at
this time.
Considers strengths of the strategy.
Considers limitations of the strategy.

12. Provides adequate detail for understanding what the strategy
entails.
V. Recommendation and Rationale.
A strong, complete recommendation provides a rationale for
choosing one strategy over the others presented. The
recommendation and rationale:
Gives explicit reason(s) for choosing this strategy over the
alternatives.
Is logically coherent.

13. Makes claims grounded in evidence (e.g., NASW Code of
Ethics, empirical literature, theoretical frameworks,
professional experience).
Identifies the primary source of the student’s thinking about
this case (e.g., experience, intuition, values, beliefs, theories,
authority, empirical research, previous discussions, or
something else).
No
Yes
VI. Writing.
Well written papers will communicate clearly, persuasively,
and without distractions, and will appear professional quality.
Strong writing is:
Concise, efficient, and appropriate length.

14. Respectful (e.g., person-first, non-sexist).
In mostly active voice.
Well organized (e.g., sentence, paragraph, section).
Uses proper grammar, spelling and punctuation.

15. REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF CASE ANALYSIS
Includes proper APA-style in-text citations and references, as
needed.
Introduction Briefly identify the major elements (i.e., who,
where, what) of the case.
Problem Statement Give a specific and concisely written
formulation of the problem to guide analysis and problem-
solving. Not a question but a statement of the problem. Usually
no more than two sentences.
Contextual Analysis Summarize internal and external issues that
created or sustain the problem (i.e., why). Depending on the
system level, these may include: cultural, economic/resource,
political/legal, organizational, social, and ethical issues,
interpersonal relationships, and intrapsychic and biological
conditions. Use and cite professional sources (and include APA-
style references).
Alternative Strategies Identify three or more possible solutions
to the problem. These solutions should be plausible, distinct and
non-contingent (i.e., not interdependent). Briefly note

16. advantages and disadvantages of each possible solution for
addressing the problem.
Recommendation Justify your preferred strategy, explaining
why you selected that particular one, how it best resolves the
problem, and how you will determine its effectiveness. Be sure
your recommended strategy can be plausibly supported by
resources available in the case context.
Ways of Knowing1 Self-reflectively identify the source for your
thinking about this case. For example, did you base it on
previous experience, intuition, specific theories, personal
values, authority, empirical research, previous discussion of
similar problems, or something else?
1 Instructors may provide further or alternative instructions for
the Ways of Knowing section that