This page holds a finished MSW-544 Week 2 presenting problem summary, carrying the concern twice over, once as the referral states it and once as the person does, both dated. Searches like "msw 544 week 2 assignment example", "msw544 week 2 sample" and "msw-544 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished MSW-544 Week 2 presenting problem summary looks like
Two statements sit in the document and do not match, across a page or two. One is lifted from whatever started the case, a referral form, a phone message, a discharge letter or a court order, quoted in the words the referrer chose. The other is what the person said when asked directly, kept close to how they said it. Each carries a date, since the two were produced weeks apart and the concern moved in between. A short paragraph then records what the person understands the referrer to want, which is a third position and rarely a version of either of the first two. Nothing in the document reconciles the versions or apologizes for them.
How a MSW-544 Week 2 example is structured
Templates vary, and the order most finished examples hold is source first, person second, difference third. The opening lines identify who is asking, on what date, and through what document, because a concern arriving on a court order sits differently from one a sister phoned in. The referrer's statement follows in quotation, uncut, including any word the writer would not have chosen. The person's own statement comes next, gathered at a stated point in the contact and marked as theirs. A short section then sets out where the two part: the behavior each names, who each says is troubled by it, and how long each says it has run. What the person believes is being asked of them closes the body, and a final line records what neither statement mentions at all.
Where the case started
The document, the date and the person behind the referral, since a concern that arrives on a court order behaves differently from one a sister raised over the phone.
The referrer's words, uncut
Quoted as written, including terms the writer would not use, because paraphrasing a referral destroys the evidence that a particular word was ever chosen by anyone.
The person's version, dated
What the person said when asked, recorded near their own phrasing and marked with when in the contact it was said, since early and late answers differ.
The difference, itemized
Behavior, who is troubled by it, and how long it has run, set against each other across the two statements without either being adjusted to fit.
What the person thinks is wanted
A short paragraph on what the person believes is being asked of them, which frequently turns out to be a third account rather than a version of either.
Where marks go in MSW-544 Week 2
The two accounts blended into one smooth paragraph is where this assignment leaks the most points, since the smoothing is itself a decision and a grader cannot watch it being made. Running close is the referrer's vocabulary left standing as fact, so noncompliant or difficult enters the record as a finding rather than as a word somebody chose. After that, undated statements, which make a moving concern look like a fixed one. Further down: the person's version compressed into a clause while the referral gets a full quotation, an explanation of why the two differ, which belongs to a later phase of the program, and a summary naming no difference at all when the assignment exists because there is one.
Get a MSW-544 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Upload the assignment page and the marking sheet your section posted, plus any vignette or referral material that arrived with them, and a custom example is written against those requirements. It comes back inside 24 to 48 hours and the first one is free, built into the template your instructor attached rather than a general one.
MSW-544 Week 2 questions, answered
What if the referral was a phone call with no document behind it?
Then the summary records it as a phone call, names who spoke, gives the date, and carries as much of the wording as was written down at the time. A reconstructed quotation should say that it is reconstructed. Sections accept an oral referral without complaint; what they mark down is a spoken concern presented as though a form had carried it.
Do I have to quote a word I find offensive?
Quote it and mark it as quoted. Removing it hides something a later reader needs, and softening it changes the record. The usual handling is the term inside quotation marks with the speaker named, followed by whatever was actually described. That keeps the word available as evidence about the referrer without the document adopting it as its own.
The two versions in my case material barely differ. Is that a problem?
No, and saying so plainly is the answer. Where the person and the referrer describe much the same thing, the summary records the agreement, notes the small places they part, and says what that agreement is worth given that both may have heard it from one source. An invented conflict costs more than a thin one.