2011 Tornado Outbreak – Response Case Analysis
Professor’s instructions:
Write an analysis of at least 1000 words that relate the case to the National Response Framework and the National Incident Management System. Indicate which case analysis you selected at the beginning of your initial post.
Discuss what went right, what could be improved, and how it could be improved upon in the response to the situation and the role the National Incident Management System played in the response. Also discuss the role the whole community played in the response including the public, private, NGOs, volunteers, and individual citizens for the subject case.
In your analysis, reference and cite other scholarly sources you use, such as textbooks from this course or other HSEP courses, scholarly periodicals, and journals referenced in the syllabus, as well as any sources you find in your research. In discussing case events and your assessment of them, make reference to applicable sections of the HSPD/NPG/NPS/NIMS/NRF or NDRF to support your analysis. Do not quote extensively from these documents; be selective. Remember this is an analysis, not a summary of the events of the case. Write comprehensively, yet concisely, in order to be as thorough as you can. Use APA format for citations and references.
Case Analysis papers will be graded on an understanding of the case; understanding of NIMS, NRF, and inter-jurisdictional interrelationship for response; efforts to explore concepts, ideas, and perspectives (demonstration of critical thinking skills); as well as the quality and quantity of contributions. You are expected to offer your own viewpoints, be inquisitive, and disagree with and challenge the Case Analysis author; however, do not be overly critical, negative, or rude. Grading criteria will also include analysis clarity and accuracy, logic, argumentation, organization, expression, following instructions, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and appropriate citations. Significant grade reductions of 20% or more will be made for posts that lack clarity, accuracy, and logic, with excessive colloquialisms, are unsupported, or with errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation reflecting poor proofreading and editing.
