Write an analysis of at least 1,000 words that relate the case to the National Disaster Recovery Framework. Indicate which case analysis you selected at the beginning of your initial post or in the title.

Discuss what went right, what could be improved, and how it could be improved upon regarding the short-term and long-term recovery for the incident. Also discuss the role the whole community played in the response and recovery, 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, scholarly periodicals, and journals referenced in the syllabus, as well as any 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 Do not quote extensively from these documents; be selective.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 NPS, NIMS, NRF, NDRF, and inter-jurisdictional interrelationship for response and recovery; efforts to explore concepts, ideas, and perspectives (demonstration of critical thinking skills), as well as the quality and quantity of contributions. The student is expected to offer their 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 papers that lack clarity, accuracy, and logic, with excessive colloquialisms, are unsupported, or with errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation reflecting poor proofreading and editing.