Case Study Critique and Commentary: Students must identify a real, historic emergency/disaster event that has occurred involving a particular organization, conduct research on the emergency situation/disaster event, and then write a brief, research-type paper that provides the following minimal components: 1) an overview of the organization involved in the emergency; 2) a discussion of the general nature of the emergency/disaster event, the remarkablecause factors of the event, andthe effects of the event (i.e., loss of life, injury, monetary losses, community impact, etc.); and, most importantly, 3 )a critique of the organization's preparedness and response efforts and what role they played in either mitigating the effects of the event, or if poorly done, making them worse. While quality is more important than quantity, it is anticipated that this paper should contain pages a lot of substance. , reference lists/bibliographies, abstracts, etc. While specific minimum number of references/authorities is not specified, the best papers will likely consult no fewer than seven to ten references/sources.

SSE 826 Week4 Assignment 1 (W4- Al) Rubric Case Study Critique and Commentary (100 points) Directions: Your SSE 826 W4 Al case study critique and commentary will be graded based on this rubric. Consequently, use this rubric as a guide when completing your W4 A1 and check it again before you submit your assignment. Total: (100 points) Overview of the organization Discussion of emergencyl'disaster Critique of organizational preparedness Organization Excellent (40 points) The overview ofthe organization is through adequate and provides judicious choice of details maximizes interest and understanding. Sophisticated use of language which describes in detail the emergency/disaster events in chronological of other form of order related to components of an EAP. A critical analysis of the organizational preparedness for the specic type of emergency/disaster is presented in detail. Overall, purpose, conclusions of review are clearly stated; logical ow Very Good (25 points) All relevant details of the organization is presented, but details not critical to understanding omitted. All relevant emergency/ disaster details and language are presented but some critical detail related to the EAP components are omitted. A critique of the organizational preparedness for the specic emergency is presented with some details to understanding deciencies omitted. Overall purpose, conclusions of the review is presented but not in a logical order or complicates understanding. Enough critical details presented for understanding, unnecessary details generally omitted. Enough critical details concerning the emergency/disaster are presented for understanding unnecessary details or details related to the EAP components are omitted Critique of the organizational preparedness for the specic emergency is presented, unnecessary details generally omitted. Enough overall purpose, conclusions, of the review is presented for understanding but hard to follow unnecessary information enerall omitted. Unsatisfactory (15 points) The overview of the organization is incomplete. Some critical details missing, unnecessary details may be present The discussion of emergencyldisaster is incomplete. Some critical details missing related to EAP are missing, unnecessary details may be present. The critique of the organizational preparedness is incomplete. Some critical details missing, unnecessary details may be present. The overall purpose, conclusions of the review is incomplete