Plan mitigation and response measures appropriate to specific problems.

Course Intended Learning Outcomes (CILOs)

Students will be able to:

1. Plan mitigation and response measures appropriate to specific problems. [PILO 2.2]
2. Support proposals and conclusions with theory and experience. [PILOs 1.3 & 2.2]
3. Critique plans. [PILO 2.2]
4. Write reports in conformance with industry standards. [PILO 4.1]

CILO Elaboration

CILO 1: Plan mitigation and response measures appropriate to specific problems.

Core question: To what extent are students able to describe a problem and propose plans in response to that problem that incorporate both mitigation and response measures?

Competencies: For this CILO, students will be able to define a problem by identifying relevant hazards and discussing associated vulnerabilities and risks. Students will be able to plan strategies for both mitigation and response, describing how these strategies might be implemented, and the organizational deployment required for successful implementation.

Table 1: CILO 1 Competencies & Criteria

Table 2: CILO 1 Performance Standards

Context: This CILO revisits the concepts from Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability Assessment in the guise of problem definition. The course CILOs are built around aspects of a central product of an emergency management plan. This CILO focuses on the proposal, identifying three important strands. First, the problem the plan is in response to needs to be clearly laid out; second, the measures being proposed need to be set out, with due regard to both mitigation (i.e. steps taken to reduce the likelihood of an event) and response (i.e. steps taken to reduce the severity of outcomes); third, organizational deployment issues need to be explained. CILOs 2 and 3 provide support to this proposal.

CILO 2: Support proposals and conclusions with theory and experience.

Core question: How well can students ground their proposals in reasoned fact and precedent?

Competencies: For this CILO, students will support their own proposals and assertions with reference to both theoretical and practical knowledge, linking theory to practice and vice versa. They will explain multiple aspects of both theory and practice that are clearly relevant to the proposals from CILO 1; support assertions regarding both theory and practice with a range and variety of sources; and discuss the relevance of this theory and practice to specific features of their proposals.

Table 3: CILO 2 Competencies & Criteria

Table 4: CILO 2 Performance Standards

Context: Twinned with CILO 1, this CILO focuses on the provision of support for proposals that would otherwise appear as unfounded (or untested) assertions, reinforcing concepts from Critical Inquiry and associated research skills. The CILO distinguishes between theoretical and empirical support: facts and precedent. In this way, the CILO links both theory to practice, and support to argument (CILO 1). These skills are repeated throughout the BSS program, and should by now be second nature to students.

CILO 3: Critique plans.

Core question: How well can students evaluate emergency management plans (of others or their own) in terms of compliance with best practice, comprehensiveness against the problem, and effectiveness of the solution?

Competencies: For this CILO, students will assess mitigation and response plans against external standards such as best practice, internal regulations, directives etc., and resolve tensions and contradictions among competing standards. They will assess the scope of problem coverage, clearly linking individual initiatives to different aspects of the problem and discuss the trade-offs that can prevent a “perfect” solution. Students will discuss emergent risks associated with specified mitigation and resolution strategies and consider the advantages and disadvantages of competing strategies.

Table 5: CILO 3 Competencies & Criteria

Table 6: CILO 3 Performance Standards

Context: This CILO completes the triptych in which a plan is proposed (CILO 1); supported with referenced theory and precedent (CILO 2); and evaluated for compliance, comprehensiveness and effectiveness (CILO 3). As such, the CILO is closely linked to CILO 1, but can also be seen to stand alone: students should be able to assess both their own plans and those of others. Further, CILO 3 can be seen as a precursor to the other CILOs: security institutions may well believe they already possess a plan, but critical evaluation can expose flaws that demand a new plan be prepared. This idea of periodic review and revision picks up on a core theme found throughout the BSS: that environments are dynamic and require dynamic responses.

CILO 4: Write reports in conformance with industry standards.

Core question: How well can students write documents in the style, format and template expected by professionals in the appropriate sector?

Competencies: Students will habitually apply standard, discipline/industry specific conventions to their writing by following established presentation formats for a range of written forms (i.e. reports including research reports, briefings, memos, emails, letters, etc.). They will express their ideas and opinions clearly and objectively, in conformance to a style and register that is appropriate for their field or relevant discipline.

Table 7: CILO 4 Competencies & Criteria

Table 8: CILO 4 Performance Standards

Context: This CILO links to skills acquired throughout the WOC chain, specifically Technical Communication and Presentation. It is included in the terminal criminal justice, homeland security, intelligence studies and law courses. The intent is to ensure that students are and able to communicate their insights effectively and to do so in compliance with the conventions and expectations of the different security sectors.