Buy Analyzing And Quantifying Risk Discussion

January 2, 2023

Buy Analyzing And Quantifying Risk Discussion

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Buy Analyzing And Quantifying Risk Discussion

Key Assignment Draft

You are an action officer in one of the operating agencies or directorates of the Department Homeland Security. You have been assigned to work in the budget development process of the agency or directorate. The senior budget officer has recently been assigned to this office and desires an information paper on the current Strategic Plan (StratPlan) of the agency or directorate to begin preparing for the next Strategic Plan and budget cycle. The budget director has reviewed your information paper (Individual Project 3). The budget director now desires an analysis and decision support paper. The specific intent is to determine if agency or directorate priorities are aligned with department priorities, and if not, what are the realignment requirements to correctly align agency or directorate priorities to the department priorities. Using the work completed in the Unit 3 Individual Project and your instructor’s feedback, conduct an analysis in support of the budget director’s objectives.

Conduct an analysis of the current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Homeland Security Quadrennial Review (HSQR), Bottom Up Review (BUR), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fiscal Years (FY) 2014–2018 Strategic Plan (StratPlan), and the DHS FY2015 Budget in Brief (BIB). Prepare a decision support paper. The paper provides a summary of the DHS Strategic Plan and Budget priorities, identifies any agency or directorate priority misalignments, and provides recommendations for agency or directorate program priority alignment within the DHS StratPlan. Justification of all recommendations is required within the report.

Your report is a decision support paper and should be formatted as a formal report. The report should address the following items:

Purpose statement
Background discussion
Analysis methodology discussion
Summary and findings of review for each specified document:
Homeland Security Quadrennial Review (HSQR)
Bottom-Up Review (BUR)
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fiscal Years (FY) 2014–2018 Strategic Plan (StratPlan), and the DHS FY2015 Budget in Brief (BIB)
Summary of key findings
Provide any recommendations that you may have
Reference all source material and citations using APA 6th edition

[Order Now]

Buy Analyzing And Quantifying Risk Discussion

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.