Reference no: EM131947748

DISCUSSION  (TWO PAGES)

Note: It is important to focus on the forum topic rather than subject matter used to answer the forum prompt when responding to your classmates.

For example, in week 3, you will want to focus on the analysis of the information from the think tanks, the roles of the think tanks, bias you saw, reasoning flaws, rather than, for example, giving more examples of where FEMA did well or did poorly

Policy Analysis

Think tanks are in the business of analyzing policies, both proposed and implemented. They present us with data, but how do we know who to trust?

This week we will begin to explore policy issues through the lens of think tanks. We will look at FEMA and the agency's current movement toward efficiency, effectiveness and stability as the case study.

Here's some background information on FEMA.

Now take a look at two reports on FEMA. One is from the Cato Institute (FEMA: Floods, Failures and Federalism) and the other is from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (Status of FEMA's Implement of the Biggert-Waters Act amendments - be sure to look at the full report rather than the synopsis on the opening page).

I want you to review each of these and then locate a report/post from a another think tank/research group (preferably a liberal think tank for balance).

Here's a list of the policy think tanks in the US.

Now, critically analyze the information shared from the think tanks.

What specific roles do these think tanks have, which policy actors seem to be driving this specific tank, what were the differences and similarities in the recommendations made for FEMA, could you distinguish any bias and what was it, and did you see any problems with the rationale or reasoning utilized?

Be sure to provide the name of the think tank you reviewed and a link to their discussion on FEMA.