Download Policy Delphi Second Round Results

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Department of Public Policy and Administration
PPA 415 – Research Methods in Public Administration
Take-Home Midterm
Due: October 18, 2006
Part I – Specific questions (10 points each – Total: 50 points). Interpretation will make up 40%
of the points on problems 3 through 5.
1.
Run frequencies for the following variables. For each determine whether the variable
is discrete or continuous; and nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio.
Policy Delphi Second Round Results
Relationship
Which of the following describes your relationship to the
University?
Thinking
Critical thinking? (Rank learning outcome from 10 (highest) to 1
(lowest) in importance to CSUB).
Table 1. Which of the following describes your relationship to the University? (Check the one category that
best describes your role at the university).
Valid
Faculty
Staff
Administrator (Chair,
Director, or above)
Student
Frequency
33
Percent
13.4
Valid Percent
13.4
Cumulative
Percent
13.4
18
7.3
7.3
20.7
7
2.8
2.8
23.6
125
50.8
50.8
74.4
Alumnus or Alumna
59
24.0
24.0
98.4
Community Member
2
.8
.8
99.2
100.0
Other
2
.8
.8
Total
246
100.0
100.0
Nominal, Discrete
2
Table 2. Critical thinking.
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
3
1.2
1.2
1.2
2
1
.4
.4
1.7
3
8
3.3
3.3
5.0
4
5
2.0
2.1
7.1
5
8
3.3
3.3
10.4
6
18
7.3
7.5
17.8
7
20
8.1
8.3
26.1
8
29
11.8
12.0
38.2
9
45
18.3
18.7
56.8
10
104
42.3
43.2
100.0
Total
241
98.0
100.0
5
2.0
246
100.0
System
Total
Ordinal (or interval-ratio); discrete
Disaster Declarations, 1953 - 1973
ActionType1
Presidential Disaster Decision.
Table 3. Presidential Disaster Decision
Valid
Turndown, Withdrawn
Frequency
169
SBA, Emergency
Percent
31.4
Valid Percent
31.4
Cumulative
Percent
31.4
10
1.9
1.9
33.2
Major Disaster
360
66.8
66.8
100.0
Total
539
100.0
100.0
Ordinal (or nominal); discrete
DaysToDecide
Number of days from first incident to presidential decision.
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Number of days from
first incident to
presidential decision
539
Valid N (listwise)
539
0
Maximum
Mean
474
Ratio (or interval-ratio); discrete (or continuous)
31.31
Std. Deviation
59.552
3
AdjustedTotalDamages
Total damages adjusted for CPI (2003).
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Total Damages Adjusted
for CPI (2003)
539
Valid N (listwise)
539
Maximum
$29,377
Mean
$11,927,628,425
Std. Deviation
$215,518,235.41
$768,628,243.851
Ratio (or interval-ratio); continuous.
DisasterIntensityScale
Disaster Intensity Score (Scale, Damages, Deaths, Injuries).
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Disaster Intensity Factor
Score (Scale, Damages,
Deaths, Injuries)
539
Valid N (listwise)
539
Maximum
.00
Mean
5.00
1.4510
Std. Deviation
.95139
Ratio (or interval-ratio); continuous
Leadership Master File
Organization
Type of organization.
Table 7. Type of Organization
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Public organization
17
45.9
45.9
Private organization
15
40.5
40.5
86.5
5
13.5
13.5
100.0
37
100.0
100.0
Nonprofit organization
Total
TraitPatterns
45.9
Trait patterns for respondents based on high scores.
Table 8. Trait Patterns Based on High Scores
Valid
Frequency
13
Percent
35.1
Valid Percent
35.1
Cumulative
Percent
35.1
Self-confidence
1
2.7
2.7
37.8
Sociability
3
8.1
8.1
45.9
Charisma
2
5.4
5.4
51.4
Self-confidence, Sociability
5
13.5
13.5
64.9
Charisma, Self-confidence
5
13.5
13.5
78.4
Charisma, Sociability
4
10.8
10.8
89.2
100.0
No dominant traits
Charisma, Self-Confidence, Sociability
Total
4
10.8
10.8
37
100.0
100.0
4
Nominal (or ordinal); discrete.
SkillPattern
Pattern of high technical, human, and conceptual leadership
skills.
Table 9. Patterns of High Technical, Human, or Conceptual Skills
Frequency
Valid
No dominant pattern
Percent
10
27.0
Cumulative
Percent
27.0
27.0
2.7
2.7
29.7
10.8
10.8
40.5
32.4
73.0
Conceptual
1
Human
4
12
32.4
Technical
Valid Percent
Human, Conceptual
1
2.7
2.7
75.7
Technical, Conceptual
4
10.8
10.8
86.5
Technical, Human
2
5.4
5.4
91.9
Technical, Human, Conceptual
3
8.1
8.1
100.0
37
100.0
100.0
Total
Nominal (or ordinal); discrete.
CorrectAnalysis
Number of leadership development levels and situations
correctly analyzed.
Table 10. Number of Total Situations Correctly Analyzed
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
11
29.7
29.7
29.7
1.00
11
29.7
29.7
59.5
1.32
3
8.1
8.1
67.6
2.00
4
10.8
10.8
78.4
3.00
6
16.2
16.2
94.6
4.00
2
5.4
5.4
100.0
Total
37
100.0
100.0
Ratio (or interval-ratio); continuous (or discrete).
5
2.
Develop appropriate summary graphics for each of the variables listed above.
Policy Delphi Round Two
Relationship of Respondent to CSUB
60.0%
50.0%
50.8%
Percent
40.0%
30.0%
24.0%
20.0%
10.0%
13.4%
7.3%
0.8%
0.8%
Community
Member
Other
2.8%
0.0%
Faculty
Staff
Administrator
(Chair,
Director, or
above)
Student
Alumnus or
Alumna
Which of the following describes your relationship to the University?
(Check the one category that best describes your role at the university).
Figure 1. Policy Delphi Round Two - Relationship of Respondent to CSUB
6
Critical Thinking - Importance to CSUB
50.0%
43.2%
Percent
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
18.7%
12.0%
10.0%
7.5%
1.2%
0.4%
3.3%
8.3%
3.3%
2.1%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
Critical thinking.
Figure 2. The Level of Importance of Critical Thinking at CSUB
7
8
9
10
7
Presidential Disaster Decisions, 1953-1973
66.8%
Percent
60.0%
40.0%
31.4%
20.0%
1.9%
0.0%
Turndown, Withdrawn
SBA, Emergency
Presidential Disaster Decision
Figure 3. Type of Presidential Disaster Decision, 1953 – 1973
Major Disaster
8
Number of Days between Disaster and Presidential Decision
Frequency
300
200
100
0
0
200
400
Mean =31.31
Std. Dev. =59.552
N =539
Number of days from first incident to presidential
decision
Figure 4. Number of Days between the Start of the Disaster and the President's Decision
9
Total Damages Adjusted for 2003 Dollars, 1953 - 1973
500
Frequency
400
300
200
100
Mean =$2.16E8
Std. Dev. =$7.686E8
N =539
0
$0E0
$2E9
$4E9
$6E9
$8E9
$1E10
Total Damages Adjusted for CPI (2003)
Figure 5. Total Disaster Damages Adjusted for 2003 Dollars, 1953 – 1973
$1.2E10
10
Figure 6. Disaster Intensity Scale, 1953 – 1973
11
Type of Organization
ADM 612 & PPA 577 Students
50.0%
45.9%
Percent
40.0%
40.5%
30.0%
20.0%
13.5%
10.0%
0.0%
Public organization
Private organization
Type of Organization
Figure 7. Type of Organization (Leadership Class Students)
Nonprofit organization
12
Self-Identified Leadership Trait Patterns
ADM 612 & PPA 577 Students
40.0%
35.1%
Percent
30.0%
20.0%
13.5%
13.5%
10.0%
10.8%
10.8%
Charisma,
Sociability
Charisma,
SelfConfidence,
Sociability
8.1%
5.4%
2.7%
0.0%
No dominant
traits
Selfconfidence
Sociability
Charisma
Selfconfidence,
Sociability
Charisma,
Selfconfidence
Trait Patterns Based on High Scores
Figure 8. Self-Identified Leadership Trait Patterns Among Summer 2006 Leadership Students
13
Self-Identified Leadership Skill Patterns
ADM 612 & PPA 577 Students
40.0%
32.4%
30.0%
Percent
27.0%
20.0%
10.0%
10.8%
10.8%
8.1%
5.4%
2.7%
2.7%
0.0%
No
Conceptual
dominant
pattern
Human
Technical
Human, Technical, Technical,
Conceptual Conceptual
Human
Technical,
Human,
Conceptual
Patterns of High Technical, Human, or Conceptual Skills
Figure 9. Self-Identified Leadership Skill Patterns Among Summer 2006 Leadership Class
14
Number of Leadership Situtations Correctly Analyzed
Both Development Level and Leadership Style
12.5
Frequency
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
Mean =1.3235
Std. Dev. =1.21839
N =37
0.0
0.00
2.00
4.00
Number of Total Situations Correctly Analyzed
Figure 10. Number of Development Levels and Leadership Styles Correctly Identified
3.
Using data for the Disaster Declarations, 1953 – 1973 Survey (Deaths and
Population), calculate death rates per 1,000,000 population for natural disasters in
each state. Which five states had the highest death rates? Which five states had the
lowest death rates?
Table 11. Five States with Highest Natural Disaster Death Rate per 1,000,000 Population, 1953-1973
Natural
Average
Disaster
Population in
State
Deaths
Thousands
DeathRate
Alaska
121.00
223.14
542.25
South Dakota
248.00
671.10
369.54
Mississippi
381.00
2,195.13
173.57
Idaho
93.00
661.18
140.66
Louisiana
345.00
3,148.71
109.57
15
Table 12. Five States with the Lowest Natural Disaster Death Rate per 1,000,000 Population, 1953-1973
Natural
Average
Disaster
Population in
State
Deaths
Thousands
DeathRate
Vermont
0.00
403.75
0.00
Utah
1.00
891.00
1.12
Wyoming
1.00
330.00
3.03
New York
65.42
16,989.00
3.85
Tennessee
15.00
3,823.43
3.92
For the period from 1953 – 1973, the death rate from natural disasters varied substantially by
state. The five states with the highest death rates were Alaska (earthquake), South Dakota
(flooding), Mississippi (hurricanes), Idaho (wildfires), and Louisiana (hurricanes). The five
states with the lowest death rates were Vermont, Utah, Wyoming, New York, and Tennessee.
4.
Using the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-6S), calculate the mean,
interquartile range, range, and standard deviation for Idealized Influence,
Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, and
overall Transformational leadership. Calculate the mean, interquartile range, range,
and standard deviation for Contingent Reward, Management by Exception, and
overall Transactional leadership. Calculate the mean, interquartile range, range, and
standard deviation for Laissez-Faire leadership. Comparing the central tendency and
dispersion statistics for Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire
leadership, what conclusions would you draw about the students taking the
Leadership class at CSUB?
Table 13. Transformational Leadership, Central Tendency and Dispersion
Idealized Inspirational Intellectual Individualized Transformational
influence motivation
stimulation consideration leadership
N
39
39
39
39
39
Mean
9.901321 9.051282051 8.564102564
9.051282051
9.141996892
Std. Deviation
1.644241 1.555105648 2.257092585
1.731271482
1.512401529
Range
6
7
9
7
6.75
Percentiles
25
9
8
7
8
8.25
50
10
9
9
9
9.25
75
11
10
10
10
10.25
Interquartile Range
2
2
3
2
2
Table 14. Transactional Leadership, Central Tendency and Dispersion
Contingent
Management Transactional
reward
by exception leadership
N
39
39
39
Mean
8.153846154 8.768453768 8.461149961
Std. Deviation
2.433737234 1.798907503 1.900288544
Range
8
7
7.5
Percentiles
25
6
7.96969697 7.484848485
50
8
9
8.5
75
10
10
9.5
Interquartile Range
4
2.03030303 2.015151515
16
Table 15. Laissez-Faire Leadership, Central Tendency and Dispersion
Laissez-faire
leadership
N
39
Mean
5.794871795
Std. Deviation
2.079720214
Range
8
Percentiles
25
5
50
6
75
7
Interquartile Range
2
When asked to rate themselves on transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
styles, most students in the Summer 2006 Leadership class rated themselves highest on
transformational leadership (mean = 9.1), next highest on transactional leadership (mean = 8.5),
and lowest on laissez-faire leadership (mean=5.8). The scores on each scale range from 0 to 12.
In short, the leadership students rated themselves highly as change agents and rather low on the
scale of reactive leadership.
5.
A researcher reports the following table on the age distribution of 505 randomly
selected cases from the National Election Studies from 1948 to 2000. Dr. Amy
Richards of Louisiana State University wants to calculate measures of central
tendency and dispersion for the age distribution, but does not have access to the
original data. You are her research assistant. Calculate estimates of the mean,
median and standard deviation from the data in the table below and interpret the
results. (KEY POINTS: Be sure to use real limits to calculate the median. Treat the
first interval as though it runs from 15 to 24, rather than 17 to 24 to keep equal
intervals. Treat the last interval as though it runs from 75 to 84 to keep equal
intervals.)
Table 16. RESPONDENT AGE GROUP
Valid
Frequency
43
Percent
8.5
Valid Percent
8.5
Cumulative
Percent
8.5
25-34
98
19.4
19.5
28.0
35-44
132
26.1
26.2
54.3
45-54
82
16.2
16.3
70.6
55-64
59
11.7
11.7
82.3
65-74
48
9.5
9.5
91.8
75 and over
41
8.1
8.2
100.0
503
99.6
100.0
17-24
Total
Missing
Total
DK, NA, INAP, Refused
2
.4
505
100.0
17
Statistics
Age Age on the National Election Studies, 1948 to 2000
N
Valid
503
Mis sing
0
Mean
45.941
Median
43.659a
Std. Deviation
17.0965
a. Calculated from grouped data.
Based on the information in the collapsed frequency distribution for the National Election
Studies, 1948 to 2000, the estimated mean age of the distribution is 45.9, the estimated median is
43.7, and the estimated standard deviation is 17.1. In general, the results suggest that the
distribution has a slight positive skew (the mean is larger than the median). The skewness is
significant, but less than one, suggesting that it does not deviate seriously from normality.
Part 2. – General question (1 question – 50 points).
6.
A researcher is interested in the question of whether type of disaster influences the
amount of damage, deaths, and injuries sustained during a disaster and whether or not
the governor receives a major disaster declaration. The researcher identifies the
following variables of interest for the Disaster Declarations, 1953-1973 data set:
Variable
Question
PrimaryDisasterType
Variable
Primary Disaster Type
Question
AdjustedTotalDamages
Deaths
Injuries
DisasterIntensityScale
ActionType2
Total Damages Adjusted for Inflation (2003)
Number of Deaths
Number of Injuries
Disaster Intensity Score (Scale, Damages, Deaths, Injuries).
Presidential Disaster Decision (SBA as Turndowns)
The researcher believes that type of disaster does influence the intensity of the outcome
(damages, deaths, injuries) and the probability of getting a major disaster declaration. Prepare
appropriate frequencies, statistics, and summary tables to answer the following research
questions. Present your results as a report to FEMA Director, R. David Paulison. Your answer
should not exceed two pages single-spaced, 12 point, 1” margins, excluding tables.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Do total adjusted damages vary across type of disaster?
Does the number of deaths vary across type of disaster?
Does the number of injuries vary across type of disaster?
Does the Disaster Intensity Score vary across type of disaster?
Does the probability of receiving a major disaster declaration vary across type of
disaster?
18
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 19, 2017
To: R. David Paulison, Director
From: R. Steven Daniels, Office of Policy
Subject: The Effects of Disaster Type on Disaster Outcomes and Presidential
Disaster Decisions.
Per your direction, the Office of Policy has undertaken an analysis of the impact of type of
disaster on various disaster outcomes including damages, deaths, injuries, and intensity, and on
the probability of a request receiving a presidential major disaster declaration. The period
covered is 1953 to 1973.
In particular, you were interested in five specific research questions:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Do total adjusted damages vary across type of disaster?
Does the number of deaths vary across type of disaster?
Does the number of injuries vary across type of disaster?
Does the Disaster Intensity Score vary across type of disaster?
Does the probability of receiving a major disaster declaration vary across type of
disaster?
Do total adjusted damages vary across type of disaster?
Table 1. Total Damages Adjusted for CPI (2003) – 1953 - 1973
Primary Disaster Type
1 Earthquake
Mean
$1,238,305,233.20
N
Std. Deviation
5
$1,587,211,611.790
2 Winds, Tornadoes and Flooding
$310,146,454.78
29
$947,953,743.883
3 Flooding, Storm Surge, Tsunamis, Landslides
$131,169,272.15
322
$712,865,755.636
4 Windstorms, Hurricanes, and Tornadoes
$480,741,385.23
110
$962,058,077.072
$25,744,584.72
6
$114,508.980
6 Forest Fire, Brush Fire, Wildfire, Fire
$144,625,966.96
16
$260,416,878.950
7 Drought
$118,166,044.67
15
$135,399,365.071
$50,167,888.74
22
$113,929,864.733
5 Commercial Failures Caused by Climate and Environment
8 Snow Storm, Ice Storm, Winter Weather
9 Riots, Chemical Accidents, Explosions, Insect Infestations
Total
$36,845,022.84
14
$57,803,692.224
$215,518,235.41
539
$768,628,243.851
19
Table 1 clearly suggests that damages during the period 1953 to 1973 varied substantially by
type of disaster. The most common types of disasters were floods and windstorms, accounting
for 80.1 percent of all disaster requests. However, the most expensive type of disasters on
average were earthquakes, windstorms, and combined windstorms and flooding. All three types
of disasters exceeded the mean damages for all types of disasters.
Does the number of deaths vary across type of disaster?
Table 2. Number of Deaths
Primary Disaster Type
1 Earthquake
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
37.40
5
51.247
2 Winds, Tornadoes and Flooding
8.69
29
15.441
3 Flooding, Storm Surge, Tsunamis, Landslides
4.10
322
15.504
22.72
110
39.942
.00
6
.000
22.538
4 Windstorms, Hurricanes, and Tornadoes
5 Commercial Failures Caused by Climate and Environment
6 Forest Fire, Brush Fire, Wildfire, Fire
7.87
16
7 Drought
.00
15
.000
8 Snow Storm, Ice Storm, Winter Weather
.73
22
1.031
9 Riots, Chemical Accidents, Explosions, Insect Infestations
2.43
14
9.087
Total
8.22
539
24.117
Table 2 supports the results for Table 1. The deadliest types of disaster between 1953 and 1973
were earthquakes (37.4 deaths), windstorms (22.7 deaths), and winds, tornadoes, and flooding
(8.7 deaths). All three types exceed the mean death rate for all disaster requests during this
period.
Does the number of injuries vary across type of disaster?
Table 3. Number of Injuries
Primary Disaster Type
1 Earthquake
5
Std. Deviation
894.427
2 Winds, Tornadoes and Flooding
81.45
29
140.601
3 Flooding, Storm Surge, Tsunamis, Landslides
15.66
322
168.362
284.45
110
792.663
.00
6
.000
58.17
16
192.186
.00
15
.000
8 Snow Storm, Ice Storm, Winter Weather
15.04
22
64.501
9 Riots, Chemical Accidents, Explosions, Insect Infestations
79.43
14
265.757
Total
79.90
539
408.042
4 Windstorms, Hurricanes, and Tornadoes
5 Commercial Failures Caused by Climate and Environment
6 Forest Fire, Brush Fire, Wildfire, Fire
7 Drought
Mean
400.00
N
Table 3 confirms that injuries were highest for earthquakes, windstorms, and combined
windstorms and flooding.
20
Does the Disaster Intensity Score vary across type of disaster?
Table 4. Disaster Intensity Score (Strength, Damages, Deaths, Injuries)
Primary Disaster Type
1 Earthquake
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
2.5049
5
1.36149
2 Winds, Tornadoes and Flooding
2.1934
29
.96444
3 Flooding, Storm Surge, Tsunamis, Landslides
1.1079
322
.58811
4 Windstorms, Hurricanes, and Tornadoes
2.4097
110
1.18902
5 Commercial Failures Caused by Climate and Environment
.8679
6
.00057
6 Forest Fire, Brush Fire, Wildfire, Fire
1.3426
16
.68272
7 Drought
1.4796
15
.40440
8 Snow Storm, Ice Storm, Winter Weather
.9508
22
.33911
9 Riots, Chemical Accidents, Explosions, Insect Infestations
1.0257
14
.67192
Total
1.4510
539
.95139
The Disaster Intensity Score combined information on the strength, damages, deaths, and injuries
of each disaster. Each scale was recoded to range from one (for small disasters) to five (for
catastrophic disasters) and the four scales were then averaged. Disasters with an intensity scale
of five would be extremely strong (e.g., earthquakes of at least seven on the Moment Magnitude
Scale, Category five hurricanes, Fujita Scale five tornadoes, multi-state floods, and so on),
extremely damaging (more than $100 million in damages), or extremely deadly (more than ten
deaths or injuries). As noted above, earthquakes, windstorms, and winds, tornadoes, and
flooding produced the highest intensity disasters during this period.
Does the probability of receiving a major disaster declaration vary across type of disaster?
Table 5. Presidential Disaster Decision (SBA as Turndowns)
Primary Disaster Type
1 Earthquake
Mean
1.000
N
5
Std. Deviation
.0000
2 Winds, Tornadoes and Flooding
.897
29
.3099
3 Flooding, Storm Surge, Tsunamis, Landslides
.742
322
.4381
4 Windstorms, Hurricanes, and Tornadoes
.645
110
.4806
5 Commercial Failures Caused by Climate and Environment
.333
6
.5164
6 Forest Fire, Brush Fire, Wildfire, Fire
.375
16
.5000
7 Drought
.333
15
.4880
8 Snow Storm, Ice Storm, Winter Weather
.182
22
.3948
9 Riots, Chemical Accidents, Explosions, Insect Infestations
.143
14
.3631
Total
.668
539
.4714
The probability of receiving a major disaster declaration also varies significantly by type of
disaster. However, the probabilities are slightly different than the patterns revealed above. The
most likely disaster declarations were for earthquakes; winds, tornadoes, and flooding; flooding;
and windstorms. No other types of disaster have probabilities greater than 50 percent. Flooding
appeared to have received much higher major disaster declaration rates than indicated by the
intensity of the disaster. The average intensity rating for flooding during this period was 1.1 out
of five, ranking it sixth of nine categories; yet, 74 percent of all floods received major disaster
status. This may have reflected the frequency of flooding, which represented 60 percent of all
disaster requests.
21
Overall, the disaster declaration process does appear to roughly reflect the intensity of the
disasters. Generally speaking, the more intense is the disaster, the greater is the probability of
achieving major disaster status. The exception from 1953 to 1973 was flooding. Flooding
declarations appeared to dominate the disaster request process, probably because of their
frequency. These requests appear to receive greater attention than may be warranted by their
intensity. We recommend FEMA and the President reexamine the disaster criteria for granting
major disaster status for flooding disaster requests.