Matching Items (9)
Description
In the United States, under the provisions set forth by a policy known as community benefit, nonprofit hospitals receive special tax exemptions from government in exchange for providing a wide range of health care services to the communities in which they are located. In recent years, nonprofit hospitals have claimed billions of dollars as community benefit justifying their tax-exempt status. However, growing criticism by numerous stakeholders has questioned the extent to which the level of community benefit claimed by nonprofit hospitals reflects the exemptions they receive. In addition, a dearth of research exists to understand the relationship between community benefit claims and the impact they have on improving the health of communities. In an effort to better understand the relationship between community benefit claims, tax status, and community health outcomes this study examines the community benefit policies of a nonprofit healthcare system representing hospitals in California, Nevada, and Arizona. It does so by reviewing materials produced by the system, her hospitals, vested stakeholders, and government that have shaped the development, implementation, and assessment of community benefit policy processes. Findings of the study suggest that the majority of nonprofit hospital community benefit claims are consumed by shortfalls reported between costs associated with providing care to Medicare and Medicaid patients and the compensation nonprofit hospitals receive from government. Results of the study also demonstrate that community benefit policies do positively impact the health of communities. However, future community benefit policies need to be refined to include measures that capture the magnitude of community health improvement if the relationship between policy and health outcomes is to be fully realized.
ContributorsMartz, Mark Patrick (Author) / Cayer, Joseph (Thesis advisor) / Glaser, Mark (Committee member) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
This dissertation provides a critical analysis of public administration's understanding of the relationship between rational thought and action in its discourse on ethics. It argues that rationalist ethics assume a particular relationship between thought and action: that good knowledge leads to good, proper action. While there have been many critiques of rationalist administrative ethics, scholars have not examined the way in which rationalism persists in the way in which the teaching of ethics is conducted. The use of the case study figures prominently in this. Thus, the dissertation explores the historical and theoretical intersection of rationalism, ethics, and teaching through the lens of the case study. It begins with a history of the pedagogical use of the case study and the institutional transformations of the university. While conventional accounts of the field locate its founding in the United States in the municipal reform movement, here the founding of the field of public administration is recast through connections to reforms in the university including changes in epistemic assumptions, pedagogical methods, and curricular changes in ethics in which the case study is central and remains so as the field develops. The dissertation then considers scholarship in public administration that raises questions about rationalist ethics. Three critical approaches are explored: recognition of the uncertainty and complexity of administrative practice, critique as unmasking of power relationships, and the shift of ethics from an epistemological to an ontological inquiry. The dissertation builds on the work in this third approach and shows how it attempts to articulate a non-rationalist, or immanent, ethics. This ethics is concerned with exploring the conditions that make possible mutually beneficial relationships and meaningful lives from which categorical norms of the good life could emerge. Drawing on the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, it is argued that the distinction Deleuze and Guattari make between "arborescent" and "rhizomatic" knowledge gets to the root of the tension between thought and action and offers an innovative and useful way to advance an immanent, non-rational ethics. The challenge digital technologies and the information society present to the field is considered to illustrate the need to rethink administrative ethics and also the particular usefulness of Deleuze and Guattari in doing so. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of pedagogical practices and classroom examples that encourage a rhizomatic understanding of the theory and practice of public administration.
ContributorsCallen, Jeffrey Craig (Author) / Catlaw, Thomas J (Thesis advisor) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Kim, Yushim (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Public risk communication (i.e. public emergency warning) is an integral component of public emergency management. Its effectiveness is largely based on the extent to which it elicits appropriate public response to minimize losses from an emergency. While extensive studies have been conducted to investigate individual responsive process to emergency risk information, the literature in emergency management has been largely silent on whether and how emergency impacts can be mitigated through the effective use of information transmission channels for public risk communication. This dissertation attempts to answer this question, in a specific research context of 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak in Arizona. Methodologically, a prototype agent-based model is developed to examine the research question. Along with the specific disease spread dynamics, the model incorporates individual decision-making and response to emergency risk information. This simulation framework synthesizes knowledge from complexity theory, public emergency management, epidemiology, social network and social influence theory, and both quantitative and qualitative data found in previous studies. It allows testing how emergency risk information needs to be issued to the public to bring desirable social outcomes such as mitigated pandemic impacts. Simulation results generate several insightful propositions. First, in the research context, emergency managers can reduce the pandemic impacts by increasing the percent of state population who use national TV to receive pandemic information to 50%. Further increasing this percent after it reaches 50% brings only marginal effect in impact mitigation. Second, particular attention is needed when emergency managers attempt to increase the percent of state population who believe the importance of information from local TV or national TV, and the frequency in which national TV is used to send pandemic information. Those measures may reduce the pandemic impact in one dimension, while increase the impact in another. Third, no changes need to be made on the percent of state population who use local TV or radio to receive pandemic information, and the frequency in which either channel is used for public risk communication. This dissertation sheds light on the understanding of underlying dynamics of human decision-making during an emergency. It also contributes to the discussion of developing a better understanding of information exchange and communication dynamics during a public emergency and of improving the effectiveness of public emergency management practices in a dynamic environment.
ContributorsZhong, Wei (Author) / Lan, Zhiyong (Thesis advisor) / Kim, Yushim (Committee member) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Lant, Timothy (Committee member) / Jehn, Megan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
A sustainability strategy is a distinctive pattern in an organization’s sustainability programs that are designed to encourage individuals and organizations to behave in more sustainable ways. Local governments worldwide have increasingly pursued sustainability strategies to improve their community health and environment by adopting sustainability programs that span a variety of environmental issues and use a diverse set of policy instruments. Despite increasing prevalence of sustainability efforts at the local level, as yet, there has been little understanding of variation in their sustainability strategies and its relationship with environmental performance outcomes. Prior research has mainly focused on the number of programs that local governments adopt and assumed that local governments with more sustainability programs are more likely to improve the environment than local governments with fewer programs. However, local governments’ sustainability strategies require more nuanced understanding about variations in their sustainability programs, in particular across their program design in that a sustainability strategy relates to both quantity and design aspects of programs.
I address these research gaps in three essays that explore the research question of (1) how design features of sustainability programs vary across US local governments, (2) which factors influence variations in program design, (3) how these factors are related to environmental quality outcomes in communities. By assessing US local governments’ sustainability programs, I found that even for local governments that adopt a same number of sustainability programs, they design their programs differently, especially across the breadth of environmental issues that local governments address in their sustainability programs and the breadth of policy instrument that are used in their programs. Findings suggest that pressures from external stakeholders and variations in local governments’ organizational capacities are related to local governments’ decisions to purse different types of sustainability strategies. Finally, I find that local governments that design their programs more comprehensively are likely to have greater environmental performance outcomes in their community. My dissertation expands existing research in a significant way by focusing on the importance of program design and its link with improved environmental performance, thereby providing important implications for distinguishing among local governments’ sustainability strategies.
I address these research gaps in three essays that explore the research question of (1) how design features of sustainability programs vary across US local governments, (2) which factors influence variations in program design, (3) how these factors are related to environmental quality outcomes in communities. By assessing US local governments’ sustainability programs, I found that even for local governments that adopt a same number of sustainability programs, they design their programs differently, especially across the breadth of environmental issues that local governments address in their sustainability programs and the breadth of policy instrument that are used in their programs. Findings suggest that pressures from external stakeholders and variations in local governments’ organizational capacities are related to local governments’ decisions to purse different types of sustainability strategies. Finally, I find that local governments that design their programs more comprehensively are likely to have greater environmental performance outcomes in their community. My dissertation expands existing research in a significant way by focusing on the importance of program design and its link with improved environmental performance, thereby providing important implications for distinguishing among local governments’ sustainability strategies.
ContributorsJi, Hyunjung (Author) / Darnall, Nicole (Thesis advisor) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Feiock, Richard C. (Committee member) / Maroulis, Spiro (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
In the U.S., one of the most affluent countries in the world, hunger and food waste are two social problems that coexist in an ironic way. Food banks have become one key alternative solution to those problems because of their capacity to collect and distribute surplus food to those in need as well as to mobilize collective efforts of various organizations and citizens. However, the understanding of U.S. food banking remains limited due to research gaps in the literature. Previous public values research fails to address the key role of nonprofit organizations in achieving public values, while prior nonprofit and food bank studies suffer from insufficiently reflecting the value-driven nature in evaluating overall social impacts. Inspired by these gaps, this study asks the following question: how does food banking in the U.S. respond to public value failure?
To address this question, this study employs the interpretive approach as the logic of inquiry and the public value mapping framework as the analytic tool to contemplate the overall social impacts of U.S. food banking. Data sources include organizational documents of 203 U.S. food banks, as well as other public documents and literature pertaining to U.S. food banks.
Using public value mapping analysis, this study constructs a public value logic, which manifests the dynamics of prime and instrumental values in the U.S. food banking context. Food security, sustainability, and progressive opportunity are identified as three core prime public values. Instrumental values in this context consist of two major value categories: (1) intra-organizational values and (2) inter-and ultra-organizational values. Furthermore, this study applies public value failure criteria to examine success or failure of public values in this context. U.S. Food banks do contribute to the success of public sphere, progressive opportunity, sustainability and food security. However, the practice of U.S. food banks also lead to the failure of food security in some conditions. This study develops a new public value failure criterion based on the inherent limitations of charitable service providers. Main findings, contributions, and future directions are discussed.
To address this question, this study employs the interpretive approach as the logic of inquiry and the public value mapping framework as the analytic tool to contemplate the overall social impacts of U.S. food banking. Data sources include organizational documents of 203 U.S. food banks, as well as other public documents and literature pertaining to U.S. food banks.
Using public value mapping analysis, this study constructs a public value logic, which manifests the dynamics of prime and instrumental values in the U.S. food banking context. Food security, sustainability, and progressive opportunity are identified as three core prime public values. Instrumental values in this context consist of two major value categories: (1) intra-organizational values and (2) inter-and ultra-organizational values. Furthermore, this study applies public value failure criteria to examine success or failure of public values in this context. U.S. Food banks do contribute to the success of public sphere, progressive opportunity, sustainability and food security. However, the practice of U.S. food banks also lead to the failure of food security in some conditions. This study develops a new public value failure criterion based on the inherent limitations of charitable service providers. Main findings, contributions, and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsTsai, Chin-Chang (Author) / Bozeman, Barry (Thesis advisor) / Stritch, Justin (Committee member) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Many coastal cities around the world are becoming increasingly vulnerable to natural disasters, particularly flooding driven by tropical storm and hurricane storm surge – typically the most destructive feature of these storms, generating significant economic damage and loss of life. This increase in vulnerability is driven by the interactions between a wide number of complex social and climatic factors, including population growth, irresponsible urban development, a decrease in essential service provision, sea level rise, and changing storm regimes. These issues are exacerbated by the short-term strategic planning that dominates political action and economic decision-making, resulting in many vulnerable coastal communities being particularly unprepared for large, infrequent storm surge events. This lack of preparedness manifests in several ways, but one of the most visible is the lack of comprehensive evacuation and rescue operation plans for use after major storm surge flooding occurs. Typical evacuation or rescue plans are built using a model of a region’s intact road network. While useful for pre-disaster purposes, the immediate aftermath of large floods sees enormous swaths of a given region’s road system flooded, rendering most of these plans largely useless. Post-storm evacuation and rescue requires large amounts of atypical travel through a region (i.e., across non-road surfaces). Traditional road network models (such as those that are used to generate evacuation routes) are unable to conceptualize this type of transportation, and so are of limited utility during post-disaster scenarios. To solve these problems, this dissertation introduces an alternative network conceptualization that preserves important on-network information but also accounts for the possibility of off-network travel during a disaster. Providing this in situ context is necessary to adequately model transportation through a post-storm landscape, one in which evacuees and rescuers are regularly departing from roads and one in which many roads are completely interdicted by flooding. This modeling approach is used to automatically generate routes through a flooded coastal urban area, as well as to identify potentially critical road segments in advance of an actual storm. These tools may help both emergency managers better prepare for large storms, and urban planners in their efforts to mitigate flood damage.
ContributorsHelderop, Edward (Author) / Grubesic, Tony H. (Thesis advisor) / Kuby, Mike (Committee member) / Hondula, David M. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Over the past six years, the use of drones for recreational and commercial purposes has increased dramatically. There are currently over one million registered drones in the United States, and this number is expected to increase in the foreseeable future. For now, drones are a local phenomenon. The operational limitations prevent them from long range activity and federal policies prevent them from operating beyond the visual line of sight of the controller. The localized nature of drone operation makes them a particularly salient issue at the local regulatory level. At this level, cities must contend with the uncertainty of drone operation and a complex regulatory environment. Within a single metropolitan region, there are cities that may attempt to restrict the use of drones through various local ordinances while neighboring cities may have not even considered, let alone adopted, any type of regulation. The reasons behind these policy choices are not clear.
In an effort to understand the factors involved in the decisions to adopt a local drone use policy, this dissertation leverages qualitative methods to analyze the policy process leading to local decisions. The study capitalizes on rich contextual data gathered from a variety of sources for select cities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Specifically, this study builds a conceptual framework from policy innovation literature and applies it in the form of content analysis. This initial effort is used to identify the catalysts for policy discussion and the specific innovation mechanisms that support or detract from the decision to adopt a local drone use ordinance. Then, qualitative comparative analysis is used to determine which configuration of factors, identified during the content analysis, contribute to the causal path of policy adoption. Among other things, the results highlight the role that uncertainty plays in the policy process. Cities that adopt a drone use ordinance have low levels of uncertainty, high numbers of registered drone users, and at least two neighboring cities that also have drone use policies. This dissertation makes a modest contribution to policy innovation research, highlights how a configurational analysis technique can be applied to policy adoption decisions, and contains several recommendations for regulating drone use at the local level.
In an effort to understand the factors involved in the decisions to adopt a local drone use policy, this dissertation leverages qualitative methods to analyze the policy process leading to local decisions. The study capitalizes on rich contextual data gathered from a variety of sources for select cities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Specifically, this study builds a conceptual framework from policy innovation literature and applies it in the form of content analysis. This initial effort is used to identify the catalysts for policy discussion and the specific innovation mechanisms that support or detract from the decision to adopt a local drone use ordinance. Then, qualitative comparative analysis is used to determine which configuration of factors, identified during the content analysis, contribute to the causal path of policy adoption. Among other things, the results highlight the role that uncertainty plays in the policy process. Cities that adopt a drone use ordinance have low levels of uncertainty, high numbers of registered drone users, and at least two neighboring cities that also have drone use policies. This dissertation makes a modest contribution to policy innovation research, highlights how a configurational analysis technique can be applied to policy adoption decisions, and contains several recommendations for regulating drone use at the local level.
ContributorsNelson, Jake (Author) / Grubesic, Tony H. (Thesis advisor) / Kim, Yushim (Committee member) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Mossberger, Karen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
One of the theoretical cores and values of good governance is the accountability of public employees, where the citizens expect the public employees to maintain professional standards, avoid conflicts of interest, respect the principles of fair and impartial treatment, and use public money wisely. However, are these unique moral standards to which only public employees are held? The dissertation seeks to examine how the public evaluates the unethical behaviors of public and private leaders differently to better understand the sources of public and private sector differences in the public’s normative evaluations.
Based on a randomized online vignette experiment with 1,569 respondents residing in the United States collected in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform, the dissertation confirms that public authorities face different levels of public tolerance relative to business managers. More specifically, the unethical behaviors of a public manager are less likely to be tolerated than the same misconduct of a business manager, while ethical offenses of elected officials are least likely to be tolerated by the public. However, the public is relatively much less tolerant of public managers’ and elected officials’ petty violations relative to business managers than they do for more egregious violations of public authorities.
The dissertation further finds that public evaluations are contingent upon the respondents’ work experience in different sectors. Individuals working in government are more likely to be tolerant of petty unethical behaviors, regardless of whom they evaluate, but they become much less tolerant of public managers’ and elected officials’ grand ethical violations. The longer individuals work in for-profit organizations, the less likely they are to tolerate public authorities’ petty violations of organizational rules while consistently being more accepting of the unethical behaviors of business managers.
Using an experimental design, the dissertation finds the importance of a fair and legitimate use of tax money in the public’s moral evaluations of public leadership and further discusses the potential sources of public skepticism of the public sector. Furthermore, the public and private sector comparison provides theoretical and practical implications for ethics reform in the era of collaborative governance.
Based on a randomized online vignette experiment with 1,569 respondents residing in the United States collected in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform, the dissertation confirms that public authorities face different levels of public tolerance relative to business managers. More specifically, the unethical behaviors of a public manager are less likely to be tolerated than the same misconduct of a business manager, while ethical offenses of elected officials are least likely to be tolerated by the public. However, the public is relatively much less tolerant of public managers’ and elected officials’ petty violations relative to business managers than they do for more egregious violations of public authorities.
The dissertation further finds that public evaluations are contingent upon the respondents’ work experience in different sectors. Individuals working in government are more likely to be tolerant of petty unethical behaviors, regardless of whom they evaluate, but they become much less tolerant of public managers’ and elected officials’ grand ethical violations. The longer individuals work in for-profit organizations, the less likely they are to tolerate public authorities’ petty violations of organizational rules while consistently being more accepting of the unethical behaviors of business managers.
Using an experimental design, the dissertation finds the importance of a fair and legitimate use of tax money in the public’s moral evaluations of public leadership and further discusses the potential sources of public skepticism of the public sector. Furthermore, the public and private sector comparison provides theoretical and practical implications for ethics reform in the era of collaborative governance.
ContributorsJung, Jiwon (Author) / Bozeman, Barry (Thesis advisor) / Bretschneider, Stuart (Committee member) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020
Description
Background: With Pennsylvania currently considering a move away from an Alcohol Beverage Control state to a privatized alcohol distribution system, this study uses a spatial analytical approach to examine potential impacts of privatization on the number and spatial distribution of alcohol outlets in the city of Philadelphia over a long time horizon.
Methods: A suite of geospatial data were acquired for Philadelphia, including 1,964 alcohol outlet locations, 569,928 land parcels, and school, church, hospital, park and playground locations. These data were used as inputs for exploratory spatial analysis to estimate the expected number of outlets that would eventually operate in Philadelphia. Constraints included proximity restrictions (based on current ordinances regulating outlet distribution) of at least 200 feet between alcohol outlets and at least 300 feet between outlets and schools, churches, hospitals, parks and playgrounds.
Results: Findings suggest that current state policies on alcohol outlet distributions in Philadelphia are loosely enforced, with many areas exhibiting extremely high spatial densities of outlets that violate existing proximity restrictions. The spatial model indicates that an additional 1,115 outlets could open in Philadelphia if privatization was to occur and current proximity ordinances were maintained.
Conclusions: The study reveals that spatial analytical approaches can function as an excellent tool for contingency-based “what-if” analysis, providing an objective snapshot of potential policy outcomes prior to implementation. In this case, the likely outcome is a tremendous increase in alcohol outlets in Philadelphia, with concomitant negative health, crime and quality of life outcomes that accompany such an increase.
ContributorsGrubesic, Tony H. (Author) / Murray, Alan (Author) / Pridemore, William Alex (Author) / Tabb, Loni Philip (Author) / Liu, Yin (Author) / Wei, Ran (Author) / College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (Contributor)
Created2012-11-21