Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Listed below are the instructions, question, and tables. T | WriteDen

Listed below are the instructions, question, and tables. T

Listed below are the instructions, question, and tables. The tables must be translated in your findings. Bible perspectives must be included, Marginal Productivity Theory for theoretical review,and articles that are attached as well as others must be included. 

This is due: 10am on Thursday June 23, 2022 (Eastern Time Zone). NO LATE WORK!!

 PLEASE READ ALL ATTACHED MATERIAL BELOW!

Criteria Ratings Points

Understanding of Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

20 to >18.0 pts

Advanced

Shows a deep understanding of quantitative research methods and data analysis in criminal justice.

18 to >16.0 pts

Proficient

Shows a basic understanding of the role of quantitative research methods and data analysis in criminal justice.

16 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Shows a poor understanding in quantitative research methods and data analysis in criminal justice.

0 pts

Not Present

20 pts

Research Design, Research Questions, & Hypotheses

20 to >18.0 pts

Advanced

The research design, hypotheses, and research questions are appropriately named and tested.

18 to >16.0 pts

Proficient

The research design, hypotheses, and research questions are mostly named and tested.

16 to >0.0 pts

Developing

The research design, hypotheses, and research questions are not named and incorrectly tested.

0 pts

Not Present

20 pts

Use of the Selected Analytical Method

20 to >18.0 pts

Advanced

Appropriate and accurate selection and use of analytic methods.

18 to >16.0 pts

Proficient

Mostly appropriate and accurate selection and use of analytic methods.

16 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Somewhat appropriate and/or somewhat accurate selection and use of analytic methods.

0 pts

Not Present

20 pts

Interpretation of the Results

30 to >27.0 pts

Advanced

Appropriate and comprehensive explanation of the results obtained from the quantitative analysis in the context of the original problem.

27 to >25.0 pts

Proficient

Mostly appropriate explanation of the results obtained from the quantitative analysis in the context of the original problem.

25 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Somewhat appropriate explanation of the results obtained from the quantitative analysis. Explanation of the context is somewhat incorrect or incomplete.

0 pts

Not Present

30 pts

Use of IBM SPSS®

20 to >18.0 pts

Advanced

Excellent use and application of SPSS.

18 to >16.0 pts

Proficient

Good use and application of SPSS.

16 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Fair to poor use and application of SPSS.

0 pts

Not Present

20 pts

Quantitative Analysis Report Grading Rubric | CJUS745_B01_202230

Criteria Ratings Points

Use of Sources from Course

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

Use of all relevant sources from the Learn material.

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

Use of most relevant sources from the Learn material.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Use of some relevant sources from the Learn material.

0 pts

Not Present

15 pts

Grammar, Writing, & APA

15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

Proper grammar, writing, and current APA format

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

A few grammar, writing, and APA errors.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Numerous grammar, writing, and APA errors.

0 pts

Not Present

15 pts

Page Length 15 to >13.0 pts

Advanced

4-5 double-spaced pages of content in length (not counting the title page or references).

13 to >11.0 pts

Proficient

1 page more or less than the required length range (not counting the title page or references); double-spaced.

11 to >0.0 pts

Developing

More than 1 page more or less than the required length range (not counting the title page or references); double-spaced.

0 pts

Not Present

15 pts

Total Points: 155

Quantitative Analysis Report Grading Rubric | CJUS745_B01_202230

,

American Review of Public Administration 2016, Vol. 46(4) 399 –417

© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0275074014555645

arp.sagepub.com

Article

Understanding Multiplexity of Collaborative Emergency Management Networks

Naim Kapucu1 and Qian Hu1

Abstract This article explores the multiplex relationships among organizations within the context of emergency management. It examines the role of friendship networks and disaster preparedness networks in predicting sustainable collaborative disaster response networks. Furthermore, it examines the impact of emergency management systems on network building and sustainability. This article applies inferential network analysis methods in analyzing relationships among emergency management networks and examines the predictive power of preestablished network arrangements. This research suggests that friendship networks are important for encouraging organizations to be involved in disaster preparedness networks. Yet it is the collaboration ties during disaster preparedness that influence the formation of collaborations during disaster response. Structural attributes of emergency management systems have impacts on the development of multiplex relationships among organizations within various networks. These findings not only contribute to developing sustainable emergency management networks but also provide insights for building collaborative networks in a broader context.

Keywords networks, multiplexity, friendship networks, emergency management networks

Introduction

Intergovernmental collaborations among government agencies and cross-sector collaborations among public, private, and nonprofit organizations are not new. Yet, the scope and depth of cross- sector collaborations in public policy and management during the past few decades is unprece- dented (McGuire, 2006). Government agencies collaborate with other government organizations at different levels as well as with nonprofit organizations and businesses to provide public ser- vices (Milward, Provan, Fish, Isett, & Huang, 2010; O’Toole, 1997), promote economic develop- ment (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Lee, Feiock, & Lee, 2011), and manage disasters and crises (Comfort, Waugh, & Cigler, 2012; Kapucu, 2006a).

Intergovernmental and cross-sector collaboration have become common disaster response and recovery practices due to the need for sharing resources and coordinating efforts (Kapucu & Ozerdem, 2013; McGuire, Brudney, & Gazley, 2010). Local governments work closely with

1University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

Corresponding Author: Naim Kapucu, School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida, HPA II Suite 238M, Orlando, FL 32816, USA. Email: [email protected]

555645ARPXXX10.1177/0275074014555645The American Review of Public AdministrationKapucu and Hu research-article2014

400 American Review of Public Administration 46(4)

federal and state governments to coordinate efforts to meet disaster preparedness goals. Furthermore, representatives of public, nonprofit, and private organizations form formal and informal networks during disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Recent research sug- gests that building collaborative networks has been crucial for the effectiveness of emergency management (Comfort et al., 2012; Waugh & Streib, 2006). Through building and sustaining functional interorganizational networks, emergency management organizations can not only share information, financial resources, and human capital but also effectively coordinate their efforts in response to disasters and subsequent recovery (Kapucu & Garayev, 2012).

It takes time and a great amount of effort and resources to form and build emergency manage- ment networks. Furthermore, to ensure an effective emergency management network, it is impor- tant to foster trust, sustain relationships, and build collaborations before and after disasters (Kapucu & Garayev, 2012). Most existing research on emergency management networks focuses on analyzing key actors, interactions among organizations, and the network structures within a single type of emergency management network (e.g., Choi & Brower, 2006; Choi & Kim, 2007). Relatively fewer studies have examined the multiplex relationships between organizations within various emergency management networks and the evolution of networks (Kapucu, 2009), let alone the dynamic development of emergency management networks (Robinson, Eller, Gall, & Gerber, 2013). In addition, research that examines emergency management networks at the advanced analytical level remains limited.

This article explores the multiplex relationships among organizations from different sectors within the context of emergency management. It also examines the role of friendship networks and disaster preparedness networks in predicting sustainable collaborative disaster response net- works. Furthermore, it examines the impact of emergency management systems on network building and sustainability. As part of a federally funded project, this research focuses on the emergency management networks within two metropolitan counties in a southeastern state that is prone to hurricanes and other natural disasters. This article addresses the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between friendship networks and collabora- tion networks during disaster preparedness? Research Question 2: Can disaster response networks be predicted based on preestablished friendship networks and disaster preparedness networks? Research Question 3: Do structural characteristics of emergency management systems affect the relationships among friendship networks, preparedness networks, and response networks?

After reviewing relevant literature and proposing the theoretical framework, the article first examines the structural characteristics of three types of emergency management networks: (a) friendship networks, (b) preparedness networks, and (c) response networks. Next, it studies the correlations among different types of networks through inferential network analysis. Furthermore, it examines the impact of emergency management systems on network building and sustainability.

Collaborative Emergency Management Networks

Public organizational networks can be defined as “a group of three or more organizations con- nected in ways that facilitate achievement of a common goal” (Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007, p. 482). Interorganizational networks can help organizations better address issues that one single organization cannot resolve (Provan & Milward, 2001). Although the traditional command and control approach remains important in emergency management, the collaborative approach is

Kapucu and Hu 401

crucial to current emergency management practices (Comfort et al., 2012; Kapucu, 2009, 2012). Collaborative networks are fundamental to emergency management as community organizations, nonprofit, and private organizations play significant roles in response to and recovery from disas- ters (Kapucu, 2006b; Waugh, 2003; Waugh & Streib, 2006). Networks of emergency manage- ment organizations have been built and sustained to better utilize resources and coordinate efforts to prepare for and respond to disasters.

Researchers have examined the key actors and the structural characteristics of emergency management networks (e.g., Choi & Brower, 2006; Choi & Kim, 2007; Kapucu, 2006a; Kapucu & Demiroz, 2011; McGuire & Silvia, 2010; Robinson et al., 2013). Many of these studies focus on analyzing the formal interorganizational networks that are defined by the emergency manage- ment plans, or they compare the planned networks with actual networks. For instance, Choi and Brower (2006) and Kapucu and Demiroz (2011) conducted social network analysis to examine the structural differences between the actual response networks and the planned networks. Few studies have examined the informal networks and the multiplexity of interorganizational interac- tions (Isett, Mergel, LeRoux, & Mischen, 2011; Robinson, 2006), which is focus of this research.

Multiplexity of Networks

Various components of organizations, such as people, knowledge, resources, and tasks, along with organizations, interact with one another and form different types of networks, such as social networks, knowledge networks, resource networks, and interorganizational networks (Carley, 2012). Organizations may build multiple types of connections with other organizations. Thus, interorganizational networks can be further categorized into different types. Multiplex ties refer to the multiple types of interactions among organizations (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013). Multiplexity indicates a higher level of tie strength between organizations, and multiplex ties show organizations’ commitments to multiple collaborative activities (Provan & Milward, 2001). Furthermore, broader levels of involvement with diverse activities allow organizations to exchange information and coordinate efforts relatively easily, which may contribute to long-term network development and evolution.

There are four phases of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Various emergency management networks are formed to share information, plan for emergency scenarios, and coordinate response and recovery efforts during and after an emer- gency (Kapucu & Ozerdem, 2013). The number of organizations involved in each phase can change, and the type of interorganizational interactions can vary in different phases of emergency management. Therefore, it is necessary to further analyze various types of interactions among organizations. This research examines three types of emergency management networks: friend- ship networks, disaster preparedness networks, and disaster response networks.

Within friendship networks, organizational representatives know other public, nonprofit, and private organizations working in the field of emergency management. Friendship networks do not involve formal collaboration actions: They are informal networks. Krackhardt and Hanson (1993) noted that informal networks may differ significantly from the formal organizational chart. Managers need to understand the patterns of informal networks to leverage untapped resources and expertise, and to make sure the informal networks are aligned with organizational goals (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993). Similarly, Cross and Parker (2004) suggested that managers need to understand informal structures and take advantage of the “hidden power of networks” (p. 3). Informal networks, including friendship networks, although not defined by any formal con- tracts or agreements, may serve as important venues for organizations to share information, solve problems, and build capacity. Informal networks can play crucial roles in fostering the develop- ment of long-term formal networks. Moreover, informal networks tend to formalize in the long run, which may encourage the organizations within the informal networks to secure and share resources (Isett et al., 2011).

402 American Review of Public Administration 46(4)

Social capital plays an important role in building and sustaining collaborative networks. Social capital was introduced to study interorganizational relationships and its impact on organi- zational structure, coordination, and network performance (Burt, 1997; Furst, Schuber, Rudoph, & Spieckermann, 2001; Lin, 1999; Provan & Lemaire, 2012). The effectiveness of interorgani- zational networks is contingent upon the levels of trust, commitment, and social capital that exist among interacting organizations (Agranoff, 2007; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Thomson & Perry, 2006). Scholars suggest that the existence of social capital can help reduce transaction costs, enhance trust and commitment, and encourage cooperative behav- ior in collective actions (Agranoff, 2007; Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Many studies have high- lighted the importance of social capital and preestablished relationships in emergency management networks (Jaeger et al., 2007; Kapucu, 2006a; Kapucu, Hawkins, & Rivera, 2013; Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003). Kapucu (2006b), in his study on public–nonprofit partnerships in emer- gency planning and response, noted that social capital is “a resource that is inherent in the rela- tions among actors in a variety of locations and sectors” (p. 209). He further noted that regular working relationships would enable communities to function well when faced with disaster sce- narios, as trust can be built between public and nonprofit organizations prior to disasters. Kapucu and Garayev (2012) proposed that network relationships are important for the sustainability of functionally collaborative emergency management networks. They argued that organizations are more likely to sustain their collaborative relationships with other organizations when these orga- nizations are interdependent and rely on each other for sharing information or resources.

This article identifies friendship ties and collaboration ties in disaster preparedness efforts as indicators of social capital. Representatives of emergency management organizations were asked to identify others as a friend in emergency management networks. The concept of social capital can manifest in emergency management networks in two ways: First, it is assumed that a certain level of social capital exists if the organizational representatives have friendship ties with others in emergency management networks. Second, collaborative ties in disaster preparedness net- works, which play out in the emergency response stage, can indicate the existence of social capi- tal. Thus, we propose the first set of hypotheses as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Friendship ties among emergency management organizations positively cor- relate with formal collaboration ties during disaster preparedness. Hypothesis 2: Friendship ties among emergency management organizations positively cor- relate with formal collaboration ties in disaster response.

Different from friendship networks, disaster preparedness networks and emergency response networks often involve more formal collaborations among organizations during disaster pre- paredness and response. Multiple ties may make it more likely to build common goals through multiple levels of participation within the organizational network (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). These multiplex relationships are usually developed at the preparedness stage, where different agencies are involved in common emergency drills, exercises, and trainings. Relationships are also strengthened and developed during actual disasters where agencies can discover new part- ners when working toward common goals (Kapucu & Garayev, 2012; Robinson et al., 2013). Collaborative ties that are developed formally through mandates, Memoranda of Understandings (MoUs), or common preparedness drills and exercises may indicate a higher level of social capi- tal. Friendship ties do not necessarily transform into work relations, while previous work rela- tions are more likely to breed new and multiple ties (Isett & Provan, 2005; Larson, 1992) during the disaster response stage. Thus, friendship networks may not necessarily be developed accord- ing to the needs or resource dependencies identified during the disaster response stage. The resource needs of organizations at the response stage are better met through preparedness net- works. Hence, the second set of hypotheses proposed is as follows:

Kapucu and Hu 403

Hypothesis 3: Formal collaboration ties in disaster preparedness are positively related with the formation of collaboration ties in disaster response. Hypothesis 4: The correlation between disaster preparedness networks and disaster response net- works is higher than the correlation between friendship networks and disaster response networks.

Structural Characteristics and Network Formation and Development

There are multiple types of collaborative emergency management systems. We can categorize them into three types: vertical or hierarchical, horizontal or decentralized, and a combination of the two (Kapucu & Garayev, 2014). In the United States, three different systems are practiced: the Emergency Support Function (ESF)1-based system (horizontal), the Incident Command System (ICS; vertical), and the hybrid combination of the two systems. The ESF-based system was introduced in the Federal Response Plan (FRP) in the early 1990s to improve the coordinat- ing mechanism of emergency management operations at the national level. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, the National Response Framework (NRF) was established in 2008 based on lessons learned to enhance coordination across govern- ment agencies as well as among the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. Emergency manage- ment agencies operate based on 15 ESFs, which demand a collaborative approach to emergency management (Kapucu & Garayev, 2012).

The ICS-based approach, the foundation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS),2 emphasizes a hierarchy of authority as well as standard operational structures for man- aging disasters (Lester & Krejci, 2007). This is because a unified command is needed when response to incidents requires efforts from multiple organizations across a particular jurisdiction (Moynihan, 2009). ICS is organized around five functional areas, including command, opera- tions, planning, logistics, and finance/administration (Department of Homeland Security [DHS], 2008). When an incident occurs, a single incident commander is responsible for the overall inci- dent management and decision-making processes. The commander is supported by command staff, consisting of a public information officer, a safety officer, and a liaison officer. When inter- organizational collaboration is required, representatives of agencies involved make joint deci- sions to create a unified command (DHS, 2008).

Overall, the ICS-based approach demonstrates a relatively hierarchical command-and-control sys- tem, whereas the ESF-based system exhibits a horizontal collaborative structure (Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010). Compared with the vertical structure of the ICS-based approach, the horizontal struc- ture of the ESF-based system allows for more flexibility, enabling emergency management organiza- tions to reach out to other partner organizations in the network to share resources and coordinate efforts. Therefore, existing friendship ties are more likely to correlate with the formation of formal collaborative ties in the ESF-based horizontal system than in the ICS-based vertical system. Given the high level of reliance on hierarchy and command and control within the ICS-based emergency man- agement system, formal connections during disaster preparedness are more likely to lead to more formal collaborations during emergency response. The third set of hypotheses is as follows:

Hypothesis 5: Friendship ties within horizontal emergency management networks have stron- ger predictive power in the formation of formal collaboration ties in disaster preparedness than do the counterparts within hierarchical emergency networks. Hypothesis 6: Friendship ties within horizontal emergency management networks have higher predictive power in the formation of formal collaboration ties in disaster response than do the counterparts within hierarchical emergency management networks. Hypothesis 7: Collaboration ties during disaster preparedness within horizontal emergency management networks have lower predictive power in the formation of collaboration ties in disaster response than do the counterparts within hierarchical emergency management networks.

404 American Review of Public Administration 46(4)

Networks and Homophily

According to social network research, individuals and organizations are more likely to establish interactions with other individuals and organizations that share some attributes (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). For instance, organizations that are similar in staff size, budget size, and sector affiliation are more likely to interact with each other for information and resource sharing. In this study, sector affiliation (public, private, or nonprofit) and differences in organiza- tional staff size and budget were used to measure the extent to which emergency management organizations are similar to each other. Matrices reflecting the differences in staff size and bud- gets were created as control variables.

As shown in Figure 1, this research mainly focuses on the relationships among the three types of networks: friendship networks, disaster preparedness networks, and disaster response net- works. This research also takes into consideration the structure of the networks (hierarchical versus horizontal) along with three control variables: (a) sector affiliation, (b) budget difference, and (c) staff size difference. The conceptual map suggests that friendship ties influence the for- mal collaboration ties during disaster preparedness and response. Moreover, the figure also shows that formal collaboration ties in disaster preparedness networks influence the formation of collaborative ties in the disaster response phase. We hypothesize that the correlation between disaster preparedness networks and response networks is higher than the correlation between the friendship and disaster response networks. This is because formal collaboration at the prepared- ness stage identifies potential partners categorically through common exercises, drills, and train- ings, and also leads to formalizing partnerships and relationships through emergency management plans, policies, mandates, and MoUs.

Moreover, the influence of friendship ties on developing formal collaborative ties is also dependent on the overall structure of the networks. In the case of a traditional command-and- control-based hierarchical structure, the predictive power and influence of a friendship network on the formation of formal collaboration in response networks is relatively weak. However, if the

H1+

H3+

H4 +

H2 +

H5+

H7-

H6+ Preparedness

Networks

Response Networks

Control Variables:

Budget difference Staff size difference

Sector Affiliation Difference

Network Structures:

Horizontal vs. Hierarchical

Friendship Networks

Figure 1. Conceptual framework: Multiplexity of networks. Note. Solid lines are used to indicate Hypotheses 1 to 3. Dotted lines are used to visualize Hypotheses 4 to 7.

Kapucu and Hu 405

friendship ties are arranged in a horizontal configuration, they have a stronger predictive power in the formation of formal collaboration ties in disaster preparedness networks. On the other hand, we hypothesize that if collaboration ties are arranged in a hierarchical network, they exert a higher level of predictive power on the formation of collaborative ties in the disaster response phase. Thus, the conceptual framework emphasizes the role that network structure plays in pre- dicting the formation of collaborative ties in preparedness and response networks. The frame- work also shows that factors such as the financial standing of agencies (depicted through budget differences) and the size of the organizations (staff size) influence the development of collabora- tive ties in all three networks studied.

Context of the Study

In most states, disaster preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery fall on the local govern- ments. County governments play a vital role in local emergency management (Waugh, 1994). County governments may establish emergency management agencies, such as the Office of Emergency Management, and coordinate with other local public agencies, nonprofits, and for- profit organizations to prepare for and to respond to disasters. This study examines the emer- gency management networks within two counties of the state of Florida, which is one of the most at-risk states for disasters in the United States. The emergency management system in this state has been recognized as a model for the entire country (Kapucu & Garayev, 2014). The emergency management system in Orange County demonstrates a more horizontal network structure, whereas Duval County has a hierarchical network structure for emergency management.

Horizontal Networks in Orange County

Orange County is one of seven counties comprising Central Florida and serves a population of about 1 million. It is a charter government with an elected mayor and six commissioners repre- senting six county districts. Per Section 252.38 of the Florida State Statutes, the county mayor directs county governments to establish an emergency management agency and delegates the authority to manage emergencies and disasters to the Director of Emergency Management.3 The director administers the County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and operates the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in times of disasters (Kapucu & Garayev, 2012). When a local disaster occurs, the director of the EOC will follow the guidelines specified in the county’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) and activate the EOC, depending on the level of threat or risk.

Despite the compliance of OEM with the NIMS-based ICS structure, the main system of referral in Orange County is based on horizontally arranged ESFs. It is primarily the ESFs that provide coordination structures and guidelines to organizations when dealing with emergency- related operations. The relationships and ties among agencies represented at the EOC in times of emergencies are structured around 20 ESFs and their respective primary and support agencies. The NIMS-based ICS structure, however, remains the main scheme for classification of the ESFs, as well as other parts of the Emergency Response Team (ERT), for guidance and efficiency purposes (Kapucu & Garayev, 2014).

Hierarchical Networks in Duval County

Duval County is located at the eastern side of the state of Florida and serves a population of about 850,000. Like Orange County, Duval County is a charter government with an elected mayor and a council of 19 members. The Emergency Preparedness Division (EPD) Chief of the Fire and Rescue Department of the (organization name removed for the blind review) is in charge of

406 American Review of Public Administration 46(4)

emergency and disaster management in Duval County. When a local emergency occurs, the EPD activates the EOC to respond to the threat. EOC operations activate the Emergency Preparedness Organization (EPO), which is structured in line with NIMS (Kapucu et al., 2010). As a widely practiced standard, the head of th

HOW OUR WEBSITE WORKS

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of 
HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE.

Step 1

To make an Order you only need to click ORDER NOW and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDen. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
 Deadline range from 6 hours to 30 days.

Step 2

Once done with writing your paper we will upload it to your account on our website and also forward a copy to your email.

Step 3
Upon receiving your paper, review it and if any changes are needed contact us immediately. We offer unlimited revisions at no extra cost.

Is it Safe to use our services?
We never resell papers on this site. Meaning after your purchase you will get an original copy of your assignment and you have all the rights to use the paper.

Discounts

Our price ranges from $8-$14 per page. If you are short of Budget, contact our Live Support for a Discount Code. All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Please note we do not have prewritten answers. We need some time to prepare a perfect essay for you.