Use “Social Security” document
The case study will based on Public Administration Ethics, the case study to
analyze and respond to by writing a staff report/recommendation.
The Case study should cover :Public Administration Ethics Rubric. The Paper
have to write the key points with the bellow RED WORDS parts:
Ethics OR Administrative Law
Demonstration:
Awareness of
Considerations
Ethics
Is there an ethical
question here?
Score
0-5
Conceptualizes Issue
WHY is this an
ethical concern?
What obligations
exist? What limits
appropriate
outcomes?
Ethical codes,
guidelines,
commentaries
(Plato, Cooper, etc.)
“Publickizing” the
Decision Process
Describes
appropriate
administrative
structures and
processes,
individual
characteristics,
professional
scaffolding
0-5
References Authorities
Strategizes a Response
Anticipates and
Positions Agency for
Future Instances
Overall
Additional Reviewer
Comments or Concerns
0-5
0-5
0-5
Sum:
/25
Example: STAFF REPORT(Case Study)
Subject:
Increase college graduation rates in U.S.
______________________________________________________________
Recommendation: Staff recommendation is to encourage to subsidize NGO/Private
non-profit universities utilizing Pell grants to improve college
affordability as well as increase college graduation rates. In
addition, subsidies given to public institutions are also encouraged
in this report.
Background:
Since the recession in the 1980s, the funding offered by the state and federal
government in the United States has gradually declined. In order to be able to
quickly react to recessions, the federal government has cut down the supportive
education funding to the states. This followed by the growth in student tuition and
fees. The continuously rising tuition is more and more unaffordable for students and
their families, which not only negatively influenced the access to colleges, but may
cause the gradually decreasing college graduation rates. This case has aroused
serious concern by the public about entries into colleges and universities as well as
college graduation rates. Therefore, an increased focus on college graduation and
student outcomes among policy makers and educators has increasingly driven them
to generate a discussion about what college policies and practices that lead to
greater student success.
Options:
Three options were considered:
1. Subsidize higher education public universities
2. Subsidize NGO/private non-profit universities utilizing Pell grants
3. Make no changes to policies. Leave as is National norm now.
Analysis:
Each option was analyzed based on the following criteria:
•
The option of subsidizing higher education public institutions is using state-bystate college attainment data, which are derived from the U.S. Department of
Education. The new data showing college attainment state-by-state based on
census bureau data:American Community Survey (ACS) from 2009 to 2010
arereleased by the Administration office.America used to be the top one in the
world for college degree attainment rates but has recently decreased a
lot.Although the federal government has largely increased the funding to
subsidize the higher education, but the state need to meet us to keep the college
cost down.
•
Data using to analyze that subsidize NGO/private non-profit colleges and
universities are derived from the project produced by the Chronicle of Higher
Education with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This project
has reported the college graduation rates showing the percent rank for
bachelor’s-degree-seeking students in four-year institutions. The numbers only
for private non-profit universities have been selected and used in presenting in
the row of option B compared with those from the public sector in option A. This
analysis including data collected from those non-profit institutions benefited from
Pell Grant funding or other student aid system.
Increasing funding support to the public universities and private non-profit institution
both can improve students’ college attainment so can increase college graduation
rates. In However, based on analysis of the decision matrix, to subsidize
NGO/private non-profit colleges will be the best decision to rise the college
graduation rates.
The emphasis of this report is on the consequence of the change of college
graduation rates and college degree attainment.
Summary of Analysis
Decision Matrix
Options:
Choices actually
available
1. Government
increases*
higher
education
subsidies that
results
graduation
rates (U.S Dept.
of Education)
A. Subsidize higher 38.1%
education public
universities
(U.S Dept. of
Education)
B. Subsidize
43.5%
NGO/private
non-profit
universities
utilizing Pell
grants
(the Chronicle of
Higher
Education)
C. Do nothing.
33.1%
Leave as is
National norm
now.
(the Chronicle of
Higher
Education)
State of nature
2. State
government
makes no
changes* that
results
graduation
rates (U.S Dept.
of Education)
38.2%
3. State
government
decreases*
higher
education
subsidies that
results
graduation
rates (U.S Dept.
of Education)
37.3%
38.2%
39.1%
30%
39.5%
Note: *The gap of graduation rates between two years less than 1% are regarded as “make no changes”.
Otherwise, they are considered as “increase” or “decrease”.
Payoff Table
Alternatives
Increasing
Stable
Decreasing
EMV*
Public
NGO/Private Non-profit
38.1%
43.5%
38.2%
38.2%
37.3%
39.1%
37.8%
41.0%
Do nothing
33.1%
30%
39.5%
35.1%
Probability
(HE State Funding Trends and Policies on
Affordability)
23/50=0.46 8/50=0.16 19/50=0.38
Note: *EMV stands for Expected Marginal Value
EMV (Public) =0.46(38.1%)+0.16(38.2%)+0.38(37.3%)=37.8%
EMV (NGO/Private Non-profit) =0.46(43.5%)+0.16(38.2%)+0.38(39.1%)=41.0%
EMV (No changes) =0.46(33.1%)+0.16(30%)+0.38(39.5%)=35.1%
•
Analyze the decision table by comparing the weighted averages of the payoffs (EMV),
the best expected value is 41.0%. Therefore, the decision is to subsidize NGO/private
non-profit universities utilizing Pell grants or loans.
For detailed analysis in several approaches figure out which alternative is the best
decision and why we choose it, see appendix A, B, C and matrix detailed analysis.
Limitations:
The analysis provided above is using the data from 2009 to 2013, which are not recently
newest numbers. Moreover, the data from the project produced by the Chronicle of
Higher Education do not contain information for students who drop out and re-enroll
or complete a degree elsewhere, which is important to note.
Ethics:
It is obviously to provide affordable access to higher education is morally
encouraged in this report, but there also reasonably exists a social justice
standpoint arguing that we can’t afford to keep pouring funds into higher education
using money from taxpayers.
Conclusions:
1. All three available options can bring positive benefits in affecting students’
college attainment as well as college graduation rates.
2. Option B, that is to subsidize NGO/private non-profits institutions utilizing grants
and loans, is the mostly encouraged to adopt in this case. It is the best decision
among three options provided above in improving college affordability and rising
college graduation rates through, for example, boosting Pell grant funding. In
addition, it is also encouraged to subsidize higher education public universities.
3. The weakest results occur in leaving as is National norm now.
1
Staff Report
Recommendation
The recommendations for this case study are wide-ranging. For instance, management can
chose to change the current management of the Henry vessel to enhance efficiency and crew
motivation. Additionally, increasing the crew’s salary and providing material compensation
including bonuses, monetary incentives, and overtime pay would significantly boost their morale.
The management can still chose to “do noting” and allow the situation to prevail. However, using
the multi-criteria decision matrix, these three solutions were narrowed down to the “providing
material compensation including bonuses, monetary incentives, and overtime pay” option as it was
the alternative than earned the highest score.
Background
Conventionally, the Coast Guard culture has been governed by a well-organized culture
and bureaucratic structure that ensure the organization achieves its set goals. Particularly, this
culture features such virtues as a commitment to work, stewardship, sacrifice, integrity,
selflessness, leadership, and compassion. With such profound components of culture, the Coast
Guard has instigated an unwritten rule that restrains members from complaining. The issue of low
wages, however, is one of the managerial oversight issues that need to be addressed in this case
study. In addition to the little pay, members of the Coast Guard are not materially rewarded with
bonuses, monetary incentives, or overtime pay despite working for long hours and days under
harsh working conditions. Instead, the crew members are often compensated with awards, honors,
and medals.This compensation issue was exacerbated when the US Coast Guard cutter Henry hired
an “incompetent” and inconsiderate captain, Ron Sandura, to manage the vessel. In his six-month
2
leadership tenure in the vessel, Sandura overworked the crew members with little time off, which
was against the long-established tradition. Particularly, his style of leadership nurtured the culture
of distrust, indiscipline, rebellion, and devoid of compassion and goodwill. Sandura’s behavior
clearly demonstrated that he was not fit for the job. His appointment to the leadership position was
political rather than on the basis of merit. Therefore, the unfair hiring process is one of the
recruitment and selection issues identified in the case.
Options
Three options were considered.
1. Due to ineffective leadership, it is necessary to effect administrative changes, for instance,
by changing the leadership of the ship.
2. The organization should go against the norm and include material compensation such as
bonuses, monetary incentives, and overtime pay in addition to awards, honors, and medals.
3. The organization also has the option of “doing nothing” at all and let the system correct
itself.
Analysis:
Each option was analyzed based on the following criteria:
1. Viability: The selected solutions must be achievable. As such, the viability criterion is
critical in this case as it measures the degree to which the alternatives are reasonable and
applicable in real-life.
2. Desirability: The disability criterion measures the degree with which the alternatives appeal
to the stakeholders involved in the case study
3
3. Alignment: The concept of alignment measures the degree with which the various
alternatives are consistent with the organization’s values and strategy.
In the option of changing leadership is achievablethough no easy.In addition, the crew and
everyone else onboard desire good leadership.Besides, changing leadership partially reconciles
with the organization’s goal of boosting the members’ morale. However, more efforts are needed
to enhance safe working condition for workers besides improving leadership.
For the second option that providing motivation-oriented material compensation including
bonuses, monetary incentives, and overtime pay to the crews. It is a requirement by the government
for employees to be compensated for extra hours worked. Desirability is also high since material
compensation
has
been
associated
with
increased
morale
and
motivation
among
employees.Alignment also scores higher since monetary compensation will increase dedication to
duty in accordance with the culture of the Coast Guard.
Third, do nothing and let the system correct itself. To viability, the crew is finding it hard to
cope with the current leadership.Also, the crew members are already requesting transfers to other
facilities. Alignment scores low since doing nothing will encourage more violation of the
members’ rights.
Summary of analysis
The alternatives will be weighed against the criteria on a 5-point scale where five represents the
highest importance and 1 represents less important. The table below shows the overall ratings of
the solutions proposed and their respective scores measured against the given set of criteria:
4
Criteria
Viability
Desirability
Alignment
The viability rate
The desirability is
The alignment
is= 4.
high= 5.
criteria are
Recommendations
Leadership Changes
12
median =3.
Provide motivation-
Viability is high
Desirability is also
Alignment also
oriented material
rating=5
high =5
scores higher
compensation including
15
=5)
bonuses, monetary
incentives, and overtime
pay
Do nothing and let the
Viability scores
Desirability scores
Alignment
system correct itself
lower =2
low =1
scores low =1
4
From the above decision matrix, the second option scores the highest (15), while the third option
scores the lowest (4). Therefore, the first option should be given the priority.
Limitations:
The analysis used the decision matrix approach to identify and recommend the most suitable
option. The central concept of this decision matrix is includes viability, desirability, and alignment
which are the most suitable alternative is the option that scores the highest. Of course, this sounds
reasonable but it is subject to serious limitations. Furthermore, the process of assigning scores and
5
weights to the alternative options based on the evaluation criteria is subjective. This means that
the assignment of these scores is based on individual opinions and feelings which could be
erroneous.
Ethical Implication:
The Coast Guard case has several ethical issues. Particularly, the actions of this ship’s
management acted inappropriately on moral grounds. Employees who work extra hours and days
need compensation for the extra work done. However, the management headed by captain Sandura
acted in violation of the worker’s rights thereby frustrating their motivation and morale in their
job. Therefore, it would not be ethical to allow the current situation to prevail. As such, it is morally
necessary to compensate the crew to restore their morale.
Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, it appears that changing the leadership of the ship and
providing material compensation will boost the morale and motivation of the crew. It would not
be advisable to “do nothing” and let the system correct itself. Out of the three options, the best
alternative to adopt is providing material compensation including bonuses, monetary incentives,
and overtime pay as it will motivate the crew to work even harder in their distinct capacities.
1
STAFF REPORT STEP BY STEP.
STEP 1 – IDENTIFY TWO OR MORE OPTIONS FOR DECISION MAKERS. Please note that one option that
may always be considered is do nothing.
On line example of California Higher Education
do nothing
funding
administrative changes
define what option is
maintain same administrative and funding efforts
increase funding to pre 2007-08 fiscal years
administrative changes to facilitate student flow
from community colleges to CSU to UC and set
performance levels
STEP 2 – IDENTIFY AND DEFINE CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS
On line example of California Higher Education
income
DEFINE CRITERION
income difference between high school and
college educated resident in California
Cost of CSU system per student and time it take
for state to recover investment in human capital
through income tax differences between high
school educated and college educated
presents of ethnic group in CSU system compared
to that in general population of California
return on investment to state of CA
equity
STEP 3 – IDENTIFY SOURCES OF DATA FOR CRITERION EMPLOYED
On line example of California Higher Education
income
DEFINE CRITERION
difference in annual income between college
graduate and high school graduate
difference in annual person income tax paid to CA
between high school graduate and college
graduate over 15 years
difference in participation of ethnic groups in CSU
system compare to presence of ethnic groups in
state of California
return on investment to state of CA
equity
▼
STEP 4- INDENTIFY EVIDENCE FOR MAKING COMPARISONS (Assignment 3)
On line example of California Higher Education
income
return on investment to state of CA
Equity
DEFINE CRITERION
Source: CSU 2015-16 Budget at:
http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/20142015/executive-summary/funding.shtml
Source of data is CA. Income tax bracket:
http://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable
Source for projected ethnic distribution in CA. PEW
2
research at http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpasswhites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-incalifornia/
California State University Enrollment by Ethnic
Group at:
http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/20132014/rfeth01.htm
US Census Bureau Quick Facts for CA.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
STEP 5: PREPARE MATRIX OF RAW DATA
Options
Criteria/
Individual Gain
Environment
(15 years)
College/HS income
defined
Do nothing, let
system self correct
some college =$365, 986
BS/BA=
Impose admin.
ChangesEliminate CSU
remedial classes,
select only top
25% from HS and
promote CCC>
CSU transfers.
Advocate
restoring state
funding
$583,124
some college =$365, 986
BS/BA=
$583,124
some college =$365, 986
BS/BA=
Criteria for analyzing options
State benefit -Income tax
revenue (15 years)
state tax revenue
Some college, BA/BS
Under-represented
group equity
CSU by race vs % in
population
Some college (-$4234) =
.76/1 B/C but loss
Gap for African
American= 1%
Gap for Hispanic= 2.7
Gap for Native Amer.1.3
BS/BA = $63,213/24999=
2.49 benefits/1 cost.
Some college (-$3705)**
.79/1 but loss
BS/BA = $63,213/24999=
2.49 benefits/1 cost.
Some college increases
state lost > -$4234
.76/1 B/C but loss
$583,124
BS/BA support can rise to up
to $18,607 over 5 years to
$3,721 and (B=C)
CCC by race
Black 7.3% no gap
Hispanic= 38.9 gap (.1%
gap)
Native Amer.5%
gap of 1.2%
Est. Black = 6.3% at
prior rate closes gap.
Est. Hispanic = 36% &
higher; could close gap.
Native Amer. Gap lower
to 1 vs. 1.3 or 1.2
*/ Surplus value is realized for BS/BA degrees but only 47-50% of CSU enrollees graduate with degree.
** Data from Community College League of California (CCLC) est. state funding per student =$5997
would alter state cost to: 5997 (year 1), 5655 (year 2) and $5823 (year 3 at CSU) =-$17475. Ethnicity data
also derived from CCLC
*** BENEFIT COST analysis that views the value of money over time DISCOUNTS money to enable one to
compare PRESENT VALUE. In above analysis money was discount at 3%
3
What each column means:
•
Column 1 gain for individual of college over high school for 15 year period =$583,124 per
person but value of higher education does not differ depending on policy options of state.
•
Column 2 what is the rate of return via income tax for each option?
Do Nothing: for those who do not finish college the rate of return is .76 back for every $1
spent and for those with BA/BS the return is $2.49 return on every $1 spent
Administrative Changes: for those who do not finish college the rate of return is .79 back for
every $1 spent and for those with BA/BS the return is $2.49 return on every $1 spent
Restoring Funding: for those who do not finish college the rate of return is .76 back for every
$1 spent and for those with BA/BS the return is $1 return on every $1 spent
•
Column 3 what is the equity outcome?
Do nothing= continue equity gap for African Americans, Native Americans and Hispanics
Administrative Changes= Retain gap for Native Americans and Hispanics
Restore funding = Maintain gap for Native Americans
STEP 6: MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON RAW DATA
•
•
•
•
There is no difference in outcomes regarding individual income
Best option for state’s return on investment = ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
Best option based on equity = return funding levels to pre 2007-08
OPTIMUM choice is combination of administrative changes AND increase state support
STEP 7: What is decision maker wants a determination RATHER than recommendations?
Need at “best outcomes” matrix. What is the optimum outcome and how does each option compare to
the optimum.
Criteria for analyzing options
Options
Criteria/ Environment Individual Gain(15 years)
Best outcome = $583,124
College/HS income
Best outcome = $583,124
defined
Do nothing, let system
self -correct
10
10
some college =$365, 986
Best outcome = $583,124
10
Impose admin.
Changes-
BS/BA=
$583,124
some college =$365, 986
BS/BA=
$583,124
Best outcome = $583,124
10
Advocate restoring
state funding
some college =$365, 986
BS/BA=
$583,124
Best outcome = $583,124
10
4
Criteria for analyzing options
Options
Criteria/
State benefit -Income
BEST OUTCOME
Environment
tax revenue (15 years) greatest return on
investment $2.49/1 and
least loss e.g. .79/1
state tax revenue
defined
Some college, BA/BS
Do nothing, let
system self correct
Impose admin.
ChangesEliminate CSU
remedial classes,
select only top
25% from HS and
promote CCC>
CSU transfers.
Advocate
restoring state
funding
Some college (-$4234) =
.76/1 B/C
BS/BA = $63,213/24999=
2.49 benefits/1 cost.
Some college (-$3705)**
.79/1
loss 24 cents/1
10
8.6
2.49/1
Difference
Some college loss 21 cents
on every dollar
BS/BA = $63,213/24999=
2.49 benefits/1 cost.
For college gain $2.49/1
Some college increases
state lost > -$4234
loss 24 cents/$1
BS/BA support can rise to
up to $18,607 over 5
years to $3,721 and
(B=C)
Get $1 return for every dollar
spent
10
1.6**
option is
weakest IF see
it as loss of
surplus value.
Otherwise
same as doing
nothing.
24 cent loss/21 cent loss =14% greater loss. Therefore doing NOTHING is 14% less desirable than
making administrative changes. 14% of 10 =1.4 less than perfect score of 10 or value of 8.6
Advocating restoring of funding means state still losses 24 cents/1 for non BA/BS students and forgoes
$1.49 of surplus value by breaking even over 15 years. Therefore full loss is 3 cents for non BA/BS and
1.49 for BA/BS for a total of $1.52 versus 2.49-.21 or $2.28. THE best option is $2.28 cents and
increased state support is $1.52. How far is $1.52 from $2.28? 2.28/1.52= 84% less desirable. IF 10 =
best then 84% less desirable is 16% desirable (84+16) or 1.6.
5
Options
Criteria/
Under-represented
Environment
group equity
CSU by race vs % in
defined
population
Do nothing, let
system self correct
Impose admin.
ChangesEliminate CSU
remedial classes,
select only top
25% from HS and
promote CCC>
CSU transfers.
Advocate
restoring state
funding
Gap for African
American= 1%
Gap for Hispanic= 2.7
Gap for Native Amer.1.3
CCC by race
Black 7.3% no gap
Hispanic= 38.9 gap (.1%
gap)
Native Amer.5%
gap of 1.2%
Est. Black = 6.3% at prior
rate closes gap.
Criteria for analyzing options
Best option is least ethnic
gap
10
gap 6 %
6/1.2=5 times the loss
So value of option is 2
(5 X 2=10)
gap of 1.3 %
How far is 1.3 from 1.2
1.3/1.2= 8% greater gap. So
realizes 92% of best option
2
Gap of 1.2. This is best
option = 10
10
9.2
Est. Hispanic = 36% &
higher; could close gap.
Native Amer. Gap lower
to 1 vs. 1.3 or 1.2
WHAT IS BEST OUTCOME MATRIX?
Options
Criteria/
Individual Gain
Environment
(15 years)
Criteria for analyzing options
State benefit -Income tax
revenue (15 years)
Under-represented
group equity
10
8.6
2
10
10
9.2
10
1.6
10
WEIGHT
Do nothing, let
system self correct
Impose admin.
ChangesAdvocate
restoring state
funding
Weights= how important is each criterion? This is sometimes found in the policy OR is found in the
priorities of citizens in polling data. In the discussion of the Master Plan the change in person income to
citizens was not an issue. Based on scholarly debates today it is an issue. I arbitrarily assign .2 to this
option. The other options of state economic benefit and state equity for all races were equally valued in
Master plan; I have arbitrarily assigned these .4 each.=
6
Criteria for analyzing options
Options
Criteria/
Individual Gain
Environment
(15 years)
.2
WEIGHT
Do nothing, let
system self correct
Impose admin.
ChangesAdvocate
restoring state
funding
State benefit -Income tax
revenue (15 years)
.4
Under-represented
group equity
.4
10
.2 X 10 =2
8.6
.4* 8.6= 3.44
2
.4 *2= .8
10
.2X 10=2
10
2 X 10 =2
10
.4 X 10= 4
1.6
.4 X1.6=.56
9.2
.4 * 9.2= 3.68
10
4 X 10= 4
WHAT IS OUR DETERMINATION?
Options
Criteria/
Individual Gain
Environment
(15 years)
WEIGHT
Do nothing, let
system self correct
Impose admin.
ChangesAdvocate
restoring state
funding
Criteria for analyzing options
State benefit Income tax revenue
(15 years)
.4
Underrepresented
group equity
.4
100%
2
3.44
.8
6.24
2
4
3.68
9.68
2
.56
4
6.56
.2
TOTAL
VALUE
HIGHEST VALUE = administrative changes at 9.68
Please note the second most valuable option is restoring state funding and the least is to do nothing.
PLEASE review Michal Sandel’s Justice video to understand in what way utilitarian ethical analytical
systems may be skewed.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment