Public Ethic case study

User Generated

XngrM

Writing

Description

Please read the case, and follow the requirement. Please read the "staff report step by step", need 3 options, and one must is "No change/ do nothing". I have two examples that you can take look. Due US pacific time, 4/5.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

At...


Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags