Laserfiche WebLink
<br />facl.or analysis, and a measure in Ihe process of being <br />developed called a 11 discrimination index II (Masteller, <br />1975). This index is a measure of Ihe ability of an <br />item to discriminate respondents into different groups <br />or to order respondenls in ranked categories. The <br />questions used were also pretesled for clarity and con- <br />sistency of respondent interprelation. <br /> <br />The measuremenl of social variables is made com- <br />plex (Torgerson, 1958; Lazarsfeld and Henry, 1968; <br />Stouffer et aI., 1973) by the number and types ofvari- <br />abies Ihat may be measured (attitudes, needs values, <br />goals, beliefs, characteristics, and behavior of various <br />types). A great deal of model improvement can be <br />expected through the development of improved mea. <br />sures of the social variables. <br /> <br />Interviewing and Ihe Sample Populalion <br /> <br />The schedule was given to a sample of sludy- <br />area residenls. Each block and household was random- <br />ly selected. The sex of Ihe respondent was previously <br />assigned. <br /> <br />The interviewers were instructed on how to ad- <br />minister the questionnaire. The interviewing required <br />nearly three months time. Effort was made 10 inter- <br />view aIllhose designated in Ihe sample, and only about <br />10 percent of the original sample were not inlerviewed. <br />The tolal number of usable interviews completed in <br />lhis sample was 395. <br /> <br />Agency and Gronp Data <br /> <br />In addition to data collected from people llving <br />within the sludy area, data were also collected from <br />people in various government agencies and special in- <br />terest groups. The objective for this data was to de- <br />velop a tecimique for weighling the response of the <br />agencies toward flood control proposals with known <br />characteristics. Notes on meetings the researchers <br />attended, interviews with officials of flood-<:ontrol <br />related agencies, legal slatutes and descriptions of or- <br />ganizational structures were also useful for this pur- <br />pose. The noles were analyzed by content analysis. <br />Finally, for purposes of this study only, as explained <br />more fully below, a short cut method of independenl <br />judgments of a panel of knowledgable judges or ex- <br />perts was used 10 establish numerical values for agency <br />characteristics for use in the agency evaluation equa- <br />lions of the model. <br /> <br />Officials in government agencies dealing with <br />flood control in the urbanized east Salt Lake County <br />area were contacted to obtain information that could <br />be used in defming relationships between these agen- <br />cies and problems related to flooding within the study <br />area. This was an exploral.ory attempt to identify <br />forces which affect agency decisions and to begin 10 <br />evaluate the effects of Ihese decisions. <br /> <br />Contacls with public agencies were made by in- <br />terviews, letters, and attendance at meetings and hear~ <br />ings. Informalion was obtained on agency goals, val- <br />ues, and objectives nol only as set forth in enabling <br />legislalion, bul also as Ihese goals or objectives were <br />interpreted and perceived wilhin the agency itself. <br />This analysis considered the perception of agency ad- <br />ministrators and the relationships between the agencies <br />and other social systems. <br /> <br />Relevant federal laws, state statules and local <br />ordinances were searched to identify variables for mea- <br />suring such legal factors as primary responsibility for <br />flood control, limitations of power, and authority <br />struclure. Other agency characterislies for which dala <br />'MJre gathered relaled 10 funding limitations, the tech- <br />nical capabilities of personnel, and the physicallirnita- <br />tions of the agency (equipment and staff available). <br />These factors limit Ihe physical actions an agency may <br />implement 10 change a hydrologie system. <br /> <br />The data from the original interviews were used <br />to idenlify the most important flood control agencies <br />in the Salt Lake area. Each interview was tabulated to <br />fmd which group was mentioned most often, second <br />most often, etc. The three agencies mentioned most <br />often were recorded in sociograms. The rJghest Score <br />was attained by Ihe County Flood Conlrol Deparl- <br />ment. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the <br />Salt Lake County Commission were second with identi- <br />cal scores. <br /> <br />The Salt Lake County Commission is directly <br />superior to and works through the Salt Lake COWlty <br />Flood Control Department on flooding issues, and <br />the two groups may be considered in certain aspects <br />as a unit in relation to flood control decisions. Also, <br />few data were available on the Salt Lake County Com- <br />mission itself in relation to flood conlrol proposals_ <br />Consequently, the Salt Lake County Flood Control <br />Department and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers <br />were the main agencies used in construction of the <br />model. <br /> <br />The data needed for the agency equalion were <br />not all available in the informalion from Ihe agency <br />interviews and there was not adequate time or funds <br />10 collecl more detailed data directly from Ihe agen- <br />cies. As a substitute 10 collecting the additional data <br />needed, a group of knowledgable judges or experts <br />were used to provide the necessary dala to complete <br />construction of the model. The questionnaire pre- <br />pared for administering directly to the agency was <br />inslead administered to eight judges who were familiar <br />with Ihe interviews with the agencies and were asked <br />10 predict the answer one could expect from the two <br />agencies of main concern. Each judge made an evalu- <br />ation for each agency on each of the three flood con- <br />trol proposals making a total of 48 observations. This <br /> <br />11 <br />