Benefits and Costs of Mitigation Natural Hazards Workshop, 2004 Linda B. Bourque Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center, Center for Public Health and Disasters, School of Public Health University of California, Los Angeles

Sample Non-probability combining aspects of purposive and quota Quota Sampling Quota Sampling  “Hard” rules governing representation of variables & variable levels in chosen sample;  Ensures desired diversity.  Analogous to stratified sampling methods; Purposive Sampling: dependent on “expert” judgment. Purposive Sampling: dependent on “expert” judgment.

Sample Criteria for Selecting from NEMIS Received awards listed in NEMIS whose objective was to mitigate damage from earthquakes, flood, and/or wind; Received awards listed in NEMIS whose objective was to mitigate damage from earthquakes, flood, and/or wind; At high or medium risk of earthquakes, flood, and/or wind; At high or medium risk of earthquakes, flood, and/or wind; Single jurisdiction within a state with the legal title: city, town, borough, village or county; Single jurisdiction within a state with the legal title: city, town, borough, village or county; Both project and process (includes Project Impact) activities were funded; Both project and process (includes Project Impact) activities were funded; Received project and process awards totaling  $500,000; Received project and process awards totaling  $500,000; Received a total of  15 awards; Received a total of  15 awards; At least one mitigation award has been completed/closed ; At least one mitigation award has been completed/closed ; Population of at least 10,000. Population of at least 10,000.

Sample Applying Criteria to NEMIS Step 1—All grants in NEMIS data set of 8/6/03, (N=8,030). Step 1—All grants in NEMIS data set of 8/6/03, (N=8,030). Step 2—Valid perils: earthquake, wind, flood (n=7,047). Step 2—Valid perils: earthquake, wind, flood (n=7,047). Step 3—Valid project status: approved, awarded, closed, completed (n=7,047). Step 3—Valid project status: approved, awarded, closed, completed (n=7,047). Step 4—Eliminate territories (n=6,833). Step 4—Eliminate territories (n=6,833). Step 5—Eliminate invalid communities: statewide entities, special districts, non-profits (n=5,267). Step 5—Eliminate invalid communities: statewide entities, special districts, non-profits (n=5,267). Step 6—Rename like subgrantees (n=5,267). Step 6—Rename like subgrantees (n=5,267). Step 7—Aggregate on subgrant (n=2,660). Step 7—Aggregate on subgrant (n=2,660). Step 8—Flag Project Impact Communities in NEMIS (n=2,660; Project Impact: n=102). Step 8—Flag Project Impact Communities in NEMIS (n=2,660; Project Impact: n=102). Step 9—Apply eligibility criteria (n=113). Step 9—Apply eligibility criteria (n=113).

Sample Criteria Used to Select from the 113 communities The combination of hazards for which communities had received FEMA awards; The combination of hazards for which communities had received FEMA awards; Available hazard maps identified community at “high risk” of at least one hazard; Available hazard maps identified community at “high risk” of at least one hazard; Community identified as small (10,000-49,999), medium (50, ,999), or large (  500,000); and Community identified as small (10,000-49,999), medium (50, ,999), or large (  500,000); and FEMA region. FEMA region.

Distribution of Communities by FEMA Awards and Quota Limits Set (N = 113) Awards Received PopulationNPopulation% Sample Limits for Category Earthquake Only  2 2 2 2 Flood Only  4 4 4 4 Wind Only 87.1  2 2 2 2 Flood and Earthquake 43.5  1 1 1 1 Flood and Wind  4 4 4 4 Flood, Quake and Wind 32.7  1 1 1 1

Distribution of Communities and Quota Limits Set for Being at High Risk of Earthquake, Flood or Wind Hazard (N = 113) 1 Hazard(s) for Which Community is at High Risk Population N % Sample Limits for Category Earthquake ~ 4 Flood ~ 7 Wind ~ 4 1 Adds to more than 113 because some some communities are at high risk of two or three hazards.

Distribution of Communities and Quota Limits Set by Population Size (N = 113) Community Size Population N % Sample Limits for Criteria Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Small (10, ,999) Medium (50, ,999) Large (  500,000 )

Distribution of Communities and Quotas Set by FEMA Region (N = 113) FEMA Region Population Sample Limits for Criteria N% Region I 76.2 1111 Region II 43.5 1111 Region III 2222 Region IV 4444 Region V 87.1 2222 Region VI 2222 Region VII 76.2 1111 Region VIII 76.2 1111 Region IX 3333 Region X 98.0 2222

Hazard Characteristics of Ten Selected CommunitiesCommunity FEMA Awards Size Considered at High Risk of: FEMA Region 1 Flood & Wind Small II 2 LargeFloodIV 3 Flood, Wind, & Quake Medium IV 4 Flood & Wind SmallFloodIV 5 MediumFloodV 6FloodSmallWindVI 7FloodSmallFloodVIII 8QuakeMediumQuakeIX 9QuakeMediumQuakeIX 10FloodLargeFloodX

Demographic Characteristics of Two Selected Communities:CommunityPopulationNon-WhiteHousehold With Child < 18 yrs Household With Member > 64 years Female- Headed Household w/child <18 Median Age A102, #1140, B399, #2128, C108, Source: Census 2000 Summary File, DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000.

Demographic Characteristics of Two Selected Communities: continuedCommunity Vacant Units Renter Occupied In Labor Force Median Family Income Per Capita Income Families Below Poverty Level, 1999 A ,43430, # ,71219, B ,38421, # ,57324, C ,45623, Source: Census 2000 Summary File, DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000.

Demographic Characteristics of 10 Communities CommunityPopulation Median Age Non- White Female- Headed House. Child <18 House. With Child <18 HH with Person > 64 Vacant Units 143, , , , , , , , , ,

Demographic Characteristics of 10 Communities, continued Community Renter Occupied In Labor Force  16  16 Median Family Income Per Capita Income Families Below Poverty Level, ,67321, ,95720, ,67619, ,79121, ,72917, ,04326, ,24516, ,71219, ,57324, ,11622,6068.2

Protocol Followed in Setting Up Interviews Conference Call FEMA Letter Confirmation of Letter Regional Office Visit Contact Community Confirm FEMA Awards Coordination with Region Preliminary Research Telephone Interviews Community Visits and Economic Analyses Description of Spin-offs List of Participants and Interviews Data Files

Protocol Followed in Setting Up Interviews Confirmation that FEMA Letter Received, Given OK to Proceed Send Introduction Letter to Primary Contact ( , Fax, Mail) Telephone Primary Contact: Describe Study, Get Referrals, Schedule Interview Send Introduction Letter to Referrals ( , Fax, Mail) Telephone Referrals: Schedule Interviews, Get Referrals Conduct Interviews Send Thank You Letters to Participants

FEMA Contact #1 REFUSED Contact #4 1 INTERVIEWED Contact #2, Originally agreed Then REFUSED Referred back to #1 Contact #3 INTERVIEWED Contact #5 REFUSED Contact #6 INTERVIEWED Contact #8 REFUSED Contact #11 INTERVIEWED Contact #7 REFUSED Contact #10 REFUSED Contact #9 INTERVIEWED 1 Index Informant 2 Independent Network Contact #12 INTERVIEWED 2 Contact #13 INTERVIEWED 2 Example Flow Chart of Interview Network