savageau, david. 1997. places rated almanac. new york: macmillan. _____________. 2004. retirement...
TRANSCRIPT
•Savageau, David. 1997. Places Rated Almanac. New York: Macmillan.•_____________. 2004. Retirement Places Rated: What You Need to Know to Plan the Retirement You Deserve, Sixth Edition. Frommers.
•Sperling, Bert, and Peter Sander. 2004. Cities Ranked and Rated: More than 400 Metropolitan Areas Evaluated in the U.S. and Canada, 1st Edition. John Wiley & Sons. •_____________. 2006. Best Places to Raise Your Family, First Edition. Frommers.
1. Deaths per 100K (ages 15to19)2. Deaths per 100K (ages 1to14)3. Pct of children in poverty4. Pct ages 16to19 HS dropouts5. Infant deaths per K live births6. Pct low birth-weight babies7. Pct ages 16to19 not attending school and not working8. Pct children w/out resident parent w/ fulltime all-year
employment9. Pct children living in single parent families10.Births per K females ages 15to19
10 Kids Count Indicators
the score i of the ith state is the sum of the scores yri in r=1,…,m attribute dimensions, each score weighted by a weight r.
m
rriri y
1
Specifying the index requires that one address the following three issues:
1.which child welfare measures yr to include; 2.how to scale the measures yr; 3.and how to specify the weights r.
m
rriri y
1
Equal weights ranks
Assume there are n states, denoted by subscript i, whose child welfare is measured in m
dimensions, denoted by subscript r; yri is the measure of the child welfare of state i on dimension
r. The following linear programming problem solves for weights on the individual child welfare
measures (r) in order to assess the effectiveness of the kth state.
Maximize k =r
rkr y (2.a)
Subject to 1r
rir y , i (2.b)
krrUrkr yby , r (2.c)
krrLrkr yby , r (2.d)
0r , r (2.e)
Figure 3: The TDEA frontier TDEA(3)i from Table 3. Higher
numbers represent lower child welfare and are given as darker colors in the map.
Figure 4: The TDEA frontier TDEA(1000)i from Table
3.This is the case where weights are for all practical purposes completely unrestricted.
Flexible weights improve scores over fixed weights. Score improved more for states in darker colors.
Table 3: Calculated TDEA Frontier and Distance Index State TDEA(3)i θ(3)i TDEA(1000)i θ(1000)i Equal Weights Eq. Wts Rank NH 1 1 1 1 1 1
MN 1 1 1 1 0.9789 2
MA 2 0.9813 1 1 0.9563 3
NJ 2 0.9762 1 1 0.9539 5 IA 2 0.9696 1 1 0.9417 6
VT 2 0.9689 2 0.9944 0.9553 4
UT 2 0.9686 1 1 0.9371 9
ND 2 0.9657 1 1 0.9388 7 ME 3 0.954 2 0.9994 0.9324 10
CT 3 0.952 1 1 0.9377 8
NE 3 0.9404 2 0.9994 0.9112 11
WI 4 0.9315 2 0.9661 0.9099 12
WA 4 0.9209 1 1 0.8943 13
SD 5 0.9115 1 1 0.8765 16
KS 5 0.9085 3 0.9714 0.8784 15
OR 5 0.8997 1 1 0.8693 18 VA 5 0.8991 3 0.9457 0.8829 14
RI 5 0.8971 2 0.9767 0.8736 17
HI 5 0.8931 2 0.98 0.8557 22
CA 6 0.8904 2 0.9687 0.8624 20 NY 6 0.8896 2 0.9644 0.8595 21
ID 6 0.8882 2 0.9849 0.8525 23
PA 6 0.878 3 0.9047 0.867 19
MD 6 0.8654 2 0.9346 0.8472 24
CO 6 0.8654 2 0.9225 0.845 27
WY 7 0.8676 3 0.9324 0.8382 28
MT 7 0.8622 3 0.9477 0.8242 31
OH 7 0.8622 3 0.9099 0.8451 26
MI 7 0.8614 3 0.9004 0.8461 25
IL 7 0.8515 4 0.8844 0.8365 29
State TDEA(3)i θ(3)i TDEA(1000)i θ(1000)i Equal Weights Eq. Wts Rank US 8 0.8454 3 0.8708 0.8286 30
IN 8 0.8388 4 0.8964 0.8184 32
MO 9 0.8242 4 0.8672 0.8048 33
AK 9 0.8225 1 1 0.7797 37 NV 9 0.8209 3 0.8731 0.7963 36
DE 9 0.8166 4 0.9139 0.8031 34
FL 9 0.8158 4 0.843 0.8021 35
TX 10 0.802 4 0.8687 0.7749 38 KY 10 0.7903 4 0.8394 0.7652 39
WV 10 0.7791 4 0.8534 0.7482 41
OK 11 0.7835 5 0.8497 0.7564 40
AZ 11 0.7705 4 0.9077 0.7403 44
NC 11 0.765 5 0.8172 0.746 42
TN 11 0.7624 5 0.8104 0.7419 43
GA 11 0.7572 5 0.8353 0.7339 45
AR 12 0.7561 5 0.8158 0.7257 47 SC 12 0.7431 5 0.7773 0.728 46
NM 12 0.7387 5 0.8257 0.7149 48
AL 13 0.6949 6 0.7429 0.6789 49
LA 14 0.6444 6 0.6836 0.6228 50 MS 15 0.6139 6 0.6663 0.5926 51
DC 16 0.5201 6 0.6772 0.5051 52
Notes: 1000 and 3 refer to maximum order of magnitude of weight shares. States are sorted with highest child welfare at the top (by ascending TDEA(3)i , and descending θ(3)I). Lower TDEA frontier numbers correspond to higher child welfare.
Table 4: R2 between Indices Measure TDEA(3)i θ(3)i TDEA(1000)i θ(1000)i Equal Weights Eq. Wts Rank TDEA(3)i 1 0.94794 0.82812 0.81755 0.954 0.96018 θ(3)i 0.94794 1 0.82197 0.85098 0.99267 0.8849 TDEA(1000)i 0.82812 0.82197 1 0.91595 0.80078 0.78827 θ(1000)i 0.81755 0.85098 0.91595 1 0.82332 0.75322 Equal Weights 0.954 0.99267 0.80078 0.82332 1 0.89793 Eq. Wts Rank 0.96018 0.8849 0.78827 0.75322 0.89793 1
R2 between index value for 2000 and index value for other years year TDEA(3)i θ(3)i TDEA(1000)i θ(1000)i Equal Weights Eq. Wts Rank
2000 1 1 1 1 1 1 2001 0.93616 0.94545 0.83393 0.89318 0.94862 0.94528 2002 0.9083 0.91061 0.79915 0.91368 0.92582 0.89661 2003 0.91029 0.93905 0.76185 0.82201 0.95587 0.93138
avg(2000-2003) 0.96778 0.97548 0.85127 0.94879 0.98019 0.97068 Notes: The top part of the table presents the R2 between each pair of indices. The indices are calculated for each of the years 2000-2003, as well as for the average indicator values in the four years (giving five sets of values). The average R2 for the five sets of values is given in the table. The bottom part of the table gives the R2 between the index value for 2000 and the same index with values for other years.