ࡱ>  @ ebjbj .oo % :,bbbv޳޳޳8vH "޹޹޹[[[/111111$RJUbG[GGU::޹޹jG:޹b޹/G/Tb޹ C޳  02j2vv::::2b[ e i [[[UUvvD$+3dvv  Texas Public School Districts in the Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Principal Investigators: Kenneth J. Meier Texas A&M University Scott E. Robinson University of Texas at Dallas Alisa Hicklin University of Oklahoma Sponsored by the Project for Equity, Representation and Governance and the National Science Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW 2 COLLABORATIVE POLICY IMPLEMTATION AND THE RESPONSE TO THE HURRICANES OF 2005 3 CALMING THE STORMS: COLLABORATIVE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT, HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA, AND DISASTER RESPONSE 16 APPENDIX 1: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 46 APPENDIX 2: SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY 50 DATA DOWNLOAD INSTRUCTIONS 54 Overview In the weeks and months that followed Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many Texas schools were inundated with hurricane evacuees. The influx of students, however, was not isolated to the Gulf region. Indeed, districts from across the state opened their doors to students affected by the hurricanes. Given the number of Texas school districts that were affected, the Project for Equity, Representation and Governance believes it is important to assess the extent to which districts were able to cope with this added challenge. Following the hurricanes, numerous federal, state and local government agencies struggled to coordinate relief efforts with little success, resulting considerable waste and inefficiency. An interesting and important question the following papers examine is the degree to which school districts collaborated and cooperated with other organizations when responding to these natural disasters. In November of 2005, the Project for Equity, Representation and Governance at Texas A&M University launched the 2005 Hurricane Collaboration Survey - a survey of all Texas public school districts that assessed the impact of the hurricanes and the resulting influx of students on Texas school district. The two following papers present preliminary results from the survey. These papers examine the extent to which districts collaborated with other organizations and the success of such collaboration. Both papers were presented at national conferences in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., respectively. Further work examining the impact the hurricanes had on district performance is currently underway. Data from the surveys, as well as a summary of the survey responses, are available at  HYPERLINK "http://perg.tamu.edu/" http://perg.tamu.edu/ (see download instructions at end of report). Collaborative Policy Implementation and the Response to the Hurricanes of 2005 Scott E. Robinson University of Texas at Dallas  HYPERLINK "mailto:Scott.Robinson@utdallas.edu" Scott.Robinson@utdallas.edu (*corresponding author) Alisa Hicklin University of Oklahoma Kenneth J. Meier Texas A&M University Laurence J. OToole Jr. University of Georgia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation for its generous support of this project under grant #CMS 0553124. We would also like to thank Peter May and Raymond Burby for their help in planning the project. Presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1, 2006: Philadelphia, PA.  Abstract Hurricanes Katrina and Rita revealed many of the weaknesses of our national disaster response system. Particularly galling were the scenes of resources wasted by a lack of coordination resulting in trucks of water and evacuation buses being turned away from areas where they were desperately needed. At the same time there were remarkable stories of organizations succeeding in coordinating services such as the relief response in Dallas, TX (Robinson, Barrett, and Stone 2006). This paper assesses the degree of collaboration present among school districts in Texas as they dealt with the hurricanes and an influx of students leaving the Gulf Coast. This paper will assess the amount of collaboration between school districts following the Hurricanes of 2005 and the extent to which a district felt the impact of the Hurricanes influenced its collaborative practices. The results suggest schools that felt greater degrees of impact were more likely to seek assistance from external organizations, including collaboration with a diverse array of government, non-profit and for-profit organizations.  Introduction The national, state, and local response to Hurricane Katrina served as a reminder of the difficulty of coordinating relief services. Business organizations, non-profit organizations (some of which did not have experience in providing disaster relief), and individual volunteers stepped up to provide relief to the victims along the Gulf Coast. However, the government was ill-equipped to coordinate the various offers of assistance. News reports circulated of trucks of water being turned away from stricken areas or asked to wait for days on end. Even government organizations were plagued by delays brought on by the complexity of coordination. A military ship prepared to assist in the recovery effort had to wait outside of New Orleans for days before the president gave the official authorization for it to dock and take on the residents of the storm ravaged city. Hurricane Rita did not ravage the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana with quite the rage of Hurricane Katrina; but, despite the immediately recent example of the problems of coordination, the response to Hurricane Rita was also plagued with coordination problems. In part due to the salience of the recent Hurricane, the evacuation of Houston and the Texas Gulf Coast quickly overwhelmed transportation services leaving people stranded in traffic for hours upon hours. The incidences of insufficient coordination come at an interesting time for scholars of public administration. Attention to issues of collaboration by public agencies is at a high level with seemingly every issue of major Public Administration journals including articles on the subject. The literature has gone well beyond demonstrating the existence and prominence of collaborative policy networks. Now the literature is maturing to considering question of the origins, dynamics, and implications of these networks (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Robinson N.D.). One key element largely missing from the recent literature on collaborative networks has been the application of large-N data sets to test propositions related to the dynamics of policy networks, with the notable exception of the works of OToole and Meier (Meier and OToole 2003; OToole and Meier 2004). This paper introduces a new dataset that should provide useful for the large sample study of collaborative behaviors in public organizations. The next section briefly reviews some theories relevant to the emergence and dynamics of collaborative networks to illustrate the sorts of research questions this survey data will likely provide leverage to answer. The paper then reviews initial findings about the prevalence of collaboration following the Hurricanes of 2005 and the relations between the degree of impact on an organization and its propensity to engage in collaboration. The paper concludes with a discussion of the utility of the data to address major standing questions in the study of collaborative public management. Theoretical Considerations of Collaboration and Disaster Response The recent attention to collaborative public management emerged from the growing recognition in the research on policy implementation that many policies require the coordinated effort of separate organizations (OToole and Mountjoy 1984; Hall and OToole 2000). The recognition led scholars of public administration to begin treating networks seriously (OToole 1997). The past decade has moved past the initial efforts to convince public administration scholars and practitioners about the importance of collaborative networks. We are now at a point where we need to investigate questions of origins, dynamics, and effects (Robinson N.D.). The question of the origin of collaborative networks has received a fair share of attention. Coming from the implementation literature, many still think of collaborative networks as deliberately designed arrangements imposed from above to address some public problem. The fallacy of this approach was made evidence in the British case where the attempts at top-down creation of networks led to a labyrinth of contradictory formal and informal relationships (Rhodes 1997). The difficulty (if not impossibility) of managing top-down, imposed collaborative networks has led many authors to consider bottom-up origins for collaborative networks that either complement the intended top-down network, or largely substitute for it. Interestingly, the literature on disaster response has been fertile territory for the development of these alternative accounts of network emergence. Saundra Schneider compared the response to a series of natural disasters in the United States in her book Flirting with Disaster (1995). What she found paralleled the findings of many others that top-down imposed collaborations are challenging. Schneider argued that what was essential was a strategy for collaboration consistent with the norms that emerge following a natural disaster. A natural disaster involves a disruption of peoples relationships with each other, their government, and their natural environment. Predictably, these disrupted norms lead to a process of milling (51) resulting in the emergence of new norms. If the imposed collaborative network operates according to operating procedures that may have been standard in the past, but conflict with the newly emerging norms of the community, collaboration becomes difficult. This account is consistent with earlier work on the spontaneous emergence of collaborative networks in response to disasters (Comfort 1994). In Comforts account of an oil spill in Pittsburgh, government officials were caught off-guard by the disaster. Instead of implementing a pre-existing collaboration plan, they organized a network based on the spontaneous offers of assistance from local organizations. The result was a chaotic process that resulted in an emergent stable, and effective collaborative network. She pointed to the importance of communication and interactivity in the process of developing the network rather than the effectiveness of authority in imposing a network of relationships. This pattern has been found in the cases of successful disaster response reviewed in Schneider (1995) as well as the specific case of the response to the influx of people displaced by Hurricane Katrina in the Dallas area (Robinson, Berrett, and Stone 2006). As robust as the model of spontaneous emergence has been in case study research, it is somewhat unsatisfying. To be fair, this is not exactly all that the proponents of spontaneous emergence theories suggest. Comfort, for example, suggests that institutions and policies can influence the degree of interaction and the ease of communication between potential collaborating parties, thus easing the emergence of networks (1995). Similarly, Schneider argues that an understanding of the post-disaster social processes like milling and keynoting can lead to more effective design of local/state/national collaborative networks in disaster response (1997). However, a lot of the causal force is left out of these accounts. Institutions and policies clear the way for emergence of collaborations, but little is said about policies that can actively foster or initiate network emergence. This suggests that there is likely more than just spontaneity in the network emergence process but it is difficult to see in individual (or small groups of) cases like those reviewed above. In an effort to complement these case studies, we administered a survey to view the properties of collaborative networks between school districts and a variety of potential collaborators in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Fall of 2005. The next section will review the context of the hurricanes and the surveys we conducted. The section will then briefly review some of our initial findings in the survey. The 2005 Hurricane Collaboration Survey Even before the landfall of Hurricane Katrina thousands of people fled the Gulf Coast, many traveling west to Texas. Cities across Texas organized to accommodate the many people displaced from along the Gulf Coast (including some parts of Northeast Texas also affected by the hurricane). The impact was felt by a variety of organizations ranging from hospitals, relief organizations, and (the subject of this study) school districts. Within days, it became obvious that people displaced from the most heavily impacted areas of the Gulf Coast would not be able to return to their original homes any time soon. These people had to look for long term housing and enroll their children in schools. The result for some school districts was a massive influx of students. To compound the situation, areas of East Texas had to evacuate as Hurricane Rita flood many areas. The result was the displacement of many students into school districts in Texas just weeks after the start of the new school year. The Project for Equity, Representation, and Governance at Texas A&M University surveyed all Texas school districts in November 2005 to assess the impact of the hurricanes and the influx of students on school districts. The survey included questions about the impact of the hurricanes on the school district, the sorts of services and accommodations the districts had to provide to incoming students, and a battery of questions related to the experiences (if any) that the district had in collaborating with other organizations in response to the hurricanes. After three waves, the response rate was approximately 60% with the non-responders disproportionately coming from the smallest districts in Texas the least likely to have any students enroll (or experience any other effects) as a result of the hurricanes. The results of the survey shed light on the impact of the hurricanes as well as the nature of collaboration in response to natural disaster. The survey results show that the displaced students predominately enrolled in a small number of districts, concentrating the effects on such areas as Houston ISD, Dallas ISD, and San Antonio ISD as well as suburban districts like Katy ISD (outside of Houston) and Plano ISD (outside of Dallas). This is evident in the raw data which show a tremendous skew in the number of students reported by the districts to have enrolled in the districts as a result of the two Hurricanes. While the median district only enrolled 5 additional students, the mean enrollment was 72 with some districts enrolling over 3000 new students. Despite the tremendous skew in the enrollment effects of the hurricanes, the impact of the hurricanes was felt by districts in something closer to a normal distribution. Figure 1 illustrates the relative frequency of responses to a survey question about the direct affect of the hurricanes on the school districts. While most school districts reported that they were unaffected or slightly affected, over 100 school districts were moderately or highly affected. This suggests that we have variation on the impact of the hurricanes in terms of student enrollment (in a small class of highly affected districts) as well as a large segment of the districts that reported that they were moderately or highly affected based on their subjective assessments. There is also considerable variation on the degree to which school districts collaborated with external organizations in their response to the hurricanes. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the aggregate collaboration measure. This measure represents the number of types of groups that the districts reported collaborating with following the hurricanes. The maximum value of six holds for those districts that collaborated with all listed categories: police, fire, and first responders; other school districts; business organizations; non-profit and relief organizations, government relief/welfare organizations; and local community/religious organizations. The modal response suggests that a typical district worked with 2 types of organizations following the hurricanes. However, a significant numbers of districts worked with no external organizations while a significant number dealt with organizations of each type. This raises an interesting question. Which districts collaborated with a diversity of external organizations? To address this question, we looked at the relationship between the subjective impact of the hurricanes on districts and their aggregate collaboration activity. The hypothesis is relatively easy to see. Districts who felt larger impacts were more likely to seek help from a diverse array of external parties. This hypothesis suggests a high degree of intentionality in collaborative networks. The contrary hypothesis corresponds to a nave version of the spontaneous emergence hypothesis (not necessarily the more sophisticated versions represented in Comfort 1994 or Schenider 1995) that suggests collaborative relationships emerge spontaneously, and the collaborative districts are just lucky in the sense that relationships emerged around them regardless of their efforts or lack thereof. The next section reports the results of the hypothesis test and concludes with some ideas for where the survey data could shed light on further questions. Results and Conclusion Table 1 The Relationship between Subjective Impact of the Hurricanes of 2005 and Aggregate Collaboration Two Flavors of RegressionLinear Regression ModelDependent Variable The Degree of Collaboration (range 0-6)Independent Variable Coefficient T-valueSubjective Impact .83 11.65Constant 1.3 8.65N = 509 R2= .2111Poisson Regression ModelDependent Variable The Degree of Collaboration (range 0-6)Independent Variable Coefficient T-valueSubjective Impact .27 11.08Constant .51 8.53N = 509 LR Test= 118.2 (p<.001) Table 1 reports the results of two regression analysis testing the relationship between subjective impact and aggregate collaboration. The results are deceptively clear. Both a simple linear regression analysis and a more complicated (and more statistically appropriate) Poisson regression show that subjective impact is correlated with aggregate collaboration. Based on the linear regression estimates, districts which reported one category greater impact reported collaboration with (just under) one more type of external organization. This effect is highly significant though the effect size is not extraordinary. Roughly, a one standard deviation increase in subjective impact is correlated with a half a standard deviation increase in aggregate collaboration. So while impact is strongly significant, the effect size is moderate. This is enough to draw in to question the nave version of the spontaneous emergence hypothesis. The emergence of collaborative relationships is not purely random. We have identified one systematic component: the felt impact of a natural disaster an exogenous shock to the system. This suggests an intentional element of collaborative relationships that is underplayed in strong versions of the spontaneous emergence hypothesis. Organizations who experience an exogenous disruption, in this case in the form of a hurricane and an influx of students, are more likely to initiate contact with external organizations. This clearly only represents the first steps towards analyzing the results of the survey. There are a number of obvious extensions of this research to which we will be turning our attention now. First, we want to consider the structural characteristics of school districts that make some more likely to seek collaborative relationships than others. In this case, was it larger school districts that sought collaboration? This could be a potential alternative explanation for the results presented here in that the largest districts were also the most highly affected. Was it more affluent school districts that sought collaborations? Was it more bureaucratized or professionalized school districts that sought collaboration? Were charter schools more likely to collaborate with others? Were collaborations with particular types of external organizations more affected by these structural factors than others? We will address these questions by integrating data from other surveys about the structural and demographic characteristics of school districts collected by Texas every year. The combination of the routinely collected organizational and demographic data with the survey described here should provide considerable leverage on questions related to the deliberate development of collaborative relationships with external parties. As you can see with a quick look at the Appendix reprinting the survey questions, there are many studies to be done analyzing these data and this is only the first step. References Comfort, Louise K. 1994. Self-Organization in Complex Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 4(3): 393-410. Dyson, Michael Eric. 2006. Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster. New York, NY: Perseus Book Group. Hall, Thad E. and Laurence J. OToole Jr. 2000. Structures for Policy Implementation: An Analysis of National Legislation, 1965-1966 and 1993-1994. Administration and Society. 31 (6: January): 667-686. Huxham, Chris and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. New York, NY: Routledge. Koppenjan, Joop and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2004. Managing Uncertainties in Networks. New York, NY: Routledge. Meier, Kenneth J. and Laurence J. OToole Jr. 2003. Public Management and Educational Performance: The Impact of Managerial Networking. Public Administration Review. 63 (6: November/December): 689-99. OToole, Laurence J. Jr. 1997. Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration Review. Vol. Vol 57 (1: January/February): 45-52. OToole, Laurence J. Jr., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2004. Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the Dark Side of Public Management in Networks. Public Administration Review. Vol. 64 (6: November/December): 681- 693. OToole, Laurence J. Jr. and Robert S. Mountjoy. 1984. Interorganizational Policy Implementation: A Theoretical Perspective. Public Administration Review. Vol. 44 (6: November/December): 491-503. Robinson, Scott E. N.D. A Decade of Treating Networks Seriously. Forthcoming in Policy Studies Journal. Robinson, Scott E., Britt Barrett, and Kelley Stone. 2006. The Development of Collaboration in Response to Hurricane Katrina in the Dallas Area. Public Works Management and Policy. Vol. 10 (4:April): 315-327. Schneider, Saundra K. 1995. Flirting with Disaster: Public Management in Crisis Situations. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Calming the Storms: Collaborative Public Management, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and Disaster Response* Alisa Hicklin Department of Political Science University of Oklahoma Norman OK 73019-2001 ahicklin@politics.tamu.edu Laurence J. OToole, Jr. Department of Public Administration and Policy School of Public and International Affairs Baldwin Hall The University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602  HYPERLINK mailto:cmsotool@uga.educmsotool@uga.edu Kenneth J. Meier Department of Political Science Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77845 and Cardiff Business School Cardiff University Cardiff, Wales, UK  HYPERLINK mailto:kmeier@politics.tamu.edukmeier@politics.tamu.edu Scott E. Robinson School of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences, WT 17 University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, TX 75083  HYPERLINK mailto:Scott.Robinson@utdallas.eduScott.Robinson@utdallas.edu ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS *The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation for its generous support of this project under grant #CMS 0553124. We would also like to thank Peter May and Raymond Burby for their help in planning the project. This paper is part of an ongoing research agenda on the role of public management in complex policy settings. We have benefitted from the helpful comments of George Boyne, Stuart Bretschneider, Amy Kneedler Donahue, Sergio Fernandez, H. George Frederickson, Holly Goerdel, Carolyn Heinrich, Patricia Ingraham, J. Edward Kellough, Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., H. Brinton Milward, David Peterson, Hal G. Rainey, Bob Stein, and Richard Walker on various aspects of this broader research program. Prepared for delivery at the Conference on Collaborative Public Management organized by the Maxwell School, Syracuse University, in Washington, DC, September 27-30, 2006. Abstract The need for collaboration by public managers is obvious in many policy fields. One force impelling such efforts is natural disasters, which typically overwhelm those immediately affected and often impose major and often continuing externalities on others, including other communities. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita during September 2005 provide vivid examples. These disasters caused untold devastation and also triggered the movement of millions of evacuees to other jurisdictions, indeed other parts of the country. The state of Texas absorbed a huge portion of the burden. One set of impacts on Texas local governments and public managers occurred in public school systems, which had to assume the challenge of handling many extra and high-need students on almost no notice. Numerous aspects of this wicked-problem challenge called for these public organizations to collaborate with other actors police, fire, and first responders; non-profit and relief organizations; other school systems; governmental relief and welfare organizations; business organizations; and local, community, and religious organizations. School systems success in managing such collaborative efforts has been a major influence on their efforts to respond effectively to the aftermath of the disasters. Data gathering in hundreds of school districts across the state allows us to analyze the determinants of collaboration by these organizations. This paper explores the extent to which school districts success in developing such collaborative efforts aimed at effective emergency response is related to the overall extent of collaborative relationships developed during the period of public management prior to the disasters, as well as to other potential drivers of collaborative success. Findings also provide hints regarding the causal logic undergirding how prior collaborative patterns might stimulate disaster-related collaborative results.  Introduction As scholars have explored the relationship between public management and organizational performance, a considerable body of work has identified interorganizational collaboration as an effective strategy to improve performance. These studies show a number of benefits that can be linked to managers efforts to build relationships with other groups in the interdependent environment, since these links often result in higher levels of support for the organization, joint ventures in pursuing policy goals, avenues for the acquisition of additional resources, and opportunities to address proactively some possible threats to the organization and its programs. Given the evidence, it would seem that networking to build collaborative relationships is a managerial activity with very few drawbacks aside from the opportunity costs necessarily involved. However, most of this evidence examines collaboration at times during which the organization is functioning as it typically operates - carrying out its core functions and addressing somewhat predictable problems. Researchers in public management know much less about patterns of collaboration in times of sharp, unpredictable organizational crisis. While networking can be expected to be beneficial for problem solving, there are reasons to expect that building these collaborative relationships during times of disruption and distraction could be very time consuming and costly. In times of externally imposed crisis, when the organization must respond quickly to a major environmental shock, what explains the extent of collaboration with others in the interdependent environment? In particular, do established patterns or styles of management externally contribute to the development of interorganizational collaboration during crisis periods? These questions speak to the broader issue of the determinants of collaboration. Do managerial choices shape collaborative results? Is the decision to engage in collaboration strategic? Is it problem-specific? Or could collaboration develop as a product of a more diffuse management style emphasizing external interactions with others? This paper seeks to address these questions by drawing on recent work in public management to develop hypotheses about what could drive the development of collaborative ties in response to major organizational shock. These hypotheses are tested in a natural-experiment design by investigating the response during the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when school districts which were not directly hit by the hurricane(s) had to respond quickly upon being bombarded unexpectedly with an influx of displaced students. Wicked Problems and Collaborative Action: Disasters and Their Public Management Partnerships, interorganizational programs, and collaboratives are all the rage. The interest in these sorts of patterns is not confined to the US but is visible in the UK and other Westminster settings (Lowndes and Skelcher 2004; Rhodes 1997, 2002; Stoker 2004; Sullivan and Skelcher 2002), continental Europe (Bogason and Toonen 1998; van Bueren et al. 2003; Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan 1997; Klijn 1996; Raab 2002), and elsewhere. Many forces have driven this upsurge in attention (OToole 1997), even though one can question whether such arrangements are particularly new or unusually visible in recent years (Hall and OToole 2000; 2004). The importance of public management to successful collaboration is a theme that has been emphasized by several scholars (for instance, Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Meier and OToole 2003; OToole 1997; OToole and Meier 2003; Provan and Milward 1991). Among the reasons why interorganizational arrays have been adopted as a means of executing public purposes, and why public management can be a key element in their successful operation, is the prominence of so-called wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) on the public agenda. When the kinds of issues demanding policy and management attention cannot be neatly compartmentalized in one sector and one public organization but instead span fields, sectors, specialties, and extant institutional arrangements, new and often collaborative cross-organizational forms may be the preferred structural choice. Many of todays most pressing challenges, from homeland security to HIV/AIDS to climate change, exhibit wicked-problem features. One of the most obvious of such challenges is governmental response to natural disasters (Comfort 2006). Often appearing without warning, disasters like earthquakes, floods, major storms and wildfires can unleash devastating forces that cause massive destruction and loss of life, along with severe disruption and dislocation in the lives of many. Natural disasters also touch upon many policy fields and governmental responsibilities simultaneously. Such events are no respecters of jurisdiction, and they can be considered shocks to multiple social, ecological, and physical systems simultaneously with reverberations that can reach across time and even huge distances. Consider, for example, the tsunami in South Asia in December 2004, or the prospect of significant melting in the Greenland ice field that many experts anticipate in the coming years. Clearly, natural disasters can require responses that integrate efforts and organizational activities from many fields, often in intricate fashions. Multiple levels of government, multiple agencies of government, multiple governments at the same level, as well as multiple organizations in the private and not-for-profit sector may all need to be mobilized and may even be required to work closely with each other in tight patterns of coordination if the myriad issues generated by major disasters are to be addressed. Some of these types of collaboration, involving certain of these organizations, can and should be anticipated and planned for in advance. This is one of the principal premises underlying efforts at disaster preparedness, as called for by national policy, as well as the plans and policies in many states. Still, if the scale of disaster is great and especially if the timing cannot be anticipated, some of the resulting needs, including needs for collaboration, cannot be programmed in advance certainly not in intricate detail. In such circumstances, coordinated responses may have to be mobilized quickly and under pressure, and public managers can be called upon to mesh multiple streams of intricate effort virtually overnight. When such efforts fail, the costs can be enormous. Witness the devastatingly ineffectual responses at virtually all levels and by many individuals and organizational actors during and after the September 2005 hurricanes on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exposed huge weaknesses in the systems of disaster response in the U.S., the states of Mississippi and Louisiana, and local communities like New Orleans. Researchers will be probing the experiences surrounding these disasters for some time to come. Still, some systematic investigation can be undertaken even now, at least on certain of the salient questions. Of particular interest in the current study is the question of whether and why some organizational responses triggered by Katrina and Rita were marked by substantial interorganizational, collaborative activity in the interests of addressing unexpected disruption, while others produced very little. We focus specifically on one discrete slice of the overall picture and explore in particular whether prior patterns of active networking by top managers helped to facilitate a more vigorous collaborative response to unexpectedly disruptive shocks in the service-delivery system. In doing so, we build on earlier work on public management, collaborative processes, and performance (OToole and Meier 1999). We adapt that work to the realm of disaster response, a field in which specialists have understandably paid attention to collaborative patterns. In researching organizational response to disasters, scholars have long seen the importance of interorganizational coordination. Wenger, Quarantelli and Dynes (1986: 10-11), for instance, found that many organizations discussed collaboration as a goal of their efforts but seldom included coordination in their actual activities. Drabek showed that coordination was part of the emergence of a multiorganizational network in the cases of disaster response that he studied (Drabek et al. 1982; Drabek 1983, 1985). More recent work has focused on the role of intergovernmental networks in responding to disasters. Schneider (1995) examined the coordination of federal and state relief in multiple natural disasters. A key factor in the perceived success of government efforts was clarity about the division of responsibility between the levels of government. Even today, the division of responsibility is unclear, as the events surrounding disaster response in New Orleans have made apparent. Later work has refocused attention on the emergent nature of organizational networks (Comfort 1999). In researching organizational preparedness in St. Louis, Gillespie and Streeter found that the structure of organizations, the environments in which they operate, and the organizations history with emergencies influenced their preparedness efforts. In addition, the quality of interorganizational relations was an important contributor to emergency preparedness (1987). In light of this research, Tierney et al. suggested that research on emergency preparedness networks is a particularly promising approach (2001: 60). This set of studies, further, suggests that public management may be a critical element in this field, as it is for collaboration and coordination in other policy sectors. Explaining the emergence of collaboration, therefore, is a key question generally in wicked-problem contexts and takes on particular salience in settings where collaboration is needed in unexpected and often widespread fashion. Specialists on disaster management recognize the issue as central. We examine one portion of the topic here by taking advantage of extensive pre- and post-hurricane research conducted in one set of contexts: Texas school districts. Educating and Assisting Evacuees Collaboration by public managers and their organizations is obviously an expected response to natural disasters, which typically overwhelm those immediately affected and also impose major, and often long-term, externalities on others, including other communities. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita during September 2005 provide vivid examples. These disasters caused untold devastation and also triggered the movement of millions of evacuees to other jurisdictions, indeed other parts of the country. Even before the landfall of Hurricane Katrina thousands of people fled the Gulf Coast, many traveling west to Texas. Cities across Texas organized to accommodate those displaced from along the Gulf Coast (including some parts of Northeast Texas also affected by the hurricane). One set of impacts on Texas local governments and public managers occurred in public school systems, which had to take on the challenge of handling many extra and high-need students on almost no notice. These systems were faced with the unique task of absorbing a large number of students who had a diverse and extensive set of needs reaching well beyond what school districts are normally expected to address. This complexity was further compounded by the fact that many decisions and constraints in the arena of public education are framed, in effect, at one remove: the bulk of regulations, curricula, and standard operating procedures implemented locally are set at the state level. With most evacuees having migrated across state lines, the interstate dimension produced additional management challenges that were not able to be resolved without cross-jurisdictional effort. Indeed, numerous aspects of this wicked-problem challenge called for these public organizations to collaborate with other actors -- police, fire, and first responders; non-profit and relief organizations; other school systems; governmental relief and welfare organizations; business organizations; and local, community, and religious organizations. Within days after Katrina, it had become obvious that people displaced from the most heavily impacted areas of the Gulf Coast would not be able to return to their original homes any time soon. These victims were forced to look for long-term housing and children in these families would not be able simply to wait out the displacement. They needed schooling, and often much more. To compound the situation, parts of East Texas had to evacuate as the second storm, Hurricane Rita, flooded many areas. A result was the long-term displacement of many students into school districts in Texas just weeks after the start of the new school year. In November 2005 we initiated the administration of a mail survey directed at top managers superintendents of Texas school districts. The survey, administered in three waves between November and January achieved a 47.7% response rate (N = 600). Data were collected on a number of issues related to how the districts responded to the sudden influx of these students and how the unexpected perturbation to the educational system affected the districts own emergency planning. The scale of the externally generated shock varied considerably among Texas school districts. Many districts took in only a handful of students with little disruption, while other districts felt a considerable impact, with larger districts finding themselves required to deal overnight with as many as 3500 new students and smaller districts receiving enough evacuees to raise their enrollments considerably. Those districts which absorbed a substantial number of evacuees needed to integrate these students into the classroom as soon as possible, a challenge that in turn required the district to address a number of additional needs, some directly related to education and others important but more indirectly connected to the core task. Many superintendents reported that their districts provided a number of goods and services to these evacuated students. Some elements provided were directly related to the educational process (crafting orientation programs, providing textbooks, opening new buildings, hiring additional teachers) and others were not (offering healthcare, shelter, food, Federal Emergency Management Agency information, etc.). Not surprisingly, addressing this broad array of student-centered needs led superintendents to look to other groups and organizations in the community that might be able to assist in ameliorating some of the problems and providing relevant services. Collaboration in Emergency Response The decision of many superintendents to look outward to other groups and organizations to aid in the response is unsurprising, given the diversity of needs that emerged. However, districts varied considerably in the extent to which they were stimulated to collaborate with other actors. This variation is interesting, since it touches upon a number of issues related to managerial networking and interorganizational collaboration. In particular, it allows us to consider the determinants of collaboration. General treatments of networking and of collaboration often point to the emergence of interorganizational and intergovernmental patterns of interdependence, including because of expectations that governments address tendentious wicked problems (Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Klijn 2005; Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill 2001; OToole and Meier 1999). One would expect more complex problems and larger wicked-problem perturbations to require more innovative and comprehensive managerial approaches and organizational strategies, but we have little systematic empirical evidence to support the asserted link between heightened problem severity and collaboration (Klijn 2005). Indeed, as the ensuing discussion suggests, some of the literature might encourage an expectation that environmental shocks might sometimes actually reduce external connections. Most instances of the emergence of networked patterns in the public sector reflect incremental changes that organizations and their contexts undergo over extended periods of time. However, the challenges faced by public organizations and managers from a major, unexpected shock to the system could stimulate fundamentally different dynamics than those triggered by small fluctuations in organizational processes, especially when this disruption is not something that the organization has faced before. We explore this type of situation here. Whereas the research literature on collaboration and networks clearly argues that wicked-problems are likely to encourage more interorganizational ties and more externally oriented networking, other arguments suggest that matters may not be so straightforward. In his discussion of how public organizations react to major shocks from the environment, for example, Kaufman (1985) argues that such units can be expected to respond by, in effect, either expanding or contracting. In a decision to expand, the organization deals with environmental forces by joining with [external actors] in confederal systems or federations (see also Thompson 1967), whereas a decision to contract, or insulate, would prompt a reduction of exchanges across boundaries in an effort to satisfy most needs and wants internally (Kaufman 1985, 43). Although Kaufman builds on this logic to predict that the vast majority of organizations are incapable of dealing with these kinds of shocks a notion that has very little empirical support , we can apply this basic logic to consider individual managerial choices and behavior. When managers are confronted with a large-scale disruption, they may be faced with a decision about whether to be proactive and externally oriented in addressing the disruption or to become much more insular, in an effort to shut out external perturbations. These two options, on their face, lead to competing expectations. If a manager chooses to connect with other actors, we could expect more external networking and more building of collaboration, whereas a decision to buffer and insulate would result in fewer collaborative relationships in an effort to protect the organization (for recent investigations of buffering and internal protective responses by managers, see Meier and OToole 2006a, 2006b). One question, therefore, is whether wicked-problem shocks in natural-disaster settings stimulate or inhibit collaboration. Given the preponderance of the theoretical arguments, our expectation is in the former direction, particularly given sufficient organizational capacity: Hypothesis One: Controlling for organizational capacity, districts which receive a larger number of evacuees (as a proportion of the regular student body) will be likely to engage in more collaborative relationships. Another issue has to do with managerial patterns of interaction networking as such patterns establish themselves prior to an unexpected crisis period. Do these shape collaborative interorganizational arrays during the stressful post-disaster period? Networking can include a variety of managerial functions, including efforts to form longer-term cooperative relationships and efforts to block potentially threatening influences (OToole and Meier 1999; Klijn 2005; Meier and OToole 2006b). These options suggest that managers could be working with other organizations either to leverage resources and support or to sort out jurisdiction and responsibility to avoid being overwhelmed by events. Managerial Networking Examining collaboration in response to an organizational shock offers the opportunity to ask questions about the nature of managerial networking. In particular, it is possible to consider how patterns of managerial networking may be related to interorganizational collaboration in response to disasters. How might externally oriented managerial behavior, pre-disaster, be related to the extent of organizational collaboration achieved, post-disaster? Three somewhat simplified possibilities can be sketched: (1) managers network to deal with particular problems, so patterns of networking behavior prior to an unexpected disaster should be essentially unrelated to the development of organizational collaborations, post-disaster; (2) managers network efficiently, so they can be expected to build on their extant interactions selectively in response to a disaster, thus minimizing transaction costs necessitated when building interorganizational ties de novo; or (3) managers develop an external networking style or habit of behavior, and the general level of networking activity, pre-disaster, should thus be related to the extent of interorganizational collaborations developed to deal with unexpected environmental shocks, post-disaster. Each possibility leads to an hypothesis. We sketch the causal logics in a bit more detail and then outline the corresponding three additional hypotheses. First, as Kaufman (1985) suggests, networking could be a problem-specific response, one in which managers interact with others only when triggered to do so by the problem-solving requirements immediately at hand. If networking is largely a problem-specific managerial behavior, there should be little or no relationship between past levels of networking and collaborative efforts following an unanticipated environmental shock, when controlling for the extent of the shock itself and the extent of organizational capacity present in the system. Thus: Hypothesis Two: The level of managerial networking activity in non-crisis times will be unrelated to the extent of interorganizational collaboration during crisis periods. A second possibility is suggested by some of the literature on the emergence and maintenance of networks, which points to large transaction costs involved in setting up collaborative partnerships (Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Bardach 1998; Klijn 2005). Here, networks are viewed as complex relationships that take considerable time and effort to build and maintain. This logic would lead to the expectation that managers will be more likely to build collaborations in response to an organizational shock in instances for which the transaction costs are relatively low. Stated differently, managers who network in non-crisis times will be more likely to build inter-unit collaborations with the same interaction partners in response to organizational shocks, because working with extant relationships lowers the transaction costs incurred when building and tapping collaborative relationships. This possibility will be evaluated by testing: Hypothesis Three: Collaborations are more likely in response to disasters in instances for which managers have developed a history of interaction with these actors/organizations. Finally, a third possible explanation is that managerial networking could be a fundamental (learned or innate) part of an individuals managerial style; if so, levels of networking will be relatively stable, and interorganizational collaborations to deal with environmental shocks are more likely to be developed, in general, if top managers established networking style involves more activity and involvement externally. Previous work provides some evidence in support of this expectation (Meier and OToole 2005), as a managers level of networking in one year is found to be a significant predictor of the managers level of networking at a later time. If networking is stable across time, it could also be a stable component of management strategy to build collaboration in both crisis and non-crisis times. The notion here is also akin to Granovetters (1973) argument for the strength of weak ties, and associated theoretical claims regarding social capital. Managers who network in non-crisis times will be more likely to build collaboration in response to organizational shocks, but this networking activity will not necessarily be focused on those organizations with which they have established relationships. Formally stated: Hypothesis Four: Organizational collaboration with others, including particular actors/organizations, will be a function of the top managers overall propensity to engage in networking, not a function of a history of collaboration with that particular actor/organization. Data and Methods Some of the data for this paper are drawn from two surveys of Texas superintendents. In late 2005 and early 2006 we administered the Survey of Emergency Preparedness and the Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Texas Public School Districts. This questionnaire, described briefly earlier in the paper, collected data from school district superintendents throughout Texas on how the hurricane evacuees affected their school districts, including the extent of the impact, the nature of the districts response, the patterns of collaboration in response, and the ways in which the hurricanes affected the districts own emergency planning. These data have been combined with data from an earlier survey of Texas public school district superintendents administered by us in January 2005. This last-mentioned survey, one in a series of several implemented regularly since 2000 by Meier and OToole, collected data on managerial strategies and behavior of superintendents, with an emphasis on their networking activity. The districts range widely on a variety of dimensions, including student composition (race, ethnicity, etc.), resources, setting (urban, rural, suburban), and performance. The response rate for the survey administered in early 2005 was 58.0% (N = 729). In combining the two surveys, we had considerable overlap, with 450 districts responding to both surveys. All non-survey data were drawn from the Texas Education Agency. Our analyses are aimed at two general objectives: (1) seeing whether the size of the environmental shock helps to explain the extent of collaboration developed in school districts following the arrival of evacuees, while controlling for the organizational capacity of the district; and (2) determining which of the several possible causal relationships between earlier managerial networking and post-disaster school-district collaboration seems to be supported by the evidence. For the second objective, the availability of data from the two surveys provides an unusual opportunity to execute a natural-experiment design. Dependent Variables The dependent variables for this study measure the extent to which and, for some of the analyses, whether school districts collaborated with other organizations as a part of their efforts to respond to the influx of displaced students in their districts. The top managers were asked which of the following types of organizations they collaborated with to provide for displaced students: police, fire, and first responders; non-profit and relief organizations; other school districts; government relief and welfare organizations; business organizations; and local, community, and religious organizations. The primary dependent variable is the total number of types of organizations that the school district worked with in response efforts, ranging from 0 to 6. Because Hypotheses Three and Four explore the extent to which superintendents were strategic (or influenced by transaction costs) in choosing collaborative partners, we examine in particular links with two individual types of nodes in the environment of the school districts: other school districts and business organizations. These were chosen for attention since they represent actors, the interaction with whom at the individual level (that is, with other superintendents and local business leaders, respectively) the superintendents had also been surveyed about in the pre-hurricane period. Each of these dependent variables is dichotomous, with a 1" representing when superintendents collaborated with that particular group. Independent Variables Two variables are used in all of the models used to test the hypotheses. First, we construct a variable to represent the size of the shock to the organization. The measure is the number of displaced students absorbed by the district, as reported on the post-hurricanes survey, divided by the total enrollment prior to the hurricane and multiplied by 100. This variable, total evacuees, represents the amount of students absorbed, as a percentage of the regular student body. It is used in particular to test Hypothesis One (that the size of a shock, or problem severity, leads to more collaboration). In the first and all other estimations reported here, we also control for overall size of the district, since many larger districts have greater administrative capacity than small districts. To control for size, we include the logged enrollment of the district. To test whether collaboration in response to the influx of evacuees is unrelated to the general level of networking behavior of the top managers during more stable and routine times (Hypothesis Two), we develop from the pre-hurricanes survey a measure of managerial networking prior to the onset of the unanticipated shocks to the school districts. We follow earlier work by Meier and OToole (for instance 2001) and ask respondents to report, on a six-point scale ranging from daily to never, how often they interact with each of several external actors. In the pre-hurricane survey we asked about interactions with seven external parties: teacher associations, parent groups, local business leaders, other superintendents, federal education officials, state legislators, and the Texas Education Agency. A composite managerial networking scale was created via factor analysis. All seven items loaded positively on the first factor, producing an eigenvalue of 1.76; no other factors were statistically significant. Factor scores from this analysis were then used as a measure of managerial networking, with higher scores indicating a greater networking orientation. Because both surveys asked about interactions with two particular external actors business leaders/organizations and other superintendents/school districts we explore Hypotheses Three and Four by comparing interactions with each of these groups before and after the hurricane displacement. Descriptive statistics for these variables are displayed in Table 1.  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT  Methods Because the primary dependent variable collaboration to assist with the evacuees and their challenges is ordinal, we use multiple estimators in the analysis. First, the models are run using OLS analysis; then estimated as ordered logits; and finally analyzed via poisson regression, which is considered more appropriate for this type of dependent variable (Gujarati 2003). Although OLS is not the most appropriate estimator, the results are very similar across the estimators, and the OLS coefficients are most easily interpretable. The models evaluating collaboration with individual nodes are estimated as logistic regressions. Post-estimation diagnostics showed no problematic heteorskedasticity or multicollinearity. Findings Our first hypothesis, that managers will engage in higher levels of collaboration when faced with larger organizational shocks, is supported by the analysis. Table 2 presents the three different models (OLS, ordered logit, poisson regression), all of which show that the number of evacuees taken in by the district as a proportion of baseline enrollment is a significant predictor of the extent of total collaboration. Still, although the size of shock (evacuees) is always significant, it is never substantively large. Based on the OLS coefficients, a school would have to take on enough evacuees to constitute roughly 3.5% of their student population to move the level of collaboration up one unit. The size of the shock helps to shape the extent of collaboration, but it is only part of the explanation. Note, as well, that the sheer size of the district, reflecting the capacity of the organization to engage in various forms of collaborative activity, also contributes to the extent of the result.  For a more complete test of whether the size of the shock is driving collaboration, and also to explore the possible influence of an earlier pattern of managerial networking, we also test Hypothesis Two, framed as the null hypothesis: that a pattern of managerial networking during normal times does nothing to drive collaborative results when serious problems arise. To examine this relationship, we include in the specification the measure of the superintendents overall networking score as tapped prior to the hurricanes. If networking were purely a problem-specific response, we would expect that the number of evacuees would significantly predict collaboration but that prior networking would have no effect. The models in Table 3 provide evidence to rebut Hypothesis Two, that collaboration during crises is not shaped by prior behavioral patterns developed, or manifested, in more stable periods. The superintendents overall level of networking prior to the hurricanes is a significant predictor in all models. Note also that the size of the shock to the organization, as measured by the relative size of the influx of the pool of evacuees, is still a significant predictor of collaboration. In fact, the coefficients for the number of evacuees are relatively stable as between Tables 2 and 3. We can conclude that an established general pattern of managerial networking is clearly not the only influence on post-disaster collaboration, but that superintendents with a history of such interaction externally are more likely to engage in higher levels of collaboration in response to the organizational shock. What explains this relationship? The idea that collaborative relationships would have some element of stability has been discussed in much of the work on interorganizational relations. Researchers often argue that such inter-unit stability derives from the costs involved in the time-consuming process of establishing the relationship, formalizing processes for shared decision making, and other similar tasks. If this explanation were to be valid, we would expect that superintendents would turn to the same external organizations and organizational representatives that are a part of their developed set of relationships when they seek support for handling complicated challenges. We test for this relationship, as outlined in Hypothesis Three, with the models displayed in Table 4. We analyze whether pre-disaster interactions between superintendents and two other external nodes other school district superintendents and also members of the business community help to explain post-hurricane collaboration with other school districts and business organizations, respectively. The idea is to distinguish the influence of a habit or pattern of general interaction externally on the part of top managers, on the one hand, from a history of node-specific interactions and exchanges, on the other. If over time networking is driven by stable patterns of interactions in individual relationships, we would expect that superintendents who regularly interact with (for example) business leaders would be more likely to turn to those business leaders and their firms during crisis times. The results presented in Table 4 do not support this hypothesis. In both of the models, more interaction with specific nodes prior to the hurricanes explained none of the variance in collaboration with these nodes after the evacuees had arrived.  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT  We move to the test of Hypothesis Four. We investigate the possibility that the extent of collaboration with particular external organizations in the wake of disaster is not about building on pre-existing relationships but is, rather, partially shaped by managers general styles of managing outward. To test this hypothesis, we added the general networking measure to the equations from the preceding analysis predicting interaction with the individual nodes. Table 5 presents the results, which lend some support to Hypothesis Four. The logit model estimating collaboration with business organizations does not find previous interaction with local business leaders to be a significant predicator of collaboration, but it does show managers earlier level of overall networking to be related to the likelihood of collaboration with such organizations. In a similar model seeking to predict collaboration with other school districts, prior node-specific interactions are unrelated to collaboration; general networking style has a positive direction, although the relationship to post-hurricane collaboration with other school districts is significant only at the .10 level in a two-tailed test.  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT  Conclusions The results reported in the preceding section derive from one rather unusual set of circumstances school districts managing unexpected influxes of high-need students on short notice. Considerable caution needs to be exercised, therefore, before treating the findings as generalizable to management involving other kinds of natural disasters, or to management challenges of collaboration more generally. Further, the findings on collaboration here are necessarily focused on the relatively short term; how long such patterns are likely to persist remains an unanswered question. Levels of explanation for the extent of collaboration are relatively modest. And how much difference such collaborations make in terms of performance results is a key and thus far unexplored issue. For all these reasons, the results of this study constitute a beginning for analysis, rather than a real conclusion. Still, a number of the findings from this analysis are interesting and instructive. Organizational capacity clearly makes a difference in the ability to develop collaboration in multiple directions. This finding is unsurprising but also important. The size of the unexpected shock to the organizational system also matters positively as a stimulus or prod toward the development of collaboration. Wicked-problem stimuli trigger increased interorganizational collaboration for the school districts dealing with many issues in the wake of major hurricanes. In a net sense, at least, efforts to reach out to partner with others trump any temptation to hunker down, organizationally and managerially speaking. This finding is encouraging for those interested in whether public management is likely to be responsive to the increased challenges posed by complex issues, even if it suggests that public managers and their organizations may have to do some rather heavy lifting to address their responsibilities. Most interestingly, the findings in this paper demonstrate that public management matters for collaboration. They also provide some evidence regarding how management makes that difference. Controlling for organizational capacity and the size of a shock to an organizational system, a top managers established style of externally oriented interaction helps to explain the extent of interorganizational collaboration developed after an unexpected disaster. Intriguingly, the node-specific interaction histories seem rather unimportant in this regard, particularly when compared with the general style or habit of managerial networking. This finding suggests that such developed patterns of networking not only contribute in the short term to performance, as earlier research has demonstrated (for instance, Meier and OToole 2001, 2003), but also constitute a sort of investment a social networking capital, as it were that can pay dividends on collaboration in the future, and in particular during unexpected crisis periods. In fact, given that administrative systems are typically highly inertial, managerial networking seems to contribute to results in at least three ways: short-term performance improvements, enhancement of the base over time and thus gradual amplification of the impact of networking over time, and also establishment of social networking capital that can be drawn on in times of need or to help manage significant shocks. All in all, therefore, the contribution of managers to performance and to networked collaboration is a topic that deserves considerably more careful attention both theoretically and empirically. Further, if validated elsewhere, this set of findings carries significant implications for how practicing public managers might spend their time and devote their attention, particularly those operating in systems that are likely to be subjected to sizable and unpredictable shocks from the environment. An additional finding of interest, implicit in the empirical results reported in this paper, is that individual-level patterns of behavior (managerial networking) can have organizational consequences (inter-unit collaboration). While top managers can be expected to be rather influential in their own organizations, it is nevertheless interesting to see clear relationships between these two levels. Whether the collaborations in question develop from the leadership and direct individual efforts of the managers themselves, or whether others in the organization observe the managerial behavior and are thus stimulated to mimic these externally oriented patterns, or whether perhaps externally oriented managers also invest in building organizational processes and even specialized subunits to help broker the development of more formalized collaboration is an interesting question but one that cannot be answered with the data at hand. What can be said is that these organizational systems are stimulated to initiate collaboration when they experience an unexpected and significant wicked-problem shock, and also that what managers do during normal times also contributes to the collaborative response of these organizations. It may be only mildly consoling under the circumstances, given the massive costs borne in the wake of Katrina and Rita, but it is true nonetheless: in yet another way, public management matters. References Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bardach, Eugene. 1996. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings. Bogason, Peter, and Theo Toonen. 1998. Comparing Networks. Symposium in Public Administration 76, 2: 205-407. Van Bueren, Ellen M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F.M. Koppenjan. 2003. Dealing with Wicked Problems in Networks: Analyzing an Environmental Debate from a Network Perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13, 2 (April): 193-212. Comfort, Louise K. 1999. Shared Risks: Complex Systems in Seismic Response. Oxford, UK: Ergamon/Elsevier Science Ltd. Comfort, Louise K. 2006. The Politics of Policy Learning: Catastrophic Events in Real Time. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 31-September 3. Drabek, Thomas E. 1983. Alternative Patterns of Decision Making in Emergent Disaster Response Networks. Internaitonal Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 1: 277-305. Drabek, Thomas E. 1985. Managing the Emergency Response. Public Administration Review 45: 85-92. Drabek, Thomas E. 1986. Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gillispie, David F., and Calvin L. Streeter. 1987. Conceptualizing and Measuring Disaster Preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 5: 155-76. Granovetter, Mark. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (May): 1360-80. Gujarati, Damodar N. 2003. Basic Econometrics. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Hall, Thad E., and Laurence J. OToole, Jr. 2000. "Structures for Policy Implementation: An Analysis of National Legislation, 1965-66 and 1993-94." Administration and Society 31, 6: 667-86. Hall, Thad E., and Laurence J. OToole, Jr. 2004. Shaping Formal Networks through the Regulatory Process. Administration and Society 36, 2: 1-22. Kaufman, Herbert. 1985. Time, Chance, and Organizations. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. Kickert, Walter J. M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M. Koppenjan, eds. 1997. Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage. Klijn, Erik-Hans. 1996. Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks: A Theoretical Examination of the Concept Policy Network and Its Problems. Administration and Society 28: 90-119. Klijn, Erik-Hans. 2005. Networks and Inter-organizational Management: Challenging, Steering, Evaluation, and the Role of Public Actors in Public Management. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lowndes, Vivian, and Chris Skelcher. 2004. Like a House and Carriage or a Fish on a Bicycle: How Well Do Local Partnerships and Public Participation Go Together? Local Government Studies 30, 1: 51-73. Lynn, Laurence E., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill. 2001. Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. OToole, Jr. 2001.Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks: A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(July), 271-295. Meier, Kenneth J. and Laurence J. OToole, Jr. 2003. Public Management and Educational Performance: The Impact of Managerial Networking. Public Administration Review 63 (November/December), 675-685. Meier, Kenneth J. and Laurence J. OToole, Jr. 2005. Managerial Networking: Issues of Measurement and Research Design, Administration and Society 37, 5 (November): 523-41. Meier and OToole 2006a. The Dog That Didnt Bark: How Public Managers Handle Environmental Shocks. Paper prepared for presentation at the Conference on Determinants of Performance in Public Organizations II, University of Hong Kong, December 7-10. Meier and OToole 2006b. Management Theory and Occams Razor: How Public Organizations Buffer the Environment. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 31-September 3. OToole, Laurence J., Jr. 1997. "Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas in Public Administration." Public Administration Review 57, 1 (January-February): 45-52. OToole, Laurence J., Jr. and Kenneth J. Meier. 1999. "Modeling the Impact of Public Management: The Implications of Structural Context." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9 (October), 505-526. OToole, Laurence J., Jr. and Kenneth J. Meier. 2003a. Plus a Change: Public Management, Personnel Stability, and Organizational Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (January), 43-64. Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 1991. Institutional-Level Norms and Organizational Involvement in a Service-Implementation Network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1, 4: 391-417. Raab, Jrg. 2002. Where Do Policy Networks Come From? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12, 4: 581-622. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rhodes, R. A. W. 2002. Putting People Back into Networks. Australian Journal of Political Science 37(3), 399-416. Rittel, H., and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-69. Schneider, Saundra K. 1995. Flirting with Disaster: Public Management in Crisis Situations. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Stoker, G. 2004. Modernizing British Local Government. From Thatcherism to New Labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sullivan, Helen, and Chris Skelcher. 2002. Working across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tierney, Kathleen J., Michael K. Lindell, and Ronald W. Perry. 2001. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Wenger, Dennis E., Enrique L. Qaurantelli, and Russell R. Dynes. 1986. Disaster Analysis: Local Emergency Offices and Arrangements. Newark, DE: University of Deleware Disaster Research Center. Final Project Report No. 37. Appendix 1: Survey Instrument Emergency Preparedness and the Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Texas School Districts Coordinated by Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Dallas Funded by the National Science Foundation Principal Investigators: Scott Robinson, University of Texas at Dallas Alisa Hicklin, Texas A&M University Kenneth J. Meier, Texas A&M University Section One: The first section of the survey is aimed at collecting information about the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on your school district. 1. Did your district have to cancel school days to evacuate for Hurricane Rita or because of the damage caused by Hurricane Rita? ____ yes ____ no 2. Have many days did your district have to cancel? _______ (please enter number) 3. To the best of your knowledge, how many displaced students has your district enrolled (including those who have withdrawn by now) in response to: Hurricane Katrina ______ Hurricane Rita ______ 4. How many displaced students are currently enrolled in your district? ___________ 5. What steps has your district taken to accommodate displaced students? ____ purchase additional textbooks ____ hire additional teachers (including substitutes) ____ provide meals at no cost ____ open additional rooms/buildings 6. Have the displaced students placed a significant burden on your health services? ____ yes ____ no 7. Has your district been forced to temporarily exceed the states guidelines for student/teacher ratio to accommodate displaced students? ___ yes ___ no 8. Did your district implement orientation or entry procedures for displaced students? ___yes ___no 9. What else did your district provide or facilitate for hurricane evacuees? ____ shelter ____ food distribution ____ clothing distribution ____ information about FEMA, Red Cross, etc. 10. How have the displaced students affected your district?___________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. How would you evaluate your districts performance in responding to the needs of people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ___Very successful ___Somewhat successful ___Somewhat unsuccessful ___Very unsuccessful 12. How would you evaluate the degree to which your district was directly affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ___Highly affected ___Moderately affected ___Slightly affected ___Unaffected 13. Which of the following best describes how your district planned its accommodation for people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? ___ planning was entirely at the district level ___ planning was mostly at the district level ___ planning was split evenly between the district office and campus offices ___ planning was mostly at the campus level ___ planning was entirely at the campus level Section Two: This section is aimed at gathering information about collaborative efforts, both in response to the Hurricanes and in the near future. 14. Since Hurricane Katrina, have you collaborated with: ___ police, fire, and first responders ___ non-profit/relief organizations (i.e. Red Cross) ___ other school districts ___ government relief/welfare organizations ___ business organizations ___ local/community/religious organizations 15. How long as your district collaborated with: Since Katrina <1yr 1-5yrs 5+yrs Police, Fire, and First Responders ___ ___ ___ ___ Non-Profit/Relief Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Other School Districts ___ ___ ___ ___ Government Relief/Welfare Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Business Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Local/Community/Religious Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ 16. With which of these groups do you hold regularly scheduled meetings? (check all that apply) ___ police, fire, and first responders ___ non-profit/relief organizations (i.e. Red Cross) ___ other school districts ___ government relief/welfare organizations ___ business organizations ___ local/community/religious organizations 17. Primarily, how do you communicate with these groups? Phone/Fax Mail Email In Person Police, Fire, and First Responders ___ ___ ___ ___ Non-Profit/Relief Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Other School Districts ___ ___ ___ ___ Government Relief/Welfare Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Business Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Local/Community/Religious Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ 18. What do you share with these groups? (check all that apply) Money Personnel Goods Information Police, Fire, and First Responders ___ ___ ___ ___ Non-Profit/Relief Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Other School Districts ___ ___ ___ ___ Government Relief/Welfare Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Business Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Local/Community/Religious Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ 19. With which of these groups do you intend on sustaining regular contact with for the purposes of emergency preparation? ___ police, fire, and first responders ___ non-profit/relief organizations (i.e. Red Cross) ___ other school districts ___ government relief/welfare organizations ___ business organizations ___ local/community/religious organizations 20. Rate the success of your collaboration with the following groups. (please check one) Poor Fair Good Excellent Police, Fire, and First Responders ___ ___ ___ ___ Non-Profit/Relief Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Other School Districts ___ ___ ___ ___ Government Relief/Welfare Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Business Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ Local/Community/Religious Organizations ___ ___ ___ ___ 21. What particular organizations have you relied most in responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? Organization: _____________________________ Primary Contact: _________________________ What do you receive from this organization? ___Money ___ Personnel ___Goods ___ Information Organization: _____________________________ Primary Contact: _________________________ What do you receive from this organization? ___Money ___ Personnel ___Goods ___ Information Organization: _____________________________ Primary Contact: _________________________ What do you receive from this organization? ___Money ___ Personnel ___Goods ___ Information Section Three: This section is aimed at collected information about your districts disaster and emergency response plans. 22. How would you evaluate the quality of your districts existing disaster/emergency plans? _____Poor _____Fair _____Good _____Excellent 23. In your district, which of the following best describes the delegation of responsibility for disaster/emergency preparedness? _____Entirely campus based _____Mostly campus based _____Shared evenly between the campuses and the district office _____Mostly district based _____Entirely district based 24. How would you describe the likelihood of your district experiencing a disaster/emergency? ____Highly likely ____Somewhat likely ____Somewhat unlikely ____Highly unlikely 25. Has your district faced an emergency that called for the activation of your district disaster/emergency plan in: ___ past 6 months ___ past year ___ past two years ___ Not in the past 2 years 26. Do you have a written emergency plan for your district? ____ yes ____no 27. Is there a regular review of the plan? ____ yes ____ no 28. If so, how frequent is the review of the emergency plan? ___more than once a year ____yearly ____bi-annually ____ infrequently 29. Who was involved in the creation of your disaster/emergency plan? (please check all that apply) ____police, fire, first responders ____district officials ____campus officials ____government officials ____parents ____emergency planning specialists/consultants ____teachers ____(other)______________________________ 30. Who will be involved in the review of your disaster/emergency plan? (please check all that apply) ____police, fire, first responders ____district officials ____campus officials ____government officials ____parents ____emergency planning specialists/consultants ____teachers ____(other)______________________________ Thank you for your time and participation. Appendix 2: Summary of Survey Responses Emergency Preparedness and the Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Texas School Districts (2006) Did your district have to cancel school days to evacuate for Hurricane Rita or because of the damage caused by Hurricane Rita? Yes: 28.1% No: 71.9% How many days did your district have to cancel? Average: 1.4 days (Minimum = 0; Maximum = 30) To the best of your knowledge, how many displaced students has your district enrolled (including those who have withdrawn by now) in response to: Hurricane Katrina (Average): 62.3 students (Minimum = 0; Maximum = 3074) Hurricane Rita (Average): 9.7 students (Minimum = 0; Maximum = 1300) How many displaced students are currently enrolled in your district? Average: 42.9 students (Minimum = 0; Maximum = 3100) What steps has your district taken to accommodate displaced students? 16.8% purchase additional textbooks 11.2% hire additional teachers (including substitutes) 36.6% provide meals at no cost 7.0% open additional rooms/buildings Have the displaced students placed a significant burden on your health services? Yes: 5.3% No: 94.7% Has your district been forced to temporarily exceed the states guidelines for student/teacher ratio to accommodate displaced students? Yes: 11.9% No: 88.1% Did your district implement orientation or entry procedures for displaced students? Yes: 38.8% No: 61.2% What else did your district provide or facilitate for hurricane evacuees? 24.6% shelter 32.9% food distribution 40.3% clothing distribution 31.4% information about FEMA, Red Cross, etc. How would you evaluate your districts performance in responding to the needs of people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? 74.6% Very successful 19.0% Somewhat successful 0.4% Somewhat unsuccessful 1.9% Very unsuccessful How would you evaluate the degree to which your district was directly affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? 10.0% Highly affected 11.9% Moderately affected 36.7% Slightly affected 38.0% Unaffected Which of the following best describes how your district planned its accommodation for people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita?  23.8% planning was entirely at the district level 18.6% planning was mostly at the district level 37.1% planning was split evenly between the district office and campus offices 7.5% planning was mostly at the campus level 7.5% planning was entirely at the campus level Section Two: This section is aimed at gathering information about collaborative efforts, both in response to the Hurricanes and in the near future. Since Hurricane Katrina, have you collaborated with: 68.9% police, fire, and first responders 48.5% non-profit/relief organizations (i.e. Red Cross) 49.4% other school districts 33.3% government relief/welfare organizations 24.2% business organizations 59.5% local/community/religious organizations How long as your district collaborated with: Since Katrina <1yr 1-5yrs 5+yrs  Police, Fire, and First Responders 8.5% 7.0% 18.1% 66.3% Non-Profit/Relief Organizations 20.6% 8.1% 17.4% 53.9% Other School Districts 7.9% 6.3% 16.1% 69.7% Government Relief/Welfare Organizations 19.4% 12.8% 15.1% 52.6% Business Organizations 11.0% 6.2% 16.5% 66.3% Local/Community/Religious Organizations 9.1% 5.6% 14.7% 70.6% With which of these groups do you hold regularly scheduled meetings? 39.1% police, fire, and first responders 14.8% non-profit/relief organizations (i.e. Red Cross) 49.7% other school districts 11.2% government relief/welfare organizations 18.7% business organizations 30.8% local/community/religious organizations Primarily, how do you communicate with these groups? Phone/Fax Mail Email In Person  Police, Fire, and First Responders 52.7% 8.2% 15.5% 60.9% Non-Profit/Relief Organizations 38.2% 11.3% 16.4% 22.0% Other School Districts 48.8% 14.7% 35.4% 48.7% Government Relief/Welfare Organizations 36.9% 14.3% 13.4% 18.6% Business Organizations 35.6% 12.0% 15.2% 33.3% Local/Community/Religious Organizations 45.6% 12.7% 16.6% 55.3% What do you share with these groups? (check all that apply) Money Personnel Goods Information  Police, Fire, and First Responders 3.4% 28.0% 13.4% 87.3% Non-Profit/Relief Organizations 8.8% 10.0% 19.4% 58.1% Other School Districts 3.6% 12.5% 7.9% 78.0% Government Relief/Welfare Organizations 3.2% 8.4% 9.1% 58.6% Business Organizations 3.9% 4.5% 7.2% 59.0% Local/Community/Religious Organizations 7.0% 15.2% 22.4% 77.7% With which of these groups do you intend on sustaining regular contact with for the purposes of emergency preparation? 90.4% police, fire, and first responders 49.4% non-profit/relief organizations (i.e. Red Cross) 64.8% other school districts 41.9% government relief/welfare organizations 31.7% business organizations 69.2% local/community/religious organizations Rate the success of your collaboration with the following groups. Poor Fair Good Excellent  Police, Fire, and First Responders 1.0% 5.3% 38.9% 54.8% Non-Profit/Relief Organizations 4.8% 13.1% 53.2% 29.0% Other School Districts 0.9% 5.7% 39.7% 53.7% Government Relief/Welfare Organizations 7.3% 20.7% 49.2% 22.8% Business Organizations 4.7% 16.3% 50.1% 28.9% Local/Community/Religious Organizations 0.4% 6.7% 43.8% 49.1% Section Three: This section is aimed at collected information about your districts disaster and emergency response plans. How would you evaluate the quality of your districts existing disaster/emergency plans? Poor: 1.2% Fair: 22.9% Good: 59.3% Excellent: 16.5% In your district, which of the following best describes the delegation of responsibility for disaster/emergency preparedness? 3.7% Entirely campus based 4.6% Mostly campus based 58.9% Shared evenly between the campuses and the district office 22.1% Mostly district based 10.7% Entirely district based How would you describe the likelihood of your district experiencing a disaster/emergency? 16.2% Highly likely 39.1% Somewhat likely 38.2% Somewhat unlikely 6.5% Highly unlikely Has your district faced an emergency that called for the activation of your district disaster/emergency plan in: 17.5% past 6 months 11.3% past year 6.2% past two years 65.0% not in the past 2 years 26. Do you have a written emergency plan for your district? Yes: 94.8% No: 5.2% 27. Is there a regular review of the plan? Yes: 87.0.% No: 13.0% 28. If so, how frequent is the review of the emergency plan? 9.0% more than once a year 9.9% yearly 70.9% bi-annually 10.3% infrequently 29. Who was involved in the creation of your disaster/emergency plan? 71.7% police, fire, first responders 92.4% district officials 90.3% campus officials 36.3% government officials 57.2% parents 44.6% emergency planning specialists/consultants 69.2% teachers 6.0% Other 30. Who will be involved in the review of your disaster/emergency plan? 67.8% police, fire, first responders 93.5% district officials 88.0% campus officials 31.1% government officials 52.3% parents 39.6% emergency planning specialists/consultants 64.3% teachers 4.8% Other Data Download Instructions Data from the 2005 Hurricane Collaboration Survey are available at  HYPERLINK "http://perg.tamu.edu" http://perg.tamu.edu. From the home page, click the 2005 Hurricane Collaboration Survey link. The data can be downloaded as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet by clicking the Survey Data link. When prompted, you can either open the spreadsheet or save it to your computer. The data consist of the survey responses from all respondents of all waves of the survey. The data are anonymous as the district identifiers have been removed. Data with district identifiers will be available to researchers providing that they sign a confidentiality agreement. The codebook for the data can be downloaded by clicking on the Codebook link below the Data link. The Codebook provides a brief description for each variable name. Additionally, a summary of the survey responses can be viewed by following the link above the data download link.  For details on these and other harrowing examples of the costs of poor coordination, see Dysons detailed account of the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2006).  The full survey is included as Appendix 1 for reference.  The survey was delayed until November to ensure that districts, including those in East Texas affected by Hurricane Rita, would be included in the sample.  This paper, in fact, represents only the first results of the initial version of the survey data set. The first version of the dataset was only completed in early August. The results here should be treated as preliminary for that reason. Efforts continue to validate and clean the dataset of repetitive entries and transcription errors. A final version of the data will be released publicly once the authors are confident that the errors have been removed. The present paper explores public management and its links to collaboration. Additional work is underway analyzing the relationship between interorganizational collaboration and performance. Elsewhere (for instance, in OToole and Meier 1999) we have referred to these two options in terms of exploiting environmental opportunities or managerial buffering against environmental shocks. In the terms of the formal model we have been working with for the past several years, these are the M3" and the M4" functions, respectively. The details of the survey questions differed somewhat between pre- and post-hurricane surveys. In the former case, we asked about the top managers interactions with a range of actors in the environment. In the latter instance, we asked about the collaborations between the school district and a range of types of external organizations. The former, therefore, taps individual behavior, while the latter has to do with interorganizational links. The two should be related, but since the items ask for different information, we can expect some attenuation in any connection between the two sets of responses. Nonetheless, the possible link between patterns of managerial behavior and patterns of organizational collaboration is an interesting empirical question. For this and subsequent models, the number of cases is modestly lower. These analyses include only those school districts in which superintendents responded to both surveys. District size also remains significant, as it does in all models reported here.     PAGE  PAGE 1 Figure 1. The Distribution of Responses to the Degree of Impact of the Hurricanes on the District  Figure 2. The Distribution of Aggregate Collaboration  Table One: Descriptive Statistics  N Mean Min MaxAfter KatrinaTotal Collaboration 508 2.85 0 6Collaboration with Other School Districts 509 0.50 0 1Collaboration with Business Organizations 509 0.24 0 1# Evacuees 560 0.79 0 7.10(as a percentage of previous enrollment)Logged Enrollment 560 7.19 3.91 11.97Before KatrinaTotal Networking 405 -0.0005 -1.80 2.83Networking with Other Superintendents 420 3.91 2 6Networking with Local Business Leaders 423 3.78 1 6 Table Two: Collaboration in Response to Influx of Displaced StudentsDependent Variable: Extent of Collaboration (0 to 6)Independent Variables OLS Ordered Logit PoissonNumber of Evacuees 0.276 0.287 0.077 (3.79) (3.57) (3.36)District Size 0.477 0.510 0.160 (9.28) (8.63) (9.05)Constant -0.850 - -0.222 (2.31) - (1.67)N 508 508 508R2 0.21Psuedo R2 0.06 0.06 1 T-scores are included for OLS coefficients. Z-scores are reported for the ordered logits and poisson estimates.  Table Three: Does Non-Crisis Networking Predict Collaboration in Crisis Times?Dependent Variable: Extent of Collaboration (0 to 6)Independent Variables OLS Ordered Logit PoissonNetworking 0.448 0.516 0.156 (4.08) (4.27) (4.00)Number of Evacuees 0.273 0.300 0.077 (3.14) (3.13) (2.76)District Size 0.441 0.474 0.147 (7.29) (6.85) (7.09)Constant -0.630 -0.148 (1.44) (0.94)N 370 370 370R2 0.22Psuedo R2 0.06 0.06 Table Four: Are Managers Strategic in Collaboration to Lower Transaction Costs?Dependent Variable: Collaboration with Business Organizations/Other School DistrictsIndependent Variables Business Orgs Other School DistrictsPrevious Networking with 0.175 0.120Business Leaders/Other Superintendents (1.34) (1.02)Number of Evacuees 0.341 0.265 (2.70) (2.32)District Size 0.584 0.192 (5.88) (2.51)Constant -6.679 -2.160 (7.31) (2.72)N 383 383Psuedo R2 0.15 0.03 Table 5. Are Managers Strategic in Collaboration to Lower Transaction Costs? Dependent Variable: Collaboration with Business Organizations/Other School DistrictsIndependent Variables Business Orgs Other School DistrictsComposite Networking 0.681 0.297 (3.10) (1.69)Previous Networking with -0.126 -0.033Business Leaders/Other Superintendents (0.75) (0.22)Number of Evacuees 0.353 0.282(2.73) (2.43)District Size 0.598 0.163(5.89) (2.04)Constant -5.679 -1.375(5.85) (1.49)N 371 371Psuedo R2 0.18 0.04 78SUWZ[tub c d v z Y Z w  % \ ̸۝۝hm>hmXNh|hhEhE5 h15 h|O6 h|Oh|O hG? 5 h|O5 hB5 ha=5hh|O h X0hI h X0ha=ha=ha=6hG? ha=5CJaJha=ha=5CJaJjha=Uha=48UVWXYZ[tu$a$gdI$a$gda= $da$gda= $da$gd|hw)Nd? d e w x y z  9 X Y Z gd|O$a$gda= u:OPQRSTUg$a$gdwq$a$gdS d`gd|hdgdE ]^gd|Ogd|O  F { | ?qu9:OPQU|jh X0hwqU h X0hwq h X0hN h X0hS h X0hdh X0hd5h X0hN5 h|hhN h|hh|hh3DhI0JjxhIU hIhIjhIUhIh!hJ'hmXNh9h4h"i,;CDGNRjqruvwYlmnoϺ֠wld\Th?CJaJh|6CJaJhwqCJaJhXgh7CJaJhXghdCJaJh|hh|hCJaJhSCJaJhXghwqCJaJhXghSCJaJ h X0h|OhEhN h X0hN h X0h7 h X0h@x h X0hS h X0hwqh X0hwq0Jjh X0hwqUjEh X0hwqU%:;Siklmnopqrstuvwmno$a$gd|hgd?$a$gdS$a$gdwqoLNO]"%I%'B+.b26J8 $$da$gd|6 d`gdN d`gd X0 $da$gdXg$a$gd/[$a$gdXggd?anDZI\cyKLMNOP]lĽĶ˯Ҋ}vvvib h X0h>jh X0h0JU h X0hh X0hwq5 hP5 h X0h<jh?UmHnHtHu h X0hS h X0h*H h X0hI h X0h5 h X0hVl h X0h/[ h X0h7 h X0hwqhXghwq5hXgjhXSUmHnHtHuhXgh?CJaJ# !!!""##$$%%%%%H%I%%%& &&0&H&c&&&&&&]'''/(((l)z)B+++,ϩϩϛϛύφφwp h X0h$h X0h`mp6 h X0h`mp h X0hN h X0h.4 h X0h8H h X0h h X0hM, h X0ho h X0hwq5h X0hQ75h X0h},5 h X0h> h X0h7 h X0h/ h X0hg h X0h^ h X0h h X0h;q h X0hE,,,/0a2b2/5556677H8I8J8q8r888t99W;u;]<^<<<<<>z>>>>>>Q?s?@ @oBBǿzzsl h X0h A h X0hGEG!H%H8H?HHHnIoIIIKKLL%L'LLLLLZM[MrMMMNNNɹɲɮɣɣzphzhf)hm6h.7hm56 hf)hmhf)hm5CJaJh X0h 85 h X0h 8 h X0hmD h X0h=khmh, h X0h7jhmUmHnHtHu h X0hJ? h X0h A jhPUmHnHtHuh,h X05CJaJh,h,5CJaJ$MMMr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd8$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laMMNo$$&P#$/Ifa$gdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/IfgdmlqkdV$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNTNr$&P#$/IfgdmlTqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laTNUNVNr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkdt$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laVNWNNj$$&P#$&d /IfP gdml\qkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd!$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNf($&P#$&d /IfP ^gdmlqkd?$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOO1Q\QSSS_UUUUUVVZn[p[q[r[s[|uni hXg5 h X0h0} h X0hQGjh X0hQG0JU h X0hp- h X0hTBL h X0hK6 h X0hmD h X0h7 h X0h 8hf)hm6h.7hm56 hmhmhmhmCJaJhmhmCJH*aJhmhmCJaJ hf)hmhmhmCJaJ)NNNr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/IfgdmlTqkd]$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/Ifgdml\qkd{$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/Ifgdml\qkd $$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNo$$&P#$/Ifa$gdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNNNr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd($$Ifl( t 6P0644 laNN4Or$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 la4O5O6Or$&P#$/IfgdmlqkdF$$Ifl( t 6P0644 la6O7OcOj$$&P#$&d /IfP gdmlTqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 lacOdOeOr$&P#$/Ifgdml\qkdd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laeOfOOr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laOOOr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laOOOj$$&P#$&d /IfP gdml\qkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laOOOr$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laOOOod$&P#$/Ifgdmlqkd/$$Ifl( t 6P0644 laOOSUYq[r[~[[ \}qqqia\O 0^`0gdXggdXg$a$gdXgdgd d`gdN$d`a$gdmskd$$Ifl( t 6P0644 la s[}[[['\l\-]G]]] ^B^^ ___```a|aabbbcMcicjckccccccccee3e4e5eEeFeοδm)jh?hN>*B*CJUaJph h?hN>*B*CJaJph#jQh?hNCJUaJjh?hNCJUaJh?hNCJaJ h|O5h X0hN5H*h X0hN5jh X0hNU h X0hNh X0hXg6 h X0hXgh X0hXg5* \ \\\d]e]]]`^a^0_1___``aabbbbiccc (gd|O$a$gdmXNgdXg 0^`0gdXgcccd4dIddded~dddddeGeHeYeyeeeeeee2f3fEf$ & p@ P a$gdNFeGeHeeefff0f1ffffffffggggggjjjjjjڷڷ鋇|qe]MH hXS5jhXSUmHnHtHuh X0hN5hXghN5CJaJhXghNCJaJhXg h?h?h? hN5#jh?hNCJUaJ)jh?hN>*B*CJUaJph h?hN>*B*CJaJph#jh?hNCJUaJjh?hNCJUaJh?hN5CJaJh?hNCJaJEffffgggggiijjjj| & p@ P gd?$ & p@ P a$gdXS & p@ P gdN & p@ P gdXg$ & p@ P a$gdNjjj,r-r.r/r1r2r>r?r|}aCf12]b_no l7JZ[YZju褠hAjhAUh X0hN6jh X0hN0JUhXShXS5 hXS5 hA5hXS!jh?5UmHnHtHu h X0hNh X0hN5h?hN58j-r/r0r1r?ruNy||z_S HdgdN # p@ P dgdXS & p@ P dgdN & p@ P dgdXS$ Hda$gdXS HgdXS & p@ P gdN$ & p@ P a$gd? |}mԈōyqa`Bgeֳ/$ & p@ P da$gdN & p@ P dgdN HdgdN5_ mJZkww%$ # p@ P d]^a$gdA$ & p@ P da$gdN & p@ P dgdN'$ & p@ P d]^a$gdA u[ & p@ P d^gd4 $$ & p@ P da$gdm HdgdN$ Hda$gdm & p@ P dgdN[\PTSTٺٶّٙٙي~nf_Wjh?U h X0h?jh?UjhljUmHnHtHuhljjhljU hljhljh X0hN6jh X0hN0JUjh{UmHnHtHuh'c h4h4jh4UmHnHtHuh X0hN5 h X0hNjhAUjZh?UjhAUmHnHtHu [TiSp| K2? $$ & p@ P da$gd?$ Hda$gd? & p@ P dgdN HdgdN & p@ P dgd4Tklmnop{P  1>nR0+HnCz"l    G!!8"R"#,##$d$$g%%>&Z&&'))g****E+y+#,X,,,----..B..վվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվվh X0hN6 h X0hoh X0hN5 h X0hNjzh?Ujh?UmHnHtHujh?Uh?K?pq]^:;ST & p@ P gdN! & p@ P 0^`0gdN=>    !!_"`"O#P#$$$$%%|&}&.'! & p@ P 0^`0gdN & p@ P gdN.'/',(-())))**++h,i,,,A-B---#.$..! & p@ P 0^`0gdN & p@ P gdN..//////001112222gdmXN$]`a$gdmXNdgdmXN & p@ P gdo! & p@ P 0^`0gdN & p@ P gdN...H////<001112+3833335567799=;=J=======??????@@d@e@@@@˿˥˖˖˿{˿sssssshn CJaJhn hmXN5CJaJhn hmXNB*CJaJphhn hmXNB*CJaJphhn hmXN>*CJaJhn hmXN56CJaJhn hmXN6CJaJhn hmXNCJaJ h X0hmXNh X0hmXN5hmXNhmXN6hIh X0hN6 h X0hN-22d22222222223'3(3)3*3+333]4^444J5z5{555$a$gdmXNgdmXN56v666#7$777(8)8w8888J999w:::M;;;1<d<<< =`gdmXNgdmXN =9=:=;=<=== >j>>>>1?[???/@{@@ A AoAABaBbBcBdBeB]gdn gdmXN@@@@9ALAbBeBCC@CHCMCNCCCCC DDDDDD\D]DfDgD'E(EfEgEhEnEsEtEEEEE5F=FBFCFFFHHIIIIYIZIIIIIIIII5J6JLLLL7Mг hn hmXN6B*CJaJphhn B*CJaJphhn hmXNB*CJaJphhn hmXN56CJaJhn hmXNCJaJhn CJaJDeBBBCdCCC1D}D~DDD>EEEFYFFF!G~GGHHmHHH2I ]`gdn gdmXN2IpIIJLJMJJJ KmKK&L}LLLL^M_MMMMyNNNN O(O`gdmXNdgdmXNdhgdmXNgdmXN7MWM]M^MMaRbRSSTTTTTTTTTTTT9U@UAUCUUUUUU˼tktcXcLcXh*CJaJhmXN5CJaJhSU:hmXN5CJaJhjohmXNCJaJhkAkBkCkDkEk^k`kakmknkxkkkkkkkkkkkkkkll"l#l0l3l4lhjohmXNB*CJaJphhmXN5CJaJ&jhmXNCJUaJmHnHtHuhephmXN5CJaJhjohmXNCJaJhmXNCJaJEjjjkFkxkkk1l2l3l4lll mm,m=mPmQmmmn `gdmXN `gdmXNgdmXN  H!@@@@@gdmXN   @@@@@gdmXN4lBlDlllll mmmmmmm!m&m*m6m=mFmImNmOmmmmmmmmnnnTnYn]nsnunvnxn|nnnnoo oo"o#o(o+o@oϽϬ࡙hmXN5CJaJh+hmXN5CJaJhmXNCJaJhjohmXNCJaJ hjohmXN6B*CJaJph#hjohmXN56B*CJaJph hjohmXN6B*CJaJphhjohmXNB*CJaJph h+hmXN5B*CJaJph4nTnsnnnno#oAoYoZoooop7p8pwppppppppq `gdmXNgdmXN `gdmXN@oAoBoCoGoIoooooooooooooooppppppppp pvp|pppppppppppppppqqq6q7q=q?qIqJqOqQq`qaqfqgqhqqqqqqqqqqqqrrr r r r!r$r%r&r(r@rCrhmXN5CJaJh+hmXN5CJaJhjohmXNCJaJhmXNCJaJUq7qJqaquqvqqqr!r@rUrrrrrr#s@s]s}sssss`gdmXN `gdmXNgdmXN `gdmXNCrDrErHrTrUrZr]rrrrrrrrrrrrrrs"s#s&s's(s+s@sAsBsCsDsEsHs\s]sbses}sssssssssssssssssssss t t tOtPtrtstttj hIUjhIUhI hI5 hN5hIhI5hmXNhjohmXNCJaJhmXNCJaJh+hmXN5CJaJhmXN5CJaJCsssss t tvvwfxx>y{{'}'׀(2 Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF IgdN$a$gd7`gdI 0^`0gd`gdmXNttttttttttttu'vvvvwFwwwwfxgxxx>y?y{{{{|| } }'}(}}}!~/~'(׀؀()*,-/02356<=>@ƼƼƷƷƼƲƲƼƼƮ h|60Jjh|60JUjhIDUhID h|66 h|6H*jh|6H*Uh|6jh|60JU hIhIhDhkhdh/,hIjhIUh3DhI0J;()+,./1245>?@KLMN$a$gdm$a$gdP$ h]ha$gdPh]hgd$ &`#$gdB@AGHIJKMN/0>ø{okc\U\U\M\hJ hA>* hJ hA h?hAh?hA5hmh`hm5CJaJ j$h`hm5CJUaJh`hm5CJaJhm5CJaJh.7hm5CJaJhe hIhPjhIhPUhPhP5CJaJh,hP5CJaJhIDh|6hG? 0JmHnHu h|60Jjh|60JU~=@kdC$$IflG""  t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG"" t644 la H$Ifgdml/0>?p/@kdW$$IflG""  t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}lT@kd$$IflG""  t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l>?@A`aghij߂-./06TYZ[\]^_`abqrstu߃`abcބ߄º h?h4 hJ h4h?h46hJ h45h?h45hAh? hJ hA h?h'c h?hAh?hA>*hJ hA>*D?@Aghp/@kdk$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG""  t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}lhijp/@kdc$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\߂p/@kd[$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}lp/@kdS$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}lT@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l-./0p/@kdK$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\0[\]^p/@kdC$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l^_`abp/@kd;$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}lbqrstp/@kdA$$IflG""  t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG""  t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}ltp/@kdG$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l߃p/@kd?$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}lT`i' & p@ P $Ifgd4lgdA@kd$$IflG"" t644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}l`abcN'' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\Dkd$$IfTl:   t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd7$$IfTl:  t644 laTބN'' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd $$IfTl:  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkdE $$IfTl:   t644 laTބ߄ N'' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd $$IfTl:   t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkdS $$IfTl:   t644 laT  *+,-STqrstʅ˅̅ͅօׅ߅hijklmɽ򧣛}uh`sh{6h?h{6 h`sh{ h?h{h`sh{5h?h{5h'ch4 h4h4h4h4CJaJh4h4CJH*aJh4CJH*aJh4h4CJaJh?h4H*jh?h40JU hJ h4 h?h4.  *+,N'' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd $$IfTl:  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkdo $$IfTl:  t644 laT,-STqN'' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd $$IfTl:  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkdo $$IfTl:  t644 laTqrstN'' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd $$IfTl:  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkdo $$IfTl:  t644 laTN'' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd$$IfTl:  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkdo$$IfTl:  t644 laTʅ˅օN'' & p@ P $Ifgd}lTDkd$$IfTl:   t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\Dkdo$$IfTl:   t644 laTօׅN'' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\Dkd $$IfTl:  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd$$IfTl:  t644 laTjklmLGEgd4Fkd$$IfTlw:   t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd$$IfTl:   t644 laTmj' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lJFkd$$IfTl"-#  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd5$$IfTl"-#  t644 laT:j' & p@ P $Ifgd{lTFkdY$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{l\<=>?cdiu‡·#<=>?^_dqӈֈ؈'+ĉS؊(ZŋNj͋ϋ@Ž h?5hh?5hlj hhljhhlj6 h`shljh`shlj5h{ h?h? h`sh{ h?h{G:;<=JFkdo$$IfTl"-#  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-#  t644 laT=>?cj' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lcdJFkd $$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laTj' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lJFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laTj' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{l<=JFkd!$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT=>?^j' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{l^_JFkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lFkd)$$IfTl"-# t644 laTj' & p@ P $Ifgd{l\Fkd1$$IfTl"-#  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lJFkdU$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lTFkd$$IfTl"-#  t644 laTӈԈՈj' & p@ P $Ifgd{l\Fkd$$IfTl"-# t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd{lՈֈ׈؈()ADkd$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}l gd{Fkd]$$IfTl"-# t644 laT)*+l'Dkd$$IfTl "w"  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\Dkda$$IfTl "w"  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}ll'Dkd $$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd} $$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lTĉʼnƉljl'Dkd "$$IfTl "w"  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}lDkd}!$$IfTl "w"  t644 laT' & p@ `$Ifgd}llj*+l'Dkd#$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lDkd"$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\+,-RSl'Dkd$$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lDkd#$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lSl'Dkd%$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lDkd$$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & hp@ P$Ifgd}l׊؊89l'Dkd&$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lDkd%$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\9:;YZl'Dkd'$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lDkd&$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lZl'Dkd($$IfTl "w"  t644 laT' & p@ P $Ifgd}l\Dkd'$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lӋԋl'Dkd5)$$IfTl "w" t644 laT' & p@ P0$Ifgd}lDkd($$IfTl "w"  t644 laT' & p@ P$Ifgd}lTABCi' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd)$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P $Ifgd}lgdljCDR+' & p@ P $Ifgd}l@kd*$$Ifl!,"  t,"644 la+ & p@ P $If^gd}l@kd1*$$Ifl!,"  t,"644 la@DEc܌acde hIhIh}h? hph?hh?6 h?6 hh? ܌݌ތV/' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\@kd+$$Ifl!,"  t,"644 la' & p@ hP$Ifgd}lT@kdE+$$Ifl!," t,"644 laތߌV/' & p@ P$Ifgd}l@kd,$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}l@kdK,$$Ifl!,"  t,"644 la LV/' & p@ P$Ifgd}l@kd-$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\@kdQ-$$Ifl!," t,"644 laLMV/' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\@kd.$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}lT@kdI.$$Ifl!," t,"644 laV++ & p@ P$If`gd}l@kd/$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}l@kdA/$$Ifl!," t,"644 laV/' & p@ P$Ifgd}l@kd0$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\@kd90$$Ifl!," t,"644 laR+' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\@kd1$$Ifl!," t,"644 la+ & p@ P$If`gd}lT@kd11$$Ifl!," t,"644 la%V++ & p@ P$If`gd}l@kd2$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}l@kd)2$$Ifl!," t,"644 la%&'(>V/' & p@ P$Ifgd}l@kd3$$Ifl!,"  t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}l\@kd!3$$Ifl!," t,"644 la>?^_`V> $Ifgd}l\@kd4$$Ifl!," t,"644 la' & p@ P$Ifgd}lT@kd'4$$Ifl!,"  t,"644 la`abcde`gdIgd?@kd-5$$Ifl!," t,"644 la, 001h:pB/ =!"#$%xDdWP  C ,APERG-logob>*o 7qeDx n>*o 7qePNG  IHDR B4sRGBgAMA a cHRMz&u0`:pQ< pHYsnu>IDATx^]\}}m$C`v'(90tw `a v"0  ̮osa0O, ߱L\*ڑad _|| _!HGOBikwwo[m}7|/X~/xQwg@kˌEZYCCuk[˿(shDϷ}흽M__嫶ކ/=_K֟:<4?A_X_||? 34I?nBOC2 F`O'ϟ/Xa.6X o0̞lYCh.,'W6 2VVeT'hayќA))/OX2x\mG<|7ak%'  _8O`X{: x{ ;?4f u{ 6 tWu4u5wuV6׶ +(nf}SPY7_^SО_S,% q)emQYv~~nEƢܪ򊊆֒ڮڎrW__WQU][[[[1P9PWW݋ |j:zkz{PS`sOsK:!?Yt)0}i\!E(Y2Y]Caށ֮֞es`_;XQRX^S9**s`M^E]`ysچ⺶7eUM]o*ߖהwVU4-)+.˫ϩ-*/m.ih/ih(k׶W4vVtW5UtT7wVtVԴԶuzYM}>Vc{E]/gg_:;zZXC}؇568Ӌ- Ƹa6 Og!~A9 w x ՛AVAiiF~VvN󼒢g/T7մgTV6tT ַT44մה6t655V|S G Wl%ս}s&Y/@Φ3>1c@ōq8 xcPô. g<|xL :`k0-:SO0G೼T7|W#?| *#Y^,-|gi|Ьs?|>K G೼I  UL8tl#^Ǒ˨Z9Gg<|v|{g;_xD??zp~doox}ۏrhǦ=[W=SqcCgwwskgu-6Ϝ8gp欮ÇnۿuU'vo8hLM?A'#΅x qy*SLun9NlM}b/\(h7Aw}E9m깖Smife}Cky8Vg" g7-ilGq`3ʩ.jz-:6y9[޼Z7^80840̺y#ʍixrϺ[ڻxdT[J1`]I`nħ<*;ko3ĵm-5%$>ὤ$/ yxO?̩k_v2ųu1og:<~>KSLk>**ޱ* ?D g'6VGpŻcf#EBՒ^u\7DAA܂q>fc;zxG~5@sgtOWØ5;>ġ )1{o:)*iwۇVo9`™chH8s)1p@_TUȤKDkcuv1CA%4Ihkz$13 G݋,e6laqN0*+{^٘vW/vuKٱ抧'>VXe{V>0l wǠnFEGNF? x&̜gOd0:_6֛zRǓL{,~]cӬޱ+ү@d߼=PxuN7;5]xw`kgSw)c^ eUӞZu؅:A@v[;oEZSrr2B(# L>~(xf 1Z$&q?|\g]'(Ue%ouŪk+c6,x9r[VixДSP}eHSRFU++cJea1q*ͭ*5֠ovWƆpSwQ_:t <hNI;"5š0ύ;^ts.gBxo)/.69uĠqF*hȲ3G:eVPaJy()-ceNUkέ̉y^A=،g %`-* uչx0몾R/̬ݗ)ʖgjwl̴'t/#qđ:/$\ \=.{Xc1i ¸[Aox+ _ܳdOqr&CMg'ď> @,fƈ4WUޢƐ:@Zvz]eL @uRo0*׬M8Fb=BENIkCwsiYowU43W;OWmMe[D]Afaf(PUtsHf;+ыV&MܧlT=g-TH1ka[ +*ʿ !+wO Hs_W\rE^Ƌk7qcrV7ٗ3L0}6l ?z=`%jSidV9'q6uCqՈGԷ׾y޹z`lҕ %YMvaa|f"WK{S748-|@jK.oɫ{t)VuŎ[9_E.iOZ? YyÃ3f*Gg@V{LLvܰ)*,gr}OmÖ/>n<p 0cu;XuO}B\.okiY쎭)\(q:fzq4—]]/9֠aTiXw^v0l0x,폁(t8ؔ0쑟P36,`l7$z1RJVg"L)bG[QH{~qE<P^#ܾe0j{J[Hx} ʓUU&NQS-Gg+Fca;))ɥ>ƒ@ٷ\{. RJ ئO QG6ob/_C勎_Ho^p5(~x<[ӾA7pwOU+^vM}0KHk;dx9\u$Ӝd{kQ1# #6m6bz|T}kڊÁQML)M1OYuul鰧UB}sZ@A̟NY9~ar @7墇\^ø~s=A0ŏb ~o]{S.7ӹ%Wkڎr4kDel#OO,6UQވlSWkĭj0lQ3Q, ,FQI7]]^~~\ 8zkzx\_@ocGC۸nkDki71^:Ĥ.s8m晚9oayx89ؘ?$~x 0ܬ}D4֙TgQEWU L@oQ;+LAm"Kt=H쬬tuϞCGW,/zr~{9$WXׯ^,.*}6vC~6\9E}LyI}CUE=G^-g|2gmiS8RKNwOg_o^d$V5}IG/dkf o9|mkc6mW@wk1rRnX=O.WXykF] e+x.vxlQf eͽYl%*7Iqgk>z'[G׃^Fgସ({*^_{;n;;)+܈e2qSz}; ,…i1en6#S~{]P-QirxLFu b>z‡ܔ?\Y1sW >:rG|y,o* UC}L wɀE|sYyшo￭-=w9 =˱S̍8{z>q?&ot>hbG ZQͭgc辧ų[I!!> O;O7k7adgvJ1&&օ[>Qb ZVga}Kn` n r .^Cpc|KJf=Ʌc}w3u;,"(|XոKf>~U(~~!A~ֶzguۦrf; Sk@㤏˨J}t WWN4ŤT7K\tw>'$Id ֥5#;Ƨy}"PcsKjeG[Vz.;*JqS_1ޥs/.] 261ڵM. {zJ>ʽ(d沥cS5œ>FŸ:u$~pY3wv`5r.1fYwcغq +7׋ VՔ 0\ǩmu t߹z]Ks~Iם5=}M[sGxTD?~ejk\?58cq?ܯ3:w*-'SRmw;Iqff/ ܏b}&/'Ϡp<8ɑ /P3r*ڊ-3 _3l 3d*GS2KFC?Yo~=X&=V pC7<@ ED$_{?7 --.;j\s6:D;n&lj]'SގU!W]3.IS/ @߼@BIuξǵr8?u} WvY!pK|e@uyENi>~#~ %e*8_ >av/PYno N#nje⁳ܾX\򻙉P{[)#7s{@LVʍgF֦U󞮌^[)^Vk'{{hD̾ict2x$p@5fkt s0׎nEo_H$@p i?x=lgnpn]#~eNiL!$4<}hV'$5_7OiL]iUHX,+xAvQV}bs/ LfMǖl*m4xo*$pc/$|!?2t502 @}Xlk}[lEĸd8(}S<8UG:OP}β wc6G"|h 7_7p녭ɵD֧fܸwvN `ʃBn?j͆4==&011M ߳z| $vwu9;[%|xnTĝOqvvxrB$%nݷ54kxpWaZ{S!4? pH0  |(7$<{ʼcyINpYo_w8KO%86V5u8>+ɯtqSkJ8]H x::>Ux@|ꍈȐ/dmLUs瀫[B 3'8BܚU*Eſs6H?{'-vqn G+*&#)8׻هEOHp`ikc~rO/gur y#q}?=1Sb?rwI4M=%x@v /vA']3@I.\=VGhuQ"ibtړG6:I:GntKS~nZ+k/4:þ7ŔxkFKG{xO`\JruAB'GJ6<ܘ)wXYe=q|O$"8j1'&:s$TeEG]IIx185שd>.M ^G|p\jj32\}\y v6f]nnw 8ݞ^>] +8굩':w;;Zq5%;<>Mt?[dxF:ֶv Ћ"5.H8C%pzveU}Y=z]ncv~24##/]S2.=+/2~+)6L&:9Xl/weO/&|/grMI\8-]5Bz38<-y~94ô/c9x 0U4C([ "C${Tb <{ׇmx[Cb{+,2:FdDdV ۏCHhhĩ+jvMՋ3jضvVwYmͩx&HgŠYk|O{edh]PL͂8I<GE-dgXC S70&p%,. ᡷܤmL[zəaqi(Y1؛"}@"u'Npe|g.ظO%_dfY7o}ǵxg5nG` \ߡ >u*^NDž%𧻓]}7 J~=<46T^)WHrP@`'|BVZo ֧S\ۂ|=L.'O?+\6>f1ѨՃѣ D?#o~0' |=?[ z'?o?[a+:6fM]X!7F.측3f4&d/3zwGJIUO~;>$_M2u:G go޾80pA -щƬ-; mI5y(~EnA~h1M4)z㆗{*!ͭh63*NaۘH0L;/s8gN}ˌ N!8E\zL@xm6"e>(>}CI?YGԃ́GHN˾TR}ͩ" "O7)}<TUDF}nC%%s18&m0I/1IU%eҁKUs6$rafoYzҲN2t ~*J**>VYyi;w=9|=i;></gvZU!!v!"nPNi{//g57\C~PM (ܑ:Ȇ >: 4@sﾟǀ㋝WRoM )Nh'%Bø:l/bE; NEʯП'a*HU0`&!=KДN5\"m:W 1EȌU͖1'ݼcTJTq8^b9OXdB돦?IƞLs"SW"&Hs!ɘ,!YuQI;%b)H QUWSݺdqlbEUR5GZsc[6߻q,OOh=5 tb =^Sr-&=כ_w}3|(UUY &Vk A8N9"X\q(/jeYOIuă@ttԔ` Y0;F-fxdE.9 z9<̆di{?<󋋣#+?Y8u}ΓW+A:6~L0`]I40Gd=ad4w7uu׵uWT5wWTw56|'򞾽wYƝ#3.]q=*[-ѧ q(t2r&rʪnj**Jzda ) )$Hh"Ft@ZTrV/F6$[SD<RRf"ԓ %dV$ESbd|Qk$]O||b9'қOh]w>&:_&xFِBR| Sx@뎈qS7/*DžO;sw2͒H۾;? + [١8{~-( Y5UMzFEm -U5]%ޖfmk**S(;3򃠈"^F9{h`H70}RQꪢꪤ쭮ꬦh#"sZTTWxG9m/ܯo =0>f3<"< `֊x:6+&7jbUAϥ*F|"r?ҔoB)=cK!#AƲH/8iQڄ_/~n{ewa6NAuցG/Yȩx1)3:%)f]OMcҙMD`e. 9yoc"CXC^Yny$N|k׋LPO Sğl~0X3G;7thgHӋhtD6M4GН#e./$NbP:qUzۚFqPW.-'t*lbE̯i }3g غVB¹k7v;%JefEGT7AɋGU3@ǵ  hTP-JS9HJh EɊw,s@f02Drgq+M_a}0Q֏VDTXv>t"o,k)O,%E䶄K]U*ebANI$ɚ#B0]"|JZlL$ڎz4;A2CFsY'VtWF!R7 X͚L3VL_HMEOM;A+6.&+*؋ӭiRTEk]TL:-0 `OS"Vc eM==)ҕ@/Sov9=a_&G` bbxEs*Ro\O"6(/ cxlvUu NbDWKfRل `F)L"IG4_-Dž"(Cuf :SS5VzJ( }0dH,E[\ *f kw*e7^zȕ~V,Y8s5melXfSy:sg2V}+YYZE\Oq*m- H|$!)TZ.Dy!ED;)!kQA{qG2(:J[_Y=oyM89~>{ [Qa~/4"u~ɤ>ja 6GEYE6JEJs\,qnqE< D5'^ 1"f2tk/e˚@a=IdE>Mt dMڪN4E3@+ F?%ŏ2-UGY(D &U IV_%%yvb'Cw"X YI\OyBr?]tٜ" 2N5ne~D9郇P=42IB(ַy\u{rd{Z/2Ǜ;#"#289 ~9 2]&7aNfَ@AG)[D Pp_w.)e#򳫄 !ȩ9Bg$PVgeA ִؑhgsA_}kVȩOb֋gF+/(Jfhr?wٺa 投~V*)+**-#GJQ8K2DYLxOɆB%:ʨ1 dSBF <|;;_W;&2"$)E7\Z'Qb0' i~0I>dovBsmTZ P&&tBLQC@k{ՆT^ǭzFsKCЛH9R?o.0<\0.&Zo2C54uFc7F uжJq''!_Aʿzd.aʩ qQZcGR&X/Y }[BعPS``kog][oMkKGgeC{Y]V#~,%+$ŷ _rDG\Ǿ1wt t;,e5A{=bNLd̕ -l $eL!YKUn5Ko6hhEۈ oWAD+)9fO]f'T^K:Ѩ^6Ub}x@KOH<lcUo]*FR}g?Cj_$ +!|6m@{𡷻[=4Bޓ>hc؟~̋D+i:DwwGV3LV{8C3ijV /"8\q JXxNU{Lo7!11m)7xis/7фǦqX7_.0RqYr$S¥~c,cF<&5KEu28Z6>-,|N]!jZrRT|im/dX݀vV.l dP*@>2*(]HԳ gZQtCqY-FRNu6"PԨ '~;/0ZirWg H$e7Lv̯́(D[X2ED-eatA5Ga pLvNǞ|ɰ`*6Q=̶YJ|PRdZ]6l[@[}ߣÕYS1j8m@Y0<>[KD>a5;i˜Dn`;$7ʜMn^P_TggJDh7v? _iYR !1>%@^~2GD6ЁOZE_06E5C܃%_l2ЙK82q3I26"64%#%9#9Es)$! j%mVia~O uM 7P}(۽v G /̾tRI'JkRl]a?fhk.ZTYTbj %Ap6 bK7>^-( 0 G#Lf~{N2URrK4rOR2$>ĕ>t/y"]2[jxڏX h޻] |밢k1qqhE|(*-4-݀ϞGGwy^+I JDe7ݷw[/:zĉ#wo>E5>y`-G۽ȎMg09yi-SFlΞ x.Z¥[K g/2 _e5緷wwtwwt۠Cp큼=`(N&//6'SDW ޲*8>뭅G2UCh)?b<Vz&_ʁZ W.-S=,4!aPZ%'H<+A^9D_l(Hp&1)fRIF&~ ȓ/ۙ9&9# '4#;/8pڷԠܒ<|Zŋ୑]|*,$%Ry]>ctEnupӃԲZp5n!X._ʦuV6?ȫ|^>.v.6NLGs'SӦ槍 19ucǶmZwRm^Fz ݏvIA67_>Lz~Y,g0xx'5ta(Vkg2;],=-1QY٨=c;'gwlO]5KQM+҃]Xht񍄞N!;gAݨI5@; P`ه㾂~B/߰9參#,H7*jN2*dy&qsM9}N. םi†3qGU5ê,nz}5EmRFSO.> cg0w10733=u)]}c'Okk}֨՚Y'N~jb+>{E0?+?`? G62*=|x/o x,TCCMÀmk/G"¦V{6;؜y\Sg(2xspo`_F#JP ?qT / ܀~it́Ko+1QY:@^J2cߪu`yR,*F"ˎ.n_?7G&^!!&@{s>4e p<q@`q! e5VMhC;79w7 @!-zcfw7CkpﻏFDc<="NYFvbbcGGhgs0 'l9ifd7۟=fsb"@U I),SZZ` d\g7@0rF KT3"-~M  1X۔T3%6f&5 w;ctɇ"vJbUs? 着v;wn114 ̭8 <-Dc0EaO_*iB"B.A/{ډ*4"gp(*̰WSol$EzSx5 Vql.Pȥɫ'A"wm_h Uûzg/m)詨 h,-X,aya]Þ j.֝-d%&LyPT"$-pZ қ̀L)t3uZHLk) ( H'`Vb~Iop梧0/<]ԷE};ؖ=H7rirk y[ O аW=(o}J#p?ޓ9G atSRO*18(;cl-iVYHj`-AeuDMv"3ֈj煉Rj HfR֦LU4 1? x+#iz}+,Iv*&)/)uAΙC3r*.ߍVQ: o 7ӣQvxw2ޭVas^MSSKO@;8<u0z /ɗWkB+ٷ=".m6?PX&oΝOgaywމM&b\Cؘ >+6 vƆҖBFLu8ńH $o4tdŌT7^wlvmeo-P6(uA~悟T9,ӥg**Z6}c򗦤QW:oРnTޭ9EWv{)*,_B#N}իooA.ώ>ux硣LQ*;:^dgtuUU5ZXM,0%ovN6@GP0GËe /(֋rp(B1/.A<`[~qà ֻk1،jK37ѕӫڭ ,xQRD!)Qf|Wl _1 W3&Fth]@Q.14;u6*2dVIkQv,s Ub$/^ ôմڥ=SNF?b~wqjӓv޴JG_;\%3ʈ1xH ;)A ƔS]sK3frC#r6fc #ڎ@*o_Y[o\IMDg}'CiMsLRBq%Zbz:?!)1*LO`zX.q8̶dA5;]`'u|rrv?U#:-?+CIq7IR\ʔ$T,Uv ^|Vo56潼;ȥEn֭CI_a $R + O1ѓ˛i4w 4 YZ}evKQy5/ EPrR Bйv|SE?A.*ztO$%rKite{2`NP,G ,c}}fuF5y|$`o]Bu| 5K%Mwaa ::7"x!):s$04\_ 7?{ Yڊm ,Syqd~9/>#`AwZ2؎J 62%tΚe#[@R.:E&;M¢7<[:DXZyױs!?j{ieQYsK U)!rrn.E״GfFP(w$pRͅD_-U_n)!k/Hs Io6ٸ.|p9w>JLR{#k0N{O<@7*|21j# }2=6hb> tS~8q$&xOXB4sXE7{u>s\"3? ij$@HB;TqV5PFp6!pr` ġA X\ leWyFkٵ2g3gA)ahbRMjE\J ;u1|4AgsKn`G+6knUn&L/_ z߸x^bvۇԣJl&n+q { Qq.yܺ1|vlb ц梴;` /!H']%~a,.pπ8nOXI[v袕BW2RH /ӠY6ܢDY={3ݹC٩?+ {ST ,Dm)dD?I#֮ol@gݬ{tgYQTJJWX n*DН!vcaco0rjlꋌ,҄JUgZ^藊/Aؖ[ZSy%?OO>>r;v*y͛QZGh+{wa?v]~p@,W5 q %*.3+IrzWME*c`p}zUzӃ Z }!!q$9GQQEw#]簋I^eV7焄X(+_..::@ uIR -2!Jwdb/s@F)`uX9AkRId/UIW2>XL E^/%vH\Be˟e^;>j.fzUu_=bVX3Adݽ7!@Y/Es9n ûѴ8 ]o`Ә'v.oݺu2AY`pwt7䯞BRǫ.$GyeC1]& VF`_%8] 1~{tCNJR%6@ #4SrFEK<5ة0ؗPon|ZPʖDp) Zl$GlLϗ(x i`j%+EU9DsU7x(hHЀEdҳ/ 5;inRm}78ӊ'a!8y/""4A9%^yaDյ;p9')7/:m/޸ '/Xƚ^VV(մX"sm:W[YEq2W-Xczc1#]AIy.D  ^`@ұ-]zP.5ݥ9{5GٮEWZbEm-Uwl\x5ژW/T6vڋH3( 1)'Ql/>p̾[VXu|p*q<Հ(m&B,YL_B4x%4ój()QϴVJrXԔm2 I6͙Q:(?2d _'!_کL!!'ɉ?IEy"6; #~_p Nzt/U z"d_F^u˶]9w -7LRI?kǝXlJ4e̕tqCa,$8~'FB=%0wJMa1砱 .RIFmdd/wٓɩةɾq0 qTRLJ/M(#,Bb\?d@ҋ }||V'50%nB&Egא܋NZa|^fp]ĸ`?1~y ]wM qʽF g#VXRi[P5e $ YS*& q#- 4yp ~2DKqqmv9_핻%5G_Akvm:p'0b_?  )z[ =~ξ:ǵK8ubsPQ,ZgJ5^OȂ(Y mX2vBo_w{ECr%BC b_ 0P ;nۇ U7Zxݤ 67 u_3y~"I8 ӝhFf#u )ZP\Yn墻Z`~ $tyosVuW`%.f˭&BsC ;Ըp}&HC`$>mޙ+>:4}lRhb<##RS ~mjL4uK~h`ov~$vC4p6E|[;0^1V;>1h#[+k| %ZCE~s( n]F fkOT#@D{h >ת;,Žse֪/;Q(R +4p{z ,FfGs;QZcn4Qrp ޻5\hKyEKS Z,!Z||B"_;쪾G8OsÑ;Z!8]"DNmݠKȟY}/ᡮ^[sE7o YEy#ei/"V&?8avaݭ ݭ=V+}e*[jP[Q1>.Fo!p<( 湧o*!}Q~f< . &(FRS`"wo:e_˶XziRlVHzI1Z<*R\xj&B~z0ߣЯZQ,#, UQb.(d,)%&j+bO'"BB8ZEq7R{%G)3]8b5$}NbΣu[d -#`zFEF$$ռd`NɽĖlo<Jh֘u 6?ú^s"GYfB3L6fbG5]8toD]ra="e*Ok|^CYز8~0v@P%^KUU?vΒ|7@~շ} Y+˶Vԃ'@SlACGDr䥑 Iյ%% Q;%(`3SYj"p_D;kEob4G:d= \&pݦb]>VS,/&'\ZX  rNnĜ;0i,ݓ.ry~Z*6 O8 ?XO/]vUՍ@[&u`zJݰA$ >sKD Eb >Km6ZLGX,~n\(yQRZV&]ezDEhO`|&pzᡡ >RO̟K\K`*HT:bLۭjB  dd7R" h< l%d2Y u$Yb'DvdQIJ6.ћ'q!"ܒ{L~s~OBZ\UTt1ox|+[y* [I: W%AcݑSo$뢤lNk,Ϲ6ޖ\|Zdx(>yH3vj&G<8*Je%"9_o5#3 wR!tY/d6E&)h!9yub`[Aa)<@_ 7-S^,@$Iȸ};)!w'SҤx־k{[Lk%p+  Sնc>WRtjzjQh|! cܹ{ny8c;$rĕ,k#EمFR?) svVl t5tԴ7֔yP6IZ`$.`.B[OWR hx- P $☸(3ۻz z-UqZg'-@ {P=hGP=Ք:qZƚƒT +3:9YbG1tU'j1GBbŸ.驢XPYtUBfZ@j^yϢS~+c[]{?1h3ދҪЀzLeZ0|)Z:.ii!$+(N912&``SQXmY18юJuUQ Xg:_\rZKf6B(t\ "(U-MMmNE;~ZbPVeWS)XB5/#+|*25!Rj3D :qI 4j% Rv |q`ΒRO<}* ENoy5Wu4N+ZN@ML"&'-ŕ]O-OUyc +t"ژ_شNXʝ=񝨕bmaL}I[^s%l ]d̹ـǡgo=/W,)+L/|qH 0p[°BRBd$<$ު@st%Lw,fǎc.^ O!PSm[~9IV֎*c*,m."m6_AP1H`A9k:9 xԀVei_ibO!!g!*jdɾ~+nGDj'U?0WD$ tHUm{=Xg\ Q9a6)7uW|csp󝩊4Uيeʍ^ۣ%}7\ YE?]>a N[γȏi 쩿3԰t~=;PryESpO&R8N]3W5B̓=@) `L?yK]y&F(iCܘiKMv݃@`YQCtW.<ǖn- FTqelj[ It1V"˯̡)*fJ(09Xwtr~#ŁHva㺋M$em="]G}[ !'(o]dmTU/$tFlNsU## hGf3EF,zM, Zת4 ïxTNNEToo N2 .UjNClH8H0 Dpd@ ˟5Wc[^ܶPU4u{{ l!:˯PWMy}䤋l!E2R"ƠSP1 KǭwCmakNT1Zfuįƒ2dU-Ⅶ!!gObJSaDžsa5{-PJn\yV}Aꊫ3ؘs 8~)YJE")ďf?vE~OIfHwC3vKuɯ>^EPِx1kqW97Һk\ \d :Sʲ`m< mv뚍M"$ffpJ]IsgӨrt~Fp_e-*QL4I27gu. ߞKAo*2W{_;1=65eO!-H" K*i8Hj[!S%\tͅ]͡٫g l?CV%a &bзԘ`7 霴'ŪKn]Kcr+ySXtF?tDk=*$QR\F܉sZ"O^D[k"E\w1pW g&B~~&)-c%&i!J-CP} vHJYЋ[6|YfNTt5v椺Ȅ}F^LC0Sfg y cE确Pp/o|]s 'eEJ Y:lm wt=:+mo7!m-B\H$QJF"3LE3E&e Q ґ7SL.w]\"M'! +]{x͎ypqś[p%>}'MAbANɼwӈv8`-C2  l(o`DΑ"g7i#v)U@@WBkAij)# 8G_IQtEv㎙ /?r\Tg]87ciV[wC ugF,e%=5Hdg AɇuRo=HNĔcJǝ%E ]LU0@c,`RnB KW) Vׇn$<{[;H,dž]M5ؠi!":62^Gdj:gjQ~k?o8u3?UhCD4 K34wmKͫ}y}'/͖K斵tU;@i?y@L˅b~45'"G3fmޠLz5#4 RvWEcr 6{ȴ_g(Llh.Fӟ)?-f8b#sqYDGq*ck\ik1Y?Ujr)Gp?=ECTWrz}$Qff։U kf!NlqYTNP`ۑ9E@ T^dLCwLБ+L QsOfa;؅kԗ.\Ug ^a'ƑpHc/Aa.jPq6Q˫EUn'b%]liə7o/P>{'7vVWpE,,׻bk< Q8Նc& /"{'Bރ1)y  c8 ,5:,.8_kϖJbvڥk7\$o/&]v x  <8οD쾞Nw87WN-Df ٝݷkζ+KU̅G=Y  ceev6\qqa7'/pDPBȘc$!溦0 i;.n؜,~^|7*Hc %pNh>m o @ >40ju2ʁ?]^/a<6?t:êzSx+4I5=o߲[ݭJ57"*4 zxxq41" K hOQ/> mvgWߖoc)@GWW>ǎ +z/t%ts219F?Ffۮ@ȎDžø*:  | QWP\`1 =.2 6WXR^8$KXZ k%θ4kvȭVQk.91QUu ɼ[c-bgdDQ] B|v"?$:*(${^ECGOor8Ō'%%W';Qe{Ф0ͥ Aiy/IAm$E{yfGSUQ}x]1& 3,bp"%&_ n݂$?G;~0u{,#, G$iI%u-~sP/5]mB杝4 Xl`Oh Kb㣋+[q c=8d|_q +Jt *Lϔs|T|6H0V`pPR '?C,u/^(,j-d gAX(EWv_"%gA,@h@fU06Ϸ X"3A9B'&d7ӿ!\"kDRIE#eKGz-o$fGie+RR?nu3u-+|mi*xxm3X!e_W.9cAڻZs7>&6>vȢ*EKB>9LQ]  /qR\ꃈ&qF"?ZP/!EHZ<Õ"FMj29g$拺Ћ9OFE#F&oFDHHQ E{C^kOf Վr?53D $D^1jhCp jܶMaOEmOGQqCXY.}ZCېOe*!V1:]k/l_ &H1G/ZY*f|.B %0HT[ic GkEҫ"eݿvLDK eU#YC-̍1% (NQx$NC,_8S`'ϳ£1||t`=>h[H|uL)ÐS]Q79{e+[[٩Et6f=REAm;E]%4Qxp-5\ ۖ mV񇎕v` SWTQ}_U?P2PXz)6սuo7`灝sXtTdۨ}K! N-pt/O6V3GZ\)q"+!}"q.b,! KIQ-I32 i _˫8"숲^J=~%,K+(ٸ|ۀW`deknK׷!,mwa1pu`$%Wz^˶ym /-1X(ŞCAg[g_嗮`: ŕnqwAʽ_,U LXNVEkۂVo X%Zs繝_a+$ lwusxC6qﬗ[{XU3UG{ cnlz%e Y͞'P bOTrOqB)G%vl%HD'A /!i߭V( d#$m'Lq'%n /$r3;n[YuHGioX =omt3 9팍 Į$L 8B@:Cx;vN2G8q7/Lv)>An14\;:Ggmw+*jb/fg[;Ļ`nh=t ܀;u`[ELPrbF[hj`~!vqdi97fGQ5Áo?"gAqD[)bBxAHA\O3YdU騤 ? tЮUnX#Faj>>|af Hp:sr ⢣%(uL=iW}[3hk찗)Pe %[QojYa7E9͞=iX"lYNiuPL<.X 3#k iݝm8w&WTqv5PhZ2R;co,~ ;@}3S^0[-e"K规eӂfPVsqcHΧ~uGv']._;:vD/IpQW^>?n.(u޴႕0Яqd--B|;;vJՉCY[)U3^{O94GژyAȆt79zO\K07k LLp?K|a 'sV1TLp9EGƏu66-n^8uWgs#袘Sz 5mPUb. ZӅ b%:se` .bN[@qQ[NW[a%J_|T7yH .2ꮤ 䇣Ȭ?H/y;XITg'-9V,'7&W\psqi He>W9PU^0FV $|$[ NjjF2loLAtsb hGCo/&T6'#ʅl;TTGcE U..ZWݵش>yI{F0|fBBU7Љ br9oe4f!>䢤5Kb!8K0h Q49kmBo}QnY75#]NN봔M[\^p~a3pM gڙx|@z[̨kyxFd,Pt {y, 8| Msc|W 7تqwy&Fz/Nc4‚Gnܙx9*)\,+88VL# `8_W0^ey]~ X]}|%=yje[P0r>H.2S;/%KdB U8&@N&hm)9)ʄoOe$el;/!;ɨ8Hc" Y(*ڊ;-gIZ΢4/t%ER TrwMid|ǣ"ʫQ>8<+1*$ 0#M\x O.$T3hIc&krB4L?dsÎ {Oy\YDP+Jf?!2~A ˺z=] o)1b@?rG:SNgNޕu{]0SшBvTh#JJsQ7t֛b?/3ƮА x2 :z^{)Tve94 ~B Tcyz5:F3:aCmG5c[֢r*|󮵩O:u|ogkj1aw){nN2KN1o0SUTbETe`bj]i;Ll#}6zo?= :aS5mE`Xdoy반'+NHکGd/w r(Yu7-]nJzhh{ug ǝ3A~\~;s%%5&X$MV3^]lu "~̓9q ,}"*SnŕFUR!>1"8rA',B^<mivTJԁ#,wHbuA7Zzidva7yiw@6fIhwRIƈ"`)zeYC|^z5`D`e9`F! (Ƕ,퐏@Շ-^g FW֭t<\;d=}9XDmGWk/[孬jC;7ao㘙x rN=zY!7.o⿳ukn-OK~u^էI+^7z@дW4^fi> لiwm{8viΝ;;t;`gl6m$r29A䜣9gQ!D٥*J D1Hk[a\l pŚs 3 ޽oh484f&CueZWnjx%Ąy b;e23 zzIH7e+l")nHO4^(\txӴz$K*#a1^+`Rs==]%.Mz[RV"4]8dbjZBV;`aĐH*ڌ]e8F?Lӳ"Ru]Oߚ\` ÐfcAXB90D|}pIFEe*,ÒGnFT;DzG8nOH'ڝd:g쬟[\"&فHnZڋjb A(H!_2?tg=8RX .UK/gYoG֌42`,u$)YƳfz<|{6`Z^0FD5 $d5ۘ^N!-YgX!O\g?U ^}< e0‚|DW$'O45у\&KJܑ0$a"lBvs#'%*c oΊ^Z5}8ή0H}JuuɅUG[WU\ {Dp&qmKKc|jؓm7䤬%FKJjDZmg'1O]wVp!r9ZY?@'9[݄"C.w\y)h5geNIO$/&kj&g%jh5 'i@W/ehz!':OÙ@iKÚv#Jpmf9;hUfmtq>y^cJ@cc((, ;pi{xuRdxyyb{Zߢmo,Ux{yCr?1wBIMG<űy74JaG)RVv}o;<<3}j3.."75MA7ltS&,/G>,Ь8 :iL0koqv s#Ѐ-K_PӜ n$^^|Ltsqwn+#&gpULWISftqTC>J>gxnFZi_,,`'n@㉉YDܹd@NWVqIrŅ5PC ?5Q#SZ^^;u3Rji+-iaZ=9A:Y_7xW٦\Cq~! 5~\C0b#گ-̾4]wqg~M4l_٨Lywi4#욓Iw?<  +0G,bñ6`Bݨwt*mdFgU2E iNq.uAY5_)zX74\ IX/.ȱRIN=hlmk|ri( t?~˰bwņEeE !wZ_hOnFGb+$82󓍓?ż%fdb?0k /#߃75ήC.7<ht8vToo"#o6(S7!3;!kTBC`DF[3{Kz닫;Kk-amR\+lT\mc|F6MPp$:*<^Vzj_h>YZP[ާ:4'g70\6OK  Ig$F\QEtf?R9f_`agl}ٚ)S"J}p]{NQW,oYѠmOP ˅:].ue?O(RmBs*o] OurSSTq&E6|əd2װv{ǍM&&7),R땁;uOܒ!N 8F~BޚeքKM@&])cE?ֱ24\:37bwnn z8|]_%RZ=Ɋ_XMXY`,rB?.8K,܇ 5V4,B]x\ބ9mX= -Mw*F- _[juw0r#8{Dy<YjQy򷩱yPxL~el )ŏcz+U&;c'=zZE{K|Qϐ|\pj't^K L0BCВ0C@Y- 変=ӫqJoA8! f.6 Yj 7EfJyCgEhgJ}Ok痷A/~c}YiT=t@D`b3 - :6.X^%/[Ee {'ۺ>,%|8jH|#=X<[iv?o2j_3 m=CnehM a-qZw&g+~V$*sCL7Ujo;$kć7n䬴,'0dzW+.]n9:;T$GCG|*ʯXIJ 6O ϕ6Dȣi< }}wgaix]VL4jXGwDCp5),{J}cYy w{yx$⦊j#_*ۃ~[ 9T{DTE^IG:>Bo8MжAehV?$+_<%̕5WfZ)KTx%9'm|t[hj"']թ,+SIvk@iuh5Lx})98`8-FJmƒ#BmoV.}0@>R"+*ѿl|Ed㿦~һ㧵*`yIKd^wkBֻU([Jѯ:gs$PN n- Sؒ 㷥{Go\9z_Jvvp*KbumG KskNp䓈wP1XIetcJn)*&'g Uu:+۱;sA_PGr*:<'Ĵ$fy8[MϢKE;,XsN6.]w*4s p`4S7;N<0,OF*-ߘDn;BIUFML"ʔ5\00,-8O3ӈ[ZmmeFCsQ*IAU(5jgB\1VR“S{O>`)/鎼<.]̅;$O܁R58㒐zlu%O)x TsIhcoz`XKPGHHwyaeIɮ"pk sžd-:n*p5 =ٶ}O9xO~|  mBd%K0< ˗Zs>y?AN.ίXP uv-5ЛI`m@ѲM)y 6dz6C[ }sgL(4&Lwb] Em%Mo(5$fUv>tp#M(]W?Chy999љ<?Z +/3!i>#cJ h̷w4Vaci~~),+<:a} Afߊ-Щdu]G|vb!&-[SA5F>ҮP|Uac|Uݙeׅψ_* ߑʤvnv+J=K'l@N>Rr=9[M Tz q'$eD7foVr+s݈8| `:~(6vw颒 O6ʤv c*hGaYjL#]!ݸKbwؙ.vRrDw4RFZ+'Ds1 ]~ށJ>xݐKWY9ʂe,Z}qsx$/FDk@oW TBPh]XIzW.a1sa_+>YYk)E ؙ1OeĖYH)}睮nW DC=.arA1 tY,#Q^ h7NW?,Ɏ.ĮqN\S'2 }-8+е?x֝&tub[P&ކ.פFxdisb% ̅I⡏3z.Bn)@+;/ҚwhT[W[ wWYL=G2)Fސm"3'`w KJJ~vʷ?} *@ES~b=.^H2[^ Uq;;PVtK#e ȟ ?^:~W` !,9BWm/PQ!Y!']YObwH|\AVBGhIee߁\E7qYiJ -v+i6_ aՄGJ 9&_إ!_q3QZS1af*kLL XAdpO.[Tx 6C}6CEƶ<ՒT xQ` s(wWh3QcbUugB'SBr%Pk]Z^XGȅ蘯^v{% }f YWTf67(YhNNQזni)xc\hIHBN[*w'Q߄(#6 ;Cn-ǩiEtX Oz4.x<4T_uW~PGژ?H8ĕf=sXG_D|E"6֦a?yJ[pun $4J&DIm>0|)xIB{O) }Q ѐ=nQ u 0C~x/`nji^ZǓm~&]/uf08?idjlz_}^d''=k2q4G6fBB]uȴAkfC!*8#d Rm޻Ơ9z1j-,5^G8: aa NEQs]e xx@^3[!1Zj*Z]}__yzw+Y׀tgԯ]m]%>VFܖ U>oOBu*T֜Qܞ]E-5֞F@;??B}OJE~p%/;hVVjϓUU?OgA͑1Ξ4V8뻻fy[i͡Q$xp[>csu%R?3M@I+CZofix!uXV ݹQuRnPd+ 6@},<\RˣBkP5MXF . \sEzV q{FA$r}4i^q뻺QJ<~^F< OGQY ]Ȓ1w[Ƀh~<8 ]+ &IS#(z,|/fޮڳW&JkDhD ҐdSF$}6FoN_7Lm` 5/<:jhg ,j&x7p[LFbj!I%>C1c)cOs2#+Xa.R~x F:᧠m @>l!M0 ~{/ NΠ>{X&f49XuVY5ɪXex=̪ ή錸/1uQ IV,vMbkc' [of{̩FwVVY5ɪ%iՋ٭Jݥ^4/.]N.FN 2{lO٬֯-o_*ɻK. ɪ}fJ}@ !Yj0h!u]}@5 y쌊N5]ْ:uJYb[Ymwvn۸ fu9Gx )ɽ%Od]^(I(GX46Rc!5C Nͦh6bh6o4i~ žtlطةbQ\c(B]؝Qək9&1}L>_(j& %\O|+%'DHrK3=N) a!WaYGvEH v@tB7zpxζMm\n\Y[bڴ7 Єelֽl=2ڇ00|Hǧ4̢1Q? tugS^SaYDQ&FL]<eV#۩'ޏOh}$ߵq6{97~'y}O{A97nߍ42^I{*-&߬}ߏ}>}-iKɾviKɾp0!;'8y6X##>HZ׼sQ%7_W7pOM @Df͛GK?$w~8 ʁIP|7;_p=)w6a=/Nj3ԷWi4g|\{s6ken1kDVc^oU's^1M%S+)E ?%cO~w}H]~ߧ=+or%?AY9{R.̞n5ns7q}- hAQRcf㈨s1˲` LtyQ'7s/멸g~"oǸռረ/j:K'-ռ?'5怲~ X=ޛT>d]oh^o ܏e@>+zFt6Jǫ a'a][kRCb/;4uP7rr;շN{ij<,ߟQ7}|p%zVu¿Y9Pl}k~Xj*ӹבn兮֣̉Iu1bE.͆*]&nj>fĤrTLX`NƱg+;^Ag.1%bbOL; Dⷼ}ԉ(}~$vN5`'^^5 [ڀ#鳟)_%,V4 6a TINwomf>%]k8`p){\%DU:H{I6`tjL#T[jA3{+5[5MLϮ4S߽=s,C+vo¦\go&ᴘ&d 4WhxҔ9I|Lu2kNVJc /hv̽ANũ*SŒk8|`0!lM0 ~qvCs~Xw{s& 3rd\2\bglF\˗]:juV/&ubXI+b Qt&n+oѻ1+whed&>_V=ݪ]Cvij_۩o.]]r.9m\;y1 ̛q,ֽ~جm4~ʢ>omfN^DJw>̻i`uG!@9NE򌀝~ijZ\رщW͡(Ōy,?1_; .ǦA+y9AFS~,^źET09%{k?m/0ptp&T޺Sꭉ8?QmmVlrn.vgⱛ/cTVnyս߁Al>x>n>i?zǐ⏅A "y)l,L>T>,ӉßY&B` &^0utƁ07Ϧ!a{9͝6TO @#7wY܍42b:D{wjb_lKɾlKɾZ}.% پ.iq9 b V"GȰIq=F~XlޘS*N.aʼ9`s(C;}4}i %J37w[O slv^8 qK}܋{]8q=['<_qvҏAhyX(r6hVQ~31Q}77O]b7.Z\"%v \Lv %QܰcϓSU= f96Y9@s˗XE.uV8q녹H&ॏ~35ch|ֱ舐kR`,]D$]tLIsu>$YERXnCrc4zfz[zhz;5 -U/fW]Azw@.weBXK+qŠ+deqO^㊈Y \Jab +Xڭ1p^}?\|qK' pA22[č9]/b ;{4֪sFU2Lk> |sE}]arnm ys|rظ}cvr/,ǰ]=&&=qڪNz tSu:{dVuoΗdlwl3uR[s-T$Eg~T624^|~\Je nycȳː )y7&gpXwĀC2] AVA/Y"J[հڃXamjD̨gٞ)y$IR\OLQDg)?TO9bVK,3U'jVVmj?+hUNm!Kw*{ J5E#Sr?/ GTy~uGEKi?C*h}} VjEBV]<|> zg/rjc|mTLϺtt<T@KgڣЙj1E,kkh3ucqUc}Yq1,SJdr?-;ksZm`dž"/a^ċ6H}UiTxn]'^zίN*RJw8y/Fv3U?ڜz$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"/  $$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"/  $$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"/  $$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"/  z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"/  $$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"/  z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"z$$If!vh5"#v":Vl t065"~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 /  T$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 /  T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 /  T$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 /  T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 /  T$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 /  T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T~$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 T$$If!vh5 #v :Vl t065 /  T$$If!vh5 #v :Vlw t06,5 /  T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#/  T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#/  T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#/  T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#/  T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#/  T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#/  T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T$$If!vh5-##v-#:Vl t065-#T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"/  T$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"/  T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"/  T$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"/  T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"T$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"/  T$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"/  T~$$If!vh5w"#vw":Vl t065w"Tz$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"/  $$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"/  z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"/  $$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"/  z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"/  $$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"/  z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"z$$If!vh5,"#v,":Vl t0,"65,"@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*ph>@>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*4 @"4 $Footer  !.)@1. $ Page NumberB'AB 2Comment ReferenceCJaJ<R< 2 Comment TextCJaJ@jQR@ 2Comment Subject5\HrH 2 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJn@n .7 Table Grid7:V0PJ66M1e Vmm n q g  e"#g   e8UVWXYZ[tu?dewxyz9XYZu: O P Q R S T U g   % : ; S i k l m n o p q r s t u v w m n o LNO]IB#&b*.J0r0^4 8:=%@A[ErEEEEEFFFFTFUFVFWFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF4G5G6G7GcGdGeGfGGGGGGGGGGGKMQqSrS~SS T TTTdUeUUU`VaV0W1WWWXXYYZZZZi[[[[[\4\I\d\e\~\\\\\]G]H]Y]y]]]]]]]2^3^E^^^^_____aabbbb-j/j0j1j?jmNqttuwm{ԀŅyqa`Bge֫/5_ mJZku[TiSp| K2?pq]^:;ST=>_`OP|}./, - !!!!""##h$i$$$A%B%%%#&$&&&''''''(()))*****d**********+'+(+)+*+++++],^,,,J-z-{---.v...#/$///(0)0w0000J111w222M33314d444 595:5;5<555 6j666617[777/8{88 9 9o99:a:b:c:d:e:::;d;;;1<}<~<<<>===>Y>>>!?~??@@m@@@2ApAABLBMBBB CmCC&D}DDDD^E_EEEEyFFFF G(G)GGGGYHHHIIHIIIIII=J{JJJ*K+KKKLELLLLLLLLLLAMBMCMMMMMNDNENN'OsOtOOOO?PhPPPPPIQVQ`QaQQQR R]RnR{R|RRRRSLSSSqTTTTTT_UUUUUU_VVV#WTWWWWXXTXXXXY;YmYnYYYYZ^ZZZ9[[[[[[4\V\\\\\]3]5]}]]]H^^^^__@_B____M`````Iauaaab#bTbUbbbbbcFcxccc1d2d3d4ddd ee,e=ePeQeeefTfsffffg#gAgYgZggggh7h8hwhhhhhhhhi7iJiaiuiviiij!j@jUjjjjjj#k@k]k}kkkkkkkkk l lnnofpp>qss'u'xx(y)y+y.y1y4y>y?y@yKyLyMyNyyyyyyyyyzzzz/z0z>z?z@zAzgzhzizjzzzzzzzzz{{-{.{/{0{[{\{]{^{_{`{a{b{q{r{s{t{{{{{{{{{||||`|a|b|c||||||||| } }*}+},}-}S}T}q}r}s}t}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}j~k~l~m~~~~~~~~~:;<=>?cd<=>?^_ӀԀՀր׀؀()*+āŁƁǁ*+,-RSׂ؂89:;YZӃԃABCD܄݄ބ߄ LM%&'(>?^_`abcf0 0000000000x000@00@000x@00x0x@00x00x000x0x00000x0x0x0x0x0x000000000000x000000000x0x00000x00000000000000000000000000000000000000000x0x000x00000000000000000x0x0x0x0x0x0x0 0x00x0000x00x0 0 0(0 0(0(0000000x01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 01 04 00x0@0@0@0H0x0H0H0H0H0H00000H000000000H0H00000000P0P0P0x0x0p0p0p0p0p0p00p0p00p0p000p0p0p00000p0p0p0000000000000000 0 0 0 000 000x00x0x0000x0000000x0x000x00x0000x00x00000x000x000x0000x000x000x0000 0000x00000x0 0x0 0x0x000x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00000x00000000x0x0x000000x0x0x0x0x000x000x000x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x0x0x0x00x0x00x0x0x0x0x080x0x0x0x0x00000x00000000x0000000x000x000x000@0x@0P@0P@0P@0P@0P@0P@0@0P@0P@0@0P@0P@0@0@0P@0P@0P@0P@0P@0P@0P@0P@0P@00@0@00@00@0P@00@00@00@00@00@00@0 @0 @0 @0@0P@0X@0X@0X@0X@0X@0@0X@0@0@0X@0X@0X@0X@0X@0X@0X@00@00@0@00@00@00@00@00@00@00@0@0@0@00@00@0X@00000000000000@0`@0`@0@0`@0@0`0000000 @0`080808080808@0`@00@0008008080800@00@00@00@00@00@00@00@0 0808080@0@0@@0h@0h@0h@0h@0h@0h@0@0h@0h@0h@00@0h@0h@0h@0h@0@0h@0@0@00@00@00@00@00@00@00@0h@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p@0@0p@0@00H@0p@0p@0p@0p@0p00@0p@0p@00@0@0@0p@0p@000x0x000x@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0x@0@0@0@0x@0@00@00@0@00@00@0@0@00@00@0@0@00P@00@00@00@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@00@0@00@0@0@00@0@0@00@000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0@0@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0@00@0@0@00@00@00@00@0 @0@0@0@0@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0x@0x@00@0x0H0x0x@0x@00@00@0x@0x@0x@0@0x@0x0X* @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@008͜ 0H0000H0000 0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 0 0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000_u: r0^4 8:=%@AEEEEFFFFTFUFVFWFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF4G5G6G7GcGdGeGfGGGGGGGGGGG)LELLLLLLLLAMQR R]RnRmYnYYYYZ^ZZ\]3]5]}]__@_B__kkkkkkkkNyyyyyyyzzzz/z0z>z?z@zAzgzhzizjzzzzzzzzz{{-{.{/{0{[{\{]{^{_{`{a{b{q{r{s{t{{{{{{{{{||`|a|b|c||||||||| } }*}+},}-}S}T}q}r}s}t}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}j~k~~~~~~~~~:;<=>?cd<=>?^_ӀԀՀր()*+āŁƁǁ*+,-RSׂ؂89:;YZӃԃABCD܄݄ބ߄ LM%&'(>?^_`af{@00 {@00 y@00y@00{@00{@00{@00{@00{@00({@00{@00{@00{@00{@00{@00{@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@0 0 {@0 0 {@0 0 {@0 0 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@0 0 {@00{@0$0 {@0"0 {@0$0 {@0$0 {@0&0 {@0&0 {@0(0 {@0(0 {@0*0 {@0*0 {@0,0 {@0,0 {@0.0 {@0.0 {@000 {@000 {@020 {@020 {@040 {@040 {@060 {@060 {@080 {@080  @04 {@0H0D y@0H0y@0H0y@00y@00y@00y@00y@00{@00{@00y@00$y@00y@00{@00{@00{@00${@00{@00y@00y@00{@00{@00{@00{@0 0{@0 0@0@0@0{@00y@00@0@0@0{@0_0D\y@0_0y@0_00@0@0@0@000{@00{@00{@00{@00{@00{@00{@00\2@43 {@00\2@43{@00\2@43{@00\2@0{@0 0\2{@0.04{@0 0\2@0``{@00\2@0{@{@00\2@0{@{@00\2{@00{@00\2{@00\2@00{@00\2@{@02{@00\20{@0{@00\2@0{@00\2{@0 0\2@0{@0"0\2@`}{@0$0\2@0${@0&0\2@0``{@0(0\20{@0*0\2@0 |{@0,0\2@0f{@0.0\2@: @{@0000@0{@02002${@00 ){@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00 {@00{@00 {@004{@0 0 )B4 {@0 0 )B@Q0` {@00 )@0 {@00 )@0 {@00 )@0 {@00 )2$ {@00 )@0 {@00 ){@00 {@00 ){@004 {@0 0 )0 {@0"0 )@0 {@0$0(@0 {@0&0(e00y@ {@0Z00 {@0\0@0$ {@00'@0 {@00'@0 {@00'@0 {@0 0'@0 {@0 0'.@J0{ {@00'@0y@ {@00'T6"0t {@00' @0 {@00'@0 {@00'@0L@ {@00'sEp {@00'@0 {@00'@0`0 {@00'0 {@0 0'@0 {@0"0'@0` {@0$0'@(0@` {@0&0'@0 {@0,0'@0 {@0.0'C@0 @ {@000'C@0 {@020 2$ {@040 E5` {@00@09@ {@00@0$ {@00@p` {@00@0` {@0 0@0 {@0 0@`7` {@00@0 {@ {@00@0$ {@ {@00{@00 {@00@5 {@00@0 {@00S@T0U {@00@0q̓ {@00@0 {@ {@00 {@0 0@0 {@0"0@` {@0$0@0$ {@0(00 {@0*0@0 {@0,0@0 {@00(@!/ t {@00(@0 {@00(@ {@00(@0 {@0 0(@0 ~ {@0 0(0v\ {@00(@4  {@ {@00(B2 {@ {@00({@00 {@00(@0 {@00(*@0a` {@00(@0 {@00(0 {@00(0 {@00(hqX Y Z [ {@0 0(hq| {@0"0(hqv\ {@0$0(@0$ {@0&0(@0`` a ` {@0(0(0 {@0,0(@0 {@0.0(@0 {@000(@0`N  {@020(@ 00_ $$$' ,BNs[FejT.@7MUZYq\_bff|i4l@oCrtt@>@e   "%4?Y oJ8MMNNTNVNNNNNNNNNNNNN4O6OcOeOOOOOO \cEfj|[?.'.25 =eB2I(OTWZ_cgjnqs(?h0^bt`ބ ,qօm:=c=^Ո)lj+S9ZCތL%>`e   !#$&'()*+,-./012356789:;<=>@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`abcdd j[[]4]E]]^0^^^^SknOlslleXX XXX___X  '!!'(/X2$aqDhNjAw2$aϤg<>u` @'(   " S @@Ԕ S"`?    c $@@Ԕ S"`?  # S @@Ԕ S"`?  NB   S DjJNB   S DjJNB   S DjJNB  S DjJ  c RԔ. pTTTTpp"`   S LԔ. vTTTTvv"` b  C Ԕ"` b  C Ԕ"` TB $ c $DԔ TB % c $DԔ TB & c $DԔ TB ' c $DԔB S  ? L:=b-j[lY3]@_be$t T$Tt\ HT$@ #H@ $t -$-t(#th( ##4\ $`'4"(#5t#8"t$hn$nt%=%=t&X$t'X<$<t@N2N2ĔN2ԡN2N2TN2,N2N2N2lN2,N2$N2N2N2dN2$N2N2N2N2TN2N2LN2 N2N2N2LN2N2N2DN2N2N2N2\N2N2N2\N2N2N2tN24N2N2,N2,N2d,N2$,N2+N2|6N2<6N25N25N24=N2<N2<N2t<N24<N2CN2|CN2O2#?O2#@O2D#AO2#BO2#CO2#DO2D#EO2#FO2#GO2#HO2D#IO2#JO2#KO2#LO2D#MO2#NO2#OO2#PO2D#QO2#RO2#SO2D#TO2#UO2#VO2#WO2D#XO2#YO2 #ZO2L#[O2#\O2#]O2 #^O2L#_O2#`O2#aO2 #bO2L#cO2#dO2#eO2 #fO2L#gO2#hO2#iO2 #jO2L#kO2#lO2#mO2 #nO2L#oO2#pO2#qO2 #rO2L#sO2#tO2#uO2 #vO2L#wO2#xO2#yO2 #zO2L#{O2#|O2#}O2 #~O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2#O2 #O2L#O2#O2 oO2!oO2T!oO2!oO2!oO2"oO2T"oO2"oO2"oO2#oO2T#oO2#oO2#oO2$oO2T$oO2$oO2$oO2%oO2T%oO2%oO2%oO2&oO2T&oO2&oO2&oO2'oO2T'oO2'oO2$(oO2d(oO2(oO2(o%%g g u ~ ~ % % + / S S a 00~~::))/4!##L'L'/*/*0000000>1>1C1b12223%4%4444444QQoToTyTUUUEVEVOVZZP[P[X[\\+\4\\\\\\\\\] ]y]y]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]^^^^^^^^^?b?bGbObObXbgbgbsbwbdddduuuuuu5v:~~""22XXQQIIŔ77<[ҚҚךVV 22UUa33;$$,..66=OO     &&&&'''}(}((((;);)C)U)U)^)g)p))*)*/*3*F*F*T*]*]**********++++7k;=9Apo˄f      !#"$'%&(*)+,.-/1023465798:;<=>?@CABDEFGHIJKMLNOPQRTSUVXWYZ[\_]^`abcdfegihjlkmnoqprtsuvxwy{z|}~      #!"$&%'()+*,-.1/025346789:;<=>?**    q z z    * . 9 9 ] h h 55EE    .399!##V'V'5*5*0000000B1H1H1q12223*4*4444444QQwT{T{TUUUMVQVQVZZV[Z[Z['\3\3\:\\\\\\\] ]]]~]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]^^^^^^^^^FbMbMbWbbbbbqbububbdddduuuuuu;vD~~--;;cc\\NNĔʔʔ;AAj֚ܚܚ [[77_cc9==!!*..  44<GGSS   !!&&&''''(((((A)E)E)])f)o)v)v).*2*=*=*P*Y*Y*c*c**********++&+&+8{;=IAqÁۄf   !#"$&'%(*)+,.-/1023465798:;<=>?@BCADEFGHIJKMLNOPQRTSUVXWYZ[\^_]`abcdfegihjlkmnoqprtsuvxwy{z|~}      "#!$&%'()+*,-.01/24536789:;<=>?9@*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=?*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName==*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType88*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity93*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PostalCode8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdateB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region 12006279DayMonthYear@??=@=?@8@=?@3@3@??=@3@3@8@83@=?@8@=?@??=@=?@83@83@3@==@==@8@3@8@?==@@@8@8@==@3@3@==@@==@@3@??=@3@3@83@83@83@8@83@=?@@=?@=?@83@??=@83@??=@?=@8@@@=?@8@83@??@?=@83@3@3@@@8@@@@@3@3@8@8@8@3@==@3@3@==@@3@==@@3@3@3@3@3@83@?=@83@8@8@3@83@83@8@8@8@8@?=@83@?=@@=?@8@83@@@3@@83@83@???=@??=@=?@8@=?@8@??=@??=@@@@@@@@@? D (0F*M*CC}TTeUkUwUzU{UUUUUUUVVVSV\VWWHXPXY YY+Y__q`{`````a a'a/a;aCa_afaganaiijjq(qu%u4uBuuuv!v=vDvIvOvZv`vnvuvwv|vvvvvvvxxlxrxwx~xxxsyyy܆"يߊ+gm{ Ϧ[cv{Vi&0Ÿ^q/BҿBU *1z?Gqx #?F;ATZ$(/8`eks^ e ""######i$m$o$s$%%&&''6'>'''((((U)])ossvv)y)y+y+y,y,y.y/y1y2y4y5yMyNy||}}K~Q~V~]~"'ԃڃ?EfXY?Bo ##p(w(//@@LLSSTT-UHUeUUUVaVVV WWWW*XXXXX`Y}YYYYZZMZZZZZ]]abk\al?eq$#)>i)jl:=`q,Pt[eg<>}/G % - E ! !!!! "e"g"""C#E###%%&&'?''3(((,,,,".*.//////000#0}0000%1'1r2v2H3L36 66666Y9^9t9z9:$:::<<<<%?+???X@Z@[@a@5C7CCCDDUHXH]HaHHH J&JUJ_JJJKKvK|KKKKKYL[LNNTTTThUnUUUUUNXSX)]+]^^^^ee|ffffgg+g3gIgOggghhoqq)y)y+y+y,y,y.y/y1y2y4y5yMyNyWyyyg~i~f3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333338VXY[tuez9QUXZU g ; S w J0r0SAAEFFFFFfGGGGsSS-UeUWWXXYYZZP[h[[[__bb2j@jp}7088 9e:j:;e;?==>>BMBELLLLCgZgk lo)y)y+y+y,y,y.y/y1y2y4y5yMyNyYyyyyjzzzzzz{0{N{P{{|b||}}}}}}}}}?րǁ߄&(afo)y)y+y+y,y,y.y/y1y2y4y5yMyNyf~|hE<g A G? Uk n AB"i/uP1DmNB+&o j.";$I),/,},p- X02.45|6.7Q7Z7`:4<a=m>>?zCmDQG8H*H=HIwKTBLNmXN|OrPS5Tt 8{ seIVldo55CpyO'c4}; XSIDK9d7{4e^4 8:A[ErEEEEEFFFFTFUFVFWFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF4G5G6G7GcGdGeGfGGGGGGGGGGGo(y)y+y.y1y4yNyyzzzz/z0z>z?z@zAzgzhzizjzzzzzzzzz{{-{.{/{0{[{\{]{^{_{`{a{b{q{r{s{t{{{{{{{{{|||`|a|b|c||||||||| } }*}+},}-}S}T}q}r}s}t}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}j~k~m~~~~~~~~~:;<=>?cd<=>?^_ӀԀՀր؀()*+āŁƁǁ*+,-RSׂ؂89:;YZӃԃABCD܄݄ބ߄ LM%&'(>?^_`af1J@XXtXXe@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma[ PMingLiUArial Unicode MS"1h&&ұ6868!4dnn2QHX ?dKPunctuated Equilibrium, Bureaucratization, and Budgetary Changes in SchoolsScott RobinsonE339AVOh+'0$0D T` |   LPunctuated Equilibrium, Bureaucratization, and Budgetary Changes in SchoolsuncScott Robinsonlcotcot Normal.dotsE339AVd639Microsoft Word 10.0@~@<%qA@C@`wC68՜.+,D՜.+,P hp  0University of Texas at DallasnnO LPunctuated Equilibrium, Bureaucratization, and Budgetary Changes in Schools TitleH _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceA$Xhttp://perg.tamu.edu/>A#mailto:Scott.Robinson@utdallas.eduh  mailto:kmeier@politics.tamu.edu:mailto:cmsotool@uga.edu>A#mailto:Scott.Robinson@utdallas.eduXhttp://perg.tamu.edu/ Katrina InfolsSkmeier@politics.tamu.eduucr Ken Meieriten   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdeghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F 1CData f51Table2WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q