C a s e T e a c h i n g R e s o u r c e s F R O M T H E E V A N S S C H O O L O F P U B L I C A F F A I R S
T he Ele ct r on ic
Ha llw a y ®
Box 353060 · U n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n · Seattle WA 98195- 3060 www.hallway.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ This case is provided to The Electronic Hallway members with the express permission of the original case sponsor and copyright holder, Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The case was researched and drafted under Professor Brock’s supervision by Rina Spence, and revised and edited by Carol Ritter Thorn. While the case presents a factual situation, the location, organization, individuals and other information are disguised.
The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington’s Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member’s Agreement (www.hallway.org).
Copyright 2000 The Electronic Hallway
Preventing Child Abuse: The Challenge for the State Department of Social Services (A)
The election in November brought a new governor to a populous, Atlantic coast state. Shortly thereafter, the Governor appointed Bradley Patton to the position of Secretary of Human Resources, which oversaw several human services agencies. A logical choice, Patton came to this position from a well-respected consulting firm where he had long been an advocate for human services. In addition, his previous experience in government during another administration meant he was already familiar with the intricacies of state governing mechanisms. The Secretary of Human Resources position was a demanding one, having under its jurisdiction at least six agencies, among them the Department of Welfare (DOW), with an annual budget of $2.6 billion and 6,000 employees. Of this, $275 million and 2,000 employees were in the area of social services. (See Exhibit 1-1.)
Partly in response to a recent death of a child in a family under departmental supervision, the State legislature recently passed a law that would establish a new, separate Department of Social Services (DOSS) to assume the social services component of the Department of Welfare. Questions surrounding the establishment of the new Department were high on Secretary Patton’s agenda and would present him with some of his greatest and most immediate challenges.
Two weeks after he had assumed his position, the Secretary was faced with a decision regarding the appointment of a Commissioner for DOSS, which would represent the official establishment of the new agency. The law called for the appointment of a Commissioner by that upcoming January. A great deal of politicking for this new agency head position was going on around Secretary Patton, with both internal and external candidates in the mix. But Patton, who had just arrived in the position, was not prepared to make an appointment. At the same time, there was a growing movement to amend the legislation that created the Department of Social
2
Services. Various interest groups were vigorously lobbying the new administration, both legislatively and administratively, to make changes in the plans for the new agency. Regardless of the outcome, Secretary Patton knew he would ultimately be held responsible for the smoothness of the transition and the giant task of getting a major agency up and running and responding to it’s legislative mandate. In addition, his personal commitment to child welfare and effective agency management compelled his attention to the growing unrest surrounding this reorganization.
Patton decided to put off the appointment of a Commissioner, regardless of the mandated appointment deadline, to look into what had occurred during the planning process for DOSS. Once he reviewed the state of the implementation process, which had taken place under the previous administration, he would determine his next steps.
History of Welfare Reorganization Efforts
In prior years, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) reexamined the structure and delivery of public welfare services in an effort to ensure that national goals were being met. Until then, the national norm was a single welfare agency whose staff served both functions of providing money and social support services to welfare recipients. This meant that often the same worker was responsible for both “handing out” the check and making judgments about the quality of home life being provided to children. There were inherent inconsistencies in this dual nature of the job: On the one hand, it was the worker’s responsibility to “police” public funds and reduce the recipient’s amount of payment if reason were found to do so; yet the worker was also expected to perform counseling services and be trusted by welfare families with personal information. HEW concluded that an ethical question was at stake here and therefore required that the two functions be separated within welfare agencies. States were informed to take appropriate action to accomplish these results.
In compliance with HEW requirements, the State began to separate its Department of Welfare into two divisions: Assistance Payments and Social Services. Assistance Payments would be made up of workers who handled the delivery of direct payments to eligible recipients (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid). Social services divisions would include employees (called social workers or social service workers) responsible for problems of child abuse and neglect, foster care and placements, and for offering personal counseling assistance to welfare recipients. There was little distinction between the qualifications of these two types of employees, who were assigned positions based either on personal preference or available slots.
Since these steps had been taken, there had been numerous studies and experiments that resulted in an emphasis across the country to focus social services on keeping families together. Providing support and resources to help families cope with issues that were affecting their children and the hope for subsequently minimizing the number of children that were raised outside of a family environment were also stressed. Many states had successfully made this
3
shift, saving thousands of dollars in intervention costs per child as well as succeeding in providing better outcomes for these children and families.
Recently, a major study had been released by a leading private social service agency and advocacy group, the Children’s Service Association. This study went a step further than HEW by recommending the establishment of an entirely new social service agency separate from DOW. Its conclusions were based primarily on the grounds that professional social workers were desperately needed to attend to cases of child abuse and foster care placements. Not only should the mission not be mixed, the Children’s Service Association defined ”professionals” as those workers having a Masters in Social Work degree or its equivalent. Underlying the agenda for a new, separate agency was the Association’s view that the agency did not have enough professionally trained people at this level. The Association was a fairly prominent lobbying force for child welfare issues in the state.
With every news stories about child abuse injuries and deaths, there was increased pressure to be more capable, vigilant and swift in protecting children from harm. These conflicting philosophies and pressures played out in newspapers, legislative debates and other forums. Patton was well aware of the difficulties of these competing demands, but was compelled to work on the reorganization mandated by the legislature.
Collective Bargaining and the Department of Welfare
The first efforts at union organization in Welfare began twelve years earlier when Chuck Johansen, then a social service worker, began to think he and others were expected to handle too many cases. The workers agreed that their case-load requirements had become excessive and unreasonable. Case-load has traditionally been difficult to quantify and therefore to agree on; a worker could possibly specify how long it takes to process a payment request, but it is difficult to do the same for counseling or home visits. Social workers became increasingly frustrated that administrative officials were unaware of several important aspects of their jobs. For instance, an entire morning spent in court over one case meant that the remainder of a heavy caseload was backed up even more. The workers, assisted by Mr. Johansen, began to feel they should have a voice in the issues affecting them.
Johansen organized the workers and was subsequently approached by the Service Employees International Union. The State Labor Relations Commission was reluctant to allow this union to organize DOW workers. However, after considerable pressure, certification was granted. Several years later, the union joined the Coalition, a single coordinating body of several State unions that was recognized to negotiate exclusively with the State. The DOW workers became part of Local 101, a unit of the Coalition.
Dividing the Department of Welfare
4
The process of negotiating an agreement between DOW workers represented by Local 101 and the State delayed the division of Assistance Payments and Social Services by almost a year. With this further split of the department, a difficult negotiation was expected.
Workers’ concerns included who would be transferred or identified as a social service worker, how the selection would be made, and what the criteria would be. Some employees wanted to be assigned to Assistance Payments because they preferred its more clerical function to actual involvement with families. Others wanted to continue their casework because they found the work more interesting and gratifying.
In the previous split within the DOW, an accord was reached between labor and management that permitted employees to take an exam that would “establish their relative knowledge of social services skills.” The test was given in-house, producing an in-house list, rather than a uniform civil service exam. It was also optional and intended only for those workers wishing to provide social services. The administration assumed that about 60 percent of the staff fell into this category. Those workers who chose not to test their skills simply remained in Assistance Payments and were relieved of any casework functions. The exam format and questions were developed in cooperation with the union, the Labor Relations Department at DOW, and the DOW Administration.
After the exam was administered, this list was created based on numerical scores with those scoring highest at the top. The DOW started its Social Services staff selection from the top of this list. By the time the process was completed, almost all the workers who opted to take the exam had been transferred to Social Services even though many of their test scores were low. Seniority promotion practices remained in place, supervisors remained in the bargaining unit, and caseload remained a contentious issue.
Child Abuse
No further changes in the DOW took place until four years later, leading to the present legislation, when two-year-old Jane Barber died tragically as a result of severe abuse. The much-publicized incident immediately aroused the interest of the general community, and questions regarding child abuse began to receive serious attention. Among them were how such incidents could be prevented in the future and if the qualifications of social service workers and supervisors were adequate.
Gail Harrison was the supervisor in charge of the Barber case. The Department determined that Harrison was partly responsible for Jane’s death due to a neglect of her duties and a failure to “meet her obligations.” The letter terminating Ms. Harrison presented as “just cause and reason” some of the following incidents:
“Your report from last October to the court recommended that custody of Jane Barber be granted to her natural parents, with the DOW “continuing to provide
5
supportive services. ” You noted in the case record subsequently that the Judge accepted this recommendation, but indicated he believed close contact should be maintained with the family. However, you made only two further visits to the family, both in the month after the court hearing. There is no evidence of other contact with the family until your response on March 20th of that next year to the report of a crying child at the Barber address.”
“You failed to mention in your October 27th report to the District Court, your observation of a “healing bruise” on Jane Barber’s face. You testified that you believed the bruising to be an isolated incident and an accident and yet the record shows you warned Mrs. Barber that such bruising would not be tolerated.”
The union filed a grievance challenging the discharge of Harrison, and a hearing was held in September of the following year. In November, the arbitrator concluded the following in his decision:
“The fact does remain that a child is dead, and the frustration resulting from the failure to prevent it plagues the Department and all who were touched by it in any way. But the charges brought by the Department to justify its discharge of Gail are hardly persuasive. These do not demonstrate any evidence of clear violations of Departmental regulations, procedures, or requirements on the part of Gail Harrison in terms of her involvement in the Barber case. Therefore, the discharge cannot be upheld.”
Gail Harrison was thereby reinstated to her position as Head Social Work Supervisor, with full back pay and benefits from the date of discharge to the date of her reinstatement.
The Department of Social Services Legislation and Mandate
The intense public reaction to Jane Barber’s death spurred the emergency law establishing a new freestanding agency, the Department of Social Services (DOSS). Passed last July 24th, the legislation separated the social services component from the DOW (See Exhibit 1-2.) No longer would it be sufficient to have both Social Services and Assistance Payments operating separately within the same agency as they had done in the recent past. As advocated by the Children’s Service Association and other private agencies, the legislation created the opportunity to establish a model professional social work agency that would be staffed by professionals credentialed in the field of social work. A Commissioner was to be appointed by this upcoming January, with a one-year planning period before the agency was scheduled to start up next January.
However, despite the lobbying by the Association and others, the legislation did not define the qualifications for social workers, nor did it include provisions for staffing the new Department. It
6
appeared to assume that new positions could be created by vacated positions in the old Social Services component of Welfare – basically a one-for-one exchange. Otherwise, it was not specified how the new agency would be staffed or what would happen to social service workers then at DOW. Two viewpoints began to be held by the workers: Some were confident they would be transferred over to the new Department; others were fearful the State viewed DOSS as an opportunity to hire other workers.
Just prior to passage of the appropriations statute for the Department of Social Services legislation, the union convinced one of its supporters in the legislature to insert the following as Section 46-A:
“No position or job authorized in this legislation shall be filled unless a position 7is eliminated in the Department of Welfare.”
Carole Boyd, president of Local 101, explained the significance of this section:
“It means that the State can’t simply create new positions and leave our workers out. Either they’re going to have to transfer them over to the new agency or they have to wait until one leaves the DOW in order to transfer a vacant position to DOSS.”
According to an attorney working in the DOSS:
“We don’t need any special procedure. We’re just going to tap the best social service workers and bring them over to the Department of Social Services.”
The Implementation Committee
The legislation called for the Secretary of Human Resources to appoint a committee to plan and implement the new agency. Established in September by Acting Human Resources Secretary Dorothy Morse, the committee consisted of Jim Morrow, Deputy Commissioner of DOW; Kathleen Cole, Assistant Director for Social Services at DOW; Peter Van Horn, Executive Director of Human Services, Inc.; Janet Ames of the Association for Social Workers, and Margo Williams of the Agency for Children. * The committee recruited and hired as Project Director, Mark Swartz, a specialist on government reorganization from a major metropolitan city in a nearby state. Mark arranged to commute for the duration of the four- to six-month implementation process. Swartz’s credentials included a Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology from an Ivy League university and extensive research and writing on the subject. He had also organized a Conference on Children and had been a consultant to the Department of Human Resources on health and drug issues.
Swartz immediately set to work by defining goals and issues for the Implementation Committee:
7
“For operational purposes, the project’s work has been organized into three distinct but overlapping areas. These are structural issues, services and work environment. In general, structural activities are those that involve the mechanics of setting up a new agency by July 1. The services and work environment areas are likely to be the major determinants of the degree of long term success of the agency.” (See Exhibit 1-3.)
After a month on the job, Swartz had put together his staff and began contact with the Implementation Committee. Since all members of the committee had line responsibilities in their respective agencies, there were constraints on members’ time. . As a result, much of the actual planning – including identification of the main issues and key personnel – was based on his own judgment and discussions with Acting Secretary Morse, who was later replaced by Patton.
Morale at a Low
In the meantime, both Social Service supervisors and direct line workers were affected by the planning process that rendered their job status ambiguous. Concern for their job security was taking its toll on their performance. Field workers were particularly afraid of layoffs. Employees were also confused as to whether the new agency would offer civil service protection and if they would continue to be part of the Local 101 bargaining unit. One senior supervisor commented:
“The whole process has been very insensitive. The reorganization is happening because of supposed incompetence by our personnel. DOSS is to be a new agency of professionals, they keep telling us. We all wonder if we are the incompetents that everyone keeps referring to!”
According to another employee:
“The Department has come to a standstill – morale is at an all time low. People don’t know how long they’ll be carrying their cases. This is affecting their performance. Nobody here feels like working. There’s no support from Central Office.”
Transfer of Social Service Workers
Reorganization and the creation of the new agency posed several questions dealing with the personnel process: what sort of evaluation mechanisms would be used as a basis for selection, how workers would be selected for the new agency, what procedures would be established, and what criteria would be set?
Selection of workers for transfer to the new agency had been on the implementation staff’s agenda since October 1. By November, Swartz’s staff began to realize they should be making
8
greater progress on the issue. However, during long sessions with Swartz, they attempted to analyze issues as represented in Exhibit 1-4, attaching great importance to “work environment” and other essentials they agreed were necessary to providing good social services.
The Director of Labor Relations at DOW, Hal Bonati, had also been giving serious thought to the transfer issue and had expected to work closely with Mark Swartz. Although Bonati had been with DOW for eight years and the Director of Labor Relations for the past four years, Swartz seemed not to be aware of Bonati’s existence within the agency. Therefore, he failed to contact Bonati for his input on reorganization and transfer procedures.
“I remember the past agreement process. We’re coming up against the same issues in this reorganization,” Bonati said.
He later reflected:
“A lot of people say the DOW doesn’t have qualified people in Social Services – but as yet no social services employee has been successfully suspended or terminated as a result of a performance issue. There’s no precedent that they are not qualified – therefore it would be a hard argument now to say they’re not qualified. There are presently no standards or formal evaluations for DOW social workers. We keep running into the problem of not having a basis to fire some one or even transfer them.”
Jim Morrow expressed the view that problems would arise over the lack of written standards for “competence in social services.” Without these, he felt, the new agency may simply be an extension of the old, or “business as usual.” In order to have a competent staff and professional reputation, he felt an evaluation process would ideally include at least two levels and judgments by professionals who understand social service work. Another, less satisfactory process would be passing civil service tests as they existed. He offered this suggestion only because he predicted that use of competency tests would not be established by next June. “Even the social work profession can’t agree on one,” he claimed.
“Not only don’t the professionals agree on what should be an evaluation tool but the union doesn’t even know what their workers want, so even if we could agree on a format the union wouldn’t know what to say. By February 24 th [the due date for the Committee’s Report] the Implementation Committee will have come up with some evaluation criteria and then we will give it to the union for reaction – but they will battle in March and April over it and then take it to the legislators – it’s so predictable.”
“Social Service workers now think of themselves as professionals, but are not sure they want to be evaluated by those standards.”
9
Jim Donovan, Director of Social Services for DOW and rumored to be someone who wanted to be the new Commissioner of DOSS, offered some novel ideals for evaluation:
“Workers do not have rights to jobs in DOSS. Some mechanisms for transfer will occur. We are presently talking to a private college that is proposing “Group Dynamics” meetings as a way of selecting the best workers. The meetings would bring out the workers’ views and abilities and therefore provide some criteria for selection.”
Meeting with the Union
Acting Human Resources Secretary Morse viewed the State’s relationship with the union as a naturally antagonistic one and expressed these feelings to Mark Swartz on several occasions. Swartz himself put off meeting with the union to discuss the reorganization process and the issues of transfer and evaluation. And according to Jim Morrow, Deputy Commissioner of DOW:
“We don’t need to involve the union in our planning. They never agree with us anyway and their approach is too different. They lose perspective on the planning process.”
Because so many workers were frightened about losing their jobs, the union felt keenly its responsibility to protect its members. “They [the State] think the current state employees are worthless and think they’re going to get social workers from outside state service. Clearly this is not going to happen,” stated Carole Boyd, President of Local 101. Ms. Boyd took the position that social service jobs should be offered to existing personnel and training should be expanded. The union was opposed to evaluations because they were viewed as being conducted poorly in the past and used as a means “to deny people positions.”
On November 1, in comments to Morse, Ms. Boyd indicated the union would be willing to negotiate on an evaluation tool. On December 20th, a meeting took place between Mark Swartz and Carole Boyd. They sat across from each other for several hours. Afterward, Swartz expressed puzzlement at her antagonistic attitude:
“Ms. Boyd did not seem in the least interested in discussing evaluation or transfer procedures. I had been warned about this union, but I never thought a meeting could go so poorly.”
That next January, a little over five months after the emergency legislation was passed, the union filed legislation under the sponsorship of State Representative George Whalen that would “grandfather” all social service employees from the DOW to DOSS. In other words, all employees already in place would be transferred to the new agency, although new standards might be applied to new employees. Along with this legislation, the union waged an intense
10
lobbying campaign, favoring no application process, no Masters in Social Work requirement, and no interviews.
The proposed legislation was sent to Secretary Patton for review. As Secretary of Human Resources, he must take a position on legislation affecting his agencies. In addition, the law still required him to appoint a Commissioner of Social Services. Between these pressures and those of child welfare advocates, he attempted to sort out his priorities for handling the reorganization.
12
Exhibit 1-2. Excerpts from legislation establishing the Department of Social Services
Acts and Resolves
Chap. 552 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND DEFINING ITS POWERS AND DUTIES.
Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose which is, in part, to immediately provide for an orderly transfer of certain duties relative to social services to a department of social services, therefore it is declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.
SECTION 10. The General Laws are hereby amended by inserting after chapter 18A the following chapter:
CHAPTER 18B DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Section 1. There shall be a department of social services, in this chapter called the department.
Section 2.
(A) The department shall provide and administer a comprehensive social service program, including the following services:
(1) Casework or counseling including social services to families, foster families or individuals;
(2) Protective services for children, unmarried mothers, the aging and other adults;
(3) Legal services for families, children or individuals as they relate to social problems;
(4) Foster family care and specialized foster family care for children, the aging, disabled and the handicapped;
(5) Adoption services;
(6) Homemaker services;
(7) Day care facilities and services for children, the aging, the disabled and the handicapped;
13
(8) Residential care for children with special needs or aging persons not suited to foster family care, or specialized foster family care;
(9) Informal education and group activities as needed for families, children, the aging, the disabled and the handicapped;
(10) Training in parenthood and home management for parents, foster parents and prospective parents;
(11) Social services for newcomers to an area or community to assist in adjustment to a new environment and new resources;
(12) Camping services;
(13) Family services intended to prevent the need for foster care and services to children in foster care;
(14) Temporary residential programs providing counseling and supportive assistance for women in transition and their children who because of domestic violence, homelessness, or other situations require temporary shelter and assistance; and
(15) Information and referral services.
Section 3. The department shall establish a comprehensive program of social services at the area level.
(A) In order that the area-based social services be adapted, organized and coordinated to meet the needs of certain population groups, the department shall provide programs of service for:
(1) Families, children and unmarried parents, which program shall, among other objectives, serve to assist, strengthen and encourage family life for the protection and care of children, assist and encourage the use by any family of all available resources to this end, and provide substitute care of children only when preventive services have failed and the family itself or the resources needed and provided to the family are unable to insure the integrity of the family and the necessary care and protection to guarantee the rights of any child to sound health and normal physical, mental, spiritual and moral development.
(2) The aging and other adults in need of social, legal, health, rehabilitation, employment or other services.
(3) Other population groups that require special adaptation of the services provided because of special needs.
14
(B) The department shall:
(1) Formulate the policies, procedures and rules necessary for the full and efficient implementation of programs authorized by the laws of the state and federal laws in the area of social services;
(2) Administer the services, funds, and personnel necessary for such social service programs throughout;
(3) Establish and enforce high standards of social service and strive to elevate such standards;
(4) Provide the range of social services on a fair, just and equitable basis to all people in need of such services;
(5) Collaborate with other departments of the state that are in fields related to social welfare and with voluntary or private agencies or organizations to assure efficient and high-quality social and educational services for persons who are unable for social or economic reasons to provide such services for themselves;
(6) Study the social and economic problems in the state and make recommendations to the appropriate branches and agencies of government for broadening and improving the scope and quality of social services.
Section 5. The department shall make provision for such social services as are required under Title XX and Title IV B of the Social Security Act and the regulations established there under and shall provide such additional services as the legislature may determine.
Section 6. The department shall be under the direction, supervision and control of a Commissioner of social services, in this chapter called the Commissioner who shall be appointed by the Governor for a term coterminous with that of the Governor. Said Commissioner shall be qualified by training and experience to perform the duties of the office and shall at the time of appointment have received a doctorate or other degree beyond the level of the baccalaureate in the field of business, economics, education, government, law, medicine, psychology, public administration, public health, public policy, social work, urban planning, or a field substantially related to one or more of the foregoing and shall have had not less than seven years of responsible administrative experience, at least three of which shall have been in a field related to human services, or said Commissioner shall have had experience in one or more of said fields for a period of years equivalent to the number of years required to obtain such other degree beyond that of baccalaureate required herein, and shall have had, in addition thereto, not less than seven years of responsible administrative experience, at least three of which shall have
15
been in a field related to human services. The Commissioner shall receive a salary of eighty five thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office. The Commissioner shall be the executive and administrative head of the department.
Section 7.
(a) The Commissioner shall establish reasonable caseload rates and shall report the same to the general court in the budget estimates of the department.
(b) The Commissioner shall develop and implement a management information system that shall contain fiscal and personnel data, client data, and program data necessary for the ongoing administration or effective service delivery. Said information system shall include but not be limited to a service plan for each client, with provisions for periodic review thereof. The Commissioner shall promulgate such rules and regulations as are deemed necessary to ensure the confidentiality of client data collected by the department.
(c) The Commissioner shall develop and implement a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system for all social services under the control of the department and shall collect the necessary program and fiscal data annually.
(d) The Commissioner shall conduct an annual needs assessment for all social services under the control of the department.
(e) The Commissioner shall report annually to the legislature on all services which report shall reflect program and client data and unit costs.
(f) The Commissioner shall develop and implement a plan for the orientation and training of area-based and other staff.
(h) The Commissioner shall be authorized to apply for and accept on behalf of the state, federal, local or private grants, bequests, gifts or contributions.
The Commissioner shall include in the budget estimates of the department funds for the development and implementation of the aforementioned management information system, monitoring and evaluation system, annual needs assessment, and staff-training plan.
Not more than three per cent of the department’s annual budget shall be appropriated in a separate account and expended for the purposes set out in subsections (b), (c), and (d), of this section.
Section 8. The Commissioner shall appoint and may remove a Deputy Commissioner who shall receive a salary of eighty thousand dollars. The Deputy Commissioner shall have the same qualifications in training and experience as required by the Commissioner.
16
Section 9. The Commissioner may appoint and remove such Assistant Commissioners as the Commissioner shall from time to time determine, not to exceed four in number, who shall be assigned to areas of responsibility to be specified by the Commissioner.
Each Assistant Commissioner shall be qualified by training and experience to perform the duties of the office and shall at the time of appointment have received a masters or higher degree and shall have had professional experience or not less than five years as an administrator in a field related to human services or said Assistant Commissioner shall have had professional experience in a field related to human services for a period of years equivalent to the number of years required to obtain a master’s degree, and shall have had, in addition thereto, professional experience of not less than five years as an administrator in a field related to human services. Each Assistant Commissioner shall receive a salary of seventy five thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.
Section 45. The secretary of human services shall transfer all personal property, including files, records and equipment, which is used by or under the control of the office of social services in the department of public welfare on the effective date of this act, to the department of social services created by section four of this act. Such transfer shall be made at such time as said secretary shall determine but not later than the time provided in the plan submitted by the committee appointed under section ten of this act.
Section 46. Within thirty days after the passage of this act, the secretary of human services shall appoint a committee to prepare a plan for the orderly implementation of the provisions of this act. Said committee shall consist of the secretary of human services who shall act as chairman and five other persons appointed by him. An appropriation shall be authorized to provide staff support for the committee. Said committee may recommend to the legislature changes in the General Laws necessary or desirable to properly carry out the provisions of this act.
Said plan shall include budget estimates for the operation of the department of social services for the fiscal year beginning July 1st.
Said committee shall submit said plan to the governor and the legislature within seven months after the passage of this act for implementation on July 1st, beginning with a transition period of six months extending until January 1st.
The Commissioner of the department shall be appointed not later than six months before the implementation date of this act.
Section 46A. No position or job authorized in this legislation shall be filled unless a position is eliminated in the department of public welfare.
17
Exhibit 1-3. Excerpts from Plan for Department of Social Services Implementation
TO: Dorothy Morse, Secretary of Human Services FROM: Mark Swartz SUBJECT: Plan for Department of Social Services Implementation
Project Goals
1. Preparation of a clear, comprehensive, and readily usable structural and operational plan for the Department of Social Services.
2. Provide for the Implementation Committee and Commissioner the widest possible range of choices of service models and methods for enhancing the quality of social services programs.
3. Development of a set of departmental processes that will provide for ongoing agency flexibility and support systems that are intended to assure maximum staff effectiveness at all levels.
4. Provide for an orderly transition with the least possible disruption of the operations of the Department of Public Welfare and other service providers, and no disruption of client services.
5. Production of a plan based upon the active participation and support of a wide range of constituencies, including the Legislature: Administration; service users; service providers, public and nonpublic advocates; and interested agencies.
6. Provide an overall service framework in which prevention is accentuated.
Planning Assumptions
1. The most basic assumption made is to sharply limit our assumptions. The purpose here is to prevent misdirection, acceptance of ”inevitabilities,” and the problem of ”things falling between the cracks.”
2. It is assumed that the single overriding responsibility of the implementation staff is to assure the orderly transition to the new agency, which will begin to function next July.
3. Beyond the mechanical transfer of functions to the new agency, it is assumed that the establishment of the Department of Social Services represents a one-time opportunity. The next eight months will be critical in at least three specific respects:
18
a) Processes can be developed which will address problems of worker effectiveness and the work environment at the point of delivery of service. In this respect, it is assumed that the ”informal organization” is as important as the formal structure in determining the quality of services.
b) A systematic review of all services, mandated and non-mandated, can be undertaken for the purpose of designing the most efficacious overall program. This opportunity is unlikely to recur once the agency is in operation.
c) Vital linkages with other parts of the system can be formalized and strengthened.
4. It is assumed that suspicion and resistance are inherent in the change process and that the project must address these conditions, primarily through policies of openness in the sharing of information and participatory planning. Within this context, there should not be an attempt to minimize the fact that change brings dislocations and requires adjustments.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Planning Areas
For operational purposes, the project’s work has been organized into three distinct but overlapping areas. These are structural issues, services, and the work environment. In general, structural activities are those which involve the mechanics of setting up a new agency by July 1. The services and work environment areas are likely to be the major determinants of the degree of long-term success of the agency. A non-ranked and non-exhaustive breakdown of the major areas follows:
1. Structural Issues
a) The social services budget: recasting; type; location of budgetary authority.
b) Required legislative revision and other legal actions including contractual arrangements, statutes, and federal regulations
c) Decentralization
d) Agency Interfaces: with DOW; overhead units; other service providers; other agencies
e) Definition of services to be provided.
19
f) Transition to July 1st: office organization, space, equipment, and supplies; payroll, personnel, and purchase functions; vehicles; mail; etc.
g) Area Councils: selection process; roles and linkages; training; budget(s).
h) Overhead systems: personnel; payroll; budget; purchase; grants management; fiscal; revenue/payment.
i) Purchase of Service: contracting; monitoring, evaluation, and audit; technical assistance.
j) Management information system(s).
k) Management and staff support systems: research; training; program audit and evaluation.
l) Procedures for safeguarding client rights.
m) Entitlements; fee scales; rate setting.
n) Procedures: procedure manuals; internal and external communication.
o) Formal structure: job descriptions; lines of authority; civil service, contractual, and other requirements; criteria and procedures for transfer, hiring, termination, and promotion.
2. Services
a) Mandated services defined: federal statute; state statute: court mandates.
b) Optional services currently provided: gaps and overlaps.
c) Definition of goals for services currently provided.
d) Client criteria and priorities for mandated and non-mandated services defined: need or ability to pay.
e) Alternative intake and service delivery models.
f) Continuity of service or care: preventive and early intervention approaches; interorganization and intersystem continuity.
20
g) The direct service/purchase mix: criteria for choice and policy development.
h) Monitoring and evaluating services and programs.
i) Case management: definition; training; plans for installing and monitoring.
j) Crisis-oriented services: design: implications for overall agency goals and mission.
3. The Work Environment
a) Sources of effectiveness and ineffectiveness, satisfaction and dissatisfaction: direct service workers; supervisors; middle management; top management.
b) Intra-agency communication: horizontal and vertical.
c) Job design and the organization of work.
d) Reward systems: career ladder(s); compensation: other possible rewards within framework of civil service.
e) Time: attendance; vacations; sabbaticals; sick leave; part-time alternatives.
f) Internal support systems: assistance in dealing with the stresses of work in social services; on-the-job assistance for troubled workers.
g) Expectations; evaluations; equitable systems of accountability; grievance and appeal procedures; standards of responsibility and performance.
h) Support systems for supervisors and management.
The Planning Process
The successful completion of the plan will depend heavily upon effective decision making on the part of the Implementation Committee. The planning process has been designed with that end in mind. It is built around the preparation and presentation of well researched and broadly discussed option papers in the areas listed above. In those areas requiring policy decisions, clear-cut alternatives will be presented to the Implementation Committee. When longer-range considerations are involved, position papers will be developed for use by the Commissioner of Social Services. Finally, planning documents and procedures will be developed for use by the transition staff.
21
The planning process will consist of the following steps:
1. Identification of basic issues requiring planning attention.
2. Division of issues into specific tasks leading to policy or option statements for the Implementation Committee or Commissioner, or plans for specific action by implementation staff.
3. Broad discussion and consultation in planning areas.
4. Presentation of papers for decision by the Implementation Committee.
5. Development of plans based upon decisions made.
6. Development of feedback loops based upon planning decisions, branching logic, and broad participation and designed to eliminate oversights and planning inconsistency.
7. Compilation of comprehensive plan.
Staffing
A mix of directly employed staff and contractors will complete the work. A core team is being assembled which will provide direction and overall stability to the project. A cadre of specialized contractors who will perform a variety of tasks will complement this staff.
As of October 30th, the implementation team consists of nine full- and part-time members whose immediate activities are directed toward preparation of the budget, the nature of decentralization, staff transfers, transition issues, legal and legislative requirements, and the development of an effective data gathering capability.
November Goals
Project goals for November will be directed toward the development of an effective work team and a research capability; refinement of decision making processes; the letting of key contracts; and the preparation of option papers for decision in the following areas: definition of new agency functions; organizational constraints; staff transfer and recruitment procedures; decentralization; budget; entitlements; and legal requirements.
MS: ej cc: Implementation Committee Members
Implementation Staff
22
Exhibit 1-4. Aspects of the State Personnel System.
Civil Service Status
Only about ten percent of state employees are completely exempt from Civil Service regulations. Most of these are in senior management and special policy advisor positions.
Evaluation
This State does not have any comprehensive system of employee evaluation. Although some attempts have been made to develop evaluation systems for individual state agencies, no state system exists comparable to the regular evaluation system for Federal Civil Service employees. In theory, Civil Service employees serve a six-month probationary period (longer for some positions), during which time they should be evaluated and dismissed if not competent; and in the first seven years of an employee’s service, an agency can withhold a step increase in pay because of unsatisfactory performance. In practice, however, most employees are not scrutinized at these times. The laws are written so that inaction by appointing authorities results in automatic tenure or step increases for the employees. Although the opportunity to evaluate the employee exists, there is no pressure on the appointing authority to do so.
Except for denial of step increases, an appointing authority has no incentives to give force to whatever evaluations are made. After an employee has spent seven years in a pay grade, he or she has reached the maximum step, and so the only negative incentive that can be used is the threat of dismissal.
Promotion
In the past, a League of Women Voters survey of state agencies showed that “for positions covered by Civil Service, seniority is the ruling factor in promotions and that opportunities for advancement are confined within the unit of government in which the employee works.” That summary is still reasonably accurate today. In the most conservative method, an employee who is one of the three most senior employees in his present grade in the department can be promoted by the appointing authority.
Alternatively, an authority can request an examination and can specify that it be oral or written and that it be for departmental employees only, for all employees within the executive office containing the department, for all employees of state government, or for anyone (a normal open competitive examination). While the examination is being prepared, the appointing authority can make a provisional promotion.
23
Dismissal
Dismissal of state employees, although difficult, is not impossible. Provisional employees can be dismissed at any time; temporary employees can be dismissed by the abolition of their positions; and permanent non-Civil Service employees can be dismissed at will, unless their positions have been protected by the tenure provisions of the Civil Service law, or by special legislative provision (often called a “freeze in”). Permanent Civil Service employees can be dismissed during their probationary period; after that they can be dismissed for cause, but the lengthy hearing and appeal processes involved discourage this action.
