To: Linda Carlisle, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Social Services

MEMORANDUM

To: Linda Carlisle, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Social Services

From: Jennifer Sanchez, Independent Consultant

Date: November 19, 2012

Subject: Assessing relationship between DSS and PAS organizations/ La AlianzaHispana

As DSS is currently facing an urgent dilemma that connects with your long-term accountability and relationships with PAS organizations, I suggest that you use La AlianzaHispana as a public example for how you intend to shift these relationships.

Analysis

1. Benefits and losses of the PAS program have led to inconsistent results.
2. Actively addressing the need for cultural awareness and specialized services allow some clients to receive catered attention. It also expanded DSS’s services. However, this lack of authoritative and finitely consequential presence permits gaps in service.
3. It creates a lack of accountability and inconsistent processes for interacting with clients and reporting. The lacks of capacity for DSS and PAS organizations translate to insufficiencies in needed resources for all involved.
4. Lack of consistent communication between DSS and La Alianzaled to La Alianza’s inability to keep up with caseloads. Not adequately expressing this while DSS faced funding cuts created the poor reputation. The barrier grew stronger as La Alianza failed to take action and DSS was not fulfilling its responsibility of transparency.

Recommendations

You need to shift the sense of accountability and responsibility toward collaboration amongst the DSS and PAS network using the following methods:

1. Absorb all caseload management into DSS. This will permit a streamlined process and allow allocation of the regained funds from cut contracts to expand DSS internally, including for the regional offices.
2. Contract with PAS organizations to serve as cultural liaisons.
3. Hire organizations as a fee for service to facilitate sensitivity trainings for DSS social workers.
4. Create partnerships that would allow dual service where needed, e.g. both DSS and PAS representatives for one client. As DSS conducts government assessments, the PAS network provides needed intervention and preventative services these organizations specialize in.
5. In set, repeated and structured interactions, DSS will update PAS organizations on protocol so all act in accordance with the arrangement. Meanwhile, all parties involved will update on their needs and capacity to adjust relationship dynamics.

To begin this process, I suggest you immediately meet with La Alianza to create a joint plan at confronting the media inquiries. Examine needs and objectives for all involved and from there lay out how this shift in child protective operations will benefit all. La Alianza will receive funding for programs within its mission, DSS will receive cultural assistance, and accountability in a streamlined system will be restored.

Jennifer Sanchez

PA 5011

November 19, 2012

La Alianza Logic Memorandum

In analyzing the case of DSS and La AlianzaHispana, I generally found a program that started with good intentions of cultural attentiveness has spiraled into an inconsistently delivered market heaping with miscommunication. This is in part due to a downward trend of financial resources and therefore time to commit to the network. However, in the case of La Alianza, there is also a lack of follow-up on both parties. I recommend the adaptive change of a planned, public shift in the contracted relationship to address accountability and promote collaboration. The technical and adaptive components of this shift include reshaping caseload management; returning to services that fit organizational skill strength and mission; and structured communication to assess needs and capacity for the foreseeable future.

The benefits of the third party contracting on the part of DSS include improving the client’s experience through specialized services with cultural attentiveness and an expanded network for DSS. Often government cannot meet public needs operating in isolation. Goldsmith and Eggers support third party governance stating, “in many instances [government can] produce more public value through a networked approach” (p. 22). As Commissioner Matava realized client needs were too complex for DSS to handle alone, she initiated the contract tool PAS. This action is in collaboration with Crutchfield and Grant’s adaptation cycle as Matava listened to her environment, assessed the need for greater cultural sensitivity and modified DSS programs (p143). In particular, she was attempting to transform the scope of diversity within child protection services to the emerging paradigm (Thomas Ely, p. 85). She determined that incorporating diverse perspectives that align with clients into direct services would improve client outreach and results.

However, the benefits of the PAS program do not outweigh the losses. The co-dependence for services and funding immediately highlights the dimensions of dependence (Saidel, p. 545). DSS needed the PAS resources in order to deliver services well. The apparent lack of availability of orgs to fill PAS roles made DSS dependent upon available candidates like La Alianza. Initally, the proposition to La Alianza made PAS almost required as funding hinged on participation. This relationship was intended to maintain the traditional “command and control” management model (Salamon, p.8). Goldsmith and Eggers note that government is inherently designed to operate hierarchically; therefore, the approaching clash with PAS organizations seemed unavoidable (p. 22). Essentially, DSS was imposing its practices onto organizations that operate with similar goals but vastly different methods.

The PAS program appears to be a product of devolution. While this delegation of responsibility does promote a response to unique needs, it also contributes to complex relationships and responsibilities (Humphrey Project-Relationships). This translates into an incomprehensible web of accountability and clients get lost in the process of delegation. While “it takes a network to fight a network”, the apparent lack of consistent follow through in maintaining the established system effectively crumbled the power of the PAS/DSS network (Goldsmith & Eggers, p. 9). With the lack of support structure for the PAS program, essential communication lines were cut off from both ends of the contract in the case of La Alianza. DSS was extremely disorganized with regional offices cut. Meanwhile, La Alianza was not sufficiently communicating the need for support. Neithertook action on avoiding the implications of the current situation. The horrible result of the Ventura case is a tangible motivation to steer away from repeating the non-profit starvation cycle. The unrealistic expectations of DSS and La Alianza’s lack of transparency in terms of needs underfed the program (Goggins & Howard, p. 51). Thus, the clients were underserved.

I recommend an adaptive change where DSS takes ownership of accountability and the network shifts responsibilities of collaboration. Recognizing that no single actor can enforce its will in a new governance format, I encourage DSS to facilitate a meeting negotiating the specifics of what the collaboration I recommend (Salamon, p. 13). This meeting should also include what incentives might be provided for all involved. From there, the network can assess capacities and create a model for this tool. It may require that three tools be created for the specialized client tiers within the current PAS program. This would recognize the concerns of pluriformity and self-referentiality (Salamon, p. 13). Consistent follow up meetings will allow for dynamism as the structure shifts based on needs and capacity.

Overall, I am suggesting a shift from a supplementary to complementary relationship where DSS and PAS organizations can deliver their programmatic strengths to clients. It is clear with the current system that a streamlined system of accountability necessitates a single delivery point. The logical conclusion is for DSS’s highly trained social workers to continue their role. While I encourage DSS to recover some power, I did not want this to limit PAS organizations’ advantage in determining how policy shapes their work. As the need for interdependence still exists, my recommendation retains organizational individuality (Salamon, p. 14).

The cultural liaison role of PAS still implements Matava’s intention of inclusion and expansion. Here the network is working together to promote new ways of understanding, change professional practices, share program ideas, and develop new policies (Sandfort, p. 637). To maintain this system, DSS managers need orchestration skills while managing social workers with their caseloads (Salamon, p. 17). As they rebuild relationships with PAS organizations, they will gain shared knowledge and form respect. The impetus of this recommendation begins at collaborative handling of La Alianza.

Using La Alianza as a public example will illustrate how this transition will occur to the extended policy field and the overall funders, the pubic. It will make note of how this situation will not occur again due to the concentration of accountability. Additionally, La Alianza, like other PAS organizations will be able to return to programs surrounding its original mission that established its reputation. Hopefully, this will work toward rebuilding trust from the public.

In conclusion, DSS and the PAS network need to address both the formal (funding) and informal (influence) relationships to shape how work in the child protective service policy field gets accomplished (Humphrey Project- Policy). This effective recommendation streamlines accountability. It includes an efficient method of addressing DSS cultural weaknesses and maximizes contributions of all. As noted in my memo, DSS needs to assess financial feasibility before implementation to make this plan manageable. However, with proper planning, this adaptive change will improve child protection services. DSS will work to regain trust with La Alianza in the public. Long-term changes will maximize strengths to optimize experiences for clients.

Bibliography

Crutchfield LR and Grant HM (2008) Master the art of adaptation. In Forces for Good. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 129-52.

Goggins AG and Howard D (2009) The nonprofit starvation cycle.Stanford Social Innovation Review. Fall 2009: 48-53.

Goldsmith S and Eggers WD (2004) The new shape of government. In Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp.2-24

Hubert Project. “Government Non-Profit Relationships” Creative Commons Attribute. August 11, 2011

Hubert Project. “Policy Field Analysis” Creative Commons Attribute. August 23, 2011

Sandfort J (2008) Nonprofits in policy fields.Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 29, 3, 637-44

Salamon LM (2002) The new governance and the tools of pubic action: an introduction. In The Tools of Government. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-24

Saidel J (1991) Resource interdependence: the relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review. 51 (6):543-553

Thomas DA and Ely RJ (1996) Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review.September-October 1996, 19-31.

1