-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/3f570fc2d9f5efb575c4c67650f02ccd.pdf
fe258348a999843c2f1b12648ae7cf7c
PDF Text
Text
..
.;
, Wor~shop on Negotiating Partnerships for Improved Outcomes
January 7-9,1997'
Baltimore, Maryland
Renaissance Harborplace Hotel
Sponsored by:
Annie E. Casey Foundation
State Level Systems Reform
Agenda
The overall purpose of this workshop is to help state·community partnerships
negotiate the relationships necessary to improve outcomes for children, families,
and communities.
If the workshop is successful, each state/community team will:
.,
identify and commit to taking actions that will "further" their systems reform
efforts to improve outcomes for children, families, and communities;
• have an opportunity to learn and then apply that learning to develop the
increased understanding,
o knowledge of each other,
o skills,
o strategy, and
o pr6cessand protocol
o
useful to them in negotiating new 'relationships for improving outcomes for
children, families, and communities;
• share something of value with other teams and receive something of, value
from other teams helpful to them in their work in negotiating new relationships
for improving outcomes for children, families, and communities;
.-explore issues, such as managed care and welfare reform, as they affect
negotiating their relationship to improve outcomes for children, families and
communities; and,
'
• help design the tools and form of information exchange on negotiating new
relationships to improve outcomes for children, families, and communities
that would, be 'useful to them.
Agenda -- Page 1
�ITuesday, January 7
3:00 pm Facilitators Meeting.
Each state/community team has identified a facilitator to support them during the
workshop. These facilitators will have an opportunity to review their role, discuss
the workshop approach, and meet with the consultant/observers and the
workshop team.
5:00 pm
Registration
6:30 pm
Reception
7:30 pm
Dinner
One of the major issues confronting states as they devolve authority and
resources to the community is building the state/community relationships. The
Federal government's expectations concerning issues of outcome accountability
and program flexibility are an important factor as states and communities
negotiate new relationships to improve outcomes for children, families, and
communities.
Speakers:
Kathleen Feely, Associate Director, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Carol Rasco, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
IWednesday, January 8
th
7:30 am Continental Breakfast
8:30 am Welcome and Purpose
During this time we will review the purpose of the workshop and welcome al/ the
participants.
Presenter:
Ira Barbell
···9:00 am Ground Rules/Partnership Principles
The participants will adopt the ground rules that will be helpful them during the
workshop.
Facilitator:
Jolie Bain Pillsbury
9:10 am The Landscape of Negotiation
Learn· This workshop will explore different approaches to negotiating new relationships
for improving outcomes for children, families, and communities. Building on the
experience of each state/community team, the expertise of the all the participants
and resources from a variety of fields this session will create a view of the what
we know about negotiations that can help us improve outcomes for children,
families, and communities.
Presenters:
Frank Farrow, Phyllis Brunson, and Mark Friedman
Agenda -. Page 2
�10:30 am
Break
10:45 am The Art of Negotiation (Part 1)
00*
All the stateicommunity teams come to the workshop with a unique focus. Each
state/community team with the support of their facilitator and a
consultant/observer will have an opportunity to "negotiate" an agreement on the
"tangible progress" they would like to make during the workshop.
Facilitator:
Bryan Samuels
12:15 pm
1:00 pm
Learn*
Lunch
Challenges of Negotiation: State/community team to
state/community team exchange
Each state/community team will have an opportunity to both to give and receive
from another state/community team insights on their own unique challenges to
building the partnership to improve outcomes for children, families, and
communities.
2:45 pm The Art of Negotiation (Part 2)
Learn*
An informal panel of state and community participants will share insights and
experience that could be useful to all the state/community teams. The focus will
be on the content, process, and skills of negotiating new relationships for
improving outcomes for children, families and communities.
3:30 pm Teams work on negotiation
00*
6:30 pm
The teams with the support of their facilitators and consultant/observers do their
own work and apply what they have learned.
Reception and Tour of the Museum of Visionary Arts
IThursday, January 9
7:30 am Continental Breakfast
8:30 am The Art of Negotiation (Part 3)
""
Learn*
9:15 am
Learn*
10:15 am
During this time the consultant/observers will share their insights onthe
application of negotiation strategies, skills and tools by the state/community
teams. This will offer an opportunity for all the participants to see what might be
most useful to them as"they work together to improve outcomes for children,
families, and communities.
Challenges of Handling the Pre-requisites of Negotiation: State and
Community Perspectives
An informal panel of state and community participants will share what they have
learned about the challenges of building state/community teams, designing
strategies, and establishing the authority necessary to negotiate new
relationships for improving outcomes for children, families, and communities.
Break
Agenda -- Page 3
�..
10:30 am Teams continue to work on their toughest negotiation challenges
Do·
With the support of their facilitators and consultant observers the state/community
teams have an opportunity to apply what they have learned and continue to
negotiate their relationship for improving outcomes for children, families, and
communities.
12:00 am Lunch
Learn * Communities face unique challenges and opponunities over the next five years
that will directly impact the negotiation of new relationships for improving
outcomes for children, families, and communities.
Speaker:
Douglas W. Nelson
Executive Director
Annie IE. Casey Foundation
1:15 am
Teams Identify Next Steps in Their Process
Do· State/Community teams supported by their facilitators and consultant/observers
"negotiate" their next steps that they will take to "further" their systems reform
efforts as they negotiate their partnership to improve outcomes over the next
year.
2:15 pm Closing Session
During this time all the participants will have an opportunity to reflect on the
workshop. The participants will also identify methods of information exchange
and support that will be helpful to them in the future.
Facilitator:
Kathleen Feely
3:00 Adjourn·
*The workshop offers the state/community teams an opportunity to both "learn" and "do."
Agenda •• Page 4
�"
t'
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Workshop on Negotiating Partn~rships for, Improved Outcomes
State/Community Team "Lists
Arkansas
Mr. Muata Chikwendu
Local Coordinator
little Rock Midtown Collaborative,
Little Rock, AR
Dr. Mary Gunter
,.
Director
Governor's Partnership,for Children & Families
Little Rock, AR
Ms. Dorothy Nayles
Senior Policy Analyst
New Futures for Children
Little Rock, AR '
Dr. Diane Sydoriak
"'
Associate Director, Speical Education
Department of Education
Little Rock, AR
Ms. Deborah Frazier
Chief of Staff
Department of Health
Little Rock, AR "
,
Ms. Tena Jones
Community Member
Little Rock Midtown Collaborative
Little Rock, AR
Ms. Cindy Shelton
Coordinator
"Governor's Partnership for Children & Families
Little Rock, AR
Mr. Odeis Wilson
Senior Policy Analyst
Department of Human Services
Little Rock, AR
Georgia
Ms. Janet Bittner
Ex~cutive Director
,
Georgia Policy Council on Families & Children
Atlanta, GA
Mr. Brian Marlowe
Director
Worth County Community Preservation
Collaborative
Sylvester, GA
Ms. Donna Scohier
Director of Program Development
Dawson County Family Connection
Dawsonville, GA
Ms. Iris Smith
Director, Office of Program Development &
Evaluation
Department of Children & Youth Services
Atlanta, GA
;
Ms. Juanita Blount-Clark
Coordinator, The Family Connection
Georgia Acadmey
Atlanta, GA
Dr. Robetta McKenzie
Executive Director
Augusta-Richmond County Community
Partnership for Children & Families
Augusta, GA
Ms. Gaye Smith
Deputy Director
Chatham Savannah Youth Futures Authority ,
Savannah, GA
State/Community Team Lists - Page 1
�A~nie
E. Casey Foundation
, Workshop on Negotiating Partnerships for Improved Outcomes
StatelCom'!1unity Team Lists
11Iinois
Mr Chris Ellerman
Executive Director
Outreach Community Ministers
Wheaton,IL
Ms. Cathy Muno
Asst. to the Director
Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Chicago, IL Ms. B'. J. Walker
Assistant to the Governor
Governors Task Force on Human Service Reform
Chicago,IL
Mr. Ed White
Governor's Task Force.
Department of Public Aid
Springfield, IL
Ms. 'Sharon ,Mumford ,
Exe«;:utive Director
Southern Seven Health
Anna,IL
Mr. Julio Rodriquez
Director
Community Research & Developme~t
Chicago,IL
Mr. Gregory Washington
Executive Director
Grant Boulevard
Chicago,IL
I
Iowa
Mr. Christopher Atchison
Director
Department of Public Health
Des Moines, IA
Ms. Sue Lambertz
Rural Development Program Manager
Iowa Department of Economic Development
Des Moines, IA
Ms. Cheryl Mitvalsky
Executive Director of Resource Development
Kirkwood Commuity College
Cedar Rapids, IA
Ms Julie -Schmidt
County Supervisor
Cass County Board of Supervisors
Atlantic, IA
Ms. Jayne Jochem
Innovation Zone Coordinator
Department of Management, State of Iowa
Des Moines, IA
.
Mr. Gary Lippe
Human Services Area Administrator - Dubguque
County
Department of Human Services
Dubuque,IA
Mr. Charles Palmer
Director
Iowa Department of Human Services
Des Moines, IA
Ms. Linda Swenson
Devoution Specialist
Iowa Department of Human Services
Des Moines, IA
. State/Community Team Lists - Page 2
�Annie E.Casey Foundation
Workshop on Negotiating Partl1erships for Impr~vedOutcomes .
State/Community Team
Mi~souri
Pat Graber
Deputy Director
Department of Merital Health
Jefferson City, MO
Ms. Gayle Hobbs
Executive Director
Local Investment Commission
Kansas City, MO
Mr. Richard Morris
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Neighborhood Services
Local Investment Commission
Kansas City. KS
Ms. Deborah Scott
Deputy Director,
Department of Elementary & Secondary Education .
. Jefferson City, MO
Dr. Roy Wilson .
Director
' Department of Mental Health,
Jefferson City, MO
Mr. Jim Caccamo
Executive Director
Partnership for Children
Kansas City, MO
Mr. Mike Hartmann
Governor's Office
Jefferson City, MO
Ms. Sandra Moore
Vice President, Work Action Team
St. Louis 2004
St. Louis, MO
Mr. Steve Renne
Deputy Director
Department of Social Services
Jefferson City, MO
Mr. Gary Stangler
Director
Department of Social Services
Jefferson, MO
.'
Nebraska
Mr. Jerry Bahr
Ms. Mary Maahs Becker
,
Department of Social Services
Lincoln, NE
Ms. Lorraine Chang
Nebraska Partnership
Lincoln, NE
Mr. Mike McLarney
President
United Way of the Midlands
Omaha, NE
Mr. Van Phillips
Superindent
South Sioux City Community Schools
South Sioux City. NE
Ms. Terry Rohren
Department of Public Institutions
Lincoln, NE
.
Department on Aging
Lincoln, NE
Ms. Alyce Maupin
"
J
"
.. ,
,
Region West Medical Center
Scottsbluff, NE
Ms. Mary Munter
Department of Health
Lincoln, NE
Ms. Jessie Rasmussen
'
.
Department of SoCial Services
Lincoln, NE
Mr. Ed Schulenberg
,
Department of Social Services
Lincoln, NE
State/Community Team Lists- Page 3
�AnnieE. Casey Foundation
.Workshop on Negotiating Partnerships for Impr~ved Outcomes
State/Community Team.
Oregon
Ms. Pam Curtis
.Mr. Chuck Dimond
Administrator'
Administrator
Social Support Investment Work Group
Community Partnership Team
Office of the Governor
Department of Human Resources
Salem,.OR
Salem, OR
Mr. Scott Johnson
Ms. Donna Middleton
Director
Director
Deschutes County Comminssion on Childreand Polk County Human Services
Families
Dallas, OR
Bend, OR
Mr. Bob Mink
Mr. Norm Monroe
Deputy Secretary
Community Investment Coordinator
Department of Human Resources
Office of Beverly Stein, County Chair
Salem, OR
Portland, OR
Ms. Jane O'Keeffe
. Mr. Mark Orndoff
Chair
Director
Lake County Board of Commissioners
Rogue Family Center
Lakeview, OR
White Citv, OR
Ms. Connie Revell
Executive Director
Oregon Option
..
Salem, OR
Vermont
Ms. Ann Dunn
Director
Lamiolle Family Center
Morrisville, VT
Mr. Jerry Jeffords
District Director
SRS
Morrisville. VT
Mr. Ted Mable
Director of Planning
Agency of Human Services .
Waterbury, VT
Ms. Cheryl Mitchell
Deputy Secretary
Agency of Human Services
Waterbury, VT
Ms. Linda Wheatley
Director
Vermont Prevention Institute Consultation
Team
Waterbury, VT
Mr. Cornelius Hogan
Secretary
Agency of Human Services
Waterbury, VT
Mr. Scott _Johnson
.'
People in Partnership
Morrisville, VT
Mr. Bill Young
Commissioner'
SRS
Waterbury, VT ,Ms. Carolyn Roberts
President
C~pley Hospital/Copley Health Systems
Morrisville; VT
State/Community Team Lists - Page 4
�.,
,
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Workshop on Negotiating Partnerships for Improved Outco'!'es
Consultant/Observers
Ms. Phyllis Brunson .
Mr. Marty Blank
Managing Partner; Together We Can Inititative
Insititute for Educational Leadership
Washington, DC
Mr. Frank Farrow
Center for the Study of Social Policy
Washington, DC
Ms. Beverly Godwin
..
. i
Center for the Study of SOCial Policy
Washington D C ·
.
Ms. Cheri Hayes
Executive Director
The Finance Porject
Washington, DC
Mr. Bill Potapchuk
Executive Director
Program for Cominunty Problem Solving
Washington, DC
National Performance Review
Washington, DC
Ms..Sara Kobylenski'
Division Director
'.
Casey Family Services
White River Junction, VT
Mr. Steve Preister
Executive Director
National Assoication for Family Based Services
Washington, DC
Workshop, Team
Mr. Ira Barbell
Senior Associate .
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
Baltimore MD
Mr. Robert Pillsbury
Senior Consultant
Sherbrooke Consulting, Inc.
Washington, DC
Mr. Bryan Samuels
. Consultant
Chicago,IL
Mr. Mark Friedman
Fiscal.Policy Institute
Baltimore .MD
Ms. Jolie Bain Pillsbury
President
SherbrCioke Consulting, Inc.
Washington, DC
Mr. Donna Stark
Senior Associate
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
.:
Baltimore MD
State/Community Team Lists - Page 5
�"
NEGOT8
DRAFr:CSSP:MF '
TRADING OUTCOME ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR FUND FLEXIBILITY
Negotiating New state Local Deals,
, for (Core) Family aDd Cblldren's Service Dollars
.
The Center for the 'Study of' Social Policy
1250'Eye Street. N\V, Suite 503
Was~gtori. DC ,
December 29. 1995
.I
'
�NEGOT8
DRAFT:CSSP:MF
12/28/95"
"TRADING OUTCOME ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FUND FLEXIBILITY
Negotiating New State Local Deals
" for '(Core) Family and Chll~ren's Service DoUars
"
I.
.
INTRODUCTION
A national debate is underway about the limits of'govemment respoDsibilityand the roles of
federal, state and local governments in meeting those responsibilities. A Central theme in this
debate involves moving responsibility, closer to the"problemS, giving states the federal funds now
devoted to social problems and allowin~ those problems to be adc:tfessed without "excessive"
federal control. Within many states there is a corresponding dialogue "about moving money and
responsibility to counties or subcounty communities', ,
What is contemplated, under the heading "devolution, " is a profound change in the relationships
" between and among "levels of government. For some participants'm this debate, the change is
about going back to an earlier and simpler time in "our" history where communities took
ownership of their problems and worked to solve them within the constraints of local values and
.
,
local resources, and without much in the way of outside money or direction." Others see, the
"return to community control" as· opening the door to renewed neglect of poor "and vulnerable
populations by state and local governments and the loss of hard won standards established in
federal and state law.
As with all such debates there is reason'to give some credence to both views. The question
which needs to be answered is less
wheth~r
we as a ,nation should embrace this direction for
change (the die is cast for extensive experimentation if nothing else), but \yheth:r we can take
these next steps in a way" which preserves the best of community responsibility without the worst
of community abuse, with the best of established standards without die worst of intrusion and
1
�,
'
red tape. Can ",e, in other words, "devolve" responsibility for problem solving in a,way which
\'
"
,
'
leads to solved problems?
, Ij
We believe the l~wer to these questions is "probably yes. " We believe that, if it is done well,
,
L
such changes my bring about not just a new
"
children.
famil~~S
sense of lociU ownership' but better outcomes for
and' communities. Creating local ownership, accountability, and ultimately
better outcomes\ involves, in part,creating new forms of iocal' "governance" which cut across
i
.
"
traditional lines:: of. state and 'iocal bureaucracy and involve. a broad spectrum of community
leaders in the c1;iallenge of improving outcomes. l The new deal which is envisioned in the best
Ii
,
of the "devolution" scenarios is between the state and such local governance entities. But the
question of
wh~:ther this' new approach to accountability produces positive or ,negative results
::
depends on how;lthis "new deal" is structured and implemented. And this matter ofstructure and,
I
•
\i
implementation,:i in tum depends on the vitality and viability of a simple concept at the heart of
I'
I',
""I
'
"
"
,
"
' '
,
any deal making: the concept of negotiation.
,
:1
'
:!
II
ll.
,i'
THE IDEA OF NEGOTIATION.
.
.
,
~
This 'paper is ab!put the kind of negotiation we think will ,be necessary to pull off the best of
devolution, to create the kind of new relationship which has a chance to improve outcomes for
children, 'famili~s . and communipes. We we will focus in this
11
p~r
.
on the questions of'
.
changing state and local relationships, the principles and approaches have direct applicability to
.
'
'
, , , changes in county community relationships, and to whatever is left to be debated about the
" I '
,'."
changes under way' in federal state relations.
.
.
:,
.
':'
I
The starting point for any ,discussion of changed state and local roles is the seemingly obvious
recognition such'~ change involves (at'least) two parties, and that they each 'have legitimate
"1'
.
'.'
.
'
lSee the disc4ssion in'section ill A below, and also the Center's working paper "Changing
GovernanCe to' Achieve 'Better Results for Childien and Families;" for' a more complete
discussion of gov~rnance issues and challenges.
I
:1
I'
,
H
Ii·
. 2'
�interests which must be carefully considered andbala.ilced in'order 'to create a stable; mutually
beneficial new relationship.
The idea that negotiation is the right approach is not one that is universally shared. The debate
about devolution tends to gravitate to'one of two rhetorical and undesirable extremes. At one end
we have those in the role 'of devolver,the state (or federal) government whose primary interest
is in shifting responsibility and limiting liability. This is the "dumping" camp, the group that
wishes to 'fmd a clean break with the old system,' which allows a simple buy-out of past roles,
in exchange for some simpler set of fiscal constraints. The best of these people believe that the
devolver should have less direct control and that local people will do better, even with less
money. The worst of this group harbors the cynical view that local people will do no better and
may do wor~e, but at least.the blame for failure will now. rest at the local, and noi state, door.
,
,,'
.
'.
,At the other extreme are those at the county or community level who, calculate the enormous
sums that the state is spending on social problems in their county/neighborhood (from welfare
costs to prison costs) and' see'the process leading quickly to a check for the full amount,' no
strings attached, "thank you very much." In this case the neighborhood view is that this is "our
money" and we should be able to spend it as we see fit. State standards or restrictions have no
place.
Neither of these extreme views can stand the test of public scrutiny. State officials cannot wash
their hands. of respOnsibility for social problems, and local' officials can not be given completely
unrestricted discretion to spend state dollars. The answer to new relationships lies not at these
,
,
,
extremes, but in the middle ground. And the middle ground can only be found through open,
good faith two party negotiation.
, The use of negotiation is not just about settliIig differences between those with mixed agendas
" or extreme views of state local relationships.' There are many states, counties and communities
in the country which are engaged in serious goOd' faith discusSions of bow to craft the right
'.
balance between state and local roles. These processes are grounded in acom.n:lonset of values
and principles about family focused, less categorical,' prevention oriented community based
service. But, in truth, these processes. have often bogged down when the discussion turned from
.
.
' , '
3
�.values and principles (and demonstration projects), to moving serious dollar responsibility to the
local level.' Part of the process of breaking this logjam lies in the recognition that local
governance entities require time to develop to the point where they are ready for serious (Le,
,
non-project). dO,lIar responsibility. The idea that such relationships must be negotiated is the
.
i
'
.
'
, . . '
.
other tool to br~ak the logjam. Unless, and until, state/local relationships are seen as negotiated
.
,I
.
'.:'
,
.
.'
.
relationships, n¥ny state efforts will remain stuck at the stage of rhetorical commitment to local
.accountability, fithOut ~ychange in realaccountabiljty or performance. And the promise of
a new relationsJlip whi~h improves outcomes mar' be lost to the ,extremist camps discussed
"
. above, or lost ~I~ogether.
,
In tht: sections
:1
I
,
~hich
follow we look at what elements need to be addressed inputting together
a new deal, some. of the issues associated with negotiating each of these elements, some ideas
,
"I""
proc~s
. about the
"
" .
for experimenting with negotiation, and fmally sOme examples of new
relationships. ~e processes used for negotiation and the agreements which emerge from such
",
·
· negotiation will
.
.
yary from place to place. We have much to learn about how these concepts can
'
.
~
.
.
.
.
'.
, be best applied ih practice. As we gain experience with these new state local agreements, we
,
il '.'
.
'.
.
hope to learn ab~ut what additional elements belQng in the negotiating framework.
1
m.
THE
.
E~MENTS
OF A NEW DEAL
~t are the eletnents of a new' state local deal which allows for the exchange ,of outcome
·
.'
'.
I
•.
accountability ~~ fund flexibility? The fo~lowing sections outline ,six, basic elements which must
,
be addressed. Taken together, these elements make up a kind of negotiating "protocol" which
'
,
I t ,
"
'.
could be used to sbcture a state local negotiatio~ process. It is important to understand that this
.
, .
I : ,
'
is not the defInitive, exhaustive list. An essential fIrst step in any negotiation ,process is.
.1.
'
.
l
'
.
'
,
agreement about what is to be neg()tiated, anq this list is .in~nded only as a starting point. in
.
I
.
,
'
.
:
•
'
.
answering this q-qestion. 'Each state and local' partner. will need to take an. active role in
,I
.
. developing, a specifIc list for their use, adding, ~btracting, changing, or maybe even starting
. \~
.
II
'..
.
, .
' .
over with a blank Iisheet.
, I
.
!l
:i
4
"
"
,
,
.'.\
n
i
,
,
I
�A word about packaging, is in order. A "deal" is a package of
interlocking, interdependent and must be taken,as
awhole.
agr~men~,
which are
The package nature of this work is
crucial. It is not possible to talk ~bout a deal in which only one or: two elements are addressed
and remaining crucial issues are left out. For a deal to be successful, it must be viewed as
,
,
complete by both (all) parties. All essential elements must all be present,. and settled to the
reasonable, it not full, satisfaction of the parties. This may seem obvious, . but, in practice it is
. '
,
not. The single best way to sabotage the deal making process is to make sure that some essential
element is not addressed, or the whole set of elements are never on tlle table at the same time.
,
"
,'We clearly recognize this principle in our private lives. 'We ~erstand what jt means to approve
a package agreement for a house, or a car. But public deal making of the type. we are discussing
",
.
'
"
here is less well understood, and less commonly practiced. The negotiating elem~nts d~scussed
below must be viewed in this way, not as isolated issues which can ,be taken in sequence over
months or years, but as 'the components of an agreement, which may change over time, but
.
"
'
which can only function as a whole.
. A.·
Who is Accountable?
Creating a Framework for Cross Systems Governance
If we are trading fund flexibility for outcome ~~untability, who, ,at ,~e local level, is the party
accountable for outcomes? Who Is to be responsible for the prudent use of new fund flexibility?
Who, in other words, is the "second party" to the new agreement?
If we' seek locaI accountability for core dollars and unproved outcomes for children and families,
what local entity can' take on this kind of accountability? In most states, counties 'and
communities, there is now no single entity which recognized as acco\lIltable for the well being
of ~hildren and families across categorical program lines. The Health Department is responsible
for health; the Board of Education for edu~tion;, the Department of Social services for welfare,
and so on. These' agencies have interlocking and interdependent roles, but 'they are not usually
the province of any single level of government. And, even where they are" they often have
overlapping roles and inconsistent jurisdictional boundaries.
'5
�I..
I
"
i
;~
"
.
'
The history of the current categorical system is a long .and
.
I~
,
,
.
comple~
,
one. It has grown up over
,
•
. 60, 2~ or. 2000 IYears, depending oil'your'point of-view. The results how~ver are unambiguous.
We have a syste,m under. which the whole chilci~ or the whole family is never the province of.
~r outside' of governinent. Eac~ agency can draw a line around some' specified
anyone, inside
. progra.rrnDatic· ~sponsibility and point' to other agencies when that boundary is breached. The
I I · '
\:
I'
.
without even kn9Wing. it; where problems of children can be compartmentalized and a "cure"
,
"
.
.
·result is a systettJ where marly agencies eandeal with the same family. and the same problems
, . .
"
1-,
sought, without tegald to the child's place in the family or community. Often these categorical
'.'
:1'
.
.
structures and stJjctures have been created or encouraged by federator state program or funding
•
I'
•
categories. We ~ve created a system where we know in great detail how money is used for
. . what program,
,f
b4i not how this relates to the bottom line results for which we created these
h
.
ptograms in the fltSt place.
II·
.
II
.
"
'I
:;
I,
We have learne<i that this approach does not work very well. Many. communities have
I
,.
spOntaneously ac~ to create a structures which provides common ground for the many different
I
::
.
players with respQnsibility for children·and families. These structures have come into existence
'I
. '
.
.
n '
under the .banner; of coordination or coliabOration, as a way to keep people informed and to
I
.
.
allow the categori~ agencies to act with the least overt conflict. Sometimes the impetus is the
need to coordina~ the work of separate agencies on behalf of a single child whose needs cross .
over agency lines.! ,As these bodies gain experience there is a natural move to more challenging
problems of coordinating policy, and eventually coordinating. agency actions on matters, of
.
' I I '
.
.
common interest sv-ch as grant applications for state or foundation funding~ Coordinating bodies
Ii'
may become
.
'
the, sponsors of plans for funding sources (like Family Preservation and Support
i
Act funds) and may even administer or allocate such project funding.
.
~
.
,
I
.
'i
'. Over time. it is ~ssible for such entities ,to take on actual "governance" responsibility for
.'
service system as
I , ·
the
.
a whole and operate with formal authority for the functioning of the entire
system. When s4Ch entities become., broad enough. to include community and parent'
representation, aJidhave the foimal sanction of th~ relevant politiCal leadership, they may have
~
Ii
'
both the credibility and legitimacy to act as . true governance entities. .This process of
.
r
development is a~ut building trust and building capacity and takes time. If we have learned
anything about cr&ss systems governance' it is th8t it is evolutionary and must follow. some
I,
,
II
./
.
II
1\
6
�developmental track like the one we have just described. Attempts to shortcut this development
have consistently lead to failure. A flIst corollary to this 'view of governance is that such growth
must be nurtured. 2 A second corollary is that development can not be· shortcutted. The "walk
,before you run"' image fully applies. This becomes most evident and mosi important when it is
applied to the business of money 'responsibility. Responsibility for allocation and oversight of
funds is an advanced responsibility which requires that governance entities have developed to
an advanced state, both in terms of trust, and also in terms of administrative and organizational
capacity.
The most appropriate second ,party
~o
the negotiation process, addressed in this paper, is a
governance entity which has developed to the point that it is ready to take on responsibility for
planning and overseeing the allocation of significant program:fimding. This does not mean that
the governance entity should directly administer thefuDds and deliver the services. In fact, this
,
.
"
is a potential trap. The business of managing serviceS can fully absorb the attention of a
governance entity and leave little time for the more importaIit tasks of planning for and steering
the system as a whole. Governance entities which are second parties to 'fund flexibility deals
should function as the board of the directors for the service system, not the operational managers
of the system's component parts.
The ,question then involves, thinking about who is now or can become accountable for child'and
family well being across agency and program ,lines and whether they have developed to the point
. '
,
that they can take on this kind 'of responsibility? There is '~growing body of literature on what ,
it takes to nurture governance entities through the early stages of their development. The
balancing act required in negotiating a
new state local fISCal deai' involves fmding or developing
a structure which has the "maturity" and capacity to manage the fISCal and fund flexibility
responsibility which comes
as part of the trade' for outcome accountability. And the deal which
is struck must recognize the continued development of local'governance entities aDd support the
, process of building their capacity.
2See the Center's paper on Building Capacity' of Local Governance Entities.
7
�,I
B.
For What Outcomes? '
ii
'
Creating a Framework of Outcomesand Indicators 'for which to·be Accountable'
i
'
If we are tradiJ;tg fund flexibility for' outcome accountability, what do we mean by outcome
accountability? r
' .' "
~
II
,
,
,I
. The term
"resu~t"
or "outcome" is used today in many different and
ofte~
conflicting ways.
Much of the national discussion of family and children's services reform,uses a wide range of
i'
terms almost in,terchangeably, terms like outcomes, results, goals, benchmarks, milestones,
I
'
indicators, and performance measures., In order to have a useful discussion of new state local
'relationships we!n:eed'a clear and consistent approach to terminology. In the sections that follow
. we will use the 'following setof internally consiStent defmitioDs. 3 .:
~
n'
I' '
\
,
'I
•
An "Outcome" or ~Result~ is a condition of well-being for children. families. or
, communities. Outcomes or results are what we want at the bottom line for our children,
families, and out communities. They are conditions li.ke "healthy children," "safe
'neighborl;100ds," "children ready for school," and "children succeeding 'in school."
Outcomes are understandable by lay people. They are about the fwldamental desires,of
citizens and the fundamental PurPose of government. They are above and beyond the
jargon ot bureaucracy. Outcomes, by their nature,cannot be "owned" by any single
government agency or system. They cross over agency and program lines.
our
•
An 'lIndicator" IS a measure, for' which data are available. which helps quantify the
achievement of outcomes. Usually, there is no smgle data element which captures
outcomes, such as "healthy births," or "children ready for school" or "~e communities. ",
It is, however, possible to identify measures which, taken together, give us an
approxiIIiktion of whether we are achieving an outcome. The rate of low birthweight
babies, f6r example, helps measllreachievement of healthy births. Surveys of reading'
readiness!1 at kindergarten entry can h~lp measure 'readiness for school. An essential
element ~f this defInitionis that the data'for aD. indicator are currently available. This is
not about! thlDgs, we wish we knew" but about real world information actually produced.
As our <lita systems get better we can add to the list of indicators.
,
ii'
,
"
.
,
'
'
3In putting .forward ~s set of defInitions there .is no intention to impose a uniform
terminology on q:..e work of state and local efforts. It is hoped that whatever terms are used in
these efforts will: be clearly set out and will help to keep distinct the three concepts noted in.this
section.
8
�.
•
"
,
.'
' A "Perfonnance measure is a measure of the effectiveness of agency or program service
delivery. This is a measure of the system's production line and how well its ,services and
programs are.working or not working. This includeS such information as rates of timely
investigation of child abuse, or applications for assistance processed on time. These are
the data sets we need to run our programs well, but they measure how well our
responses are working, not the results we are trying to achieve~'
,
II
'
".
. " . . ,
.
The most important distinction in this set of defInitions is between ends and means. Outcomes
and indicators have to do with ends. Perfo~ce measures and the programs they describe have
to do with means. The end we seek is not "better service" but better outcomes; The distinctions
.
'
will help us describe relationships built on clear thinking about what we wish to achieve and the
.
.
. "
. ~tegies we choose to get there.
The starting point for thinklng about new state local relationships is a framework of outcomes
and indicators \yhich allows negotiations to be framed in terms of improving the well being of
.
.
children, families and communities. These negotiations - and the resulting, agreement - will
almost certainly deal with program performance measures as well. But negotiatioris which are
completely preoccupied with e~sting program categories and processes may end up focusing on
,
"
the narrow questions of improving,program performance',to the exclusion of the more important
and more' . of improving outcomes. In the , of an outcome/results
difficult question
absence, .
.
"compass" state local agreements,will tend to dwell on qUestion ofhow to run the current system
better - or managethecomPetitio~ for allocated dollars- not th~ true"bottom line of improved
conditions for children, families and communities.
There is some growing ,body of experien~ with creating outcome and indicator frameworks~
.
.
,
.oregon's "benchmarks," Minnesota's "milestones," ckorgia's or Missoun's '''results,'' all
provide excellent reference points for creating similar structures in other states, counties' and
communities. Som~ guidance is available in the reading list'in Appendix F orithe processes used
to create these state structures. There are at least two questions which have direct bearing on the
question of negotiating state local relationships. Hpw broadly based is the process used to
establish the outcome/indicator framework at the state and local level? And how much latitude
should local partners ,have to diverge from an established state,l,ist The' answers to these
questions are simple in principle and complex in application. ,The development of both the state
9
�..
:
,I; ,
ii
.j}
,I
,~
,
,I' "
and local outc~me framework should be as ,broadly based as possible. Since 'this is the starting
ofthe changes in the accountability structure envisioned in the new relationship,
point for' manyl
•
"
I
•
j
,
it is essential that there be brQad and d~ support for, the framework; Ultimately, the outcomes
"
and indicators:!should have an established politic8J' base in both the executive and legislative
I'
•
_
.
"
t
.
'
branches. The principle variable in this work is time. It is possible to structure an inclusive and
,I
,
politically sound process in as little as 6 to 9 months. At the other extreme is Oregon's process
which took years to fully develop and continues to change.
,
,
,I,
.
.
,I.
. The question ,of local variability is also simple in principle. There are two mainstream
:1
i'
"
, approaches. The fIrst is Oregon's which sets~ut a very compl~ set' of indicators and allows
,
"
,
:1
.
,
•
. counties, cities:land communities to choose the most important from this list. A second approa.eh
creates a state core list which is designed to be common across jurisdictions, with the provision
"
,
:!
'
"
. , '
that local coll~boratives can add to this list in any way. they. wish. In this latter system the
process of subtraction is somewhat b.8rder but not ruled out, and is' based' o~ some common
.'
Ii',
' .
"
"
.',
sense, reading of what outcomes or indicators 'lack ~levance in total or in their stated form. If
i"
'
,
the core list approach is taken, it is essential that the list be a short one, and the process for
. developing it be v'ery broadly' based and' inclusive.
.
,
"
l'
.
\
.!
, 'A second maner' closely related to the establishment of an outcome and indicator framework is,
•
I
.
•
the qUestion ofihow sUcCess is measured within the newly created "deaL " As we will See later,
, ".', '
.. I!'
'.
. ,,' ,I:
"
, ,.'
when we talk about risks, rewards and penalties, the defInition of
.
;j
i
'!
.
,1"
"'"
"su~ss"
. . , . . '.
. , .. ,
'
is more than an
"
, '.
.
, academic matt~r. There is an entire literature about the conceptual and technical matters at issue
here. For p~bses of our discussion, there afe three 'approaches .which' need to be considered
,
.
II
'
" , '
,,'
"
in structuring ~ accol1Iltability/fleJ:,ibility'. trade. .
,
. . .'
,"
.
Ii
',I
(1)
Established Standard: The most common way to'measure sUccess (or compli8.nce)
. is it1 relationto an established standard. Success is defmed in relation to whether
~e standard has been met or not. A good example of a performance measure
standard is,the requirement that all reports of child abuse be investigated within
24 hours. There are many other examples of established' program perfOlmance
~tandards. It is somewhat less appropriate to think of outcome indicators'ili terms .
Of standards and there are few, examples of established indicator standards.
Indicators, such as high school graduation rates or rates of abuse and neglect are
$ometimes discussed in temis ofa desired condition for all children. (e.g. All our
d
.
I
, ,
10
i"
�. I
children should graduate from high schooL All our children should avoid drugs.
No child should be abused.) Fixed numeric8J. measures sound arbitrary and don't
quite work as '''stan~ds. " One example of an indi~tor where a credible standard
has been set might be the full immunization of children, as an indicator of child
. health. (e.g. the percent of two year-olds who are adequately immunized should
be at or near 100% by the year 2(00)4 " , '.
(2)
Point to Point: A second approach is "point to point" improvement. Success is
defmed as an increase (or decrease) between two points in time. Here we have
many examples of point to point· success defmed for both indicators and'
performance meaSures. We succeed if the infant mortality rate in 5 years in lower
than today. "We succeed' if the foster
caseload' goes down in the next 18
months.
.
care
(3)
Baseline: 'A third approach to measuring sUccess involves the creation of a
baseline. Success is d~fmed as "beating", the baseline. This approach is much
more complicated, but also much more realistic in complex systems with a
defmed trend line. Baselines recognize that sometimes the most that can be
expected in the' short rim is to slow the rate at which problems get worse. S .
. Of these we have a mark~ preference: for the baseline approach. (The Iowa,Maryland and
Michigan fiscal deals all use some form of baseline approach to set allocation amounts.) .
Absolute standards are ,hard to establish; and somerlmesllard to justify or sell. Point to point
approaches can be a formUla for unrealistic expectations and a set-up for failure for local
governance entities. There is a long history of government enterprise's which promised to achieve
1
•
•
•
•
absolute improvements from point A (today) to point B (3 years from now) and couldn't deliver.
While baselines take more time to cteate and expiain, they doa far better,job of capturIng the
complexity of social problems' and' are much' more fair references against which' to measure
success.
,
'.
4See Oregon Benchmarks, December 1994, page 27.
.
.
.
sSee the Center's paper "From Outcomes to Budgets" for a fuller discussion of this issue.
11
�"
, ,I.
1
,
"
,
C.
'
With What Money? .
Creating Funding Packages with Natural Incentives for Better Performance .
The deal we are t,:a1king .about involves new flexibility in the use ofmoney. What money are we
;:
talking about? The answer t9 this question' will dictate much about what has to be settled in the
,I
'
next several sections
·1 .
1. "
i
'
·Natural Glusters: The most useful way to think about the money. part .of a new deal is in
:; .
. terms of ! . .of funding. What do we mean by natural clusters of funding?
1natural clusters"
. .
·
,
These
,
)1 '
, , " , '
'"
"
at; funds or expenditures which are connected in some way which allows us to
· think of them togetitei. Two kinds of connections are, most 'important: The ,flI'St is the
connectiop between prevention arid remediation expenditures, suchu expenditures for
out of Ilome
"
Ii
II
I'
!
)1
"
I"
(foster caie)and' the expe~itures dedicated to' preventing
care
(i.J:lapprop~te) ·out of home care, such, as family preservation. This naturaIcluster of
·1
funding ~st;>ee~ ,the, ,starting point,for many. ofthe new ,state local agreements which are
n()w ,most advanced, including the Iowa Decat program and the Maryland agreements
discussed::below.
An~ther example,of a preventionlremediati~n cluster would be welfare
payments::and the job trainiD.g and placement funding 'devoted to helping people get off
,i'
welfare.
.
.
I
'I.
,
..
.
A second: kind' of natural clustet: .involves the connection between e~penditures for a
1
comm~)D
'
service or c9mmon function, such as all the ,funding in the state·budget for child
i
'
.
.
'
care; or all the funding for intake for out of home care in the child welfare, juvenile
".
I'
~;
I,
'1
"
,!
;1
,
. .
'
,
justice, and mental health systems. Here' the performance incentives involve some
possibiii~I
of' saving money 'through met:ger of services, economy of scale or other
service d~livet:Y improvements. (See Appendix.n.)
,'I
, i
There are l two reasons for thinking about "natural clusters" as a basis for structuring the
~
,
agreement First, if. the clusters are well chosen they provide a built' in set of htcentives
I·
.
,
,
... ' " .
to produ~ better results. If we save money on rerpediation, we can use those savings for
,.
.
..
more preVention. If we can fmd a more efficient way to provide iniake services, we can
,!
'.
12
�keep some or all of'those savings for other improvements in the
~ystem of services and
supports for children and families. If we can be more efficient 'or thoughtful in the use
of child care funds, we can help more people attain self sufficiency, improve child
development or meet other needs of the community more effectively.
The second reason is that we need a way to approach fund "devolution" incrementally.
a: single pot and
It. is a daunting challenge to think about throwing all the money in
striking a single deal. Every fund source brings with it a long history of cOnflicting
priorities, issues about standards, and, of course; a constituency. There are those who .
perhaps think it best. to bulldoze past all this complexity by packaging ~iSparate fund
sources and letting the chips fall' 'where .they may. We believe', that a better approach
allows the new state local relationship to grmy over time as experience is g8med and trust
.
.
is earned. Funding clusters provide a natural set of building blocks for the fmancial .
components of this incremental.approach.
2.
Core vs. Project Dollars: The most interesting new deals involve core dollars, not project
. dollars. What do we mean by project and core dollars? Project dollars tend. to be small
.
scale amounts for discretionary or
demo~tion services which mayor may not exist
, in every jurisdiction. They relate to services, which, while important in their own right,
lie at the fringe of the' primary systems of care for children 'and families .. In contrast,
,
.
core dollars are expenditures which exist in every jurisdiction and which represent a
.
,
mainstream commitment of state 'and/or local government to services and supports for
,families and children. Core dollars iriclude sUch .potential sources as fundmg for foster '
. care payments
~d
staff, welfare payments, or child care funding for welfare and
working poor families.
Giving project grants (of almost any size) to local governance entities does not change
the' nature of local remonsibility,. nor dOes it provide sufficient resources to allow local
decision making t~ have a meaningful impact on child and family outcomes. Transferring
.
,
,
control of core dollar resources, on the other hand, signifies a major change in nature·'
.
,
of local accountability, and a potential new way of solving the problems for which these,
funds were appropriated. We have plenty' of examples of local goverriai:tce entities
13
�I
"
"
"
I'
i\
"
i:
"
, receiving and administering project dollars. Competitive grant processes often suffice for
1
•.
, creating :ithe contractual
"negoti~ted"
relationships
w~ch
allow these funds to be
distribut¢d. But they are qualitatively different from any similar process applied to core
I,
':
,"
I
'I
.
:1
;1
, dollars. 1
~
,
,
"
,
.
Ii
<
'
•
•
There is:! of course, not a sharp unambiguous dividing line between core and project
.
'I
"
'
"
,
dollars., And this ambiguity has some benefit. There is good reason to believe that
1
•
control of project dollars plays a useful role in building the capacity of loCal governance
,I
"
'
. ,
'
,
'
entitiestq take on larger responsibility for the mainstream systems, of care. But project
"',I
".
re~ponsibility
dollar
rel~tions~p~:
d
: ' ,
.
,
is the starting point, not the' ending point for new state local
State local relationships that have been built around only project dollars
,
'
'
have a te~dency to get stuck there: ~elatio~hips that, are built on core dollars' - such as
~e
Iowa:l Qecat system,' or the Virginia Comprehensive: Services Act - represent
,i
'
,substantive redefmitions of state/local accountability, and provide a basis for further
':
gro~
.
.
and change .
.1
It is worth noting again, that lOCal governance "control" of core dollars does not mean
that' governance entities 'should become a new level of super, unified monolithic
, I
bureaucra~y .
'
go~ernance
Local
enQties can exercise control, without actually directly
managing:1the day 'to day operations of core children and family serVices. The purpose
!
.
I
•
of trading ',for flexibility over control of resources is to allow governance entities to make
l'
se~e
,
'
out ilof resource utilization for the
s~cific
purpose of improving outcomes for
'children artd families. This approach takes on meaning only when mainstream resources
~
I'
,
"
are on the'; table.
'I,
I'
'
,I
'il
3.
A Word about Fund Pools: The discuSsion of new flScal deals is often closely connected
i
i'
:i
to discussion of "funding pools." These are arrangements where money, previously
'.
!
""
. "
'
segregated: in categorical line items is merged with other funds in a single account. The
'most
impo~t thing to recognize about fund pools is'that they are means to an end, not
I:
A'
•
"
an end in themselves; The new state/local fiscal deal may, or may not, take the form of
a' fund
P~l.
The' ilnportant' point is 'not
whethe~ a fund pool structure
is used but what
conditi~ns;ior structures g~ with that pool. In other words, what does tJ:1e deal which is
ii
"
14
,
�wrapped around the'fund pool look like? We will address this question in more detail in
the sections which follow. At the bottom line', the contributors to ~y funding pool have
the right to negotiate the terms of their contribution in relation' to certain standards and '
safeguards and other negotiation elenients discussed in this paper.. This ~y, in fact, be'
the only feasible way, to breakthrough bureaucratic resistance to the u~ of fund pool
structures.
D.
With What Standards and Safe&Uards?,
, Reaching Agreement ,on Performance;' and Reasonable Boundaries for Responsibility
Standards come in two types. Standards can mean the minimum acceptable level of performance
or behavior. Minimum standMds address sUch basic matters aslhe misuse or diversion of funds
'
,
(e.g. Funds may not be used for 'purposes unrelated to family and children's services.) or
'
,
"minimum service perforinance .levels which must be' met or exceeded (e.g., Investigation of all
child abuse reports must ~e place within 24 hours).Th~ term "standard" can 'also mean a
sought after or, optimal 'level of performance. ("Our community standard is a 100%
immunization rate." "All of our children will graduate from high school. ")
, The matter of standards is closely linked with the matter of money, for the simple reason that
,
'
all fund sources have some basis in law which prescribes purpose and acceptable use of funds:
This ingrained system of accountability by fund source has been the most important contributor
to the current. categorical system of services' for children and families. But n.ot, all elements of ,
, this accountability structure are without legitimate purpose, and not all can be thrown overboard
in constructing· new state local relationships. The process of reaching agreement in a state local
deaI is about creating a new accountability structure to replace the old structure.
The 'problem is that we have become so gOod at 'being accountable'for individual ~tegories (the
~s), that we have failed in oUr accountability for the system as a whole (the forrest). As fund
sources are added to the deal, it will be necessary to examine each and determine, which of the
15
�:1'
jf
"
1:
<I
. ..
I.
,~
1\
"
>1
"
current requirements'should (or must) .be continued, and which should be subsumed under a
,,
,
' . ' .
,
,
, more broadly ~aSed fonn of outcome or performance accountability. This is ~ne' of the most
parti
important
of ,the 'negotiation , process, because those who have legal responsibility for
,.
,
'
'I'
I
,
'
"funding contributed to the deal Cannot release the second
.
,
,l..
•
'.'
_ .
'.
'
•
party from
-:.,
requirements attached to
"4
"
.L
.'
those fund sources" without some suitable new accountability arrangement in place. It is, of
,
I
"
course possible1 to rewrite all current restrictions into the de3I, but'such action would defeat the
,
~'"
I
'
'
purpose of a fl~xibility for accountability deal. The question is one of creativity and balance. The
If
.
:t
{!
1
Ii
'I
" ,
answer lies in specifying what' needs to be achieved, and leaving the how to achieve it, as much
II
.
'1
:1
as possible, to local discretion.
'I
;i
I'
.
.,
;1
, . '
.
Performanceminirnums are onefonn of safeguard, but there are many other matters which the
"
,
I ,
,
"
'
parties need to address. Both parties have legitimate interests to protect, fmandal'and otherwise.
.
•
•
I
, "
,
And there is a *eed to think about the boundaries of liability fqr each. This is most important
11
I
I
.
'
with regard to fmancialliability. In circumstances where. fIXed payments are made to the second
.
,
~
f~r what tna,y be open ended social needs~ there must be agreements ~n when an~ how
party
.
such payments are adjusted ,(i.e., inflation or pop~tion growth; annually) and where there are
.
.
' : .
'
" "
'
carveouts or exclusions which must, be known (i.e., local governance boards will only be
[:
il
I',
,
:""
'
'"
.
'
' , '
responsible for ~e' flI'St $80,000 of an institution8I placement). .
·i
;r.
.
.
.
I j ' , •
' . . . '
. n '
"
'
.
,
.
The deal should '~stablish an outcome/perfo~ basis for accountability ~hicb ~lows the new
.
,
",'
,
deal to meet
th~
.
"
.
legal and political tests necessary for support. Crafting a workable answer to
the. staJldards and safeguards questions ' be the make or break part. of the negotiation process.
may
.
.
,
,
~,
.,
"
d,
•'
,
. '
J '"
'
'
" ,With ~at, Risks,' Rewards and Penalties?
E.
1
':'
,
II
"
'. Creating Incentiyes and Defming Risk
•
' .
.1
,
'
' ,
:1"
,Closely related
i~ the
'
"
, ,
"
question of standards is· the
,
"
questi~n of rewards
"
and penalties. Not all
co~trilcts need t~ihave explicit reward and penalty provisions. If the, parties make goodcQoices
;:
:
,
about the funding, clusters included in the agreement, then much of the work on incentives may
I
" •
already be done':IBiit, several issues will still ~quir.e sODle level of consi~ei:ation.
"
'I
'
:'
16
,
'
�At a minimum there needs to be some specificity about the possibility .that one or, the other party
fails to live up to their commitments, and the consequences which deriv~ from this circumstance,.
up to
~d' including
termination of ~e
agreem~nt.
Some proponents of outcome accountability have argued that new relationships are meaningless
, . .
without penalties for failing to meet minimum.outcome or performance standards. The role of
penalties ~ become more important if agreements are not designed to go through some sort
. of periodic renegotiation process and there is no ready way to ,terminate relationships for
unacceptable performance.
Managed care is another form of risk "contracting." Then; is increasing interest in. the use of
managed care and other risk based contracting structures for services outside the health field.
The issues associated. with applying managed care COl)tracting principles to relationships between
.levels of government are effectively the same as·those involved in negotiating a trade of outcome
accountability and fund flexibility. It is beyond the scope of this paper to take on the issue of
ma,naged care or privatization directly. 'Suffice it to say, that managed care relationships are but
one of many different forms a new.state local relationship might take.. The use of financial risk
components in managed care or other agreements hinges on whether the second party to the
negotiations has some form
ofindependent revenue raising capability. If not, the question of real
fmancial risk is moot, and fiscal incentives must involve ,incentives associated with the fixed .
funding in the agreement.
F.
For What PerIod of Time?
/.
Creating Room to Succeed
, '
As it turns out this is one of the sleeper questions in negotiating new accountability relationships.
Most government (;ontracting is set up as either short term contracts (usually corresponding to
the one or two year budget cycle); or,' in the case of intergovernmental agreements or
memorandum ofunderstanding , as ongoing relationships with no set termination point. Neither
of these extremes may be suitable for an acCountability relationship based on. outcomes. If the
17
�"
'.
purpose of the~~w relatioru;hip is to create fmanciai incentives for prevention, and therefore for
lower long. term cost,. then' the second party must 'have a financial interest for a period which
Spans the likely" fmariciar effects of prevention inves'tments (what we will call the "threshold
:;
.,
period.") The7 are very few social prog~s which show such effects in a one .or two year
;
.,
. period. New ~lationships which are seen to exist for some period of time less than the threshold
I't
'\
,
:1
".
.
period can ac(uallycreate perverse incentives to' cash in short term solutions, . cream client
populations or;lres1:rict·service expense, .because the contract period itself denies access to true
prevention. rel~~d savings..
.1
;1
On the other ~d, agreem~nts' which are structtIred as indefmite relationships may create the
" :1
"
.
I
expectation tha~ the contract can never be terminated and therefore any standards which may
.
)
.
have been negqtiatedarejrrelevant ..
.
:
~
I
Clearly, the he~otiation process must balance these two natural extremes. The new negotiated
state local deals: must be. established as multi year agreements which recognize the long term
.
11
I ' . "
.
.
"
.'
. ' .
.
'
" nature of the cliallenge to improve outcomes for child family and community. well being. They
".
..
...
muSt also provi~e for some periodic review ~hich' allows both parties an effective means to exit
the agreement if performance of·the other party is not satisfactory.
J
.
. ' .
i
1
IV.'
,THE RESULTS OF NEGOTIATION: EXAMPLES OF STATEILOCAL DEALS
II
.
,I
\'
ii
\
,11
. There are many1states involved in developing new frameworks for statellocal accountability for
;1
'
family. and children's servic;:es. Among· those most active are' California, Iowa, GeQrgia,
Maryland, Micliigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia
'I; ,
aild Washington.
In this section. ",e. take a look at the new deals in two of these states, through' the lens of a
.
,I
'
.
negotiated tradeliof outcome accountability for fund flexibility.
'I
'il,
,Ii
,I.
"
18
..
"
i
�Iowa: Chiid Welfare DecategorizatoD Initiative .
A.
, Iowa's "Decat" Initiative, established in 1987, provides a framework for a different kind of state
local programmatic and fiscal relationship. (See Appendix E) In 1995, the iriitiative operated in
counties covering
60%
of the.~tate's population,. and coverage of all counties'is expected over
the, next several years. Local Decat boards have been formed for each participating county (or
in some cases groups of counties) with representatives from county and community leadership,
including elected leaders,' representatives fr~m the child serving agencies and from the business
and private sectors.
.
.
'
,
.
'
.
These boards have been given responsibility for fmding the best ways to care for children at risk
child
of, or in need of, out of home care. Working, With theactuai . , welfare system funds
.
, "
.
'
provided in the state budget, the boards are empowered to create a system of care which
prevents out of home
care~
when this can be done withoUt endangering' the child, and provides
quality community based care
fo~
children requiring out ofhome care. The state acts as banker
, for each of the Decat boards and controls actual disbursement of funds. Although Decat boards
do not physically control the funds, the plan for the use of funds is established locally within
broad parameters established in, the authorizing legislation. State disapproval of plans or
individual expenditures is rare. Where Decat boards are able to save money by preventing out
of home care, or by providing less expensive community
based
care, these savings may be
retained by the local boards and reinvested in preventive measures. A special provision of state
law allows for such savings to be carried over between state fIScal years.
The following summary shows how the major elements of the Iowa program relate to the six
negotiation categories discussed above.
•
Who is Accountable?: TheDecat board~ serve as the local governance entity
responsible for planning and administering the system.
'
•
For what Outcomes?: The on'ginallegislation set out to "reduce use ofrestrictive
approaches which rely upon institutional, out-of-home, and out-of-community
services." More recently, Iowa's Council on Human Investment has developed
an outcome and benchmark framework for use in statewide 'planning and
budgeting. The Council's benchmarks which directly relate to the Decat structure
,
.
' , "
19
�I
I
i'
'>
are #6: itA reduction in, the incidence of child abuse" and #8: "A reduction in the
~roportion of children n~ding to be placed out of the hQm~ due to abuse, neglect
'Qr delinquency . .,6
'
,
•
II
, With what Money? : ,The Decat boards contrQl all funding in the child welfare
.
.
apd juvenile justice system for out of home placement and for prevention of out
of home placement. This prevention/remediation Cluster provides, a natural
ilicentive to save money on placement; when this can be done safely, and
encourages ~investment of these savings in additional prevention service.
.
\1
•
It
i
".
','" '
'
. " ' ,
.
"
With what Standards and' Safeguards?: The structure maintains the pre...existing
sJandards for the quality of out of home ~ and other child welfare services.
With regard to fiscal safeguards,' allocations to decat boards are adjusted for
p<>pulation growth and inflation. In addition, the, state adjusts allocations, to the
e~tent resources pe~t, to boards experiencing unusual ,increases in serVice
#mand. The state ~banking" system for Decat boards provides some level of
safeguard. against misappropriation of funds. '
'
,I
I'
. With what Risks, Rewards and Penalties?: The most important incentives derive
f1:pm the packaging of prevention and out of home care funding as noted above.
SinceDecat boards have no independent revenue raising capability, there is no
dkect fmancial risk, but any overall deficits in the system are shared by all
Bhards in the form of reduced allocationS.
'
"
'I
"
"
i'
F~rw~t',period of Time?: Then~w structure
• supmit annual plans,subject,to state ,review., is not time limited. Decai boards
,
"
"
I
,
'
I
B.·
Maryland: Local Management Entities
Maryland's Sy~~m Reform Initiative created a "~w deal" between state agencies (Health and
I: .
•
.
Mental Hygiene, i:Education; Human Resources and JuveIiile Justice) and local go~erning entities,
which ,are kno~
'I
as Local ,Management Boards' (lMB). Under this arrangement, the state
jl'
agencies redirec~ state funds that would have been spent on out-of':'home and' out-of-state
"
"
placements to LMB's, which use the funds to suppOrt an interagency system of community-based
I
\
\
.
,i
j
,
'
. l~
,
.
'
services for children and families. LMB's conduct assessments of out-of-home placement trends
, ,,
Ii ",,'
'
"
.
'
,
,. " ,
"
'I:
"
i~
II
6Budgeting for ResUlts. Iowa's Outcome-Based Performance Budget. Technical and Training
Manual, July 1~5, page 23.
I:
'I
:1
20
�and use these data to negotiate'local plans ~d esui~lish target levels ofperfonnance on specifi~'
indicators in cooperation with the state.
LMBs ma:r earn incentive money if they meet the predetennined perfoim3nce level. and spend
less money than the state agencies' would have spent on the,same population of children~ If the
child reinains at home rather than in out-of-homeplacement, incentive payments are made to the
LMB the following fiscal year. Incentive payments are calculated at 75% of the LMB's net
savings over the amount the state would otherwise have spent. The LMB may then use earned
incentive payments'to finance the development of comprehensive community based serVices and
'
"
supports. For example, the LMB in Baltimore City has used earned incentive to fmance parent
.
.
,
'.
'
support groups,' Salvation Army. Shelter beds and services, school projeCts, respite care, summer
'youth mentoring programs, new program start-up funds, and may other community Supports~
Following is a summary' of the most important f~tures of the MarYland program in the six
,
,
, negotiation categories discussed alx>ve:
•
Who is Accountable?: 'The LoCal Management Boards serve as the local
governance entity responsible for planning and administering funding for out-of
home and preventive services. '
•,
' For what OutComes?: The primary outcome indicator used to measUre success is
'rate,of out-of-home and out-of-state,placements. The 1MB'Seeks to reduce these
rates, while maintaining children safely at home or in the community. '
•
With what Money?: The LMB's control funds ,for out-of-home care and the
incentive dollars earned on reductions in spending relative to established targets.
, ,Like Iowa, this cluster provides a natural incentive to save money on placement
when this can be done safely, and funds can be reinvested in additional prevention
services.,
•
With what 'Standards and Safeguards?: The strucnire maintains the most important
pre-existing standards for the quality of out of home care and other child welfare
.services. Allocations to.the·boards are negotiated ,based on the expected baseline
of out-of-home and out-of-state costs of care.
"
,
'.
,
':' With what Risks, Rewards and Penalties?: The most important incentives derive
from the packaging of pIC?-vention and out of home care funding as noted above.
21
�ji
, 'I
'I
"I
'
J;
.
~.
LMB's have a direct fmancial incentive in the payment of incentive dollars, for
performance at or above targeted'levels.
'
I
•
For what Period of Time?: 'The new structure is not time limited. LMB's submit
aimual.
plans, subject to state review.
:
'
"
:1
II
"
v.
,
,i
1
TIlE ESSENTIAL" ROLE OF LEGISLATION
II
"
"
:;
i
A word is in orl1erabout the, importance of legisl~tion, in this process. The new relationships
between state ~ 'local
..
e~ities must be initially authorized and eventually codified in state law.
,
"
".
,A new system of outcome 'accountability cannot rest (for very long) on th~ transitory sanction
" . '
,
~.
of a soleI)' exefutive branch,process',)t must eveJltually take the form of legislation: The
, questionwhicbi,nust then be answered is: "Why not just skip the negotiation process, write a
"
'
1
piece of legislati?n and ~ .done with it?" The answers to this question have to do with'both the
role, and form of potential legislation.
;t
II
"
"
it
\
There, are
1
·1
,
~o
:1
'
kinds of legislation which ~ be written in this area. The fJISt kind, for which
,
'I
, we have a num~r of good examples, creates a framework for the development and support of
- locaI governance ientities and structures an evolutionary or developmentaIprocess for establishing
, 'new, accoUntability relationships. Several states have passed legislation of this sort which enables
,the local 'govel'Illkce entities to build capacity over time. This
" I
"
V
!~
'
structure enable the creation of
an array of possible new deals between the state and ,the new local governance entities.
I'
' ,
..
.
,
,
, (California, Georgia, Missouri, Oregon, Washington) '
I
,
','
"
A second clas,s' qf legislation provides for, the cC?dification of a more specific ,"fle~ibility for
outcome accO~biJityll deal for sonie portion of, the funding now devoted to family and
children'~ servi~s: ,This differs (rom th~ fJISt set of legislatio~ in that the funding on the table
, and the nature of:ithe new relationship is mQre' clearly ,spe,cffied~ law, A few states have laws,
of this'latter
I .
tYPe.
.
'
,
The Iowa' and Maryland programs are described above. Virginia's
I
,
Comprehensive Services Act provides for an allocation of nearly $100 million to l~ boards
which decide on Ithe u,se of fuDding for children at risk of out of home care. It is important to
,
~ote that this ~h' of legislation diffe~ markedly from the older state laws which established
"
22
,.
, 'I
�county operated service systems in the first place. These laws.were generally sttuctured to pass
. down the current state and federal ~tegorical requirements with weak or non-existent outcome
accountability sttuctures, few if any provisions for cross system coordination, and significant
constraints on local flexibility.
Legislative support and actual legislation is essential to the effectiveness of any process to
establish new state local relationships. The idea of negotiated new relationships is fully consistent
with the need for change in state law'. Negotiations can be used to learn 'about, viable sttuctures
which are later fully codified as new formal relationships available. to all jurisdictions.
Legislation which authorizes new local governance entities can provide a framework w'ithin
which this learning can take place. '
States. which have already enacted laws establishing new, funding relationships can use
negotiation to build out from the initial· agreements to incorporate more fully the. whole set of '
resources which can be made available to local decision makers. Where state laws are written
for a small defined set of project or discretionary dollars, it can be difficult build out from this
initial agreement. Negotiation processes can be used to get the developmental nature of this work
. unstuck and back on track.
It is, of course, possible to think about the negotiation process as a
b~
drafting process from
the beginning. There are some proponents of reform who think .they know. with perfect certainty
what the deal should look. like and.howsuch legislation should be crafted. ,We think the best .
legislation will be of the type that establishes a framework for outcome accountability, supports'
the progressive development of local governance capacity" and which allows the resulting deal
to' vary in response to. differences between counties and communities. The goal of this change
is not to' replace the current rigid state system with an equally rigid county or community
system, but to allow local people to use new flexibility to solve problems. This goal is best
achieved by 'legislation which allows the balancing, of accountability and flexibility to be
responsive to local needs.
23
�i '
VI.
THE
LINK TO OUTCo.ME-BASED DECISION MAKING AND BUDGETING
I,
, The' new deal established between the state' and counties/communities creates a new ,kind of
accountability for making the best use'of resources to improve outcomes for children, families
I
'II
'
,
'
and communiti~s. How counties and communities exercise this new authority will determine
whether this rl¢W arrangement is a success or failure. If local governance entities adopt
ttaditional categorical decision making and budgeting systems, they may well do no better than
,
~
,
,
"
,
replace the old ~gement with a different way to channel the same dollars to the same service
system. The ou~omes we can expect will also be much the same.'
If' the results ale to, be different, then the new deal will require' new approaches
.
I .
to decision
.
'
making. Local governance,entities will need to structure decision making systems which start
, with the outco~es they wish to achieve/improve'and work backwards to 'the most effective use
of resources to get there~ This new kind of decision maldrig process ,is described in the:Center
,paper:nFrom <:>Utcomes, to Budgets; An Approach to' Outcome Based Decision Making and
Budgeting for ~amily and Children's Services.
'
I
,
"
"
11
"
Vll. ,CONCLUSION
.
l,
'!
1
i
The question, mti1st be ~ked: Can we affor~ to have a separate arrangement with each county and
community in the United States? There are over 3;000 counties, over 15,000 schO()I districts,
and, many more '¢itics and' towns. Embedded in this structure is an overlapping array, of things
people consider ilcommunities, or neighborhoods, which for good reason defy simple or strict
, ,
"
. ;:
'1
,;
"
"
'n
'i
,
I
1;
I'
.,
"
'I
,I
,I
,
'
'
"
"
'
"
"
defInition: Is it possible to 'have a coherent and effective "system" if each of these elements in
:1
.
our 'political faDpc are different? The answer' is at once sttaightforward and complex. Eaoh
county, city" co4unUnity~, neighborhood and sChool district is already different. The question is'
not whether we :ican live with divers'e responses to social problems, but whether we can live
without it. As noted at the beginning of this paper, the logic of think:iDg' about' community level
solutions has' to do with the very same need to' ~make sense" of the fragmented and
I
'
"
"
irreconcilable sxstems, which only manifest themselves at one time and in one place: the
community. It iSii in fact, our best hope, that having failed to make much headway in fIXing the '
(
,
'
,
II
~
'!
I! '
24
�grand system of health. education and social services in state capitals and Congress, that our best
chance may be with the people who need use .and manage these services at the local leveL
The approach to negotiation presented in this .paper is not intended to suggest that we· must
inevitably, individuaHy negotiate separate deals with every county and every community. The
immediate relevance of negotiation is as a means to break the logjam of rethinking roles and
responsibilities in those states, counties and communities which are experimenting with new
arrangements at the leading edge of this work. What . . from them. may tell us how to
we learn
codify pieces of these struetures'so that they do not have to be rediscovered in a separate proCess
.
,
with every separate community. We will learn where the limits are in balancing economies of
scale and local responsiveness, common needs and variable needs, and of course, flexibility and
accountability. We will learn in essence where negotiation figures in the long term formulatiOn
of a system which can be the things our rhetoric says we want: a family focused, prevention
oriented, community owned system of services and supports which produce better outcomes for
children and families. If the process of negotiation does nothing more than advance our learning
about what is possible toward these ends, it wiil have served its purpose.
25
�_
Trading Outcome Accountability for Fund Flexibility
Appendices
A.
Examples of Outcomes and Indicators
B.
A Negotiation Workshop Process
C.
Characteristics of LocaI Governance
D.
Examples of Natural Clusters of Funding
E.
Documents from Actual Deals
1-. Iowa Decat Legislation: rIte' ~hild welfare deal archi~cture
2. Michigan contract: A specific deal for foster care caseloads
F.
Additional Reading
�Appendix A
Examples of Outcomes and IndiCators.
This appendix provides examples of outcome and indicator lists developed.
as part of state and community efforts in Missouri. New York. Oregon.
Vermont, and Georgia. Also attached is a composite list of outcomes and .
indicators which can be used as a discussion tool in processes just
beginning to work with outcomes and indicators. '
"
�Sorin:fieJd. Vennont
PeOple Worlcing at Sasisfying lobs :
"
;1
I
~
'I
it
':
1i
SucceediDg in School
,i
Families B'eaJtby'and Safe
11
A 'rimving; Attractive' CommunitY " '
.:
.'1;
.
"
"
."
~onimlle,
Veanont
• I
The eommUDity will provide the environment for:
1.
Each cmId to be physica.Uy safe, emotionally sc:t:Ure and supported by an elements
: of tbe community.
!
•
2. ,: Each cmId to be able to achieVe hislher fun potr:ntial in terms of academic sla1ls,
: which allows for ftu:un: opporamity and choicCs,a ud social and per.soaal ,
:~
.
,
••
,.
l'
3. ;: Each cmId to be a lifelong Iea:mer with inteIJertnaI c:urlosity, the skills to solve' ..
,problems and to be able to communica~ in a Variety of ways. .
~
,
l'
11
-
4.
.
:,; &.ch child to become n::soonsible fOr hisIher own choices
.
.
~I advanc:ment of the community.
'
I
,
!
"
,I
'
'
and' to CODttibute to. the
'.
�~r1SS0uti
F:lmilv Investment Tmst
Healthy c:hild and Youth Development (Children Ready to ,Enter B:Dd Succeed in
SchooD
Rate o( infant and youth mortality
Rate o( infant low birthweight
Immunization rate o( 2~ye.u-olds
Rates o( sexually transmittetf' diseases
Alcohol and drug abuse rams
E:tpanded acce:ss ro devc!opmenaD.y appropriate, early, are and education
'Incidenc: o( cIiDical depression
'.
..
.
Rate o( ~g re:ufine:ss. at school entry
AveI3.:,oeeducUional achievement (or age
Graduation CUI:S o( 7th a:Qd 9th p2ders
Incidene: o( (etal alcohol and ~ trauma.
.
Strong Neighborhoods and Families (Children and FamillesSale ad Healthy)
Rate o( parental child abuse and neglect
'
Rare of r=n pregnancy
Rate o( out-o(-home placement
, Ra.res,o( delirIquency and habitual delinquency
Rare'o( cfWd support default
,
Inc:rcued resident involvement in neighborhood-based collective action
Rare of violent crlmes
Rare o( spousal abuse
Average number o( .residents per housing tiDit
Percentage o( income paid (or rent '
Income above poverty
,
Inc:eased •success- o( neighborhood collective aCtion
' ,
morts
Parents Working
,
Perc::ntage o( bigh school graduates with BA or higher . '
~ COmmUnity unemploymClt cue
"
,
:'
High school graduation nue
,. '. lobs in necN or expanded c:ommunity-ba.sed businesses
P=rc::llJge o( bigh school g!3duares with other post-seconcfary deg:re:
Employment-to-pOpulation ratio
.
P:n::nl§e' of high school graduates employed within 90 days
ACC'"Ssib~ty of transportaJ:ion from collUJ1wlity rowork ad child ca:n: sites ,
Sour::: F=iIy JDve=ie= T:=. "Ouidcii:zcs for ieee_ a C4:IIZU:WuCY hrmu:dUp, For Families ml
Caildr=..· ORAFr. Oc=obet. 1994.
.
�,
,
,
"
,
Qregon ·Urgent Bencl1mnrks"
"
J '
'
,
,
'
NIi:rtDre ChDdren, St:reD.a,athen Falli.iJies
Reduce teen pregnancy %3.teS
Improve early childhood development "
"Reduce a=n drug use
, 'I
'I
!
"
I
"
"
I;
"
Impnrre Public Safety
'I
R.educ: juvenile aime
,
l'ncn:Lse the number', of communities involved in commumty-based law
'enforcement p!mming
J!
"
,
School Graduates the ESential Skills Needed tor Success in Lire
IIlaea.se the number of high school Students who meet the stuldards for a
, ~ of initW mast=")'
Giv~ High
,
!I
,
!...eave No One Behind in Oregon IJfe
Reduce the pcc:ntage of Oregonjans ",ho ,live in poverty .
i
:1 IIlcn:.ase the pc:rc=ltage of our high school graduates going OIl to college
, Maintain or increase the share of emploYment among.Oregonians ,who live outside
the Willameue ValleY
,I
~t
Ij
...
I'
1',
1/
I
ii
Ina:base Health' Care A.ccess, Effectiveness'
"'
,
,, Improve the economic acc:ss, of Oregonians to health'care
I
Stabilize and reduce BIV cases
~e Community I.iYabmty ,
"
',' ,
Improve air quality
,: Reduce housing costs
:
..
Protect Natural Resources
: Inc:e3Se wild salmon rubs
: Protect waa:r quality" ,
I
..
j
...
'
•
•
•
,
Imp*ve PUblic Serrice Delivery
..
'i Increase agenees who use performance measurc:s
,I"
. •
1J
",
"
II· .. .
~ On:aocl Propess Board. Oregcp 8eftc!unria: StaDdards ibr'MeasuriftJ Stlrew;de 'hams'! ud
,
Tswimtfop!l briol !P!!:!C!!. Reporqp die 1995 t..msfamre. ~ 1994.
,
'I,
"
,
�Rochester. New York CHA.i'lGE Process
Healthy Births
,'
Reduction in low birthweight babies '"
Early and' amtinuous preDatIl care '
Fewer birtbs to school-age females
" ,Children Re:ldy tor School
, ompleted immunizations
C
,,
No uncom:cted vision or'he:uing defects
No untr=ted health 'problems ,
"
Obse:vable school readiness traits '
Children Suc:ceed.ing in, School·
Regular atte:1~
,
Slaying in school, fewer dropQuts
, , Fewer suspeosiollS,
Academic achieveme:tt
,
Gnduation to employme.'1t1pOst-secondary educatiOn'
Young People AvoidiDg Risk Behaviors
,School-age pRgJl3Dcy
Subsrance abuse
.
Iuvenile cleIinquency
A.m:sts for violent cimes
Fa.m.uy StlbiIity: ~
"
Safe and supportive living environment
Sc.iool stability
.
, ~g above poverty ,
E:nployment'
Reduc:d child abusefnegIea
."
,
�I,
)i'
!,
:1-:
"
, Ii
, GEORGIA'S
BENCHMARKs FOR ClHLDREN AND FAMILIES
"
;;
, i'
IMPROVED C1ULDHEALTH: HEAL1HY CHILDREN
Core
Increase the percentage ofinfmts born (1) weighing 2500 grams [5.5 potmds]
or more; (7) to mothers,receiving prenatal care in the first trimester; and (3) to
mothers who did not smoke or drink dUring pregnancy.
,
Increase tt;te percentage ofchildren approPriately immunized by age two.
Reduce the pregnancy rate among school-age girls;
,I
•
,:: . ' 'Next Generation/Optional ,
Reduce the teenage homicide rate.
, , ' ," ,
'
Increase tqe percentage ofyouths not uSing alcohoi, tobacco; or illePI drugs
Reduce th~ percentage ofchildren haVing untreated vision and hearing
problems ~ school entIy.,
il
'
IMPROVED CHILD DEVELOPMENT: CHII,DREN READY FOR
SCHOOL
Core,',
.
the percentage oflow-Dicome stUdents in H;ead Start or Pre- '
Kindergarten programs. .
,"
. Increase the percentage ofkindergarten students in pre-school or child care
, , programs..: '
'
,
Increase the percentage ofkindergarten students passing the Georgia
Kindergarten Assessment Program.
.
Reduce the percentage ofstudents who are two or more years overage in the
third grade.
'
, .
Increase
'/
I'
"
,
.,
"
.;;
,1
IMPROVED SSCHOOLSUCCESS: CHILDREN SUCCEEDING IN
.
.'
SCHOOL
Core
o ReduCe th~ percentage ofStUdents'who are absent ten or more daYs from
school.
o IncreaSe the percentage ofstudents performing above state standards on
cmricul1Dll~based tests at grades 5 and 11.,"
',.
o Increase the percentage ofstudents scoring above national median on normed
achievemeht tests at grade 8.
"
o Increase th~ percentage of ~dents whogradtiate from high school on-time.
':
,
,
Source:· RepOrt to the Policy COuncil for Children and Families, by'
The Results Accountability Task Force, December 1995
•
II
'. .
:1.
.
�Next Generation/Optional.
o Increase parental involvement
.
.
o
o
o
o
o
'
.
.
'
. IMPROVED FAMILY FUNCTIONING: STRONG FAMILIES
Core.
.
Increase the percentage ofnew families with (l) mothers who cOmpleted high
school; (2) mothers who are age 20 or older, and (3) the father's name .
recorded on the child's birth Certificate. . ' . '
.
Reduce the percentage ofteenage mothers who give birth to another child.
Reduce the confirmed incidence of child abuse or neglect. . :
Increase the percentage ofchildren in foster care who are placed in a
permanent horile.·
.
. .
Reduce the percentage ofyouths arrested.
.
.
IMPROVED ECONOMICCAPACI1Y: ECONOMICALLY SELF
SUFFICIENT FAMILIES
Core
o Reduce the percentage ofchildren living in poverty....
.
o Reduce the percentage of fema1e-headed families with children living in
. poverty.
. '.
.
o Increase the percentage ofAFDC recipients who leave public assistance
because ofemployment or higher incomes.
o Increase the rate ofgrowth in employment.
o Reduce the unemployment rate.
.
..
. Next Generation/Optional
o Increase affordable, accessible,' quality child care~ .
.
.
Source: Report to the Policy Council for Children and'Families, by
The Results Accountability Task Force~· December 1995 .
�.
"
'DRAFT 8/J/95 .
.
,
A' WORKING LIST OF' 01JTCOMES AND INDICATORS .
HEALTHY BIRTHS .
Rate of low birthweiqht babies
Rate·of' l.ate or no prenatal care
.
Rate. of; disease at birth includinq fetal alcohol, druq
addict~on and HIV
'.
.
..
.
Rate of alcohol, tobacco and other druq use by preqnant women
Infant m~rtality rate
H
\\
. ;'
HEALTHY CEILDREN AND ADOLTS
, .
*Rates of :idisease and death for children and aduJ. tS "
*Wellness I~measures
, Chi~dren who are fully immunized
Percent of, children and adults with health insurance
*Adequate ::care for'
"
"
,,
'.
'eld~ly " diableg' and other special needs' populations ,
,
.:.',
I
.
'
CHItDREN READY, FOR SCHOOL
_ ,
*Percent o~ children ltinderqarten teachers believe are prepared
to' partiCipate successfully, in school '
·
'
, , *Heasure ,of rate ,at which children are screened for and receive
services for develop1liental disabilities
*First qra~e success r a t e '
" '.
CHIt.oRENSUCCEEDING IN SCHOOL
Beadinqand writinqscores
Hath'scor~s
'
. ,
Attendanc./truancy rates'
, '
Percent 9ta<luatinq' from hiqh sc~ool on time ,
Percent of teens not in school and not in labor force
COntinuation rate to additional trai:ninq or education
"
:\
, YOtJNG PEOPLE-, AVOIDING TROUBLE
~een prenancy rate
SUbstance:abuse rate
~een violent death, rate (accident, murder arid suicide)
Rate of violent juvenile crime . ,
'I
,
Ii
,'I'
STABLE
Ii
. :i
I
•
.
FAMTI.TES '
Children £n out of home care - rate of placement
Divorce rates
'.
,
Cbild abuSe and neqlect (rates 'Of incid~nce and reportinq)'
Spouse ~e rate
,
,
II
' •
ADEQt1A~ INCOME
ra~e (100% and 200%
FAMn·ns WITH
of poverty)
UDe:mploymer,1t rate'
Home1essness rate'
*Access ~ ~forc1able housinq
Poverty
:1
I
.1
J(
,
"
Ii
I'
Ii
;\
li
..
Ii
,.
,~
\
"
~
it
.1
SAn: AJID SUPPORTIVE COMHmr.ITIES
, criJae victimization rate
. Voter part~cipation rate
*Social isolation measur.
* More work is need to identify indicators for which data exists.
..
'
�Append~
B·
A N~gotiation Workshop Process· .
This appendix provides an outline of a negotiation workshop process which
could be used to experiment with negopations between state and ·local
participants. The process may'be used to produce a more refmed version of
a negotiation protocol, or could produce an actual working version of an
. agreement.
�};
.I), ,
DRAFT 12/95 •
Trading Outcome Accountability for Fund .Flexibility
Negotiation Workshop Process
This is a group process 'design which can be ,used to experiment with two party negotiations
necessary to prOduce a new state local deal. The·process could be used to 'role play the process
and learn about the dynamics of the negotiation process. Or the process could be used to produce
." "
,',
,
a working veI$ion of an actual agreement..
•
' I "
.
'
1.
Setting::: The most important part of this process is that it be conducted in a setting where
partiCipants feel'safe to experlIDent with ideas, and. positions. The setting 'must therefore
be one ~here the confidentiality of the process is fully respected.
2.
Create
negotiating teams: One team represents the state. The second team represents
a specific local jurisdiction (county or community) governance entity. Each team should
include DO more than two or three ·"players. " When the process is used as an experiment,
it is best if the players know each other and have developed some level of trust.
3.
Designate two "impartial" observers: The observers will not participate in any of the
discussions, 'but will report on how the process worked at the conclusion of the exercise.
One obServer will be assigned to each team. The observer will sit in on the private
caucuses of'the team as ,well as ',the two party part of the process .
4.
The proCess will proceed in three stages. Each stage consists of three parts. The three
parts
(1) Each team caucuses and agrees on negotiation objectives (what would be
an optimal and a min j ma11y acceptable agreement); (2) The two teams meet together and
'try to Ieflch an agreement; (3) Each team caucuses and debriefs the process so far .
..
I!
'I
I'
two
are:
.
"
"
The three stages are:
(1)
I
Ii
Governance and Outcomes: Seek to reach agreement on what local governance
entity is to be the responsible second party to the agreement; And agree either on .
~ outcome/indicator framework, or a process for getting one.
.
"
,\
'
,!
(2)
Money. Standards and Safeguards: Seek to reach agreement on what packages of
~g, the local entity can control under the agreement, what kind of flexibility
~ be allowed, and what kinds ofboundarles (standards and safeguards) need to
be maintained for both parties.
II
I;I .
•'
'
lfthere is no ready made answer on what money to consider, begin this
stage of the process by brainstorming a list of natural clusters (see section
!VB of the paper) 9f funding wlUch might be candidate elements of a deal.
�. Put this 'list in priority order, and try to work through the process with
one of the top three clusters.·
.
•
(3)
With regard to standards and safeguards, the fIrst step may be to develop
a list of areas where standards and safeguards are needed, and then place
them in two categories: essential and secondary. The goal of this process
should be to produce the shortest possible list of standards and· safeguards
that both parties can live with.
Risks. Rewards. Penalties; and Time Period: Work tbrOughthe incentive structure
.which will "surround" the core deal. Agree on a period of time for the new
arrangement to operate,and a process for renegotiation or termination.
5.
Draft: At each stage 'above, produce·a short written version of.the best agreement the
parties are able to achieve, before moving on to the next stage. When the three stages
are complete, take the full set of written agreements and consider the agreement as a
whole. Discuss any changes or adjustments which are now necessary.
6.
Debrief the process: Each team, followed by the observers, should comment on: (1) what
worked and what didn't work about the process; (2) obstacles and possible solutions
7.
Next steps: ConSider what next steps the group wishes to take. If the process produced
a worbble draft, it may be possible to agree on a process for refming this and using it
with a larger audience. The group may have suggestions for modifIcations to the process.
If no agreement can be reached, the group may wish to schedule another time to "tty
again."
.
,
�I,
I
Negotiation Worksheet
I'
A. stage
t
~i
1. Whg 1& ':A~~Q3,lDti\bl~?
fi
,
2. lQ;a: !lllAt tU.1t"Q.m~§ ?
I'
il
B. stage ]I'
"
!
1. with what Money?
2. !lith Wh~t StandArds?
,
",
,
'3. With What
Sa fegua.;a:ds ?
",
II
1
C, stage
i'
I'~I
1. With What Risks. Rewards ahd Penalties?
"
,i
'I
"
'
2. lor What Period gf T1me?
,
~
31
�Appendix C
The Characteristics of Local Governance
•
Take sustained responsibility for designing and implementing strategies to
achieve clearly defmed outcomes for families and children
•
Operate according to a set of principles concerning service delivery and a
communitY's commi~ent to its families aJ?d children
•
. Have legitimacy and credibility to adequately represent local residents •
. communities. and state and locaIgovernment.
as necessary to
•
Influence the allocation of resources across systems
accomplish the desired outcomes.
•
Maintain standards of accountability for individual systems. as well as for
the community as a whole, concerning the agreed upon outcomes for
children and families.
Source: Changing Governance to Achieve Better Results for Children and Families. A Working
CSSP. June 1995 .
.
~.
�J
•
Appendix D.
Examples of Natural Clusters of Funding
..
A "natural ,cluster" of funding is a set of expenditures linked either by common function,
or by a prevention-remediation relationship. Following are examples of each type of
cluster. By packaging funding clusters together, ·it is possible to create natural incentives:
incentives for efficiency in the case of function clusters, and iricentives for prevention in
the case of prevention-remediation clusters. In contrast, packaging disparate funding
.sources together may· simply move the problems of resource allocation to a different
level of government or different group of players, without changing the incentives for
peIformance or the nature. of the allocation process. .
Function Clusters
.• All funds for intake and assessment across child serving systems (CW,
II, MH, Ed)
• All child care funds
• All funds for job training for welfare recipients
• All education funding for a given area or group of students (the basis for
charter schools)
Prevention Remediation Clusters.
• .Combined funding· for out of home care plus funding for prevention
efforts designed to reduce inappropriate utilization of out of home care
(such as family preservation services) (the basis for Iowa's·
Decategorization law)
.
.
.
• Combmed funding for job training and support for welfare recipients
plus funding for some or all welfare payments which might be prevented
• Combined funding for teen pregnancy prevention plus some portion of
:welfare and Medicaid costs associated with teen births
�Appe~dix
E
Docwnents from Acnial Deals
Following are some of the documents which capture either the actual' content' of
state' local deals for core dollars, at the legislation that provides the architecture
for establishing such deals.
'
Included are the following
-.
Iowa: A copy:of the state's Decategorization legislation from '1987; plus an
exCerpt from the Des Moines Region Child and Family Services Plan for
'
FY 1996.
Michigan: A copy of the agreement between the state Family ServiCes
Administration and the Wayne County Department of Social Services for .
October I, 1993 through September 30, 1996.
�IOWA
Decategorization Legislation
'.
1987
~
,
,
, ' HEW
.
-.
SECTION.' "232 ~ 188 DECATEGORIZATION, OF CHILD WELFARE ~ING
1. Decateqorization of child welfare fundinq is intended to
establish a 'system ,of delivering human services based upon client
, ,needs to replace a system based upon a multitude of cateqorical
,programs and fundinq sources, ,each with ,dlfterentservice, '
detin!tions,and ,eliqibility re~ements. ,The pUrposes ot
aecateqorization include ~ are not limited to redir.ectinq child
'veltare f~4;ing ,to services which ,are more 'Preventive,
tamily-centered, and community-based in order to, reduce use of
'restrict!ve i~pproaches which rely upon instit;utional,
out:-ot-home" and out-of-community, services.
.
;i
2'., In part.li8rs~p with ~an interested county' or 'group of counties
whiCh has demonstrated the commitment and involvement of the
, a:ttected c~ty depart::ment of human services, JuVenile court '
'system, and board of superviso~,' the department shal.l develop
agreements providing for the deeategorization of specific state ,
, and state-federal funding. categories into a child weUare funding
.pool 'for that coUnty or group ,of, counties. ' A decateg'orizatio~
iIlgreement shall require the'decategorization program to· be
implemented by a' decategorization qovernance board. ,The
decategorization governance board shall aevelopspecific,
qUantifiable'short-term and lonq~term plans for enhancinq the
co~ty's or group of counties': family~centered, and ,
,c01'lUliunity-based services and redUcing reliance upon
.
out-of-community care. The affected service systems shall
include child welfare and juvenile justice systems. A
aecateqoriza~ion agreement may vary depending upon the approaches
selected by the county or group of counties which sball be
aetailed in an annual child welfare services plan developea 1:»y
the aecateqorization qovernanceboard. A decategorization
qovernance bqard shall involve community representatives and
county org-anizations in the devel0tnnent of the plan.
3 .. ' The child welfare funding pool shAll be used by the county or
.'group of counties to provide more flexible, individualized,
,
,family-centered, .p~ventive, c:om:mtmity-based, comprehensive, and
'coordinatecl se:vice ,systems for children, and' families servea, in '
that area. The decategorization of the funding shall not lim!t
the leqal rig-ats of those children and families to services, but,
,sha'11 provide more flexibility to the partnerShip county or
counties'in ,~espondinq -t:o individual and family Deeds.
.
,.
I:.
4. In a decat,gorization agreement, the department and the
county· s or group of counties I decategorization qovernance l:toard
shall agree QD all of the .following items: the governance·
relationship:between the' depart::ment· anet the decategorization ,
governance board; the respective areas' of autonomy of' the
department and the 'board; the budgeting'. structure for the
decateqorization; ;utd a method for· resolvinq ,disputes between the
f ' , ·
.Ii
•
•
'
:
..
�': ~'.
elepartment anei. the boarel. The elecategorization aqreement shall
requir.e the elepartment anel the elecategorization qovernance boarel
to aqre~ upon a buelqet on or' before June 15 of the fiscal year .
preceding the fiscal year to which the buelqet applies. The
budqet may later be moelifieel to reflect new or chanqec1,
·circumstances.·
' .'
5. The state shall proviele incentives for a county or counties
to participate in a elecateqorization aqreement .while 'maintaininq
an expectation that the service outCC)Jl1es for children and
families can be improved by the fuiuiinq flexibility, and the
redeployment of fundiriq. currently available fo~ services within
the system. Honeys in the chilel welfare fundinq pool established
for a county or qroup of. counties participatinq in a '
.
d;ecateqorizati~n aqreement which remain .unobliqated or unexpended
at the end of a 'fiscal year shall remain available. to the county
or qroup of counties elurinC1 the succeedinq fiscal year to finance
other child welfare service enhancemt!l1t:.s.
. .
6. Initially the department shal~work with th~ five .counties
previouSly authorizeel uneler law ~o 'enter into elecateqprizatiori
aqreement:.s with the state. At a minimum., any of those counties
may elect to use fundinq for foster care, family-centered.
services, subsidizeel adoption, child. elayare, local purchase of'
service, state juvenile iilstit:.ution care, juvenile detention,
depart:ment direct, services, anel court-orc1erec1 services for
juv~les in the child welfare .funel established for that county.
'7. The annual chilel welfare services plan developeel.by a
decateqorization qovernance·boarel'pursuant to.subsection 2 shall
be su.bm.itted to the department and..the statewiele decateqorization
and family preservation committee. In addition, 'the. board shall
submit an annual proqress report to the .elepartment anel the
copittee which .summarizes the proqress maele toward attaining the
obj ectives contained in.. the plan. " 'l'h~ proqress report sball
serve as an opportunity for information sharinq .anel feedback.
'.
,', .
��I,
PERFORMANCE
AGRE~N'l:
THE FAMILY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
AND
THE DEPAR~NT OF SOCIAL SERVICES LOCAL OFFICE
For the County of
I.
I.
Wayne
GENERAL PROVISIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this agreement is to establish the
mutual· role and resource responsibilities between
the· Family Services Administration eFSA) , and the
local :county Department of Social Services. It
allows for deployment of Foster Care funds to in
home services on the condition that there will be
at least a corresponding out of home Foster Care
savings.
This agreement specifies the amount and
. use of programmatic resources needed to achieve the
goals designated below:
A.Prevent the removal of children from their
homes due to abuse; . neglect or
juvenile
delinquency through the provision of services
to their families.
B.
C.
II.
Accelerate the return of .children to their
families '. through the provision of remedial
se,rvices ,thereby increasing the chance for
permanent reunification of the family.
Provide in' an expeditious manner, permanent,
stable~
supportive family alternatives for
.those children whose family crises cannot be
remedied.
F .S.A.· 'OBJECTIVES
The programmatic and fiscal objectives for
Performance Agreement are specified below:
.
'
this
.
A.
. B.
J
Reduce the end-of-month count of children in
out of home care .. '
"
.Increase funds supporting in-home services
through a redirection of cost ,savings from out
o~-home expenditures.
I
III.
DSS LOCAL OF!ICE OBJECTIVES
Local offices are' expected to address all six
objectives whether: or' not an improvement is
expected.
�,,'
, .:
,
\'."
The,DSS Local Office
"
\"
,
l,
,,' j
,
.
~I
,1. Decrease, ,the nUmber of: Children' s Protective
Services Case closures with one or more
,children ,out of home from 1246 to 1209 during
each' "year of this agreement. (The, base is
det,ermined by ridding the most recent, four quarters on the
'Management Information Report (MlR) under' the headings
entitled "P.S. Closure with ", "Child Out Of Home." The
Outcome is for the four quarter total after the executed
agrl!ement.) ,
;'2 .
:!
.\[
,\
objectives are as follows:
,Oecreas~, then'umber of children in the Foster
Care ,program' residing in an out of home
, placement from 5584 to ~ during each year of
,the agreeJfle~t . (The base is determined by aueraging
the,most recent four quarters on the MIR under the
hei:z.dingsof '''Out' Of Home, Care", "Foster Care". The
outcome, is the' loUr quarter, average after execution' of
'the agreement. For each child reduced, there is presumed
to be. $10,000 available for redirection.)
'
•
3." Decreaj$e the number of' youth in the delinquency
program,residing ~utof home from 1358 to 1342
during' each year' of this agreement. (The bciU'Ts
determined by, aueraging the most recent four quarters' on
the MIR under the' headings of' "Out of Home Care ",
"Delinquency". 'The ,outcome is the (our quarter average
'after exe~ution of' the ','agreement.' 'For each reduction,
there is presumed to be $lO,()OO auailable for redirection.)
,
.; "
, I
:1
"
,I
"
"
Il
\\
4. Decrease'the'number ofchlldrenresiding 'in an
'institutional living arrangement from 1552 to
ill£,during each year of this agreemen~(The
'base is determined by averaging the most recent, four
quarters on the MIR.' under the, headings, of "Out of Home
Living Arrangements, ,"Institute"., The outcome is the four
, quarter average after execution of the agreement. For
$35,000.00
each reduction, ,there is pres~med, to be
availabl, for redirection.)
'5'~
'~
!
;\
I
,
t "
I"
.
11
. . . .
Increase, ,the number of adoptive placements from
, .a.Q.! ·to ill ' during each year of this agreement.
(The base is derived by czdding toge~er the most recent,
four quarters on the MIR. uru:kr the headings "PlanAdopt'
Placed". The outcome . is, for the four, quarter total after
'execution of.., the agreement.)
,
I
~I
d
I'
II
I
!
6. Prepare a You,th In "Transition (YIT) county plan
following 'the guidelines set forth in L-Letter
93...;078., Determine the s~atusof the program on
'a quarterly ,basis' taking ,note this program' s
impact, on youth in the· county. (This item' is not
tracked on the MIR)~
"
~\
"
~:
,
,I
�~NOTE:
The most recent Management Information
'Report used for determining the ,base for
objectives 1-5 is the 'report, eliding with the
quarter of January through March, 1993.
Addit:i:onal objectives may also. be negotiated in
the Perfo~ance Agreement process.
IV.
ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT,
This
agreemeJ;lt
does' not
relationships.'
alter
any
existing
r~porting
V.
PERFOR.M:ANCE AGREEMENT, .MODIFICATION AND CHANGES
A. The designation of 'redirected funds 'may be
changed only by mutual written consent .of the
DSS Loaal' Office Director and the FSA Director.
,
'
B. ,Changes
in
local
program, objectives, or
,redirection of funding proposed by the DSS
Local Office 'will be preceded by a written
request to the Office of Planning and Quality
Management.
The request may be negotiated by
the Office and the' 'DSS Local Office. No action
. regarding therequeste9 change will be taken
until written approval, has been received from
the FSA Dir~ctor.
VI .
DISPUTES
Any dispute arising under' this agreement which is
,not disposed of by' the, process set forth in the
Agreement' between Central Office staff and local
office staff will be decided by the FSA Director.
, VII.
MONITORING'
A. The Office of Planning and Quality Management
will be responsible for program monitoring
which may' include review of,' reports, site
visits and case reading.
By request of. the
Zone Manager, Zone ,Contract Specialist may be
involved. ,',:
'
B. Program
reports. will
be . distributed
to
appropriate Central Office, DSS Local Office
and Zone Office staff.
Program reports shall
include the impact of the Performance Agreement
and/or other programmatic/operational issues on
the, number, of children' or youth residing in
out of home care.
'Rev. 09/13/93
Page ,3 of 1S
�VIII.
IMPACT ON STAFF ALLOCATIONS
'Commencing with" this' 'signed and authorized
,Performance ,Agreement between Family Services
'Administration 'Director and, the 'Local County
Department,of Social" Services Director, the
'following Hold 'Harmless provision will be
applied' to the Children s Services staffing
, allocations:
'
I
1. Counties'will receive the greater of current
formulas, applied to current, caseload or the,
" number ,they had allocated in the base year
, ,(1992-93),.
"", '
'
2. ,However, if there is, an overall shortage of
staff to meet, approved ,standards, counties
will take their percentage of the reduction. '
if there is
only enough FTE s
,Thus I
,aut,horized, ,t9 ,meet 95.% of ,need. using, the
current workload standards and the higher of
, current or base, all counties will receive a
95% allocation.
"
I
3. The Office. o'f Resource Coordination will
,continue' to projec~ ,the amount of staff
difference between base and actual for those . ,
counties that have, reduced from the base and
will ,request pOSitions 1;.0 make up the
difference.
" ,I
, :1
,
,';.
:
, I
,
4 • This ,"hold ,harmless" definition is to, remain
in, effect', for 3 fiscal years (1993/94,
1994/95, and 1995/96) with ,1992/93 being the
base.
l
"
1
r
"
It
.
~,
"
Ii
.I:
. j.
II,
,
Rev.
,
,
09/13/~3
5. This, "hold' harmless" definition does, not
preclude changes in, staffing' fOl::mulas ' from
ye,ar to year.
However, to the extent that
the current or new formulas are caseload
based, the formulas will use the base year
or current,year, ,whichever is higher.
6.Thi~"h61d harml~ss' defin'ition applies to
each of the folloWing child 'welfare staff:
Foster C'are, Children's Protective Services,
'" Prevention and Delinquency to the extent
that the ~:taffing', formulas for each ,are
,caseload based.
The size of caseload,
reduction must be reasonably attributable to
the success of the Performance Agreement.
"Page 40f 15
�IX.
FUNDING
Funding for the. designatedDSS Local Office program
objectives shall be achieved through redirected
out-of-home purchase of service· funds.
X.
. CONTINUATION
It is expected that the level of service initiated
during the term of this agreement will be continued
in subsequent agreements if ,objectives are met. If
objectives are not met the local office Director
'agrees to jOin; OPQM in ,an assessment process that
could include one or more ·of the following:
case ;"eview.
'.
analysis of Families First utilization
additional worker training in family
. pre~-ervation etc.
.
To address, changes . in. local conditions, the DSS·
Local Office will. submit, a program revision request
outlining any desirable changes for the next fiscal
year.
XI.
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS .
,
County covered by this Agreement:
Wayne
.BEGIN AND END DATES 'OF THIS AGREEMENT:
October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1996,
A~
pROGRAM NARRATIVE
1. What Currently Exists:
According to the most recent Management
Information Report (January - March, 1993),
our current. ongoing . Protective Services
caseload average (4 quarters) is 1311. This
represents' a' general decline in. caseload
figures during the past seven years that has
s~en
increase~ 'Department resources
being
focused on family 'preservation, prompt
assessment of family strengths/weaknesses by
P.S. staff along witll MDT and Families First
providers.
'
Rev.
09/13/93
",
Page 5 of 15
�, I
The average length of stay 'in foster care is
nearly three, 'years. The foster care ongoing
ce!s~loac;iquarterly average ',has 'been trending
down~' ,With. increa~ed use of Families First
'in foster care along with the increased,
number of children being placec;i for adoption
planning or on independent llving," and an
effect,ive monitoring. system 'for purchase of
service, there, should' be . a, decline in the
. len9th 'of stay in care. \
,r
We do' believe that we' ~sed 'our Performance
Agreement funds 'wisely.
. .
•
. "
.
~:
,
'
•
-
> .
•
Wayne County was funded. for Families First
servi,ces in ,the am<;)unt of $1,279,700 through
.' 'the Family Preservation allocation prior to
, the."establishment of Performance Agreements.
'The Performance 'Agreement for. Wayne County,
,covering' the period 10''';1'';90 ,through' 09-30
91; bui1t.in an additional $'2,824,802.80 for
Families,
First,' . and
"other"
" Family
Reunification services. We did not meet our
objectives fo+ ,that , Pe'~formance Agreement.
The, 'Performance' Agreeme~t' covering the
period .10-1-91 through 09-30~93 carri,ed over
$2,800,000' for the' continuation of Families
"First ,',' services,: 'at
the', same
level.
Obj~ctives for that Perfor.mance Agreement
~re being met.
The actual co~tractual costs
for Families First services (maintaining the
current level of 17, Families. First teams)
for Wayne County, covering 1994-1996 (3 year
contracts) will be $'4,513,534 per year. The
costs will be covered by pre Performance
Agreement monies in the'amount of $1,279,700
plus redirected ~onies,;, in .the amount of
1:,
.
,
..'.
$~,233,834."
'This' Performance Aqre!!JDent' covers 10/1/93
thr01:'9h' 09/30/96,~
In the last year of the
prevl.0U;s "Performance 'Agreement,
(10-1-91
through ,09-30-93), a savings of $440,000 was
achi'eved~, (as ' of
Management
Information
Report
' quarter
0 ~,- 0 ~ · 93 ) ,
and
our
Performance
Agreement' was
amended
to
redirect those dollars into, additional in
home type. services.
We feel that more
extensive' experience with the Performance'
Agreement ,process will result in even
greater ,savinqsin,the future.
,
'
. I: '
Rev~
I'
:I
09/13/93'J
,
.'
Page 6 of 15
�': . ; f ' , '
)
This Performance Agreement, covering October
I, 1993. through September 30, 1996, was
developed' with. the cooperation of all CFS
staff.
A section manager from each of the
four, district offices coordinated' local
input to, the whole.
Each coordinator met
with
"first-line,
supervisors
and
administrators
representing
all
Child
,Welfare programs.
These ideas were then
combined.
Input was also sought from 'the
Contracts, Management Unit 'in Wayne 'County
, Central
Administration.
'Since
the
decentralization of Child Welfare programs,
this coordinat.ed ,approach provides for the
broadest staff' input and thus holds the
great~st potential for staff buy-in.
~.
Statement of What Should Be In Place In The
Way of Local Services Concentrating First On
The Identified Need Areas:
The
,current 'in-home
contracts
cover
hOJllemaker
serv,iqes
and' parent
aides.
'. parenting
education
classes
are
also
provided.
Child Care is available as
necessarY for clients to attend these
classes.
Transportation is a contract
component as needed.
These contracts are
with Care Givers", Black Family Development,
Inc." Franklip.-WrightSettlements, Inc." and
Wayne'State University - PACT Program.
In addition, to these contracts, needs were
identified in several areas. These' include: '
Recreation needs of client families and
foster parents.
• The
need for drug treatment and drug
screening as a part of a treatment or
'service plan.', .
.
.
.
lServices to clients who have completed
the Families First program and are in
continuing
need
of
in-home
support
services.
Intensive ,on-site/in-home services to
provide 'a small number of client families
with supervised living experiences.
Rev •. 09/13/93
Page 7 of 15
�,
..
A
'parent", aide
program
by ,
paraprofe,ssional's to' provide services' ,to
,: adoptive pa:;-ents
as, well
as
foster
, ,~,' parents.,
.
3. A Statement," Of Bow To, HOve From What Is To
What ShoU:ld
Be:
It, ,is
our" plan to, meet these needs by
'our "anticipated Foster Care
savings., ,The followip.g, is a list of the
contracts:that will be used or have monies
added:to ~hem.
'r~directing
a. 'A contract', for recreational services.
To provide all :types of recreational
, 'opportunitiestc> families at risk for
·abuse and/or neglect '(P.S.), families
'with in-home Foster Care or Delinquency
placements, and 'clients served by the
Medically Fragile staff. A vendor would
select appropriate events and coordinate
, ,~llnding both from ~ontractual funds' and
donated resources.'
The, vendor would
provide access to 'recreation such as
,pic~ics , outings, trips, to educational
institutions, etc.
This would include
transportation
anq
child, care,
if
necessary. ',The, primary' purpose is to
,strengthen family ties among those who
,~re serviced by Wayne County CFS, and to
help retain foster parents (CAN contract
~~r ~pproximately $100,000)~
,
:1
, ,I
j\
;j
,
"
"
'I
, I
, b.' An, in-home 'program ,for 'families with
substance abuse problems.
'Open, to'
client~ in all Child Welfare programs.
These s~rvices would' be part of, the
treatment or, 'service plan. The program
would 'include two components,
drug
t'reatment
and
drug
screens.
(CAN
contract for approximately $400,000).
i.
, I
,
~I
I,
"
,I
If
II
l(
c.
I.
I,',. '
.....
A, contract' to extend services ,for
clie,nts who have" ,'completed Families.
First. The purpose, would be to provide
support
services
such
as' in-home
counseling,hands.:..on assistance with
problem solviJ').g , and help in obtaining'
all "necessary, material' needs
and
accessing all needed services to enhan:ce
family functioning_
(Can contract for
approximately S300,000)~
,
'I
I"
.1
Ii
Rev. 09/13/93
Page 8'of 15
�d. Family Reunification Funds.
Additional
money
will· '., be
placed
in
Family
Reunification, to cover the Delinquency
.,' program which will now be eligible for
these funds. ($35.0,.0.0.0).
e. Child
Abuse/Neglect
contracts.
Additional money will be placed in
current CAN ..contracts to cover' the
Delinquency program which will now be.
eligible . .
for
these
services.
($17.0 , .0 .0 C) •
. "
. f.
'.
A contract for Experiential Living for
~amilies.
'The program would involve a
. structured living environment for client
families including in-home activities in
: the areas of parenting, budgeting and
independent,living skills. The contract
.will call for. the vendor to set up the
program in a multiple unit apartment
building with ·24 hour on-site staff .
. (CAN
contract.
for
approximately
$3.0.0,.0.0.0).
g. An in-home. contract . for a
parent aide
program.
The, program· would use para
professionals
trained
in
behavioral
techniques to provide 2.0 to 3.0 hours of
services a week to a' family.
The
services would consi~t of modeling
,appropriate parenting. techniques and
coping mechanisms for adoptive parents.
(CAN
contract
for
approximately
$15.0,.0.0.0) •
.h.We 'are currently in the 'process of
developing
. an' . . alternati.ve
for
reintegration services for all Wayne
County youth under· DSS supervision who
enter the Nokomis Challenge Program. We
anticipate completion of these plans by
. January 1" 1994, as required by 'L-93
.03.0., It is our understanding that we
will be allocated 'a base amount of
$1,289,925 . for the period January 1,
·1994 through September 3.0, 1994. . The
full year allocation base amount for the
fiscal year that begins on October 1,
1994, will be $1,719,9.0.0.'
At this
point, these dollars are uncommitted to
specific contracts.
i. We plan to continue Families first at
current level, 17 teams, .at an actual
cost' of .$4,513,534 (Pre PA' monies,.
$1,279,7.0.0 plus PA redirected monies,
$3,233,834).
. '
Rev._ 09/13/93'
. Page 9 of 15
�.
.
,B._
EXPLANATION OF LOCAL OBJECTIVES
I..'Decrease the .number. of Children' s Protective.
services' ,case closure's' with one ·or more
children out . of . "home' from 1246 to. !ill
during each year of this agreement .
..
" ..
,\
,,
:1
H
We will ,do ::a workshop to refresh our staff
in' the proper use of PSMIS coding. We feel
that· . we may not be capturing all, cases
closedwith.children in their own home. We
also feel that an increased use of Families
First and its extended services will help us
continue
to " meet
.this
objective _ '
.Additionally , !Several new 'in-home contrac·ts
will provide se~ices to P.S.·clients.
I
;1
'2; Decr~ase the, number of children in the
. Foster Care, program residing in an ou~-of
home placement from ,5584 to' 5537 'during each
year' of the agreement •
.'", We plan topl~ce more emphasis on using the
Preventive Services program in order to keep
more
families,' together _
Increased
communication among program workers will
" make it easier for children to remain in
their own homes after' there has beenP . S.
involvement.' We thinJc that" increased
awareness and use,of outside resources such
','as ,the newcontl:,"act for services beyond
Families First will help us meet this
objective •
<
,
\
.3. Decreas'e' the number of youth .in the
Delinquency. program residing out, of home
from l35B to 1342 'during each year of this
agreement.
'
,.
I
.
",
\
I
. ,.We ,'.fe~l' . tha:t our', continued emphasis on
community'. based placement will help in
'meeting ,this ; obje¢tive~
,The. Youth and
F~ily Intensive .Day Treatment Program was
establishe,d 'in October 1992. It now. serves
40 "adjudicated, delinquent state wards.
It
. , is ,anticipated. :that .this ,program. will grow
.
• 'I
"
\.
,
d..
..
.~
.Page 10 of 15
. Rev _ 09/13/93 ..
II
.'
�'to its full c~pacity of 85 in the FY 93-94.
The purpose of the program is .to provide an
"alternative to residential placement· for
these youth.
There is also a contractual
provider of day treatment to youth. This is
Diversified Youth Services.
The contractor
has 50 slot-so
,.
CAN services are being extended to families
of delinquent youth,;
These services will
affect the out-of-home count.
We also plan to use the new in-home. contract
. for, drug treatment and drug" screening to
enable us to serve, delinquent youth in the
,most
appropriate
and least, restrictive
setting.
In addition, we will be allocated
$1,'.719,900 (full year allocation) to provide
Juvenile Justice Alternatives.'
,
4. Decrease the'number of children residing in
an institutional living arrangement from
1552 to' 1532 during each year of this
agreement.
'
We
hope
to ' redu~e
the
number
of
institutional
placements
resulting
from
Community Mental Health and Department of
.Mental Health referrals.
Some of· these
referrals are inappropriate. The lack of an
',.immediately
available ,CMH/DMH
placement
results' in ' a, PS/FC referral.
These
placements should be handled in the mental
health system.
The reduction in the number
of children placed in Foster Care will.also
help in meeting this objective.
In addition, thes,ervices outlined ,in Number
, 3 above, will assist with'this objective.
5. 'Increase the number, of adoptive placements
from 501· to 544 during each year of this
agreement.
'
We will closely monitor the use of correct
coding on CSMIS when children are legally
freed
for· adoption
and when
adoptive
placements are made.'
!le will continue to
emphasize to private agencies the need to
complete adoptions within six. months.
The
,new .in-homecontract ·for parent' aides for
adoptive parents will· also help in meeting
this objective.
Rev. 09/13/93
Page 11 of 15,
�i\,
"
II
<!
.,
"
;;.
6 . 'Prepare a Youth In Transition (YIT) county
plan following the, guidelines set forth in
L-Letter, 93-078.
Determine the status of
, " the program on a quarterly basis taking note
, t,his, , , ,program's impact on youth, in the
county .
(This . item, is not, tracked on the
MIR) . '
,
, Wayne CountyDSS ~ plan i,s in place. We will
dete:rmine' the status of the program ,on a
quarterly
basis
taking
note
of
this
program!s impact on youth ;n this county.
!'
, C.
LOCAL OFFICE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
"
I
Children's "Protective Services
For th& last four quarters, the data (per the
most recent Management Information Report, 01
03'93),on, "P.S. closure with child out of home"
" 'are as follows:
Number, of PS Closures
Quarter,
,With Child Out-of-Home
04-06'92
\
"
07~09' 92
10~12'92
350
340
302
254
,
01-03'93
We are steadily reducing' the number of Protective
Services case closures with child 'out of home.
We
know that our efforts in 'this area wili positively
affect Foster Care out of home placements.,
"
t.
Foster Care and Delinquency
For' the last four" quarters, the data (per the
most rec~nt Management 'Infol7lnation Report, 01
03' 93) on' cases' with the child placed out of
'home in, thefo~ter care and delinquency
program, . ,as well ,as ,\ "Out ,of Home Living
Arrangements, ,Institute"" are as follows: '
i'
il
. I
,Quarter
" I
,
I
I
Out Of Home
FCis'ter ~Care
Out. Of Home
Delinquent
04-06'92
, 07-09' 92
, 10-12' 92
01-03'93
5748
5652,
55,47
,5388
Out Of Home
Livj..ng Arrang.
Institute
1358
1350
1269
~454
1627
, 1594
1548
1438
,I
"
,i
II
.' ~
Rev. 09/13/~3
.' : Page 12
of 15
�The number of "Out of Home Foster Care" placements are
steadily decreasing.
The' number of "Out of Home Delinquent" placements are
steadily. decreasing also. '
The
number of
"Out' of Home Living Arrangement
Institute " continues to decrease.
It is our plan to
make. full
use. of . community placements and our
contractual services to reduce this even further.
We hope that our increased use of in-home contracted
. services will help keep families together and reduce
the need for out-of-home, Foster .Care and Delinquency
placements.
Rev.
09/13/93
Page 13 of 15
�t:!
l
;~
"
,I
1\
;,
\~
PERFORMANCE
AGREEMENT'
'RESOURCE SmIMARY:
, XII.
,
"
,
FINANCIAL
STATEMENT
'AND
CURRENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT:,
(1993-1996)
Total DOllars
Approved For Redirection:
$1,330,000.00
CONTINlJANCE:
$1,279,700.00
$3,233,834.00
$ 440,000.00
Pre ·Performance'Agreement
Previous Performance Agreement
Performance Agreement Amended
":! ' .:
Total CONTINUANcE:
$4,,953,534.00
,FY 93/94
,'Nokomis Ch.allenge,
Alloca'tion
'
94/95/96
$1,289,925.00
$1,719,900.00
GRAND TOTAL:
The Grand Total amounts· include the,Current totals plus
the, Continuance tota,ls carried over from the prev~ous
'Performance Agreement.
'FY 93/94
Total Annualized Dollars
" . ,Available for Redirect:
.~
,I'
FY, 94/95/96
$7,573,459. 00
$8,003,434'~
Approved services, approved dollar amount and type of
service (including Families' First, CAN service, Family
Reunification, Wraparound, PERF service, Juvenile Justice
,alternative, un,committed dollars) for each are:
1. Families First at Current
Level
$4,513,534.00
2. New and 'expanded CAN services
(Services extended to delinquency
cases)
$1,420,000.00
~.
New Can Services
$l/250/000~OO
b. Expand Current CAN Services
$
170,000.00
3. Increase FamiJ-y Reunification,'
Fund (Services extended to
delinquency cases)
S. 350,000.00
'I'
,
4. Juvenile Justice Alternatives
(In the developmental stage) S1,719,900.00
JI
"
l'
jf
"
00
SPECIAL TERMS OR CONDITIONS, IF ANY:
Rev. '09/13793,
None
Page 14 of 15
�(Do not sign this document until after review and processing by
the Office of Planning and Quality Management.)
XIII.
COUNTY DIRECTOR APPRO~
Signature: . _______________________________________________
Date:
XIV •
REVIEWS
A.
COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD
Comments; If Ariy
----------------------------------------
Signed By: .___________
'='=""""____-=-______---=---=--, Chair Person
Wayne County Social Services Board
Date:
B.
ZONE OFFICE
Comments:
If Any
---------------------------------------
Signed By: __________~N~o~t~A~P.p~l~i~c~a~b~l~e~----, Zone Manager
Date:
xv.
FAMILY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR
APPRO~:
Signature:
Date:
..
Rev. 09/13/93
Page 15 of 15
�Appendix F.
Additional Reading
Following is a short list of CSSP and other reports which may be useful in considering a
trade of outcome accountability for fund flexibility.
Changing Governance to Achieve Better Results for Children and Families. A
Working Paper, The Center for the Study of Social Policy, June 1995
The Case for Shifting to Results~Based AccountabilitY, by Lisbeth Schorr, Harvard·
Project on Effective Services, with the collaboration of Frank Farrow, David
Hornbeck and Sara Watson, Improved Outcomes for Children Project, Center for
.
the Study of Social Policy, 1995
Making a Difference: Moving to Outcome~ Based Accountability for
Comprehensive Service Reforms, NanCy Young,·Sid Gardner, Soraya Coley,
Lisbeth Schorr, Charles Bruner, National Center for Service Integration, Resource
Brief #7, 1994.
Compendium of Comprehensive CommunitY-Based Initiatives. A Look at Costs.
Benefits. and Financing Strategies, Cheryl D. Hayes, Elise Lipoff, Anna E. '
Danegger, The Finance Project, July 1995
From Outcomes to Budgets: AnAp'proach to Outcome Based Budgeting for Family
and Children's Services, The Center for the Study of SOcial Policy, July, 1995
Financing Reform of Family and Children's Services: An Ap'proach to the
Systematic Consideration of Financing Qptions. or "The Cosmology of Financing,
.
The Center for the Study of Social Policy, June 28, 1994.
Leveraging Dollars. Leveraging Change: Refmancing and Restructuring Children's
Services in Five Sites, The Center for the Study of Social Policy, September 1991
Investing in Children and Families: Iowa's Efforts to Generate Funds to Reform
Child Welfare Services, The Center for the Study of Social Policy, October, 1994
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Carol Rasco - Meetings, Trips, and Events Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Carol Rasco
Meetings, Trips, and Events Series
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1996
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/48176" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid for boxes 37-59</a>
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36306" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid for boxes 60-121</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/647140" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Description
An account of the resource
Carol Rasco's Meetings, Trips, and Events Series highlights the topics of discussion for scheduled meetings and events, the persons involved, and information on travel required to attend the meetings or events. Topics include health care reform, disability, employment, education, children and families, and communities. The records include memos, letters, reports, schedules, itineraries, meeting notes, flyers and pamphlets. Folders are arranged chronologically from January 1993 through 1996.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
1388 folders in 121 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Tues. January 7, 1997 6:30p Annie E. Casey Foundation Workshop/Baltimore, MD [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Carol Rasco
Meetings, Trips, Events Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 109
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2010-0198-S-meetings.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/647140" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
10/12/2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2010-0198-Sa-tues-january-7-1997-6-30p-annie-e-casey-foundation-workshop-baltimore-md-2
647140