MEMORANDUM
To: Linda Carlisle, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Social Services
From: Jennifer Sanchez, Independent Consultant
Date: November 19, 2012
Subject: Assessing relationship between DSS and PAS organizations/ La Alianza Hispana
As DSS is currently facing an urgent dilemma that connects with your long-term accountability
and relationships with PAS organizations, I suggest that you use La Alianza Hispana as a public
example for how you intend to shift these relationships.
Analysis
1. Benefits and losses of the PAS program have led to inconsistent results.
a. Actively addressing the need for cultural awareness and specialized services allow
some clients to receive catered attention. It also expanded DSS’s services.
However, this lack of authoritative and finitely consequential presence permits
gaps in service.
b. It creates a lack of accountability and inconsistent processes for interacting with
clients and reporting. The lacks of capacity for DSS and PAS organizations
translate to insufficiencies in needed resources for all involved.
2. Lack of consistent communication between DSS and La Alianza led to La Alianza’s
inability to keep up with caseloads. Not adequately expressing this while DSS faced
funding cuts created the poor reputation. The barrier grew stronger as La Alianza failed
to take action and DSS was not fulfilling its responsibility of transparency.
Recommendations
You need to shift the sense of accountability and responsibility toward collaboration amongst the
DSS and PAS network using the following methods:
1. Absorb all caseload management into DSS. This will permit a streamlined process and
allow allocation of the regained funds from cut contracts to expand DSS internally,
including for the regional offices.
2. Contract with PAS organizations to serve as cultural liaisons.
a. Hire organizations as a fee for service to facilitate sensitivity trainings for DSS
social workers.
b. Create partnerships that would allow dual service where needed, e.g. both DSS
and PAS representatives for one client. As DSS conducts government
assessments, the PAS network provides needed intervention and preventative
services these organizations specialize in.
3. In set, repeated and structured interactions, DSS will update PAS organizations on
protocol so all act in accordance with the arrangement. Meanwhile, all parties involved
will update on their needs and capacity to adjust relationship dynamics.
To begin this process, I suggest you immediately meet with La Alianza to create a joint plan at
confronting the media inquiries. Examine needs and objectives for all involved and from there
lay out how this shift in child protective operations will benefit all. La Alianza will receive
funding for programs within its mission, DSS will receive cultural assistance, and accountability
in a streamlined system will be restored.
Jennifer Sanchez
PA 5011
November 19, 2012
La Alianza Logic Memorandum
In analyzing the case of DSS and La Alianza Hispana, I generally found a program that
started with good intentions of cultural attentiveness has spiraled into an inconsistently delivered
market heaping with miscommunication. This is in part due to a downward trend of financial
resources and therefore time to commit to the network. However, in the case of La Alianza, there
is also a lack of follow-up on both parties. I recommend the adaptive change of a planned, public
shift in the contracted relationship to address accountability and promote collaboration. The
technical and adaptive components of this shift include reshaping caseload management;
returning to services that fit organizational skill strength and mission; and structured
communication to assess needs and capacity for the foreseeable future.
The benefits of the third party contracting on the part of DSS include improving the
client’s experience through specialized services with cultural attentiveness and an expanded
network for DSS. Often government cannot meet public needs operating in isolation. Goldsmith
and Eggers support third party governance stating, “in many instances [government can] produce
more public value through a networked approach” (p. 22). As Commissioner Matava realized
client needs were too complex for DSS to handle alone, she initiated the contract tool PAS. This
action is in collaboration with Crutchfield and Grant’s adaptation cycle as Matava listened to her
environment, assessed the need for greater cultural sensitivity and modified DSS programs
(p143). In particular, she was attempting to transform the scope of diversity within child
protection services to the emerging paradigm (Thomas & Ely, p. 85). She determined that
incorporating diverse perspectives that align with clients into direct services would improve
client outreach and results.
However, the benefits of the PAS program do not outweigh the losses. The codependence for services and funding immediately highlights the dimensions of dependence
(Saidel, p. 545). DSS needed the PAS resources in order to deliver services well. The apparent
lack of availability of orgs to fill PAS roles made DSS dependent upon available candidates like
La Alianza. Initally, the proposition to La Alianza made PAS almost required as funding hinged
on participation. This relationship was intended to maintain the traditional “command and
control” management model (Salamon, p.8). Goldsmith and Eggers note that government is
inherently designed to operate hierarchically; therefore, the approaching clash with PAS
organizations seemed unavoidable (p. 22). Essentially, DSS was imposing its practices onto
organizations that operate with similar goals but vastly different methods.
The PAS program appears to be a product of devolution. While this delegation of
responsibility does promote a response to unique needs, it also contributes to complex
relationships and responsibilities (Humphrey Project-Relationships). This translates into an
incomprehensible web of accountability and clients get lost in the process of delegation. While
“it takes a network to fight a network”, the apparent lack of consistent follow through in
maintaining the established system effectively crumbled the power of the PAS/DSS network
(Goldsmith & Eggers, p. 9). With the lack of support structure for the PAS program, essential
communication lines were cut off from both ends of the contract in the case of La Alianza. DSS
was extremely disorganized with regional offices cut. Meanwhile, La Alianza was not
1
sufficiently communicating the need for support. Neither took action on avoiding the
implications of the current situation. The horrible result of the Ventura case is a tangible
motivation to steer away from repeating the non-profit starvation cycle. The unrealistic
expectations of DSS and La Alianza’s lack of transparency in terms of needs underfed the
program (Goggins & Howard, p. 51). Thus, the clients were underserved.
I recommend an adaptive change where DSS takes ownership of accountability and the
network shifts responsibilities of collaboration. Recognizing that no single actor can enforce its
will in a new governance format, I encourage DSS to facilitate a meeting negotiating the
specifics of what the collaboration I recommend (Salamon, p. 13). This meeting should also
include what incentives might be provided for all involved. From there, the network can assess
capacities and create a model for this tool. It may require that three tools be created for the
specialized client tiers within the current PAS program. This would recognize the concerns of
pluriformity and self-referentiality (Salamon, p. 13). Consistent follow up meetings will allow
for dynamism as the structure shifts based on needs and capacity.
Overall, I am suggesting a shift from a supplementary to complementary relationship
where DSS and PAS organizations can deliver their programmatic strengths to clients. It is
clear with the current system that a streamlined system of accountability necessitates a single
delivery point. The logical conclusion is for DSS’s highly trained social workers to continue
their role. While I encourage DSS to recover some power, I did not want this to limit PAS
organizations’ advantage in determining how policy shapes their work. As the need for
interdependence still exists, my recommendation retains organizational individuality (Salamon,
p. 14).
The cultural liaison role of PAS still implements Matava’s intention of inclusion and
expansion. Here the network is working together to promote new ways of understanding, change
professional practices, share program ideas, and develop new policies (Sandfort, p. 637). To
maintain this system, DSS managers need orchestration skills while managing social workers
with their caseloads (Salamon, p. 17). As they rebuild relationships with PAS organizations,
they will gain shared knowledge and form respect. The impetus of this recommendation begins
at collaborative handling of La Alianza.
Using La Alianza as a public example will illustrate how this transition will occur to the
extended policy field and the overall funders, the pubic. It will make note of how this situation
will not occur again due to the concentration of accountability. Additionally, La Alianza, like
other PAS organizations will be able to return to programs surrounding its original mission that
established its reputation. Hopefully, this will work toward rebuilding trust from the public.
In conclusion, DSS and the PAS network need to address both the formal (funding) and
informal (influence) relationships to shape how work in the child protective service policy field
gets accomplished (Humphrey Project- Policy). This effective recommendation streamlines
accountability. It includes an efficient method of addressing DSS cultural weaknesses and
maximizes contributions of all. As noted in my memo, DSS needs to assess financial feasibility
before implementation to make this plan manageable. However, with proper planning, this
adaptive change will improve child protection services. DSS will work to regain trust with La
Alianza in the public. Long-term changes will maximize strengths to optimize experiences for
clients.
2
Bibliography
Crutchfield LR and Grant HM (2008) Master the art of adaptation. In Forces for Good. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 129-52.
Goggins AG and Howard D (2009) The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation
Review. Fall 2009: 48-53.
Goldsmith S and Eggers WD (2004) The new shape of government. In Governing by Network:
The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp.2-24
Hubert Project. “Government Non-Profit Relationships” Creative Commons Attribute. August
11, 2011
Hubert Project. “Policy Field Analysis” Creative Commons Attribute. August 23, 2011
Sandfort J (2008) Nonprofits in policy fields. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 29, 3,
637-44
Salamon LM (2002) The new governance and the tools of pubic action: an introduction. In The
Tools of Government. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-24
Saidel J (1991) Resource interdependence: the relationship between state agencies and nonprofit
organizations. Public Administration Review. 51 (6):543-553
Thomas DA and Ely RJ (1996) Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing
diversity. Harvard Business Review. September-October 1996, 19-31.
3