Case 1 – Preventing Child Abuse RubricExceeds ExpectationsMe.docx

Case 1 – Preventing Child Abuse Rubric
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Needs Some Revisions
Needs Significant Revisions
Missing
Introduction
Case summary and problem definition
The report clearly summarizes the case and identifies the
problems that Patton must solve
(6 points)
The report summarizes the case but misses some minor points
(5 points)
The report either misses some important points in the case
summary or misses important points regarding the problems that
Patton must solve
(4 points)
The report misses the summary of the case and some important
points regarding the problems that Patton must solve
(2 points)
Missing many or all of the important points
(0 points)
Identification of key actors and their roles/positions
The report identifies all key actors and their roles/positions
(6 points)
The report identifies almost all of the actors and their positions
but misses a few minor actors or their roles/positions
(5 points)
The report does not identify some important actors or their
roles/positions
(4 points)
The report does not identify several important actors and their
roles/positions

(2 points)
The report does not identify most or all of the actors and their
roles/positions
(0 points)
Explanation of the political and administrative environment
&
Politics of the Administrative Structure
The report explains the political and administrative environment
clearly and completely.
&
It discusses the politics of the administrative structure.
(7 points)
& the politics of the administrative structure well; however, it
misses some minor points and leaves some points unclear.
(6 points)
and the politics of the administrative structure somewhat
incompletely.
(4 points)
The report misses several important points while explaining the
political and administrative environment and politics of the
admin structure.
(2 points)
No explanation of the political and admin environment and the
politics of the admin structure
(0 points)
Evaluation of the reorganization decision
- The report discusses whether the reorganization decision was
based on political or technical rationality
- Identifies accountability issues before and after the
reorganization
- Evaluates the impact of the reorganization decision on street
level bureaucrats
(6 points)
The report does a good job in evaluating the reorganization

decision (see the Exceeds Expectations cell) but has some flaws
(5 points)
The report misses a major point (e.g. political vs technical
rationality, accountability issues, or street level bureaucrats)
while evaluating the reorganization decision.
(4 points)
The report misses several important points while evaluating the
reorganization decision (2 points)
The report does not evaluate the reorganization decision
(0 points)
Recommendations
Making recommendations to Patton regarding the problems
identified
The report makes recommendations to Patton to address the
problem it identified in the introduction. The recommendation
takes the political environment and the administrative
conditions into account.
The recommendation is successfully linked to the evaluation of
the reorganization decision (part 2)
(6 points)
The report makes recommendations to Patton to address the
problem it identified in the introduction.
The recommendation is linked to the evaluation of the
reorganization decision but misses some points.
(5 points)
The report makes recommendations to Patton.
&
The recommendation is weakly linked to the evaluation of the
reorganization decision (4 points)
The report does not adequately address a problem.
&
The recommendation
is not linked to the evaluation of the reorganization decision.
(2 points)
No meaningful recommendation
Or the recommendation does not make sense.

(0 points)
Mechanics
The report is professionally prepared. It is free of grammatical
errors and typos. Formatting is good.
(4 points)
The report is professionally prepared.
It has some grammatical errors or typos. Formatting is good.
(3 points)
The report is professionally prepared.
It has major errors in grammar, spelling, or formatting.
(2 points)
The report fails to meet professional writing standards.
(0 points)
Case Study 1 – Preventing Child Abuse
Instructions
Welcome to Case Study 1. This case study is the first of three
case assignments. In this assignment you will read the case
"Preventing Child Abuse". The case is about legislatively
mandated reorganization of the Secretariat of Human Resources,
creating the Department of Social Services to assume the social
service responsibilities of the Department of Welfare. The
legislature evidently believed that "structure mattered", that is,
that the reorganization would somehow reduce the risk to
children who are actually or potentially under state supervision
or in state custody.
There are few purposes of this assignment. The main purpose is
to apply the theoretical knowledge that you learned in this
course into a case study. That will take your learning from
comprehension level to application, analysis, and synthesis
levels. As a result, this case will help you improve your
learning.

Other goals are
1- to analyze structural elements of a state organization,
2- to practice at diagnosing the underlying service delivery
problems affecting motivation and employee effectiveness.
To accomplish these goals, you will read the case provided as
attachment. After reading the case, you will answer the question
below regarding possible relationships between the structural
dimension, employee behavior, and overall agency performance.
Questions
Please answer the following questions after you read the case
"Preventing Child Abuse".
1- What issues must Bradley Patton resolve at the end of the
case?
2- Focus on the legislatively mandated structural reorganization
that Patton is faced with:
a) Why would elected officials want to create a
separate department responsible for services rather than having
both social services and assistance payments to be equal
divisions of the Department of Welfare?
b) How are the politics of the administrative structure evident in
this case?
c) Is the motivation technical rationality or political rationality?
Does this case reflect Madisonian scheme of government?
d) Is this reorganization a solution to the child safety problem?
If it is a solution, why? If it is not a solution, why not? Make an
argument to support your position.
3- With regard to the issues you identified in question 1, what
should Patton do now, and why? For each decision Patton faces,
make a complete argument to support your recommendation.

Instructions for the case report
In this assignment, I want you to write approximately a 4-page
(single spaced) essay type report (hint: there is no page limit,
but usually 4 pages is enough). In this report, you should have
the following sections:
1- Start with an introduction section (recommended length is
approximately 1 page) in which you will briefly summarize the
case (what has happened), identify the key actors and their
positions in the subject and goals (stakeholder analysis), and
explain what problem must Bradley Patton solve (answer to
question 1).
2- In the second part (recommended length is approximately 2
pages), you will analyze the political and administrative
environment that led elected officials to create a
separate department (question 2.a and 2.b). While addressing
these questions, first explain the political and administrative
environment and then discuss the interplay between politicians,
administrators, and interest groups (i.e. politics of the
administrative structure).
Next, evaluate the reorganization decision by addressing the
points below (questions 2.c and 2.d):
· discuss whether the decision was based on political or
technical rationality
· analyze the case from an accountability perspective. What
were the accountability issues before the reorganization and
what are the potential accountability issues after the
reorganization?
· As street-level bureaucrats, what challenges were employees
of the DOW facing before the reorganization? Would
reorganization eliminate some of those challenges or create
more challenges?
3- In the third part (recommended length is approximately 1

page), make recommendations to Patton about what to do
regarding the problems that he needs to solve (the problems that
you identified in section 1).
Please use the course materials in your report and cite them
appropriately according to APA style.
Please remember, if you do not cite a source in your report, do
not put it in your references. If you put a source in your
references, make sure you cite it in your report.
Please check this link if you need help with APA style.
Please paginate your document.
The difficult part of this assignment is writing succinctly. You
can write as long as you like; however, please do not write
irrelevant things for the sake of writing a longer report.
Please be careful about citations and references. Improper
citations and references (or no citation and references) might be
considered as plagiarism. I trust none of you would be engaged
in plagiarism, but being careless in writing may create
undesirable situations. Please check with the university policies
regarding academic integrity. (Click here)
To clearly communicate my expectations and help you with this
assignment, I provide you a rubric and a checklist that clearly
lays out what you have to do in this assignment.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Dr. Demiroz
2

Case Study 1 – Preventing Child Abuse
Assignment Checklist
Before submitting the assignment, did you…
Introduction
1. Summarize the case? Did you explain the history of the
DOW, the decision to reorganization the agency, and what
happened during the process?
2. Identify the problem(s) that Patton faces?
Analysis of the Political and Administrative Environment
3. Analyze the political environment? (E.g. did you discuss the
reasons behind elected officials’ motivation to create separate
departments responsible for service and payments?)
4. Analyze the administrative environment? (E.g. did you
discuss administrative issues such the uncertainty for
employee’s future, their morale, disagreements, relations with
the union and so on?)
5. Discuss the interplay between politicians, bureaucrats, and
interest groups (politics of the administrative structure)?
Evaluation of the Reorganization Decision
6. Discuss whether the reorganization decision was based on
political or technical rationality?
7. Analyze the case from an accountability perspective? Did you
identify the accountability issues before the reorganization
decision? Did you identify any potential accountability issues
after the reorganization?
8. Identify any challenges that the street-level bureaucrats (i.e.
DOW employees) were facing before the reorganization?
9. Discuss whether the reorganization of the DOW would
eliminate some of those challenges or create more?

Recommendations
10. Make recommendations to Patton about what to do regarding
the problems that he needs to solve (the problems you identified
in the Introduction)
Mechanics
11. Check your report for typos, grammar mistakes, and styling?
Did you paginate your report?
12. Did you cite relevant course materials in APA style and
present references on a separate page at the end of the report?
C a s e T e a c h i n g R e s o u r c e s F R O M T H E E V A
N S S C H O O L O F P U B L I C A F F A I R S
T he
Ele ct r on ic
Ha llw a y ®
Box 353060 · U n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n · Seattle
WA 98195- 3060 www.hallway.org
_____________________________________________________
__________________________________________
This case is provided to The Electronic Hallway members with
the express permission of the original case sponsor and
copyright holder, Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Daniel
J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of
Washington. The case was researched and drafted under
Professor Brock's supervision by Rina Spence, and revised
and edited by Carol Ritter Thorn. While the case presents a
factual situation, the location, organization, individuals and
other information are disguised.
The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of

Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This
material may not be altered or copied without written
permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email
[email protected], or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway
members are granted copy permission for
educational purposes per the Member’s Agreement
(www.hallway.org).
Copyright 2000 The Electronic Hallway
Preventing Child Abuse: The Challenge for the State
Department
of Social Services (A)
The election in November brought a new governor to a
populous, Atlantic coast state. Shortly
thereafter, the Governor appointed Bradley Patton to the
position of Secretary of Human
Resources, which oversaw several human services agencies. A
logical choice, Patton came to
this position from a well-respected consulting firm where he
had long been an advocate for
human services. In addition, his previous experience in
government during another administration
meant he was already familiar with the intricacies of state
governing mechanisms. The Secretary
of Human Resources position was a demanding one, having
under its jurisdiction at least six
agencies, among them the Department of Welfare (DOW), with
an annual budget of $2.6 billion
and 6,000 employees. Of this, $275 million and 2,000
employees were in the area of social
services. (See Exhibit 1-1.)
Partly in response to a recent death of a child in a family under
departmental supervision, the

State legislature recently passed a law that would establish a
new, separate Department of
Social Services (DOSS) to assume the social services
component of the Department of
Welfare. Questions surrounding the establishment of the new
Department were high on
Secretary Patton's agenda and would present him with some of
his greatest and most immediate
challenges.
Two weeks after he had assumed his position, the Secretary was
faced with a decision
regarding the appointment of a Commissioner for DOSS, which
would represent the official
establishment of the new agency. The law called for the
appointment of a Commissioner by that
upcoming January. A great deal of politicking for this new
agency head position was going on
around Secretary Patton, with both internal and external
candidates in the mix. But Patton, who
had just arrived in the position, was not prepared to make an
appointment. At the same time,
there was a growing movement to amend the legislation that
created the Department of Social
2
Services. Various interest groups were vigorously lobbying the
new administration, both
legislatively and administratively, to make changes in the plans
for the new agency. Regardless
of the outcome, Secretary Patton knew he would ultimately be
held responsible for the
smoothness of the transition and the giant task of getting a

major agency up and running and
responding to it’s legislative mandate. In addition, his personal
commitment to child welfare and
effective agency management compelled his attention to the
growing unrest surrounding this
reorganization.
Patton decided to put off the appointment of a Commissioner,
regardless of the mandated
appointment deadline, to look into what had occurred during the
planning process for DOSS.
Once he reviewed the state of the implementation process,
which had taken place under the
previous administration, he would determine his next steps.
History of Welfare Reorganization Efforts
In prior years, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (HEW) reexamined the
structure and delivery of public welfare services in an effort to
ensure that national goals were
being met. Until then, the national norm was a single welfare
agency whose staff served both
functions of providing money and social support services to
welfare recipients. This meant that
often the same worker was responsible for both "handing out"
the check and making judgments
about the quality of home life being provided to children. There
were inherent inconsistencies in
this dual nature of the job: On the one hand, it was the worker's
responsibility to "police" public
funds and reduce the recipient's amount of payment if reason
were found to do so; yet the
worker was also expected to perform counseling services and be
trusted by welfare families
with personal information. HEW concluded that an ethical

question was at stake here and
therefore required that the two functions be separated within
welfare agencies. States were
informed to take appropriate action to accomplish these results.
In compliance with HEW requirements, the State began to
separate its Department of Welfare
into two divisions: Assistance Payments and Social Services.
Assistance Payments would be
made up of workers who handled the delivery of direct
payments to eligible recipients (Aid to
Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid). Social services
divisions would include
employees (called social workers or social service workers)
responsible for problems of child
abuse and neglect, foster care and placements, and for offering
personal counseling assistance
to welfare recipients. There was little distinction between the
qualifications of these two types of
employees, who were assigned positions based either on
personal preference or available slots.
Since these steps had been taken, there had been numerous
studies and experiments that
resulted in an emphasis across the country to focus social
services on keeping families together.
Providing support and resources to help families cope with
issues that were affecting their
children and the hope for subsequently minimizing the number
of children that were raised
outside of a family environment were also stressed. Many
states had successfully made this
3

shift, saving thousands of dollars in intervention costs per child
as well as succeeding in
providing better outcomes for these children and families.
Recently, a major study had been released by a leading private
social service agency and
advocacy group, the Children's Service Association. This study
went a step further than HEW
by recommending the establishment of an entirely new social
service agency separate from
DOW. Its conclusions were based primarily on the grounds that
professional social workers
were desperately needed to attend to cases of child abuse and
foster care placements. Not only
should the mission not be mixed, the Children's Service
Association defined ”professionals” as
those workers having a Masters in Social Work degree or its
equivalent. Underlying the agenda
for a new, separate agency was the Association’s view that the
agency did not have enough
professionally trained people at this level. The Association was
a fairly prominent lobbying
force for child welfare issues in the state.
With every news stories about child abuse injuries and deaths,
there was increased pressure to
be more capable, vigilant and swift in protecting children from
harm. These conflicting
philosophies and pressures played out in newspapers, legislative
debates and other forums.
Patton was well aware of the difficulties of these competing
demands, but was compelled to
work on the reorganization mandated by the legislature.
Collective Bargaining and the Department of Welfare

The first efforts at union organization in Welfare began twelve
years earlier when Chuck
Johansen, then a social service worker, began to think he and
others were expected to handle
too many cases. The workers agreed that their case-load
requirements had become excessive
and unreasonable. Case-load has traditionally been difficult to
quantify and therefore to agree
on; a worker could possibly specify how long it takes to process
a payment request, but it is
difficult to do the same for counseling or home visits. Social
workers became increasingly
frustrated that administrative officials were unaware of several
important aspects of their jobs.
For instance, an entire morning spent in court over one case
meant that the remainder of a heavy
caseload was backed up even more. The workers, assisted by
Mr. Johansen, began to feel they
should have a voice in the issues affecting them.
Johansen organized the workers and was subsequently
approached by the Service Employees
International Union. The State Labor Relations Commission was
reluctant to allow this union to
organize DOW workers. However, after considerable pressure,
certification was granted.
Several years later, the union joined the Coalition, a single
coordinating body of several State
unions that was recognized to negotiate exclusively with the
State. The DOW workers became
part of Local 101, a unit of the Coalition.
Dividing the Department of Welfare

4
The process of negotiating an agreement between DOW workers
represented by Local 101
and the State delayed the division of Assistance Payments and
Social Services by almost a year.
With this further split of the department, a difficult negotiation
was expected.
Workers' concerns included who would be transferred or
identified as a social service worker,
how the selection would be made, and what the criteria would
be. Some employees wanted to
be assigned to Assistance Payments because they preferred its
more clerical function to actual
involvement with families. Others wanted to continue their
casework because they found the
work more interesting and gratifying.
In the previous split within the DOW, an accord was reached
between labor and management
that permitted employees to take an exam that would "establish
their relative knowledge of
social services skills." The test was given in-house, producing
an in-house list, rather than a
uniform civil service exam. It was also optional and intended
only for those workers wishing to
provide social services. The administration assumed that about
60 percent of the staff fell into
this category. Those workers who chose not to test their skills
simply remained in Assistance
Payments and were relieved of any casework functions. The
exam format and questions were
developed in cooperation with the union, the Labor Relations
Department at DOW, and the

DOW Administration.
After the exam was administered, this list was created based on
numerical scores with those
scoring highest at the top. The DOW started its Social Services
staff selection from the top of
this list. By the time the process was completed, almost all the
workers who opted to take the
exam had been transferred to Social Services even though many
of their test scores were low.
Seniority promotion practices remained in place, supervisors
remained in the bargaining unit,
and caseload remained a contentious issue.
Child Abuse
No further changes in the DOW took place until four years
later, leading to the present
legislation, when two-year-old Jane Barber died tragically as a
result of severe abuse. The
much-publicized incident immediately aroused the interest of
the general community, and
questions regarding child abuse began to receive serious
attention. Among them were how such
incidents could be prevented in the future and if the
qualifications of social service workers and
supervisors were adequate.
Gail Harrison was the supervisor in charge of the Barber case.
The Department determined that
Harrison was partly responsible for Jane's death due to a neglect
of her duties and a failure to
"meet her obligations." The letter terminating Ms. Harrison
presented as “just cause and reason”
some of the following incidents:

“Your report from last October to the court recommended that
custody of Jane
Barber be granted to her natural parents, with the DOW
"continuing to provide
5
supportive services. " You noted in the case record subsequently
that the Judge
accepted this recommendation, but indicated he believed close
contact should be
maintained with the family. However, you made only two
further visits to the
family, both in the month after the court hearing. There is no
evidence of other
contact with the family until your response on March 20th of
that next year to the
report of a crying child at the Barber address.”
“You failed to mention in your October 27th report to the
District Court, your
observation of a "healing bruise" on Jane Barber's face. You
testified that you
believed the bruising to be an isolated incident and an accident
and yet the record
shows you warned Mrs. Barber that such bruising would not be
tolerated.”
The union filed a grievance challenging the discharge of
Harrison, and a hearing was held in
September of the following year. In November, the arbitrator
concluded the following in his
decision:

“The fact does remain that a child is dead, and the frustration
resulting from the
failure to prevent it plagues the Department and all who were
touched by it in any
way. But the charges brought by the Department to justify its
discharge of Gail
are hardly persuasive. These do not demonstrate any evidence of
clear violations
of Departmental regulations, procedures, or requirements on the
part of Gail
Harrison in terms of her involvement in the Barber case.
Therefore, the discharge
cannot be upheld.”
Gail Harrison was thereby reinstated to her position as Head
Social Work Supervisor, with full
back pay and benefits from the date of discharge to the date of
her reinstatement.
The Department of Social Services Legislation and Mandate
The intense public reaction to Jane Barber's death spurred the
emergency law establishing a
new freestanding agency, the Department of Social Services
(DOSS). Passed last July 24th, the
legislation separated the social services component from the
DOW (See Exhibit 1-2.) No
longer would it be sufficient to have both Social Services and
Assistance Payments operating
separately within the same agency as they had done in the
recent past. As advocated by the
Children's Service Association and other private agencies, the
legislation created the opportunity
to establish a model professional social work agency that would
be staffed by professionals
credentialed in the field of social work. A Commissioner was to

be appointed by this upcoming
January, with a one-year planning period before the agency was
scheduled to start up next
January.
However, despite the lobbying by the Association and others,
the legislation did not define the
qualifications for social workers, nor did it include provisions
for staffing the new Department. It
6
appeared to assume that new positions could be created by
vacated positions in the old Social
Services component of Welfare - basically a one-for-one
exchange. Otherwise, it was not
specified how the new agency would be staffed or what would
happen to social service
workers then at DOW. Two viewpoints began to be held by the
workers: Some were confident
they would be transferred over to the new Department; others
were fearful the State viewed
DOSS as an opportunity to hire other workers.
Just prior to passage of the appropriations statute for the
Department of Social Services
legislation, the union convinced one of its supporters in the
legislature to insert the following as
Section 46-A:
“No position or job authorized in this legislation shall be filled
unless a position
7is eliminated in the Department of Welfare.”

Carole Boyd, president of Local 101, explained the significance
of this section:
“It means that the State can't simply create new positions and
leave our workers
out. Either they're going to have to transfer them over to the
new agency or they
have to wait until one leaves the DOW in order to transfer a
vacant position to
DOSS.”
According to an attorney working in the DOSS:
“We don't need any special procedure. We're just going to tap
the best social
service workers and bring them over to the Department of
Social Services.”
The Implementation Committee
The legislation called for the Secretary of Human Resources to
appoint a committee to plan and
implement the new agency. Established in September by Acting
Human Resources Secretary
Dorothy Morse, the committee consisted of Jim Morrow, Deputy
Commissioner of DOW;
Kathleen Cole, Assistant Director for Social Services at DOW;
Peter Van Horn, Executive
Director of Human Services, Inc.; Janet Ames of the
Association for Social Workers, and
Margo Williams of the Agency for Children. * The committee
recruited and hired as Project
Director, Mark Swartz, a specialist on government
reorganization from a major metropolitan
city in a nearby state. Mark arranged to commute for the
duration of the four- to six-month

implementation process. Swartz's credentials included a Ph.D.
in Organizational Psychology
from an Ivy League university and extensive research and
writing on the subject. He had also
organized a Conference on Children and had been a consultant
to the Department of Human
Resources on health and drug issues.
Swartz immediately set to work by defining goals and issues for
the Implementation Committee:
7
“For operational purposes, the project's work has been
organized into three
distinct but overlapping areas. These are structural issues,
services and work
environment. In general, structural activities are those that
involve the mechanics
of setting up a new agency by July 1. The services and work
environment areas
are likely to be the major determinants of the degree of long
term success of the
agency.” (See Exhibit 1-3.)
After a month on the job, Swartz had put together his staff and
began contact with the
Implementation Committee. Since all members of the committee
had line responsibilities in their
respective agencies, there were constraints on members’ time. .
As a result, much of the actual
planning - including identification of the main issues and key
personnel - was based on his own
judgment and discussions with Acting Secretary Morse, who

was later replaced by Patton.
Morale at a Low
In the meantime, both Social Service supervisors and direct line
workers were affected by the
planning process that rendered their job status ambiguous.
Concern for their job security was
taking its toll on their performance. Field workers were
particularly afraid of layoffs. Employees
were also confused as to whether the new agency would offer
civil service protection and if they
would continue to be part of the Local 101 bargaining unit. One
senior supervisor commented:
“The whole process has been very insensitive. The
reorganization is happening
because of supposed incompetence by our personnel. DOSS is to
be a new agency
of professionals, they keep telling us. We all wonder if we are
the incompetents
that everyone keeps referring to!”
According to another employee:
“The Department has come to a standstill - morale is at an all
time low. People
don't know how long they'll be carrying their cases. This is
affecting their
performance. Nobody here feels like working. There's no
support from Central
Office.”
Transfer of Social Service Workers
Reorganization and the creation of the new agency posed

several questions dealing with the
personnel process: what sort of evaluation mechanisms would
be used as a basis for selection,
how workers would be selected for the new agency, what
procedures would be established,
and what criteria would be set?
Selection of workers for transfer to the new agency had been on
the implementation staff's
agenda since October 1. By November, Swartz's staff began to
realize they should be making
8
greater progress on the issue. However, during long sessions
with Swartz, they attempted to
analyze issues as represented in Exhibit 1-4, attaching great
importance to "work environment"
and other essentials they agreed were necessary to providing
good social services.
The Director of Labor Relations at DOW, Hal Bonati, had also
been giving serious thought to
the transfer issue and had expected to work closely with Mark
Swartz. Although Bonati had
been with DOW for eight years and the Director of Labor
Relations for the past four years,
Swartz seemed not to be aware of Bonati's existence within the
agency. Therefore, he failed to
contact Bonati for his input on reorganization and transfer
procedures.
"I remember the past agreement process. We're coming up
against the same

issues in this reorganization," Bonati said.
He later reflected:
“A lot of people say the DOW doesn't have qualified people in
Social Services -
but as yet no social services employee has been successfully
suspended or
terminated as a result of a performance issue. There's no
precedent that they are
not qualified - therefore it would be a hard argument now to say
they're not
qualified. There are presently no standards or formal
evaluations for DOW social
workers. We keep running into the problem of not having a
basis to fire some one
or even transfer them.”
Jim Morrow expressed the view that problems would arise over
the lack of written standards
for "competence in social services." Without these, he felt, the
new agency may simply be an
extension of the old, or "business as usual." In order to have a
competent staff and professional
reputation, he felt an evaluation process would ideally include
at least two levels and judgments
by professionals who understand social service work. Another,
less satisfactory process would
be passing civil service tests as they existed. He offered this
suggestion only because he
predicted that use of competency tests would not be established
by next June. "Even the social
work profession can't agree on one," he claimed.
“Not only don't the professionals agree on what should be an
evaluation tool but

the union doesn't even know what their workers want, so even if
we could agree
on a format the union wouldn't know what to say. By February
24 th [the due
date for the Committee's Report] the Implementation Committee
will have come
up with some evaluation criteria and then we will give it to the
union for reaction
- but they will battle in March and April over it and then take it
to the legislators -
it's so predictable.”
“Social Service workers now think of themselves as
professionals, but are not
sure they want to be evaluated by those standards.”
9
Jim Donovan, Director of Social Services for DOW and rumored
to be someone who wanted
to be the new Commissioner of DOSS, offered some novel
ideals for evaluation:
“Workers do not have rights to jobs in DOSS. Some mechanisms
for transfer will
occur. We are presently talking to a private college that is
proposing "Group
Dynamics" meetings as a way of selecting the best workers. The
meetings would
bring out the workers' views and abilities and therefore provide
some criteria for
selection.”
Meeting with the Union

Acting Human Resources Secretary Morse viewed the State's
relationship with the union as a
naturally antagonistic one and expressed these feelings to Mark
Swartz on several occasions.
Swartz himself put off meeting with the union to discuss the
reorganization process and the
issues of transfer and evaluation. And according to Jim Morrow,
Deputy Commissioner of
DOW:
“We don't need to involve the union in our planning. They
never agree with us
anyway and their approach is too different. They lose
perspective on the planning
process.”
Because so many workers were frightened about losing their
jobs, the union felt keenly its
responsibility to protect its members. "They [the State] think
the current state employees are
worthless and think they're going to get social workers from
outside state service. Clearly this is
not going to happen,” stated Carole Boyd, President of Local
101. Ms. Boyd took the position
that social service jobs should be offered to existing personnel
and training should be expanded.
The union was opposed to evaluations because they were viewed
as being conducted poorly in
the past and used as a means "to deny people positions."
On November 1, in comments to Morse, Ms. Boyd indicated the
union would be willing to
negotiate on an evaluation tool. On December 20th, a meeting
took place between Mark Swartz
and Carole Boyd. They sat across from each other for several

hours. Afterward, Swartz
expressed puzzlement at her antagonistic attitude:
"Ms. Boyd did not seem in the least interested in discussing
evaluation or transfer
procedures. I had been warned about this union, but I never
thought a meeting
could go so poorly.”
That next January, a little over five months after the emergency
legislation was passed, the union
filed legislation under the sponsorship of State Representative
George Whalen that would
"grandfather" all social service employees from the DOW to
DOSS. In other words, all
employees already in place would be transferred to the new
agency, although new standards
might be applied to new employees. Along with this legislation,
the union waged an intense
10
lobbying campaign, favoring no application process, no Masters
in Social Work requirement,
and no interviews.
The proposed legislation was sent to Secretary Patton for
review. As Secretary of Human
Resources, he must take a position on legislation affecting his
agencies. In addition, the law still
required him to appoint a Commissioner of Social Services.
Between these pressures and those
of child welfare advocates, he attempted to sort out his
priorities for handling the reorganization.

11
Exhibit 1-1
12
Exhibit 1-2. Excerpts from legislation establishing the
Department of Social Services
Acts and Resolves
Chap. 552 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES
AND DEFINING ITS POWERS AND DUTIES.
Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat
its purpose which is, in part,
to immediately provide for an orderly transfer of certain duties
relative to social services to a
department of social services, therefore it is declared to be an
emergency law, necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public convenience.
SECTION 10. The General Laws are hereby amended by
inserting after chapter 18A the
following chapter:
CHAPTER 18B
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Section 1. There shall be a department of social services, in this

chapter called the department.
Section 2.
(A) The department shall provide and administer a
comprehensive social service program,
including the following services:
(1) Casework or counseling including social services to
families, foster families or
individuals;
(2) Protective services for children, unmarried mothers, the
aging and other adults;
(3) Legal services for families, children or individuals as they
relate to social problems;
(4) Foster family care and specialized foster family care for
children, the aging, disabled
and the handicapped;
(5) Adoption services;
(6) Homemaker services;
(7) Day care facilities and services for children, the aging, the
disabled and the
handicapped;
13
(8) Residential care for children with special needs or aging
persons not suited to foster

family care, or specialized foster family care;
(9) Informal education and group activities as needed for
families, children, the aging,
the disabled and the handicapped;
(10) Training in parenthood and home management for parents,
foster parents and
prospective parents;
(11) Social services for newcomers to an area or community to
assist in adjustment to a
new environment and new resources;
(12) Camping services;
(13) Family services intended to prevent the need for foster care
and services to
children in foster care;
(14) Temporary residential programs providing counseling and
supportive assistance for
women in transition and their children who because of domestic
violence,
homelessness, or other situations require temporary shelter and
assistance; and
(15) Information and referral services.
Section 3. The department shall establish a comprehensive
program of social services at the
area level.
(A) In order that the area-based social services be adapted,
organized and coordinated to meet
the needs of certain population groups, the department shall

provide programs of service for:
(1) Families, children and unmarried parents, which program
shall, among other
objectives, serve to assist, strengthen and encourage family life
for the protection
and care of children, assist and encourage the use by any family
of all available
resources to this end, and provide substitute care of children
only when …

Case 1 – Preventing Child Abuse RubricExceeds ExpectationsMe.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Case 1 – Preventing Child Abuse RubricExceeds ExpectationsMe.docx

Similar to Case 1 – Preventing Child Abuse RubricExceeds ExpectationsMe.docx (20)

More from annandleola

More from annandleola (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Case 1 – Preventing Child Abuse RubricExceeds ExpectationsMe.docx