Social Service Organizations

Copyright © 2013 Eli El Page 1
from issues to
transformations:
Harnessing
strategy to
transform the
effectiveness
of social
service
organizationsBy Elihu Eli El
October 2013

About myself
I have endured many unfavorable circumstances including employment layoff, homelessness, false
allegations, judicial injustice within family courts, and character defamation over the Internet and the
list goes on and on. Nevertheless, I rose beyond my circumstances with bravery and courage.
Within the same court jurisdiction that I endured horrible injustices, I ran for public office. In 2010, I
ran for State Delegate representing the 20th
Legislative District of Maryland.
During my time as candidate, I walked door-to-door attempting to convince local voters to place my
candidacy yard signs within their yards. I placed approximately 150 yards signs throughout the voting
district. However, as the election approached, most of the signs were stolen and only approximately
20 signs remained. Others were run over if placed along the side of streets. Others were burned or
even spit upon. I was even charged by a dog that exited the garage door of a residence as I rang the
doorbell. Although read by 10s of thousands of people within the World Wide Web, the most gut-
wrenching part of running for public office was explaining the horrid defamation and unwarranted
character assassination to my 13 year-old daughter.
My memberships include:
Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.
Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland, Prince Hall Affiliated
The National Council of Negro Women, Inc.
Fathers and Families Coalition of America, Washington, DC Affiliation
Alum of the Little Rock Racial and Cultural Diversity institute of Little Rock, Ark.
Former Teamster
Former member of the Police Benevolent Association
Some folks often wonder – “Why a man would ran for office in the same area that he endured so
many institutional injustices and appalling cruelties? That is a rhetorical question. Once those same
people, read the Freakonomics book series by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, study the
movie “The Butler” (2013) directed by Lee Daniels and written by Danny Strong, and read “This
Town” by Mark Leibovich; he or she would understand why I ran for office during at that particular
time and place.
Elihu Eli El

Contentsfront 1
about myself 2
executive summary 4
introduction 6
define a clear vision 10
create a strategy to achieve the vision 13
build foundations for implementation 17
dynamic implementation 20
step back and reflect 25
conclusion 29
how 30

Executive summary
"ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM" is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth either ignored or
going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one
wants to discuss. It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook;
thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there have chosen to avoid dealing with the
looming big issue.
The term “elephant in the room” refers to a question, problem, solution, or controversial issue that is
obvious to everyone who knows about the situation and is deliberately ignored, because to do
otherwise would offend the dominate culture, cause huge embarrassment, or trigger arguments, or is
simply taboo.
In the very first scene of Netflix’s new political thriller “House of Cards,” Kevin Spacey kills a dog. It
has been hit by a car and lies whimpering; Spacey kneels at its side. “There are two kinds of pain,”
He talks out loud saying, “The sort of pain that makes you strong—or useless pain. The sort of pain
that is only suffering. I have no patience for useless things.” As he strangles the animal, the camera
lingers on his placid face, the blank eyes fixed in their sockets, the corner of his mouth upturned in
amusement. One bid dilemma that many of our social service organizations are facing is that many
of their elected leaders are doing the same.
Some of them are silencing the voices of those who express pain that conflicts with the leader's
agenda, challenges conventional wisdom, or conflicts with the status quo. In these cases, there are
even solutions from that marginalized being silenced. Many of the leaders of social service
organizations rely on uninformed conventional wisdom of its membership, and social issues to persist
to remain in power or increase influence. In this respect, our social service organizations are
producing more opportunists than leaders. As social service organizations grow throughout America,
the natural assumption is to either follow the direction of a leader or structure activities consistent with
the status quo of political correctness. The approach described in this paper sets forth a framework

that empowers social service organizations effectively to help the greater good in society. Over 68%
of all Americans are members of at least one social service organization. The Civil Rights Era paved
the way and provided the means for them to bring about change in our country. That is why the
framework outlined in this paper is so important.
Social service organizations are organizations such as Masonic organizations, National Council of
Negro Women, many religious institutions, Center For Clean Air Policy, fraternal organizations
including collegiate fraternities and sororities, political action committees (PACs), AEI, associations,
APAICS, unions, Sasha, etc. The social service organizational framework sets out five steps:
 of
what the organization is going to
achieve and set clear objectives
focused on measureable
outcomes with non-ambiguity.
 that
includes approaches that will
work on the basis of the best
evidence.
 Institute task forces and
commissions to
with good
data collection processes and
accountability that will maximize
the impact of activities.
 Adopt a approach that facilitates constant improvements while
analyzing and copying what works and where improvements are needed.
 Continually, on how to improve for the “next” phase.

Introduction
“It ought to obsess us. It ought to lead to some
sort of transformation.” — President Barack Obama, September 20131
During the Navy Yard memorial of the 2013 tragedy, President Barack Obama said Sunday that the
United States “can’t accept” the September killing of 12 people at Washington’s Navy Yard as
“inevitable”, but the shooting should instead “It ought to obsess us. It ought to lead to some sort of
transformation” on gun violence in the United States.
Transformation does not start with Politicians. Social transformation originates from the advocacy of
our social service organizations. Expecting a politician to foster social transformation is like
demanding a police officer to put out a house fire. They are excellent at what they do, but advocacy
is not the job of a politician. Our politics are intensely divided on social issues by party lines.
However, for millennial, those born..., both social, and economic issues are conjoined. The student
loan issues that plague our country is economic as well as a social issue.
In this statement by Sen. Tom Coburn(R-Oklahoma) compares Washington to "parasitism." "It is one
parasite feeding off another parasite feeding off another parasite," He says, "The reason you attach
yourself to someone else is so you can gain something yourself. Parasites don't attack our intestines
because they like the environment. That is just the method in which they advance their livelihood.

That might sound a little harsh. However, in Washington if can't be connected, you can’t gain
anything." Unfortunately, many of our social service organizations have adopted and practice this
same "parasitism" mindset. Many of the leaders are elected based on popularity or backroom
dealings.
Define a clear vision
A clear unambiguous strategic vision is a vital first step when a social service organization or group
wants to make an impact. The vision should state what it is trying to achieve, and establish clarity
around key priorities. The vision should be -
pecific
easurable
ttainable
elevant
imely
When social service organizations organize their work around goals rather than activities, they are
incentivized to think hard about how best to accomplish these goals as well as continually review
progress toward them.
Organizations should set clear goals focused on real-world outcomes that can be measured by
real-world results.
Goals should be an appropriate stretch for the organization — they should incentivize better
performance for organizational staff, council members, or programs but should not be unrealistic.
Goals should be NOT be ambiguous. Ambiguous - Able to be understood in more than one
way: having more than one possible meaning. Here is an example of an ambiguous goal – We are
going to fight to ensure that every child in the community has a proper education. In contrast, here is
an example of a clearly defined goal – No later than quarter two of the next fiscal year, each high
school within our district will offer a free eight-week after-school ACT prep class. The stated goal is

very high level, would involve many components, possibly would face with many cultural and financial
challenges and may require tons of coordination; however, the goal is clear.
Create a strategy to achieve the vision
Once social service organizations have defined clear goals, they should create a strategy to focus on
achieving them. In an environment of limited resources and limited time, creating a strategy will
involve difficult choices. Organizations should adopt a set of actions they think are likely to have the
greatest impact with long-term sustainability.
Strategies should focus on achieving the clearly defined and unambiguous goals.
Organizations should use the best available evidence base of what does and what does not
work to facilitate strategy development.
When a social service organization is developing a strategy, they should consider how the
proposed strategy will lead to change and be aware of underlying assumptions, and seek to validate
these assumptions.
Assess the impact of different strategies over the timeframe.
Build foundations for implementation
With a set of clearly defined goals and a strategy in-place to achieve those goals, organizations are
ready to build the foundations for dynamic implementation.
Accountability framework: Social service organizations should build a strong accountability
framework to implement strategy, accomplish goals, and promote accountability. The general body
should know who will be responsible for reviewing progress toward goals and how often the reviews
will be held.
Data collection and analysis: Organizations should consider how data will be collected,
tracked, and analyzed. This will require pre-defined standards to track and measure data.
Organizations should ensure they are collecting the right data. They should ensure data is timely and
legitimately useful to decision-makers.
Dynamically implementation
Dynamic implementation is a repeated cycle of implementing interventions, analyzing the
effectiveness of activity and processes to better understand what works and why it works, reviewing
performance, and refining strategy. Organizations should develop a sophisticated understanding of
what is driving success and what needs to be done to increase impact.
Implement: Organizations should implement planned activities based on their strategy.
Analyze activity: Activity should be analyzed to understand what aspects of an effort work,
which do not and the reasons behind these differences.
Review performance: Progress should be reviewed often through a meeting of key decision-
makers to understand the drivers of performance and consistently
refine the strategy.
Refine strategy: Over time organizations inevitably will need
to make significant changes to their strategies as they better
understand the drivers of success.
There can be a range of barriers to dynamic implementation.
Organizations can be constrained by conventional wisdom of the
majority, political, law, and their lack of ability to refine their strategy
as they go. Conventional wisdom is often wrong. Christopher
Columbus disproved a common belief that the Earth was flat. In present day, we know that they were
wrong - political leaders and members of the upper-class of his day would often shame, blackball,
snub, brush-off, and even humiliate those who voiced against conventional wisdom. Most of our

social service organizations are led by conventional wisdom. Even within our modern-day educated
society, folks continue to be shamed, blackballed, snubbed, brushed-off, and humiliated when they
voice against conventional wisdom. They can also face cultural barriers to dynamic implementation.
Often these barriers can be overcome by empathetic and compassionate leaders who help staff and
others understand that dynamic implementation can be a particularly effective way to maximize the
organization’s impact.
Step back and reflect
At regular intervals, organizations should step back and determine if the original goals were the right
ones and reflect on performance to date. By doing so, organizations can decide if they need to
modify their overall goals, strategy, and the foundations that form the basis of the implementation
phase. The challenges to stepping back and reflecting are mainly the following:
 Greed
 Ignorance
 Narcissistic egos
 Pride
 Self-serving behavior
Organizations should conduct comparative analysis across activities and patterns of behavior
to determine relative effectiveness of its leadership, by-laws, organization constitution, and
regulations.
Organizations may wish to find ways to reduce overlap, fragmentation, and duplication of
existing programs.
They may wish to revisit the needs of the membership and assess if the organization in
advocating for members in a timely, relevant, and reliable manner - Advocating is NOT the job of a
politician.
After organizations have worked their way through this cycle, the process starts again — with a
revised set of goals and a strategy that reflects stewardship, advocacy of its members, and new
choices about the best way to accomplish them based on the evidence. Often, social service
organizations will find they do not need a new vision of what they are trying to achieve, but they are
likely to need to polish their strategy and goals based on what they have lessons learned and proven
processes.
Often times, when bureaucrats encounter discussions with individuals on a one-on-one basis, they
may be forced to admit that “The System” is broken or unfair and simply dismisses the person with
the question, “What do you want me to do about it.” When organizations approach those same
bureaucrats with viable solutions, the change process begins - This is called advocacy. Although the
approach described in this paper appears simple that does not mean that it is easy to implement.
Implementation requires considerable focus, accessibility, timely responses, and a commitment to
constant learning that is hard in most organizations. For social service organizations, which often
operate in the socio-political spotlight or are adopted as a chosen way-of-life, it can be even harder to
implement these ideas. Nevertheless, the gifts of applying them are potentially enormous. If social
service organizations can genuinely manage their programs in an efficient and effective way, they can
have a positive impact on the lives of all Americans.

Define a clear vision
A 2010 survey found that 83% of Americans want
social service organizations to set clear goals
measured by real-world results. When asked to
choose between different ways to help improve
organization impact, asking social service
organizations to set clear goals was the highest
ranked idea among respondents.
Advocating our politicians works
Many states are beginning to set goals focused on
real-world outcomes. Maryland, for example, has
created goals across six different focus areas. The
state publishes reports on its performance against
these goals on its website. Citizens can easily track the state’s impact on key measures, such as the
11% and 12% increases in the percentage of eighth grade students scoring “proficient” or better in
Math and Reading, respectively that the state achieved from 2009 to 2013.
Virginia has also implemented goals and publishes a regular scorecard available on the Virginia
Performs website. In Virginia, the goals are set by a bipartisan group drawn from the legislative and
executive branches with support from social service organizations, citizens, and business leaders.
These goals are long-term goals that address topics ranging from Education and the Economy to
Transportation and Health Care. The consensus-driven nature of Virginia’s goal-setting process is a
particular strength of the program, helping it to endure across changes in executive leadership.
Here are standards that should be pre-defined and published as a first step to defining the vision:
: Satisfaction (or dissatisfaction)
with the cultural or intellectual conditions under
which individuals and societies live - including
educations, Health Care, economics, safety, etc.
: Principles concerning the distinction
between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
The organization should articulate what an individual
would have a RIGHT to do versus what is the
RIGHT thing to do.
The Six Pillars of : Trustworthiness,
Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring, and
Citizenship. These are the most important traits that
leaders of social-service organizations should be graded upon. These traits cannot be fully exhibited
unless the person's character is challenged...until then, you really don't get to know them well.
83% of Americans
surveyed want social
service organizations
to set clear goals
measured by real-
world results.

is good business: How an organization ensures that all its decisions, actions
and stakeholder interactions conform to the organization’s moral and professional principles.
- These standards for the basis of the organization’s needs assessment. The
needs assessment plays a vital role in creating the vision. Needs assessments contribute to goal
setting, establishing strategy, planning, and delivering the most effective solutions.
The needs assessment is the most important procedure within the goal-setting process. Adopting a
goal-driven culture in social service organizations is not easy. Leaders often hesitate to set goals
based on real-world results because they are reluctant to be held accountable for an outcome they
cannot directly control. As a result, leaders tend to be much more comfortable setting goals related to
“good cause” activities, rather than outcomes they cannot control. "Politically correct" causes that
have good intentions, but avoids any conflict with the prevailing school-of-thought. In some cases,
leaders with hidden agendas would inundate the organization with so many “good causes,” the
mission of the organization is blurred and goals become unclear. At the end of the day, members are
so busy focused on activities without SMART goals, is likely to ignore or become too busy to address
"politically incorrect" issues such as:
Family law and the civil criminalization process
Health Care and economic disparities
High education costs
Judicial injustice and the over-criminalization of America
Moral degradation, conspicuous consumption, and hyper-sexualization targeting marginalized
groups
Wasteful spending of taxpayer money
It can be hard to know how stretching goals should be — goals that would be achieved anyway are
tempting for those worried about being held accountable, but do little to incentivize better
performance for good organizational practices. If a goal is too stretching, the members and other
stakeholders may not take it seriously. Sometimes, members or organizational leaders affected by a
goal can try to game the system appear to perform better, for example, by school principals inflating
school children’s test scores. Another risk can result when the easiest way to achieve a goal might
be to focus on some of those in need at the expense or well-being of others (sometimes called
“cream-skimming”). For example, if the objective is to help people enter work, it can often be easiest
to focus on those who have the greatest chance of securing a job in the first place. There is also a
risk that achieving a goal may help people to overcome a high-profiled media covered issue, but harm
in another a more profound and lesser known unpopular way. So while reducing the cost of water for
poor farmers in developing countries may seem to a laudable objective, there is growing evidence
that it can lead to wasteful use of water by other water users. To manage these risks of
disfranchising the marginalized, social service organizations should give considerable thought to goal
design.
When an organization could adopt a challenging goal and focus its energy toward achieving that goal,
the impact can be enormous. Let us examine this cultural example - In early 2009, the Department of
the Interior set a goal of reducing violent crime on four high-risk Indian reservations by a combined
5%. The Bureau of Indian Affairs developed a holistic, performance-driven strategy that engaged
local tribe leaders and youth, improved organizational infrastructure, and strategically deployed
trained law enforcement in a more proactive approach to crime prevention. Two years later, violent
crime decreased by a combined 35% in the targeted reservations and the techniques used are being
rolled out across the country.

Create a strategy to achieve the
vision
“For far too long...programs have been allowed to
continue or to grow even when their objectives are
no longer clear and they lack rigorous assessment
of whether the programs are achieving the desired
goals. The result has been the profusion of
programs that are duplicative, ineffective, or
outdated — at a significant cost to taxpayers”
— President Barack Obama, February 2012
Approximately $60 billion of social security funds {1} and tax dollars are given to in the
forms of grants and incentives each year. Most of these funds are handed organizations that very
little performance goals or evidence that the programs meet those goals. Here is a simple example:
Organization A –
 Formed to promote early childhood education
 Receives $1 million grant funds per year
 The director pays him or herself $300,000 per year
 Other administrators receive total annual salaries of $300,000 per year
 Over $50,000 is spent on travel and lodging each year, including a $20,000 trip to Saint Thomas,
Virgin Islands
 Over $100,000 for office lease and supplies
 Even $100,000 is paid to a consultant who in-turns donates $50,000 to the campaign of the local
politician - Judge sentences Jesse Jackson Jr. to 30 months in prison for defrauding campaign of
$750,000 in campaign funds.
::One yearly panel discussion and travel and
lodging of 10 panelists – 50,000
::Two childhood educators receive $50,000 each
1 - Section 666 of title 42 (the social security act) (42 usc
section 666). Title IV of the Social Security Act is
administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services.

$850,000::$150,000 ~ only 17.4% goes toward our children
∴
Out of , over of taxpayer money is legally , , or
each year.
Basically, we are wasting $49.4 billion per year:
could cover the costs of free online educations for every student and military war
fighter.
could cover the costs of repairing our nation’s bridges and roadway infrastructure.
could cover the costs to provide every K-12 student’s breakfast and lunch.
could cover the costs to provide every senior citizen free Health Care, rehabilitation,
and lodging.
could cover the costs to provide free Health Care to every household bringing in less
than $150,000
could cover the costs of eight rover trips to Mars and wells 10 round trips to the
International Space Station.
could cover the pay of every law enforcement officer in our country.
could secure and protect American from all cyber-war threats. Taxpayers send
nearly $2 billion a year to cyber-schools that let K-12 students receive free public education online.
saving per year would guarantee that our nation is resilient against any future
financial breakdowns, student loan meltdowns, or mortgage failures.
would the need of the current and any possibility of a future
: No civilian federal employee would ever be furloughed.
…this is how we are wasting $49.4 billion per year in funds that should be allocated for our future
social security. By time we run out of social security, those responsible would be long out-of-office
and passed on. As long as “The System” remains vulnerable to “piggy-backing” “fat cat” stakeholders
gaming “The System”, business will remain as usual. Some say that this is the “American Way”. The
responsibility lies with our social service organizations to stand for integrity and sending a message
that gaming the system is not the “American Way”. Again - Our future social security benefits are in
jeopardy - and President Obama agrees.
Once social service organizations have defined clear goals focused on real-world outcomes, they
should create a strategy to focus on achieving them. Strategy involves difficult choices. Often,
multiple different approaches may appear to help achieve the goal, but with limited resources and
time it is impossible to try everything. Social service organizations should adopt a set of actions that
will have the most impact in the necessary timeframe. In some cases, there will be considerable
evidence about what works, and social service organizations should direct their energies to those
approaches. In other instances, the evidence base will be somewhat limited, and social service
organizations will have to develop a strategy based on the best information available. In such cases,
they should focus on trying some approaches and improving the evidence base of what works.
Developing a strategy, social service organizations should also consider how the proposed strategy
will lead to real-world change that is measurable. Imagine an organization wants to reduce the risk of
salmonella poisoning. If its conventional wisdom strategy is focused on working with restaurants, it is
making an implicit assumption that the main cause of salmonella is poor food preparation in
restaurants, rather than in homes. However, if the major cause of salmonella is that home cooked
food is poorly prepared and stored, the strategy is likely to fail. Here is another example: consider an
international organization that wants to reduce the rate of HIV in a developing country. If the

organization invests in distributing condoms, it is assuming people who receive condoms are fairly
likely to use them and that they know how to do so. But if the people already have access to condoms
and are reluctant to use them, it will likely make more sense for the organization to focus on ways to
overcome cultural resistance to condom use.
Solid formative research, along with good intentions, can help social service organizations establish
the applicable set of assumptions. However, in some cases social service organizations need to
proceed on the basis of a set of correct assumptions which the evidence remains limited; for
example, when the issue is not “politically correct”, the media may provide a disturbed or misinformed
point-of-view of the issue. That is fine — so long as social service organizations remain aware of the
correct assumptions and constantly check to see if they remain valid. Social service organizations
should focus their energies on where action is most valuable — sometimes it will make sense to
target resources within particular geographical locations, sometimes it will be best to focus on
particular types of individuals as their needs will be greatest or their propensity to respond to social
service organizations interventions will be highest. Making these good choices is part of strategy
development, but can be difficult in self-serving and politically charged environments which there can
be pressure from the dominate culture within the organization to avoid “politically incorrect” issues.
Social service organizations should also use available evidence to try to predict the extent to which
each component of their strategy will “move the needle” toward accomplishing specific goals. If there
are a dozen different initiatives that form the strategy, they should seek to understand the likely
impact of each of these initiatives as well as at pre-determined benchmarks. These estimations are
not easy, and often social service organizations may only be able to make an educated guess based
on the available evidence of where similar approaches have been tried before. For some more
innovative approaches, social service organizations should adopt pilots to establish their impact
before adopting at a large scale.
In many instances, social service organizations will rely on the media, politicians, or the like to
implement the approaches that form part of their strategy. As the social service organization devises
strategy, they need to work closely with those responsible for implementation to check that the
strategy takes full account of their views and any constraints that might get in the way of
achievements. Social service organizations should not consult stakeholders within “dogs in the fight”,
but work collaboratively with sincere folk to shape strategies. Perhaps one of the most important
things to appreciate about a strategy is that it is likely to need constant adjustment. Some
approaches inevitably will differ from original expectations. Often in social service organizations,
social service organizations believe that once they have published an action plan, they need to stick
to everything about it. Instead of monitoring if the plan is working, they check if everything in the plan
is being implemented in the way that it was originally intended.
Social service organizations can fear that if they fall behind on implementing their action plans, the
dominate culture within the organization will hold them accountable. Some leaders “play is safe” to
avoid accountability. Therefore, they avoid implementing to hardlined programs, asking the hardlined
questions, and answering the hardlined questions. They worry that if they the “right” thing that they
will encounter internal and external political resistance from those who stand to lose out. Mandated
programs, once launched, never disappear. In this respect, a social service organization is the
nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth.
It is much more sensible for social service organizations to treat the initial version of the strategy as
the best strategy they can devise given the amount of information available at that time. Over time,
social service organizations should develop a better appreciation of which approaches are more
effective at driving change and which ones face the greatest barriers to having a real-word impact.

As they do so, social service organizations should adjust their strategies. This may seem somewhat
countercultural, but the approach laid out in this paper requires social service organizations not only
to set strategy but also to continuously review and adjust their performance plans. Here is one great
example of find what works - “Finding What Works in Education”, Costa, Kristina, 9 February 2012
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/open-social service
organizations/news/2012/02/09/11053/finding-what-works-in-education/
Every year, academia produces scores of studies evaluated by social service organizations
programs. Some of the best studies offer incredibly valuable insights into what works and where
academia should direct scarce resources. However, how can an organization access this information
quickly and efficiently? One helpful source is the Washington State Institute of Public Policy. Based
in Olympia, WA, the Institute collates evidence of what works and produces accessible reports that
help social service organizations provide recommendations in public policy and drive internal
strategy. The institute has analyzed the effectiveness of approaches across policy areas, including
reducing crime, improving educational outcomes, and Health Care outcomes, and increasing
employment.

Build foundations for
implementation
– In this movie, there are two heroes with
conflicting convictions. One hero leverages intelligence,
bravery, and tenacity to improve the quality-of-life for all
Americans; the other, leads by example by pursuing
excellence to improve the quality-of-life for his family. To
effectively advocate, both schools-of-thought needed.
In social service organizations, it is normal to move quickly
from writing an action plan to implementing it. Progressive
leaders want to see that an organization is not just engaged
politically correct activities and good causes but also focus
on practical action that result in real-word solutions. That
urgency is laudable, but often social service organizations
skip the crucial step of laying the foundations for success,
resulting in sub-optimal outcomes further down the road.
To improve outcomes social service organizations should
build a strong accountability framework to implement their
strategy and collect the right data to enable them to
effectively monitor progress.
Social service organizations should build a strong accountability framework to implement strategy,
accomplish goals, and promote accountability. Social service organizations should nominate and
elect goal-focused leaders who will be accountable for accomplishing solutions-oriented goals.
These goal leaders should build an accountability framework that increases the chances of
accomplishing each goal. An important first step for social service organizations should be to an
individual, task force, or committee that will be responsible for reviewing progress and how often will
they conduct these reviews? Through the GPRA Modernization Act, President Obama, requires all
government agencies to hold quarterly review meetings for every goal. Social service organizations
should adopt this practice. Social service organizations should also make decisions on these issues
right at the outset. Often times it make sense to have large meetings that involve decision makers,
and everyone leading implementation, while other times a meeting format with fewer participants who
act like a strategy board may be more effective. Social service organizations should also think about
how members far from — and closer to the actual implementation — play a role.
Second, social service organizations should think hard about how they present and review
information in review meetings. Information should focus on the progress made toward achieving the
goals and identifying where action is required to address issues or accelerate reasonable progress.
That seems simple, but can be very challenging. There can be a tendency to have very little
information available — data on overall performance toward accomplishing the goal without any
sense of Key Performance Indicators (KPI). Conversely, detailed papers or reports that set out what
each program has been doing may provide too much information and can often lead to a “show and
tell” culture, rather than a culture of collective insight. Social service organizations should invest

substantial energy thinking about how best to present information to facilitate real inquiry in review
meetings.
Third, social service organizations will want to define a set of metrics that allow them to measure
progress toward goals and also hold to account those responsible for day-to-day implementation.
These might define the expected level of performance at regular time intervals (for example, quarterly
or yearly) across each, or they may be focused on more micro levels — such as intermediate
indicators associated with each approach. Social service organizations should also increase
transparency in order help to improve accountability.
For every goal, social service organizations should think hard about how they will collect data that
allows them to monitor progress as well as gauge which approaches are most effective and where
there is the greatest need for intervention to increase impact. There is enormous potential for better
data collection, assessments, and analysis to drive significant improvements in performance. With
better data, social service organizations can track progress against their goals in a much more timely
way. However, even more important, they can better understand differences in performance and can
use these insights to drive improvements.
The first step will be deciding what data to collect — social service organizations need to establish
what information they need and at what frequency. Often they will need to ask other organizations,
consultants, and internal experts to provide data. They should look for data that is useful to inform
decision-making, such as information that tests the assumptions that underpin the organization’s
strategy or data that allows analysis of the effectiveness of different approaches. They should ensure
that data is available timely enough to inform decision-making and that the lag between data
collection and availability is not too long. Data does not need to be of perfect quality, but it does need
to be reliable enough so that decision-makers can use it as the basis of decisions on how to increase
the chances of accomplishing goals. Social service organizations need to take account of the level of
effort and feasibility of data collection, especially the burden that it can place on subordinate bodies
and individual members.
A second step is ensuring that the data is legitimately usable. While social service organizations
historically have collected large amounts of data, using this information can pose challenges.
Decision makers collect significant data from subordinate bodies and individuals, but, data are
gathered often in forms that make aggregation or comparison too difficult. Those collecting data may
ask the same question in different ways or collect information in hard-copy form, making it difficult to
analyze. Additionally, data can sometimes be overly focused on inputs rather than impacts,
processes, or outcomes. For example, a local chapter or branch is more likely to be required to
record the number of mentored participants or hours they spent on mentoring activities than to
demonstrate the short and long-term impact resulting from the mentoring program.
To support good data collection and analysis, social service organizations may need common IT
systems and data standards. Good systems and standards can build confidence that each data item
is consistently defined, and that those responsible for implementing social service organizations
activities are providing the right data in the most efficient manner. There is enormous potential for
better data collection and analysis to drive significant improvements in performance within
organizations. With better data, social service organizations can track progress against their goals in
a much timelier manner.

Design a strong accountability framework to implement strategy, accomplish goals, and
endorse accountability.
Decide “who” will be responsible for reviewing progress and how often they will conduct review
meetings.
Define data needs and initiate collection and storage of sound quality, usable data so that
progress toward goals can be meaningfully analyzed.

Dynamic implementation
Once social service organizations have built
the foundations, they are ready for dynamic
implementation. In many instances, social
service organizations think their role is merely
to implement their strategy effectively and
efficiently. As long as they get grant dollars,
dues, or assessments on time, or define and
enforce regulations, they are doing well. That
is not enough — social service organizations
should be constantly examining how they are
doing against their goal by examining each
strategy, developing a sophisticated
understanding of what is driving success and
what needs to be done to increase impact. In
short, they should be using data to continually
refresh their strategies in real time.
Dynamic implementation is not a linear
process, but a constantly repeated cycle of
implementing interventions, analyzing
undertakings on their effectiveness, reviewing
performance, and refining strategy. In some
instances, it will make sense to repeat this
cycle very frequently — for example, in
emergency situations such as flood relief, it
might make sense to do so every few hours —
but in most cases, the right frequency is likely
to be between one and six months. Because data on the performance of each different approach will
not regularly be available at every review meeting, it will often make sense to focus on a subset of
approaches at each meeting.
The first stage in dynamic implementation is setting the strategy in motion. Social service
organizations should implement planned activities based on the strategy and collect the quantitative
and qualitative data required to evaluate performance. Some aspects of the strategy can be easier to
implement than others — for example, when an organization can implement the changes itself, they
should happen relatively fast. When an organization relies on others to implement, those approaches
inevitably will take longer. Keep in mind that while implementation traditionally feels like the endgame,
launching a program is only the first stage — it will likely be necessary to adjust the program during
the dynamic implementation process.
Analyzing data is essential to understanding what
Aspects of a program work and which do not, and more important, the reasons behind these
differences.

Social service organizations should deploy a range of techniques to really understand performance.
At the most basic level, they could compare aggregate actual performance with expected
performance. A more sophisticated analysis could also look at performance broken down by distinct
interventions — allowing social service organizations, for example, to establish the relative impact of
different programs or grant streams. Social service organizations should also look at the relative
performance of programs in geographically and demographically discrete locations. A key priority is to
build a detailed understanding of what makes some approaches successful and others less so.
Many social service organizations programs inevitably carry high levels of deadweight — they pay for
things that could have happened anyway without the social service organizations program. By better
utilizing data, it is possible to reduce such waste. For example, a job training program can direct its
dollars to those people least likely to find work without support. A program to reduce homelessness
can screen potential clients for risk factors and provide the specific support that individuals need
most. Analyzing data can help organizations understand and reduce this deadweight loss.
Thinking of grantees as a “learning community”
Our government administers a large number of grant programs. Often the first priority for grant
officers is getting the money out of the door in a way compliant with (Office of Management and
Budget) OMB guidance on disbursing grant dollars. However, there is potential to think about
grantees in a different way. If the government agencies have good quality data on the impact that
different grantees are having, they would be able to identify the techniques that the best performers
are deploying and distribute that knowledge across the grantee community. In addition, they would
be able to modify the criteria for the release of future rounds of grants so they are based on evidence
of the most effective practices.
Through the GPRA Modernization Act, Congress, and President Obama requires government
agencies to undertake quarterly in-person data-driven review meetings.{2} These review meetings
are based on the very realistic “stat” model applied in New York City and since emulated in a number
of other U.S. cities.{3} The “stat” model is a type of meeting that brings together goal leaders with
others in the organization to analyze to determine if the goals are on track. A number of other
countries have adopted review meetings as the means to increase the likelihoods of achieving goals.
Unfortunately, more historically brave social service organizations are choosing avoid all effort that
conflict with the status quo. Incentives are part of human nature. Social services organizations have
to effectively relay the incentives of doing “good” – doing what is “right” – standing-up for moral
principles - Not only should these traits be incentivized but also properly articulated to be applied in
our daily lives through practical application.
2 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 6, August 2012,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/a_11_2012.pdf
3 Robert Behn, a Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard, says “a jurisdiction or agency is employing a PerformanceStat leadership strategy if, in an effort
to achieve specific public purposes, it holds an ongoing series of regular, frequent, integrated meetings during which the chief executive or the principal
members of the chief executive’s leadership team plus the director (and the top managers) of different subunits use current data to analyze specific,
previously defined aspects of each unit’s past performance, to follow-up on previous decisions and commitments to produce results, to examine and
learn from each unit’s efforts to improve performance, to solve performance-deficit problems, and to set and achieve the next performance targets.”
See Performance Leadership Report, Vol. 8, No. 3, November 2009.

If you have closely studied this paper so far, you could respond to these questions? This is why is to
very important to select leaders whose interests are aligned with –
I n c e n t i v i z i n g ALTRUISM
I n c e n t i v i z i n g BRAVERY
I n c e n t i v i z i n g COMPASSION
I n c e n t i v i z i n g CRITICAL THINKING
I n c e n t i v i z i n g EMPATHY
I n c e n t i v i z i n g EXCELLENCE
I n c e n t i v i z i n g GOOD CHARACTER
I n c e n t i v i z i n g GOOD COMMUNICATION
I n c e n t i v i z i n g GOOD HUMANITY
I n c e n t i v i z i n g SELF-SACRIFICE
I n c e n t i v i z i n g SINCERITY
I n c e n t i v i z i n g TRUTH
Systems are broken because incentives exist for stakeholders to allow them to remain broken. Our
education systems remain broken to disenfranchise marginalized groups so that the dominate class
maintains a competitive edge. Our Health Care system remains broken; millionaires strive to
continue making out like fatcats - and so on. Today’s society, there is a trend of piggy-backing “bad
causes” with “good cause” efforts. For instance, it has been proven that greater legalized abortions
have decreased crime. Because sharing that message is clearly not readily acceptable or agreeable
to the minds and sensibilities of most Americans. Therefore, it is piggy-backed and overshadowed
with “good causes” such as free Health Care education, scholarship resources, etc.
On a lighter note - we can learn from history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF8p22sB3FM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXGRBJgWSQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jjMwhZOg_4
What if Harriet Tubman did not act as "Conductor" of escaped slaves at the Underground Rail Road
and simply decided to become “politically correct” by logistically placing shoes on every slave? What
if Martin Luther King, Jr. had not lead our Civil
Rights Movement and only remained content with
being a Preacher saving souls from the pulpit?
What if the Little Rock Nine had not enrolled in Little
Rock Central High School, but choose to “play it
safe” by attended an all-black high school?
Location, Location, Location - ”Political
Correctness”, “Political Correctness”, “Political
Correctness” - Politicians, politicians, politicians - we
live in a world that incentivizes “political
correctness”, corruption, cheating, manipulation,
power, and the “what is in it for me” mindset. Our
modern-day social services organizations can
change that. Social service organizations have to
elect leaders who represent not only the best interest of the organization but also the best interest of
society. Here is an example of what one social service is doing to elect the right leader:
Click here to download

Successful review meetings should bring together key decision-makers and present them with useful
information than helps them to understand the drivers of organizational and social performance.
Participants should be empowered to ask probing questions that allow them to form a view on the
best way to improve the chances of the goals being achieved.
This discussion should be more detailed than simply discussing if performance toward the goal is on
track or not. For example, many social service organizations deliver programs in numerous locations
and with various communities, cultures, and groups. Each location will achieve a different level of
performance. Some locations will find ways to use modest national investments to achieve truly
greater results, and others will be much less impactful. Another thing to consider is that different
approaches rely on different assumptions — social service organizations should use the review
process to test if the assumptions appear to hold true in practice and application. So if there is
considerable evidence that people are preparing food better in their homes than they were before, but
the rate of salmonella is not coming down that might imply that food prepared in restaurants are a
much bigger cause for concern. It is important to build a detailed understanding of the factors that
make some approaches effective and others less so.
A grant program might be able to adjust the criteria for releasing funding by learning from experience.
Similarly, an administrative organization, such as one that issues passports or cuts social security
checks, might be able to use the practices deployed at its most efficient location to help increase the
performance of other locations. Positive deviance is an approach that improves performance by
identifying successful outliers within social service organizations and applying their practices at scale
Review meetings should deliver a clear set of conclusions on ways that social service organizations
should refine their strategies. Over time, social service organizations inevitably will need to make
significant changes to their strategies as they better understand what works and where implementers
encounter barriers to achieving effectiveness. Some approaches that appeared to be promising early
will probably need to be abandoned, scaled back, or significantly reformed to be effective. This is
why the needs should be assessed continually. Other programs are likely to prove so effective that it
will make sense to grow them substantially.
Consider a social service organization’s program aimed at improving the academic attainment of
Hispanic children. The program, administered through grant dollars, will likely work with children who
have very different levels of English literacy and in places with very different contexts. Some school
districts will have a high proportion of Hispanic children and others will not, and some districts will
spend much more per child than others. Once the organization understands what impact the
program has and why, based on these and other factors, it can refine the program to scale up the
most effective practices and address barriers to the effectiveness. Additionally, it is likely that some
school districts will perform significantly better than expected. With few local resources and a large
number of children in need of guidance, they deliver good results — if the organization could help
other organizations with similar characteristics emulate these leading practices, could improve
performance across the board.
Dynamic implementation for complacent or content organizations is not easy. Many social service
organizations are constrained politically, legally, and practically in their ability to refine their strategy
as they go. Absurdly, those constrained social service organizations that do not establish the relative
effectiveness of their different approaches can often face less political heat than those not
constrained. Change is often a battle for organizations separated by class or ideology - those who

stand to lose out complain bitterly and political resistance to change intensifies. In many cases, the
“Feel Good Factor” of some members is a great barrier to change within the social service
organization. The Feel Good Factor is a condition that exists when an external entity or activity
validates a person’s beliefs that personifies a positive emotional high and an overwhelming sense of
joy, self-satisfaction, and significance when the person receives validation from others. Society’s
problems and remedies constantly change; however, because of the Feel Good Factor, conventional
wisdoms and beliefs about society’s problems and remedies often slow to change. Some individuals
and leaders of organizations have deliberately ignored solutions, suspended, expelled, removed,
discredited, devalued, humiliated, or maliciously harmed the well-being of others to continue what
sustains his or her Feel Good Factor. The “Feel Gooders” are willing to ignore reasoning or evidence
that supports critical thinking or progressive insight. As a result, some social service organizations
are less apropos and impactful.
In addition, social service organizations face legal, internal, and cultural barriers to refining their
strategy as they go along — sometimes, funds will be misappropriated, and they will not have the
flexibility to make changes. There are also practical barriers — for example, altering the criteria for
covering expenses of leaders or releasing funds under a grant program will inevitably take time.
Cultural issues within social service organizations can also prevent them from adopting a dynamic
approach to implementation. Often, leaders want to defend their beliefs or power over others, rather
than analyze what is most effective and refine their approaches. This is a common issue in social
service organizations — some leaders are often fearful that they will lose influence or face criticism
internally or externally if they admit their approaches are not as effective as they might be. These
cultural barriers can be overcome by competence and compassionate leaders who help members
understand that dynamic implementation is the better way to maximize the organization’s impact.
For many social service organizations, the norm has been to start by developing a plan that includes
a large number of “politically correct” initiatives containing diffuse actions, and then to implement the
plan without any real reference to what is working and what is not. Usually these plans have few
SMART goals. Some of the actions might be the subject of evaluation at a later date, but these
evaluations can be disconnected from the decision-making process. Dynamic implementation is
different — it is about social service organizations constantly keeping their “eyes on the prize” or
goals they aim to achieve and constantly assessing performance and refreshing strategies to
maximize the chances of success. Despite the challenges to executing dynamic implementation, the
benefits can be great. Social service organizations that understand the drivers of performance in real
time and use that information to refine their strategies as they go along could create significantly more
impact for the American people.

Step back and reflect
During our nation’s Civil Rights Movement, Freedom Fighters
fought or made the ultimate sacrifice to for future generations to
simply have a right to vote. Modern-day political
opportunity greatly differs from what those ever
Freedom Fighters had dreamed:
Since 2012, three D.C. Council members have pleaded
guilty to national corruption charges.
Ex-Detroit mayor and his co-defendants were found guilty of a range of
charges, including racketeering, fraud, and extortion.
This year, President Obama delivered the closing remarks at the 50th
anniversary of the March on Washington. Many folks were surprised by the
speech. Most folks had expected for our President Obama to discourage African
American politicians from continuing to shame the legacies of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, and many other African Americans who had
marched, fought, bled, and died for our to become a better place for all
Americans. The “what is in it for me” attitude is not the “American Way”. As it
pertains to character, morality, and how we genuinely treat each other,
modern-day society need to a point-of-reference. It is the responsibility of our social service
organizations to re-establish the moral standard as a clear and unambiguous point-of-reference.
Social service organizations have to make decisions every year about where their priorities lie. Every
two to three years, social service organizations will need to revise their priority goals in line with the
needs of its member and quality-of-life of all Americans. They should use those occasions to carry
out more reflective evaluations. Sometimes, it will be appropriate to commission longer, scientifically
rigorous evaluations at the same time that programs commence. Using evaluative and analysis
techniques — such as Five Why’s, randomized control trials, SWOT, quasi-experiments, PESTLE,
observational studies, CATWOE, or propensity score matching — can provide powerful insights for
social service organizations to establish what works. Social service organizations should time these
evaluations carefully so that results are available to prepare future priorities, and the information
needs to be presented such that policy makers can use it to make decisions.
Often, social service organizations will find that they need answers to a wider set of questions. A key
dilemma facing social service organizations is the relative effectiveness of the same approach to
tackle the different issues. This will call for comparative analysis across programs to establish what
approaches are most effective, and the circumstances in which they work well. Sometimes, it may
make sense to narrow the scope of certain programs so they serve communities or situations in
which they are most effective. In certain cases, it will make sense to terminate programs or
approaches that appear less effective or duplicative.
Answering questions about relative effectiveness is not easy. Even when rigorous scientific
techniques are not needed, in-depth analysis of historical performance is essential to understanding
the drivers of success for programs. That may mean looking across the different places that the
organization tried the approach, across the different types of organizations that sought to implement

it, or at the different populations served. This form of reflective analysis will help social service
organizations to make future directions.
A task force is a temporary organization created to solve a particular problem. It is considered to be a
more formal ad-hoc committee. A taskforce, or more-commonly task force, is a special committee,
usually of experts, formed expressly for the purpose of studying a particular problem. The task force
usually performs some sort of an audit to assess the current situation, draws up a list of all the current
problems present, and evaluates which ones merit fixing and which ones are actually fixable. Next,
the task force would formulate a set of solutions to the problems and pick the "best" solution to each
problem, as determined by some set of standards. For example, a task force set up to eliminate
excessive government spending might consider a "best" solution to be one that saves the most
money. Normally, the task force presents its findings and proposed solutions to the organization that
called for its formation; it is the responsibility of the organization itself to act upon the task force's
recommendations.
Each Social service organizations should establish a way of instituting Task Forces within the
organization to effectively address issues branding & public image, advocacy, public policy
recommendations, waste, standards, etc. Here is the recommended that framework:
Application to Create a Task Force
Creation of the Task Force
Decommission of Task Force
Volunteer Application
Individual Appointment to Task Force
Individual Withdrawal from Task Force
Involuntary Removal from Task Force
Recommendation Submission or Written Testimony to a Specific Task Force
Request for Oral Testimony Before a Specific Task Force
Approve Task Force Report or Recommendation
Initiate Task Force Investigation
At this point, social service organizations should consider if the goals they set for themselves were
the right ones. A good set of goals will have very few perverse or unintended consequences and will
have addressed the key priorities of the organization and social service organizations. Social service
organizations will also want to consider if their information is timely enough to inform stakeholders
and accurate enough to allow decision-makers to draw sensible conclusions. By stepping back and
reflecting, social service organizations could decide if they need to make changes to their goals,
strategy, and the foundations that form the basis of the implementation phase.
After this, in effect the process starts again — with a revised set of goals and a strategy that reflects
choices about the best way to accomplish. Often, social service organizations will find they do not
need a new vision of what they are trying to achieve, but they may still need to hone their strategy
and goals based on what continual learning.
Note: Effective and quick responses to telephone calls is an indication that the social service
organization may be good. All telephones should be returned within 48 hours. If an expert cannot
call to resolve the matter within 48 hours, a short call should be made to alert the caller that the
correspondence(s) has been properly received, and the matter will be addressed within a specific
time period.

Conduct comparative analysis across programs to determine relative effectiveness.
Find ways to reduce overlap, fragmentation and duplication of programs.
Assess if the data collected was timely, relevant and reliable.
Revisit goals to assess if they are still relevant and appropriate.
This was a very unfortunate, but avoidable event. The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George
Zimmerman took place on the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Martin was a 17-year-
old African American high school student. George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic,
was the neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily
staying and where the shooting took place. Following an earlier call from Zimmerman, police arrived
within two minutes of a gunshot during an altercation in which Zimmerman fatally shot Martin, who did
not have any weapons. Zimmerman was taken into custody, treated for head injuries, and questioned
for five hours. The police chief said that Zimmerman was released because there was no evidence to
refute Zimmerman's claim of having acted in self-defense, and that under Florida's Stand Your
Ground statute, the police were prohibited by law from making an arrest. The police chief also said
that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with lethal force. As news of the case spread,
thousands of protestors across the country called for Zimmerman's arrest and a full investigation. Six
weeks after the shooting, amid widespread, intense, and in some cases misleading media coverage,
Zimmerman was charged with murder by a special prosecutor appointed by Governor Rick Scott.
Zimmerman's trial began on June 10, 2013, in Sanford. On July 13, 2013, a jury acquitted him of
second-degree murder and of manslaughter charges.
With adequate need assessments and goal-focused leaders within our social service organizations,
the whole tragedy could have been proactively mitigated and avoided. The National Rifle Association
(NRA) and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) convinced primary Red state legislatures
to adopt "stand‑your‑ground" laws. If social services had goal-focused compassionate leaders, task
force structures, and robust advocacy programs in place prior to the adoption of "stand‑your‑ground"
laws, many unwarranted murders would be avoid. In our divisive society, it is almost impossible to
convince legislators to enact further laws to repeal "stand‑your‑ground". This is primary because
Americans want to protect Rights at all costs and the NRA says that “Stand-Your-Ground” is a
“fundamental human right”. Whether the leaders are downright incompetent or simply do not give a
damn, the practices of electing leaders of social service organizations based on popularity,
intimidation, charisma, impressive degrees, attrition, political posturing, power struggles, or celebrity
status . The members of social service organizations need to get serious about
promoting, articulating, and exhibiting the tenets of their organizations. “…is not to be treated like a
country club. For many Americans, stuff {$#!+} is getting real out here!”.

Conclusion
The approach described in this
paper sets forth a series of
simple steps which can help
social service organizations
improve their moral insight,
performance, and leadership.
Social service organizations
need to strive to elect leaders
who will plan what the
organization will achieve;
develop a strategy that includes
approaches that they think are
most likely to work; build the
foundations for implementation;
implement with an eye to
constant improvement; and
reflect before starting the cycle
again.
Unfortunately, just because the
approach is simple does not mean that it is easy to implement. Implementation requires considerable
focus and a commitment to constant learning that may be hard for some leaders of social service
organizations. For social service organizations, which often operate in the political spotlight, it can be
even harder to implement these ideas.
Nevertheless, the rewards of applying them are enormous. If social service organizations are able to
rightfully manage their activity in a resourceful, they can have a positive impact on the lives of all
Americans.

HOW?
If “how” remains a question, please feel free to contact the author at 301-906-1292.

Social Service Organizations

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Social Service Organizations

More from Elihu El, ITIL, SCRUM Master

Recently uploaded

Social Service Organizations