Concurrent 2_A Model Human Service

7/30/2019 Concurrent 2_A Model Human Service

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/concurrent-2a-model-human-service 1/171naugural FSC Seminar: FSCs in the 21st Century

A Model Human ServiceA Model Human ServiceOrganisationOrganisation??

Joe Leung, ProfessorJoe Leung, Professor

The University of Hong Kong,The University of Hong Kong,January 2010, SingaporeJanuary 2010, Singapore

Outline

• Diversified nature of HSO: no one-size-fits-all approach to define amodel for HSO. No learning from a single model, but sharing ofgood practice experiences. No magic bullets to excellence.

• Defining performance of HSO is difficult and controversial: Public

pressures demanding more responsive, efficient, and effectiveservices (targets, monitoring); knowing what you want anddeveloping measurements on results/ outcomes (targets). Processrather than the ends

• Domination of New Public Management – business-orientedmanagement practice (performance and market) over HSO/ professional practice (management becomes an integral part ofprofessional practice) – “value for money in government”.

• Repercussions on HSO governance and social work practice (publicand organisational profession). In search of a new paradigm.



Human Services Hasenfeld (2010)

• Symbols of a caring society, not self-interest. Manifestation of thesociety obligations to the welfare and well-being of its citizens.

• Provided by a mix of public-private-non-profit (third sector)

• Key social functions: Provide vital care, protection, maintenance andsupport to a significant proportion of the population (changing,processing, sustaining); social functions include socialization, socialcontrol, rehabilitation, social care, advocacy. Fields includeeducation, health care, social welfare, and corrections.

• Poor public image of being bureaucratic, unresponsive, andinefficient (poor management) (lacking performance measures andcompetitive market to ensure efficiency and effectiveness)

Changing Human ServiceEnvironment

• Global financial crisis, rising government expenditures and mountinggovernment deficits (OECD, 2010): welfare reforms to control expenditureand enhance efficiency (mutual obligations - balancing rights andresponsibility). Conditionality, activation, and consumerism.

• Escalating demands and costs (ageing population, demographicshift and eroding family obligations) and changing publicexpectations (responsiveness, personalisation, choices, voice andcontrol) on social services. Eroding of public trust/ risingdissatisfaction on professionals and public institutions.

• Calls for reforms: joint-up services to address cross-cutting issuesand service segmentation (user-center service); performancemeasures cutting across different services (health and social careintegration;



Public Sector Reforms• Key directions: Public engagement; Customer-centric government;

Policy to delivery/ implementation; Managing for results; Marketinstruments; Joint up government (EU, 2007).

• Trust-based practice to control-based practice (indicators, contract,performance – manuals, guidelines). Declining discretion ofprofessionals (standardization versus personalization)

• Welfare markets: voucher, competitive bidding, public-privatepartnership – competing for service contracts, staff, and donations.

Reinventing Government(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992)

• Providing high quality of services that citizens value; increasing theautonomy of public managers, particularly from central agencycontrol; measuring and rewarding organisations and individuals onthe basis of whether they meet performance targets; makingavailable the resources that manager need to perform well; and,appreciative of the virtues of competition, maintaining an open-minded attitude about which public purposes should be performedby the private sector, rather than the public sector.

• Impacts on traditional professional practice



Changing public expectations• Public services in the past tended to be something which people got,

not as a right but as a favor bestowed at the discretion of the State.Along with that went a tacit understanding that the service might bea bit shabby, slow and bureaucratic. But that was the price of gettingsomething free. The public were expected to accept that a publicservice would not be as good as something which you paid for. Thatis not how most people see it now. People expect from publicservices the standards which they themselves are expected toprovide in their own jobs. They expect service of the kind which theywould get from the private sector. (Sir Richard Wilson, Cabinet Secretary, UKGovernment 2000)

Key Features ofWelfare Reforms

• Financial sustainability: Need to control expenditures and enhancegovernment credibility through responsive, quality and efficientservices (administrative simplification, and efficiency savings); userpay, philanthropy and corporate social responsibility

• Contracting out of services (purchaser-provider separation; role ofgovernment – “steering not rowing”)

• Competition: comparing and benchmarking, ranking (league table),competitive bidding for new services

• Contract management – monitoring, inspection, audit, serviceagreement

• Performance management / outcome-based indicators/ agreedtargets/ quality standards/ social impacts



• Empowering/ engaging users/ consumers: to hold professionalsaccountable (user centred/ first). Singapore: “Start with the users inthe mind”; customer satisfaction. User responsibility (vouchersystem, decisions); accessible service and performance information;choice and voice

• Performance-based human resource policy: contact-basedemployment, merit pay, vigorous performance appraisal. Non-socialworkers as CEOs.

• Building partnerships – with businesses, NGOs, faith groups, charitygroups, and community organisations

What is a Performing HSO?A Journey without end

• Multiple criteria to measure productivity/ /performance/ success:financial health, public brand name, continuous expansion, publictrust, large reserve, and accreditation. Not a unitary concept, with anunambiguous meaning. Achievements with varying significance todifferent stakeholders – executive board, sponsors, government,funding bodies, users, staff, professional association, mass media,the general public, politicians, pressure groups, etc.

• Business Mechanisms and tools to ensure performance:performance agreements specifying expected results, reviews byexternal bodies (audit department, accreditation, ranking and leaguetables), independent programme evaluation (OECD, 2004). Balancedscorecard, European Foundation for Quality ManagementExcellence Model; Best Value (4 Cs); Comprehensive PerformanceAssessment (CPA), IS)9001/2000; Baldridge Award



• Define by the process rather than the end product (efficiency,effectiveness, economy, add value, public value, accountability…..)

• How to measure performance/ productivity gain/ efficiency savings?Performance indicators and measurements; “If you can’t measure it,you can’t manage it”. “measuring government performance is likethe weather. Everyone talks about it….. But there is not consensuson how to do it.”

Organisational capacity/audit Tool

• OC is the ability to successfully apply its skills and resources toaccomplish its goals and satisfy its stakeholders’ expectations.Resources include staffing, infrastructure, technology, financialresources, strategic leadership, process, management, networks,and linkages with other organizations and groups (Ker 2003).

• Capacity to carry out its daily operation; Capacity needed to learnand change in response to changing circumstances (adaptivecapacities)

• Types: Financial, human, social and cultural capital

• Levels: micro (personal and unit), meso (organisational), and macro(environment)

• Components: human resources; strategic leadership; financialresources; infra-structure and technology; process and programmemanagement; eternal environment



Baldrige Award for Performance(business and non-profit, health, education)

• Criteria Point values

• Leadership 120

• strategic planning 85

• customer focus 85

• workforce focus 85

• operations focus 85

• measurement, analysis

• and knowledge management 90

• business results 450

• ------

• Total: 1000

•

“What gets measured, get done”Performance measures (Cabinet Office, 2001)

• RELEVANT – to what the organisation is aiming to achieve

• AVOID PERVERSE INCENTIVES – not encourage unwanted or wastefulbehaviour

• ATTRIBUTABLE – activity measured must be capable of being influencedby actions which can be attributed to the organisation and it should be clear

where accountability lies

• WELL DEFINED – clear unambiguous definition so that data will becollected consistently and the measure made easy to understand and use

• TIMELY – produce data regularly enough to track progress and quicklyenough for the data to be still be useful

• RELIABLE – it is accurate enough for its intended use and responsivechange

• COMPARABLE – with either past periods, or similar programmes

• VERIFIABLE – clear documentation behind it so that processes whichprovide the measure can be validated



Performance paradox• Chase after those measureable, short-term targets and indicators

(easy-to-count measures)

• weak correlation between performance measures and performanceitself. Measures lose their value over time and can no longerdiscriminate between good and bad performance (actual andreported performance).

• League tables ranking universities and MBA programmes

Summary

• Vision-guided (bold aspiration) and clear objectives, performancetargets (coherent measures), focused strategy, performance culture(trust, communication, motivation/ compensation/ reinforcementsystem), rigorous monitoring and reporting mechanisms(accountability and ownership), and organisational capacity building(performance measurement/ information), and stakeholderengagement/ satisfaction (who are they; what do they want; how canwe satisfy them).



Tasks of a CEO• Performance audit – gaps and strength (capacity audit) – checking

effectiveness (staff attitude surveys, focus groups, externalconsultants/ review, staff records/ minutes, appraisal records, exitinterviews, customer feedback, service/ business plans, strategicplans, training records, disciplinary records).

• Leadership to set direction and drive performance (strategic plan)

• Securing external support and developing partnerships

• Cultivation of a performance system and culture (shared norms,targets and strategy). Inspire a cultural revolution – what peoplethink and how they behave

• Change management involving and communicating with staff at alllevels and stages (customer-focused, can do attitudes, accountable,sharing of information and good practice, take responsibility andrisks, fairness in performance rewards and sanctions)

Governance

• Audit Reports reveals “mal-practice” in government departments andsubsidised organisations.

• Corporate governance refers to the processes by whichorganisations are directed, controlled and held to account. It

encompasses authority, accountability, stewardship, leadership,direction and control exercised in the organisation.

• “Good Corporate Governance is essential to the credibility, successand sustainability of an organisation, whether it is in the private orpublic sector. While achieving good corporate governance may notguarantee success, without it, failure is almost certain” (Benjamin Tang,

Director of Audit)



NGO Governance: Inadequacies

• (1) Board structure and composition

• Poor composition and mix of board membership and too manyboard members

• The posts of chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) arefilled by the same person

• Reappointing board members with low attendance rates

• (2) Board operation and effectiveness

• Lack of guidelines/manual on meeting proceedings

• Lack of records on votes taken at board/committee meetings

• Late submission of papers to board/committee members• No declaration of interests by board members

• (3) Strategy, planning and monitoring

• Not preparing strategic plans in a timely manner

• No annual business plan

• Lack of budgetary control requirements, processes and

management systems• (4) Transparency and disclosure

• Non-disclosure of performance measures

• No periodic reviews of performance measures

• Lack of outcome indicators



• (5) Risk management and compliance

• Non-compliance with rules on management of investments

• Requirements for submitting annual reports to oversightdepartments not followed

• Reporting errors in organisation’s annual accounts, e.g. ineligibleexpenditure claims, spending limits exceeded

• (6) Corporate citizenship

• Not providing community services in the organisation’s area ofexpertise

• Register of directors’ interests not available for public inspection

Tasks of a Front line Manager(SCIE)

• Management is an integral part of professional practice – professional career/ Social work as an organisational / publicprofession (no private practice); working boundaries defined byemploying organisations. Conflicts of values between bureaucracy

and profession (guidelines, manual-oriented practice)• Tasks:

• Clarifying the task

• Use of management information on workload and deploymentof resources

• Supervision skills and strategies

• Managing change and innovation

• Managing collaboration and partnership

• Developing courage and integrity



Impacts of Welfare Reforms• Chief executives are under pressures to maintain healthy and

continuous expanding budget, need to have new projects,developing brand names/ public image, promoting staff morale,delivering value for money, etc. Review performance by boardchairperson. Reform fatigue?

• Frontline social workers and supervisors are bombarded withadministrative requirements: writing project proposals for funds,developing and sustaining business partners, publicizing andmarketing new services, undergoing rigorous performance appraisal,receiving continuous training programmes, making business plans,

compiling service statistics, meeting performance targets, reportingon performance, handling complaints, etc.

• Declining and competing resources (supporting new initiatives onlyrather than improving existing services)

• Eroding working conditions: Employment insecurities (contact-based), hostile environment/ users, tensions with employers

• managing public expectations/ compliants• Declassification – use of lower levels of professionals and

volunteers

• Demoralisation and work stress.



Social Workers by NASW

2004• Overwhelmed and stressed. Great demands and unrealistic

expectations and lack of resources

– Lack of time 31%

– Heavy workloads 25%

– Challenging clients 16%

– Not comparable salary 19%

– inadequate compensated 16%

• Coping Methods

More on Exercises, meditation, therapy, yoga; less on alcohol,medication, absenteeism

Major difficulties ofSW graduates

• Inter-personal relationships - 28%

• Administration - 22%

• Job responsibilities - 21%

• Work pressure/ supervision - 13%

• Heavy workload - 11%

• Adjustment to corporate culture - 9%

• Lack of experience - 7%



Social Workers in HK 2003

• 88.2% of social worker respondents felt stressful.

• 67.2% felt unhappy and depressed

• 56.6% had insomnia due to stress

• 58.2% felt lack of confidence

• 64.7% felt incapable to overcome difficulties

• Higher turnovers, more sick leaves, even suicides?

Areas of concerns

• Communication with and translation of information to staff

• Administrative demands as some in management positions are alsopractitioners

• Human resource and management, dealing with staff recruitment

and turnover• Working with board members, managing their expectations



Engaging the Executive Board

• Keep them informed (newsletters, reports, press reports)

• Setting up working/ project groups (programme committees/ retreat/ strategic planning) involving both staff and board members

• Inviting the board members to attend key activities/ opening ofcentres, fund raising.

• Having staff representatives (as observers) in the executive boardmeetings

Communicating with staff

• Formal (retreat, team building exercises, consultants, newsletters,bulletin board) and informal (celebrations, tea break, lunch, parties)channels

• Opinion leaders, staff representatives in working groups, cutting

across departments and units• Consultants – surveys and focus groups

• Intranet and communities of practice



HRM Policy: recruiting and

retaining the right staff• HRM system – strategic plan – HR needs; understanding the

workforce market and trends (supply and demands); how to attract job applications (where to get the qualified staff), fair and openrecruitment procedures (internal promotion/ outside recruitment),retain competent staff and discipline incompetent staff(compensations)

• Pay for the job; pay for performance; pay for market

• Orientation programme, exit interviews, performance appraisals,recruitment procedures review;

• Career development and opportunities for advancement; training(learning) opportunities/ ‘stretched’ assignments; job influence andchallenge (control); involvement and communication (feedback andrecognition); performance management and appraisal processes(what is acceptable and not acceptable performance); work-life-balance. Participation: winning consent rather than securingcompliance


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/concurrent-2a-model-human-service 17/17

Conclusions• Defining performing HSO: know what you want.

• Benchmarking learning model: learning from good practice

• Capacity building: Vision guided, strategic and business planning,

developing results/ outcome and measurement-oriented culture,programme review and impact assessment

• HSO – labour intensive production – professional friendly HRpolicy – promote job satisfaction, rewarding performance, andmanaging work stress/ organisational health.

• Social workers – career as administrators? Re-conciliating the

conflicts between management and professionalism. Need todemonstrate results and impacts, as well as value for money(evidence-based practice).

References

• Baldrige Award for Performance: www.quality.nist.gov

• Bouchaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2010). Managing Performance, international comparisons, Routledge.

• Cabinet Office (March 2001). Choosing the right fabric, a framework for performance information.

• Eff iciency Unit (July 2007). Public sector reform: an international overview , Hong Kong Government

• Eff iciency Unit (July 2008). Measuring Performance , Hong Kong Government.

• Improvement and Development Agency (2008). Performance Management, the people dimension ,

• OECD (October, 2004). Public sector modernisation: governing for performance , Policy Brief .

• Hasenfeld, Y. (2010). Human services as complex organizations , New York: Columbia University Press.

• OECD (2010). Value for Money in Government, public administration after “New Public Management” , Paris:

OECD.

• OECD (2010). Making reform happen, lessons from OECD countries , Paris: OECD

• Simmons, R., M. Powell, I. Greener (eds.) (2010), The consumer in public services, choice, values and differences,The Polity Press.

• Wachira, E. (September, 2009 ). Organisational Capacity Audit Tool, Global e-Schools and Communities Initiative .

<http://www.gesci.org/resources.html>

Documents

Concurrent 2_A Model Human Service