Bob Suver was in the first Ohio University Executive Leadership Institute clas s, Leading with Vision, Value and Strategy , in November 1998. As described in an article in the Ohio Municipal League publication, Cities and Villages , (November/December 1999), Bob found an immediate application for the Strategic Triangle model upon returning to his agency, the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services (CDJFS), which incorporates children services, child support enforcement and workforce development.
For children, the CDJFS is a child protection agency. Yet increasingly it was being inundated with juvenile cases that had been assigned to child protective services through the court system. These cases were primarily behavior problems, not child protection cases, and did not fit the child protection model used by social workers and programs offered by the CDJFS. The situation was impacting the agency’s operational capacity; it was having problems keeping professional social workers who were not trained to handle juvenile justice clients. Typically, 25 percent of the approximately 250 children in care at any one time were juvenile justice cases. Yet these cases accounted for 40 percent of the Agency expenditures.
In the past, Bob had proposed to the court that child protective cases and juvenile justice cases be segregated and that the court oversee the care and supervision of the juvenile justice cases. The Agency proposed a scenario whereby the court would oversee the programming for the juvenile justice clients and the local mental health agency would serve as their case managers. The CDJFS would continue to provide the funding through its federal grant sources . Bob was convinced that not only would this solve the Agency’s operational capacity issue of retaining social workers but also would lead to better outcomes for the juvenile justice kids. The juvenile court judge, however, was skeptical and reluctant to make any changes.
Bob had been trying for more than two years to engage the court in his proposal. When he returned to his agency from the OUELI program, he began to focus on his authorizing environment. He looked at the key stakeholders, including the county commissioners, judges and social workers, and began to identify ways to work with each of these. For example, he identified an influential county commissioner who could be an important advocate. Through that commissioner he was able to engage the other county commissioners.
In addition, Bob consciously developed a relationship with the media and helped them gain an understanding of the work of the agency. He encouraged reporters to look in depth at what was behind the numbers. He invited reporters to go out with social workers in the field. Bob said this helped build trust and credibility with the local media.
Bob soon got the court to agree to take 45 kids initially under his proposed new agreement. There were immediate impacts at CDJFS, including a reduction in caseloads. The juvenile court system reported that more than half the youth entered in the new placement program showed a significant improvement in school grades, as well in behavior and the number of criminal offenses. In addition, the financial implications were favorable for both the CDJFS and the court system. The Agency has more funding available for child protective cases even while providing the court with funding for the more expensive juvenile court cases. This was in part due to a federal waiver and in part to a $50,000 performance bonus CDJFS offered the court if it served the juvenile justice cases within the agreed upon budget.
Bob cites another example where a political strategy was critical to resolving an operational capacity issue. Clark County had operated a childrens home since 1870, but the CDJFS realized that this posed an inherent conflict of interest. The CDJFS is charge with providing a child with the best placement for that individual and not let dollars dictate the placement. However, if the children’s home had empty beds, there was an administrative incentive to place a child in the home. The Agency believed it was not in the best position to be the provider of services. Bob proposed issuing a request for proposals to find an interested party to operate the home.
However, Bob understood that such a change would likely meet with opposition. The community closely identifies with the children’s home, and its staff were the only unionized CDJFS employees. The agency strategized about all the possible issues the various stakeholders might have and brought them all together to air their concerns and have them addressed. Stakeholders included the juvenile judge, probation officer, court administrator, Agency director, assistant director, Children Services deputy director and Family and Children First Council director.
The meeting’s outcome was shared with the county commission who identified additional concerns to be addressed. All were addressed satisfactorily, including how to draft a new labor agreement with the staff of the children’s home. The major obstacle to the agreement being finalized was a succession clause that spelled out the future for existing staff if services were contracted out . This has been accomplished and an RFP has been sent out.
|