The Ignorance of Bold Reform in State Government
- November 23rd, 2009
- Posted in Systems Thinking Concepts . Systems Thinking and Government
- Write comment
I just finished commenting at Governing.com about Indiana’s Welfare Eligibility
Reform program. The article titled, The Hazards of Bold Reform by Stephen Goldsmith is a political spin on a failed program. He attempts to outline the reasons for modernization of welfare eligibility.
Mr. Goldsmith cites the following:
- High error rates
- Low job placement rates
- Two dozen employees convicted of fraud
- Federal Sanctions
All true as I witnessed them during my tenure as CIO at FSSA. The problem is the context and many may be duped by these anecdotal comments. The FSSA Secretary (Anne Murphy) reported $1 million losses due to fraud from 2005-2008. Indiana will be spending (most likely) anywhere from 2 - 25 times that per year to prevent it.
As with most with political agendas the Indiana Welfare Eligibility Reform was doomed from the beginning. FSSA entered to change the system without knowledge of the “what and why” of current performance. They had a reform agenda and disrespected the state workers, recipients (now called clients), and the taxpayer.
Mr. Goldsmith outlines the usual poster child for reform . . . antiquated technology and a paper-based system. Neither of these assumptions should lead us to believe that more technology or less paper will actually improve things. In fact, in a government management paradox more technology led to increased costs and the locking-in of a poor design of the work.
Further, Mr. Goldsmith talks about the risks associated with innovation as if this should be something to embrace. When spending $1.3 billion of taxpayer money to take a risk on innovation, it should be done on a small scale to see if the concept works. To do otherwise, is to be arrogant . . . not bold.
He makes a mistake in stating as fact that outsourcing employees made things better. No data to support this statement, which seems to play to those gullible enough to believe such statements.
The usual blame about unforeseen circumstances and federal regulations attempts to pacify the reader that things just couldn’t be done any better in this attempt and avoid actually holding anyone accountable or responsible for this bold attempt. To this I say “hogwash” (it is Indiana after all).
Indiana FSSA could have (and should have) understood that the biggest opportunity for change is the design and management of the work. With knowledge gained through understanding they would have been able to design a system and trial it on a small scale, but the rush to “be bold” was their downfall.
It is a John Seddon says “ignorant people shouldn’t be in government management.”
Please join us for a better way to manage in government at www.thesystemsthinkingreview.com.
Leave me a comment. . . share your opinion! Click on comments below.
Tripp Babbitt is a speaker, blogger and consultant to service industry (private and public). His organization helps executives find a better way to make the work work. Download free from www.newsystemsthinking.com “Understanding Your Organization as a System” and gain knowledge of systems thinking or contact us about our intervention services at info@newsystemsthinking.com. Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbitt or LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.
Your comments refresh my memory of my time at FSSA . . . there are entrenched paradigms that will not be broken so easily as by the so-called Eligibility Redesign project. The greatest obstacle that I recall facing within state government was the mindset of the mid-level managers (directors). Some are appointed with the expectation of serving only so long as they can stand the miserable pay and until a better, more politically advantageous opportunity presents itself. Quick solutions are expected, even demanded, with an intentional disregard for long term effects and unintended consequences. Time cannot be spent analyzing real customer needs, but instead an immediate jump is made to a solution that can be put in place within a year or two at most. Any project lasting longer than a year is likely doomed because a new administration (in the extreme, a new party) will take power and automatically blacklist any activity started by the previous administration. All new “solutions” are based on prior implementations, not on requirements. And the beat goes on, repeating itself with the regularity of the political election cycle. Only a catastrophic failure can break the cycle. All the while the taxpayer pays the bill for such predictable failure.