Indiana’s new hybrid system for welfare eligibilty is now being touted as a success. But before we move on and say “phew” there are a couple things we should know. How do we know things are working well?
Vaneta Becker (State Senator in Indiana) claims that she has received less complaints, but is this the measure of success? In December, FSSA Secretary Anne Murphy claimed that 30% more people had been hired to deal with the mess caused by the modernization effort.
Are we processing more with less or just throwing money at the problem to make it go away? The cost conscious administration probably knows the answer to the cost question and whether or not more money is being spent on vendors. A bit of transparency is in order.
What about the other measures that are derived from customer purpose (or in this case what matters to welfare recipients). Is there less failure demand (demand caused by a failure to do something or do something right for a customer)? What is the end-to-end time of receiving approval – before and after the hybrid system? Have the standards for eligibilty changed?
It is premature to call fewer complaints the result of an efficient and effective system. The characteristics of such a system remain unanswered. Instead we have received assurances and anecdotal evidence that is fuzzy and unsubstantiated.
With government spending wildly and putting future generations at risk with increased spend to cover political shortcomings . . . these are answers we deserve to know.
Leave me a comment. . . share your opinion! Click on comments below.
Make the new decade a profitable and rewarding one, start a new path here. Download free from www.newsystemsthinking.com “Understanding Your Organization as a System” and gain knowledge of systems thinking or contact us about how to get started at [email protected]. Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbitt or LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.
Affiliated Computer Services, a for $profit$ company has created many of the core issues. They lack ethical standards of responsibility and accountability which derives from the top corporate management and oozes down to middle and lower management. Their management staff are deficient and uncommitted in identifying the fundamental problems. Politics is dominant in upper and middle management, and middle managers make arbitrary decisions and usually do not suffer the consequences. Nor are they held responsible for the mess. In other words, the exploitation and castigation of the those working any position other some form of management will continue. The operative assumption should be that someone, somewhere, has a better idea; and the operative compulsion is to find out who has that better idea, learn it, and put it into action to find initiatives to improve client services, total claim results, operational efficiency, and staff retention. An effective organizational structure that would facilitate working relationships between the various entities and have a set order and control that would enable monitoring of all processes. Using a “Divisional Structure” indisputably isn’t working. A “Matrix” type program would be evidently a more considerable approach. Indubitably GROSS NEGLIGENCE.