I can almost hear the "sacred cows" moo-ing as I read Wolf's "series of broad strategy proposals that aim at a favorable cost/yield ratio." (p. 153).
1. cut services with questionable validity or productivity - singling out in particular the "human services crazes" (those who have heard Wolf speak can probably almost hear his residual Germanic accent rolling the "r" in their heads as this phrase tumbles off his tongue - giving the phrase even more salience and making it even more memorable afterwards). "At any one time, a significant proportion of human service consists of the transaction of invalid crazes" (p. 153), which Wolf states arises out of "magical and superstitious thinking" - and suggests Shamanism would be preferable (I suppose, if we had to have one or the other) because it at least is "straightforward". In making this statement, Wolf also tells us that in favouring these crazes, what often gets lost are "valid pedagogies" that have been time-tested, sometimes over hundreds and thousands of years. In this same group are placed activities performed for "non-programmatic" rationales. These are issues that affect the way a service is delivered NOT based on people's identities or needs. Wolf suggests human service providers have been enculturated to believe that if the law, administrative or financial considerations require an action of a care provider, then it MUST be good for the client, and if something is denied or disallowed, then it MUST be bad for the client. How to tell if something is "non-programmatic"? Wolf suggests we think of them as "examples of the big "buts..." "But the law won't let us", "but our funder requires," "but our staff don't," and so on..." - so we ask ourselves, when a "but" comes to our mind, the objection might be because of some nonprogrammatic constraint. (A useful rubric, in my opinion). I used to say that in some organizations I consulted to back in the day, if people would put their clipboards down and actually engage with service recipients, their complaints about not having enough staff would have more currency. Non-programmatic activities are prompted to defend administrative structures, ward off lawsuits, prepare responses ahead of time for what might become service complaints, give justification for administrator time and activities, and so on. They often exist because they have always existed, at least in the memories of those who work in a service. Rarely are they questioned as a significant obstacle to service provision, although almost everyone seems to "hate" paperwork, meetings, and report-writing.
Wolf goes on to advocate for cutting out a large part of individual program planning and even case management. The sharp intake of breath of thousands of employed PLODs (People who Live Off Disabled people) can almost be heard here, where the crickets can be heard chirping and the loon's call from across the lake can be heard like it's right beside me. Although Wolf concedes these activities can be very helpful, in his opinion (and I would agree with him from my experience) "they have become so pro forma and bureaucratized that in terms of recipient benefits, they pay back only a small fraction of their enormous costs." I used to refer to the numbers of people who offered little input while maintaining their employment doing non-functional assistance work as the "uh-oh squad" - like those who stand around wringing their hands after an accident while the paramedics do their work. Wolf allows that the work of case management and individual program planning can continue on an unpaid voluntary basis as has been the case all along with families and volunteers. Spending countless hours filling out paperwork to justify provisions for a child with a handicap, and other examples of "bureaucratism" are cited as more unproductive time spent at a cost that might become unjustified, only in an economy of cutbacks. Wolf comments also that low-validity, nonprogrammatic and other unproductive activities may continue to be funded even while there are people left without ESSENTIALS. Wolf actually suggests civil disobedience in response to costly bureaucratism imposed from above in the federal-state-municipal-funder hierarchies: "One substrategy is to lobby for legislative relief, and another is to practice resistance and outright noncompliance as long as possible." (p. 154)
2. cut the funding of the more expensive operator(s) when there is a choice between two services that are "pretty much the same".
This seems like a no-brainer to me, and it boggles the mind that it would have to be stated. I guess, in New York, there is a very large state system and fewer non-profits than would be the case here in Ontario. Wolf notes that privately run services can change and reconfigure more quickly and less expensively than government ones. I think that Ontario has done well in developing its non-profit sector, however, my observations suggest that the same thinking can be applied within the non-profit sector, where some organizations are well advanced beyond others, and even between the non-profit and private-operator system in some instances, where better service, better responsiveness and less expense can be found in certain experienced "for-profit" operators than in the surrounding non-profits.
3. Get ready for another "sacred cow" to be sacrificed on the altar of cutbacks - Wolf suggests cutting funding for services that are, or come close to being, luxuries. In this he cites examples of questionable use of "service dogs" and the support structures that go with provision of them to people who are neither "blind, deaf or halt". Another example: helping people with profound physical disabilities to climb mountains, go skydiving - planned for from personal futures plans about "dreams" and "visions" and "egged on by advocates and service workers..." (p. 155) Even if they are paid for by raised funds, or private funders, Wolf bemoans the expenditures which he says should be spent on basics for people.
4. Another no-brainer in my opinion - we should cut down on extravagant salaries - which do exist even in human services, mostly in administrative and health care positions. Wolf suggests there might be a desirable side-effect too, if one of the administrators earning such a high salary might quit the field if the salary is cut to a more reasonable level - "then the people served might actually be better off..." Okay, Wolf, tell us what you REALLY think about administrators! Wolf includes overly rich retirement (pension) plans that allow early retirement at close to one's peak earning potential, which he refers to as an "incentive to retire very early and then take on a different job in human services at about the same pay as one's old job, and live excessively from the combination of one's pension, new salary, and eventually perhaps even a second pension on top of Social Security income..." (p. 155). A parting shot from Wolf on this one - "Exorbitant incomes in any field are particularly scandalous if the service recipients are overwhelmingly poor, as is the case in our field, welfare, and a few other fields and services..." (p. 155)
More on what Wolf would "cut" to survive in an era of shrinking resources in my next Blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment