How Indiana Lost Control - Case Study Example

Management at Work: How Indiana Lost Control of Its Welfare System This case is about the welfare control system of the Indiana Sate. The state contracted private firms to provide social services to the citizens with hope that private sectors would increase performance of delivery of services to the public (Ricky 589). Also, the state intended to reduce the cost of providing such services to the citizens as well as improve the efficiency of handling information pertaining to the patients. As part of the privatization plan, the state contracted Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA). However, the private firm failed to deliver what the state expected in a number of ways. For example, the handling of client’s applications was inefficient both in answering the client’s calls and maintaining of clients documents. The contracted firms hired incompetent workers who failed to perform according to state’s expectations. ACS focused on making money hence their service was poor and uncoordinated. American civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the performance of FSSA for misplacing the documents of the patients hence leading to denial of essential services to the applicants. Critics blamed the inefficiency of the private firms as caused by waiver of caseworkers that was present in the state (Alb?k, Eliason & Herman 17). Before privatization, each household had a caseworker who confirmed the qualification of individuals before making an application and also ensured that the applications were submitted in the right procedure. Question 1 Privatization was implemented as a cost saving strategy. For example, Governor Mitch Daniels stated that by privatizing the welfare and food programs would enable the state to save up to one billion dollars in a decade (Ricky 619). The state signed a 1.3 billion dollar contract with the private firm. However, one and a half years later the both IBM and Affiliated Computer Services (subcontracted) by to deal with calls of the clients failed to achieve the mission. To improve performance of welfare and food programs delivery. The intention of the state was to delegate functions of welfare and food delivery to private firms because this would reduce the processes of handling applications and attending to the needs of the people (Chu et al.19) This would ensure smooth operations because private firms have appropriate facilities and specialized staff to handle the needs of the people effectively. Question 2 The new system was intended to improve communication between the clients and the service providers. ACS was hired to manage telephone calls from the clients (Bursi & David 164). This was meant to increase speed of gathering, processing, and storing clients’ data with greater efficiency. Therefore, the new system was meant to increase the efficiency of collecting date and increase security of client’s documents. Privatization of FSSA resulted to inefficiency of delivering services in a number of reasons. For example, it resulted to waiver of caseworker. Private firms focused on cost reduction measures such as hiring of incompetent workers who did not perform to the standards of the clients (Bursi & David 187). Before privatization, caseworkers used to direct each client on how to fill submit the application for the welfare and verifying the qualification of the applicants for the services. As the governor stated, the new system was supposed to reduce the cost of the state incurred when providing social services to the residents (Chu et al.24). The actual cost of providing these services was supposed to come down by one million dollars in a span of ten years. Through the use of a private firm by the state to provide social services to the public, the state intended to reduce the bureaucracy involved in the state when providing services to the citizens (Alb?k, Eliason & Herman 23). Usually private firms have shorter and streamline the procedure for handling clients hence the system was meant to ease the process of acquiring social services. The private firms lacked strategic plan to ensure smooth provision of services. The hiring of incompetent workers and inadequate training offered by ACS limited capacity of the FSSA to provide social services to the citizens effectively (Ricky 645). Furthermore, the workers of ACS took a lot of time to respond to the calls of the clients. In addition, clients’ application forms were misplaced in the company hence limiting the service provision to the clients since those clients’ whose documents were misplaced did not have access to social services. Question 3 The bureaucracy effected in the IBM, and ACS hindered efficiency of information delivery to clients. For example, it took clients long time of waiting for the response of their calls (Bursi & David 235). This forced those who were calling in order to get essential services either get belated assistance or fail to get the services at all. The new system hindered clients from accessing the services in case some documents were missing. Before privatization, households had caseworkers who assisted the clients make applications and receive essential social services (Chu et al.47). However after privatization the application process was changed to an electronic system that allowed clients to submit the applications either online or by use of a phone call. There were no household caseworkers under the new system. Therefore, caseworkers could access the applications from different parts of the state hence his resulted to loss of face to face contact with the caseworkers. Lack of personal contact between clients and the agents reduced to efficiency of provision of services by the agents to the clients. Decentralization would increase efficiency of service delivery because the state would invest in research and development hence ensuring efficiency of operations (Ricky 674). The state would be mindful of welfare of the people instead of focusing on making huge profits. In order to achieve better performance, the state would hire competent personnel who would ensure better performance in the organization. Decentralization of social services would maintain personal contact between the agent and the clients (Alb?k, Eliason & Herman 34). This is because state usually encourages better services for its people irrespective of the cost of delivering services. Therefore, decentralization would ensure caseworkers for each household to direct clients on the procedure for making applications and confirming the qualifications for making those applications. This would result to better social services for the citizens. Question 4 The control system of the privatized social-services were effective because the information gathered about e clients were incomplete hence inadequate for decision making process (Ricky 669). The management did not focus on an exception to implement necessary improvement for better service delivery, but instead it focused on the entire organization. Even after FSSA Secretary Ann Murphy promised to improve performance of ACS and IBM in 2004, there was no improvement realized because the system did not suggest areas for improvement until the state revoked contract (Alb?k, Eliason & Herman 58). In addition, the system failed because of lack of effective control on strategic positions such as training of the workforce and proper storage of clients’ applications. Most of the challenges facing the system did not reach the management on time for immediate action (Chu et al.64). For example, the misplacement of clients’ documents came to light when clients discovered that they were missing. The system was not flexible enough to accommodate essential changes in the organization. Furthermore, the system was not acceptable hence some people placed a lawsuit against ACS and IBM. Question 5 FSSA was effective before privatization. The clients used to get quick services and relied on caseworkers to assist them in the acquisition of social services. The clients’ documents were highly secure, and clients enjoyed faster services Alb?k, Eliason & Herman 75). This resulted to unacceptable services to the clients because IBM did not perform up to the expected standards. However, Daniels fired IBM the Governor promised to maintain the good qualities of the previous system and implement new changes to the hybrid system to ensure better services to clients. Therefore, Hoosier clients will enjoy better social services since ACS now work under the governments’ scrutiny (Bursi & David 267). This would result to improvement of services since the state will be dictating to the hybrid system on what they should do and what they should not do. Through research and development there will be innovation hence better quality of services to clients. Works Cited Alb?k, Erik; Eliason, Asbjorn & Herman Norgaard, Crisis, Miracles, and beyond: Negotiated Adaptation of the Danish Welfare SystemAarhus University Press Aarhus, Denmark (2008). 112-198 Bursi, Oreste & David, Wagg. Modern Testing Techniques for Structural Systems: Dynamics and Control. Springer (2009). 132-275 Chu, S., Soong, T. T. & Andrei, Reinhorn. Active, hybrid, and semi-active structural control: a design and implementation handbook. Wiley (2008). 14-86 Ricky, W. Griffin Management, 11ed. Cengage Learning 2012). 588-645 Read More