Iowa General Assembly Banner

MINUTES

DHS RESTRUCTURING TASK FORCE

November 25, 1996 - Second of Two Meetings

MEMBERS PRESENT

MEETING IN BRIEF

Minutes prepared by Richard Nelson, Legal Counsel
Organizational staffing by John Pollak, Committee Services Administrator

  1. Procedural Business.
  2. Opening Remarks.
  3. National Conference of State Legislatures Presentation.
  4. Administrative Rules Process Overview.
  5. Task Force Discussion.
  6. Recommendation.
  7. Written Materials Filed with the Legislative Service Bureau.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

1. Procedural Business.
Call to Order. Co-chairperson Houser called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m., in the B-Level Conference Room of the Hoover Building in Des Moines, Iowa. The following members were not in attendance: Senator Nancy Boettger, Senator Michael Connolly, Senator Elaine Szymoniak, Representative Dan Boddicker, and Mr. Dennis Killion.
Recess. The committee held a luncheon recess.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
2. Opening Remarks.
Co-chairperson Houser stated that although he was discouraged by the lack of consensus at the close of the first meeting, he feels a renewed sense of optimism and encouragement after consulting with several groups favoring devolution of government functions to the local level.
Co-chairperson Hammond added that she felt all members of the Task Force were frustrated by the inability to reach consensus and formulate goals during the first meeting and that she hoped members could discard incompatible or unrealistic goals, reach consensus, and develop a workplan for additional meetings next year.
Ms. Dayhoff indicated that she prefers the phrase "local governance" to devolution, because it appears less threatening. She emphasized that the Task Force must always consider the best interests of the community and clients being served, and to that end she feels there will always be an umbrella Department of Human Services. She expressed pride in some of the department's accomplishments.
Senator Tinsman stated that this is a positive opportunity to tout what the Department of Human Services does well and to determine problem areas needing improvement. She recalled the adversarial nature of County Board of Supervisor meetings with the department from her tenure as a county supervisor, and noted that improvement occurred when the state made an effort to facilitate face-to-face communication.
Representative Brand commented that there is a great deal at stake for the department and state government and that much innovation is needed. He called for improved communication and coordination between the state and communities.
Representative Carroll described an Iowa State Association of Counties meeting he had recently attended and noted that at the county level, the demand for services significantly exceeds the ability of taxpayers to pay. He observed a continuing adversarial relationship between the counties and the state and indicated that a more professional and positive relationship between the county and the department is needed.
3. National Conference of State Legislatures Presentation.
Iowa Models. Ms. Shelley Smith of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) discussed efforts in other states to restructure human services programs. Ms. Smith indicated that Iowa's efforts in juvenile justice funding decategorization, family preservation, family investment, and other human services programs have been models for other states. Iowa is viewed as a "learning lab" by many other states regarding Iowa's treatment of human services programs, and the state needs to recognize that it has experience and information at its disposal in considering restructuring that other states generally lack.
Overview of State Efforts. Restructuring activity is taking place in so many states, and evolving in so many directions, that Ms. Smith indicated the NCSL faces a challenging task in keeping track of the activity. A recent 27-state survey revealed that in states where restructuring efforts are occurring, the human services area generally receives the most scrutiny. Some states have consolidated state functions to promote consistency and reduce overlapping functions, creating umbrella agencies. Others have reorganized based upon other criteria, such as grouping all similar-focus programs together. Ms. Smith noted a tendency in many states to simply "move around boxes" in restructuring efforts and stated that client surveys consistently indicate that families don't really care where services come from, as long as they receive the services they feel are necessary. Accordingly, it is important to focus upon policy objectives when considering a change in administrative structures.
Local Service Delivery. An unprecedented level of consumer dissatisfaction with social services providers exists and, together with federal devolution activity, provides the impetus for much of the restructuring activity taking place. The public perception characterizes social services providers as monolithic, ineffectual, and impersonal. Re-engaging citizens has therefore emerged as a primary motivation for devolution, and many state legislatures are looking for an ideal administrative and delivery system through consolidation and local empowerment. There exists no clear definition, however, of what constitutes "local". Efforts have ranged from community-based to county-based and regional-based.
Specific State Models. There are as yet no mature models from other states upon which to base a restructuring approach. Illinois provides an example of a cyclical pattern of consolidation and devolution and, together with Oregon, Nebraska, and Colorado, is reorganizing the human services system comprehensively. Other states, such as Hawaii, Utah, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Oregon, are more targeted and specific in their approaches. In general, reorganization efforts seek to improve service delivery, with the goal of providing funding for outcomes, not just process. Oregon is implementing consolidated prevention funding for expenditure at the local level and allowed an initial period of time to facilitate local capacity-building. After considerable initial excitement, a recent audit of the new Oregon program has revealed that too much money continues to be expended for administrative expenses instead of services. Thus, even states with a firm commitment to devolution and well-developed and implemented plans for accomplishing that end seem to achieve uneven results and receive a significant amount of bad press in the course of the restructuring process.
4. Administrative Rules Process Overview.
Mr. Joe Royce, legal counsel, Administrative Rules Review Committee, and Ms. Mary Ann Walker, Department of Human Services, presented an overview of the administrative rules process utilized in Iowa. The overview included the historical evolution of the rulemaking process, the purpose of rulemaking, the expansion of agency use of rules, tools for rule modification or interpretation, and the nature and function of the Administrative Rules Review Committee and gubernatorial review.
It was noted that rulemaking presents both advantages and disadvantages -- it provides for the consistent interpretation of agency policy and a formalized mechanism for change, but also imposes rigid requirements with the force of law on individuals and agencies. Consideration was given to the conflict which can occur between constitutional requirements for equal protection or equal treatment under the law and the need for waivers of rules and other forms of flexibility and to the merits of codifying waiver and negotiated rulemaking provisions.
5. Task Force Discussion.
Local Involvement. Committee discussion revealed that considerable support for local involvement in program administration exists and that this is consistent with national trends, but further discussion regarding the definition of "local" is necessary. The essence of a community is the individual neighborhoods comprising it, and, conceptually, the closer the system can come to involving neighbors on a personal level, the more effective the outcome will be. There will always remain, however, the need for some form of agency responsible for implementing and reporting outcomes and handling finances. The goal should be to recreate a neighborhood delivery system, without unnecessary red tape, holding service providers and citizens accountable.
Large vs. Small. It was noted that the fundamental issue can be characterized as "largeness" vs. "smallness", with largeness denoting process and bureaucracy. On the other hand, the disadvantage of smallness can be increased subjectivity and a tendency to be judgmental. Neighborhood-based decisions must contain some needs-based objectivity. A statewide devolution process would have to incorporate some process for ensuring local capacity, so that bureaucratic elements of programs can be relaxed without sacrificing accountability measures. The issue remains as to whether, given the capacity issue, public assistance efforts are better accomplished through professionals.
Public Input. It was determined that there is a need for public input regarding improvement of human services in the state. Ms. Smith directed the committee's attention to a document entitled, "Values for Reformed Services" (attached), containing a list of attributes of an effective human services delivery system. Some members supported utilizing the Values document as a starting point in efforts to obtain public input, with the substitution of the sentence, "The system is flexible and personalized to meet human needs", in place of, "The system has a warm, human face". Additionally, some statement of purpose should be added, reflecting that federal devolution has led to restructuring efforts designed to reengage citizens in the human services delivery process. A "listening post" approach to local public hearings, eliciting public reaction, could be instituted. Other members expressed reservations about public input meetings based on previous experience with them, citing limited participation and inefficient usage of time concerns. A "targeted" listening post concept was suggested, focusing on certain targeted individuals and groups.
DHS Director. In response to an inquiry from the committee regarding his perspective, Mr. Chuck Palmer, director of the Department of Human Services, stated that the core issue in devolution is the engaging of clients in the process. Mr. Palmer indicated that the appearance of inflexibility in the system is the result of a variety of causes, including constraints triggered by the potential for federal audit. He would not characterize the process as restructuring as much as engaging critical players in a "feedback loop". As an alternative to conducting public input hearings, Mr. Palmer suggested surveying the decatagorization board community leaders.
Targeted Surveys. Following Mr. Palmer's comments, a "middle ground" proposal was discussed, incorporating both targeted individuals and human services clients. A client survey could be made available at various Department of Human Services locations, to be returned to the legislature, and input meetings held with targeted community leaders and representatives, perhaps with professional assistance.
6. Recommendation.
No clear consensus emerged regarding the development of public input surveys, the holding of public input meetings, or the targeting of specific groups to be involved. It was noted the Task Force lacked sufficient Senate members to adopt a formal recommendation in accordance with the rules of the Task Force. The Task Force members present agreed upon a recommendation that the chairpersons and ranking members of the Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Human Services should meet early in the 1997 Legislative Session to develop a workplan for consideration by the full Task Force.
7. Written Materials Filed with the Legislative Service Bureau.
a. "Tools to Change Agency Policies Through the Rulemaking Process", submitted by Mr. Joe Royce, Administrative Rules Review Committee.
b. House Bill 2004, Oregon Legislative Assembly, submitted by Co-chairperson Hammond.
c. The following materials were submitted by Ms. Shelley Smith, NCSL:
d. Materials concerning Iowa's Child Support Program prepared by the Department of Human Services and compiled by Larry Sigel, Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

OTHER INFORMATION FOR THIS COMMITTEE:

| Charge | Members | Staff | Final Report |

Back to top of Interim Information

Return To Home Iowa General Assembly

index Search: 1996 Interim (76th General Assembly)

© 1997 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

Comments? webmaster@legis.iowa.gov.

Last update: Tue Feb 11 14:30:03 CST 1997
URL: /DOCS/GA/76GA/Interim/1996/comminfo/dhs/mn961125.htm
sw