Guiding Organizational Change

of its meetings and retreats, members have presented case descriptions of either innovative practice or administrative challenges and responses. This 25th anniversary edition of the casebook features a wide array of BASSC research projects and teaching cases. It marks a milestone of the BASSC EDP and the begin- ning of a transition as the founders, Stan Weisner and Mike Austin, make way for the next generation of educational leaders. In the process of educating over 750 county staff over 2 ½ decades, the county directors are most grateful for Stan’s and Mike’s leadership in designing, implementing, sustaining, and continuously updating the EDP with the assistance of the BASSC Training Coordinator, Andrea DuBrow. Additional gratitude for the program can be found in the keynote address (attached to this Preface) by Ellen Timberlake (Director, Santa Cruz County) at the 25th graduation ceremony in May 2019. The set of cases reflecting the experiences of top man- agement in the public human services and related research have been compiled for use in preparing senior managers for top management positions. The Consortium members identified as one of their top priorities the development of a cadre of their most promising managers, primarily women and people of color, for a regional talent pool that could be accessed when seeking to fill top management positions in the future. The contributors dedicate this casebook to their future successors; as one county director said, “These are the professionals who will be running our agencies when we all have retired to the golf course.” In addition to thanking the contributors, we want to acknowledge the valuable assistance of all the BASSC Research Assistants. They spent many hours researching topics of interest to the members, transcribing and edit- ing the cases, and assisting each contributor in locating the missing pieces of their stories. We also wish to express our appreciation to our BASSC Staff at the University of California, School of Social Welfare, for serving as gen- eral editors of the casebook as well as ongoing facilitators of the rich and rewarding deliberations of the Consortium members. Jerry Huber, BASSC Co-Chair Director, Solano County Department of Health and Social Services v Introduction TONIGHT – is one of my favorite evenings of the year – An opportunity to: ■ Celebrate your graduation from the program ■ Honor and acknowledge the time and energy you’ve poured into the program – 3 weeks in the classroom, ½ day exchanges, 15-day internship and written case study – all while maintaining your day job and juggling home and family commitments. ■ Thank our amazing university and extension part- ners and our County BASSC Liaisons– Stan Weis- ner (Program Director), Andrea DuBrow (Program Coordinator), Mike Austin (Lead faculty adviser), and Jonathan Gill – without you there is no Execu- tive Development Program –if you’re a BASSC liaison please stand up – round of applause. ■ Acknowledge my fellow directors for their continu- ing commitment to EDP – year end and year out, you support your staff’s participation, you host staff from other counties in completing their internships, and you take time out of your busy schedules to teach modules throughout the year; and ■ Welcome you into the EDP Alumni Club – a club with over 750 members, no annual fees, and lots of free perks to look forward to. In a nutshell, the Executive Development Program is indeed “the gift that keeps ongiving.” As you know, tonight we celebrate, 25th Anniversary of the Executive Development Program. ■ Pretty sure that I was asked to say a couple of words on this auspicious occasion of our 25th anniversary because as a proud graduate of the EDP Class of 1995 – Year Two, I may very well be the oldest active member of this esteemed Alumni Club. ■ Set the stage– 25 years ago, I left a 10-year career in higher education to become an Analyst for the County of Santa Cruz Human Services Department. ■ Truth be told, when I took the job I knew very little about what they did, who they served – it seemed like a world steeped in acronyms, unfamiliar, a bit over- whelming in fact – the only thing at the time that was crystal clear for me is that I wanted to work for this guy named Will Lightbourne – I had an informational interview with him and was inspired by him. ■ So, I stepped off the cliff, took the job, and after a year working on a special IHSS assignment, Will asked me if I’d be interested in participating in this newly hatched, BASSC Executive Development Program. ■ Eagerly, and without hesitation, I said yes. My BASSC Class ■ In the second-year class, there were 25 folks represent- ing 7 counties. ■ From day one, I felt like a little kid in a candy story – a lottery winner – BASSC was this amazing opportu- nity to get a crash course in social services – connect the dots – decrease my anxiety, fuel my excitement. I did not know at the time that it would set the stage for 25 years of growth and development. Celebrating 25 Years of the BASSC Executive Development Program: The Gift that Keeps on Giving May 2019 Graduation BASSC Executive Development Program Ellen Timberlake Director, Santa Cruz County Human Services Department vi G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E ■ I loved most everything single thing about BASSC: the modules, my internship in Contra Costa studying rela- tive caregiver support; and getting to know my fellow classmates – not so much the paper. In 1996, even if I had a Crystal Ball when I was sitting where you are – there’s probably no way I could have seen how the gifts I received from my participation in EDP would impact me personally throughout my career: ■ Let me illustrate by sharing 2 examples of my personal favorite modules: ☐ State and county budgeting ☐ Creating a learning organization. 1. State and county budgeting – Sally Kippur, San Francisco Director of Administration, taught the budget module in 1996. She was very dynamic – starting from a place of values – emphasizing trans- parency, stewardship, the budget as the golden key that unlocks our ability to deliver on our mission – she broke it down, made it interesting, , explained the power of leveraging – I marched myself back to the department and told Will Lightbourne that we needed to bring her down, we needed to change, be more transparent. At that time, there were 1 maybe 2 people in the department who understood the bud- get and made decisions – Even our Director, I think, felt at times that the budget was a mystery. Ever since my BASSC class on budgeting, I’ve been on a mission to simplify, deepen knowledge within our department. I never would have predicted that the fire Sally Kipper lit under me would translate all these years later – how it would lead me to: · Tackle 1991 and 2011 Realignment, self-study – reaching out to my BASSC classmate Elliot Rob- inson, trainings, and others across the region. · Initiate cross department leveraging/financing study groups with our health and probation part- ners and creating Technical Assistance opportuni- ties for our community partners. · Navigate very difficult budget decisions during the great recession with the elimination of over 25% of our workforce – but be able to do it in such a way that no one involuntarily lost their jobs; and ultimately lead me full circle to: · Teach the budget module with my good friend Karen Fies. My love for trying to excite folks about finance; to simplify the complex and ignite the same passion; all of that is a gift from BASSC – from Sally Kipper. 2. Building a robust learning organization /work- force development. · BASSC module taught I believe by Mike Austin – the take home point– constantly get better at what you do; be curious; question – why do we do things the way we do? Invest in your staff – they’re the single greatest asset you possess in fulfilling our mission. · When I went to BASSC in 1996 – I would couch our investments as minimal, inconsistent and decentralized. Like many social services agencies, we were in the infancy stage of implementing con- cepts like workforce development, performance outcomes and learning organizations. Staffing wise – our only two dedicated resources were: 1 personnel officer and 2 staff development trainers · Fast Forward to today, and I’m very proud to say that we have over 40 staff working in our Orga- nizational and Community Development arena: each and every one of them dedicated to devel- oping our workforce and providing them with the tools they need to do their job, be engaged and informed with opportunities to grow, learn, advance, decide, change, and challenge the way things have always be done · Organizational Development Manager – who by the way, I met through BASSC and snatched up from Sonoma · Robust Staff Development unit · Planning and Evaluation Division – Cen- tralized Business Analytics and Reporting Team, Contracts Unit, Quality Improve- ment Unit · Community Relations and Outreach Team In this arena, the gift that BASSC gave me was the VALUE of investing in the workforce and creat- ing a culture where we strive to improve, learn and support. I’ve been blessed to be in a position over the last 20 years to be able to advocate for, implement, oversee and support, and hire incred- ibly talented folks who’ve turned this value into a reality—one that’s making a real difference in our outcomes and in the workforce culture. ■ In 1996, If I had a second crystal ball – a regional crystal ball, I also couldn’t have imagined how these Executive Development program gifts would vii ripple out to our respective county departments, our region, our field, and ultimately to those folks in our community who need and rely on our services. Graduates ■ I don’t think any of us imagined that our graduates would multiply from 25 to over 750 Case Studies ■ Or that as many internships and case studies on top- ics from A-Z would be conducted, published and on many occasions recommendations from graduates implemented. ■ I did some quick math, and just in case studies alone, that represents over 11,250 hours of intentional growth, development, best practice exchange – dou- ble that to 22,000 hours when you factor in the time invested by host counties. Professional Development ■ One of the goals of this program is to help develop our next generation of leaders – Over the last 25 years, I have no doubt that on this front we have succeeded. You see this in many forms: ☐ BASSC alumni promoting within their depart- ments, moving to other counties in the Bay area, (we’ve stolen some folks), making lateral moves to other program areas or perhaps staying in their current roles and using the skills of BASSC to make positive impacts within their current role. ☐ In Santa Cruz County alone, in last 10 years in Santa Cruz alone, approximately 70% of our Senior Managers/Directors have graduated from the EDP program. Those 750 folks would be movers and shakers within their department and across the region. Innovation and Collaboration – Formal and Informal ■ 750 folks would disperse and come back together again through: ■ Phone calls, trouble-shooting . . . product sharing, participation in hiring/interview panels; ■ BASSC committees work – Children’s, Welfare-to- Work, Adult and Aging, Admin and Finance amaz- ing examples of innovation, product and practice development; ■ BASSC research projects conducted by our talented BASSC team and university partners; ■ Regional Responses to Crises and Opportunities – coming together to respond to the unexpected – most recently, you see this in our response to the Fire disas- ters of late – Mutual Aid MOU’s, or in our upcoming transformation into Region 1 for our march towards CalSAWs implementation. So tonight, I wish I could give each one of you a Crystal Ball so you could see how your graduation from the Exec- utive Development Program will be the “Gift that Keeps on Giving” – What I can give you is my own experience and the reassurance of so many other graduates, that you are leaving with a set of skills, perspectives, values and relation- ships that will carry you to new places – “Oh the places you will go” if you stay open and cultivate the opportunities As you move forward in your career, my best advice to you is to be intentional with these gifts: ■ pick the ones that excite you the most and run with them ■ give back what you’ve learned to others ■ stay connected to your BASSC classmates ■ grab opportunities – take risks. On behalf of the Directors, congratulations to all our 2018/19 graduates and happy 25th anniversary to the Execu- tive Development Program. viii G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E I. BASSC— Past, Present and Future 2 ABSTRACT University-community partnerships are receiving increased attention in an era of rapid change and fragmented resources. This case study of a multi-county consortium of social service agencies in collaboration with four graduate social work programs and two foundations represents an innovative approach to building a partnership through the use of a consortium as a mediating structure. With a focus on training, research, policy development, and a think tank, specific implications for developing agency-university part- nership are identified. The case is embedded in the expand- ing literature on university-community collaboration. KEYWORDS: Consortium, collaboration, social services, university-community partnerships, think tank Introduction As the pace quickens in our society, due in large part to the role of technology, it becomes even more difficult to overcome the fragmentation spawned by increased spe- cialization. People are so busy working in their specialized “vineyards” that it is difficult to find the time to network with those in similar as well as different workplaces. There is a growing recognition that special mechanisms are needed to bridge the gaps created by the fast-paced nature and frag- mentation in our society. Different forms of collaboration, partnerships, and consortia are emerging as structures to connect the shared concerns of similar as well as disparate institutions. These bridges are known as “mediating” struc- tures or institutions; platforms used to bring together two or more sets of collaborators to address shared concerns and interests. One such mediating institution is the Bay Area Social Services Consortium (BASSC), a collaboration established in 1987 between four universities, twelve county social service agencies, and two foundations. An analysis of the evolution and contributions of this Consortium is the focus of this case study. Shared concerns and the mutuality of self-interests are frequently the cornerstones of partnerships. The “town- gown” distinction between community concerns and uni- versity interests is not new. However, as universities have begun to recognize their responsibilities to the society and taxpayers/donors supporting them, there has emerged in the last several decades a new interest in community involve- ment. This has occurred at the student level with commu- nity service projects, at the faculty level with collaborative research and training in community institutions, and at the governing board level with policy and funding deci- sions influenced by the need to address community issues in neighborhoods surrounding university campuses as well as in the region. Similarly, local governmental agen- cies, including county departments of social services, have recognized the value of collaborating with universities to recruit future employees, address critical issues through research and evaluation, and solicit faculty expertise in the formulation and implementation of public policies. Recent CH A P T E R 1 Building a Comprehensive Agency-University Partnership: A Case Study of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium1 Michael J. Austin, Maria Martin, Sheryl Goldberg, Jill Duerr Berrick, Barbara Weiss, and Julie Kelley Michael J. Austin is BASSC Staff Director, Maria Martin, BASSC Social Policy Media Coordinator, Sarah Carnochan, BASSC Research Assistant, Sheryl Goldberg, BASSC Research Coordinator, Jill Duerr Berrick, Director, Center for Social Services Research, Barbara Weiss, BASSC Training Coordinator, Julie Kelly, BASSC Research Assistant. 1. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dean Harry Specht, who had the courage and vision to build partnerships throughout the State of California. His encouragement and leadership, in partnership with Ed Nathan, former Executive Director of the Zellerbach Family Fund, and Richard O’Neil, former Director of the Santa Clara County Social Ser- vices Agency and BASSC chair (1992-1996), moved BASSC from an idea to a reality. B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 3 arrivals at the table of university-community collaboration have been local foundations. While foundation resources are always valued commodities in forming and sustaining collaborations, even more important are the ideas and per- spectives of foundations executives who bring the concerns of grassroots, community-based organizations to the collab- orative process. An analysis of this mix of public, private, and university collaboration is a key dimension of the study of BASSC which grew from 1992 to 1998 from a $7500 foundation seed grant to a $1.2 million annual operation and includes the following initiatives: 1) an Executive Think Tank, 2) an Executive Development and Regional Train- ing Program, 3) a Research Response Team, and 4) a Policy Media Program. Highlights from the Literature The BASSC experience can be best understood when it is placed within the context of university-community partner- ships. Over the past two decades, there has been increased interest in exploring ways for universities to connect with community issues and for community leaders to maximize the policy, research, and training expertise of universities. While the literature in this area is not large, there is a grow- ing body of research that examines the structures and moti- vations underlying partnerships between universities and community institutions. Hackney argues that universities have a moral obligation to address the social problems in the communities where they are located, “to set an example of sensitive corporate citizenship” (1986, p. 136). In addi- tion to the moral imperative, Harkavy and Puckett (1994) identify how partnerships with the community serve the following self-interests of universities: 1) advancing knowl- edge, teaching, and human welfare through community service, 2) generating increased public and private support for universities by giving attention to societal problems, and 3) facilitating faculty and student recruitment by promot- ing the health and safety of their surrounding community. Others have pointed out that initiatives to address commu- nity problems offer the potential for interdisciplinary teach- ing and research by dealing with real life problems which can be inherently incompatible with the university’s com- partmentalized approaches to solutions (Ramaley, 1995). Similarly, research in communities can provide a “reality check” for the ideas and theories investigated by researchers (Young, 1995). University partnerships have evolved out of a tradition in America of academic service to the community. An early example in the field of social work can be found in the work of Hull House and the University of Chicago. Hull House residents produced detailed demographic data and descrip- tions of immigrant neighborhoods, information which was integrated into their advocacy efforts. They worked closely with sociologists at the University of Chicago, who viewed scholarship, teaching, and community service as compatible elements of the university’s mission (Harkavy & Puckett, 1994). Another form of university-community partner- ships can be seen in the development of land grant colleges (Morrill Act of 1886) to provide research and consultation services to local agricultural communities (Hackney, 1986). However, for much of this century, universities formed their primary partnerships with business and government, turning away from local problems to focus on national and foreign policy issues (Harkavy & Puckett, 1994). Then, in the 1960’s, foundations and the federal government began to focus again on the problems confronting local commu- nities, especially those located in urban areas, by support- ing a number of initiatives to foster partnerships between universities and urban communities. Some of these efforts have been criticized on the grounds that while universities have benefited from using communities as a laboratory for research, the communities gained little, and had no voice in the work that universities were doing (Hackney, 1986). While there are relatively few successful organizational models of university-community partnerships presented in the literature, Harkavy and Puckett (1991) note that most successful partnerships are tailored to the particular cir- cumstances and needs of individual universities and com- munity organizations. In addition, a few case studies in the literature make it possible to identify some principles and strategies that should be generalizable to a broad range of partnerships, such as studies of the efforts of universities to incorporate community service into their mission state- ments (Scott & Ludwig, 1995), understanding the chal- lenge of bridging two different cultures represented by the university and the community (Bartelt, 1995), building partnerships between universities and state mental health agencies (Talbot et al, 1991), and partnership development between universities and local public schools (Zetlin & MacLeod, 1995) Although these case examples and models have emerged in different environments, they all reflect the theme of mutuality as part of a process of developing a set of principles for collaboration. These principles include: 1) the importance of equity among partners, ensuring that each has an equal voice, and that the contributions of all are recognized, 2) the importance of partners identifying their 4 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E own self-interest in the collaboration as well as recognizing the goals and objectives of the other organizations involved, 3) the necessity of clarifying the rationale for working in col- laboration despite different interests, 4) the importance of leadership to sustain collaborative partnerships and ensure longevity as well as institutionalization (e.g. supporting structures, mediating structures, faculty reward systems, and outside funding), and 5) the importance of full partici- pation of faculty, staff, and community members in building a strong foundation of university community-partnerships. While the literature includes interesting descriptions of partnerships and their developmental processes, it is in the field of public education that some of the most substan- tive analysis of partnerships and consortia can be found. There is also a strong parallel between university schools of education with their public school counterparts in the community and university schools of social work with their counter parts in public county social service agencies as well as non-profit community-based social service organizations. Goodlad (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988) has conducted extensive work on university-school partnerships over the past three decades through the National Network for Educational Renewal. From his assessment of successful school-university partnerships, Goodlad has identified the following five relationship-building processes for building and sustaining partnerships: ■ Partnerships involve equal partners working together toward satisfying mutually beneficial self-interests, as reflected in the following essential characteristics: 1) a moderate degree of dissimilarity between or among partners, 2) the potential for mutual satisfaction of self-interests, and 3) sufficient selflessness on the part of each partner to assure the satisfaction of self-interests by all involved. ■ Communication in a partnership involves efficient and effective sharing of information and knowledge produced by its members as well as communications coming from other sources. ■ Leadership involves organizational leaders possessing, endorsing, and communicating a clear, coherent set of fundamental values to which all participants can be committed. ■ Renewal involves change which requires the ongoing involvement of the significant persons responsible for developing and promoting innovative activities, along with the resources and time needed for the ongoing process of inquiry and organizational change. ■ Accountability is best understood and acted upon as a system of shared responsibilities carried out by mem- bers of the partnership. These characteristics of mediating structures in the field of public education will be used in the analyzing the BASSC partnership. The BASSC Consortium as a Case Study In its first five years of existence BASSC developed a num- ber of regional training events and task forces on child welfare curriculum issues designed to reengage social work education with the public social services. As a result, a common mission statement on education for public social services was adopted and led to the creation of a statewide consortium—the California Social Work Education Cen- ter (CalSWEC)—for the development of new educational programs to meet the needs of publicly supported social services. Building on the success of these initial collaborative efforts, BASSC members in 1992 began to think about defining their activities in a broader and more formalized way. With the assistance of a staff consultant from the Uni- versity of California School of Social Welfare, the consor- tium developed an agenda, over time, related to the three broad areas of training, research, and policy development. The following sections include the description of initiatives in each of these areas and the think tank process used to generate and monitor the initiatives. The BASSC Think Tank The bi-monthly BASSC Think Tank meetings provide a rare opportunity for busy executives to step back from the day-to-day realities of administering programs and to focus not just on how things are, but how they might be. An early outcome of these discussions was the recognition of a shared desire to begin to influence future human services policies and programs in a more coordinated and proactive way. As a first step, the group agreed to draft a vision state- ment that would place the county social service agencies’ short-term strategic plans into a broader and long-term perspective. This statement was intended to create a pic- ture of what the ideal human services system would look like, in order to provide a forum for county directors, staff, political leaders and citizens to work together to articulate a collective future. After fifteen months of deliberation the vision statement emerged with the core values that: a) social services should be universal and guaranteed, and b) B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 5 communities should be supported in the design and devel- opment of services that work for them (BASSC, 1994). In essence, services should: ■ Be provided to all families in need. ■ Provide guaranteed access to a minimal level of care and support. ■ Educate consumers to utilize available resources in order to foster self-sufficiency. ■ Use a prevention model whereby success is measured on the basis of community health and well-being. ■ Work with existing community institutions to develop neighborhood-based services which involve minimal government regulation. ■ Reflect a belief in the capacities of individuals and neighborhoods to promote change and a commitment to racial and cultural diversity. From these core values arose the service principles and assumptions outlined in Figure 1. These principles and assumptions constitute the core of the BASSC vision and provide a road map that now serves as a guide for how daily actions can lead to individual and organizational success. In essence, the BASSC “Vision of Human Services—2000,” describes a human services system that is interdisciplinary, neighborhood-based, culturally sensitive, and accountable for contributing in a measurable way to the overall health and welfare of the communities it serves. Since this vision was articulated, BASSC members have used the Think Tank meetings to identify and address administrative challenges to implementing the vision. Examples of such challenges include fostering community leadership, supporting staff autonomy and creativity, trans- ferring responsibility and authority from the county to local units, developing safeguards to assure accountability in the use of public funds, and designing inter-agency mechanisms to assist local community service centers with job training programs, economic development activities, local taxing authorities, and public education. Much of the recent focus of BASSC Think Tank meet- ings has been on the implications of national and state welfare reform proposals and the block-granting of federal funds. As county directors shared their concerns and per- ceptions, two themes emerged. First, counties were not wait- ing to see what would happen at the federal and state levels, but were moving forward with their own plans for changing their welfare systems. Second, even though each county’s welfare reform planning process and subsequent actions would be unique and reflect the particular demographics, economics and politics of that county, the county directors identified perspectives which they held in common: ■ The importance of increasing communications with local “stakeholders” (elected officials, service provid- ers, community members, business leaders and so on) about the realities of providing social services in today’s environment with counties being positioned as facilita- tors rather than drivers of the planning process. ■ The need to abandon the traditional isolation associ- ated with managing the enterprise and involve a wider range of community organizations in program plan- ning as well as actively pursuing partnerships with other county departments, private nonprofit agencies and businesses, thereby helping to shift organizational thinking from inward-focused and present-oriented to outward-focused and forward-looking. ■ The importance of experimenting with new ways of delivering community and neighborhood services by allocating resources that can potentially increase the efficiency and effectiveness of activities on behalf of cli- ents and communities. The BASSC Think Tank continues its exploration of these issues, primarily through the analysis and discussion of cross-country comparisons of welfare reform implementa- tion (Carnochan & Austin, 1998). The BASSC Executive Development Program As the Think Tank evolved, agency directors began to feel more comfortable sharing some of their most press- ing administrative dilemmas. Members found it helpful to address their dilemmas as case presentations. One issue that received unanimous support involved their shared frus- tration in recruiting experienced and trained women and minorities of color for senior management vacancies. This discussion led to a proposal for a multi-county Executive Development Training Program which would involve the selection of their most promising upper and middle-man- agement staff to participate in the program, the involvement of the directors themselves as part of the teaching faculty, and the use of their cases as teaching tools (BASSC, 1997). The original goal of the BASSC Executive Develop- ment Program was to develop a cadre of leaders who can play key roles in preparing and transforming public agen- cies into the service system of tomorrow. County agencies require leaders who understand bureaucratic barriers and can get the job done, despite obstacles. Acquiring the criti- cal thinking skills, socialization, and leadership styles of 6 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E F I G U R E 1 The Principles and Assumptions of the BASSC Vision PRINCIPLES Resource Distribution 1. The ideal system will redirect societal resources to those individuals, families and communities most in need of assistance, especially those who have been historically deprived of a fair share of economic and social benefits and opportunities. 2. The ideal system will provide a minimal level of health and decency to individuals and families. 3. The ideal system will provide all service consumers with equal opportunity to access benefits. Decision Making and Authority 4. Decision making should involve community-based approaches to problem solving. 5. Local needs must be defined by the community. 6. The service delivery system should be decentralized and neighborhood-based. Service Design and Delivery 7. The ideal service delivery system will take a proactive, prevention-oriented approach to problem-solving 8. Services should be comprehensive, and non-categorical. 9. Services should be universal, based on federally-funded family investment policies. 10. Services and service delivery should reflect a deep commitment to racial and cultural diversity. ASSUMPTIONS Resource Distribution 1. Resource allocation can best be accomplished by offering services universally to those in need. 2. Historically, social service programs have been under- funded. 3. Opportunities for access must include convenient locations and hours, appropriate physical facilities for the elderly and the disabled, access to all services to which one is entitled, access to relevant information, and the provision of services in a manner that is sensitive to language and cultural differences. Decision Making and Authority 4. Individual and family problems are rooted in the well- being of the community overall, and therefore solutions must address both individual and environmental problems. Communities can solve their own problems if they have the resources and assistance to do so. 5. Local citizens must have decision-making authority to determine priorities, resource allocation and criteria for success. 6. People interact most effectively with systems that are near their place of residence and that reflect the particular characteristics of their living environment. Service Design and Delivery 7. Services should be linked to other major community institutions, in particular, all aspects of economic development. 8. Services should be responsive to a range of individual and community needs including those of young children, adolescents, young adults, senior citizens and families. 9. A universal approach avoids stigmatizing recipients and acknowledges the potential of all individuals to contribute to society. Only the federal government possesses sufficient resources to implement investment policies of this magnitude. 10. This commitment is at the core of the principles of equity, access and community participation, and it recognizes the importance of bringing the service delivery system in compliance with the demographic and social realities of the 21st century. B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 7 senior managers requires a learning environment where leadership issues and skills can be refined and applied to current organizational realities. The key skills include the ability to organize agencies for change and to assist others in overcoming fear and uncertainty generated by change. The transformational leader has the ability to overcome bureau- cratic regulations to create new organizational forms. Such leaders are able to solicit input from alllevels of the organi- zation, from client populations, and from resources inside and outside of the agency. The Executive Development Training Program con- sists of: 1) three week-long, thirty-hour classroom modules which take place during an academic year, 2) an interagency site visit exchange, and 3) a fifteen-day internship project in a county outside the participant’s home country. The three classroom modules are organized by themes and the theme of the first module is leadership in public social services organizations. The module includes sessions on the history of social services, leadership development and self-assess- ment, client-centered administration, community relations, the administrator as community organizer, and working with community-based organizations. Between the first and second modules, each partici- pant is assisted in arranging a half-day visit to learn about an interesting or innovative program in another county. The objectives are to: a) strengthen the peer learning rela- tionships formed during the first module, b) reflect upon their learning experience in a memo to their director that describes the observed project or program with implications for the home county, and c) to identify leadership and orga- nizational change issues. The theme of the second module is managing organi- zational change with an emphasis on change management, program development, presentation skills, budgeting, and grievance handling. The third module includes an array of management skills such as media relations, manage- ment information systems, advocacy and ethics in lobby- ing, conducting outcome evaluations, managing a diverse workforce, and executive-board relations. As the concluding module for the program, it also includes case presentations, evaluation sessions (participants, faculty, and mentors), and a graduation dinner. Between modules 2 and 3 is a fifteen-day internship project which provides each participant with an opportu- nity to: 1) observe administrative practices in other agencies while acquiring new skills under the guidance of a senior manager, 2) build networks and contacts in another county, and 3) develop a case study which describes the learning experience, identifies implications for their own agencies, and suggests action steps for future implementation. A unique feature of the program is the involvement, at every level, of the county social service directors. They select the participants from their agencies, provide classroom instruction, assist their participants in selecting internship projects that would be beneficial to the agency as well as the participant, and recruit mentors in their own agencies to oversee internships for participants from other coun- tries. While a detailed evaluation of the program is available (Murtaza, 1998), some of the program successes include peer learning and networking, learning from agency directors as instructors, and learning from the experiences of other counties. Based on the success of the Executive Development Program, a comprehensive BASSC Bay Area Academy has been developed with Title IV-E funding from the state. This million dollar Academy is designed to support the child welfare and human service training needs of the counties in such areas as supervision, team-based interdisciplinary prac- tice, change management, ethnic-sensitive risk assessment, domestic violence, substance abuse, concurrent planning, and related topics. The BASSC Research Response Team With the successful launching of the Executive Devel- opment, the BASSC members turned their attention to another important issue, namely the need for timely and relevant agency-based research, which resulted in the devel- opment of the BASSC Research Response Team. In 1994, members of BASSC identified the importance of building a research bridge between universities and Bay Area county social and human service agencies. In response, a BASSC Research Response Team (RRT) was launched in 1995 to respond rapidly to the agencies’ needs for information about their changing environments. The RRT, financed with $25,000 per year from each of four large Bay Area counties and a start-up grant from the Zellerbach Family Fund, is staffed by a research coordinator, several graduate research assistants, and two faculty members. The following RRT with guidelines developed by the BASSC members was designed to be: 1) practical and ori- ented toward improvement and/or expansion of services at the provider level; 2) sensitive and relevant to the commu- nity’s needs and values; 3) committed to involve agency staff in the design and implementation of studies; 4) carried out in the context of continuous consultation between agency administrators and researchers who would assume ultimate 8 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E responsibility for the independent presentation of findings and recommendations; 5) available to build agency capac- ity by providing technical assistance to agency staff; and 6) timely and completed within six to eight months of an agreed-upon scope of work reflected in a signed contract. At the beginning of each research study, the BASSC Research Coordinator and one or more faculty members meet with county staff to define the scope of work. Agency administrators and staff persons are central to framing the study design, facilitating the data collection process, and providing feedback to be incorporated into the final report. Graduate student research assistants conduct a literature review on the topic, help create the research instrument, gather and enter data, and transcribe the research findings. The Research Coordinator oversees all phases of the proj- ect and prepares and presents the completed study in report form for discussion with the county. The faculty serve as consultants throughout the research project. In the first three years of operations, a total of ten research projects were completed on the following topics: ■ Homeless Needs Assessment – San Mateo County ■ General Assistance Client Demographics Study – Contra Costa County ■ An Assessment of the Quality of Care in Kin and Non- Kin Foster Homes – Santa Clara County ■ A Study of Gay and Lesbian Foster and Adoptive Par- enting – Santa Clara County ■ Factors Associated With Successful and Unsuccessful Reunification from Foster Care –Alameda County ■ Service Use and Service Needs Among Long-Term AFDC Recipients – San Mateo County ■ Foster Parent Recruitment, Retention, and Rate Set- ting – Santa Clara County ■ Developing a Public Information and Community Relations Strategy – Contra Costa County ■ Managed Care and Child Welfare Reform – Alameda County ■ Child Welfare Outcome Evaluation – Contra Costa County A comprehensive evaluation of the first three years of the BASSC Research Response Team is also available (Dal Santo, 1998). With the successful launching of the Research Response Team, the BASSC members turned their atten- tion to the changing political environment of welfare reform and the need for social policy responses. The BASSC Social Policy Media Program BASSC members were laying the groundwork in their coun- ties for implementing their shared vision for human ser- vices, a national welfare reform debate escalated following the 1994 congressional elections. As a result, BASSC mem- bers felt an urgent need to inform and educate local and regional constituencies about the realities of welfare reform given all the rhetoric of the time. While the politics of each county varied, the BASSC members sought to “speak with one voice” in educating the public. Members struggled with the competing goals of getting information about welfare out to the public and opinion leaders in a timely way as well as develop the infrastructure to effectively address broader policy issues over the long term. In 1995, with a small foundation grant, the BASSC Policy Media Project was launched to gather relevant infor- mation on poverty and welfare in order to publish a brief- ing packet targeted to local media representatives, elected officials, and the business community. The contents of the briefing monograph entitled Social Welfare at a Crossroads: A National, Statewide, and Local Look at Poverty and Pub- lic Assistance (Martin & Austin, 1997) included: I. ENDING WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT: The Impact of “Welfare Reform” on the Bay Area II. SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS IN THE U.S. III. MEDICAID: Health Care Program for the Medi- cally Needy IV. SSI: Supplementary Security Income for the Elderly, Blind, and Disabled V. FOOD STAMPS: Program to alleviate Hunger and Malnutrition for Low Income Families and Individuals VI. JOBS: the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program VII. AFDC: Aid to Families With Dependent Children VIII. FACES OF POVERTY: Personal Stories of Women and Children on Public Assistance IX. OUR CHANGING SOCIETY: American Trends and the Social Welfare System X. SOCIAL WELFARE BY THE NUMBERS: National, State, and County Data This educational tool is now being supplemented by a foundation-supported media campaign planning process to educate the public about the implementation of welfare reform. Identifying critical media messages, especially for employers of former welfare recipients and those providing family support services, is the core of such a regional media B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 9 campaign. In the context of implementing welfare reform, additional BASSC policy initiatives are under development in the areas of child care, adult services, and the elements of a living wage. Conclusion The agency-university partnership established through the mediating structure of BASSC provides an opportunity for continuing dialogue on issues related to education and training, research, and policy development. Some examples of the outcome of such dialogue can be found in BASSC training monographs (BASSC Academy, 1998) and policy research (Baum & Martin, 1997). As noted in the introduction, community-university partnerships require commitment to collaboration and on- going nurturing. Using Goodlad’s five criteria for effective relationship building (partnership, communication, leader- ship, renewal, and accountability), it is possible to assess the BASSC efforts to date. With respect to partnership, BASSC members representing universities, agencies, and founda- tions have demonstrated a unique capacity to work together toward satisfying mutually beneficial self-interests in the three areas of research, training, and policy development. However, it is also important to note that partnerships can reflect precarious relationships, especially when the mem- bership is changing. For example, during the past five years, the deanship has changed in all four participating schools and in the case of one school and one foundation the lead- ership has changed three times. Fortunately these changes have not significantly disrupted the on-going momentum of the consortium. However, these changes call for increased attention to the process of orienting new members. Regarding communications, there has been effective and efficient sharing of information and knowledge, usually facilitated by BASSC staff. Since the social service agency directors out-number the deans and foundation directors, the majority of information sharing relates to agency issues. Nevertheless, there is an on-going interest in addressing university curriculum issues along with increased sentiment among the agency directors to see more than one profession participating in the consortium. On the issue of leadership, the BASSC Chair and mem- bers have articulated a clear and coherent set of values to guide and strengthen the Think Tank and related BASSC activities. In addition to shared values, there is a consensus that the elected chair of the consortium should be an agency director based in part, on the fact that they are the largest group of dues-paying members. There is also agreement that the consortium bylaws should be simple and brief. With respect to the criteria of renewal, the ongoing involvement of agency directors, deans, and foundation directors has demonstrated BASSC’s capacity to engage colleagues in continuous inquiry and a “recharging of per- sonal batteries” needed to manage constant organizational change. It is apparent that the members are finding the think tank approach to be both intellectually stimulating as well as emotionally supportive. The beginnings of an on- going support group can be seen in the informal exchanges between members on topics of a personal as well as profes- sional nature. Again it appears that the group of agency directors are benefiting most from the support group envi- ronment given the recent arrivals of the new deans and foundation directors. And the fifth criteria of accountability can be seen in the mutual support of BASSC members toward one another, in the form of contributed financial and staff resources, clearly demonstrates shared responsibility for the success of BASSC. The levels of accountability vary between those who pay dues (agencies and foundations) and those who do not (universities). One of the deans demonstrates considerable commitment and accountability since the con- sortium is administratively located in his school. In the final analysis, the consortium works because its members con- stantly search for ways to make it work. In addition to meeting Goodlad’s (1988) five criteria for effective relationship building, it is useful to identify several lessons learned while building the Bay Area Social Services Consortium: 1. For busy agency, university, and foundation admin- istrators to maintain a clear focus on and commit- ment to a regional consortium, intensive staff work is needed to assist in meeting agenda framing and follow-up as well as managing projects which evolve out of consortium decision-making. 2. For university faculty and student involvement, there needs to be commitment and freedom to explore new avenues of inquiry with minimal orga- nizational barriers to creativity. 3. For deans and foundation representatives to invest in a social services consortium, they must bring a deep commitment to strengthening public social services. 4. For county social service directors to invest person- ally and financially in a consortium amidst many other competing priorities, the dialogue must focus 10 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E on the realities of current administrative practice and the needs of public social service personnel. 5. For a consortium to maintain its fiscal viability, counties must be willing to pay annual dues to sup- port the consortium staff of faculty and students. 6. For a community of local leaders to engage in an ongoing Think Tank, the benefits must exceed the costs in time and money and skillful leadership is needed on the part of the elected consortium chairperson. 7. For other regions of the country with county admin- istered social service agencies interested in replicat- ing aspects of the BASSC, at least three key people need to surface: 1) a county social service director who is futuristic and effectively networked with other counties; 2) a social work dean with substan- tial commitment to the public social services; and 3) a faculty member or consultant willing and inter- ested in staffing a consortium (these three also need to be able to secure a small start-up grant from a local foundation to cover expenses until the county participants recognize the value of sharing and com- mit agency funds as annual dues to maintain the consortium). 8. A critical ingredient in providing staff for a consor- tium is the recruitment and deployment of doctoral and master’s level students to create research teams, prepare training materials, assist in event planning, and coordinate information exchange. Similarly, experienced clerical and administrative support are needed to facilitate mailings, fiscal arrangements, and managing university policies. 9. A flexible governance structure is useful in fostering participation through the use of a rotating chairper- son and the involvement of county directors in lead- ing ad hoc task forces on various BASSC initiatives. Similarly, the involvement of committed founda- tion representatives is useful in gaining additional perspectives on policy and practice issues as well as information about sources of financial support. In conclusion, the regional training, research, and policy programs of BASSC provide a unique forum for the “cross- pollination” of ideas to promote creative solutions to the challenges which confront public social service agencies. BASSC provides a vehicle for county directors, university deans, and foundation representatives to communicate shared values and advocate for realistic and humane social welfare policies. References Bartlet, D. (1995). The university and community develop- ment: A common cause. Metropolitan Universities, 6(3), 15-28. BASSC, Vision of Human Services — 2000. (1994). Berke- ley, CA: University of California School of Social Welfare, Bay Area Social Services Consortium. BASSC, Guiding Organizational Change: A Casebook. (1997). Berkeley, CA: University of California School of Social Welfare, BASSC Bay Area Academy. BASSC Academy. (1998). Supervision in Public Social Ser- vices Agency, Understanding Management Information Systems, Ethnic-Sensitive Risk Assessment, Team-Based Interdisciplinary Practice, Permanency Planning in Child Welfare, Organizational Change: The Public Sector Challenge, Substance Abuse and Child Welfare, Mapping the Link Between Health and Welfare, Berke- ley, CA: University of California, School of Social Welfare. California Social Work Education Center. Baum, R. Martin, M., & Austin, M J. (1997). Getting Beyond General Assistance: Welfare Reform and Local Self-Sufficiency. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor- nia. Center for Social Services Research. Carnochan, S. & Austin, M. J. (1998). An Analysis of County Welfare Reform Implementation Plans. Berke- ley, CA: University of California. Center for Social Services Research. Dal Santo, T. (1998). Research Utilization and Dissemina- tion: The BASSC Research Response Team. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Center for Social Services Research. Hackney, S. (1986). The university and its community: Past and present. Annals of the American Academy of Politi- cal and Social Science, 488, 135-147. Harkavy, I. & Puckett, J. L. (1991). The role of mediating structures in university and community revitalization: The University of Pennsylvania and West Philadelphia As a Case Study. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(1), 10-25. Harkavy, I. & Puckett, J. L. (1994). Lessons from Hull House for the contemporary urban university. Social Service Review, 68(3), 299-321. B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 11 Martin, M. & Austin, M. J. (1997). Social Welfare at a Crossroad: A National, Statewide, and Local Look at Poverty and Public Assistance. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Study Center (1-800-484-4173). Murtaza, N. (1998). Evaluating the BASSC Executive Development Program. Berkeley, CA: University of California School of Social Welfare, BASSC Academy. Ramaley, J. A. (1995). Preparing the way for reform in higher education: Drawing upon the resources of the community-at-large. Metropolitan Universities, 6(3), 29-44. Scott, J. A. & Ludwig, M. (1995). Community service at urban public institutions: A report on conditions and activities. Metropolitan Universities, 6(3), 29-44. Sirotnik, K. A. & Goodlad, J. I. (Eds.) (1988). School- university partnership in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Talbot, J. A., Bray, J. D., Flaherty, L., Robinowitz, C., & Tainter, Z. (1991). State-university collaboration in psychiatry: The Pew Memorial Trust Program. Com- munity Mental Health Journal, 27(6), 425-439. Young, W. B. (1995). University-community partnerships— Why bother? Metropolitan Universities, 6(3), 71-77. Zetlin, A. G. & MacLeod, E. (1995). A school-university partnership working toward the restructure of an urban school and community. Education and Urban Society, 27(4), 411420. 12 CH A P T E R 2 BASSC@30 Bay Area Social Services Consortium counties Alameda Contra Costa Marin Monterey Napa San Benito San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Solano Sonoma universities California State University, East Bay California State University, Monterey Bay San Francisco State San Jose State University of California, Berkeley foundations The Zellerbach Family Foundation Michael J. Austin, PhD BASSC Staff Director Sarah Carnochan, PhD BASSC Research Director Bay Area Social Services Consortium School of Social Welfare University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 http://mackcenter.berkeley.edu B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 13 B A S S C Mis sion An Agency–University–Foundation Partnership The Bay Area Social Services Consortium (BASSC) operates as an agency-university-foundation part- nership that promotes social service research, training, and policy development. Founded in 1987 in response to interests in public social services shared by county social service agency directors, univer- sity deans and directors of social work programs, and local foundations in the San Francisco Bay Area, BASSC has developed the following core purposes and programs: Core Purposes ■ Fostering regional communications and understanding about the changing nature of social services in the public and nonprofit sectors ■ Serving as a catalyst for new ideas that have legislative, administrative, public education, and training implications ■ Providing a structure for innovative regional programs related to research, training and policy development ■ Collaborating to address shared workforce development issues related to pre-service and in-ser- vice education Core Programs ■ Bi-monthly meetings and an annual retreat to share ideas, assess legislation, and promote regional collaboration between county agencies, universities, and foundations ■ A multi-county program of policy and program research on topics selected by the BASSC members ■ A multi-county training program related to Executive Development for middle and senior man- agers and a Bay Area Academy serving the training needs of line and supervisory staff in child welfare and related fields ■ A multi-county policy development program that develops and publishes policy reports for opin- ion leaders and case studies on promising practices for agency staff. The leadership that guides and sustains BASSC emerges from the active participation of 12 county social service directors, five university deans and directors of social work programs, two foundation representatives, and the BASSC Staff Director along with BASSC staff located at UC Berkeley in the School of Social Welfare (Mack Center on Nonprofit and Public Sector Management in the Human Services) and UC Berkeley Extension. 14 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E ME S S AG E F ROM T HE B A S S C C O - CH A IR S Kathy Gallagher Director, Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department The formation of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium (BASSC) 30 years ago has proven to be nothing less than visionary. Given the monumental changes we have seen in the field of Human Services over the last three decades, the BASSC partnership has played a significant role in promot- ing social service research, training, and policy development in Northern California and beyond. In 1987, the BASSC collaboration brought together human services directors from several Bay Area coun- ties as part of an agency-university-foundation partner- ship to strengthen public sector social services in the region. BASSC emerged out of the history of increased government involvement in the delivery of social services to address the needs of local communities. Evolving from the War on Poverty and amendments to the Social Security Act in the 1960s, human service practitioners assumed an increasingly prominent role in ensuring that service pro- grams were administered in ways that were more integrated, comprehensive, and accessible. The BASSC partners built a solid foundation in 1987, and set the course for the counties in the San Francisco Bay Area to effectively deliver human service programs. Societal, cultural, economic and political changes have greatly affected how we provide support for our commu- nities. These changes continue to impact our work as we take steps to influence public policy and set strategy for the future. The era of technological advancement has opened new doors, and our Bay Area human services departments are finding new ways to interface with customers. BASSC offers a collaborative means for human services directors and staff to react to new mandates, changing needs and novel ways to serve our customers. BASSC began with 12 member counties, our five Bay Area university programs featuring undergraduate and graduate social work education, and the Zellerbach Family Foundation as founding partner. Over the decades, BASSC has created seven policy groups (described elsewhere in this publication) that bring together expert staff from each Bay Area county to further regional goals through a plan- ning and policy framework. BASSC has become a regional entity with an influential voice in the state and around the country. Given the current political climate and federal and state budget constraints, it is reassuring to know that the found- ing of BASSC 30 years ago set the stage for county human services to be able to address the extraordinary challenges we face today. The group came together based on principles (as noted in our Mission Statement) that, in my view, have proven to be timeless in keeping our think tank and support group strong and connected human service issues. We may encounter obstacles along the road before us, but we also see great opportunities to overcome them. The early vision of those who partnered to create BASSC enables us to move steadily along that road in a unified manner. I am certain BASSC will leverage its robust agency-univer- sity-foundation partnership to continue engaging in dia- logue, educating each other on the basis of sound research and practice experience, and continue to influence public policy in the field of human services. B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 15 Brian Simmons Dean Emeritus, California State University – Monterey Bay I attended my first BASSC meeting in fall 2001. In the ensuing sixteen years, I have seen many agency directors and many academicians come and go. One of the many remark- able things about BASSC is that despite the relatively fre- quent turnover, the high level of commitment to thoughtful and innovative policies and practices, informed by both the universities and the counties, has remained absolutely con- stant. The commitment can be seen in the deliberate and respectful inquiry and debate; the desire for data-driven decision-making; the prioritization of client, community, and system well-being; and the importance of the steward- ship of the taxpayer resources. All long-standing BASSC characteristics kept my interest and engagement at a high level for all these years. The recently re-energized focus on common interests in workforce development shared by uni- versities and counties speaks well for BASSC going forward. Our founders, Ed Nathan, Harry Specht, and Dick O’Neil, would be very pleased to see the results of their efforts thirty years later. RE F L EC T ION S OF A B A S S C F OUNDE R Jim Rydingsword San Benito County Health and Human Services Agency The Bay Area Welfare Directors were meeting quarterly for lunch during the 1980s and I participated as Director of Contra Costa County Social Services Agency. It was the era of Governor George Deukmejian and President Ron- ald Reagan. We held ongoing discussions about issues fac- ing social services in California and explored the impact of these issues on our Bay Area counties. Beginning in 1987, there was much discussion about welfare reform that ulti- mately resulted in the 1988 Welfare Reform legislation developed under the leadership of Senator Patrick Moyni- han of New York. Its provisions included new directions for Child Support, Job Opportunities, Family Support Services and the AFDC amendments, and Demonstration Projects. It was also in 1987 that I met with others at the UC Berkeley Faculty Club for lunch to discuss the needs of counties for more graduate level social workers and the need for a commitment of schools of social work to address this challenge. The conversation was guided by UC Berkeley Dean Harry Specht who called for the public university sys- tem in California to make a commitment to educate more social workers for California county human service agencies as well as publicly-supported nonprofits. The conversation also included Ed Nathan, director of the Zellerbach Fam- ily Fund and Dick O’Neill, the director of Santa Clara County Social Services Agency. The vision and passion of Dean Specht was very powerful and helped to promote out- of-the-box thinking. Such thinking took the form of a pro- posal to seek a Ford Foundation planning grant to develop a statewide strategy to increase the supply of trained social workers in public-supported social service programs. These efforts led to the establishment of the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) in 1990. The UC Berkeley Faculty Club luncheon planted the seeds for converting the informal quarterly lunch meeting of the Bay Area welfare directors into the formal consor- tium comprised of county directors, university deans and directors, and foundation representatives. It is the vision that emerged out of this 1987 meeting that we celebrate today with the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium (BASSC). 16 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E A B rie f B A S S C His tor y ( 1987-2017 ) Michael J. Austin BASSC Staff Director The roots of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium (BASSC) can be traced to people with ideas. For decades, those who have served as directors of county social service agencies throughout the state of California have sought each other out to exchange ideas and find support. In the San Francisco Bay Area, a group of “county welfare direc- tors” met quarterly during the 1970s and 1980s to share ideas over lunch. In 1987, this group formed the Bay Area Social Services Consortium (BASSC) and included Ernie Hirosi (San Mateo) as the convenor, Helen Knutson (Alam- eda), Dick O’Neil (Santa Clara), Jim Rydingsword (Contra Costa), Ed Sarsfield (San Francisco), and Yolanda Rinaldo (Marin/Sonoma/Santa Clara) who joined in 1989 . Among the many topics they explored was the perceived insufficient curriculum attention to public mental health and child wel- fare issues in local schools of social work. They welcomed the opportunity to talk with the deans of social work pro- grams. Dean Harry Specht of the UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare with the encouragement of Ed Nathan (Executive Director, Zellerbach Family Fund) seized the moment to begin a dialogue between agency administrators and university educators. Dean Specht had been instrumental in reshaping the mission of the School of Social Welfare in the early 1980s to reflect a commitment to the public social services. In the mid-1980s, he sought out the “county welfare directors” to assist the School in implementing the new mission and began to participate in the quarterly meetings by hosting them on the UC Berkeley campus. By 1987, he had encour- aged Ed Nathan, his long-time colleague with extensive contacts among Bay Area agency directors, to join the dis- cussions. Ed had long sought to promote the improvement of social services through increased attention to service inte- gration between public and nonprofit social service organi- zations. As a result of the foundation’s involvement, the first BASSC grant of $7500 from the Zellerbach Family Fund was provided to promote regional training activities and Bart Grossman (Director of Fieldwork at the UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare) became the first part-time staff director of BASSC (1987-1990). Based on these training activities (child welfare risk assessment, homelessness, HIV infants, etc.), BASSC mem- bers became interested in the potential for securing federal training funds to attract MSW students to the field of child welfare. As a result, the idea for a statewide consortium of schools of social work and county social service agencies took hold. With the help of a social worker (John Lanihan) on the staff of the Ford Foundation (where there was inter- est in training social workers for implementing the federal 1988 Family Support Act), a Ford Foundation grant pro- vided the seed money sought by the BASSC directors to launch CalSWEC, the California Social Work Education Center at UC Berkeley in 1990. Bart Grossman became its first director. While BASSC continued to provide regional training programs with staff assistance from Susan Laugh- lin at UC Berkeley Extension. By 1992, BASSC was searching for a new focus, follow- ing its success with regional training events. Harry Specht and Ed Nathan had been successful in convincing Dick O’Neil (Santa Clara) to become the Chair of BASSC. At the same time, Mike Austin had just joined the UC Berke- ley faculty as Professor and Chair of the Management and Planning track in the MSW program. He joined Ed, Dick, and Harry in developing a new approach to BASSC, away from quarterly lunch meeting and towards bi-monthly day-long sessions in the form of an Executive Think Tank. BASSC membership grew from the primarily large coun- ties to include the smaller North Bay and South Bay coun- ties along with the deans of other schools of social work that included San Jose State, San Francisco State, Califor- nia State University–Monterey Bay, and California State University–East Bay. Many different ideas began to emerge as part of the Think Tank, including the need to recruit more women and minorities into senior management positions. Based on a decision to “grow their own talent,” the BASSC Execu- tive Development Program was launched in 1994 under the leadership and support of Stan Weisner and Barbara Weiss at UC Berkeley Extension. This innovative training pro- gram is now twenty four years old with over 600 graduates. As the Think Tank format continued, other new ideas emerged. Based on a shared concern about the lack of in- house research capabilities in county social service agencies, the BASSC Research Response Team was launched in 1995 within the UC Berkeley Center for Social Services Research under the leadership of Dr. Sheryl Goldberg and Dr. Pamela B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 17 Choice. A series of exploratory short-term studies, primarily in the field of child welfare, were staffed by MSW students. This innovative research program is now over twenty years old and currently operates under the leadership of Sarah Carnochan as BASSC Research Director. By 1996, Will Lightbourne (San Francisco) as BASSC Chair and Maureen Borland (San Mateo) as Vice Chair helped to focus the BASSC Think Tank on the profusion of policy issues leading up to and including the passage of federal welfare reform legislation. The multiple challenges facing the county directors led to a continuous stream of BASSC policy reports. One of the most comprehensive BASSC reports, Social Welfare at a Crossroads, was the first BASSC attempt to educate opinion leaders and elected officials involved in the development of California’s Cal- WORKs welfare reform legislation. The flood of staff train- ing challenges associated with implementing welfare reform led to the formation of a BASSC policy group of senior human resources and training managers under the leader- ship of Maureen Borland and Madelyn Martin (San Mateo County). This group continues to engage in ongoing efforts to transform public social service agencies into learning organizations, including recent efforts to build regional sys- tems to share online training content across counties. Preceding the BASSC Human Resources Committee was the Bay Area Children’s Committee which had been formed in the previous decade as a regional component of the statewide Children’s Committee that operated under the auspices of the California Welfare Directors Asso- ciation (CWDA). By 1998, the leadership of BASSC had expanded its attention to child welfare by launching the new Bay Area Academy with substantial Title IVE fund- ing. After nearly thirty years, the Bay Area Academy train- ing programs have grown substantially under the guidance of BASSC through its Training Advisory Board and the administrative guidance of Fresno State University School of Social Work (Dave Foster, Director and Chris Math- ias, Assistant Director). One of the early efforts of the Bay Area Children’s Committee, under the leadership of Stuart Oppenheim and Dana Fabella was the preparation of the 2002 report for the Governor’s Commission on Child Wel- fare entitled Promising Bay Area Practices for the Redesign of Child Welfare Services. Based on the 1997 successful launch of the BASSC policy group related to Staff Development and Human Resources, another BASSC policy group was formed in 1999 under the leadership of Rodger Lum and Linda Kretz (Alameda County) to focus on adult and aging services. The first result of this collaborative effort was the BASSC publi- cation, Riding the Wave: Charting the Course of Adult and Aging Services into the Next Decade (2000). The BASSC policy group development continued during the first five years of implementing CalWORKs (1998-2003), with the establishment of the BASSC Welfare-to-Work policy group under the leadership of John Cullen and Wendy Therrian (Contra Costa County). The arrival of the new millennium in 2000 provided BASSC with an opportunity to look beyond regional, state, and national boundaries in order to explore a more global perspective on public social services. Following the com- missioning of reports on the implementation of welfare reform in Great Britain, BASSC began a series of video- conferences with local authority social service directors in England that focused on welfare reform implementation, child welfare services and adult/aging services. While the initial focus was on foster care, the future agenda includes adult/aging services. The national and international reach of BASSC was further enhanced by the launching of its first website which is now supported by the Mack Center on Nonprofit and Public Sector Management in the Human Services established in 2006. Sarah Carnochan joined the Mack Center staff in 2010 and helped develop a parallel consortium of nonprofit agencies that partnered with the counties to deliver social services called the Bay Area Net- work of Nonprofit Human Service Agencies (BANNHSA). Given this brief 30 year history, it is clear that BASSC represents a unique partnership of county human service agencies, universities, and local foundations. Over the past three decades, a wide array of county agency directors, uni- versity deans and directors and foundation representatives have played a key role in the success of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium. As we celebrate the 30th Anniversary of BASSC, we salute the founding members of this pioneer- ing intermediary organization that brings together the three important sectors of county social service agencies, univer- sities, and foundations. As both a think tank and support group, BASSC has become a dynamic regional partnership that explores and supports collaboration and provides a venue where organizational leaders can share ideas and cre- ate innovative programs and practices. 18 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E B A S S C @ 3 0 H A L L OF FA ME ( 1987-2017 ) Counties Alameda: Lori Cox, Yolanda Baldovinos, Chet Hewitt, Rodger Lum, Helen Knudson Contra Costa: Kathy Gallagher, Joe Valentine, John Cullen, Perfecto Villareal, Jim Rydingsword Marin: Kari Beuerman, Heather Ravani, Larry Meredith, Nancy Rubin, Thomas Peters Monterey: Elliott Robinson, Marie Glavin, Dardell McFarlin Napa: Howard Himes, Randy Snowden, Bruce Hyde, Terry Longoria, Dan Corsello, San Benito: James Rydingsword, Kathy Flores, Marilyn Coppola, Lee Collins San Francisco: Trent Rhorer, Will Lightbourne, Brian Cahill, Julia Lopez, Ed Sarsfield San Mateo: Iliana Rodriguez, Beverly Beasley Johnson, Glen Brooks, Maureen Borland, Ernie Hirosi Santa Clara: Robert Menicocci, Bruce Wagstaff, Will Lightbourne, Yolanda Lenier Rinaldo, Dick O’Neil Santa Cruz: Ellen Timberlake, Cecilia Espinola, Will Lightbourne, Susan Mauriello Solano: Gerald Huber, Ann Edwards, Patrick Duterte, Donald Rowe, Donald Currey Sonoma: Karen Fies, Jerry Dunn, Jo Weber, Dianne Edwards, Yolanda Lenier Rinaldo, Paul Allen Universities California State University–Monterey Bay: Brian Simmons California State University–East Bay: Rose Wong, Holly Vugia, Evaon Wong Kim, Diane Rush Woods, Terry Jones San Francisco State: Susanna Jones, Eileen Levy, Rita Takahashi, Marv Feit, Michael Reisch, David Shipp, Phyllis Rochelle San Jose State: Peter Lee, Jack Wall, Alice Hines, Lela Noble, Sylvia Andrews, Simon Dominguez, Ismael (Andy) Dieppa University of California, Berkeley: Jeffrey Edleson, Lorraine Midanik, James Midgley, Neil Gilbert, Harry Specht Foundations Zellerbach Family Foundation: Amy Price, Allison Magee, Ellen Walker, Cindy Rambo, Ed Nathan VanLobenSels/RembeRock Kathy Armstrong, Dan Corsello, Ed Nathan BASSC Staff Michael J. Austin, Sarah Carnochan, Bart Grossman B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 19 B A S S C B AY A RE A HUM A N RE S OURCE S C OMMI T T E E The Bay Area Human Resource Committee (BAHRC) was launched in 1997 to respond to the staff development and personnel systems associated with implementing Welfare Reform. It soon became apparent to BAHRC participants that the organizational culture of county agencies/depart- ments had a significant impact on the design and imple- mentation of effective training programs beyond welfare to work programs. The Committee began to explore the literature on learning organizations and consulted with experts as a way of preparing to make recommendations for systemic changes to traditional staff development programs and practices. Since 1997 BAHRC has continued to focus on the implementation and continuous improvement of BASSC member agencies as learning organizations. The learning organization principles and practices continue to be the top priority for BAHRC as members continuously share information, explore different ways of resolving common issues, learn from each other and develop innovations in the area of human resources. The current pri- orities focus on the regional sharing of resources based on adopting and learning to use a common software platform (Storyline). MEMBERS Michael Aho San Francicso County Andrea Banks Napa County Marci Castro Monterey County Francine Conner Sonoma County Bart Ellison San Francicso County Nya Flores Napa County Jennifer Kaley Santa Cruz County Luenna Kim San Francicso County Linda Martinez Santa Clara County Irina Mass San Francisco County Maria Panesi Guerra Alameda County Denise Robinson Alameda County Larry Sanchez Alameda County Marie Sanders Santa Clara County Mary Shean Alameda County Clarisa Simon San Mateo County Dawn Sparks San Mateo County Andrew Stewart Santa Cruz County Desi Tafoya San Mateo County Shelly Todd Napa County Katrina Williams Santa Clara County Mickey Williams Contra Costa County Iliana Rodriguez San Mateo County BASSC Liaison 20 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E B A S S C B AY A RE A W E L FA RE T O WORK C OMMI T T E E Launched in the midst of Welfare Reform implementation during the late 1990s, the focus of this Think Tank has been on implementing the CalWORKs program. In recent years, the focus has been on subsidized employment, workforce participation rates, workforce development programs, and family stabilization. In collaboration with the BASSC Research Response Team, numerous reports have been developed including a book on Changing Welfare Services: Case Studies of Local Welfare Reform Programs emerging out of the early years of incentive funding for caseload reduction and innovative practices in Bay Area counties. MEMBERS Sherry Alderman Sonoma County Emily Balli Santa Cruz County Tracey Belton San Benito County Rebecca Darnell Contra Costa County Andrea Ford Alameda County Lynn Perez Napa County Rafaela Perez Santa Clara County Angela Shing Solano County Noelle Simmons San Francisco County Angela Struckmann Marin County Wendy Therrian Contra Costa County Jennifer Valencia San Mateo County Barbara Verba Monterey County Lorraine Wilson Marin County Elliott Robinson Monterey County BASSC Liaison B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 21 B A S S C B AY A RE A A DULT A ND AG ING C OMMI T T E E The BASSC Bay Area Adult and Aging Committee launched in 1999 focuses its Think Tank discussions on policies and values related to improving adult and aging services. The core values include fostering consumer choice and independence, integrating service systems, and promot- ing cost benefits within a flexible service system to support consumer independence. Its first major BASSC report, Riding the Wave (2000) provided a foundation for explor- ing current policy issues. Over the past several years, the focus of discussion has been on the policy issues related to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). IHSS and long-term care (LTC) policies and programs for low-income noninsti- tutionalized LTC populations. In collaboration with the BASSC Research Response Team, several reports were developed related to elder abuse prevention (2002), risk assessment in adult protective ser- vices (2009), and long-term care policy (2010). MEMBERS Kris Brown Napa County Joyce Goodwin Solano County Diana Jimenez Monterey County Diane Kaljian Sonoma County Lisa Mancini San Mateo County Mike McConnell Santa Cruz County Randy Morris Alameda County Jill Nielsen San Francisco County Lee Pullen Marin County James Ramoni Santa Clara County Victoria Tolbert Contra Costa County Howard Himes Napa County BASSC Liaison 22 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E B A S S C B AY A RE A REG ION A L CHIL DRE N’S SE R V ICE S C OMMI T T E E Since 1990, the Bay Area Regional Children’s Services Com- mittee has been meeting as a regional subcommittee of the County Welfare Directors Association Children’s Services Committee and a committee of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium to share program expertise and contribute to the development and implementation of Child Welfare Ser- vices policies and programs to improve the lives of vulner- able children throughout the Bay Area and California. Over the past 2+ decades, discussions of the Bay Area Committee included the challenges facing foster fam- ily agency programs, Inter-county Protocol for the coor- dination of services to families who migrate throughout our region, and collaboration with the BASSC Research Response Team to improve Child Welfare practices. This collaboration included the study of the education of foster youth (2001), promising Bay Area child welfare practices (2002), and the Child Welfare and the Courts Project (2002). Subsequent collaboration involved the publication (2008) of structured literature reviews (disproportional- ity, risk assessment, family assessment, child/youth well- being assessment, measuring outcomes, parent education programs, substance abuse treatment programs), national performance indicators project (2013) (preventing the recur- rence of maltreatment, achieving timely reunification, pre- venting re-entry to foster care, achieving timely adoption, achieving exits to permanency for children in long term care, achieving placement stability, using performance measures to manage child welfare outcomes), and the case record data-mining project (2017). MEMBERS Maria Corona San Benito County Aaron Crutison Solano County Sylvia Deporto San Francisco County Rebecca Feiner Napa County Nick Honey Sonoma County Francesca LeRúe Santa Clara County Michelle Love Alameda County Kathy Marsh Contra Costa County Lori Medina Monterey County Joan Miller Santa Cruz County Deborah Moss Marin County Lori Cox Alameda County BASSC Liaison B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 23 B A S S C B AY A RE A A DMINI S T R AT ION A ND F IN A NCE C OMMI T T E E Mission Launched in 2014 under the leadership of Daniel Kaplan (SF Human Services Department), colleagues in the area of finance and administration were invited to form a Think Tank of issues shared by the counties. Using centrally- located bi-monthly meetings members have the opportu- nity to raise issues of common concern as well as present concerns to invite peer consultation and advice. The following are among the topics that helped to launch the committee and continue to provide a framework for discussion: ■ The IHSS MOU ■ ACA Financial Challenges ■ Forecasting Methodologies ■ Administrative Revenue Simulation Methodologies ■ Benefits/Risks of the IV-E Waiver ■ Realignment Revenue Management/Forecasting ■ Information Technology Strategic Planning ■ The Roles of Finance in CCP, IHSS Negotiations and other groups/functions ■ Revenue Leveraging/Maximization Strategies ■ MediCAL Administrative Budget Methodology MEMBERS Jacinta Arteaga San Mateo County Daniel Crick Santa Clara County Becky Cromer Monterey County Emilia Gabriele Contra Costa County Rose Hardcastle Napa County Gayle Hermann Alameda County Joseph Huang San Francisco County Girlie Jarumay Solano County Daniel Kaplan San Francisco County Tess Lapira Solano County Cynthia Larca San Benito County Maureen Lewis Marin County Melissa Mairose Monterey County Robert Manchia San Mateo County Mike Roetzer Contra Costa County Sharen Smithcamp Santa Cruz County Carl Vanden Heuvel Sonoma County Julia Wyman Santa Clara County Trent Rhorer San Franciso County BASSC Liaison 24 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E B A S S C B AY A RE A RE SE A RCH, PL A NNING A ND E VA L UAT ION C OMMI T T E E Launched in 2012 under the leadership of Dan Kelly (SF) and Jim Cunniff (Alameda), this BASSC think tank and support group engages in bi-monthly meetings to explore areas of common interest. One of the most valuable aspects of these meetings is the check-in, hearing from other coun- ties about what they are involved in, getting new ideas, asking questions, and sharing information. The range of topics in the early days of the committee included: 1) Per- formance based contracting and the use of longitudinal data sets (CW), 2) Public Housing and the use of vouchers for homeless families coming into the child welfare system, 3) Supportin leadership changes related to different divi- sions in the department (CW, CalWORKS, Adult/Aging). MEMBERS Anissa Basoco-Villarreal Alameda County Ben Bunyi Napa County Oscar Chavez Sonoma County David Dubrowski Santa Cruz County Randolph Hudson Contra Costa County Dan Kelly San Francisco County Bridgette Lery San Francisco County Devorah Levine Contra Costa County George Malachowski Sonoma County Robbie Matheson Solano County Madeline Noya Santa Cruz County Karl Porter Napa County Ana Rasquiza Marin County Gina Sessions Santa Clara County Catherine Vu Santa Clara County Trent Rhorer San Francisco County BASSC Liaison B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 25 B A S S C B AY A RE A AC A DE M Y T R A INING A DV I S ORY BOA RD ( TA B ) The Bay Area Academy offers training courses, conferences, coaching, implementation support, technical assistance and consultation services to public child welfare and adult services in the greater San Francisco Bay Area social service community. Funded through state and local partnerships, the Bay Area Academy promotes safety, permanency, well being and whole person care in public social services. Michelle Love Alameda Robin Luckett Alameda Larry Sanchez Alameda Mary Shean Alameda Svetlana Lesova Alameda Vicky Quinto Contra Costa Kathy Marsh Contra Costa Marcy Williamson Contra Costa Bree Marchman Marin Maria Affinito Marin Deborah Moss Marin Lori Medina Monterey Alice White Monterey Chelsea Stoner Napa Becky Feiner Napa Maria Sabeh Napa Julieanna Avera San Benito Maria Corona San Benito Shyloh Stearns San Benito Jackie Credico San Benito Brad Dawson San Benito Sylvia Deporto San Francisco Melissa Connelly San Francisco Penny Kumta San Francisco Loc Nguyen San Mateo Donna Wocher San Mateo Olisha Hodges San Mateo Linda Martinez Santa Clara Francesca LeRúe Santa Clara Marie Sanders Santa Clara Mary Bergman Santa Cruz Andrew Stewart Santa Cruz Aaron Crutison Solano Debbie Powell Solano Rhonda Smith Solano Nick Honey Sonoma Francine Conner Sonoma Jo McKay Sonoma Kathy Gallagher and Howard Himes BASSC Liaisons 26 G U I D I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E B A S S C RE SE A RCH RE SP ON SE T E A M The BASSC Research Response Team, housed in the Cen- ter for Social Services Research at the University of Cali- fornia School of Social Welfare was established in 1995 to respond rapidly to the emerging research needs of Bay Area county social service agencies for current information about their changing environments. Exploratory research projects are undertaken in close collaboration with agency adminis- trators and program staff and include structured literature reviews, large scale surveys, case studies and case record data-mining. Research projects completed over the past sev- eral decades are listed below. ADULTS & AGING Lehning, A. & Austin, M.J. (2010). Long-term care in the United States: Policy themes and promising practices. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 53(1), 43-63. Anthony, E.K., Lehning, A.J., Peck, M.D. & Austin, M.J. (2009). Assessing elder mistreatment: Instrument development and implications for Adult Protective Services. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52(8), 815-836. Austin, M.J., Malks, B. & Schmidt, C. (2002). Elder abuse prevention program: A case study of the Santa Clara county financial abuse specialist team (FAST). Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 13(3), 23-40. CHILD WELFARE Henry, C., Carnochan, S. & Austin, M.J. (2017) Using qualitative data-mining for practice-based research in child welfare. Child Welfare, 93(6), 7-25. Carnochan, S., Samples, M., Lawson, J. & Austin, M.J. (2013). The context of child welfare performance measures. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 10(3), 147-160. Carnochan, S., Rizik-Baer, D., & Lawson, J. & Austin, M.J. (2013). Preventing the recurrence of maltreatment. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 10(3), 168-178. Carnochan, S., Lee, C., Lawson, J., & Austin, M.J. (2013). Achieving timely reunification. Journal of Evidence- based Social Work, 10(3), 179-195. Carnochan, S., Rizik-Baer, D., Lawson, J. & Austin, M.J. (2013). Preventing re-entry to foster care. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 10(3), 196-209. Carnochan, S., Moore, M. & Austin, M.J. (2013). Achiev- ing timely adoption. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 10(3), 210-219. Carnochan, S., Lee, C., Lawson, J. & Austin, M.J. (2013). Achieving exits to permanency for children in long term care. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 10(3), 220-234. Carnochan, S., Moore, M. & Lawson, J. & Austin, M.J. (2013). Achieving placement stability: Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 10(3), 235-253. Samples, M., Carnochan, S. & Austin, M.J. (2013). Using performance measures to manage child welfare out- comes: Local strategies and decision-making. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 10(3), 254-264 Anthony, E.K., King, B., & Austin, M.J. (2011). Reducing child poverty by promoting child well-being: Identify- ing best practices in a time of great need. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1999-2009. Anthony, E.K., Cormier, D.R., & Austin, M.J. (2010). Early detection of drug and alcohol abuse in pregnant mothers: Implications for child welfare practice. Chil- dren and Youth Services Review, 32(1), 6-12. Anthony, E., Samples, M., de Kervor, D. N., Ituarte, S., Lee, C. & Austin, M.J. (2010) Coming back home: The reintegration of formerly incarcerated youth with service implications. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1271-1277. Kimberlin, S., Anthony, E.K. & Austin, M.J. (2009). Re-entering foster care: Trends, evidence and impli- cations. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(4), 471-481. Lemon, K., D’Andrade, A. & Austin, M.J. (2008). Under- standing and addressing racial/ethnic disproportional- ity in the front end of the child welfare system. Special Issue, Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 5(1/2), 9-30. D’Andrade, A., Benton, A. & Austin, M.J. (2008). Risk and safety assessment in child welfare: Instrument comparisons. Special Issue, Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 5(1/2), 31-56. B A S S C — P A S T , P R E S E N T A N D F U T U R E 27 D’Andrade, A., Lemon Osterling, K. & Austin, M.J. (2008). Understanding and measuring child welfare outcomes. Special Issue, Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 5(1/2), 135-15