In My Working Career
In my working career, I was blessed to become an expert (perhaps, in fact, one of the country’s/world’s experts) in three specific areas of work in the helping families and children. These three areas represented three phases of my career and occupied a major part of my working life, each phase covering a 10-15 year period in my career.
The Design of Social Welfare Work and Jobs
The first was in the design of social welfare work and jobs. Immediately after completing my Master of Social Work degree in 1969, I was invited to join the staff of a Federally-funded demonstration project called the Manpower Project, which had the purpose of developing jobs and careers in the field of social welfare for indigenous or paraprofessional workers, that is, persons who might have been drawn largely from service populations. We were to analyze the work of administering social welfare programs, to identify entry level jobs and then chart out career development paths which would lead to opportunities for these workers to perform higher level and more responsible jobs– career ladders, so called. These were the days of Lindon Johnson’s War on Poverty and state public welfare organizations were desperately short of professional social workers to staff the work that was thought to be needed. So, we were killing two birds with one stone, providing necessary workers to carry out the work in this field and providing jobs and careers for people who were currently in poverty. The project not only included analyzing and defining jobs and career development paths, but also was concerned with identifying required training and success criteria for workers to utilize these paths. And finally we were to actually demonstrate these processes with a cohort of paraprofessional workers.
My original position on the Manpower Project was that of a Job Analyst. I was taught these analytical skills by a consultant from Washington, DC, Dr. Sidney Fine, a prominent industrial psychologist. He had formerly been head of Research and Development for the U. S. Department of Labor. I developed a nice relationship with him and we had him in our home a time of two for dinner and to meet our family. He had developed a procedure for this analysis called Functional Task Analysis. I became pretty adept at defining and using this tool.
In this method we distinguished and defined each individual task required in the performing an area of the work of an organization. The task statements themselves were written in a precise form making up a long sentence. First, we listed and described the actions a worker performed as a part of this piece of work; then we composed an “in order to” statement that encompassed the purpose for performing this task. We then analyzed each task statement on three scales, the relative involvement of the worker with People, Data, and Things, that is, the interpersonal, the mental, and physical components of the task. We expressed this emphasis as a percentage but also made a rating of the relative difficulty or complexity on scales for these three items. We next defined the training content required for performance of these activities, and finally wrote statements defining criteria for evaluating effective performance of this task.
With this data, we were able to sort the tasks by levels into statements of job descriptions, and design different levels of training.
In the midst of this project, our Project Director became Director over our whole Division and I was promoted to his position in the project. We used the Ogden office of our division as the place for demonstrating this project. Under our sponsorship, this office hired a team of paraprofessionals performing the jobs we designed and our staff provided the initial training and some support for these workers. I do not know fully the long-term results of our work. When the three year project concluded, I returned to the Division state office and worked with other planning assignments. Shortly after this the State Legislature separated out the financial assistance function from our Department and placed it in the Job Service, and so I lost track of what was happening with the Ogden unit we established.
As for my own career, I wrote and published reports from the Manpower Project and had the opportunity to present our findings and experiences at some national conferences. I also was “loaned” by our Department Director for a brief time to the State of Alaska where I travel to the capital in Juneau and trained a team in that state’s social services department in Functional Job Analysis and got them started in the process of analyzing the work and training requirements for part-time department representatives in far away out-posts across that state. Finally, I was heavily recruited by the School of Social Work at Arizona State University, to join their faculty and lead a project where they were trying to define work and training requirements for some social service agencies. However much I would have liked to accept this opportunity to further my career in this direction, I felt bound to remain in Salt Lake. This was the time when we first had Michael and his serious heart problems, we had our medical providers at Primary Children’s Hospital and the city, and I did not believe that I could upset the stability of our family situation. I was always attracted to academic life but I felt at this time that there was no question but that I had to turn down this opportunity for the sake of Michael, JoAnn and our family.
Integrated Human Services Development
After the Manpower Project I was asked to serve and worked for a couple of years on an initiative of Governor Mattheson’s and a new Department Director. The legislature had formed a larger consolidated department of human service agencies, including divisions of Mental Health, Alcohol and Drugs, Aging, Child Welfare (Family Services) and more. Some of these agencies provided direct services, other administered pass-through monies to local entities. The Governor had a vision of bringing these agencies closer to the people by establishing comprehensive local “one-stop service shopping centers” at local levels throughout the state. In the project, we tried to get agencies to co-locate physically and to cooperate with centralized intake and assessment functions we attempted to create. In this assignments I spent quite a lot of time traveling the State, and especially in a couple of locations in the southwest part of the state where we were making some progress. My assignment also gravitated toward identifying data support for the centralized intake function.
This assignment gave me the opportunity to learn more about the wide range of human services. It required lots of meetings with high level people and the ability to deal with them with patience and tact. For example, in our dealings with the Salt Lake County Social Services leadership (Ted Wilson was then the Director), we found they were mostly interested in how much extra money we could give them and not the governor’s initiative. Other persons in other parts of the state reacted in many other ways.
Interestingly, in this process, I also became acquainted with Charlie Patterson, who was the Assistant Director of the Division of Mental Health. Later, I found that he was the father of Wendy’s ex-husband, and I knew some things about his personality and family values.
Preventative (Family Strengthening) Services in Child Welfare
The integrated services initiative wound down and I was assigned to work on service evaluation studies in a Department bureau of audit and evaluation. I was experiencing some frustration with my work at that time, as I had been turned down for a Regional Director position I had wanted, so I determined to work on a doctorate in Social Work. I got lots of support for this from the bureau chief who was also a good friend, Richard Crouch, so applied and got accepted to the program at the U of U. I finished the classwork in two years. I became friends with the director, Mark Fraser, of the Social Welfare Research Institute at the school and for my dissertation project joined with him in a study a new type of child welfare service called family preservation. Mark and another professor, Peter Pecora, had grant money to study this program, which was called “Homebuilders” and was being tried in child welfare services by the State of Washington and had also been introduced in our own Utah child welfare services. My doctoral dissertation was entitled “Service-related Correlates of Treatment Success in Intensive Family Preservation Services for Child Welfare” Family preservation services or Homebuilders used an intensive home-based model to help neglected children remain safely in their own homes. Family preservation workers worked with families in which there was serious neglect and deprivation of children. These families, often single mothers, seemed to lack many of the homemaking and parenting skills needed to keep children safe and developing satisfactorily. These workers would generally serve only two or three families at a time, and might spend as much as 15 to 20 hours a week in the home of a family being served. While there they would model and teach basic homemaking and child rearing skills and life skills to parents and continue to monitor the safety of the children. Generally, the term of this service was two or three months and the results were generally positive in that the safety of the children was improved to the point that no further intervention was deemed necessary and neglect cases dismissed.
In the field of child welfare, there was and is controversy over how States can best serve children who with live with neglectful parents. Much of the resources developed in public child welfare agencies for such situations have gone to providing alternative care, originally institutions, but then in recent decades care in foster families. Studies of the lives of children raised in foster care give a mixed result, many successes, but also many children who move from foster care into troubled adulthood. Some negative evaluations have suggested that substitute care means substituting state neglect in place of parental neglect. Seemingly, deficiencies in such things as child to adult bonding experiences for many children raised in substitute care systems leading to personality deficits in these persons when grown and point to a far greater need to focus attention on repairing problems in their families of origin.
In 1996, I was serving in the Division of Family Services as Director of Planning and had been involved to some degree in promoting an emphasis in our child welfare programming upon preventative, family strengthening interventions. I had also established a relationship with Eric Bjorkland, the head of the private, non-profit agency Youth Village and became a part-time consultant in helping this agency in the evaluating the effectiveness of their programs. This relationship continued for about 11 years until after my retirement from the State of Utah (1905), until December of 2008 when Wendy and I had accepted a call from the Church to serve as Senior Missionaries.
Youth Village had come into existence a number of years before as residential treatment programs for disturbed teenage girls, then had expanded to residential programs for problem boys and recently had added a small home-based treatment component. When I began to acquaint myself with Youth Village I discovered a unique opportunity. I saw in the situation of their family-based short-term intensive services the possibility of doing a controlled service effectiveness study. Drug-related studies of this sort compare results for persons who receive the medication vs. those who were given a placebo. But these kinds of studies a rare in regard to human services. They require a set of subjects who can be assigned randomly to receive or not receive an intervention with a comparison of the two groups on key measures of desired success after the service period is over. With human service subjects, it generally is viewed as irresponsible to withhold services from persons after they have been identified with needs. Human service providers tend also to be under-funded and stretched to perform even the basics of their service mandates, and generally lack resources to focus on the extra requirements of designing, collecting and evaluating data for effectiveness studies. Also the know-how to conduct such studies is not widespread.
As I began to assess the situation at Youth Village with its home-based service, I found the pieces in place to conduct a true controlled experimental study. First, the Village had contracts with the Salt Lake City Schools and with the Utah Juvenile Court to provide the services along with some additional grant money to pay for extra research costs. Second, they were inundated comparatively with referrals and did not have the trained treatment staff to serve every family nor the ability to supplement this staff in the short-term. Third, they had already established an evaluation team of four paraprofessionals who were capable of doing follow-up study interviews.
So with the support the director of the Village, I designed a controlled, experimental study. I established procedures for random assignment of referrals to services or non-service. I designed a 63 item questionnaire, and procedures for the follow-up interviews with both groups. Data were collected over the period for families referred for services in 1996 through 1999 and for a follow-up period. I analyzed the data and developed a report. This report was eventually published in the journal Children and Youth Services Review, in 2005, pp. 499-509, “The effectiveness of Families First services, an experimental study.” Here is the abstract (that is, brief summary) for this article:
An intensive, short-term, family-based intervention was employed to help families overcome serious problems, in child behavior and child management. This service was an adaptation of the Teaching-Family Model of therapeutic group home programming with some elements of child welfare intensive family preservation services. In a controlled 3-year study, families receiving this service were found to report significant improvements in child behavior, physical care and resources, parental effectiveness, and parent-child relationships, when compared with similar difficulties in families who were referred for service but not served. Not only were the improvements in treatment families apparent shortly after the conclusion of the service, but these changes were also maintained over a number of months’ period, suggesting that the improved skills, behaviors, and relationship changes developed during the intervention may have become solidly implanted in parental and family functioning.
After our mission, I did not go back to Youth Village, and confess that I hardly had a thought about my professional career and focus, concentrating on family, family history, temple, and in Church callings that related to young men. I was surprised in the summer of 2019, to have phone call from Eric Bjorkland, saying that there a was continuing interest in my study of twenty years before. There was an opportunity for the State of Utah to obtain some special federal funding for preventative work with family of neglected children, diverting monies that historically had only been available to pay the costs of substitute care. Approval for this opportunity was conditioned on a State having some research data attesting to already having a proven capability in place. That is where my earlier study would come in as perhaps one of two possible studies that would help provide evidence of such a proven capability. At this time I also received a letter from the director of the Department of Human Services requesting my help, as they tried to use my study.
Out in our garage, under boxes and old bedframes and such, I located a paper box containing about 10 binders with the study statistical printouts and other information about the study. I spent a day or so refamiliarizing myself with these things. Then I took several of the binders to the Department of Human Services state office in Salt Lake and spent a couple of hours interpreting the print-outs with a research team and left them with the binders, which were returned after a few weeks.
Shortly after, I saw an article in the newspaper with this headline, “Utah first state to receive approval for plan to keep kids out of foster care. State will receive federal fund match under Family First Act.” SALT LAKE CITY — Utah this week became the first state to receive approval for a plan that will provide parents dealing with substance use disorder or mental health issues resources to keep their kids out of foster care. State officials believe the Beehive State will set a standard for others as it adjusts to a dramatically new system...” (Deseret News, Dec 13, 2019)
I hope my humble efforts of two decades ago will contribute to the future well-being of children in this state.
Child Welfare Information Systems
While I was still serving in the Division of Family Services as Director of Planning, the U. S. Department of HEW announced a new initiative, called SACWIS, to improve computerized information system support for state child welfare programs. I personally wrote a proposal for federal funding of a SACWIS project planning grant. This project was one of the early state proposals that was granted funding. Once initial funding was approved, it seemed logical and essential for me to stay with the project and direct it. I dropped the planning and evaluation roles. For the remainder of my career I worked with the system we termed SAFE. When the development phase was completed, I continued to manage the front end maintenance team, preparing recommendations for needed system changes, continuing training, maintenance of a user manual, and supervising the system help desk.
It seems to me that on several occasions over the years I was drawn to work on information systems. When I returned to the Public Welfare Department state office planning position after the Manpower Project concluded, I was assigned to supervise a small team of workers who were supporting the development of a public welfare information system termed USSDS. They were Meredith Simmons, Jean Nielsen, and Susan Wheatley (Hatch). All of them had worked in the field as welfare caseworkers, had good analytical capabilities, and were giving input to programmers and technical staff about the USSDS system requirements. These three all eventually ended up working in Family Services and I maintained respectful and supportive relationships with each throughout my career. Meredith managed child welfare policy writeups for many years. Jean served in various leadership roles and finally had a term as Division of Family Services Director. I was fortunate to reacquire Susan, and her skills at detailed, exacting analysis, as a member of the staff of the our SAFE project along with several other persons who had worked as caseworkers in the field with the various program specialties that we were covering in the system.
After accepting the assignment to direct the project and oversee the front-end project group, and having acquired development funding, I put together this staff of five or six persons. We were fortunate to acquire consulting help with the system specification, Dr. Steve Clyde, from the USU information technology department. He provided training on state of the art, for that day, system specification techniques. At the same time our Department systems office hired a contractor team to do the programming, and we worked hand-in-hand with them through the entire development process. My team had the specific responsibility to develop:
– logical models of the system
– data flow diagrams included required data base descriptions
– detailed data elements definitions
– designs for entry and display screens and underlying logic and controls
– designs for forms and printed report formats and rules
In my position, I represented Utah in contacts with the federal funding agency, and national meetings and conferences regarding child welfare systems, sometimes making presentations the system we were building about the process we were following.
As the project processed toward implementation, which started in 1999, our project staff
– Established advisory groups
– Constantly worked with and obtained input and byoff from staff and administrators
– Defined system testing criteria, and when programming was begun, conducted testing and worked with technical staff on fixes and design improvements
– Wrote instruction manuals for system users
– Designed user training plans and programs, and carried out training
– Developed help desk plans, then staffed and trained help desk personnel
SAFE was viewed nationally as a model state child welfare system and also that we created and utilized a model development process, especially with the high level of input and oversight by professional child welfare workers.
After the initial system implementation, our front-end staff were allowed to stay in place to provide training, to oversee the Help Desk, and help maintain and add improvements to the system. I continued to supervise this staff until I retired in the fall of 2005.
The Division of Family Services was still using our system, SAFE, as late as 2017, according to an acquaintance, Chad McDonald.
Race, Priesthood, and Temple Blessings--
3 months ago