DOCUMENT RESUME ED 404 335 SP 037 170 Integrated Services for Children & Families. TITLE Improving Outcomes in the Midwest Region. Policy Report No. 2. North Central Regional Educational Lab., Oak Brook, INSTITUTION IL. PUB DATE 96 NOTE 41p.; This report is a sequel to "Policy Briefs" 1, 1996), "Human Services Coordination: (Report No. Who Cares?" AVAILABLE FROM North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1900 Spring Road, Suite 300, Oak Brook, IL 60521-1480. Descriptive (141) PUB TYPE Reports Collected Works Serials (022) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. Elementary Secondary Education; Family Programs; DESCRIPTORS *Human Services; *Integrated Services; Profiles; Public Schools; *Social Services; State Programs Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; IDENTIFIERS Wisconsin ABSTRACT This report highlights the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) states' efforts in integrated services and provides commentaries by experts on their experiences in the field. Steven Preister's "Overview" from Report No. 1 serves as the framework for the report, describing NCREL states' current and future agendas, exploring key concepts of human services, and providing information on specific issues that still need to be addressed by the states. State profiles are provided for Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Also included are brief articles: "Reforming Human Services Delivery for Outcomes Accountability" (Robin LaSota of NCREL); "Human Services Reform in Illinois: Turning Rhetoric to Reality" (Beverly Walker, Assistant to the Governor of Illinois for the Governor's Task Force on Human Services Reform); "An Interview with Cheryl Sullivan, Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration"; "The Mancelona Family Resource Center: A Microcosm of Change in Michigan" (Gary Knapp); and "Ohio Family & Children First Initiative: A Record of Results of School Readiness" excerpted from a briefing from the Office of the Governor. References are included at end of articles and profiles. (ND) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** I HmteETEfted SCTvficee 1=1 Office of Educational Research and improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION rr CENTER (ERIC) 0 This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. , Mee Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this docu- ment do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. 4 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) BEST COPY AVAILABLE factors external Often determinants effig success academic Editor's Note: by Judy Caplan, Program Coordinator, cc Mira Me Center for School and Community Development, NCREL ear educators This Policy Report was developed as a sequel to Policy Briefs, Report ity-friendly commun No. 1,1996, "Human Services Coordination: Who Cares?!" We wanted schools known have te to highlight NCREL states' efforts in integrated services and to bring years. fin 13 the reader additional "Commentaries" by experts on their experiences Education Zeg in the field. Steven Preister's "Overview" from the original document vested 1Dag acts as the framework for the paper. NCREL states' current and future partieiparig fig, agendas are described. In Steven Preister's excellent background versations about 000 about human services, key concepts are explored. The reader who is how better interested in how these concepts take form from state to state will find ?ggoolgor; eiod the state profiles especially rich and useful. Also included are an arti- human ctOda;17 ROE@ cle by Robin LaSota of NCREL on "Reforming Human Services glgeg@gig cedldren effid ado Delivery for Outcomes Accountability"; "Commentaries" by Beverly (B.J.) Walker, Assistant to the Governor of Illinois for the Governor's need. famiTG@ Task Force on Human Services Reform, and Gary Knapp, Community Development Coordinator of the Mancelona Family Resource Center in Mancelona Michigan; along with an interview of Cheryl Sullivan of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and an excerpt from a briefing from Ohio's Governor on the Ohio Family & Child First Initiative. Why is a Regional Educational Laboratory publishing a monograph on integrated services for children and families? Where is the connection with schools and learning? Clearly the experiences of children before 8:00 a.m. and after 2:30 p.m. have a profound effect on what happens in the classroom and on all learning. Often external factors are the determinants of academic success or failure. Wise educators and commu- nity-friendly schools have known this for years. Education has a vested interest in participating in conversations about how better to restructure and deliver the human services children and their families need. School administrators, classroom teachers, and educational support staff know the impact of health, social, and environmental conditions on education. The student fearing harassment on the walk home, the child wincing in pain from a sore tooth, the teen missing school to serve as a translator for parents, a child with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), the youngster who has moved three times in the third gradethese children come to school worried, preoccupied, distracted, unable to actively page a engage in learning and do their best. The children we are most concerned about, the children in need of extra support, often have also come to the attention of some other professionala nurse at the health clinic, the beat Education is not being patrol officer, an outreach from a social service agency. Each under- asked to meet all the stands a part of what is needed and, lacking a total picture, can only social, health, and offer assistance that is often fragmented, ill-timed, and hard to access. emotional needs of Education is not being asked to meet all the social, health, and emotional young children. needs of young children. Instead, education is invited to sit at a com- munity table with human services professionals, parents, local business, Instead, education is religious leaders, and its neighbors to grapple with the challenges facing invited to sit at a young people. Everyone must be willing to try new solutions, to change, community table with to define new modes of accountability. human services The success of such a partnership depends on the forging of new rela- professionals, parents, tionships, agreeing on a common language, understanding each other's local business, organizational cultures, and the development of common goals. Is this religious leaders, work easy? We know it is not. But this collaborative work holds the and its neighbors to best promise for providing effective services that are flexible, holistic, family centered, and accountable. grapple with the challenges facing NCREL has worked hard to construct bridges between education and its community neighbors. Sometimes this takes the form of creating young people. environments for idea sharing and information exchanges. Other times the Lab has brokered relationships between the educational and the human services communities. In Illinois, through Project Successa school-community partnership initiativeNCREL provides training and technical assistance designed to promote community conversation and planning. Laboratory staff work with key community individuals on facilitation techniques, group dynamics, and planning skills. These NCREL-trained Project Coordinators then lead local partnerships through a planning process designed to identify community needs and develop a responsive action plan. In our work, we strive to involve all the stakeholders and ensure that they are full participants. NCREL hopes this Policy Report initiates conversation between educa- tors and human service professionals about possible approaches for working together to realize the best outcomes for our children. We also hope you find this expanded version of the original document interest- ing and useful. Your comments are always appreciated. Our goal is to give you the most current and accurate information in a very reader- friendly style. 4 page 3 Cornmunlq ek, Sria 111 Services , (IR 1111 ©WS7WrISN5 by Steven Preister, Consultant Why is this issue so important, especially now? If there is one thing that almost everyone agrees about today, it is that the way we now deliver public human services doesn't work well. Politicians from both par- ties, policymakers, consumers, human services providers, advocates, and program managerseach from their own perspectiveknow that even with the best of intentions, the basic design and organization of the human services system is inef- fective and needs reform. And children and families who are poor or who have multiple needs suffer the most. As the National Commission on Children reported, "The present system of services and supports is totally inadequate" (National Commission on Children, 1991, p. 312). What is wrong with the way citizens receive human services, particularly in the public sector? The Center for the Study of Social Policy (Center for the Study, 1995, p. 1) and Kunesh and Farley (1993) have succinctly summarized the problems with current services': The current system is not focused on results (for example, getting a job, reduc- ing family stress, eliminating child abuse) but on procedure and maintenance (for example, qualifying for welfare, maintaining benefits, meeting required criteria). The social welfare system divides the problems of children and families into rigid and distinct categories that fail to reflect interrelated causes and solutions. Therefore, the current system treats problems or concerns as isolated and indi- vidually based rather than viewing them holistically and in the context of family, neighborhood, and community. As a result, specialized agencies have difficulty crafting comprehensive solu- tions to complex problems. In addition, multiple programs, funding sources, and accounting rules generate wasteful duplication of services and administra- tive expenses. Funding for human services is also fragmented and categorized, making it difficult to pool resources to help solve a problem in a coordinated, compre- hensive, and integrated fashion. Most services are crisis oriented, rather than prevention oriented. Expensive, "back-end" services are emphasized at the expense of long-term prevention programs necessary to change results. The current system is too "top down," not allowing communities the flexibility to determine their own needs and not fostering consumer participation in seek- ing solutions to improve outcomes. ' The author has blended and expanded on the descriptions contained in these two sources. page O Functional communication is gency room or public health clinic NCREL Policy Report is an introduc- lacking between and among pub- where they are unlikely to see the tion to community human services lic and private sector agencies. same professional each time. coordination. By community human services coordination, we are referring What do these characteristics of the O Families with children with spe- to a nationwide movement to change current human services delivery system cial service needs face the fact the way that public human services are mean concretely for families, especially that rules governing funding often delivered so that they are community- the most vulnerable? Ooms and Owen only pay for the most institutional, based, flexible and holistic, family (1991 a, pp. 3-4) provide some examples: expensive type of service for their centered, and accountable. child which is not usually what 0 It is not uncommon for "at-risk" the child requires. Outpatient or families with several children to Background History' home-based services typically are have between 4-8 workers assigned not covered. Many of these ser- to them from different agencies Awareness of these human services vices are only,available to the the AFDC worker, the visiting /. delivery problems has existed for a diagnosed,child, not the family. nurse, the probation officer, the very long time. The settlement house Services' that provide..parents with drug abuse counselor, the child movement at the turn of the century the information, education, coun- protective services worker, the was an attempt to bring together a wide seling, and ongoing home-based truant officer. This does not range of services needed by the poor in / support needed to care for chit include the family's contact with a neighborhood location. The problems dren with special needs are usual regular "providers" such as teachers, of the system intensified, ironically, \ ly not reimbursableAo providers: clergy, and health care workers. / with the best of motivations. The Too often, a family lias, to try to Each one of these is only con- social programs initiated in the 1960s squeeze its needs into predefined cerned with a segment of wdt h and 1970s to address urgent and specific categories of existing services they see as a "dysfunctionallarnily." social problems, in fact, increased cate- rather than the services that will The workers seldomcdmmunicate gorization, and the complex eligibility meet its needs. with each other and"none of-them- rules and progfam regulations prevented have the responsibiliiy,to assess In this time of tight fiscal resources at' states ancyommunities from using the the family's needs or strengths or both the federal, state, and community fundingfrand programs flexibly. work with the family's wellbeing human services are increasingly levels , as a whole. As/early as the beginning of the 1970s, N. coming under scrutiny by policyriaakers, //Elliott Richardson, Secretary of the \\ the media, and consumers. As OomS Typically, a poor parent will have / then U.S. Department of Health, 'and Owen (19914. 5) remarked: 2.fr. to go to several different offices to Education, and Welfare (DHEW), establish that she is poor and eli- 'Faced with this litany of barrier's launched his agenda to promote ser- gible for services, and she will and' problems, is it any surprise vices integration including research and have to do this several times, fill- that taxpayers are concerned that demonstration projects, technical assis- ing out different forms each time. the services they fund are not tance efforts, and internal departmental Each program has different defini- meeting families2iieeds and reforms through the Allied Services tions of who qualifies for assistance thereby so often fail to achieve Act, but the bill never received con- and rules about how to count and their goals? The miracle is that gressional approval. There were subse- document income and assets. some families do become adept quent efforts in the Department to at negotiating these system mazes Poor families seldom have access begin changes in the public human ser- and do manage to get the benefits to convenient transportation, vices delivery system. In 1974, DHEW and use them to improve their which makes it harder for them to ... established Project SHARE, a national children's and families' lives. get to services. They are also more clearinghouse to help improve the likely to face problems dealing management of human services, and, in Just as there is consensus on the nature with their environment such as 1979, the Office of Human Development of the human services delivery problems, their housing and neighborhood Services in the Department of Health there is also an emerging consensus on issues like safety. and Human Services (DHHS) funded a new model of delivery. In shorthand, the National Network for Coordinating * Poor families typically have no we call the new model "community source of regular, preventive med- Human Services to develop and main- human services coordination," and it is ical care and usually only seek tain linkages between individuals and based on pilots and experiments con- health care in crisis at an emer- ducted across the country. This organizations interested in coordinating 'This section draws on Ooms and Owen (1991a) and Kinney, et al., 1994. 6 page 5 BEST COPY AVAILABLE services that cross categorical boundaries, government jurisdictions, and public and private services. In the early 1980s, the network funded two national conferences. Attention shifted in the late 1970s to welfare reform and national health service. Initiatives continued, however, at state and local levels, energized in part by the enactment of block grants in 1975 and 1981, which gave the states greater flexibili- ty in their use of funds. However, the budget cuts of the 1980s curtailed many of these reform efforts. In the 1990s, this reform effort has spread nationwide and is now represented at some level in most states. It is in states and local communities that the real action is taking place today. While these developments took place in the world of social services, there were parallel developments in almost every other field of human services. These include child abuse (National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, n.d.), child care (Ooms & Herendeen, 1990), children's mental health and seriously emotionally dis- turbed children and adolescents (Knitzer, 1989; Stroul & Friedman, 1986), child welfare (VanDenBerg, as cited in Kinney, Strand, Hagerup, & Bruner, 1994, p. 35), disabilities (United Cerebral Palsy Associations, 1992/93), early childhood (Galinsky, Subilla, Willer, Levine, & Daniel, 1994), education (Melaville & Blank, 1991), employment, training, and public assistance (Jennings & Zank, 1992), family preservation and family support (Family Resource Coalition, 1994), health care services for infants and toddlers with special health needs (National Maternal and Child Health Resource Center, n.d.), pregnant women, mothers, infants, and young children (National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality, 1991), primary health care (Institute of Medicine, 1982), school-community collaboration and school- linked services (Gerry, 1993; National Consensus Building Conference on School- Linked Integrated Service Systems, 1994), and youth development (Gambone, as cited in Kinney et al., 1994). Definition of Terms There are four core terms that are used to define community human services coordi- nation, and each term has a number of key elements. While each of the four are necessary, none is sufficient by itself to make a reformed delivery system. Woven together, they describe a new design for supporting families and communities in fulfilling their own responsibilities: 1. Human services must be community based. This term, describing a core charac- teristic of a reformed delivery system, has two key elements: o Services need to be accessible. They must be based in the community in loca- tions that people use in the communityfor example, community centers, schools, shopping areas. They must also be accessible, culturally and linguis- tically. o Service needs must be defined by the local community, and the defined ser- vices planned and monitored by a broad-based group of community represen- tatives with the authority and responsibility for meeting the community's human services needs. Increasingly, experts are recommending that for com- munity human services coordination to be successful, they must be led by some local governance entity (LGE). 2. Services need to be flexible and holistic. Current services are categoricalone agency delivers one kind of service for one problem. If a client comes in the "door" of that agency, she will receive the service whether this is what is needed or not. Clearly, this is not what clients need. The human services delivery sys- tem needs to be able to be flexible in a way that allows services to be designed that page goals, celebrating successes and required to demonstrate that they have best meet the client's needs and, at working to overcome obstacles delivered what each has agreed to: the same time, holistically addresses that get in the way of goal these needs including prevention of Program accountability: outcomes. achievement (Kinney et al., 1994, problems. Different terms that are Currently, human services pro- p. 19; Ooms, Hara, & Owen, 1992). used to describe this service charac- grams are held accountable for teristic include coordination of ser- processesfor example, eligibility These four core terms are used to vices, integration of services, compre- describe a reformed delivery system for has been determined, or the client hensive services, wraparound ser- any of the traditional domains of meets the income requirements of vices, and prevention focused ser- human servicesfor example, the child the program. In effective commu- vices instead of the current crisis-ori- nity human services coordination, welfare system, the health care delivery ented approach. programs are required to meet a system, the educational system, the different standard. For each client juvenile justice system, and so forth. 3. Services need to be family centered. who seeks help, the program must Other terms that are commonly used in Family-centered services, another specify what will be the outcomes relation to community human services core characteristic of effective com- the services provided will achieve. such as school-linked programs or munity services coordination, also Program effectiveness, then, is school-community collaborationare has two key elements: measured not in terms of how many used to name or describe strategies or * Regardless of which family mem- clients are "processed" or "not processes employed to help achieve a ber seeks or needs services or processed," but whether the pro- reformed system. what agency the individual seeks gram actually assists the client in help from (for example, public an incremental movement toward Some Relevant aid, child welfare, substance self-sufficiency or toward being Research in Brief abuse), the holistic approach that able to better manage the family community human services coor- problem or need. There is a growing body of data result- dination takes requires that the ing from research conducted on pro- 0 Worker accountability: empower- services and support provided be grams in the various human services ment and support skills. In effec- family centered. Services must be areasin child welfare, health care, tive community human services tailored to help the individual in education, and so onthat have coordination, workers are held the context of her family and attempted to change their delivery sys- accountable not for how many community (Ooms and Preister, tems to reflect the four characteristics clients they "process," but for 1987, p. 11). described in the previous section. This their ability to engage clients in a research has consisted largely of case 0 Community human services coor- trusting, working relationship, to studies of human services reform dination is built on client facilitate the family's definition of efforts at the community or state level. strengths rather than client pathol- its own goals, to tailor services so In the arena of human services coordi- ogy, and uses those strengths and they fit the real needs of the family, nation, community-based initiatives resources in problem solving. and for monitoring the family's that have been evaluated include the Families and human services staff successes and obstacles and help- Walbridge Caring Community Program join as partners in a collaborative ing the family overcome problems (St. Louis), the Family Opportunity problem-solving effort, with the (Kinney et al., 1994, pp. 21, 16, 19). Program (Denver), New Beginnings family as the senior partner in 0 Family /client accountability: goal (San Diego), and New Futures defining its own desired needs, setting and achievement. In effec- (Savannah) (Ooms & Owen, 1991). goals, supports, and changes tive community human services (Kinney et al., 1994, pp 7, 13). Evaluating the effectiveness of large- coordination, families are not pas- Services should support and sup- scale systems reform is more difficult sive clients whose only responsi- plement family functioning rather because these systems are so complex. bility is to demonstrate eligibility. than substitute for family function- For example, the Annie E. Casey Instead, a family works in partner- ing (Ooms & Preister, 1987, p. 10). Foundation has provided funds to sup- ship with a case manager to define port large-scale human services reform 4. The program and all persons involved very specific, short-term, measur- in seven states. Illinois is one of these able goals it wants to achieve to in community human services need states, and its initiative is known as the solve the problem or address the to be accountable. All the partners in Governor's Task Force on Human need. Then the family works with the service effortthe program, the Services Reform. Core elements of the case manager to achieve those workers, and the familyshould be page 7 this initiative include a state-level col- human services is still in its begin- tion and integration of human ser- laborative and decision-making body ning stages, but a beginning has vices, states have been experi- (the Task Force), five pilot community been made (Schorr, Farrow, menting with new executive demonstration projectseach with a Hornbeck, & Watson, 1995). branch structures to see if these local governance entity and mandated can be more effective than the tra- A corollary issue that states will be collaboration between the site and local ditional separate, multiagency required to address is developing and providers of seven state human services approach. A few states are implementing effective management departments, and a reorganization of attempting to consolidate agencies information systems (MIS) that provide seven of Illinois' departments into one and services for children and fam- policymakers and administrators with department of human services. Other ilies under a single cabinet level the outcome data needed to make poli- states attempting statewide reform department (Connecticut, Delaware, cy and program decisions, provide include Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Rhode Island). Two states have supervisors with the information they Tennessee, and Virginia (Ooms & folded these departments into a need to make appropriate case loads, Owen, 1992). But technologies to consolidated division of an and provide front-line workers with the evaluate such large-scale initiatives are umbrella human services /resources technology to reduce paperwork while only beginning to emerge.r, They department (Arkansas, Idaho). simultaneously facilitating community include microsimulation, experimenta- An increasing number of states (at human services coordination. tion and quasi-experimentation, qualita- least 14) are setting up commis- tive evaluation, and case studies sions on children and youth, or 2. Structures That Support Community (Cohen & Ooms, 1993). children and families, either by Human Services Coordination. The law or through governors' execu- current structures that exist for mon- tive action. These commissions itoring, implementing, and providing Specific Issues States are intended to promote more human services will not work for a_ Need to Address coordinated and broader examina- reformed system. New systems will The current human services delivery tion of children and families' need to be put in place: system was created over many decades needs. And some states are exper- * New legislative structures. In a in a piecemeal fashion. To create com- imenting with interagency plan- categorically defined human ser- munity human services coordination, ning councils and task forces vices system, state legislatures states will have to adopt a holistic (Ooms & Owen, 1991b, pp. 4-6). monitor-programs similarly cat approach that deals with four core issues: Local governance entities (LGEs). egorically. But these legislative 1. Outcomes-Based Services. The Earlier, we discussed that commu- structures-do-not-promote--systems systems most fundamental change that states nity human services coordination reform. According to a survey by wanting to reform the human ser- requires some local governance the National Conference of State vices delivery system Must make is entity! Just as the states are say- Legislatures, many state legisla- to change the nature of program ing WI the federal government that tures have taken steps in recent accountability. State, county, and they need flexibility in designing years to improve their organiza- community public human services policies and programs that fit their tional ability to promote the coor- agencies and their nonprofit unique state environment, commu- dination of, and gain greater visi- provider contractors have to shift nities are telling states that pro- bility for, children and family from recording and rewarding pro- grams designed at the state level issues. By 1990,20 states had set grams for processing clients, mea- may not be effective for each com- up standing committees and 8 had suring what kinds of services are munityin other words, one size established select committees that provided to whom, and how much does not fit all. Since the prob- consider children, youth, and family money was spent on clients to lems and burdens of service frag- issues. Tennessee created a Select rewarding programs for achieving mentation are experienced by Joint Committee on Children and defined, desired results. This is a families and service providers at Youth that includes, as members, major challenge that requires a shift the local level, it is here at this the chairperson of each relevant in the culture of the agency and also level that the leadership must be standing committee as well as the requires a great deal of work in found to craft more effective solu- finance committee leaders (Ooms defining, in measurable terms, the tions (Ooms & Owen, 1991b, & Owen, 1991b, p. 4). client outcomes for which the p. 6). As the Center for the Study agency has responsibility. The arena * New executive branch structures. of Social Policy (1991, p. 1) has of defining outcomes in behavioral In an effort to promote coordina- postulated: page 8 9 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 1: Creating this new leadership is able to sustain comprehensive, inte- tern that stresses eligibility and not a simple task. It requires grated services over the long run. maintenance to one that focuses rethinking the mechanisms And they will need to develop fund- on outcomes and empowerment through which states and locali- ing that is flexible and can meet ser- without training and support. ties have governed services in vice needs that do not fit into pre- Training will need to be provided the past. It also entails negoti- formed categorical packages. They statewide. Training requirements ating new roles among service will also need to redirect funding range from generalist skills from crisis-oriented, institution- agencies and implementing (strengths-based approaches to based, high-cost services into more collaborative decision working with client families; making among previously prevention-oriented, home-based, basic skills of engaging client lower-cost services. autonomous public and private families in a partnership process funders and providers. Perhaps that results in goal setting and Funding strategies that states have most important, it requires that attainment) to more advanced experimented with include general a local community make a com- skills such as case management state revenues (to fund start up, plan- mitment to a continual reexami- (Cohen & Ooms, 1993a). ning, staffing, and administrative nation of service operations activities that are otherwise not G Technical assistance. States will while also adjusting and retool- reimbursable from existing sources of need to provide both state agen- ing them as necessary to make categorical funding; increased federal cies and local governance entities services more effective. financial participation (maximizing (LGES) with the technical assis- federal entitlement reimbursements to These entities vary in the power tance necessary to plan and imple- the state to provide a more stable finan- they have, but they play a crucial ment community human services cial base for reform programs); rede- role in the success of any commu- coordination. Specific areas of ployment and refinancing (redeploying nity service reform. Typically, technical assistance that need to funds used for high-cost, institution- they have four functions: agenda be provided to LGEs for planning based programs to community-based, setting and strategy development; and implementing community family-centered programs; redeploying developing new service strategies; human services collaboration staff from traditional programs into the coordinating fiscal strategies; and include at least the following: new programs; and reinvesting the monitoring, supporting, and LGE formation, membership/par- additional maximized federal funding reassessing these activities and ticipation, governance structures into these services); pooled, flexible maintaining accountability for and processes; LGE strategic dollars (by state legislation or intera- child and family outcomes. planning; LGE's promotion of gency agreements, pool funds from dif- Experience has shown that for collaboration between the com- ferent agencies and use them flexibly to LGEs to be successful they need munity state agencies, and local fund integrated service delivery); pri- to develop a common philosophy providers; mechanisms for delivery vate foundation and federal grants and vision; they need a lengthy of reformed services (personnel, (seeking start-up grants to cover expen- planning period; they need to financing, contracts, and so on); ditures involved in the time-consuming design service packages that com- and training for and implementa- process of planning community human bine at least some educational, tion of family-centered frontline services coordination). health and social services usually practice (Cohen & Ooms, 1993a). in a single location; they must 4. Training, Technical Assistance, New New technologies and service /pro- change the service delivery sys- Technologies, and Service /Program gram evaluation. States will need tem; and they must have provider Evaluation. Community human ser- to invest in new and emerging participation and commitment vices coordination cannot be technologies that will support and (Ooms & Owen, 1991b; Center for achieved without an investment by enhance community human ser- the Study of Social Policy, 1991). the state in training, technical assis- vices coordination. These include tance, new technologies, and ser- 3. Financing (Ooms & Owen, 1991b, management information systems vice/program evaluation. Yet these pp. 8-10). In order to fund a (already discussed), public access are areas that traditionally have had reformed human services delivery networks designed to give clients a low priority in state funding. system, states will need to adopt a direct, private, and anonymous variety of financing strategies. They * Training. The current public access to information about social will need to combine sufficient human services workforce cannot services, education, jobs, and funds from different sources to be be expected to move from a sys- training, and the technologies of page 9 1 0