Many of us miss the perspective that change is ubiquitous and constant.  My peers in the human service field joke that we don’t finish one reorganization before we begin the next.

I subscribe to Anthony Ambrose’s (1987) model for managing complex changes.  He asserts that in order to successfully manage change, leaders must focus on five key elements: Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources and an Action Plan.  Missing any of them results in some level of failure. 

• Change without a vision results in confusion;
• Change without skills results in anxiety;
• Change without incentives results in slow change;
• Change without resources results in frustration; and
• Change without an action plan results in false starts.

I offer a sixth element that absolutely must be present in cases of complex organizational and political change: decisiveness.  Leaders in all areas of our state are charged with a very serious responsibility.  And that is to make decisions.

A strong leader is not just intelligent but also a risk taker.  Any decision made at the top will be unpopular with some and be championed by others.  This is the cost of leadership.  If you want the salary, perks and power that come with leadership positions, you have to make decisions.

As our government seeks to find its place in a new economy while still meeting the needs of the people it serves, the demand for strong leadership is more potent than ever.

This need for strong leadership supersedes elections and politics altogether and falls on our current and future leaders to make decisions when it seems all options lead to conflict.  Having a vision for a strong Vermont, a skilled workforce and the incentives, resources and plan to effectively manage complex change is not enough.  A strong leader is decisive when their political instinct is telling them to sit on the fence.  A strong leader is willing to burn the occasional bridge in order to realize a vision.

Thank you for your time today.  My name is Cyrus Patten and I represent the Vermont Coalition of Residential Providers.  We are a coalition of 21 nonprofits serving Vermont children and families through residential treatment programs.

I am here today in support of Secretary Racine’s recent request for 9 additional social workers for the Department of Children & Families.  As a component of the system of care for children and families, residential care is often the last stop in desperate situations.  When DCF caseloads climb beyond what is recommended by best practice research, residential programs see the effect and often pick up the dropped pieces.

If you hear nothing else from me today, please hear this: Vermont’s system of care is under tremendous stress.  High caseloads, insufficient resources and gaps in the continuum of care put children at risk every day, and put families in fail-fail situations.

These added positions will be a lifeline in a desperate situation, but are only a down payment on a real solution.

Imagine a system that supports children and families when they need it, with effective and efficient interventions.  This system would provide the right service at the right time for any family that needs it.

I understand the complexity of funding demands on this committee.  I would also challenge that if the wellbeing of Vermont children is a priority we all share, the challenge is not limited resources, but how we allocate them.

Over my decade of experience in non-profit administration, I have seen countless leaders put their mission first and the financial solvency of their program second.  In a bull market, this is not a bad way to look at things.  In a bear market, it’s a whole different ballgame.

There are many tips businesses can learn from the non-profit sector such as a drastically lower threshold for what is considered “waste” and a dedication to mission driven activities.  However in times like these, there are a few things non-profits can learn from the business world.

Think Lean.  Non-profits are good at over-working employees and doing more with less while the private sector is good at seeking efficiencies.  Non-profits are often too relationship focused to hold their workforce accountable to results.  We value our human assets above all else.  In part because we are consistently surprised our employees come back to work for less money and more stress.  But also because we are people-people.  Businesses hold employees accountable to their outcomes and cut loose those who cannot deliver.

Everything should be paid for.  This is perhaps the most important tip that non-profits can learn from businesses.  Fiscal martyrs may be praised within the ranks of social workers, but this model is unsustainable.  I challenge anyone to find a business that budgets a permanent loss.  Non-profits do this all the time.  Large organizations can often float the money losers for an indefinite amount of time, but this is a losing strategy.  When developing new programs and budget planning, non-profits should identify funding streams for absolutely every service delivered.  This may sound absurd to the seasoned leader, but it’s time to think in a different way. 

Market.  Non-profits are chronically bad at marketing their services.  This is in part because they don’t have resources to invest behind a marketing team.  But also because non-profits don’t consider their activities a marketable service.  A commitment to mission is not enough to spread the word.  Unlike the private sector, consumers of social services do not often run to their friends and praise their experience.  Non-profits should develop a service array that attracts paying clients and then market the results.

Invest in outcomes.  The global paradigm is shifting toward outcomes-based initiatives.  Non-profits that can prove their effectiveness will rise above the rest.  Historically, feel good anecdotes were enough to keep funders happy.  Those days are over.  Non-profit leaders without legitimate numbers behind their work have nothing to stand on.  Larger non profits have employees dedicated to the collection, analysis and presentation of results.  Can your organization backup its work with numbers?

Be self-critical.  Using the outcomes measures mentioned above, non-profits should evaluate their programs and discontinue those without measured positive results.  Although it may feel good to provide a service to a client in need, if an organization cannot prove the program works it should not be continued.  The definition of a positive outcome is often loosely defined by non-profits and may be as simple as providing an acute harm reduction.  Many a bad program have been run under the banner of harm reduction.

Get creative.  During tough economic times, businesses find new customers or create new products.  Non-profits tend to “hunker down” and ride out the economic storms.  This is exactly the wrong response.  Grants are still available, insurance is still paying and donors are still giving.  Non-profits that thrive are those that get creative and start new programs.  Seek out unmet needs and untapped resources and pull the trigger while others are waiting out the storm.

Get efficient.  Businesses downsize and reorganize constantly to meet changing demands.  Because non-profits are people-focused, they dismiss reorganizing as an option.  Attrition and program changes offer perfect opportunities to streamline administration expenses.  Just like for-profit businesses, personnel is often the largest line in the non-profit budget. 

Adopting these principles from the business world need not obstruct the mission of the organization.  On the contrary, improving the financial position of the organization will only strengthen and spread the impact of the activities.  Organizations of all sizes can take these tips and implement them where possible, they are not mutually inclusive.

As a new father, I see an innocent and optimistic little girl striving to absorb the world around her. My wife and I returned to Vermont to raise a family, and because I love this state where I grew up. I am excited for my daughter to experience the uniqueness that characterizes Vermonters as resilient, creative and pragmatic.

We hold values here that I found wanting in other parts of the country such as integrity, openness and community. I came back because I wanted this “village” to help raise my child.

However, as a social worker and non profit administrator, I am genuinely concerned for the community in which my daughter will grow up. I see brutal child abuse and heart-breaking neglect and I am frustrated by the bureaucracy intended to protect them. I am concerned for Vermont’s children.

Over the last four years in Vermont, child protection cases have increased an average of 5 percent, passing 15,000 last year. That equates to one call for help every 33 minutes according to the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families. Perhaps it is the increasing desperation felt by working families, but the need for early and effective intervention continues to grow.

These trends are the result of a paradigm from which we have been unable to escape. Our need to manage crises has distracted us from the more critical need to invest in the nurtured development, health and well-being of our children. Even with almost 10 percent more state social workers than two years ago, we are failing to keep up with the safety needs of Vermont children.

Any social worker will affirm that the myriad social issues we face are inextricably related. Forty percent of children in the child welfare system over the last decade are now on public assistance or in the corrections system. Vermont spends over $475 million annually on corrections and child welfare. But the actual costs of addressing preventable social challenges are much higher when the efforts of our education, mental health, law enforcement and justice systems are factored in. The true cost of supporting people in our community that have fallen victim to generational poverty, abuse, neglect, developmental trauma or even poor parenting is staggering. Any attempt to correct an economic nosedive will have to include dramatic revision of our state systems.

Vermont’s social infrastructure is barely treading water while state and federal financial support is shrinking. As part of Challenges for Change, dozens of talented people around the state are attempting to reorganize the system of care in order to provide more services to more people for less money. Meanwhile, state departments compete for the shrinking funding and guard their current budgets more closely than ever, hesitant to pay for the treatment of a child that “belongs” to another service area.

Our children are our future and Vermont can do better than this. The solutions lie in simplicity.

First, investment in the healthy development of all Vermont children must be our number one priority. Addressing the causes of our strained child welfare system is much more efficient that coping with the crises. We need a robust social infrastructure that will effectively and permanently break the cycle of generational abuse.

Increased and streamlined funding mechanisms that pay providers based on the actual cost of services, not a complex algorithm requiring excess bureaucracy to interpret them. Increased funding for community based, preventive services at all levels of the continuum from low-risk family coaching to high end residential treatment.

Second, we must see our children as part of a community. In order to effectively use the resources already committed to protecting our children, we have to break down the silos. Our children can no longer be quarantined to mental health or child welfare funding streams but rather supported as children of Vermont.