Problems Inherent in Multi-Service Delivery Units

The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Volume 5 Issue 5 September Article 4 September 1978 Problems Inherent in Multi-Service Delivery Units Arnold J. Katz University of Illinois Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw Part of the Social Work Commons, and the Work, Economy and Organizations Commons Recommended Citation Katz, Arnold J. (1978) "Problems Inherent in Multi-Service Delivery Units," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 5 : Iss. 5 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol5/iss5/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work at ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact . PROBIM INHERENT IN MULTI-SERVICE DELIVERY UNITS Arnold J. Katz School of Social Work University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois "When Alice came out of the Duchess, kitchen she sa the Cheshire Cat who was perched on the limb of a tree above her and was smiling a broad smile. 'Cheshire puss' she enquired, 'would you tell me please which way I walk from here?' 'That depends a great deal on where you want to go,' said the cat. 'I don 't care much where,' said Alice. 'Then it doesn't matter which way you walk,' said the cat. '-so long as I get somewhere,' Alice added as an explantion. 'Oh you're sure to do that,' said the cat, 'if you walk long enough,'. With that judical summation of the problem the Cheshire Cat slowly vanished from view .... " By Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland Introduction Like Alice, the field of social work in general, and the social service delivery system in particular, seems to be going through a confusing state, lacking directicn. Just as the Cat suggests to Alice that any direction would get her samewher over time, so the diverse social service delivery systems(1) have, in recent years, moved off in a particular direction (methodologically) only to return to step one and then set off again. Various fads have seemed to provide the needed answers. In time, however, they served only to create a series of new questions with corresponding dilemmas. In the last few years both the literature and practice have suggested that the integration of the service function would provide the long-sought methodological break-through. The instrument to attain the goal of integration would be multi-service delivery units of one form or another. It is the purpose of this paper to trace these developments and to examine scme of the problems inherent in multi-service delivery units as a mode of integration of the service delivery task. The various approaches are presented here in a quasi historical and linear fashion, with one system following an another. In practice, the movement from one mode to another was neither as direct nor as rational. They are presented in this manner to try to underline the antecedinal relationship inherent in the search for an organization form which constitutes effective service delivery. Further, the models are by necessity generalizations of practice and my not fully describe any one setting. Still it is hoped one -644- ny derive a sense of the difficulties faced in the development of new operational types of service delivery. OD-ORDINATION: The realization that there is a need for integration of the service delivery mechanism begins for each worker, no matter what their area of practice, when they becane aware of the fact that they are incapable of providing all the services needed by any single client, at any time. Further, this position is validated when the worker looks around and sees fellow workers in their own or different settings facing the same frustrating dilemma. The most difficult question is what to do about this untenable situation. The intial approach to integration was an attempt to design a co-ordination role both within an agency structure and between agencies. The problem with this concept, both internally and externally, is similar, although the interagency milieu adds the concomitant problem of the co-ordinator always starting from a 'one-down' position. Looking at the co-ordination approach within agencies, we often find a person in this designated role with no clear mandate to do anything else but to co-ordinate. The question immediately arises, co-ordinate what? or whom? Further, the important question that nst be answered is, to co-ordinate to what goal? and as soon as we begin to talk about goals one is immediately faced with an inherent set of operational problems. On one hand, the view is put forward that the goal is to meet humand needs. Again, a new set of questions is immediately thrust forward. Who defines the need? To what degree will this need be met? What methods will be used? Each of these questions (and a Ititude more) could be the subject of its own forest of papers. Answering these questions is not the primary function of this paper and yet the dilema developed is a crucial one. If one was a coordinator and an agency, one would certainly need a clear-cut perspective on exactly the answers to these questions before any socalled co-ordination could be done. There is, however, ample evidence that most of these questions have not been answered in the past and are not being answered currently. Hence, this dooms the intra-agency co-ordinator to failure fron the outset. -645- If the above is a valid description, can you imagine the poor soul who is the incumbent in an inter-agnecy setting where the goals between agencies are general and often conflicting, where a number of units are vying for both power and recognition, and frequently for the same clients. Each of these units is willing to co-ordinate the other, but resisting to the death being co-ordinated themselves. The rallying cry, in the days when co-ordination was major theme was "Autonomy and Professionalism." This allowed the agency to take a stance of not knuckling under to the demands of some external co- ordinator, while still ambitiously forging ahead in one's own right to became 'top dog'. The banner of co-ordination slowly moved to half mast, for the very important reason that the co-ordinator simply had no real power. Power is the key to the success of co-ordination as a mode of integration (once the important questions suggested above are answered). If one is to help the members of society who indicate their desire for sane service in the most efficient and humane manner, some level of co-ordination is necessary and desirable. How to create mechanisms of organizational structure which will accomplish this goal, however, is a true test of integration. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAMS: When the formalized co-ordination approach failed, a number of agencies turned in the opposite direction to provide the necessary service to clients. The scenario went something like this, '"ell, if I can't get those other SOB's to provide my client with the right services, at the right time, and in a manner I consider appropriate, then I have no choice but to (...truncated)