While everyone was watching VY...

Really (4.00 / 3)

Is nothing different than the attempt ConHogan made several years ago for better living thru Chemestry...errrr komputers and job sharing...  never materialized much.. later JimDoesless mounted a great computer workload project in the agency, which never produced a report and I think the head of it vanished mid project...

The ideas take time to develop and the system takes time to soak them up and implement.  This process allows neither.  It will mainfest iteself in Jim=less jobs in the agency responsible for helping the people who most need it, unless the legislature puts a brake on where it can go when the $$$ dont show up...

The fundamental thought that Government is inefficient by nature is fundamental in its flaw.  We are already to the point where our agencies and departments are on the border of being nonfunctional.  

Look for payroll to absorb what this initiative can't produce...  

Interesting that one of the big considerations for then LT GOV Racine was the creation and affordability of childcare... maybe that theme will spark some life into a discussion we should be having about government.

It dawns on me that most of the people (taking a big off topic jump here) who are yelling that Burlington Telecom should not be a govt department, are more than happy with government being a provider of parking at the airport (in competition with local lots), fire service (which once was provided by fire clubs/insurance companies), the water department, electric department and ....the list goes on...

just something I had to get out... Glad Andy Montroll came out in favor of Democracy.  So tired of listening to KurtKwickStop pouting that he should have been mayor..

---

by: hoopmeister @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:43:43 AM CST

Navigating the Systems (4.00 / 3)

Having to deal with different human service agencies/departments who don't share information and require different forms of proof of circumstances is so frustrating for the people who need help. I'm not just talking about a minor inconvenience either. I've lost so many hours of work trying to navigate the systems when my family has needed help.

I think I've mentioned here before that after months of trying to prove to the child care subsidy office that I was employed (after already proving it separately to PATH with a tree's worth of paperwork for my kids health care), I finally had my employer go into the child care subsidy office and sign something in person saying I worked for him. A few days later I got a letter saying that wasn't sufficient proof. By the time I finally got approved for the childcare subsidy there was only 1 week left of the 3 month job.

Anyone who has had to apply for any one form of assistance (food stamps, Medicaid/VHAP, fuel assistance, child care, unemployment, disability, etc) knows how time consuming and emotionally difficult it is to do once. Making people do it multiple times is a waste of resources for both the state and the people who need help. Streamlining the processes into 1 application and 1 approval process is such a great idea!

A couple weeks ago I needed emergency surgery that I couldn't afford and the surgeon said I could get an emergency care waiver from PATH, which was great! But instead the surgeon or myself being able to mail, fax or email the document to PATH saying I needed the surgery, I had to deliver it in person and meet with a social worker so she could determine if I was in need of surgery because of "bleeding or severe pain". As if a social worker can better diagnose that then a surgeon?!?! It sounds unbelievable as I type this, but seriously, they make people who need emergency surgery come into the PATH office to get approved! The most vulnerable people in our state don't need human contact, they need immediate (or at least reasonably fast) help with their basic survival needs.

---

by: jjem @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:26:17 AM CST

Nice One (4.00 / 1)

Oh, don't you just love bureaucracy?

And in one little 4 paragraph blog comment you've solved more efficiancy problems than Douglas' entire kingdom of "Tiger Teams".

Say it all together now, gubernatorial candidates:  One form, one application process, one approval process for all aid for our neediest and most vulnerable neighbors.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:35:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm going to guess that laying off most of the workers (4.00 / 1)

Will only make this worse. I'd rather see a single "proof" requirement for all services, then reassign the people to actually helping ensure the services are provided.

For example, for the emergency surgery, having PATH reps assigned to each hospital in the state (and the doctors who practice there), to coordinate directly with the caregivers would make a boatload more sense than having each patient be physically present in a PATH office.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 13:53:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I might agree (0.00 / 0)

if the system was to stay the same that laying off employees might make the system even harder or more time-consuming to navigate. But if the system is fixed it won't need all those workers. None of them actually provide the services (except issuing checks). They outsource the services to actual service providers (fuel suppliers, doctors, licensed child care providers, etc) which is a good thing! If they fix the system to make it more efficient and have the same number of employees, what will all those employees do?

---

by: jjem @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 15:26:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There are so many things that don't get done, now (4.00 / 1)

... that there would be plenty of un- or under-served needs that could then be served: helping daycare providers get more training, advocating on behalf of patients who may be too overwhelmed to work their way through hospital and pharma bureaucracies (it's not just insurance companies who make things difficult), and so on. There are so many cracks for people to fall through, none of which will be patched by eliminating people. The purpose of these departments is to prevent people from falling through the cracks - enabling the employees of these departments to focus on catching those who fall, instead of focusing on paperwork, would be beneficial to all of us.  

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:53:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Retraining (4.00 / 1)

I didn't mean to sound like I'm in favor of putting people out of work, I guess I'm just more concerned with people getting help who need it. If those workers can be retrained to do things that actually help people, that's great! I just hope that people advocating for the jobs don't hold up or kill reforming the system which really needs to be done!

This sort of reminds me of the Yankee debate. Yes, push for Just Transition, but don't vote for relicensing the plant just to save those jobs...

---

by: jjem @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 11:05:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think you know that much about the system (0.00 / 0)

and the way it's structured.

There is nothing being proposed about different acceptable levels of proof.  The more likely scenario than the one you're suggesting is not that people who are doing their jobs are incompetent and incapable but, instead, that they are bound by different requirements.  Services which involve federal funds need different standards of proof than those involving only state funds.  Having the model that's being discussed will not, in fact, make it easier for you to get benefits but, instead, will leave you further divorced from case workers and unable to get any form of direct, in-person, contact.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 16:37:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fed vs. State (0.00 / 0)

I am well aware that some programs are federally funded and some are state funded. The state can still streamline the application and approval process in the administration of these program. If different programs need different information, just say at the beginning of that question "Answer only if applying for child care". Or have the first section of the form to complete information that is needed for all programs (name, address, SS#, income, etc) and small sections of the rest of the form for information that is only needed for certain programs. I'm sure someone in the state of Vermont can design a form that works.

Yes, that is being proposed. I am proposing it right now. I realize that the bill you are talking about doesn't go far enough, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

I read your disclaimer and understand that you have friends this will affect. I also have friends this will affect. But I also know we are on the same side here, wanting to help Vermont's most vulnerable citizens, while minimizing or eliminating job loss. If not this bill, how do you propose that be done?

---

by: jjem @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 17:38:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You can say all you like... (4.00 / 1)

...that you want things to work the way you describe them, but the reality is different.

The bill being discussed doesn't do what you want it to.  It doesn't even move us in the direction of anything you claim you want. It does tell us to centralize, which will effectively decrease the amount of human contact involved in the scenario by leaps and bounds, and it probably helps avoid the pesky problems involved with providing service for those who, for whatever reason, have difficulty filling out paperwork.

And you can propose all you like, but this legislation has already been passed, and passed with little fanfare or public discourse as to the full extent of the bill and the broad impact of it.  People can agree or disagree with the legislation, but most of us didn't even know it was coming an those of us who did, got almost no notice about it.  I follow the legislature and only heard about it the night before the vote.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 18:55:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not a "pesky" problem (0.00 / 0)

that people have trouble with "for whatever reason". It's a systematic problem with the way human services are administered in Vermont.

I have a 4.0 GPA, got a 1450 on my SAT's and have an IQ of 142. And yet I have trouble navigating the systems and filling out all the paperwork. What happens when someone isn't smart enough to navigate it, or can't take time off from work to deal with the "human contact" part of the process? Their children just don't get the services they need. Oh well! (snark).

I am trying to propose something that would help people, a simplified application process. I understand it is not the same as the bill you posted about.  

---

by: jjem @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 20:10:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What you are doing... (0.00 / 0)

...is attacking the people who work in the field, who are providing key aspects of the crucial support I'm discussing, and demeaning the work they do.

Yes, this is personal for me, but it's also something I know about in a lot of depth and detail and I'm not interested in generic solutions like retraining people who know their jobs extremely well under the guise of some form of efficiency.  


juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 20:23:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Last Comment (0.00 / 0)

I just want to say for the record that I am not attacking the workers. I am attacking the system they work in. The workers are just doing the job they were hired to do. It's not their fault the system is fucked up.

---

by: jjem @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 21:09:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear (4.00 / 2)

I haven't seen any indication that anyone intends to make the required documentation consistent-- just having a single entity that does the intake-- not someone necessarily local to your community or familiar with your area-- just someone at some central system.  It might as well be outsourced to India if we're taking this approach.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 17:06:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fraud (4.00 / 2)

This "challenges for change" ought to be called "changes for all folks who are challenged," not good changes by the way.  Douglas, Shumlin and Smith owe a collective apology to the citizens of Vermont for the infliction of this fraud.  Only those who believe in the toothfairy and pixiedust could think for a minute that there will be millions of dollars of savings in this fiasco.  

---

by: reelvermonter @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:32:35 PM CST