Partnership Oz: \'Managing Out\' Public

Partnership OZ:

'Managing out' public social work administration in Australia

In 2008, Social Work theorist, Jim Ife made public his critique of the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) Code of Ethics (AASW, 2002). Referencing John Solas and the propensity and limits to official advocacy within the scope of national social work practice, Ife describes the preemption of social justice by market forces in the nation's policy, where utilitarianism, the basis of economic rationalism and crude empiricism has come to dominate the field of governance and social service known as public administration. According to Ife, "utilitarianism forms the basis of many of the policies, practice manuals, and managerial practices that form the context within which social workers work." Not surprisingly, he maintains, adherence to utilitarianism is in the last instance a detriment to those it serves. Ife's assertion about the AASW and its influence and connection to the national administration of public good in Australia is the focus of this study. Responsive to "managing out" of fiscal waste within the Australian government in the last decade, the foregoing essay looks at the innovative approaches crafted by former public administration officials and staff as they sought responsible measures of managing reinvestment capacity; and especially in relation to delegation of those obligations both in finance and professional participation in the country's new infrastructure of not-for-profit (NPO) community organizations.

Since the 1980s, the force of economic rationalism as a method of managing national public administration in response to globalization has had significant impact on the dissemination of once coherent structures of vertical oversight in provision of the social welfare state. Welfare reforms in Australia and elsewhere suggest that the utility of the former structure of service delivery is clear evidence of Ife's assertions whereby a process of "managing out" top and middle management instituted a new era of budget allocation-based policy decisions. With the devolution of the global economy since 2008, the promotion of systemic strategies intended to curb excess expenditures coincided with the advent of those reforms, and particularly the nature and shape of managed care of social work administration.

As Austin argues in (2002), Managing Out: The Community Practice Dimensions of Effective Agency Management, there is increasing shift from a primary focus on internal operations to external community-based organizations, as public administration looks to inter-organizational relations or "partnerships" as solution to the downsizing conundrum of once ample administration. What has emerged from this process in a storm of criticism, are inconsistencies to "monitoring and managing the boundary between the external environment and internal organizational arrangements."

Groundwork for the "managing out" phenomenon was effectively present in the 1990s, however, and this is evidenced in the field of social work perhaps more than elsewhere, as practice settings were being reconfigured to carry maximum case loads; prompted by extended service populations and fiscal pressures. The large influx of immigrants to Australia during the 1990s, obviously exacerbated case load limits, and major reassessments were already underway as professionals advocated for policy to establish a mirror image administration to the current welfare state in collaboration with licensed not-for-profit (NPO) and non-governmental organizations (NGO).

If nothing more, the voice of Australian social workers served to redirect public consensus regarding change management strategies intended to accommodate the rapidly growing population of cases. Hence, social workers were early on the scene when "appropriate relationship" dialogue put Australia's NPO community at the center of the public-private intervention debate. Policy perspectives generated during that era also set the framework for the forthcoming inculcation of social services into the quicksand of "managing out" monies and oversight to programs formerly the under the administrative authority of the Australian government.

Still, Australia speaks of comprehensive management strategies reflective of other national social service environments, where "networks" of practice are developing intricate measures of building services into policy through advocacy, and toward procurement of fiscal support for ongoing sustainability of those NPO community organizations. Iterative of the 'total' inclusion model proposed as a band-aid to state budgetary cuts of its prior cadre of administrative managers when a pure welfare state model was still in place, the new "charitable" public-private partnership, works within the rules and regulations of the state, while veering into critique of the government's some time justification of inequitable distribution of allocations.

What seems almost paradoxical, however, is the reinforcement of complex managerialism within community organizations, as they "ramp up" to meet funding criteria, and regulations of the state, as the rules to meeting changes in NPO service delivery criteria are reconfigured to "normative" systems of governance seen in the corporate realm. Indeed, former public administration managers whom work in the NPO sector cite reference to commercial business practice and standard change management strategies as the bar is raised higher; consistent to the market-based protocols and performance expectations effective within state interests. One only has to engage in the dearth of compliance and reporting requirements to NPO social work administration and operations to understand the sophistication that community organizations must now exhibit in management practice.

According to the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), "since its beginnings over a century ago, social work practice has focused on meeting human needs and developing human potential" (IFSW 2010). A global organization with a mission in support of social justice, human rights and social development through the advancement of social work, the IFSW offers recommended best practices to Australian social work organizations and, with a vision collaboration amongst both public and NPO professionals.

At the cross-roads of policy, practice, theory in social work, the IFSW works in partnership with the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It is in this spirit of cooperation, that the field of Australian social work proposes to sustain commitment to a national community of citizens; and in ethical and legal adherence to domestic policies, rules and regulations put forth by the Australian government and attendant licensure bodies.

In interest of the international perspective on social work practice where "managing out" has become a pervasive practice with both benefits and detriments to Australia's public administration of social services, the remainder of the discussion is dedicated to examination of the emergence of the government's virtual reallocation of social services in some cases to NPO partners like South Melbourne's OZ Child Australia; setting the pace for the larger discussion on the meaning of organizational change management in sectors where the most vulnerable client constituency at stake. In part to this analysis is the recognition that ideological constraints to core competencies in social work as practice are evidenced in relation to the foundations of managing out decisions reflective of Australia's liability to 'duty to a standard of reasonable care' in practice settings.

Theoretical consideration to the study of 'managing out' in the public social work organization, comprehensive studies of practice theory as reviewed by Payne (2005) offer general framework to the discussion of the field's paradigms and positions in agency management. According to Payne (2005) the "construction of social work" is a feedback loop connecting the various points of oversight and service in social work praxis: 1) Client-worker-agency arena; 2) Agency-professional arena; and 3) Political-social-ideological arena.

A synthesis of the different schools of theoretical imposition, the contemporary model described in the work of Payne and colleagues, puts institutional application into dialogue with policy. Interpretation of how social work fits into broader dynamic of organizational change scenarios, and connects public administration of social services to market, management, professional development and community relations (Ife 1997).

The implications to the wider examination of social work as a community of practice is addressed in recent work on family law and its impact on the programmatic structure of social work institutions in common law jurisdictions like Australia (Gable 2007). At the international level, those concerns are measured by the capacity of policy to influence social work practice as human rights advocacy (Scheper Hughes 1987 and Stephens 1995). In Australia, this has import where statute has incorporated international law; and especially in regard to children's rights provisions.

A social services agency invested in support of Australia's children and communities the OZChild partnership works towards the goal of "opportunities for children across Australia and beyond by delivering a range of integrated, diverse and accessible services that are outcome focussed and recognised for excellence" (OZChild 2010). Founded on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) in support of healthy child development OZChild is dedicated to a mission of service development and delivery by: "taking or initiating action to protect or enhance the rights of children; providing or enabling direct services, through a variety of disciplines, for the benefit of children; and influencing decisions or actions of individuals, organisations and governments, where relevant to children and their families" (OZChild 2010).

Approximately 40% of OZChild funding comes from an investment portfolio, corporate sponsors, individual donors, fundraising initiatives and philanthropic trusts and corporate supporters, with the remainder 60% from different levels of government allocation. Endorsed as a deductible gift recipient, the agency is "assessed as a public benevolent institution by the Australian Taxation Office, in accordance with the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and registered by the Australian Business Registrar" as a not-for-profit children's welfare agency, incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (OZChild 2010).

OZChild's Board of Directors is actively involved in support of the organization through stewardship of a network of professional contacts as potential donors, and in liaison with the Australian Government in support of the agency's mission and programs. Operations expenses are of course included in the OZChild Strategic Plan designed toward sustainable growth and maintenance of the agency's position within the national and international social services community as a leader in service provision and policy advocacy.

One could effectively argue that where Ife's Australian Government and its utilitarian reductions left off, the growth sector of NPO social services, and especially social work advanced its role in management of a critical national public sector formerly dictated by traditional constraints of the social welfare state. If the overall aim is to interpret the outcomes to the transformation of public administration by way of the "managing out" phenomenon, then OZChild and other agencies in consortium of service to the Australian national community are evidence of the direction of this shift.