THE CONNECTICUT
NEGOTIATED INVESTMENT STRATEGY EXPERIMENT:
THE USES OF MEDIATION
IN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS
by
SYLVIA LOUISE WATTS
University of South Carolina
(1960)
B. A.
Submit ted to the Department of
Urban Studies and Planning
in Partial
Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of
MASTER IN CITY PLANNING
at
the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
May
c
1983
Sylvia L. Watts
1983
permission to reproduce
The author hereby grants M.I.T.
in
to distribute copies of this thesis in whole or
and
part.
Signature
of
Author:
>7
of Urban Studies
Department of Urban Studies
May 23, 1983
Cert if ied by
Professor Lawrence E. Susskind,
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by:
Rotch
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
JUL 21 1983
LIBRARIES
Professor Donald A. Schon,
Chairperson, MCP Committee
ABSTRACT
THE CONNECTICUT
NEGOTIATED INVESTMENT STRATEGY EXPERIMENT:
THE USES OF MEDIATION IN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS
by
SYLVIA LOUISE WATTS
Submit ted to the
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on May 23, 1983 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
Degree of Master in City Planning in
Urban Studies and Planning
in vol v ing
is a process of dispute settlement
Mediation
A mediator must be inv ited or
an imparti a I facilitator.
in
them
the
disputi ng parties to assist
by
selected
do
not
dictate
Mediators
joint
gains.
maximi zing
They rarely o ffer their own views ab out the
solutions.
third
While a neutral
fairness o f proposed solut ions.
party can b e extremely hel pful in dispute resolut ion, an
extraneous third party can exacerbate a conflict.
This
the sis
is
about
the
Connecticut
Negotiated
involved
which
experiment
(NIS)
Investment Strategy
and
municipalities,
teams repr esenting state ag encies,
a
provi ders of human services and
private,
non-profit
that mediation can help to
mediator.
The hypothesis is
My anaylsis
improve in tergovernmental d ecision-making.
more
in
engaged
part ies
had
the
if
shows
th at
common
maximize
to
seeking
bargaining,
integrativ e
interests, the negotiations would have produced a better
following
the
my
analysis in
present
I
agreement.
II
Chapter
context;
1 provide s the
forms:
C hapter
Chapter
describes what happened in the joint sessions;
the
of
the gains an d losses as a result
analy zes
III
the
IV
evaluates
Chapter
distribut i ve
bargaining;
concludes
and Chapter V
0 f the mediator;
performanc e
future
for
suggestions
by
offering
thes is
the
applicatio ns o f mediated approaches.
Thesis Supervisor:
Dr.
Title:
Lawrence E.
Susskind
Professor of Urban Studies
and Planning
2
III, ,
1111
DEDICATION
This
thesis is dedicated with
and respect to my parents
love
BERNICE AND HORACE WATTS
and my mentors,
ROSA NELUMS
and
who believed
LARRY
SUSSKIND
in me
and made it
3
possible.
PREFACE
and
sometimes tedious,
This
thesis represents a long,
often frustrating year of hard work and determination to
and
contribution to
the
growing
make
a
substantive
complex field of dispute resolution.
My observation of
the
Connecticut Negotiated Investment Strategy was
not
an easy task but the experiment was very instructive.
I
have
done
my
best to represent
in
this
thesis
the
invaluable learning experience.
This analysis should be
state-ofof
value to many interested in improving the
the-art of negotiation and mediation.
I
have studied theories of dispute resolution while
both
MIT
and
Harvard.
I
have
been
under
one
diverse teaching
experiences,
instruction
of
which
attending the only mediation course taught in
Americal Law School.
at
the
of
an
Yet,
the thoughts and ideas of this thesis are not mine
alone.
I have many acknowledgements to make.
I thank
the
participants in the Connecticut NIS who provided me
with
the information which helped me to
document
this
first-time
negotiation regarding resource allocation on
Harvard
I thank the staff at the
a
state-wide level.
Negotiation
Project
on
Negotiation)
(now Program
especially
Bruce Patton,
Jody Bailey and Anita Moulton
for their moral support and encouragement.
(and
I
thank
Imani
Thompson
her
family),
Christensen
(and
Beverly
and Ray Miyares,
her
Tanya
Jane Bowers,
family),
latridis
Leona
Jean
Cvek,
Morris,
Jean
Winsbush,
Hoda
Sakr,
Patricia
Bell-Scott
and
Jacquelyn
Miles
for
helping this
"South
Carolinian"
adjust to urban life.
In addition, I thank my two best
friends
who
very
patiently
listen
to
my
unique
experiences
in Boston and in Connecticut,
Gael Caution
and Anna Rueben.
To the professors who influence my thoughts, I thank Len
and Susie Buckle, David Knechle, Roger Fisher, Bill Ury,
Frank Sander, Larry Bacow, and Mick Wheeler.
Special Thanks are extended to Ann Hauge who serve
critic,
roles
-friend,
editor,
listener,
confidant.
Very
who
Her
many
and
Blackburne
specia 1 Thanks are extended
to Laura
really helped me to integrate th eory in practice.
support and strength will never be forgotten.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
DEDICATION
PREFACE
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
I.
II.
III.
CHAPTER
IV.
CHAPTER
V.
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
CONNECTICUT NEGOTIATED INVESTMENT
STRATEGY:
ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE
JOINT SESSIONS
GAINS AND LOSSES AS A RESULT
OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
MEDIATOR AS PUBLIC POLICY MAKER
CONCLUSION AND CAVEATS:
APPLICATION OF A MEDIATED APPROACH
TO STATE-WIDE DECISION MAKING
(succeed each
chapter)
APPENDICES:
1.
"Subtitle C --
Block Grants
for Social Services
Omnibu. Budget Reconciliation
ACL Di 1981
2.
"State Legislation Regarding
General Assembly Review of
Block Grant Allocation Plans"
(Excerpt from P. A. 81 - 449)
3.
Groundrules
4.
A Negotiated Investment Strategy -A Joint Agreement Qn Principles.
Priorities. Allocations. And Plans
Ear Ihta Social Services Block grant
5.
Mediation Techniques
BIBLIOGRAPHY
5
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Conflicts among parties
among
can be defined as
their preferences for the
resources.
discrepancies
distribution of
Conflicts occur when competing parties
different
expectations.
Parties
in
conflict
disputants
when they are
their
desired outcome under conditions
most
In
various kinds
possible:
bonds
or
the
of
the
conflict
to
mediation
achieve
that
two
are
are
outcomes
can strengthen pre-existing
before.
appear
whatever
disputants previously existed,
the establishment of
existed
become
to
conflict can destroy or disrupt
the
have
to be realized.
of group conflict,
unity among
contribute
none
strongly motivated
only one outcome
to permit
limited
unifying
Negotiation,
mechanisms
ties
bonds
and
where
bargaining,
for encouraging
the
and
latter
resul t.
Negotiation
Negotiation
is a problem solving process --
the parties attempt
of
common
concern
disagreement.[1J
interaction
to reach a
Negotiation
where
allows
the parties
6
in which
joint decision on matters
in situations
and encourages
one
to
they
are
in
face-to-face
assist
each
to help solve
tries
and
gains.[Z
joint
the process of seeking to maximize
In
influence
rather
a process of
disputant may be
learn
disputants
expectations.
As
and
possibly
are
made.
on
the
accept
the status quo,
joint
decision),
as
".
.
is
.
,
7
demands
sufficient
achieve
The
to
to
modifications
until
to
not
a
joint
alternative,
negotiate and
(which is also
preferable
appears possible."[3J
and adjustment
preferences and
issues in dispute.
is always available,
What
typically
other
occurs,
attained
been
which
a
of
a
preferences
information is used
continues
Interaction
has
decision
learning
reinforcement
coordination
Initially,
clarification,
The exchange of
perceptions.
perceptions,
available.
about each
from and
reconsideration,
compels
change
the possibilities
party
each
learning by
his or her real
vague about
aims and about
and
information
of
weaknesses.
and
feelings,
attitudes,
The course of
expectations,
preferences,
their
about
to
the disputing parties should be
involve an exchange
permit
will
the
gains,
joint
than coerce each other.
would
negotiation
that
of
concern
primary
of
can maximize
the parties
them,
other
the
of
the problems
each understands
If
other.
to
in effect
to anything else
that
Bargaining
Bargaining
occurs
Fred
Ikle
C.
bargaining
various
reach
as
in
common
in
the
interests."[5J
there
that
nonzero-sum
situation,
that
interact
to
Bertram
of
Position
the bargaining
of
"[nJegotiators respond
to
such
results
that
interest
offers
their
mutual
in
in an outcome
which
for both sides
agreement."[6J
therefore,
"if
of
involves a convergence
actions
a maximization of
positive
representatives
Psychological Model
interest
defines
agreement."[4J
process
counterparts'
is
and
He adds
of
negotiation.
Negotiate,
in which
ASWAN" emphasizes
successful,
of
and divergent positions
"A Social
constraint
Nations
fDW
interests
Modification:
their
the context
"a process
individual
Spector
is
within
Every
in
a
bargaining
the possibility of mutual
benefit and exchange.
Bargaining
on
also occurs on
the selection of
place,
on
a
other matters,
a site
variety of
for
on definitions,
that
when
arises
a
to continue.
matters
be
particular
issues
and
just as
Bargaining should always
is
competitive as
the dispute
involve
8
take
on
on any matter
required
Bargaining on such
comprising
to
arrangements,
in fact,
joint decision
negotiations
can
the negotiation
procedural
groundrules,
for instance,
for
interim
bargaining
on
itself.
joint consideration
of
opt ions.
Opt ions
greater
joint
bene fits
barga in ng
occurs
opt ions
joint
for
if
integrat ive
opt ions
decided
Integrative
g ains.
A process
helps
t o the
to locate
according
locate
is
provide
Integratvie
bargainers.
bargainers
and
adopt
considered
the best
more
among
the
bargainers.
bargaining
Compromise,
the
collectively
when
it
available
to
upon
is different
from
to Harold Lasswell,
compromise.
is:
in
that
mode of resolving conflicts
reduce
which all parties agree to renounce or
some of their demands.
A
compromise,
in
constrast
to
a
dictated
solution
such
as
involved in coercion and
conformity,
implies
some
degree of equality of bargaining
power.
also
The
agreement involved in compromise is
to
be
distinguished
from that
involved
in
integration.
In the former case each party is
able to identify the precise extent of his/her
losses
and
gains;
in
the
latter,
new
alternatives are accepted of such a kind as to
render
it extremely difficult to discern
the
balance
between
concessions
made
and
concessions received.[7J
depends
Integration
initiated
over
efforts
freely
on
and not
freell
conceived,
on domination by
one
part I
the other.
Medi at ion
Mediation
an
or
is
impartial
a process of
solutions.
involv ing
A mediator must
be invi ted
facilitator.[8 I
selected by
maximizing
dispute settlement
the
joint
disputi ng parties
Mediators
gains.
They rarely of fer
9
to assist
do
not
them
in
dict ate
their own views about the
be
party can
in dispute resolution, an
extremely helpful
extraneous
third party can exacerbate a
Mediators
can be passive or active.
convenors
of meetings or
a comment.
interject
a
do
civilized
debate
or
a
chance
to
Sometimes mediators may attempt
to
appear
to
synthesize or restate points of
have
be a
just
They may
speakers
reticent
give
occasionally
conflict.
discussion leaders or may
maintain
than
more
nothing
third
While a neutral
proposed solutions.
fairness of
agreement
that
been reached.
Mediators
usually
substance
of
negotiated
in good
the
taking
flare
understanding
that
a series of
in
the
and
ups,
conflict
problems
collective
for
sides
both
They may
the
assist
is not
behavior.
10
field
and
tend
to
are
controlling
disputants
a contest
to be solved.
bargaining
try
negotiations
in stabilizing
assist
interpersonal
but
that
to do more.
in which
ambiance
place,
fact
the necessity
to
faith.
Some mediators are willing
improve
the
to
attesting
compromise,
explaining
statements
the
in
Involved
although they may help
a negotiation,
public
prepare
to become
refuse
to
Most
toward
be
in
won
mediators
passive
The
This
an
thesis
is
experiment
Focus Of This Thesis
about med iated negotiation.
involving
teams
agencies,
municipaliti es
providers of
human servicies and
This
thesis
mediation
offers
process
Connecticut
Negotiated
hypothesis
is
that
intergovernmental
experiment
engaged
more
maximize
joint
produced
a
things
the
as
gains,
the
non-profit
examination
the
mediation
shows
state
a mediator.
can
that
experiment.
My
help
the
parties
seeking
negotiation
There
could have done
impr ove
to
My analysis of
if
the
the
bargaining,
better agreement.
of
of
outcome
Investment
integrative
the mediator
search
private
decision-making.
Connecticut
in
and
well
examines
representing
a theoretical
as
It
had
to
h ave
would
are a
t he
number
of
to better facilit ate
for agreeement.
THE NEGOTIATED INVESTMENT STRATEGY IDEA
A
Inves tment
Negotiated
implementation
plan
strategies
aimed
investments
of
goals.
The
at
that
sets
targeting
(NIS)
forth
public
is
an
coordinated
and
private
time and resource s to achieve
specific
concept,
Kettering Foundation[9 J,
bargaining
Stra tegy
developed
involves
by
the
carefully
sessions a nd the assis tance of
11
Charles
an
F.
structured
impartial
i
U
U
U
U
I
U
mediator.
Program of
James
Kunde,
Director
of
the Foundation, describes
the Urban Affairs
the NIS
as
follows:
NIS
is an approach to urban
planning
policy
making
that starts 'from the bottom up,'
and
recognizes
that federal policies and programs
often
cannot
respond
either
to
regional
diversity
or
changing
conditions.
Setting
public
policy within the local area,
as
NIS
proposes,
provides for increased
flexibility
and
stronger
commitment.
Local
needs
and
national and regional objectives are addressed
as package rather than as hundreds of separate
projects and programs.
NIS
provides
for
intergovernmental
negotiations
based
on
broadly
defined
objectives,
negotiations
that will
lead
to
specific,
coordinated
commitments to actions
and programs.
NIS differs from other national
coordination
experiments in that it
requires
neither
reorganization of the federal
system
nor
new
urban
programs.
Rather,
the
successful
use
of
NIS
depends
on
the
capability
of
governments at
all
levels
to
reach
urban
policy
agreements
within
the
intergovernmental
structure.
A
major
challenge
in this area is more effective
use
of available grants.[103
Assumptions of
According
to
"Negotiated
Approach,"
should guide
Daniel
E.
Investment
they
suggest
Berry
the NIS
and
Evans
Strategy:
that
the development
of
four
An
major
Rogers
Alternative
assumptions
on NIS:
First,
that there will be fewer shares of new
program
money to go around in the future
and
that
any real progress in dealing with social
concerns will have to come from a better
use
of existing programs and appropriations.
The
growing movement to limit government
spending
at all levels, and the pressure for a balanced
federal
budget is likely to increase conflict
levels
in the system as
available
resources
diminish.[11J
12
in
the
reform
to
efforts
that
Second,
by
hampered
been
have
intergovernmental system
carried
be
can
reforms
the delusion that those
Bish,
Robert
in a 'cooperative' mode.
out
cooperation
that
out
among others, has pointed
which
relationships
one of several
only
is
units.
political
independent
among
occur
and
competition,
collusion,
include
Others
intergovernmental
the
Within
coercion.[12J
occur
can
relationships
these
all
system
which
processes
Thus
simultaneously.
of
nature
complex and varied
the
recognize
developed
be
must
intergovernmental relations
and applied.[13J
is
the intergovernmental system
that
Third,
in
which
one
but
system,
bargaining
a
already
Often
themselves.
among
negotiate
agencies
shared
a
without
occur
negotiations
these
compatible
or
interests
of
community
coordination
Thus achieving
objectives.[14J
Thomas,
says Robert D.
organizations,
among
building:
consensus
by
preceded
be
must
various
the
among
agreement
an
achieving
be
about what objectives should
participants
attained and what means to use.[15J
U
U
I
both
reorganizations,
major
that
Fourth,
substantial
require
local,
and
national
political strength and frequently are followed
initial
the
such bureacratic trauma that
by
for
delayed
obscured and often
are
targets
reorganization may
Furthermore,
many years.
intergovernmental
unless
premature
be
should
has been reached on what it
consensus
Thus, it may be more expedient to
accomplish.
rigorously test the existing system.[163
U
Six Major Elements
To make
must
the NIS concept operational,
be brought
is
of which
assure
initially small
representation of
impartial
negotiating
( 1)
together:
mediator
(3)
negotiating
but which can be
the process and
opportunities
13
each
teams
expanded to
(2)
important interests;
to manage
sessions;
six major elements
an
facilitate
for the
teams
to
meet
in
development
to
face-to-face
of a comprehensive
guide negotiations
program
choices;
mutual
negotiating
local
sessions;
investment
concerning policy
(5)
a signed
(4)
strategy
decisions
and
document
specifying
policy objectives and commitments of
resources,
both financial
and non-financial;
and
of
adoption
subsequent
the
performance
and
agreement,
(6)
with
public review
monitoring
of
by each party.
Past NIS Experiments
NIS
experiments
St.
Paul,
Indiana.
have been successful
Minnesota;
In St.
redevelopment
commitments
Paul
Columbus,
and Gary,
the
projects requiring
from federal,
local
in
three
Ohio;
cities:
and
Gary,
focus was on complex
substantial
and private
resource
interests.
In Columbus, negotiations were focused on improving dayto-day working relations among
local,
state,
and federal
agencies.
of all
three
experiments
was
to
The
primary focus
coordinate
money
and
social
conditions.
The
the
city
manpower
Negotiated
unlikely
mechanisms.
aimed at
Investment
coordinated use
is
public and
investments
improving
Strategy Idea
to
and
be
achieved
speaking,
and
recognizes
that
resources in a
through
the
existing
system
public-private interaction
14
of
economic
of public and private
Generally
intergovernmental
private
of
does
coordination
starts
idea
and
from the
likely to
are
intergovernmental
that
suggest
relate
in
the
levels
and
parties.
A
of
in spite of
necessarily because
levels
of
feature of
the
continuing
government
differences
are more
likely to
to a negotiation than as
are not
a
In
negotiation,
congruent
when
negotiation is successful
reached
objectives
various
be a continuing
parties
objectives
interests. The NIS
competing
enterprise.
common
a
interests
that
These
scene.
to each other as
parties
are
premise
responsibilities of
differing
government
competing
the face of
in
produce
to
incentives
sufficient
provide
not
continuing
among
the
agreements
differences,
not
they have been eliminated.
Revitalized Federalism:
A New Context For NIS[17J
In President
Reagan's
inaugural
address, he stated:
and
size
the
to curb
intention
my
It
is
influence of the federal establishement and to
between
demand recognition of the distinction
government
powers granted to the federal
the
the
to
reserved to the states or
those
and
of Us need to be reminded that
All
people.
the
create
not
government did
federal
the
federal
the
created
states
the
states;
government.[18J
In March,
1981,
Recovery
Plan"
fiscal
reform
allocation
and
local
President Reagan announced his
which
aimed at
responsibilities
governments.
political
and
revenue-raising
and
proposed drastic
shifting
The
15
"Economic
from the federal
to
plan proposed budget
state
cuts
federal
or end
reduce
to
sought
and administrative strings
programmatic
reduction
funding
removed)
into
percent
involved.
and funding
monitoring,
and
states
to
shifted
be
would
services
human
(with
in the ninety-seven programs
Responsibilities for planning,
a
programs
twenty-five
a
as
as well
grants
block
seven
certain
proposed
also
consolidation of ninety-seven categorical
President
for
support
plan
The
activities.
programmatic
the
conservatism;
than fiscal
reflecting more
localities.
President ' 5
The
of
Reconciliation Act
fifty-eight
the
Omnibus
on July
29,
1981,
h owever,
programs were combined
in to nine
billion.[19J
T he nine
1981
ca tegorical
block grants w ith a budget of
grants
block
and
involved
encumbered by
(3)
Community Services,
(8)
(7)
Preventa
Primary Care,
The Act,
and
as passed,
(9
f ive
ranging from
and
Drug Abuse
Community Development
Income Energy Assistance,
Services,
limitations and restr ictions
(1) Alcohol,
(2)
Health Service s,
Cities,
7.5
funding reductions
thirty percent were
Budget
of
passage
the
Wi th
approval.
Congressional
win
did not
proposals
(4)
--
to
Mental
Th e Small
Education, (5) Low
(6) Maternal
and Child
Health
i ve Health and Health Services,
Social
Services.
i s likely to have profound effect
16
on
social
services
in subsequent
many
fragmented categorical
with
a
major
obvious
that
education,
effect
reduction
the
programs
in
in
linking
by
into
federal
reductions
and social
years
block
services, will
grants
fund ing.
funding
It
for
have
the
is
health,
a detrimental
on people needing help.
THE NEGOTIATED INVESTMENT STRATEGY IDEA
COMES TO CONNECTICUT
The Governor's Interagency
Task Force on Block Grants
On March
O'Neill,
examine
Recovery
26,
the Governor of Connecti cut,
1981,
assembled
the
the heads of
impact
P lan".
of
As a
all
President
r esult
of
Reagan's
interagency
task
Interagency
Ta sk Force on Block Grants,
Heintz,
Under
forc es
Secretary
Management(OPM) .[20J
responsible
and
they
how
administrat ion of
f or
priority-set ting
Force stu died various
determine
chose
the Office
how
to
to allocate
to
allocate
test
the
three
including
an
led by Stephen
Policy
of
and
The T ask Force on B lo ck Grants was
oppor tunities
allocation and
Task
of
to
"Economic
meeting,
created,
to e ns ure
fo r designing a process
effective
explore
were
agencies
state
this
William
the
block
use
equitable
gr ants
of
and
innovative
technique 5.
After
options and a It ernatives
the funds
a negotiated
in th e
approach
best
the
to
way,
to decide
Social Services Block Grant
17
to
on
(SSBG)
funds.
new
block
grant
an estimated 800
and
municipalities,
the
to
169
agencies,
state
18
some
affecting
Connecticut
SSBG
because
federal
largest
the
represented
and
regulations
grant
block
the
of
and scope
complexity, flexibility,
the
Because of
1000
to
private
U
U
I
I
U
service
agencies,
testing
a
At
for federal
SSBG
allocation
stake were 33 million dollars
for federal
were
Social
Service
Catalog numbers
for support
information
and
derived by
consolidating
Child Day
Care
13.642 and 13.644
services,
employment
planning,
transportation
of
adults
foster
in
and
Ineligible
for support were:
improvement
wel fare
wage
in
day
counseling,
and
care
care
care,
payments
jobs),
family
care,
training,
for
services
arrangements.
purchase
income
or
for
(except
educational
long term room and board costs and services
in
The b lock grant regulations
form of cash payments
eliminated
day
medi cal
buildings,
recipients
services,
the
of
protective services,
program client s,
children
(Federal
Services eligible
adul t
referral,
XX
Title
Training
).
child care
included:
and
received
1981.
year
fiscal
dollars
from 45 million
a decrease
year 1984,
fiscal
appropriate for
making
to
approach
negotiated
decisions.
was deemed
the SSBG
eligibility and state matching
18
fund
0
providing a wide
maintainin g economic sel f support
eliminate
(2)
dependency
(3)
pre venting
ow n
their
protect
for
appro priate,
pro vid ing
or
[For
inst i tutions.
services
Block
For
C
"Subtitle
(Omnibus Reconcilation Act
Social Services"
of
J
Application of
the NIS
Task
Force,
recommended
as
Kettering
negotiated
the
by
designated OPM under
serve
in
--
Grant
As
indi viduals
block
guidelines, see Appendix 1 --
.
not
are
care
mor e extensive review of the
grant
1981)
or
less
of
forr 5
to
to
providing
care by
of
forms
0 ther
when
care
pr eventing
(4)
other
or
ca re,
community-based
neglect,
preserving,
or
institutional
inappropriate
inten sive
of
children and adult s unable
interests,
or
maintaining
remedyin g
or
rehabilita t ing or reu nit ing families;
reducing
reduce,
to prevent,
achieving and
or exploi tat ion of
abuse,
or
inc lud ing reductions or pre vention
sel f-suff i c iency
dependency
ach ieving
(1)
goals:
broadly-based
several
achieving
services aimed at
variety of
in
discretion
state
the
allowed
and
requirements
the direction of Stephen Heintz
Meetings
secretariat.
in
resulted
strategy.
experiment was
"to
intergovernmental
Governor
the
improve
between
The
goal
the
of
the techniques
decision-making."
19
of
The
and
OPM
des ign
preliminary
a
to
of
a
proposed
intra-
and
objectives
included design
the
and
allocation of
testing of
an
innovative approach
limited block grant
to
funds which would:
state
of
ability
the
Demonstrate
1.
the
of
use
effective
make
to
government
provide
authority delegated to the states and
by
replicated
a
model
process which can be
other states;
opportunity to place an array
an
Provide
2.
of human services delivery issu es on the table
the
rel at ive
on
agreement
obtain
and
importance of each;
Provide an opportunity to place individual
3.
in
the
grantee program requests
and
agency
those
subject
of
overall needs and
context
or
peer
agencies
scrutiny
by
requests
to
claimants;
to
see
claimants
4.
Permit
those
understand all of the other claims on the
limited funding;
and
s ame
and
an opportunity for municipal
5.
Provide
to
providers
service
nonprofit
private,
participate in the decision-making process and
to make their concerns and priorities known to
State agencies;
block grant allocation process
a
Develop
6.
funding
of
o r most
the
all
permi ts
which
claimants to agree to the result;
7.
Develop
a more effective
allocation
of
block
grant
funding
than
can
be
achieved
through
more
conventional
procedures.
("Effectiveness"
in this case must be
judged
in
terms
of
the
amont
of
service
to
be
provided,
the extent to which that service is
consistent
with
the
needs
which
the
participants
identify
to
be
the
most
important, and the level of consensus achieved
through the negotiating process);
and
8.
Provide
a
mechanism
for
agreement
on
changes in policy,
procedure or agency
roles
which
will improve the effectiveness of
SSBG
use in Connecticut.
Although
the
immediate
purpose
20
of
the
negotiated
approach was
hoped
that
broader
Product
O'Neill
of
Regarding
to
had
to
[See
se I ec ted;
(2)
(3)
Assembly
Review
A.
81-4 49)
to
established.
stakeholding
a
state
for
and a
SSBG
Plan
he
Legisla ture
in
of
Leg islat ion
Block
Grant
f our essential
(1) the
techniques;
it
was
interests,
funds,
and
tasks
teams needed
(4)
to
be
to
be
to
be
educated
groundrules needed
the Teams
difficult
to
three distinct
team representing
the
J
negot iations,
Identifying
though
.
that
the
"State
the participants needed
negotiating
Even
approach
a mediator/facilitator needed
about
be
--
2
completed;
identified;
be
the
deli very.
the NIS
use of
Appendix
(P
formal
be
human service
th e Connect icut State
G enera I
the
designers
attenti on on
NIS discussions would
Allocation P1 ans"
Prior
the
SSBG allocations and pledged
to
1 9 83
of
endorsed the
the
sub m it
January
SSBG funds,
the negotiations would focus
determining
would
allocation of
and deeper problems
Governor
for
the
the state
a team representing
team representing non-profit
define
all
teams did
agencies
the
emerge:
eligible
the municipalities
service providers.
The State Team
OPM
decided
that
all
eligible
21
state
agencies
should
participate
in
developing
agencies was
complicated in
government
service agencies;
and
of
out
number
programs over
or
commissioner
representative
so
deputy
that
A
(3)
a
and
however,
from
that was
designate
to
either
its
as
its
commissioner
no question about
to
authority
make
finally
agencies
eighteen
of
program
the
themselves
there would be
core
social
in
individual's
participating
commitments.
to
the
agencies had moved
identified with
encouraged
was
of
the
to
themselves
the years;
Each agency,
and
(1) many of
In disassociating
funding.
participate
each
(2) a number of
interest
expressed
consider
did not
agencies still
of
Title XX
the
three ways:
the program in reports
identified with
federal
priorities
The selection
issues.
positions on other
state-level
agencies
state agency
emerged.
After
the
was
a
core of state agencies was
problem
negotiating
of
team.
of Human Resources
appropriate
process
how
select
the
Two agencies, OPM and
it was
because
it
interests.
OPM
representing
a particular
also
had
the
client
essential
because
it
program in
the past
and was,
had administered
22
of
the
advantage
group.
therefore,
member
the Department
the initiator
represented
there
five
(DHR), were obvious choices.
because
and
to
determined,
OPM was
the
NIS
Governor's
of
not
DHR was
also
the
Title
XX
the agency with
the
to
most
knowledge and experience.
be used
was
not
selected
with
clear,
on
the
could
the
in selecting
the
other
basis of
three
the rationale
teams
three members
remaining
the
Since
financial
stake,
members
choosing
greatest SSBG related expenditures,
be selected
to represent
be
could
the greatest
those
or
they
number
of
state clients.
The state
negotiating
combination
of
corresponding
was
much
large
and
SSBG budgets,
slower
than
negotiating
team
groundrules
meeting
negotiating
team was eventually
was
small
but
agencies,
the
selection
anticipated.
selected
on
composed of
to
A
with
process
tentative
participate
September
20th.
team emerged after September
a
in
The
the
state
20th.
The Municipal Team
On May 4,
1982,
OPM asked
Municipalities
(CCM)
and
the Connecticut
the Council
Conference of
of
Small
Towns
(COST) to develop a representative municipal negotiating
teams and
Although
drawn
insure
that
the Directors of
to
the
directors
that
decision
gaining
CCM and COST were
NIS and recommended
to
their organizations
was delayed
agreement
because of
on the mix
23
of
immediately
their
CCM and COST participate,
unilaterally commit
The
non-member towns were represented.
boards
they
could not
to the
process.
the difficulty
small
of
town/big
of
city
on the
representation
was
medium and large
small,
one of
towns
towns that
and
municipalities
team
members
three
full
range
in Connecticut.
CCM
the
to
however,
objected,
COST
and
composed of
representing
two from COST,
from CCM and
these problems were
the municipal negotiating
team was
The
organized.
of
16,
on August
resolved,
After
team.
representing
either
of
were not members
organizations.
these
The Private Non-Profit Team
A
third
team
the
was
Non-Profit Team).
Providers Team (the
service providers eligible
an
not
was
there
consider
adequate
surveyed
all
list
of
profit
about
to
to
the
of
statewide
likely to
interests.
OPM
assembled a
agencies and
In
providers.
the event
organizing a team d[id not
or
considered[:
non-
leadership
to
represent
succeed,
those 30
24
this
two
other
by
the
team with reliance
on
the concerns
providers they wrork with and
of
that
(1) appointment
(2) no non-prof it
state agencies
profit service
The
In addition,
30 primary associ ations representing
primary options were
Governor;
their
represent
appropriate state
service
approach
network
existing
both a
non-profit
the service providers were
that
organizations
of
SSBG funds.
for
Service
There were
considerabl y variety
and
number
large
Non-Profit
Private,
primary
of
the non-
through.
associations
was
to
invited
briefing,
o n July 14,
committee
selected
was
team
negotiating
present,
the
th e
to
assocations
Then,
the
involved
was
and
formed,
from
A
meeting.
be
committee was
steering
a
the
mee tin g.
agencies
non-profit
expanded;
the
remainder of
the
Following
th e
by
chosen
chairperson
of
number
OPM and DHR le ft
of
representat ives
conducted
those
the suggestion of
upon
temporary
1982.
a briefing on June 3,
the
a
steering
1982.
Selecting A Mediation/Facilitation Team
thre e
f irst
the
After
repres e ntatives from each
In
Jul y
of
and
Founder
Resources,
the
Inc.,
Ci ty
team met
of
Pres ident
of
L.
Osborne
Inc.,
and
Affairs
in
Services as
he
also
New York ),
to head
the negotiatin g
President
the
Conflict
of
the
U.S.
teams,
(J.D.,
Management
labor
In September 1982,
and
with the
he designated Ernest
the Greater Hartford Process,
Intergovernmental
De partment of Health
his as soc i at e mediator.
also of
a mediator.
Baruch College
an experienced
f ormer Under Se cretary for
des ignated
mediator,
of
organized,
Stulberg,
Associa te Professor of
community d ispute mediator
approval
to select
they sele cted Joseph
1982,
Ph.D.
were
sectors
and
In August,
Human
1982,
J. Mi chael Keating, an arbitrat or and
Conf I ict Management Resources,
media tors'
secretariat.
25
Inc.,
Educating Participants About
Negotiating Techniques
participants
regarding the NIS process and
techniques.
In
tape
video
the
these sessions,
to
were used
5
materials and
printed
According
fo r
selected
se,
per
techniques,
experience."
"the
OPM,
D i'oision,
Comprehensive
necessary."
was not
the
teams had a great
The
lead spokespersons
ask ed each team to select
mediator
negotiating
in
training
people
"The
negotiating
of
deal
Cohn,
Benson
to
Di rector for Plan Development,
Planning
negotiating
help participants prepare for
negoti at ing sessions.
Assistant
the
educate
to
briefing sessions
sponsored
Kettering
(the
each team
for
a spokesperson prior
to the first formal negotiating session) were especially
Municipal Team's spokesperson had
experienced.
The
undergraduat
degree
Non-Profit
the
other
factfinder
Team's
the
of
One
In labor relations.
an
c o-spokespersons had courtroom experience and
mediator,
a
served as
had
labor-management
in
spokesperson
between and among
The
disputes.
experience
had
and
arbitrator
in
State
negotiations
state agencies.C21J
Establishing Groundrules
On
September
20,
groundrules
by
conducted.
The
questions,
such
the
1982,
which
future
the
groundrules
as,
the
teams met
26
sessions
addressed a
number of
established
and
team
would
be
variety
of
members
that
could
participate,
public,
In
of
the role
(which
Appendix 3 --
for direct
legislators
involvement
was
to
of
the
and official
evaluators.
the
mediators'
groundrules defined
the
addition,
function
rules
facilitate
the
process.
[See
Groundrules.J
KEY ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE MEDIATED APPROACH
TO STATE RESOURCE ALLOCATION
A
assumptions give rise
of
number
mediated negotiation
during
times
f Iscal
of
negotiation
might
within
framework
increase
help
which
decision-making;
(3)
reduce
counterproduc tive
use
of
encourage
th e
negotiation
participate;
(I)
competit ion
comprehens ive
generate
to
address
media ted
serv i ce
human
negotiation
service
sho
of
public
(5)
encourage
the
(6)
pri vate
(7) mediated negotiat ion
stakeholders to be more accountable to their
constituencie s.
27
the
sho uld
mediator/faci litator
impasses;
how
and
services
funds;
uld
(4)
providers;
to agreements about
duplication
resolution of
and
resources:
to
expenditures of
should
using
(2)
mediated
impartial
an
of
constraints;
communicat ion among
to
notion
presumably reduce
mediated negotiation should lead
best
the
to allocate state
negotiatio n will
mediated
to
media
sector
should
al
ted
to
1 ow
respect ive
FOCUS OF ANALYSIS
This
thesis
offers
examination of
and
is
based
negotiating
comprehensive
on
first-hand
as
well as interviews
The remainder
Two
offers
a
experiment.
help re aders
understand k ev
the
that
ana lVsIs
gains
in
losses
Chapter Four
thi s
Chapter
as
public
sector.
of
events
in
Chap ter Three exam ines
f rom
terms
of
T he
chose
a
rather
future
to state-wide
28
of
of
gains
distri bution
the
image
the
dis tributive
the
par ticipants.
Five examines possible
mediated approaches
the
in
th e performa nce
negotiation
on
terms and events ex amined
pos i t ion and
reviews
the
focuses
as well as In terms o f intangible
such
with
to
engaged in by the
f unds
all
the
ch ronology
resu lting
lo sses are analyzed in
SSBG
thesis
of
is pr ovided
The
follows
losses
and
bargain ing
in
this
of
chronolo gy
Connect i cut
and
observations
use of mediated negotiation
Chapter
critical
and
(Connecticut) experiment
fourth NIS,
sessions
participants.
the
the
a
the
g ains
of
and
parties.
the med iator who
passive
role.
applications
decision making.
of
NOTES
11J
P. H. Gulliver,Disoutes and Negotiations:
Cultural Perspectives, (New York:
Academic Press)
p. viii.
Cross
1979,
Gulliver
distinguishes
between
"disagreement"
and
"dispute."
He writes tha t "disagreements are resolvable
(and/or
tolerated)
with in
the
relationship
and
no
dispute arises."
His definition
states "a dis pute becomes immiment
only
when two parties are unable a nd/or unwilling to
resolve
their disagreement;
that is ,
when one or both are not
prepared
to
accept
the sta tus quo
(should
that
any
longer
be a possibility) or to accede to the demand
or
denial
of
demand
by
the
other.
A
dispute
is
precipitated
by
a crisis
in
the
relationship.
That
crises
c omes f rom the rea liz ation by at least one party
that
dya dic ad justment is un satifactory
or
impossible
and
that
the continued d isa greement cannot be
solved.
That pers on therefore attempts to take the
disagreement
out
of t he private,
dyadic c ontext and to put it
into
public
d omain
with the inten t that 'some thing must
be
done.'
Going
into
a
pub lic
domain
offers
the
possibili ty
of
appealing to other people
and
to
the
interest
and
norms
of the
community,
which,
it
is
thought,
maybe advantages to,
and suppor tive
of,
the
party ' 5
demands.
Sometimes going public is an attempt
to
avoi d further deterioratio n of the relationship
and
of the s i tuation, including pe rhaps a threat of violence
or some 0 ther unpleasant resul t." (pp. 75 - 76)
[2)
See
Howard
Raiffa,
Iba
Ax
and
Science
Negotiation,
(Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
Harvard
University
Press,
1982).
Professor
Raiffa offers
a
systematic and sequential analysis of pertinent
dispute
characteristics.
He also offers evidence, as opposed to
mere
theory
and speculation,
on specific
effects
of
various bargaining positions, processes, and tactics. He
suggests
the
many
roles of a
third-party
intervenor
might
play in a negotiation.
Finally,
he
integrates
realistic consideration of ethical issues with questions
about strategic choice.
[3)
Gulliver, pp.
[4)
Fred
Harper and
5-6.
C.
Ikle,
Ho-w Nations Negotiate
Row, 1964), p. 34.
[5)
Bertram I. Spector,
of Position Modificaiton:
"A Social
ASWAN" in
29
(New
York:
Psychological
Model
I . Will iam Zar tman,
U
I
I
I
U
E
U
I
The 5
347.
Solution,
Anchor Press,
(New York:
1976),
p.
(63
Ibid.
(73
Harold Lasswell,
"Compromise" in Encyclopaedia ai
Sciences, Volume 6, pp. 147-49.
ia& Social
(83
An
impart ial
mediator
is
one
who
compensated
any of the parties and one who
by
directly related to either disputing party.
is
is
not
not
(93
The
Charles F.
Kettering Foundati on is
a
nonprofit,
research
oriented
foundation
e stablished
in
1927.
The
foundation underatakes resear ch on a w ider
range
of
issues.
Its prime areas
of
interests
are
science
and
technology,
education,
internati onal
affairs
government and basic agricultural research.
(103
Nation's
James Kunde,
"Negotiating the Cities Future,"
Cities,
(November 26, 1979).
in
(113
Danie I
Berry
and
Evan
Rogers,
"Negotiated
E.
Investment
Strategy:
An Alternat ive Approach."
Paper
presented
to the Midwest Political Science
Association
Panel
on
"Alternative
Structures
for
Uban
Service
Delivery,"
Chicago, Illinois (Apri 1 26, 1980), p. 6.
[123
Kenneth
Hanf
Interorganizati onal
Publications,
Ltd.,
Rogers, p. 6.
[133
and
Fritz
Policv
1978)
Berry and Rogers, p.
p.
Scharpf
(editors),
W.
Makina
(London:
Sage
2 2-23, quoted by Berry and
6.
Politics.
Position.
amn
Power:
[143
Harold
Siedman,
Ike Dynamics Al Federal Organization,
2nd Edition, (New
York:
Oxford Press, 1975), p. 195, quoted by Berry and
Rogers, p. 6.
(153
Robert
D.
Thomas, "Federal Programs at the Local
Level" Political
Science QuArterlv (Fall, 1979), p. 430,
quoted by Berry and Rogers, pp. 6 - 7.
(163
Berry and Rogers,
p. 7.
(173
In
1971,
the
philosophy
of
the
Nixon
administration
was
that
locally
elected
government
officials
have
a greater knowledge of
local
problems
than
do
federal officials in Washington and that
they
should
be
given the freedom to
allocate
grant
funds
according
to
their own
priorities.
This
philosophy
culminated
in
the Nixon administration's proposal
for
30
in
specific revenue sharing in which categorical grants
specific areas such as community development, education,
Funds for
and manpower training would be consolidated.
to
allocated
would be
these broad areas
of
each
governments
Local
formula.
by statutory
communities
about
decisions
be free to make their own
then
would
programs
broad
on projects within these
expenditures
under
be no matching requirement
There would
areas.
the
President Nixon coined
revenue sharing.
special
of
conception
"New Federalism" to describe his
phase
intergovernmental relations.
President Reagan employs the same philosophy but applies
the
fervor and enlarges and updates
greater
with
it
"Revitalized
concept of which I have entitled
Nixonian
Federalism."
the President
Richard S. Williamson (Assistant to
[18)
'Reagan
of
Shape
"The
Intergovernmental Affairs),
for
Number
7
ume
7,
Vol
State Legislatures,
Federalism',"
(July/August 1981), pp. 37-39.
-- A
Grants
"Block
Williamson,
S.
Richard
[19)
Number
54,
Volume
Government,
State
Federalist Tool,"
4, (1981), p. 115.
and
budget-making
[20J
OPM is the central management,
State
Connecticut
of
agency
c oordination
policy
Governor's
and is a dir ect extension of the
Government
the
and
OMB
to
analogous
ly
is rough
It
Office.
President.
Executive Office of the
Telephone
(21)
1983)
26,
conversation with
31
Benson Cohn
(January
CHAPTER TWO
CONNECTICUT NEGOTIATED INVESTMENT STRATEGY:
ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE JOINT SESSIONS
From
August
five formal,
to December,
joint
sessions
involving
the
and
respective support per sonnel were held.
their
sessions
two
lasted
sessions
3 -
December
23.
4;
observer
In addition to
team
to
representing
be present
at
team
community
foundations,
The
the
and
of
Hartford
Chamber
Indust ry
observer team was
of
team,
the
staffs,
an
sector
tw o
representatives
repres entatives of
two
sector was
and
private
the
Commerce.
and
The
was
The
of
the Un i ted
corporate sec tor.
represe nted by the
Associat ion
12;
and
7
the nego tiating sessions.
consisted
Business
three
;
th e mediation
two representatives fro m
corpo rate
Two
October
December 6 -
th e
te ams
other
teams and the ir support
observer
Way,
and
November 23;
ne gotiating
invited
days each
the negotiating
Iasted one day each, res pectively:
November
formal
full membership of
Connect icut
the
purpose
Gre at er
of
the
to improve coord ination between public
and privat e services funding.
JOINT SESSIONS
All
sessions
were
conducted
32
in
the
Hartford,
..
Connecticut
of
various negotiating sessions were
the
future
and educational
informational
private meetings were held before,
videotaped for
purposes.
Numerous
and after the
during,
The main events
sessions.[1]
formal
Segments
the public.
to
area and were open
of
each
12,
1982
formal
session are summarized below.
First
the
Before
joint
principles
Stulberg
Dr.
session,
they
a final
instructed
the SSBG funds and the
agreement.
OPM and DHR distributed
to
the parties
At
the session,
for
their review an analysis showing how SSBG funds
been allocated
components
of
was
differences
The
easy
1.
of
principles
Some
of
achieve
to
but
eventually
Definition
2.
population;
the principles
because
that
of
the
including a statement
of SSBG;
services
33
and
on
wide
discussion.
following components:
preamble
and scope
of
agreed
its
the
and
relatively similar and agreement
should contain the
Narrative
the purpose
had
team then offered
other matters required extensive
participants
document
guiding
a final agreement.
and components were
these
Each
in the past.
regarding
suggestions
the
guiding
the
felt should be
the allocation of
for
components of
October
Session:
prepare what
to
teams
Joint
target
final
3.
Service
priorities based
identification of criteria;
on
needs,
with
Allocation
4.
mechanism(s)
for full
funds
estimated
to be available in
fed eral
fiscal
allocation
1984.
Specific
should
be
year
identified.
Multi-year
5.
process;
plan
implementation
Evaluation
6.
processes;
standards,
inst ruments
evaluating and
for
7.
Criteria
service providers;
and
8.
The
General
and
and
selection of
or operating principles.
participants
settled
on
the
following
guiding
principles:
duplication
1.
Avoid
oversight activities;[23
of
services
and
2.
Performance criteria should be established
for
selection
and
evaluation
of
service
providers;
3.
Development
data base;
4.
Funding
of a consistent,
decisions
comprehensive
should minimize adverse
impacts on people receiving services;
5.
All
applicable civil rights statutes
regulations should be observed;
and
6.
Funding decisions shall
be
based
and
on:
a.
Agreed-to service priorities based, in
turn,
on
need and identified
criteria;
and
b.
Agreed-to
criteria for evaluation and
selection of service providers.[3J
The
participants
agreeing
to perform
concluded
the
their
following
34
first
tasks
for
meeting
the
by
second
session scheduled
for November 3:
1.
The Non-Profi t Team would draft a preamble
and
circulate it to the other teams ten
days
prior to the next joint session.
2.
Using
the
definitions
of
services
and
target
populations
provided
in
the
State
Team's SSBG Data For UA in
NlS Sessions,
14J
as
modified
by teams after their
review of
those
definitions,
each team would
develop
tentative
service priorities which should
be
ranked
in
three broad categories,
that
is,
high,
medium,
and low.
A draft statement of
these
priorities would be sent to
the
other
teams by close of business, October 28, 1982.
3.
The
Mediator would prepare a draft set of
gu iding
principle s which should be circulated
to
all
teams for review prior
to
the
next
jo int session.
Team
would
4.
The
St ate
provide
what ever
information
i t has available on
cur rent
evaluation
st andards,
and
instruments,
Non-profit
Team would
process.
The
add
whatever
i t po ssesses in the way of
rele vant
evaluation
dat a, which,
together with
the
State Team' s ma terials, would be shared at the
next joint sess ion.
5.
Each
team would develop a draft
of
set
criteria
for
of
evaluation
and
selection
service providers,
which would be sent to the
other teams by close of business,
October 28,
1982.
Second Joint
The
head
mediator
considera t ion.
[63,
asked each
and documents
proposals
proposals
Session:
November 3, 1982
Day One
The
regarding
(3)
definitions
a
final
to
describe
the
had prepared and offered for
Non-Profit
Team
(1) a preamble,
revision
for
it
team
of
(2)
35
a priority
definitions,
service
agreement,
discussed
(5)
definitions
its
list
(4)
of
populations,
vulnerable
two
teams' materials
Profit Team before
Team
Profit
stipulations
and
this meeting.
the
final
to
rebuttals
had been mailed
that
asked for the
in
(6)
the other
to
In addition,
inclusion of
Non-
the
the
the Nonfollowing
agreement:
The State of Connecticut should develop an
1.
that
all
to
ensure
mechanism
appropriate
paid
on
providers are reimbursed or
service
of
in
accordance with the stipulations
time
their contracts.
the
funds
may be used to assist in
2.
SSBG
borrowing
financing
costs for any short term
the implementation
of
item
associated with
one.
to
service
providers should be able
3.
All
SSBG
funds
in
interest,
maintain
their
generating instruments, such as:
money market
funds,
bonds,
or
saving
accounts.
All
interests
generated
can be maintained by the
service
providers and will not
reduce
their
SSBG funds.
4.
Funding
from
the SSBG should be directed
towards the establishment of a Grants Resource
Center.
5.
Funds
from
the
SSBG
should
be
made
available to each sector to provide them
with
the
resources
that
will
be
required
to
continue their involvement in the NIS process.
Next,
the Municipal Team briefly explained
which
had been mailed beforehand.
These
"Service
Priorities
by
Applying
Services
Needs";[7]
(2)
"Conditions
Related
the
to Service Needs";
State
Team's
(Preliminary)";[8J
Service
Provider
(3)
Definitions
and (4)
included:
Criteria
of
to
of
(1)
Social
Vulnerability
"Suggested Changes
"Characteristics of
--
in
Services
Social
(Criteria for Selection)
36
its proposals
An Ideal
Draft".[93
At
this
the
time,
concept
servi ces
of
which would
to
provided
a
new
Coordination
of
introduced
"Client-centered
called
Services" [10J,
Team
Municipal
seek to minimize
clients
the
costs
increased
through
coordinati on efforts.
presentations by
After
Team
discussed
focus
help
the
importance of
on block grant
proposed a "swap
Team
agree
would
federal
General
to
fiscal
fund money
to
agreement"
1984 SSBG
cover
the
the
by which six
in
return
the functions
swap were described as
State
priority-setting.
in
for
for which
State
the
State
they
The State Team's reasons
follows:
years,
the
grant
block
past
two
the
For
of SSBG funds was based largely on
allocation
prior
Funding reduction from
past practice.
in
shared
were
generally
levels
XX
Title
SSBG
the overall reduction in
to
proportion
which
did
policy shift
The
main
funding.
on
priority
higher
was
placement of
occur
the
Thus,
than
training.
rather
services
two SSBG 'intended use plans' continued
first
to reflect a mix State agency participants and
to
ability
past
upon
in
part
based
uses
generate Title XX billings.
Strategy
current
Negotiated
Investment
The
to
need
on
the
premised
is
experiment
examine SSBG priority-setting
comprehensively
more
funds
of
focus the allocation
and
to
goals
service
broad
five
on
the
directly
authorizing
federal
in
the
enumerated
first
the
consequence,
A.&
&
legislation.
5B
gencies
was
issue tackled IM tL
most
services
provide
agencies
which
rema in
should
tA& goals and
_La
appropriate
37
To
agencies
their participation
had been receiving SSBG money.
for
the
service objectives,
relinquish
year
Team,
the Municipal
which
Di the block grant And how others
oa&rt
might
Iinked
d ir e ct 1v
andLL
clearly
notL
areC
important
La
maior damage
without
withdraw
funding
ha.d been
SSBG
the
which
programs
the
of
difficulty
The
added).
(emphasis
functions
the
that
fact
the
in
lay
issues
but
importance,
involved are of unquestioned
the
to
functions
those
of
relationship
the
than
direct
less
far
is
goals
grant
block
five
for the remaining programs and agencies.E11J
The
the negotiations among
of
result
Opportunities,
of
Chief
federal
in
to
15 percent)
a
result
agencies
six
participating
be required
dollars
the
of
fiscal
swap,
1984
year
to
(less
than
to contribute
The
teams
could
swap was that
the
se t t ing SSBG priorities without
complexi ties resulting
team
Team
from past
proceeded to
priorities
(1 ) described
six
agencies
benefit
net
of
focus directly
being encumbered
by
arrangements.
explain
its
for allocation of SSBG
its priority-setting
38
amount
Fund an
the negotiated amount).
on
se t ting
by
agencies
those
up by the
fund ing
Sta te
As
the General
to
the
The
Fund.
in the NIS process, who would in exchange,
the SSBG funds given
equal
(12
funds formerly received
SSBG
be
for discounted
be turned over to
would
might
State General
from the
the
agreed
They
they
to which
funds
SSBG
any
exchange
entitled
Department,
Consumer Protection and OPM.
Department of
to
the Judicial
Public Defender,
the Office
of Corrections,
the Department
and
Rights
Human
on
Commission
the
involved
agencies
the State
method
f or
funds.
The
process;
(2)
and
definitions;
the Non-Profit
the
Following
on
primarily
internally
expressed
to
hour
the
time,
by the
by the Non-Profit
consider
the potential
turned
in dispute.
the
focused
out
concern
was
They
impact
of
caucused for
the swap.
accept
the
an
At
swap.
to service definitions.
several
extensive discussions,
still
of
Team.
the Non-Profit Team did not
Discussion then
After
Particular
taken
worked
tentative swap agreement
State Team.
The
teams.
discussion
presentations,
the
to positions
negotiation
and Municipal
service
importance.
indicated service
Team concluded with a response
State
by
(4)
proposed
(3)
proposed vulnerable populations;
definitions
were
The Non-Profit Team withheld approval
definitions of
the
following services:
Community-Based
Residential
Services:
To
of
or
shorten the length
forestall,
avoid,
are
for individuals who
institutionalization
without
community
to function in the
unable
group
houses,
halfway
(e.g.,
arrangements
service focuses on the
This
etc.).
houses,
treatment, habilitative or rehabilitative care
living
supportive
provision of
the
through
return
to
to enable individuals
experiences
home, if possible, as soon as personal, social
adjustment, and development permit.
a
Provides
Treatment Services:
Residential
an
care and treatment in
supervised
24-hour
of
setting under the direction
institutional
significant
to
impact
staff
professional
may
Residential care
levels of dysfunction.
be long term.
39
The State
and Non-Profit Teams withheld approval
following
definition:
of
the
AL
Services:
Client-oriented
Coordination
needs,
of assessing an individual's
Function
developing a plan to insure that the needs are
met,
linking
the individual to the providers
that can meet the identified needs, supporting
the client in his or her receipt of
services,
and
follow-up
to
insure
service
plan
is
fulfil led.
It
was
suggested
Services
Care
Day
(which included Adult
for
Non-Residential
Day Care
and
Community
the Elderly and Disabled) and definitions
Treatment
be merged.
and Home Management-Maintenance
but not
to
of
Services
The Non-Profit and State Team agreed
new definitions,
No
that Community-Based
to
the
complete merger.
agreement was reached on administrative
Non-Profit Team proposed a definition of
costs.
The
administrative
costs:
those costs associated with operating a direct
service
program.
They
may
include
administrative
personnel
costs,
supportive
staff
costs,
and indirect
costs
associated
with
organizational
operation.
Adminstrative
costs
shall
be
responsible
proportion
to
total monies received
by
the
agency for direct services.
The
State
Team accepted
the
language proposed
by
last
sentence deleted.
In lieu
Non-Profit Team with
the
of
the State Team reiterated its
that
this
a
language,
specific
expenditures
The
Municipal
be
limit
(by
included
in
Team stated
percent)
the
that
40
on
the
view
administrative
"Guiding
it was not
Principles."
prepared
to
discuss a definition
Second Joint
The
a
and
Non-Profit
of
definition
the
of
approval
three
The
coordination of services.
teams proceeded
The
to
The
draft.
to
continued
Teams
State
definitions
of
the mediator's
amend and revise
consider,
draft
day.
from the previous
emerging
4, 1982
November
Session:
Day Two
distributed
mediator
costs.
for adminstrative
withhold
client-oriented
teams
did,
however,
on a definition of administrative costs:
agree
costs associated with managing a direct
Those
personnel
service program such as supervisory
and the indirect costs of organzational
costs
operation.[12J
Following
focused
on
the established of
cri teria
for
the
impa ct of
the
federal
as
selecti on of
the swap
clarify
par tic i pa nts
that
agreement wo uld be subje ct
Furthermo re,
involved
would
in
the swap
and
Once
again,
process and
swap
Team
and
promised
assured
funds generated by the
to the allocation
de veloped
according
continue
the
all S SBG
and prior i ty criteria
priorities
services fun ding emerged
The State
of
details
service
priorities.
f isc al year 1984 social
th e
session
agreement on the NIS
i tem of concern.
an
the
definitions,
agreement on
the
through the
to the State Team,
to
the
swap
mechanisms
NIS process.
the agencies
that were relinquishing SSBG
funds
presently
being
to operate
those
41
programs
funded with SSBG dollars.
The
Non-Profit
Team,
and that
effectively
service
to
Turning
continued because
be
agencies
providing
statutory
language
Municipal
and
should
set
the basis of
on
to be.
priorities
and
and
revise
to
priorities
that
rather
services
the service providers
happened
the Non-Profit Team agreed
Following a caucus,
review
needed
the
The
regulations.
countered
Teams
with regard to who
than
to
be
State
by
as mandated
SSBG
the
of
already
agencies
those
Team
non-profit
provided by
services
effective
non-profit
the
Non-Profit
the
priorities,
services presently
proposed that
to
a
continuity.
for operational
sector's need
with
responded
continued sensitivity
to
commitment
Team
delivery
present
disrupt
State
The
arrangements.
and
"zero-based budgeting
talk of
would
review,"
program
operating
programs had been
existing
that
participants
of
the
cautioned
the State,
in
service programming
social
were
an opportunity for creative review
offered
process
NIS
the
that
acknowledging
while
circulate
a
fresh
service
for
proposals
its
proposal
that
afternoon.
The
Non-Profit
Team's
Team sought
three categories of
clarification of
priority.
42
The
the
State
State
Team
that
responded
"high
eligible
for
"medium
priority"
priority"
funding
increased funding,
to
sufficient
Municipal
services
maintain
services
if
priority"
would
cuts were
Team
operative during
Third
of
service
available;
receive
and
quo;
face reduced
The
funds
or
redirected
Non-Profit
these priority definitions
Session:
to
the
November 23,
to ranking service
as
priorities.
following criteria as
indicators
importance:[133
(2)
emeraency intervention (Does the
service
emergency and
provide
intervention in acute,
potentially
life-threatening
situations
requiring immediate action?);
foL
greater
expenditures
(3)
avoid/prevent
service
(Does
the provision of this
service
prevent
or
delay
the
provision
of
more
expensive services?
If
this services were not
available,
would
the needs of the
recipient
require
State expenditures for higher
levels
of service,
such as hospitalization,
nursing
care
and/or
other
types
of
institutionalization?);
annual
and
1982
(1)
abuse
curtailment
(Does
the
service
provide
intervention
and/or
shelter
from
physical and sexual abuse?);
(4)
"low
the negotiation process.
Joint
teams agreed
status
be
would
any was
if
would
required.
accepted
This meeting was devoted
The
the
services
agenda
(Does
the service
address
in
one
or more of the categories
delineated
the 1983-84 Human Services Annual Agenda?);
(5)
revent inaoropriate institutionalization
humane,
service
provide
a
(Does
this
and cost-effective alternative to
appropriate
institutionalization?);
and
43
of
(6)
reduce dependency (Does the provision
on
the
dependence
this
service
reduce
thereby
services,
supportive
institutional
increasing one's self sufficiency?).
In
addition,
following
the
serves poor or near poor,
mandates,
(2)
funding
available,
legislative
and
(5)
no
(3)
prevents or
(4)
conditions,
handicapping
(1)
service providers:
of
selection
as
to
allocation criteria or indicators
representing potential
for
agreed
were
other
ameliorates
increases
service
assessibility.
The
categories of
for
the
priority ranking were also
purposes of discussion:
services
that might
medium,
meaning
their
present
remain
those
level
receive
agreed
a
to
High
at
of
services
and
in level
following list
PrioriL
that would
funding or possible
low, meaning
their present
decrease
the
meaning
high,
those
receive a cost-of-living adjustment;
cost-of-living adjustment;
might
identified
level
of
of
of
support.
Adoption services
Child day care services
Community-based non-residential
treatment services
Community-based residential
treatment services
Client-oriented coordination
of servicest14J
Day treatment services
44
receive
services
at
a
those that
funding
The
service priorities:
Services(listed in
alphabetical
Emergency shelter services
Safeguarding or protective
remain
order)
or
teams
I
Services(listed in
alphabetical
Medium Priority
order)
Employability services
Family planning services
Foster family care services
Legal services[153
Home management-maintenance services[15J
L.owd Priority Services(listed in
order)
alphabetical
Counseling services[15J
Information and ReferralE16J
Recreation services
Residential treatment services
Transportation services
Dece mber
Session:
Day One
Fourth Joint
The
med iator
incorporating
to
agreed
by
for
criteria
the
had
prepared
ser vice
the
identified
and
were
difference 5
morning sessions:
(1)
rtite body
that
tripa
to
the
actua I
the
providers;
service
criterion
criteria
(2)
the
grading
co ncept of
that would examine an
generate matching municipal
the
the
service
t he
apply
priorities
of
elect ion
the evaluation an d
structure and authority of
would
(3)
agreement
Par t icipant s discussed
parties.
more sharply during
defined
1982
draft
he
that
1982
definitions and
the
Several
providers.
the
7,
December
dated
of a
copies
distributed
6,
selection
"leverage",
applicant 's
and/ or private
adoption and structure
applications for funds.
45
of a point
ability
funds;
system
of
a
to
and
for
In addition, a process
generating requests
for proposals
administrative
language,
and
lingering
matters
of
to use
in
After
discussion of
lengthy
allocation
proposals and
caucuses,
comprehensive
proposal
adjustments.
The
Despite
agreement
the
on criteria
a
counter proposals and
consensus
emerged based on
formula
were
providers emerged.
selecting service
team
[17)
decrease
contention.
however, substantial
differences,
cost-benefit
(RFP's),
on
the
a
State
revised
Team's
on allocation and cost-of-living
teams agreed:
High Priority Services
$22,742,900
Medium Priority Services[18J
3,518,981
Low Priority Services[19J
5,346,456
Set Asides[203
1,368,488
Central Administration
Department of Human Resources
164,060
$33,140,885[21)
Fourth Joint
The mediator
groups
Session:
December 7, 1982
Day Two
to
divided the participants
work on areas where full
been secured:
Group
I
Conditions of vulnerability
Eligibility criteria
Fees and administrative costs
46
into
three working
consensus
had
not
Grom
Ul
Criteria for evaluation
Criteria for selection
Group JU
Guiding Principles
Each
and
group was directed to identify areas of
appropriate
suggest
into
agreement
guiding
Consensus
emerged
principles
on
slowly.
criteria was
to
implement
broke
to
vulnerability
of
obtained
Critical
some sort
to
and worked diligently.
evaluation
structure, powers,
structure
The
the
was
disagreement,
The negotiators
conditions
on
of
case
solutions.
their assigned groups
Full
the
in
and,
disagreement
agreement
and
relatively
quickly.
selection
criteria
and
final
acceptance
of
the
of shared understanding regarding
and
functions of a new tripartite
the
agreement.
Non-Profit Team proposed a statute for a Tripartite
Commi ssion and suggested that:
all
commission shall be responsible for
Said
Final
the
of
implementation
and
oversight
Services
Social
the
to
relating
Agreement
the
of
duties
The
process.
Grant
Block
limited
be
not
but
include
shall
commission
tripartite
the
forward
carry
to
(1)
to:
to
NIS
the
under
established
process
to
continue
to
(2)
dollars;
SSBG
distribute
communicate with the three sectors for purpose
decision making
for
input
continued
of
(3) to take such action
concerning the SSBG;
to
will in the opinion of said commission
as
47
educate
(4) to
the NIS process;
perpetuate
to
(5)
public through public hearings;
the
the Govornor concerning the submission
advise
block
services
social
annual draft
the
of
an
and (6) to submit
grant allocation plans;
The
assembly.
report to the general
annual
if
report shall include proposed legislation,
needed, a description of the activities of the
and an
commission for the year with comments,
the
by
expenditures made
of
list
itemized
The
year.
preceding
during the
commission
it
commission may also whenever it considers
and
submit other recommendations
appropriate
proposals to the general assembly
legislative
and its committee.
receive
and
for
apply
may
commission
The
grants
including
assistance from many sources,
state
and
national
of money and services from
may
commission
The
and foundations.
bodies
assistance
and
advice,
information,
procure
legislative
department,
agency,
any
from
the
of
instrumentality
other
or
committee,
thereof.
head
of
the
consent
the
with
state,
state
official
other
agencies,
state
All
with
connected
persons
all
and
organizations
relevant
commission
the
give
shall
them
any
and reasonable assistance on
information
to
recourse
requiring
research
of
matters
or
knowledge
their
within
date
any
or
them
power
the
have
shall
commission
The
control.
to adopt such regualations, in accordance with
conduct
provisions of chapter 54 for the
the
out
carry
to
necessary
are
as
business
of its
chapter.[223
this
of
purposes
the
was general agreement
There
commission
of
all
was not
parties.
proposal
The
responsive
discussion
to
a statutorily
created
and
desires
the needs
The State Team labeled
"presumptuous-" in
responsibilities
that
of
that
it
the
defined
Non-Profit's
in detail
the
a new commission.
between the State and Non-Profit
revolved around the powers
that
48
would be
reserved
Teams
to
the
Governor and DHR.
should
way
tell
The
responsibilities
the
agency.
caucusing,
the
to
do
that
the Governor
and not
also
State
the
other
that
felt
the
proposal
in the Non-Profit's
outlined
interfere with
SSBG lead
some
State Team felt
the commission what
around.
would
The
the responsibilities of DHR[233,
After considerable
State Team
as
discussion and
introduced a
counter-
for a Tripartite SSBG Committee:
proposal
three
teams
a gree
The
to
establish
a
Tripar ti te
Social
Services
Block
Grant
The Commi ttee shall be made up of
Commi t tee.
three
members designated by each of the teams
plus a chairperson appointed by the
Governor.
In
addition
to such other f unctions
as
the
Governor
may
charge
the
committee
with
performing,
the
committee
shall
have
the
following
review and appeal role:
After
an
agency
of
cognizance[24J
has
made
its
preliminary
grant determinat ion and has given
provider
of
to
the affected service
notice
that
preliminary action,
the action will
be
reviewed
by the Committee.
provider
If the
seeks an appeal of the action
Committee
the
will
review the concerns of the provider
and
make
its
recommendations.
If
deemed
appropriate,
the
members
of
Committee
the
representing the sector of wh ich the appellant
appeal
to
the
member
provider
is
a
may
of
Human
Res ources
the
and
Commissioner
and
Policy
Offi ce
of
Secretary
of
the
function
Management
for final act ion.
This
of
spirit
carried
out
in the
shall
be
cooperation engendered by the NIS process, nut
and
state
in
a
manne r
consistent wit h all
federal laws and regulations.[25J
While
there
structure
on
all
session
of
was
the
agreement on
committee,
the particulars.
the need
the
and
basic
parties could not
These were
(with no specified date set).
49
for
left
to
agree
another
At
the end
the
of
the
subject
of
all
Eventually
relationship
State
state
between
to
consideration
use
at
parties
for
the need
service
whether
and
the
administration
in
or contracts.
investment
joint
session,
agreed
agencies
agreement
joint
providers
the
form
Questions
of
contracts.
a
contractual
and
of
on the
of SSBG funds were put
another
then
future,
addressed
cognizant
letters
permissable
aside
for
unscheduled,
session.
Finally,
there
cost/benefit
was
discussion
analysis,
which all
incorporated
in
selection
service providers.
offered
of
the
criteria
on
the
concep t
of
t0
be
agreed needed
for
evaluation
The
Municipal
proposed a definition:
For
purposes
of
evaluating
and
service
providers,
'cost/benefit
shall mean:
selecting
analysis'
a.
For programs with goals not expressible in
monetary
terms,
cost-outcome
(or
cost
effectiveness) analysis,
in which the program
goals
are reviewed in relation to (1)
degree
attainment
(or,
for new programs,
projected
degree
of
attainment) and (2) the
costs
of
existing or proposed alternative programs
and
strategies to achieve the same goals.
b.
For
programs with goals expressible
in
monetary
terms,
cost/benefit
analysis,
in
which the program's costs are reviewed (1)
in
relation
to
the program's goals and
(2)
in
relation
to the costs of existing or proposed
alternative
programs
to
achieve
the
same
goals. [263
No
of
agreement was
reached.
50
and
Te am
Since consensus on these essential
the
success of
the
reconvene on December 23,
and
to resolve all
issues
were:
the
process,
1982
remaining
the preamble,
investment
of
SSBG funds
definition
of
cost/benefit
issues was
participants
to
finalize
the
by
tripartite
agreed
to
remaining
committee,
providers,
the
and strategies
for
service
analysis
to0
the agreement
These
issues.
vital
decreasing administrative costs.
Fifth Joint
At
this
session,
the
for
results of
the NIS process.
both
points were
State
of
After
to
implement
to
the
extensive questioning
counter-proposals
and Non-Profit
1982
immediately
turned
tripartite committee
clarification
the
December 23,
teams
proposals
and
a
Session:
Teams,
submitted
the
by
following
agreed:
(1) Structure:
The tripartite committee shall
consist
of
ten
members with
three
members
designated
by each of the three teams
and
a
non-voting
chairperson,
appointed
by
the
Governor,
who shall serve as the
committee's
convenor,
facilitator and documentator.
The
committee
may
enlist at its
discretion
the
services
of a mediator who shall be paid
for
out
of
the
SSBG
contingency
fund
if
no
alternative funding is available.
(2) Powers:
The tripartite committee shall be
empowered to deal with all issues pertinent to
including
(but
not
the
final
agreement,
limited to) the following:
(1) training, (2)
a
strategic
planning
and the development of
data base, (3) fees and eligibility standards,
(4) payments, (5) paperwork reduction, and (6)
ensure
of the evaluation mechanism to
review
in
the
that
performance
is
emphasized
assessment process.
51
,WM,,MMFp
_W-
(3) Procedures:
The tripartite committee shall
shall establish its own rules of procedure and
shall initiate activities as soon as
possible
with
support
from
SSBG
monies,
if
no
alternative funding is available.
(4) Amendments:
Amendments
may
be
either
changes
to
help
implement
the
existing
agreement or modifications of the substance of
Amendments
substance of the
agreement.
the
shall
require
the
consensus
of
all
three
teams.
Upon the motion of any two teams, any
issue
may
be
placed before
the
tripartite
comittee,
but
the agreement of all teams
is
required to resolve issues.
(5) Communication:
State
agencies
shall
reply
in
writing with reasons
in
a
timely
manner
to all written communication from
the
tripartite commit tee.
The
Tripartite
SSBG
Committee was
responsibility
for
of
analysis.
cost/benefit
enumerated
service
criteria for
providers.
regarding
referred
All
to
three
Teams
grant,
State
SSBG
people
an acceptable
This would
be
of
with
in the
the evaluation and selection
The
Municipal
the
definition
included
of
proposal
Team's
appropriate cost effectiveness
language
was
the Tripartite SSBG Committee.
teams
preamble prepared
The
developing
charged
next
accepted and
by
approved
the
the State Team.
considered the
issues of
investment
contracting and administrative
Team
expressed its
dollars
rather
should
revised
strong
be directed
than administrative
52
costs.
convictions
toward
costs and
that
services
urged
of
The
the
to
the
costs
that
that
in
increased
with
the
countered
notion
administrative
costs
improved and expanded services, as
The
Non-Profit
investment
bills
of
Team
urged
the
administrative
flexibility.
of
a
cap
in,
The
arguing
might well
result
for example,
decisions
SSBG contract
funds and
for
a
these
address
the
to
the
relative
the
timely payment
The State Team acknowledged
by state agencies.
importance of
to
teams
policy
need
critical
the
on
volunteer organization.
largely
of
be applied
could
Team
Municipal
cap
a fifteen percent
of
adoption
issues
and asked
for
time
to
improve its management capacity.
After discussions,
three
and
issues
a
of
possible
Tripartite
the
of
investment
cap on
Committee
teams agreed
three
funds,
of
bil Is,
the
to
costs
to
directions
the
refer
payment
administrative
with
to
develop
an
appropriate plan for resolution by October 1, 1983.
The State Team placed before
the participants a specific
proposal
the
for distribution
of
aside
for
the combined ser vices
care,
and
day
treatment.
of
$120,000 of
designation
$60,000
for day
treatment;
After some discussion of
the
The
$200,000
of
allocation set
adoption,
proposal
suggested
SSBG funds for foster
and
$20,000
proposal,
the
foster
for
the
care;
adoption.
teams adopted
53
Iqmm"R111",
it
and
it
incorporated
parties
The
agreement.
final
at
agreement
final
a
secured
the
into
that
1:16
afternoon.
FINAL AGREEMENT
The
agreement
final
preamble and
by
an historical
three
by
the
a
statement
(1)
The six sections are:
principles.
service
(2)
services;
(4)
mechanisms;
criteria
(6)
and
processes;
priorities;
Each
teams).
guiding
of
definitions
(3)
of
allocation
for evaluation and selection
(5)
providers;
service
(that was written
perspective
by
preceded
is
six sections with a
divided into
the mediator and approved
section
of
is
multi-year
contracts and
letters
plans
and
of agreement
statements.
Definitions
The
first
section identifies and defines
eligible services and
to
of Services
delivery of
section,
defini t ions
In addition,
services.[27J
vulnerable
criteria[29J
four pertinent
population[Z8J
grant
18 block
and
related
under
this
eligibility
are defined.
Service Priorities
The
second
SSBG funds.
section focuses on service
The
criteria
for
selection
priorities
stress
for
service
54
11
-
Iff
111-11-IF"
Three
importance.[30)
are
priority groupings
of
services
defined.[31J
Allocation Mechanisms
The
third
funds
to
state agencies of
identif
ied
service.(32]
include
allocations of
section suggests specific
th e amount
programs.
The
priority
needs
providers'
The allocation plan
of money
allocation
for
performance
Committee
the
to be
of
social
distributed
funds
delivery.
responsibility of
the
not
to current
based
services,
(2)
on
(1)
service
and
(3)
This section also
the
in reviewing applications
or management
is
does
in meeting such needs,
cost-effic iency in service
ident if ies
cognizance which provide
SSBG
Tripartite
for
service
SSBG
delivery
innovation.
Criteria for Evaluation and
Selection of Service Providers
Section
four
defines
criteria
selection of service providers.
for such selection involves
the
for
The
evaluation
process agreed
following steps:
1.
Three teams agree on general
Ste
to
judge
the
management,
service
capabilities
and
performance
of
service providers.
criteria
delivery
specific
Step 2..
State
Team identifies specific state
agency with cognizance
responsibilities
for
by
the
as
defined
the
services
each
of
tripartite committee.
a notice
each service category,
For
Step 1.
of funding shall be developed
of availability
Said notice shall identify
and disseminated.
55
and
on
service
and
objectives
for
the
goals
and
and
evaluate
those
criteria
used to assess
pertinent service providers, if any, and shall
only,
information
purposes
for
identify,
present contract- recipients.
Step
A.
Cognizant
state
agencies
apply
and
make
providers
to
service
criteria
selection.
Each
state agency has
standards
for the services it provides.
Those standards
the
used
in
applying
shall
be
standards
criteria.
Applications from service providers
will
agreement
not
under contract/letter of
not
be
considered along with evaluations
of
those
service providers which
are
currently
under contract/letter of agreement.
Wherever
appropriate,
multi-year
(indefinite) funding
contracts/letter
of agreement,
subject to
a
30-day notice cancellation provision,
will be
subject
continued
provided,
the
to
availability of funding.
Sten
3.
The
Tripartite
selection decisions.
In
addition,
stipulates
be
in
this
the criteria
section,
by which
Commitee
the
reviews
final
agreement
each application
ranked:
A.
Program
and Management
Performance
(60
points[34J)
capac it y or
evidence
of
client-effective
del iveri ng
services in a cost-eff ective manner to one
Demonstrated
capacity
for
or more
of
the
vulnerable populations.
meet
the goals
Ability to
of the agency's work plan.
Demonstrat ed
capacity
capacity
to serve
the
targeted
number
of
budgetary limitations.
and objectives
of
evidence
or
possible
maximum
within
clients
evidence
of
Demonstrated
capacity
or
capacity for coodinating wi th or util
izing
the
other
for
available
resourc es
particular targeted clients and netwo rking
with other agencies.
56
will
Demonstrated
capacity for
Documented client/staff
an adequate standard of
I
evidence
follow-up.
or
capacity
adequate client
ratio
care.
that
of
permits
of
evidence
or
capacity
Demonstrated
appropriate
has
staff
that
capacity
experience
and
education
training,
respective
their
in
perform
to
necessary
of
evidence
as
well
as
positions
ongoing
an
on
competency
performance
basis.
to
evidence
or
capacity
Demonstrated
serv ing
provide an integrated a pproach to
the needs of individual clients.
of
evidence
or
capacity
Demonstrated
federal,
for complying with all
capacity
state, and municipal regulations, statutes
and auditing requirements.
Cost
B.
effectiveness.
Service Delivery
Potential
(40
pointsC34)
of a comprehensive work plan
Presentation
to achieve stated goals and objectives.
Evidence
needs of
meets
program design
that
the targeted population.
the
(e.g.,
accessibility
Evidence of service
in terms of geographical and transportation
linguistic
and
cultural
constraints;
requirements to meet the needs of
needs;
service
disabled;
physically
the
time
within minimal waiting
availability
and beyond normal working hours, geared to
time
and
needs
developmental
clients'
frames).
of explicit client entry systems
Evidence
intake
and
referral
include
which
eligibility
client
and
procedures
requirements.
definition of the services offered.
Clear
of
Demonstrated knowledge and understand
clientele.
57
C.
Management
Systems[35J
a
Evidence
of
operation.
plan
multi-year
for
a
workable,
Presentation
of
oriented, cost-effective budget
all sources
serviceindicating
of revenue.
management
Evidence of fiscal and general
accurate
including
timely and
capacity,
fiscal and program reporting.
Evidence of
quality control.
Independent
audits or financial
reports.
Evidence
that
the organization
constituted under the laws of the
Connecticut.
is
duly
State of
Evidence
of
potential
for
assessing
additional resources by service providers.
To
ensur e
proposed
revenue
accurate
budgets
ratings,
include
and support.
requireme nt
criteria
which
charged w ith developing
principle s
for
Performan ce.1"
at tentior
provided
to
and
appropria te
Moreover,
to
a
before
under
by April
25,
to
is
complexity
the
source 5
is
a
basic
the criteria
various
the respective
and
the
is
standard s amd
supposed to
of
of
sele ct ion
the
1983
"Program
The Committee
the
that
The Tripartite Committe e
the application of
effective ness
important
identification
be met
are applied.[36J
is
and identify all
Such
must
it
of
cost
Manag ement
pay
close
services
being
measurement
strat eg ies
services.
comprehensive automated human service data
58
.............................
base
is
suggested
a common source of
provide
the
SSBG
Tripartite
management
and
objective
maintain
client
this section.
in
is
Committee
fiscal
and
DHR are
the
necessary
tools
maintaining
implement
the data
and fiscal
assist
policy,
The
allocations,
of
the
the
base and
to
to develop and
fiscal
for developing
to
is
decisions.
and related types
responsible
to
timely
allocation
characteristics,
programmatic
in
definitions,
goal
data and
to expand computer capacity
common service
includes
reliable
The
data.
OPM
system
and
system
which
coordinating
the
data.
Multi-Year Plans and Processes
Section
The
five
introduces
Committee
the Tripartite
will
be
designated by each of
the
chairperson
will
be
appointed by
convened by
representatives
will
of
may,
establish
from
the
it
up
be
by consensus.
mediator,
with
expenses
charged
fund.[37J
In
addition
to
Committee has
1.
charge
the
Oversight.
All
The
actions
Committee
whatever
a
contingency
functions
the
performing,
the
following duties:[38J
The Tripartite Committee will
59
of
the services of a
to
the Committee with
Committee
The Committee
procedure.
enlist
plus a
the request
sectors.
appropriate,
members
teams
The
chairperson or at
its own rules of
Committee.
three
the Governor.
deems
Governor may
of
three negotiating
two or more
the Committee will
if
made
SSBG
overseeing
and
have
responsibility
for
of
this
implementation
the
evaluating
agreement,
for monitoring the impact of this
agreement and for assuring the continuance
of
the
positive
working
relations
established
among the three sectors.
2.
Interpretation.
Should
there be elements
of
the final agreement that are unclear,
the
Committee
will be responsible
for
providing
clarification.
3.
Duties.
a.
In
the event that the actual
funding
level
of
the SSBG dollars
available
in
Federal
Year
1984 is different from
the
amount allocated under this agreement, the
Committee
will
be
the
forum
for
the
negotiation
of any necessary
adjustments
to the agreement.
b.
The
Tripartite Comittee will evaluate
and advise on the selection
of projects
to
be
funded
through
the
set-asides
for
Innovative
Projects and Training
and
on
all
activities undertaken using the
Data
Base,
Strategic
Planning and
Evaluation
Se t-aside.
c.
In
those
cases where this
agreement
allocates
additional
funding to
certain
priority
services,
high
but
does
not
indicate
the specific state agency
state
agency
of
program
cognizance,
the
Committee
will review the designation
of
the agency or agencies of cognizance.
d.
Each
cognizance,
agency
state
follow
its
of
program
selection
of
and
will inform DHR
providers,
specific
DHR and OPM
OPM regarding its decisions.
a
draft
detailed
will
then
prepare
aggregate
allocation plan indicating
for
the
specific
each
service
category
allocations to providers (state
agencies,
and
nonprofit agencies).
municipalities,
comment
There shallbe a public review and
the
After
notice.
ample
period after
of
agencies
comment period,
and
review
for
be
responsible
will
cognizance
to
informing DHR and OPM of any revisions
The
final
plan.
allocation
the
draft
60
-666"
,
- - ''. "'.1-- 1111111111
- -1...
-------------
to
the
will
then
be
submitted
draft
Any
Tripartite Committee for its review.
recommendations or proposed
modifications
to
the plan shall be specified in writing
and sent to the Commissioner of DHR and/or
Secretary
of
OPM
for
final
The
Commissioner
determination.[393
and/or
Secretary will respond in
writing
to
the
Committee's
recommendations
or
proposed modifications and shall state his
or
her
rationale
for
accepting
or
rejecting
each
of
the
Tripartite
Committee's
recommendations
or
proposed
modifications.[40J
e.
The
Committee will be the forum
for
the negotiations
of any amendments deemed
necessary
in order to implement
of this agreement.
f.
The
Committee, upon the
the
terms
initiation of
the representatives from any two
sectors,
shall reconvene to c onsider any amendments
to
the agreement.
The adoption
of
any
proposed amendments
shall
require
the
negotiated consensus of all sectors.
4.
Future
NLE.
The
Committee will
begin
preparation
for
future negotiations
on
the
SSBg
and will advise the
Governor
regarding
the application of the NIS process for Federal
Fiscal
Year 1986 and for future
years.
Its
functions
shall be carried out in the
spirit
of
cooperation engendered by the NIS
process
and
in a manner consistent with all state and
federal laws and regulations.
Contracts and Letters of
The
last
section
agreement.
should
supposed
the
be
All
discusses contracts
teams
agreed
paid on time.
that
or
letters
service
of
providers
The Tripartite Committee
is
to examine practices and performances regarding
allocation of SSBG
prepare,
Agreements
adopt,
and
funds.
publi sh
61
It
is
by
also
suuposed
October
1,
to
1983
appropriate
guidelines and
effective
program
ensure
to
practices
by
possible
performance
the
most
service
providers.
In
addition,
practices regarding
examining
The
funds.
these
charged
with
the payment
of SSBG
funds
practices
of
by
1983
1,
October
investing
to
is supposed
Committee
publish
and
adopt,
the
and
providers
service
to
is
the Tripartite Committee
prepare,
appropriate
guidelines.
ASSESSMENT
By
agreement was reache d.
(even
participated
was
the
"long
"quantu m
citing
relations,
to
Committee
negotiation
table"
and
carry
process
leap"
teams
the
the
forward
in
formation of
forward
the
had
at
the
trust
on the
highlighted
in
the
course
tha t the process
62
the
the Tripartite SSBG
of
the
praised
the
of
the
achievements
on all
the
intergovernmental
The Municipal Team
dedica ted people
and noted
commented
an
they
The Municipal Team described
the negotiations.
process as a
that
the process and
covered by
distance"
is
process,
had been hesitant
though some
generated during
that
the
pleased
The Non-Pr ofit Team has
outset).
"bright
the end of
bas i ca 1ly
were
participants
of
that
NIS experiment worked in Connecticut,
The
four sides
transformed
negative
and
fruit ful
relationships.
the
The Governor accepted
of
Commi t tee
the
of
of
implementati on
of
shall
clarificatio n and
final
agree ment
order
state d
monitoring
i ts
or
for
Governor
an y elements
of
the Committee will
"the
be
In add i tion ,
future negotiations
for
legislative
submitted
committees
at
Also, his
63
forum
for
it
is
to
n SSBG and
"begin
advise
the negotiated
futur e years."[43J
The
to
the
the final
the
the
Negotiated
the
to
modifications
of
adjustments,
n ecess ary
any
of
strategy process
has not
providing
for
respons ible
be
"The
order,
the
to
According
the Governor regarding the application of
investment
pos it i ve
the
of
continuance
Investment S trategy ."[42J
preparation
agreemen t,
th at may prove u nc 1 ea r."[413
negoti ations
amendments,
define d the
The G overnor
i nterpre tation
that
of
est ablished among the representa ti ves
s ectors.
three
Commit tee
the
5 declaring
the
th e NIS
rel a t ions
working
25,
in overseeing and evaluating
assuri ng the
and
impact
January
the formation
agreement and
the
the Triparti te SSBG Co mmit tee.
role
and
on
agrement
final
in
agreement
announced an Executive Order No.
He
acceptance
the
the wilderness"
emerging with both a final
October
1983.
into
"tiptoeing
experience as
teamrs'
the
The State Team described
attitudes.
P05 itive
into
time
of
agreement
this writing.
The
next
chapter
associated with
the
discusses
agreement
64
the
gains
and
that was reached.
losses
NOTES
issues
ElJ
The
three teams met separately to d iscuss
s essions ,
the
During
team
developed positions.
and
joint
during
From time to time
held.
were
caucuses
sessions, spokespersons from the teams con versed to help
impasse
the resolution
of
compromises when
reach
appeared uncertain.
of
"oversight
Team withheld approval
[2J
The
State
and
federal
pending review of applicable
act Ivities,"
state statutory requirements.
[3J
The
Non-Profit
principle
entire
commit tee.
Team withheld
review
pending
approval
its
by
of
this
steering
its
negotiators
The State Team made available to
(4J
and
a compilation
Z=r Y.A in Ell Ressions,,
Data
£SSBG
state
by
of SSBG expenditures
analysis
comprehensive
The volume
agency, municipal, and private participants.
was described by the State Team as containing materials
cautioned
and negotiators were
from diverse sources,
guesses.
figues in some instances were best
the
that
the
The
book was made available for their review with
including definitions of
that its contents,
suggestion
be adopted as the data
services and target populations,
base for the negotiations.
the
negotiations
The
physical setting in whi ch
too
occurred was
unsuitable because ( 1) the room was
small to accomodate the negotiators advisors, officials
to
and (2) it was difficult
and unofficial observers,
table.
negotiating
the
discussions at
the
hear
Microphones that were provided for videotapping purposes
[5J
were
voices
not
for
(and
were not
Intended
to
do
the audience to hear what was
so)
amplying
being said.
service
priorities
[6J
The Non-Profit Team offered
first
categories:
broad
ranked in three
which was
second (status quo funding of SSBG
(increased funding);
lost funds would be made up from non-SSBG
all
dollars,
sources);
third
(elimination
receiving
from
SSBG
from
The Non-Profit Team proposed that funds
funds).
for
available
be made
category should
third
the
the
In accordance with
reallocation and distributed
first
priority
part of
category as
the
NIS
process.
Further, they proposed that the reallocated funds should
to expand new services,
be used to target new programs,
and/or supplant existing state dollars.
(7)
Criteria applied were
most vulnerable;
(1) meeting
the
(2) reducing dependency;
65
needs of
and
the
(3) most
likely to minimize
the need
for other services.
that
they
and
their
stated
[8J
The Municipal Team
in
reviewing
the
proposed
advisors
were
hampered
definitions
(in
SSBG
Data for ILs
ln Nl
Sessions)
because
(1)
there
had not been
sufficient
time
for
thorough
review,
and (2) in many cases the wording
of
the definitions was not sufficiently communicative.
As
a minimum,
the Municipal Team proposed that all of the
definitions
be
reviewed carefully,
and that
they
be
clarified whenever and to the extent necessary.
[9)
Criteria would fit into three groups: Performancerelated
(demonstrated prior
performance;
demonstrated
capability
of
potential
performance;
cost/benefit),
management-related (strong management system;
workplan
to
achieve
goals
and
objectives;
fiscal
and service delivery-related
integrity/accountability),
(accessibility;
knowledge of clientele;
multi-service
orientation).
that
performance-related
The
Municipa I Team proposed
criteria
be
of
applicability
determinative,
but the
criter ia
management
-related
and
service
deliverybe
related
crit eria
would
reviewed
prior
to
final
selection.
[10)
Later,
this
new
concept was
called
"Clientedoriented Coordination of Services."
The Municipal
Team
proposed
this
service
as a function of
assessing
an
individual's needs, developing a plan to insure that the
needs are met,
linking the individual to the
providers
that
can
meet
the identified
supporting
needs,
the
client in his or her receipt of services,
and follow-up
to insure service plan is fulfilled.
[11
"SSBG
(October 28,
[12)
Direct
Priority-Set ting
1982), p. 1.
program
staff,
--
State
contractual
Position"
services
and
capi tal
outlays (furniture and equipment) are
separate
budge t categories
although
administrative
costs
for
grant ees could, where appropriate, be reflected.
[13)
The specific
questions or questions
accompanying
statement of each criterion will be used to measure
the
or evaluate service importance.
accept
client-oriented
agreed to
[14)
The State Team
service
definition
of
services both as a
coord ination
service
of
for
the
and
as
a
criterion
selection
a
provi ders
and pledged itself t o the establishment of
The
and
concept.
pilot
implement
test
the
to
project
66
1-W"aW#AWdiAiW
UWAOAWkb
-,
Non-Profit
also endorsed such a pilot project but urged
coordination
of
considerable
client-oriented
that
of
services
existed
already and within final approval
such coordination as a distinct category of service.
(153
To the extent these services are part of
they would retain the
with a higher priority,
of that other higher-ranking service.
to the Final Agreement,
[163
Accordi ng
service category to see
to
study
th is
statewide sys tem can be established."
[173
costs
costs
a service
priori ty
it was agreed
a
unitary
if
The
discussion on how to decrease
administrative
to
decrease
was based on the State Team wanting
stressed
that
the
Municipal
Team
while
the
with
admin istrative
costs
must be examined along
qual i ty of the service.
[183
The
teams
agreed
that
the
would
providers
be
eligible to receive,
on a competitive basis, a cost-ofliving increase not to exceed 5.8 percent.
[193
a result of this funding decision,
counseling
information and referral services, recreation
for
inner city
youths,
and
transportation
As
programs ,
programs
services
[203
received sharp
Includes
Category
proposed
by
planning,
training,
funding cuts.
the
items
"infrastructure"
Team)
Municipal
evaluation,
an automated information system,
technical
assistance
and
(as
strategic
as
such
a
statewide
The Municipal Team
information and referral services.
can
before
you
stated
that
these items must be done
Municipal
else.
The State Team added to the
anything
provide
the
Team's
list
"contingencies," which would
cost-of-living
services.
pool
adjustment
for
medium
priority
(21J
There is potentially another $836,998 as listed in
the November 22,
1982 Federal Register.
This, plus any
be apportioned as follows:
carryover,
will
contingency
fund will
first,
be restored to one percent
of
the
the
total
($331,000).
Second, an
present
block
grant
additional $250,000 will be reserved for Client-oriented
that
Coordination of Services and will be released for
and a
with
that
service
purpose
after six months
wanted
Team
The
Municipal
evaluation.
Tripartite
$1,000,000
to
fund the pilot
program.
The
Municipal
Team was quite insistent and would not agree unless
the
to
they agreed
So,
finally,
this
amount.
received
$500,000 with receiving the additional $250,000.
Third,
services.
$125,000
will be reserved for Transportation
67
The Non-Profit Team requested that another look be taken
$125,000
this program and the teams decided to give
at
transportation
Specific service was the
to this area.
18)
to
recreational
inner
city
youths
(under
of
allocated
will
be
funding
Any
additional
facilities.
through a Tripartite agreement.
Grant
£22)
"An Act Concerning A Social Services Block
6,
(December
Team Proposal,
Non-Profit
Commission,"
1982).
[23)
The
Department of Human
Resources
(DHR),
the
working
with
OPM,
central
SSBG
lead
agency,
responsibilities are (1) liaision with the United States
Department of Health and Human Services;
(2) executing
letters
of agreement with State agencies of
cognizance
for the funds allocat ed by the SSBG service definitions;
on-going
data
base,
grant
(3)
coordinating
administration reform
need assessments,
and other ongoing
planning
and
adminstrative
functions;
(4)
maintaining
appropri ate audit records
(state/federal);
(6)
Assembly;
and
the
General
liaision with
(5)
providing
assistance to
State
agencies
of
technical
cognizance and other service providers.
cognizance
agencies
of
in
[24)
Identified
State
coord ination with OPM and DHR shal lI r esponsibility for:
service
reviewing current and potentia l
prov iders
(1)
fo r
Evaluation
and
Criteria
utilizing
t he
accepted
(2)
exec ut ing
Service
Providers;
Select ion
of
service
providers;
(3)
appropriate
contracts with
maintaining programs;
(4) maintaining appropriate audit
(5) performing
impact
trails
for provider contracts;
data
(6)
participating in on-going
assessments;
and
dynamic
needs
reform,
administration
gran t
base,
planning
and
on-going
other
assessments
and
administrati ve functions.
£25)
Position
"Proposed Tripartite
1982).
(December 7,
[26)
"Add
Criteria,'
Committee,"
St ate
Team
F erformance
to
'Performance and Management
Municipal Team (December 7, 1982).
day
[27)
(2)
child
These
services are (1) adoption,
care,
(3) client-oriented co ordination of services , (4)
community-based
non-resident ial (include adult day care
(5)
disabled),
and
community care for the e Iderly and
day
(7)
(6)
couseling,
community-based
residential,
(9)
employabi Ii ty,
(8)
emergency sh elter,
treatment,
home
(12)
care,
(11)
foster
(10)
family
planning,
refe rra I,
(13) information and
management-maintenance,
and
social development,
legal,
(15) recreation
(14)
68
enrichment,
(16)
safeguarding
or protec
Pertinent
definitions
are (1) administrative
service providers, and
(17)
residential
t reatment,
18)
tive,
and
transportation.
services
related to d eli very of
(3)
costs,
(2)
d ire ct services,
(4) training.
[Z8J
Vulnerable
those
persons or families
which
are
exhibit
one
or more of the following
con ditions
(not
present
in
any
ranked
order):
(a)
economically
disadvantged (unemployed, underemployed, or low income);
(b)
physically,
mentally,
neurolog ically,
or
disable;
(c) in need of language
developmentally
and
cultural
awareness
assistance
and/or
technical
immi gra t i on
(d)
abused/neglected
(for
assistance;
example, se xual assault v ictims, abused and/or exploited
children
(e) in need of drug and alcohol
an d elderly);
services;
(g)
(f) in need of family planning services;
in
need of mental health support services (for example,
distresse d
or persons who may be at
risk
families
of
inst i tut ion alization);
(h)
in
need
of
supportive
services, in order to rema in in the community; and (i)
in
need of shelter assistance.
[29J
Eligibility
include:
criteria for
the
resources
of
the SSBG
(1)
Recipients of services shall have incomes no higher
than
150 percent of federal poverty income
guidelines,
except
that
certain
services
(safeguarding,
family
planning,
information
and
referral
and
emergency
shelter) will be provided without regard to income.
(2)
Criminal offenders or ex-offenders may be eligible
for
SSBG
services,
but SSBG funds cannot be
used
to
support
services
provided
directly
by
staff
of
a
correctional facility (per federal law and regulations).
(3)
The Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-210(b)
requires
care
centers
for
the
State
to provide day
or
economic,
social,
children
disadvantaged
by
of
Potential
recipients
environme ntal
conditions.
service
shall
have
from
State child day care centers
no
higher
than
80 percent
of
State
median
incomes
income.
services,
(4)
care
Recipients of purchased child day
(for
example,
empl oyed AFDC and low income) shall have
median
of
State
incomes
no
than 45
percent
higher
income.
(5)
Recipients of legal services shall
than
125 percent of the federal
higher
guidelines.
have incomes no
income
poverty
69
W
(6)
Recipients of home management-maintenance services
no
and the DHR Essential Services Program shall incomes
higher than 45 percent of State median income.
(7)
Fee schedules are being, or will be,
used for
care centers,
purchased day care,
family planning,
home
management-maintenance
services,
which
will
based on family size and income.
[30)
See
pages
[313
See pages
12 13
-
13
of
14 of
this
day
and
be
chapter.
this chapter.
Department of
Agencies of Cognizance are:
[323
State
Human Resources (DHR), Department of Mental Retardations
(DMR), Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS),
Department of Mental Health (DMH),
Connecticut
Alcohol
and
Drug Abuse Commission (CADAC),
State Department of
Aging
(SDA),
Board of Education and Services
for
the
Blind,
Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, and
the Office of Protection and Advocacy.
Joint
Investment
Strategy
Negotiated
£333
A
Agreement
on Princioles.
Priorities.
Allocations
&aj
Plans
fQL Iht
Social Services Block Grant,
(October 1,
1983
- September
30,
1984),
prepared
by
the
Teams
represneting
the
Executive
Branch
of
the
State
of
Connecticut,
Connecticut
Municipal
Governmenta,
and
Connecticut Non-Profit Social Services Provides,
pp. 18
-
19.
[343
The maximum point total for each category reflects
the
attached
to
each
category
of
relative
weight
criteria.
£35)
Management
syste ms criteria are essential to
any
provider;
thus no poi nts are attached to this
section.
The
items noted consti tute minimum requirements for the
selection of any servic e provider.
of
the listed
£363
Assuming
all
preference will be g iven to existing
to maintain continui ty of services.
are
met,
criteria
order
providers in
[373
According to the Final Agreement,
the teams agreed
which may
set
aside
$138,488 (plus other funding
to
The
funds
become available as described in note #20).
to
may
become avaliable for activities that are liable
occur during the year but cannot be fully anticipated in
The
of
the
program
year.
advance
of
the
start
contingency
fund would be used to:
(1)
funding
new,
unanticipated
priority
programs;
(2)
meetings
unanticipated
emergency
program situations
and
needs
70
(for example,
floods
e tc.);
(3) funding unanticipated
time-limited activi ties:
etc.,
studie,
consultants,
which will
enhance
and/or
service
SSBG management
delivery.
[383
Final
and #40).
[393
The
Agreement,
Tripartite
responsibilities,
oral
requests
subdivisions
shall
has
of
pp.
22 -
23
Committee,
(including notes
#39
in
its
discharging
the authori ty to make writ ten or
appropriate
State
Agencies
or
Said agenc ies
or
subdivisions
respond to slad requests in a timely manner.
thereof.
[403
Any modifications will be sent to the Commissioner
of DHR and the Secretary of OPM except in those cases in
which DHR is the agency of cognizance.
For those cases,
proposed
modifications
will
be sent directly
to
the
Secretary of OPM for final determination.
(413
William
O'Neill,
Governor
"Executive Order No. Five,"
p. 2.
(423
Ibid.,
(43J
Ibid.
p.
3.
71
of
Connecticut,
CHAPTER THREE
GAINS AND LOSSES AS A RESULT
OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
...
equality as we have dreamed of it does
not require the repression of persons.
We have to understand and control social goods;
we do not have to stretch or shrink human
beings." [1]
negotiat ors
The
the
in
secured agreem ent
on
reached agreem ent
on:
categor iz at ion
servi ce need
to
accordi ng
block
gr
ant
of
how
of
( high,
up on criter
ia;
by s ervice
ar ea;
(3)
(4)
(5)
proce ss
implement ing
are as
such as standards
on,
consens us
app Ii ca ti on
a
co st
appl ications
eva 1ua te
funds,
of
payme nt
time I y
adminis t rat iye
Commit tee.
for SSBG
costs,
(1)
year
al locat ion
plan,
requiri
ng reso lut ion
(3)
provides
is
b ills,
re ferred
were
In other w ords,
agr eement which
an
of
a pol it i call
reach
for
the
criterion
(to
investment
a nd
a
a
to
th e process
(2)
not
and prin ciples
funds),
and
agreements.
did
effec tiveness
of
and
providers;
thei r
the nego tiators
that
low)
procedures
individua 1 service
Importa nt
and
allocation
for s electing
for
(2)
services;
me dium,
cri teri a
a
They
SSBG funds.
(1) defin it ions
agreed
f unds
to allocate
exper iment
NIS
Connecticut
cap
of
on
Tripartite
concluded with
acceptable one-
identifie s
key
issues
through a Tripartite Committee, and
a framework
for
72
future
decision-making
regarding
SSBG
Negotiated
Investment
Block
Social. Services
agreement
became
administration
funding
for
(see
federal
service
Joint Agraement
the Governor's proposed
fiscal
the
for
each
specify
the
amount
year
1984.
to
be
appropriate
of
to
it
did not
received by
spell
out
making
final
The
mediated
environment
to
allocations
be
to enhance
the
objectives
negotiators
would
at
the
plan
in
to
providers.
will
individual
lowest
"lowest
emerged
be
non-
Each sought
to
obtain
"Lowest
cost"
73
to
to
the
an
likely
negotiation took
cost.
from
in
institutions
not necessarily mean a
did
not
allocated
conducted
individuals and
of money or
sum
result
allocation
was
their own positions.
largest
did
to non-state grantees.
the process of
affected by
would
did establish a process for
negotiation
in which
agencies
how much
individual municipalities or
service providers, it
each
service
in detail
profit
for
It
be
SSBG
agreement
The
service.
funding
for
plan
available
municipalities or private, non-profit
While
a
FrQLTh
allocation of
and how much each state
receive
A
Grant).
specified how much funding was
eligible
--
4
Allocations., And Plans
the SSBG and
of
Appendix
Strategv == A
Priorities.
Principles.
The
allocation
steps
receive
desired
cost"
to
proposed
the
plan
society.
The
in
which
negotiations
was
information
to
back
plan
important
and
chapter
resulted.
what
determined,
"image"
a
the Connecticut
process was
less
than
fed
once
t he
se t
an
intens i fed
the
would
of
the gains
distinction
losses,
and
the negotiations.
the outcomes
assesses
make
it
situation
tension in
and
I
and
This
examines
process
losses
was
precedent.
complexity of
NIS
They realized that
the participants.
allocation
This
continuously generated
being
and
Connecti cut
the
losses
and
between
that
"posit i on"
then I offer my view
NIS was supposed
to do
of
and why the
ideal.
WHAT WERE THE GAINS AND LOSSES
In
order
with
to understand
Connecticut
measure
both
the gains
and
NIS experiment,
the
tangible
losses
it
is
(monetary)
associated
important
and
to
intangible
(non-monetary) outcomes.
Dean
G.
Pruitt
distinguish
that
is
making
or
between
tangible
and
that
we
intangible
ought
to
concerns,
in
Bargainers, he wrote, are constrained
from
position
loss
concessions because of
anticipated
Since
suggested
loss
between
bargaining.
has
bargaining
loss
of
both
their
and
image
concern about
pos ition
typically proceeds along
74
and
actual
image. C2
a one-way path
r eco v ered
be
to
unnecessary
if
Ia te r
urren der
5
been met with out making
to
or
audiences
to run
the ri sk
to
doing,
to
in
short,
lose
importance of
The
terms
the
of
the
costs
(1) th e time
the
danger
(time
other
that
commit ted
impossibl e;
will
lea ve
agreement
danger
of
one
to
or
side
the
an impractical
(4)
too
and
the
danger
is
little
time
(5)
the
usally money;
will
become
(3)
the
become
so
agreement
is
will
position that
to
terms
in
to persuade
party
other
that
so
failure
discourag ed and end the negotiation prematurely;
danger
or
invites
that
from a
trying
lost
the
that
in
a nd,
be calculated
costs may
other par ty to make the next move
(2)
t h erefore
can be calculated
that can result
that will be
various
future.
at stake
issues
may
foo I ish,
--
face
level,
th at
to
look weak,
precedent
dangerous
make conc essions. These
of
to
ano ther
conceded is
To
have
m i gh t
and
adversary
one's
and humiliation in the
exploitation
P erhaps,
in a way
behave
to
being ma de
a
been
At
con cessions.
of
set
hav e
one's demand
co nstituencie s.
incompetent
in
to
weakn ess
signal
that
may
that
in
up groun d
i n the first place.
con cession is
a
make
to give
and
long enoug h,
out
held
one
is
to m ake a concession
between,
cannot
a set tlement somewhere
to
from extreme opening offers
maneuvering
further
work
out
in a continuing relationship,
the
in
the
future
the other parties
antagonizing
75
to
and
losing
goodwill
that
Tangible
and
identified if
is
needed
for
intangible
the
costs
gains
of
tangible gains
swap and
the set
in
and
negotiations.
losses
can
be
conceding are recognized.
Tangible
The
future
Gains
the Connecticut
NIS
include
the
asides.
The Swap
The State Team sought
be
The
eligible
State's
programs
the
Six
SSBG
major
whose
funds and which should not.
concern was
how
funds
in
to relinguish
return for new
Fund money.
likely
reduction
maintain
the
relevance
to
continue
agencies
in state
the
Because
the General
to
be
agreed
funds.
The
Commission
on
to
Department
Chief
Department(JUD.),
Public
and
76
Fund money
13.5
of
Office
of
the
the
agencies
and
Consumer
of Correction
Defender (PD),
is
percent
Rights
Department
the
Management(OPM):
a
1984
State
available,
Human
Protection(CONS),
Office of
to
of
six withdrawing
the
the
their claims on
allocations
Opportunities(CHRO),
the
to
functions had only indirect
agencies agreed
"withdrawing"
were
block grant
agencies should
block grant.
General
more
for
to determine which
(COR),
Judicial
Policy
and
AGENCIES SWAPPING SSBG DOLLARS
FOR STATE GENERAL FUNDS
Direct
Personal
Services,
Operating
SSBG
Expenses, Dollar
Percent
Agency Allocation Grant
Reduction Reduction
( 27,573)
(13.598)
175,595
(
7,992)
(13.500)
51,205
868,118
(130,218)
(15.000)
737,900
1,430,698
1,107,089
(166,063)
(14.999)
941,026
1,023,047
729,996
( 63,325)
( 8.675)
666,641
332,396
237,172
(
35,576)
(15.000)
201,596
4,134,525
3,204,310
(430,747)
(13.443)
2,773,963
CHRO
284,180
202,768
CONS
86,234
59,197
977,970
JUD.
PD
COR
OPM
TOTAL
The
General
$2,733,963
remaining
Fund
had
in
the
to
replacement
for
negotiations.
"soft"
dollar amount
could
were
that
money,
directly
applied.
the
When
The major
federal
only
but
and
77
to
indirect
was
the
the
Fund
gross
also what
indirect
it
costs
General
benefits was
funding
agencies
concern
agencies received
fringe
was
up "hard" General
benfits
the Comptroller and
When
needed
state
they would receive,
funding for
to
the
SSBG money was not
purchase after fringe
deducted.
funding
be replaced by
agencies which considered giving
money
General
Fund
Replacement
Fund
appropriated
cost
rate
received,
was
fringe
and
benefits
indirect co5ts must
federal
funds.
percent
of
benefits
direct
and
funding which
Therefore,
defining
per sonal
rates
paid directly
services
agencies grant
were
payments.
programs to
be
do not
or cont ract
three basic
the
from
is a standard
costs deducti ons
indirect
there
the
fringe
The
be
Fringe
apply
to
used
in
out.
groundrules
vehicles
40.15
for
the
swap:
1.
The programs and services selected must be
consistent
with the priorities defined by the
negotiators,
for example,
service categories
agreed to as either eligible for increases
or
status quo funding;
2.
The swap should not involve a decrease in
individual contact which is switched from
any
General Fund to SSBG funding;
3.
The
swap should not involve
money to pick up or add any State
The
agencies
were
the
Department
and
Drug
Abuse
SSGB
(DHR),
and
dollars
Connecticut
(CADAC),
Commission
of Human Resources
Retardation
funds for
of Aging(SDA), the
State Department
Alcohol
of Mental
who swap general
SSBG
use of
positions.
the
the Department
(DMR):
I
78
AGENCIES SWAPPING STATE GENERAL FUNDS
FOR 55BG DOLLARS
Agency Program
General
Fund
State
Fiscal
Year
1984
Swap
Amount
13.5% Cut
General
Fund
Reduction
SSBG
Replacement
Funds
13.5%
Increase
SDA
Promotion
of
Independent
Living
1,000,000
(
162,132)
187,436
CADAC
Grants to
Community &
Municipalit ies
for Alcohol
and Drug
Dependency
Services
4,374,000
(
709,167)
819,846
DHR
Child
Day Care
2,224,295
(local)
(
360,630)
416,913
2,053,705
(other than
local)
(
332,972)
384,939
360,000
(
58,368)
67,477
7,097,244
(1,150,693)
1,330,281
17,109,244
(2,773,963)
3,206,892
Shelter
Services
for
Victims of
Household
Abuse
DMR
TOTAL
Community
Sheltered
Workshops
79
.......
.
Analysis
The
gains
General
Funds
overhead
(2)
to
the
are
agencies swapping
(1)
(personal
they would not
services and
they would have
funds;
cost
of
living
under
the SSBG program).
gains
SSBG
are
SSBG;
to
(1)
(2)
and
they
for
deduct
the
operating
(which was
expenses);
is more reliable
they would most
they received a
likely receive
not
13.5%
in
prospect
Funds
increase
their service was redefined so
would
to
funds
agencies swapping General
placed in either high
(3)
(3)
increases
the
have
"hard" money which
than SSBG
The
SSBG
in
that
for
their
they were
or medium service priori ties;
most
likely receive
cost
of
and
living
increases.
The
they
gain
wil I
agencies
the
to
the municipal
have
more money
(who participated
addi tional
funds
operating services
the
fina
faith
of
and non-profit
I
in the
is,
so
swap)
for
since
agre ed not
serv i ces
compliance r est
and/or
on
t he
us ed
not recorded
however,
th at
the
f or
in
go od
those state agencies).
Set
Al I
compete
for personal
(this
agreement,
to
sec tors is
three
sectors
se t asides items:
Asi des
share gains
training;
80
in
the
development
innovative
projects;
of
the
da ta
base,
strategic
assistance;
planning,
evaluation
and a contingency
and
technical
fund.
Training
In
this
(this
area,
was
an
money would
committee
the
teams
$100,000 decrease
be administered
of
providers.
to set
from
$600,000
year).
last
in order
The
by
to preserve
training of staff
generic
Hopefully
as ide
with p lanning
by DHR,
involved agencies
integrity and provision of
service
agreed
this will
transfer
a
the
and
in
providing better services to clients.
Innovative Projects
The
three sectors
purpose
of
proposals
agreed to
encouraging
(RFP's)
new and
which
to
encourage
service
better
aside
$250,000
innovative
fall
priorities established under
be
set
under
the SSBG.
management
for
the
requests
for
the
purview
of
This effort will
techniques
for
all
providers.
Data Base, Strategic Planning,
Evaluation and Technical Assistance
The
teams
development
agreed
of
to
an
set
aside
automated
base/management
information
planning
related
to
technical
assistance
the SSBG,
$380,000
human
system,
for
service
for
for evaluation,
the
data
strategic
and
for
to SSBG service providers.
81
1-
--
-
I-
-11-1-111r, I-,
The maintenance of
and fiscal data will
programmatic
The
State would develop
data
into
State,
init ially
granto r
among
The
agencies wit h automated capacity
to
these systems and
develop
implementati on
of
provider
has agreed
etc.).
forms,
an expande d capacity
develop and maintain common serv ice defini tions,
allocations,
of
types
source
d ata.
of
The goal
and
data
reliable
Tripartite C ommittee in making
and fiscal
In
to
fiscal
to pro vide a
set
was
to
and other related
characteris tics,
client
for
tools
the necessa ry
initial objective would be
The
St ate
( manuals,
system
the
the
throughout
ser v ice
and
of
system which
information
compatibility
for computer
the
rest with OPM and DHR.
the planning and evaluation
an overall management
strive
would
coordination of
and the
this data
assist
the
common
proposed
timely poli cy, management
a llocation decisions.
evaluation,
of
the area
consultant
requirements,
including
requirements
and
administrative
current
review
to
the
aud it,
to offer
teams
agreed
to
hire
a
State
administration
reporting
and evaluating
recommendations
to
reduce
burdens on al 1 service providers.
Contingency Fund
The
teams
activities
anticipated
agreed
that
to make
are
$138,488
necessary
in advance.
Use of
82
but
[33
ava ilable
cannot
cont ingency
be
for
fully
funds would
be
limited
to
programs;
example,
and
etc.);
floods,
enhance
funding unanticipated
(3)
studies,
activities,
wi 11
which
(for
meeting unanticipated emergencies
(2)
time-limit ed
priority
unanticipated
funding new,
(1)
management
SSBG
etc.,
consultants,
and/or
service
delivery.
Tangibl e Losses
The
tangib le
the
swap), services
group
losses
are
in
the
a result
of
of
elig ibi Ii ty.
agencies
agreed
and/or
that with
Jobs
funds,
to assume
fund for
13.5% reduction
job
reduce
additional
of
who swapped SSBG
would also eliminate some
have
(as
Iow priority and omission
Loss
The
loss of jobs
the
in funding,
job positions.
loses,
and
General
the
this burden as
the
To
agencies
Connecticut
Funds
that
they
ameliorate
may
request
taxpayers would
an additional
expenditure.
Low Priority Services
Services
in
the
receive
reductions
counselingt43,
residential
low priority are
in
funds.
information
treatment,
and
likely
to continue
These
referral,
and transportation.
83
services
to
are
recreation,
Group Eli gibi Ii ty
This
criteria,
Final
Agreement.
basis
that
more
of
a
eligibi lity,
group
Group eligi bility
persons
:
gro
with Dependent Children),
Security
and
Children
Adoption
have
Income
relied upon
this
income.
omission
program s.
funding
will
income
oc curred
intangible
push
final
Famil ies
the
disadvant aged
in
to
in not
the
I hope
co u Id
It appears
funds
sta te
QL
and
Care
document
the
is
that
the
support
1 ow
and
why
t his
preamble
tha t
this
t he
negl ect
pro viding adequate services to
in need.
gain
Gains
that
is
municipalities were very pleased
communication
or
(Supplemen tal
the Foster
the
low income.
translate
process,
SSI
d ecisions.
Intangible
this
to
(Aid
agreement shou Id somehow st ate
those who are most
The
the
of any one
This ommission
if
instead of
commitment to the
does not
under
implications
to make
The
determined on
DICAID,
receiving aid
exclusion
"middle
is
AFDC
the
from
General Ass istance, Food Stamp Prog ram
Assis tance
serious
omitted
an el igible member
is
fo llowing
the
is
in large part
that
has
the
to have
because of
occurred as a
process.
84
non-profit
participated
the
result
and
in
increased
of
the
Losses
Intangible
The
formation of
kinds
the Tripartite Committee represents
intangible
of
unresolved
and
referred
losses
all
parties:
to
financial
investment
criterion.
was
Municipal
Teams
by
a
of SSBG,
posit ions
and
did not wi S
had
the
in order
to
these
the
a
agreemen t
cou ld be
This
to be seen
s h olding u p t h e
to
good
to
the
in
t erms
by
0f
they
also
and
public,
could
the
have
and
sec ured
of
i ofn
t heir
because
they
bein g
nego t iat ions.
these issues
bills,
conces 5
In part
deal
but
0f
Non -Profit
the
State.
goo d
represent
existence
two groups
to par tic i pat e
on
by
left
cost effe c ti veness
They appeared weak
to offend
negotiations
the
deadline.
images.
ga ined
p ayment
very
that
opportunit y
look
and
items
co mmi t tee
timely
unrealistic
the
the
the
concession
represente d a loss
they
to
Secondly,
Commit tee
First,
loss.
two
they
felt
given
did not
the
want
They
wa n ted
holding
up
resulted
in
unpleasant reactions from the State.
The Tripartite Committee
and The Formalization of the NIS Process
The
Tripartite
SSBG
Committee
embodiment
of
the
negotiation,
evaluation
of
the
SSBG
agreement,
its
designated
by
membership
each
of
is
the
continuing
implementation
program.
the
85
is
According
composed of
three
to
and
the
three members
teams,
plus
a
chairperson appointed by
supposed
the
to
convene
request
sectors.
of
The Committee
of
final
agreement.
to
be
identified
All
in the
if
contingency
no
for
the
Chairperson
from
to
two
of
establish
the
or
or
those specified
actions
decided
is
at
more
its own
in
the
Committee
is
by consensus with the exceptions
final
the services of
charged,
of
is supposed
procedure except
supposed
enlist
the call
the representatives
rules
as
at
The Committee
the Governor.
agreement.
a mediator,
other
funding
The Committee may
with expenses
can be
secured,
to
to
be
the
fund.
Gains
are
There
Committee.
(1)
These
that
are
the
conf lictual
adjust
the
service
agreements
agreement;
inter preta tions of
(4)
and advise
evaluate
projects fund ed through se t asi des;
allocation
empowered
is
the
to
(2)
agreem ent;
al locations if Congr ess changes Connectic ut 's
allotment;
agencies
Triparti te
the
Commit tee
oversee the implementation of
clarify
(3)
severa I gains by es tabl ishing
(6)
of cognizance;
p Ian (that
7)
t hat is necess ary
this
agreement;
three
sectors
and
in future
(S)
(8)
designate
specifically
negotiate
any
t o implement the
insure
participation
of
s ta te
review and/or modify
des ignat e funds
pro viders);
the selection
the
to
fur ther
terms
of
of
the
negotiations.
86
.........
..
Losses
are
There
the
two reasons why establishing
Committee
may
Committee
is not detailed enough.
be
a loss.
First,
the
role
no
is
its
tasks are
not
"second fiddle"
how
the
is not
There
the
measurable.
Second,
to the Governor and the
is
Committee
the
probably function
Consensus within the Committee will
to
it
to accomplish.
proposed Tripartite Committee will
a
but
way to evaluate the effectiveness of
because
of
The final agreement
defines why the Committee was to created,
specific in terms of what it
Tripartite
as
legislature.
be reached according
the Governor and the legislature will
respond.
ANALYSIS
NIS
What Was The Connecticut
Supposed To Do In Regard To Gains and Losses
In
1977,
Connecticut adopted a seemingly strong policy
planning
process
Assembly
required reorganization of
the
hold
State
year.
human
which required
public hearings on an
Agenda"
and
for
services.
The
human
the Governor
to
General
services
prepare
"Annual Agenda."
That
unsuccessful
for human services for
policy
document
in meeting its
providers dominated
funding
subsequent
however,
intended purpose.
the public
87
was,
the
and
An "Annual
is a policy document which would guide
priorities
in
largely
Organized
review process and
State
A more sensitive
decision-making.
plan
allocation
would
traditional
the
to
than compared
produced
be
likely
participative
of
effective framewo rk
more
a
offered
approach
negotiated
a
Thus,
requests.
budget
their
in preparing
guidance
that
ignored
likely
most
agencies
process.
budget making
Rat ionale
of
The enactment
the
the block grant
all
1982,
Connecticut
state agencies were
Fourteen
the
in
SSBG
responsible
Of
the
the
year
1982,
DHR
with
of
the
SSBG
1982,
went
responsible
counseling
($4,837,434),
fo r
legal
care
safeguarding
information
($2,416,721),
and
The bulk of money went
child
by
to
($9,815,115),
($2,385,479),
and
($2,031,895) services.
88
to
despite
service del ivery structure maintained
providers
($2,157,912),
prov iders.
a dminis tering
in
thirds
two
State and municipaliti es.
treatment
age nc i es,
service
non-profit servi ce providers in
extensive
That
$20,478,840.[5J
$33,140,885,
private,
the
for
social
ava i lable
State
involved
fiscal
federal
in
amoun t
FY
to
$33,140 ,885.
non-profit
and
municipalities,
total
the
among
divided
was
money
The
in FY 1982 was
social services
for
1981
a reduction
experienced
30.6 percent.
of
services
From FY
providers.
service
among
intensified compe t it i on
day
referral
Money
to muni cipalities
going
for services was for
information and referral
($998,608),
management
($1,299,600),
development
( $403,620) services.
A
and
because
networking,
service
(2)
it would
needs,
and
gains
for all
to
(1)
to
(3)
be
the
social
most
practical
encourage more
extensive
(between and among
their competing
encourage
home
[63.
increase sensitivity
providers)
($1,406,378),
recreational and
mediated approach appeared
approach
counseling
the
interests
maximization
of
and
joint
interests.
Encouraging Networking
The
Connecticut
participation
process
of
municipal
and
SSBG
For
funds.
th e
of
concerns
the
allocation of
express
the
sentiments
of
municipali ties
sectors
have
particular ly di fficult
the numerous
Yet,
for
pr iv a te,
these networks would
less agressive,
to be
to
heard.
the
less
f unds
and
the
the
time,
sec tors
would
co nst ituencies
their
these
constitute nc ies
wo uld
in d eciding
f i rs t
the
public
allow
non- profit
private,
regarding
of
would
by stakeholding interests
allocation
articulate
NIS
.
In order
to
their
respective
private
non-profit
organize
would
It
be
t he non-p r ofit se ctor because
no n-profit
service
providers.
re present the interests
verbal,
All would have
or any
a potential
other
of
the
minority
veto, making
it
89
-I-I'I' -
'
"W'"MM I
I _
' ,
",M-M",-
-
.--
more
likely
that
each point
of
view would be
heard.
Increase Sensitivity
The
face-to-face interaction would allow the parties
understand
that
increasing
demands
negotiated
salience
they were sharing a similar dilemma
with
approach
diminishing
could
resources.
A
increase sensitivity
to
the
and common interests while minimizing
similarities
of
convergence
differences.
and
to
conformity
It
of
could
stimulate
beliefs
Increased sensitivity would encourage
and
a
valu es.
the willingness of
interests to help each other maximize joint gains.
Maximize Joint Gains
The
negotiated
approach
the mu tually
areas
duplication of effort.
interests
incompatible
problem-solving
the
legitimacy
of
necessity
responsive
mutual
to
power
It
of
enable
could
It
of
could lead
as
to
in a way
each other's
the needs of all.
to
that
reduce
defining
of
collaborative
the r ecognition of
interests
The
could
to
th e
creative,
could facilitate
resources
parties
expertise ,
searching for a solution
and
the
acknowledged problem
their
utilize
would
approach
and
of
the
would
be
en hancement
of
th at
thus
become
the
ob jective.
90
-~--
~~w-
-
Whereas
the
necessarily
compares
preconceived
ideal,
what
now exists with
if
the
it
process
could
is also
had
have occurred.
have
been
relevance
of
decisions
are
agreement
be used by the
Could
to
suited
based?
so
the
alternatives
in
the
Can
the
that
and
the
scope
dimension of
of
the
t here
al loca t ion
in
decisions
the
decisi ons?
been
negot iators
the problem?
of
quality, and
informat ion
among
was
that
Could
structure,
the
even
is,
ob jec t ives
precise?
people making
between
compare
dec is ion-ma king
information on which resource
tr adeoffs
recognize d
T hat
a
with
to
all
the
Could
SSBG program been made more
improvement
done
in
the
an
important
not
structure
ex ists
now
previous conditions.
improvements
that
forma l
the
what
with
negotiations
envisione d,
of
evaluation
Ideal
Less Than
Why Was The Process
is
better
Could realistic
been developed and considered
during
the
process?
Connecticut
for several
include
parties
never
all
reasons
the
engaged
fully
outcome was
NIS experiment
in part
because
the
less
than
process did
interested parties and mostly
throughout
explored the
in positional
opportunities
ideal
because
bargaining
for
joint
not
and
gain.
Excluded Parties
Three
distinct
groups
were
91
excluded
from
direct
involvement
consumer
in
the
process:
The
legislative
branch,
interests, and Hispanic concerns.
Legislative Interests
The rationale
committee
would
for
the
members
eventually
exclusion of
was
be put before
Governor;
therefore,
legislators
need not
process.
have
On
given
and
if
the
the
up statutory
legislative
in
or
Modifications
upset
the
no
proposed
avoided
it"
the
process,
to
by
accept
the
the
participated;
the
legislators
that
Direct
were
not
the
directly
they
were
the
settlement.
would
parties
left
to
in a
have
"take
involvement might
Benson Cohn,
The
legislative role was considered at length
in
the
design process and it
was
concluded
that the best that could be done was to invite
legislators
to observe
the
process.
There
were
a
couple of reasons for this:
1)
The
92
under
themselves
this.
According
the
negotiation
legislature
legislature was
position.
that
to act.
bargaining
the delicate balance
leave
in
the
legislators would not
committees
pressure
agreement
assumed
powers had they
in a position
had constructed;
or
the
final
Legislature by
process were unsuccessful,
Since
little
the
was
other hand,
be
involved
it
The
be represented
would still
the
explicit.
legislative staff and
it
have
entire General Assembly was up for election in
of
the
All
four co-chairpersons
November.
revelant
committees were for various
reasons
not expected to be co-chairpersons in the next
session.
It was not known until December who
simply
2) Legislators
replace
them.
would
to
delegate
expected
not
be
could
authority to other legislators
constitutional
nor
could
they
be
to
delegate
expec ted
authority
short,
to
staff.
although
In
legislative
was
considered
participation
highly desirable,
it was no t practical.
The
assumption that legislators could negotiate at
the
table and then do what
they pleased
once
the
agreement
came to the
General
Assembly
questionable.
without doing in the process is
Legislators
are
very
sensitive
to
cons t ituency views and do not appear eager
to
many
upse t
an
agreement
by
so
supported
cons t ituencies.[7J
The
NIS
decision
about
process was,
the
legislature
involvement
in
the
in my opinion, a mistake.
Consumers
Consumer interests were not
Mr.
directly represented either.
Cohn pointed out:
That
consumer
interests
were
not
directly
represented is a valid criticism.
There
are
estimated
200,000
of
them
receiving
block
grant
services.
We were at a loss as
to how
to determine which 5 could best represent them
all or who could select and empower them.[8J
Raymond
Norko,
co-spokesperson of
the Non-Profit
also wrote:
Consumer
interests
were
discussed
by
our
As
the
process.
sector
at the begining of
it
would
be
very
[Mr.
Cohn]
has
stated,
represent
difficult,
to
determine who would
quite
frankly , I think it
the consumer and,
process
have thrown the balance of the
would
I believe that consumers would
out
of wack.
as
a
been
viewed
initially
probably
have
However,
experience
second non-profit team.
93
Team
shows
me
that they would have
introduced
a
process
wild
card and possibly jammed up the
for
the
future.
I think the concept
of
a
but very difficult
consumer team sounds good,
to field and has questionable merits.[9]
If
the Non-Profit were using
strong
political
ruptured
this
Non-Profit
election
sponsored
candidates.
would
be
simple
astronomical.
as a
de velopment,
membership to
be
on ly
N on-Profit
team
pr ocess
but
could
brough t toge ther
might
in
power .
the
and key Sta te
co me
is
of
thousands
they
serve
of
tens
Non-Prof it
allow
identified wi th
the
threatened
have
an
was
membership
and be
So,
the
and between
they employ
do
have
could have be en
c ongressional,
the
to political
tool
r ea sons candidates would
T he
--
might
there
Meetings
their organi zat ion s,
This
consumer
example,
1 982
Not
thousands.
closeness
For
senator ial
House
in
team
non-p rof i t sector with
by the
gubernatorial,
people
consumer
constituen cy
in November
opportunity to build a
a
base,
effort.
this
development
the
a
Non-Profit
political base.
I
believe
points
various
teams
in
Direct
brought
from
consumers
affected
process might have assisted
the
in making wiser
services.
have
feedback
that
decisions regarding
targeting
participation by consumers might
additional
pressure on
94
the
legislature
at
the
of
also
to
support
the
settlement
that was worked
out.
Hispani cs
The
Non-Profit
represent
Hispanic
joint
all
They
had
began
until
also
increase
key
organizations
interests
asked
the
session)
process
and Municipal
that
adequately
representing
out
they
that
social
felt
their
The
represented.
the
financial
problems
1982
6,
that
their representive
to serve on
the serious
Leaders
adequately
in June but
October
not
(attending the December
been
pointed
the Hispanic
interests.
indicated
not
Team did
was
not
Non-Profit
Team.
cutbacks
would
already
plaguing
community.[10J
Raymond Norko replied:
I
think
represent
not
adequately
words
'did
consti tutencies' is
interested
a misstatement.
The
issue is whether
the
municipal
and
was
non-profit
team
repreesentative
inp ut
from
all
had
or
interested
const i tuencies.
the
In
fact,
you use ( the Hispanic
example
organizat ions)
receive
SSBG
f unds,
from
CAP's.
They
throughout
the
state
CAP's,
are
tie
into
members of the CAP's g roups, and quite frankly
by
were
repre sented
the CAP person
on
the
We tiered the
negotiating team.
negotiation
team based upon servic e areas.
If you went to
Hispanic
a nd [BJIlack,
would
I think that we
have
to
a
breakdown
in
relations
representatives.
Certainly,
all through the
the
all
minutes, minority representatives was foremost
at
each
and
every
outreach
session.
The
Hispanic
example
is
also
somewhat
questionable,
because Hector,
who is on
the
state team, if you look at the money filtering
through
NIS process,
is a very strong figure
and
advocate for Hispanic causes
within
the
95
be
concede
that it
would
state.
I
would
nonto have a Hispanic member on the
better
however, I think its
profit negotiating team,
a cut of the deck, not an attempt to say which
cards should be included.C113
The
implications
populations
could
could mean
to
exclusion
adverse
not
involving
that
funds
of
the
for this
denied access
diminish as are
advertent
lead
of
Hispanic
constituency
the process.
to
the Hispanic
population
publicity which will
The
could
frustrate
future
implementation efforts.
Positional
According
to Roger Fisher and William Ury,
bargaining, parties
settlement
an
by
reached
"try
is
to
improve
favorable
extreme position,
deceiving
Bargaining
small
negotiation going."[123
that
"the
more extreme
concessions,
to
discover whether or not
service proposal
example
of
Negotiators
the more
of
any
by starting with
to
it,
true views,
In addition,
time and effort
is
put
forward by the
by
and
to
they
positions
agreement
that
keep
write
and smaller
it will
take
possible."[13J
the client-oriented coordination
positional
did
.
only as necessary
the opening
the
discussion
.
to [their]
concessions
the
The
the chance
by stubbornly holding
the other party as
making
.
in positional
local
of
team is a good
bargaining.
little
to
96
generate
alternatives
or
options;
therefore,
probabilities
think,
their
reluct ancy
future
they
be
The
requirement
is
that
nego tiators,
I
emphasize short-run
solved
pressing problems
long-range st rategies.
Thus,
of
by
feedback.
this
corrective
on a short-term basis
Therefore,
than
process
action
under
decision
usin g
rather
an
the distant
events in
avoided
that
deviations
The
estimating
making deci sions
They avoided
prompt
time
base actions on estima tes
anticipated
re [at ive 1 y
less
to make such decisions because of
to
fut ure.
uncertainty.
spent
of possible outcomes.
were inhibited
uncertain
rules
they
developed
relied
to
on
eliminate
rather than on a
long-
term basis.
ASSESSMENT
In
the negotiations,
so
complex
that
only
to
over
issues
implement
sessions.
the problems were perceived
a Tripartite Committee
the
that were
Issues
agreement
left
that
but
not
Tripartite Committee were simply
Throughout
positional
argued
for
compromise.
the process,
bargaining.
them,
This
made
also
to
in
referred
negotiate
the
joint
to
the
ignored.
participants engaged mostly
That
is,
they
took
concessions and sought
approach
97
to
be
was needed not
in disagreement
were
to
bargaining
in
positions,
to
reach
tended
to
ignore
the
addition,
pie"
of
in
underlying
the
parties
deciding
to meet
how
which
the overall
social
services might
to
invent options
have
been maximized,
in a way
"fixed or
diminshing
needs
in
money available
been increased.
to
through which mutual
ignored
the
the
face
in
support
They did not
instead each competed
that
In
parties.
time exploring ways
little
have
the
essential
amount of
try
of
assumed a
They spent
cutbacks.
funds
interests
gain
for
legitimacy of
might
limited
the
needs
expressed by his/her counterparts.E14J
Was
NIS
the proposed allocation plan developed
process
di f ferent
practices?
I
an
provided
from the
traditional
answer
yes,
would
e nvironment
whe re
through
the
budget-making
for
the
selected
process
stakeholders
determined
the allocation plan
Tripartite
C omm it tee and other gains would not have been
possible wi thou t the
underestimate
Connecticut
and/or
the
to
negotiations
representative
process
how
rather
moral
assure
efforts
to
of
and
I,
however,
be
clear,
the
not
do
I
enough.
The
the
direct
for
a nd
people who participat e
an external
of decisions should
98
force
be
in
agreement
am advocating
more
do not
f 0 rces
political
implementation of
than having
and what kinds
the SSBG funds.
process.
the process did
Nevertheless,
for
the
more
in
the
determine
made.
The
next
played
final
chapter analyzes
in assisting
the
role
the parties
agreement.
99
,--~
~
the
mediator could
in developing
have
a better
NOTES
(New York:
Sphe res
DL Justice
Walzer,
Michael
[1
Professor Walzer
1983),
Inc.,
xiii.
Basic Books,
p.
of
concept
different
radica lly
and
new
a
offers
entirely
an
from
starts
that
justice
distributive
goods
the
the meanings of
point,
begining
different
sensitive
Walzer's
buted.
which are distri
themselves
insightful examination of the goods we exchange and
and
significant
most
the
of
as
one
desire
qualifies
justice.
formulations of distributive
D.G. Pruitt, "Indirect Communication and the Search
[2J
L Applied Social
for Agreement In Negotiation, SJournal
-239.
pp.
205
1,
Volume
Psychology,
the total amount
According to the Final Agreement,
[3J
in
available
amount
same
the
$33,140,885,
allocated is
FedeAral
the
in
published
Data
year.
current
the
an
that
indicated
1982
26,
November
on
Register
if
1984,
FY
may be available in
$836,998
additional
sum,
It is agreed that this
appropriated by Congress.
as
allocated
be
will
funding,
carryover
any
plus
First, the Contingency Fund would be restored
follows:
grant
block
present
of the
percent
(1
$331,400
to
Second, an additional $250,000 will be reserved
total).
for Client-Oriented Coordination of Services and will be
experience
for that purpose after six months'
released
SSBG
Tripartite
that service and a review by the
with
for
reserved
be
will
$125,000
Third,
Committee.
be
would
funding
additional
Any
Transportation.
allocated by the Tripartite Commit tee.
a service
the extent this service is part of
To
[4)
the
r e tain
it would
higher priority ranking,
with
a
prior i ty of that other higher-ranking service.
[ 51
See SSBG Data
Lr Use IM KIS Sessions, Prepared by
October,
(Revised
Resources,
Department of Human
the
1982)
[6J
[7J
23,
[8]
Ibid.
Letter to Sylvia L.
p. 3.
1982),
Watts
from Benson Cohn
(March
Ibid.
to
Letter
[9)
(April 7, 1983),
Sylvia L.
p. 4.
Watts from
Raymond
Norko,
Gonzalez,
Luz
Ms.
with
conversation
Telephone
[10J
(January
Communidad,
Centro De La
Executive Director,
100
1-
1
. .
111
served
She
1983).
31,
Committee in October.
[113
(April
Letter
7,
to
1983),
Sylvia L.
p.
the
on
Watts
from
Raymond
Norko,
4.
Ge tting
and William Ury,
Roger Fisher
[123
IM
Giving
Without
Agreement
Necotiating
Houghton Mif flin Company, 1981), p. 6.
[13)
Steering
Non-Profit
a
Yes. (Boston:
Ibid.
to
The authors write "that
Fisher and Ury.
See
[14)
separate
to
then you need (1)
creative options,
invent
(2) to br oaden the options on the
the act of inventing;
to
(3)
answer;
than look fo r a s ingle
rather
table
of
ways
invent
and (4) to
mutual gains;
for
search
making decisions easy." (p. 62).
101
CHAPTER FOUR
MEDIATOR AS PUBLIC POLICY MAKER
To
reach an agreement,
bring
in
a
mediator
during
The
two
have
an impact
of
in
party can structure
are
There
many
behavior
the
negotiation
process.
sites),
the
techniques
negotiations
(i.e.,
negotiators,
offering proposals,
outside
parties,
or
protecting
simply
of mediation techniques.
All
of
mediator
techniques
can
are
A
play.
negotiations after he/she
third
intervention.
mediators
for
in
example,
training
to
in
inexperienced
serving as a sounding
the
negotiators
from
out
way.
but
the
mediator
suitable
the
providing
staying
techniques suggest
by
the meeting
issues
list
these
and
arranging
5 provides an extensive,
Appendix
intervention,
including,
process
sides,
can
by
used
and
for all
mediator
the demands
substantive
board
to
the parties,
separating
the
situation after
negotiations,
facilitating
setting up
the
and
A
mediator.
bargaining
intervention by
supplied
to
on
bargaining behavior prior
information
parties often need
specifically a
different phases
anticipation
affect
the
or more
party,
third
can
two
to
not
..........
...................
the
exhautive,
roles
diverse
the
needs
the
a
which
determines
has understood
102
of
of
the
political,
soc
ial
of
the
t he
neg otiators;
the
of
nature
repea ted,
se quential
re Iat ive
ba lance of
respe ctive s takes
the
of
boundaries
chapt
mediator
the
in
selected
the
decision
that
mediation. [ ii
medi a tor
however,
the
media tor
mediator's
their
the visibility of
the
issues;
legitimate
of
the clarity
negotiated
my
the
Connecti
of
the three
the options
and
NIS
to
The argument of
should
argument
have
in
played
offer
Conn ecticut
Finally,
103
conscious
style
an
acti ve
role;
been more
to evaluate a
I shall
NIS
of
that
chapter is not
criteria
Second,
propo sed crite ria,
performance.
and
is that he should have
I shall
the
the
The
interviewed and
non-activist
a
the
experiment.
ctors who
wanted
they
of
performance
mediator made an informed
mediator's eff ectiveness.
applying
of
the nu mber and complexity of
the
First,
assertive.
the
respective
the
nature
the nego tiations;
concentrates
r
representa t ives
the
the
linked?);
discontinuing negotiations.
avoiding or
The
in
the
shot,
one
they
(are
multiple or
negotiated;
be
to
represent;
power ex hibited by
negotat iations;
issues
the negotiators
negotiat ions
serial,
understand
experience
con stituent s;
and
nego t iat ors
whom
the
the relative
assessi ng
complexities by
which
in
The medi at or may
take place.
nego t i at ions
these
con text
institutional
and
,
di scuss what
did.
I shall
I shall
Third,
eva luate
the
examine
t he
which
factors
mediator
the
have prevented
may
from
performing more effectively.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
MEDIATOR'S EFFECTIVENESS
I
developed seven criteria
have
performance
in
on
the
clarify
the
(3) generate
issues;
(4)
solutions;
predict
best solutions;
establish
(1)
following ways:
the
mediator's
the parties
he assists
that
basis
a
assess
to
context;
the
and evaluate
(6) value
the outcome;
Es tabl ish
the
and
(7)
(2)
possible
determine
(5)
consequences;
to
the
examine
implementation.
The mediator should ass ist
context
the
and
develop
to expl ore
In
addressed.
objectives
establish
to
the parties
problems
the underlying
addition,
in order
to
can
they
the
confront
the
the mediator
This allows
the negotia tions.
parties
be
must
be
of
Context
that
jointly
problem. to
solved.
Clarify the Issues
The
mediator
issues
in
understand
mediator
should help
conflict.
where
can
In
this way,
the part ies
assess
whet her
104
clarify
the
mediator
can
issues.
The
to
the parties
the
stand
they see
on
the
issues
in
similar
As
ways
part
of
parties
the
when
or
they see
if
clarification,
develop
parties submit
criteria
they used
choices.
This
issues
effort
mediator
the
de termine
should
help
for
The med iator could request
that
they should
the
to
proposals,
to
importance.
the reasons
criteria
choices being made.
th em in equal
the selection of
determine
provides
indicate
a rationalization
their
for the
being sought.
Generate and Evaluate
Possible Solutions
The
what
mediator
it
thinks are practical solutions.
encourages
the
parties
to
solutions.
the same time,
At
other
to
evaluate
probabilities
of
concerned
only on the
of
not
long-range
that all
participate
This can help pinpoint
sessions.
the
should encourage each party
The
mediator
brainstorming
each party must work with
by
solutions
estimating
They
should
short-term outcomes
implications.
This
but
can help to
be
also
ensure
points of contention can surface.
the
Consequences
The mediator should encourage
consequences
relevant
identify
or develop appropriate
possible outcomes.
Predict
parties
in
to
of
each of alternatives
and mediator should
for
the parties
predicting
explore
solutions.
techniques
consequences.
105
to examine
If
that
the
The
are
outcomes
................
appear uncertain,
each
they
consequence.
for consultants
parties
should estimate
Where possible
or
technical
can receive
the
likelihood of
the
funds
can
aside
this
way,
In
assistance.
necessary
be set
expertise
to determine
consequences.
Value
The
parties
success
in
pursuing
with respect
to
compared to
the
sufficient
the
that
solut
has
provide
agreement.
part ies
T he
a case,
valued
the
be
inferi or
mediat or
objectives be
another.
media tor
Choosing
In such
combination of
Determine
alternativ e
to
obj ective.
each
certain objectives and
to
others.
should encourage
criteria
some alterna tives will
should recognize that
superior with respect
The
Outcomes
encourage measureable
mediator should
determine
the
should
that
the Best Solu t ion
insist
will
that
produce
the alternatives that
So,
the process
ons most
l asting
The
best
parties sele ct
the
best
to
all
as possible,
the
conseq ue nces.
"g ood enough"
is
should
acceptable
a s much merit
the
is
not
involve sett Ii ng on
-
interests
and one
one
tha t might
of
an
agreement
should no t only refle ct
the
interest
but
through
results
understand society's best
also
interests.
106
the
as
life
the
pa rt ies
Examine
The
mediator
should
implemen tation.
alternatives
problems,
in
the
Implementation
urge
be carried
and
include steps
final
agreement.
stipulating
to
parties
how
identify
out,
deal with
may
This
e x ami ne
to
calculate
should
They
will
the
the
potential
these problems
include
also
incentives and compliance mechanism
in
the
agreement.
THE MEDIATOR'S PERFORMANCE
According
in
to
the groundrules
developing)
process-oriented
the mediator was
(that
the mediator
the mediator was designated
role.
to
According
perform the
to
the
to
assisted
assume
groundrules,
following duties:
designat e
"official
who shall
be
at a separ ate table but who shall
seated
not
otherwise
participate in deliber ations except
that
they
may
communicate
through
the
mediator.
Observers
may be
ap pointed
from
organizations that have provided funds for the
negotiating process,
as well as other private
and
public
bodies
involved
directly
or
indirectly
in
the funding
or
promotion
of
human services in Connecticut.[2]
The
mediator
observers"
may
for jo int sessions,
agree that the public shall be fully
about
the
negotiating
process.
Therefore,
representa tives of the med ia shall
sessions a nd shall
be free to attend all joint
be
public.
treated as members of the general
other
Following
joint
se ssions
at
and
of
the
appropriate
times
at the discretion
selected
mediator,
the
me diator
and
each
make
team
sha 11
representat ives
from
The
teams
inf ormed
107
a
themselves
jointly
available
for
med i a
interviews or conferences.
Team membe rs may,
teams ,
with
their
of
the
permission
make
to
the
comments
or
individual
statements
media. [3J
or
the mediator
During
joint sessions,
any
Each
team may call for a caucus at any time.
shall
be
limited
to
a
maximum
of
caucus
minutes,
although
the
parties
ma y
fifteen
extend
with
that
period
a
caucus
beyond
permiss i on
of the mediator.
Caucuses
s hall
no t be c onsidered public meetings.[4]
The
mediator
shall prepare
minuted
of
all
joint
sessions and distribute copies of these
minutes
within
then working
days
of
the
respective
joint
sessions
(or
earlier,
if
another
joint
session is scheduled to
occur
before
the time period elapses).
The
teams
shall
review the minutes promptly and
inform
the mediator of any errors or omissions.
Each
team
shall
keep minutes
of
separate
team
meetings
and records of any other
inter- and
intra-team
activities
of importance
to
the
negotiating process.
Each team shall have
a
"documentor" who shall maintain an individual
team
journal
containing
all
materials
prepared, presented and received by the teams,
as
well as records of pertinent meetings
and
communications.[5J
The
teams are encouraged to communicate
with
each
other
between
formal
negotiating
sessions.
Teams
shall provide the
mediator
with
copies
of
all
inter- and
intra-team
written
communications
that
occur
between
joint sessions.[6
'
The
mediator shall coordinate meetings
times
and places,
develop agenda,
control the flow
a
of sessions and assist the teams in writing
formal proposal.[7J
Even
though
mediator role
not
imply
performed
the
regarding the
that he was
the
specific
groundrules were
process,
about
the groundrules did
to play a non-assertive
following tasks:
108
(1)
the
kept
role.
He
comunication
going;
the
chose
(2)
time
given
modified
appropriate
(4) kept
frame;
issues
structure
easily reached;
and
sites;
(6)
(so
(3) worked within
that
(5)
clear;
perceptions
agreement
can
kept parties motivated
to
be
reach
agreement.
Communicat ion
The
controlled the
mediator
within
the
parties
in several ways.
with parties separately.
to
relay
communication
He
among
and
communic ated
Such intervention allowed him
or modify communicat ion for the sake
the
of
negotiations.
He
called
upon
of
perception
positions.
val id
bluffs,
able
the
In
obtain
the
perceptions
particular
dispute
concessions
conditions
that
and
the
obtain
outline
their
of
and positions
negotiators'
real
that might underlie
the
team
could
make
the
to
det ermine
to
He was
or face saving gestures.
the
their
the mediator attempt ed
his search,
i dentify
to
situation and an
ra Ily calling
to
negotiators
issues
the
impasses
the
given
under
level
at which
dispute
the
mediator
felt
between
negot iators
cou Id
be
resolved.
In
addi tion,
when
accurate
information
faci Ii ta te
the negotiations,
109
he simply
that
kept
relaying
the
would
lines
open
and
For
transmitted information
example,
each
the mediator
other's
informed
negotiators
incorrect,
other's
that
motives
that
could
and
certain
might
position
have
is
and
too
if
he encouraged communication between
the
teams,
their mutual
increased
disputants expedited conflict
the
He
be
the
or
other
believed
and
among
grievances a
their conflict would surely resolve
the
might
costly for
that
situation,
pointedly
probable behavior,
their constituencies.
thereby giving
of
misunderstood
to
this
to
parties
He
parties
airing,
sell
fashion.
their perceptions
intentions, strengths,
a
inform the
intentions.
that
they
in a neutral
full
itself.
communication
In
among
resolution.
Site Neutrality
Since
the
participants expressed reluctancy about
participation
sites
that
sites
of
the
mediator
negotiations.
terrible
the
the mediator
likely
the parties.
pressure
Therefore,
the
mediator
Since
the
high initially,
mediator
the
Apart
disputants' exchange
selected
and
a
joint
from
to
neutral
of
level
it was
in
the negotiators
110
the
the
of
of Hartford.
chose
minimize
from various
that would shielded negotiators
suburbs
access
the
by
most
For example, many
publics.
the
the process,
would
experienced
chose
in
public
sessions were
regulating
various audiences,
for
site
distrust
the best
to
the
the
was
so
interest
of
in
a
negotiate
se t t ing
that
location
comprising
other.
that
appeared to be
A neutral
ne ither
neutral,
the home
site,
turf
of
moveover,
party had a tactical
rather
than
one party or
gave
the
a
the
appearance
advantage
over
the
over.
Motivation
In order to function effectively,
to
modify
enhanced
the
the
agreement.
conflict's
psychological
disputants'
The
the mediator was able
climate
mutual motivation
mediator
helped
concessions without loss of
face,
the
built
that
to
reach
parties
make
trust,
reduced
irrationability, and ensured autonomy.
Concession Making Without
Loss of Face
mediator believed
The
the
reduced
that
negotiators' concerns with loss of
their motivation to work
increase
his
as a calayst,
toward
presence
face
and
agreement.
Trust
The
in
mediator sought
clearly
norms
in
of
an
sense
the negotiators'
trustworthy ways:
fairness
and impartiality
assertive fashion
of
that
that may
control.
111
trust
is,
by
by
personifying
and by never
inhibit
behaving
the
acting
parties
Even
thou gh,
disputants'
complex,
a
trust
each other was
t he mediator did move
position
direct ion
of
services
partiall
trust
consider ably
more
the d isputants
in
a mediator were deemed
to resolve
ea ch other
necessary
unable
the parties were
because
After
in
the
all,
the
and
the
conflict,
of
the midst
away from
hostility ,
shared suspicion and
were
of
y
the
increased understanding .
of
negotiators
to
of
to
respect
with
situation
the
at
least
unwilling
or
conflict.
this
Irrationality
The
disputants
agreement
so
be
to
motivated
long as they harbor irrational
particularly anger,
This
not
would
and/or distrust
preferably
parties.
Further,
not
feelings,
toward each
mediator encouraged the negotiators
feelings,
he volunteered to be
other.
their
to vent
in the presence of
the disputants' angry displays,
reach
the
other
the target
thereby deflecting
for
the
anger away from the other parties.
Autonomy
insured that
The mediator
importance of
their
set
resolve.
the
of
It
autonomy
sufficient
the negotiators
He
their autonomy.
emphasized
decisions to make and
was
important
needs
insight
of
understood the
their
for him to be
the
disputants
to understand
112
that
the
that
it was
dispute
to
sensitive
to
and
to
interest
have
of
parties might
the
as
a
be
best served with his help
catalyst.
The
parties
enabl ing
praised
by
groundrules .
performing
He
sessi onms,
joint
the
in
primarily
sought
agreement
the
bargaining
formal
He
There
are
which
could
several
things
that
provide
to
(2)
orientation;
adequately;
(3) he
powerf ul;
facilitative
assisted
He
to
he
could
(5)
he
113
in
se t
a
a
of
live with.
PERFORMANCE
the mediator did
the
not
a better
the
fo I lowing:
all
use
and
interests
party that
to
do
process
train ing
involve
failed
was
groundru I es
securing
They are
aligned with
skills;
that
the necessary
he failed
(4)
the
of negotiation and
the negotiations
and produced a better outcome.
failed
for
developed agenda,
and
in
participants
have made
the
the negotiations progressed
assisted
all
that
in
joint sessions,
statements.
EVALUATING THE MEDIATOR'S
most
observers
sessions, and
remained focused,
observed.
comm i tments
that
in
mediator
tasks specified
concerned with the process
to ensure
role
his
The
times and places,
writing
time I y fashion,
were
for
prepared minutes of all
the pace of
teams
mediator
designated offical
coordinated meeting
controlled
the
reach
to
them
contributed
he
serving
appeared
app ropriate
failed to utiliz e
other
intervention
(6)
he
failed
to
employ
his
and
(7)
team in a more constructive manner;
mediation
he
strategies,
failed
to develop a final
efficient,
and
agreement which
is
fair,
implementable.
Training and Orientation
If
the mediator had provided
substantive
had
a
areas,
better
proceed.
training
I feel,
sense of
Procedural
the
on more effective negotiation
training
could
win/lose
their
thinking
the
toward
negotiations
techniques.
The mediator could
training that
on
service
existing
service
the
(both past
and present),
non-profit
private,
that
they
inadequacy
to
it
definitions,
sectors were at
of data contributed
the
in
the
inability
difficult
for
geared
process.
to
the
in
to
the
structures,
allocations
laws
of
and
and
a disadvantage
in
The
areas.
parties reluctance
The uncertainty
non-state
been
Municipal
these
interpret
114
have
and current
the SSBG program.
ill-prepared
were
participate
data and
to
could
delivery
services,
relevant
have
the
could have been provided prior
negotiation sessions
regulations
to
a win/win orientation.
contract
SSBG
to
Appropriate
alternatives
opening
focussed
were
could have been focussed
suggested
orientation.
Substantive
to
have
and
participants would have
how the
training
in procedural
of
the
the information made
teams
to
develop
effective proposals.
Involvement of all
Interests
The mediator should have assured that
adequately
represented.
For
all interests were
example,
municipal
and
localities who were not members of CCM and COST were not
represented in the negotiation at
Hispanic concerns were brought
had started.
member,
all.
In addition, the
in after
the negotiations
Even though the State Team had a Hispanic
he was
there to represent
He could not have
the interests of DHR.
the responsibility to assume the
role of representing DHR and Hispanic concerns.
up
to the mediator to resolve these internal
representation.
problems
in
The exclusion of
ensuring
smooth
dual
It was
issues
of
these interests caused
implementation
of
the
agreement.
The Most
It
appeared
the
party with
power
imbalance
mediator
was so
to mediate
to
to me
that
P owerful
th e mediator aligned
the most
in
the
power.
This
neg otiations.
that
passive
He
instead,
to continue.
He relied
to
the workbook,
data,
This
responsibility
intensified
For
the State
spokesperson
prepare
closely
example,
gave
the
115
allowed
on
the
and other
State
to
the
the
spokesperson had
The mediator did not
the sessions.
establish himself.
Party
the
intervene
the State
State
Team
materials.
advantage
of
the data by which decisions were
controlling
the State Team, he was assured that
supporting
that
publicity would make him appear
job,
especially
publications
since
about
the
that
appeared
skills.
He
example,
wh en
Therefore,
pointless
the
of
Even
several
though
used
to
unable
fact,
and
f utile
at
members
be
Having
the
h idden
discussion.
complex
regarding
intervene
discussions
he
sessions
all.
visual display
at
the results
the
could
in
end
of
items from
have
al I ow
front
of their
a basis
the
a
later
for
d is cuss ions,
agenda promotes group
agenda
in
dominated
Newsprints
The newsprint reco rd provi des
a v isible
prevents
a
its
all times so that
seen
reviewing
all
keeps
to
for
ses sions.
joint
preserve
For
intervene at
did not
he
the mediator used newprints,
It
recording.
on
the
compromises.
te am asked for $2,000,000
them in a more effective way.
meeting
can
bridge
to
local
In
an effective way.
all
facilitative
lacked
the mediato r was
the new serv ice,
supervised
Skills
med iator
unable
the
adequate
process.
the
was
any
he did an
State
of Facili tative
Lack
It
the
By
based.
of
work
for
meetings.
ef fi ciency
sur fac ing
in
and
the
Particularly, he cou Id have
used newsprints
negotiation issues s uch as
on
the
swap and client-oriented
116
discussions
coordination of
services.
He
could
used
have
the
newspri nts
brainstorm about developing
consequences
of
The
th e newsprint
use
of
neutrality
behavior
rather
he
rather
than
on
than
the
is
could
reflected
This
advice;
than answers
bett er managed
the p ersonal
would
have
hav e
protected
focussed
h is
feedback
on
than
ideas
exploration
was
it
the extrane ous
philosophy of
orchestrated
than
informa tion
or solutions;
why
the
on
observat ions
and
on
to
agreeme nts.
and d escription rather
being said rather
have
have
him
assessing the
recording
coul d
sharing of
giving
alternatives rat her
what
and
than on the pers ons;
in ferences;
judgement;
rather
could
assist
alter natives,
alternatives
for
to
and
said.
comments
the
of
on
He
which
negotiators.
consensus-building
process.
Intervention Strategies
As
an
alternative
mediator
could
strategies,
to
conventional
have used other
which
concessions
position is developed,
to
the
parties,
are
the
intervention
procedure
Rather than encourage
negotiators to draw up separate,
from
of
such as the one-text negotiating
suggested by Fisher and Ury.[8J
the
types
bargaining,
made
extreme positions
until
a
common
the mediator could have
listened
attempted to understand
117
their
basic
and
would have
been criticized,
finally accepted or not.
is
that
The
then made a preliminary draft.
interests,
revised by each
The essence
of
it
is much
it
is to make concession(s).
easier
party,
this
for a party
to
criticize
than
could
then explore positions without commitment.
had
had
been
more
(on December 6,
agreement
used,
I
think the
of
representative
parties
final
the
to employ
1982).
the
one-text
If
the
outsides of
the
technique
interests
especially since many changes were made
agreement
of
agreement would have
combined
the
joint
a
The negotiators
technique when he presented a draft
negotiating
final
the opportunity
and
strategy
draft
The mediator
draft
been
of
the
to
the
sessions.
Issues and Alternatives
Because
the parties
chose
an non-activistist
they
limited
him from devising
based
from his
analysis of
from
assisting
and
the
recommending
ordered
could
intervention
stake,
of
their
that
these
pie not
but
have
by
conflict and
problem.
joint
to identifying
issues
be
the
the
size
tangible
the negotiators'
the ways
118
in which
issues,
could
The effect
changed
Apart
packaged
the mediator
increasing
by modifying
alternatives
creative
alternative solutions.
introduced
at
negotiators
particular ways,
in
conflictual
their
mediator,
it
and
have
of
such
of
the
resources
perceptions
could
be
managed.
the
mediator
could have
underlying
to
encouraged
reasons for
even suggested
develop mutual
the municipal
client-coodinated of
vague service,
have
when
For example,
the
team proposed
services,
the parties
In
service.
to
language about
this
probe
the
he
may
fact,
that each member of each
the
team
meet
service.
Inadequate Use of Mediation Team
composed his mediation
The mediator
had
(1)
prior
knowledge
professional
arbitration
experience,
Connecticut politics.
to him and were not
The mediation
and
"friends"
taking
Assistant
spoke
occasionally during
quiet
until
the
process.
around
advice and
the
knowledge
was
the
teams
ignored
small
it."[9]
comments during the general
who helped with
meetings.
expected
to
issues as
7th session.
"when he
to resent his
used.
119
they
He
but was
According
did
giving
The second assistant
or small
The
provide
group meetings,
process,
seemed
Assistant
skills were not
His
the
of
to all.
the Decmber
evaluators of
advice,
(2)
to act as resopurces
the minutes of
during
the
services,
(3)
an arbitrator,
arose
to
and
advice on major human service
technical
who
team included a Human Resources
Resources
Human
social
His team was
another assistant,
logistics and
of
persons
team of
give
the
made no
team meetings.
He
He
could have used his mediation
could have delegated more of
opportunity
teams,
the
his
and
for
participants.
team
notices
in
of
meetings
they
had
to
the
contact with
efficient
timely
disseminated more
and
way
for
minutes
quickly and
his resource
(or perhaps an
reached.
This
team
internal
would
could
team interpreted
the
the newsletter,
process
I
a
issues.
have
newletter)
have
made
or summaries could have reflected on how
occurred.
of
in
appear more open rather than suspicious.
newsletter
to
the
available
consistent
effective or
been used,
agreements
process
made
format.
provided summaries
the
be
load,
the mediator did not employ
sessions were not
more meaningful
If
However,
not
to
close and
the most
were
the work
diverse skills
facilitated
team more effectively.
The parties
of
the
The
his
could respond
and accurate documentation could have
think
that
this would
employing
tremendously,
have
helped
team in
his
the
the
best
possible way.
The
agreement does
The
final
or
readily
the
implementable
language
agreement
include
Final Agreement
of
the
offers no
seem to be
not
for
fair,
three major
agreement
incentives,
compliance mechanisms.
120
is
vague,
and
(3)
efficient
reasons:
(1)
(2)
the
and
it
fails
to
The
language
of
Key
terms are not
it
was
"to
agree d to
see
it,
why
it to
is
established,
or
be
negotiat ions
another
examp le,
COLA's
would
continuit y,
and
in
state
this.
are
not
effort
agreement.
The ambiguity,
lack
recorded
to
that
this
are
case,
incentives
lea d
si nce
"s i de
bar
and
any of
the parties
The negotiators made
and
to
espec ial l y
to build compliance mechanisms.
to suggest
d uring
but
incentives
agreement offers no
The
basis,
definitions wi
missing
be
that
The
their
to
t he negotiations
documented properly.
to
it
In
understanding s" are not
to keep
esta bl i sh
agreement.
the
interpretation later on,
agreem ents
d efine
establ ished.
be
given out on a c omp etitive
of
some
it
when is
be
can
o r who will
and exp l a ine d in
agreement doe 5 not
in
system
ha d these quest ions answered
the
conflicts
will
it wa s agreed
be
exa mp 1 e,
a greement does not
establ is hed,
how
shou Id h ave
mediator
final
The
spots.
and referra I se rv ice
sta tewid e
statewide sys t em"
"unit ary
an
informa t ion
in
For
def ine d clearly
unit ary
[10J
what
the
5 tudy
an
if
established".
a ]ways
ambiguous
is
agreement
the
Mr.
little
Cohn
seems
compliance mechanisms, in
implicit and should be
so:
The
incentives and compliance mechanisms
may
be more explicit than explicit,
but they
are
exceptionally
strong.
The
Governor
has
repeatedly made his interest
and stake in the
outcome
of
this process a matter
of
public
record.
No
State official would consider or
dare to consciously compromise the Governor by
121
inattention
to implementation,
nor is
there
much
real
possibility
if
that
occurring
inadvertently since the continuing role of the
municipal
and non-profit sectors through
the
Tripartite
Committee
subjects
every
decisions.[113
Compliance
which
may
be
an issue
the agreement
misinterpreted.
General
the
the
or
For
Funds
funds
for
hinges
if
turn out
example,
for SSBG funds
personal
agreement.
to
agencies
This
is
who
to
the
responsiblity
swapped
of
not written
in
should have been some compliance
abide
The mediator should have
agreement.
written
or
use any
the State agencies should not
the
upon
be incorrect
agreed not
services.
There
penality if
certain assumptions
to
see
that
such
by
taken
mechanisms
were
included.
MITIGATING FACTORS IN THE
MEDIATOR'S PERFORMANCE
Two
the
factors may have
mediator:
negotiators;
(1)
and
prohibited a better performance
the
(2)
the
strong
personalities
unreasonable
by
of
the
time constraint.
Strong Personalities
The
parties
in
this negotiation purposely
mediator with a passive style.
more
active
recognized
with
the
candidates
that
strong
an active
for
They
the
selected
purposely rejected
position.
mediator would have
personalities
122
of
a
each
team.
They
clashed
I
am
criticizing
am cri tizing
I
role.
in
effective
int
better
form
his
erveno r.
t his
the mediator
passive role.
of me diat io n
resolving
he
mediator because
the
because
He
this
to a weak and
passive
he was
could have
Unfortunately,
led
a
played
not
been
a
non-activist
ineffectual way
of
di spute.
Time Constraint
I
saw
that
to
from
his
very
imp ortant
excluded
under
in
the
strategy
to
neglected
to
Impor tant
timeframe
to
this
as a
items
Since
I
case
was
no t
him stem
that
this
were
mediator
he
to
feel
probably
get
that
appropriate
for
with the unde rlying concerns of
deal
on
been avoided
strategy
agreement.
of
decisions
agreement could have
constraint
come
in
criticisms
labor/managemen t disputes,
in
time
the
final
realistic
experienc e was
part ies
issues.
the
Even though he
the participant s to make
rushing
a more
used
the process,
continue
hindered
timeframe
from being more effective
the mediator
was able
inflexible
the
the
this
it
the
par ties.
ASSESSMENT
The
mediator
Connecticut
allowing
played
NIS
the some
a
rather
negotiations.
of
the
passive
He
sessions "to
123
role
was
drag."
in
accused
While
the
of
the
teams
were
relatively
unequal
the process,
influence
the mediator had encouraged
on
their underlying
produced a more
could have
funds
for
social
through new fees
is
invent
could have
been
to allocate for
other
vital
reduce
negotiations by using mediators.
Thi s,
speciali zed
of
use
ion
a
ty
scarc
are
an d,
to media
pri vate
in
se c t or,
public
the
reason
One
negotiat ons
pol it ica
the
professional skilled
med iation
contrast
moral
in
is
lends
a second r eason
of
authority
course,
i s a
there
public
thems elves
is
a
The
by
sect ion
mul tidimensional
less
and
read ily
is tha t there is usua lV
in g
124
of
that
who
are w il
of
of
cost
is haphazard
car ry
politically unrewarding role
the
where
third part ies who
and
generated
sect or
general ly more
therefore,
increased
"mediation."
in
the
services.
to
common p ra c t ice
have
which
by
This would have
possible
focus
For example,
steps
services
to
alternatives
suggested legislative
and charges.
sometimes
parties.
participants
to
to
effort
participants might
the
gains,
the
impressive agreement.
teams
It
interests and
joint
that maximized
the
ability
little
made
the mediator
If
funds
their
the unequa I strengths of
to counteract
more
in
the
to
go-between.
requis ite
assume
the
No tes
[1]
23,
Letter to Sylvia
1983),
p. 3.
£2)
Groundrule #4
[3)
Groundrule #6
[4]
Groundrule
#7
[5]
Groundrule
#9
[6]
Groundrule #11
[7)
Groundrule
[8]
See
Agreement
L.
Watts
from Benson Cohn,
#12
Fisher and Ury,
Get ting
a Yes
Without Giving la,
pp. 118 - 122.
[9]
Armentrout
and Associates,
Connecticut
Negotiated
Investment
(February 1983), p. 53.
[10]
[11
23,
Final
(March
Agreement,
Negotiatina
"Evaluation
Strategy,"
of
the
DRAFT,
p. 8.
Letter to Sylvia L.
1983),
p. 2.
Watts
from Benson Cohn,
(March
I
125
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND CAVEATS:
APPLICATION OF A MEDIATED APPROACH
TO STATE-WIDE DECISION MAKING
Th e
Connecticut
NIS
me diation
can work
pr ocess
provided
addition,
in the managemen t of
in
Most
re form
long run.
Even
Committee
will
though
remain
the
substantial,
Several
to
ensures
in place
important
concerns
states
could
problems
using
surface
The
alternative
in
a
negotiation
if
come.
process are
been
better.
Connecticut
they are
analysis of
realized
solution should
to
have
to
planning
the
These
current
resolution.
concerns may allow other problems
implications
coordinated
from the
approach and potential
that were not
thesis.
time
to resources allocation.
should guide further
these
among
particular
emerge from the
concerns
this
this
for some
to consider
use an NIS approach
In addition,
funds.
the creation of a
that
benefits resulting
outcome
for
SSBG
ensure be tter coordination
importantly,
the
experience
that
process enhanced com munication
the
this will
Tr ipartite
The
in teraction
face-to-face
se rvice providers;
the
that
in state-wide decis ion making.
en couraged innovation
In
de monstrated
experiment
manner
in
of
the analysis of
various
problems
this
and
be understood and addressed
when
applying
resource allocation decisions
126
to
mediated
in
the
-
6W&AU-6hi6.4W"
11
-- -
jh
.1
-
-
future.
Government
The Role of
If
mediated
negotiation,
be
given
to
the
state's discretion
the
to
groups
not
does
process
of
deal
thought
abused.
needs
to
is
that
is room for
process without
The problem
interests.
power
in
insuring
There
the
initiate
role
it
that
with
may
the process even under the guise
to control
concern for
greater
to
discretionary
state's
exercised
is
play an active
the means for
is not
other
from various
to
a great
the scope and
the state
if
concern
input
is
state government
the
consensus.
appear as
legitimize
if
important
It
is
it
has coopted
that
be
of
the
interest
resources.
cutbacks in diminishing
Orientation and Training
It
is vital
regarding
and
form of
participants
past
that
learning,
develop
to
data prior
allocation of
they need
to
to
parties.
learn how
to
the
necessary
vital
would reflect
the
needs of
interpret
prepare
tools
to
for
example,
then find out
the
budgetary
conducted, proposals
the client
127
an
Parties should receive
training is
the
provided
Training,
can be used to
Parties may
resources.
be
the negotiating skills
the negotiation,
If
process.
the
an effective agreement.
necessary
training
improving
ability of
technical
produce
orientation and
process,
the
intensified
the
that
groups.
With less
the
training,
personal
is most
process
desires of
of Representation
included in the process
This
its
since
the
state is
responsibilities as
include
accustomed
insure
that
them.
fulfilling
There
a
the necessary representation
of
If not,
the
process may
a few hand-picked parties who attempt
settlement represents
the process
invariably
be
a consensus of all
by excluded
outcome would
and
informal
bargaining.
lose all
Accountability of
issues:
(1)
the
parties
the
maximized;
the
that
(3)
and
the
of
about
the
following
impacts of negotiated agreements
joint
net
gains
the consequences of
parties reached;
interests.
advantages
on underrepresented or unrepresentable groups;
possibility
claim
the Mediator
should be concerned
mediator
to
Agreements would
self-defeating.
attacked
process
four
to
the
to
should be
interests are present.
This makes
The
achieved.
enforcing established rules and
not negotiating
to
checklist
diverse
can be
concerns
however, provide a strong disincentive
can,
regulations,
the
their legitimate
and
be addressed before settlement
state,
the
reflect
parties with vitally opposed interests should
Contending
should
to
the negotiators.
Problems
be
likely
and (4)
128
the
have
(2)
not
the settlements
precedents
that
the
been
that
they
set
upon which agreements are based.
the
mediator
com mit ted
be
should
to
on
effectively
be
concerned
are
reached
technical
sophist ication
their
behalf.
The me diator
the
agreements
jus t
and
stable.
the
responsiblities,
of ten
and
--
part i es
the
these
fulfill
T0
In my opinion,
to
the
i ntervene
mediator
plays
role.
Problems of Linking
Informal Negotiation Process
to the Formal Statutory
Procedures for Budgeting
the
did not
this situation the parties
Since
in
legal
authority
to
implement
pose difficult
agreements may
challenged,
when
by
als o should
cannot ful fill his/her responsibilities if he/she
a pass ive
all
bargain
to
that
mediator will h ave
assertively.
capacity
represe nted
the
that
the
about
fairness
procedural
parties should h ave a n opportunity to be
individuals with
effective,
this
in
A mediator
d isput es.
of
substance
be
knowledgeable
be
to
n eeds
To
and
problems
of
disappointed
organizations
participating
agreement,
their
may
act
the
have
novel
interpretation
of
members
to
frustrate
implementation.
Legislative participation can ensure implementation.
can
add
serving
to
the
the bargaining process a
sense
"public" rather than a particular
129
of
It
truly
interest
group.
Legislators would not
rights
if
they agree
were unsuccessful,
being
held
being
blamed if
the
to
If
participate.
process
the
an unpopular
agreement
negotiations had broken down.
extended
adverse
conflict,
of
severe
emotional drain
On
or
the
participation could minimize the
legislative
risks
legal
legislators would run the risk of
responsible for
other hand,
give up statutory or
and
publicity,
on their resources.
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF
MEDIATED NEGOTIATION
Connecticut
The
benefit
The
cohesion.
are
feelings
the negotiated
is
parties
potential
the
to
is
approach
that
interest groups.
strengthening internal
while
-- hostility, animosity, and
In
fashion.
it
It
group
anti-
jealousy -short,
the
therapeutic.
The mediator can help the parties
Indeed,
those
negotiation.
must stay alert,
in a controlled
vented
process
of
group solidarity,
increases
for
attention
the communication between
enhances
social
commands
in institutionalizing mediated
interested
The
NIS
his
become more
or her participation is crucial.
of mediated negotiation will
possible solutions and
130
The
full
be reached if
The mediator ought
mediator plays a passive role.
suggest
not
cohesive.
try
to
persuade
the
"f .
.
.
joint gains could be
joint
that
the mediator
alternatives
and to help
to help
up
enough
them
devise
their
analyze
them
the
gains. "[1]
The goals
often
to
involving
the private
and private sectors are
Long-range
sector
private
involve the
and
perhaps
the Connecticut NIS
in
private sector which could
participants might have maximized
joint
which
by
options
and
resources
increased
for
expanded
an
include
improve business climate,
The participants
reductions.
process failed
the
process
the
in
consumer market,
allocating
incompatible.
not
to
accruing
participating
in
the public
of
but
dissimilar
benefits
have
creative
be
SSBG resources must
sector.
to
a mediated approach
considering
States
tax
Howard
if only
yield
to
allow
to
sovereignty
creative
realized
willing
were
parties
contending
pie."
"fixed
the
DL Negotiation writes
ALL Di Science
Iag
in
Raiffa
look beyond
parties
help
can
The mediator
directions.
in helpful
to move
bargainers
gains.
CONCLUSION
We
view
are
in a time
is
approaches
assumption,
that,
of resource
in
periods
scarcity.
of
cutbacks,
will
override
consensual
in
my view,
does not
131
The
prevailing
competitive
approaches.
take account
of
This
the
of
designed.
Mediated negotiation,
or
involve all
intereste
med iato
r
mus t
assume
(he
(5)
implemented;
be
pressed
be
or
approach
will
consensual
manipulate
permit
the
that
the agreement
issues
if
(6)
the
party
process.
an integrative
process
their
should
consensual
A
to
occur so
joint gains.
negotiation can be produced if
132
are
--
one
be
they
and
no
is
negotiations
the
for
only
incentives
sessions);
parti cipants can maxmize
more meaningful
the
(bargainers should not
important
long bargaining
must
dominate
that all
on
d ecide
exhausted from
process
timetable
and realistic
flexib le
to
the
in
not
also include
insure
the
interaction,
must
agreement
contain specif ic commitments but
penalitie s designed to
role
(3)
in developing a wise
parties
final
the
(4)
discussions
regulate
can
she
or
to
education
or
costly);
assertive
an
and assist
issues
agreement);
must
party
access
given
d
ma ke the process unduly
negotiations
and
d parties (any
c onsuming
time
to unorganized and
may
of
(1) the
teaches is:
t raining
information (inadequate
whi ch
sharpen
an
techniques
negotiating
lead
can create
(2) participants must be thoroughly trained
agreement);
can
lessons
implementation of the
the
parties excluded may stifle
technical
periment,
NIS
the Connecticut
What
must
about
appropriately
for maximizing joint gains in periods
opportunities
process
if
based on the
the Connecticut NIS ex
learned from
scarcity.
n,
mediated negotiatio
advantages
A
everyone
is
working
to
help everyone else
133
win.
NOTE
Negotiation,
The Art And Science ._I
Howard Raiffa,
[1]
Press,
University
Harvard
Massachusetts:
(Cambridge,
219.
1982), p.
134
APPENDICES
135
APPENDIX
1
Subtitle C-Block Grants for Social Services
SHORT TITLE
SEc. 2351. This subtitle may be cited as the "Social Services Block
Grant Act".
TITLE XX BLOCK GRANTS
SEC. 2352. (a)Title XX of the Social Security Act is amended to read
as follows:
"TITLE XX-BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL
SERVICES
"PURPOSES OF TITLE; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
"SEc. 2001. For the purposes of consolidating Federal assistance to
States for social services into a single grant, increasing State flexibility in using social service grants, and encouraging each State, as far
as practicable under the conditions in that State, to furnish services
directed at the goals of"(1) achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent,
reduce, or eliminate dependency;
"(2) achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency;
"(3) preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of
children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or
preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families;
"(4) preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by
rovi' g for community-based care, home-based care, or other
orms of less intensive care; and
"(5) securing referral or admission for institutional care when
other forms of care are not appropriate, or providing services to
individuals in institutions,
there are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.
"PAYMENTS TO STATES
"SEC. 2002. (a)1) Each State shall be entitled to pa ent under this
title for each fiscal year in an amount equal to its alotment for such
95 STAT. 867
136
P.L. 97-35
Sec. 2352
LAWS OF 97th CONG.-1st SESS.
Aug. 13
fiscal year, to be used by such State for services directed at the goals
set forth in section 2001, subject to the requirements of this title.
.
"(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)"(A) services which are directed at the goals set forth in section
2001 include, but are not limited to, child care services, protective
services for children and adults, services for children and adults
in foster care, services related to the management and maintenance of the home, day care services for adults, transportation
services, family planning services, training and related services,
employment services, information, referral, and counseling services, the preparation and delivery of meals, health support
services and appropriate combinations of services designed to
meet the special needs of children, the aged, the mentally
retarded, the blind, the emdtionally disturbed, the physically
handicapped, and alcoholics and drug addicts; and
"(B) expenditures for such services may include expenditures
for"(i) administration (including planning and evaluation);
"(ii) personnel training and retraining directly related to
the provision of those services (including both short- and
long-term training at educational institutions through
grants to such institutions or by direct financial assistance to
students enrolled in such institutions); and
"(iii) conferences or workshops, and training or retraining
through grants to nonprofit organizations within the meaning of section 501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
or to individuals with social services expertise, or through
financial assistance to individuals participating in such
conferences, workshops, and training or retraining (and this
clause shall apply with respect to all persons involved in the
delivery of such services).
"(b) The Secretary shall make payments in accordance with section
203 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4213)
to each State from its allotment for use under this title.
"(c) Payments to a State from its allotment for any fiscal year must
be expended by the State in such fiscal year or in the succeeding fiscal
year.
"(d) A State may transfer up to 10 percent of its allotment under
section 2003 for any fiscal year for its use for that year under other
provisions of Federal law providing block grants for support of health
services, health promotion and disease prevention activities, or lowincome home energy assistance (or any combination of those activities). Amounts allotted to a State under any provisions of Federal law
referred to in the preceding sentence and transferred by a State for
use in carrying out the purposes of this title shall be treated as if they
were paid to the State under this title but shall not affect the
computation of the State's allotment under this title. The State shall
inform the Secretary of any such transfer of funds.
"(e) A State may use a portion of the amounts described in
subsection (a) for the purpose of purchasing technical assistance from
public or private entities if the State determines that such assistance
is required in developing, implementing, or administering programs
funded under this title.
"ALLoTMWrs
"Sc. 2003. (a) The allotment for any fiscal year to each of the
jurisdictions of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the
Northern Mariana Islands shall be an amount which bears the same
95 STAT. 868
137
Aug. 13
OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT
ratio to the amount specified in subsection (c) as the amount which
was specified for allocation to the particular jurisdiction involved for
the fiscal year 1981 under section 2002(aX2XC) of this Act (as in effect
prior to the enactment of this section) bore to $2,900,000,000.
"(b) The allotment for any fiscal year for each State other than the
jurisdictions of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the
Northern Mariana Islands shall be an amount which bears the same
ratio to"(1) the amount specified in subsection (c), reduced by
"(2) the total amount allotted to those jurisdictions for that
fiscal year under subsection (a),
as the population of that State bears to the population of all the
States as determined by the Secretary (on the basis of the most recent
data available from the Department of Commerce) and promulgated
(subject to subsection (d)) prior to the first day of the third month of
the preceding fiscal year.
"(c) The amount specified for purposes of subsections (a) and (b)
shall be"(1) $2,400,000,000 for the fiscal year 1982;
"(2) $2,450,000,000 for the fiscal year 1983;
"(3) $2,500,000,000 for the fiscal year 1984;
"(4) $2,600,000,000 for the fiscal year 1985; and
"(5) $2,700,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986 or any succeeding
fiscal year.
"(d) The determination and promulgation required by subsection
(b) with respect to the fiscal year 1982 shall be made as soon as
possible after the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1981.
"STATE ADMINISTRATION
"SEc. 2004. Prior to expenditure by a State of payments made to it
under section 2002 for any fiscal year, the State shall report on the
intended use of the payments the State is to receive under this title,
including information on the types of activities to be supported and
the categories or characteristics of individuals to be served. The
report shall be transmitted to the Secretary and made public within
the State in such manner as to facilitate comment by any person
(including any Federal or other public agency) during development of
the report and after its completion. The report shall be revised
throughout the year as may be necessary to reflect substantial
changes in the activities assisted under this title, and any revision
shall be subject to the requirements of the previous sentence.
"LIMITATIONS ON USE OF GRANTS
"SEc. 2005. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), grants made
under this title may not be used by the State, or by any other person
with which the State makes arrangements to carry out the purposes
of this title"(1) for the purchase or improvement of land, or the purchase,
construction, or permanent improvement (other than minor
remodeling) of any building or other facility;
"(2) for the provision of cash payments for costs of subsistence
or for the provision of room and board (other than costs of
subsistence during rehabilitation, room and board provided for a
short term as an integral but subordinate part of a social service,
or temporary emergency shelter provided as a protective service);
95 STAT. 869
138
P.L. 97-35
Sec. 2352
P.L. 97-35
Sec. 2352
LAWS OF 97th CONG.-1st SESS.
Aug. 13
"(3) for payment of the wages of any individual as a social
service (other than payment of the wages of welfare recipients
employed in the provision of child day care services);
"(4) for the provision of medical care (other than family
planning services, rehabilitation services, or initial detoxification of an alcoholic or drug dependent individual) unless it is an
integral but subordinate part of a social service for which grants
may be used under this title;
"(5) for social services (except services to an alcoholic or drug
dependent individual or rehabilitation services) provided in and
by employees of any hospital, skilled nursing facility, intermediate care facility, or prison, to any individual living in such
institution;
"(6) for the provision of any educational service which the
State makes generally available to its residents without cost and
without regard to their income;
"(7) for any child day care services unless such services meet
applicable standards of State and local law; or
"(8) for the provision of cash payments as a service (except as
otherwise provided in this section).
"(b) The Secretary may waive the limitation contained in subsectioni (a) (1)and (4)upon the State's request for such a waiver if he finds
that the request describes extraordinary circumstances to justify the
waiver and that permitting the waiver will contribute to the State's
ability to'carry out the purposes of this title.
"REPORTS AND AUDITS
"SEc. 2006. (a) Each State shall prepare reports on its activities
carried out with funds made available (or transferred for use) under
this title. Reports shall be in such form, contain such information,
and be of such frequency (but not less often than every two years) as
the State finds necessary to provide an accurate description of such
activities, to secure a complete record of the purposes for which funds
were spent, and to determine the extent to which funds were spent in
a manner consistent with the reports required by section 2004. The
State shall make copies of the reports required by this section
available for public inspection within the State and shall transmit a
copy to the Secretary. Copies shall also be provided, upon request, to
any interested public agency, and each such agency may provide its
views on these reports to the Congress.
"(b) Each State shall, not less often than every two years, audit its
expenditures from amounts received (or transferred for use) under
this title. Such State audits shall be conducted by an entity independent of any agency administering activities funded under this title, in
accordance with generally accepted auditing principles. Within 30
days following the completion of each audit, the State shall submit a
copy of that audit to the legislature of the State and to the Secretary.
Each State shall repay to the United States amounts ultimately
found not to have been expended in accordance with this title, or the
Secretary may offset such amounts against any other amount to
which the State is or may become entitled under this title.
"(c) For other provisions requiring States to account for Federal
grants, see section 202 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4212).
95 STAT. 870
139
Aug. 13
OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT
"M n DAY CARE SERVICES
"SEc. 2007. (a) Subject to subsection (b), sums granted by a State to
a qualified provider of child day care services (as defined in subsection (c)) to assist such provider in meeting its work incentive program
expenses (as defined in subsection (c)) with respect to individuals
employed in jobs related to the provision of child day care services in
one or more child day care facilities of such provider, shall be deemed
for purposes of section 2002 to constitute expenditures made by the
State in accordance with the provisions of this title for the provision
of child day care services.
"(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not be applicable with
respect to any grant made to a particular qualified provider of child
day care services to the extent that (as determined by the Secretary)
such grant is or will be used to pay wages to any employee at an
annual rate in excess of $6,000, in the case of a public or nonprofit
private provider, or at an annual rate in excess of $5,000, or to pay
more than 80 percent of the wages of any employee, in the case of any
other provider.
"(c)Forpurposes of this subsection"(1) the term 'qualified provider of child day care services',
when used in reference to a recipient of a grant by a State,
includes a provider of such services only if, of the total number of
children receiving such services from such provider in the
facility with respect to which the grant is made, at least 20
percent thereof have some or all of the costs for the child day care
services so furnished to them by such provider paid for under a
program conducted pursuant to this title; and
(2) the term 'work incentive program expenses' means expenses of a qualified provider of child day care services which
constitute work incentive program expenses as defined in section
50B(aXl) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or which would
constitute work incentive program expenses as so defined if the
provider were a taxpayer entitled to a credit (with respect to the
wages involved) under section 40 of such Code.".
(b) Section 1101(aXl) of such Act is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sentence: "Such term when used in title XX
also includes the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.".
CONORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURrrY ACr
Sic. 2353. (aX1) Section 3(a) of the Social Security Act is amended(A) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
"(4) in the case of any State, an amount equal to the sum of the
following proportions of the total amounts expended during such
quarter as found necessary by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services for the proper and efficient administration of
the State plan"(A) 75 per centum of so much of such expenditures as are
for the training (including both short- and long-term training at educational institutions through grants to such institutions or by direct financial assistance to students enrolled
4 in such institutions) of personnel employed or preparing for
employment by the State agency or by the local agency
administering the plan in the political subdivision; plus
"(B) one-half of the remainder of such expenditures."; and
(B) by striking out paragraph (5).
7 U.S.Cong.News'1-
12
95 STAT. 871
140
P.L. 97-35
Sec. 2=s
P.L. 97-35
Sec. 2353
LAWS OF 97th CONG.-lst SESS.
Aug. 13
(2) Section 3(c) of such Act is repealed.
(b) Sections 402(aX5), 402(aX13), 402(aX14), 402(aX15) 403(aX3),
403(e), and 406(d) of such Act as in effect with respect to Puerto Rico,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands are repealed.
(2) Sections 402(aX5), 402(aX15), and 403(aX3) of such Act as they
apply to the fifty States and the District of Columbia shall be
applicable to Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Section 248(b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 (Public
Law 90-248) is repealed.
(c) Section 402(aX15) of such Act is amended(1) by striking out "as part of the program of the State for the
provision of services under title XX"; and
(2) by striking out "or clause (14)".
(d) Section 403(aX3) of such Act is amended by striking out "service
described in section 2002(aXl)" and inserting in lieu thereof "service
described in section 2002(a)".
(eX1) Section 1003(a) of such Act is amended(A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
"( in the case of any State, an amount equal to the sum of the
following proportions of the total amounts expended during such
quarter as found necessary by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services for the proper and efficient administration of
the State plan"(A) 75 per centum of so much of such expenditures as are
for the training (including both short- and long-term training at educational institutions through grants to such institutions or by direct financial assistance to students enrolled
in such institutions) of personnel employed or preparing for
employment by the State agency or by the local agency
administering the plan in the political subdivision; plus
"(B) one-half of the remainder of such expenditures."; and
(B) by striking out paragraph (4).
(2) Section 1003(c) of such Act is repealed.
(f) Section 1108(a) of such Act is amended in the matter preceding
paragraph (1)to read as follows:
"(a) The total amount certified by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under titles I, X, XIV, and XVI, and under parts A
and E of title IV (exclusive of any amounts on account of services and
items to which subsection (b) applies)-".
(g) Section 1115(a) of such Act is amended(1)in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking out "XIX,
or XX" and inserting in lieu thereof "or XIX";
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking out "1902, 2002, 2003, or 2004"
and inserting in lieu thereof "or 1902"; and
(3)in paragraph (2)(A) by striking out "1903, or 2002" and inserting in lieu
thereof "or 1903' , and
(B) by striking out "or expenditures with respect to which
payment shall be made under section 2002,".
(h) Section 1116 of such Act is amended(1) in subsections (aX1) and (b), by striking out "XIX, or XX"
and inserting in lieu thereof "or XIX";
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking out "1904, or 2003" and
inserting in lieu thereof "or 1904"; and
(3)in subsection (d), by striking out "XIX, XX" and inserting in
lieu thereof "or XIX".
(i) Section 1124(a) of such Act is amended95 STAT. 872
141
Aug. 13
OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out "XIX and XX" each place it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof "and XIX"; and
(2) in aragraph (2)(A) by inserting "or" after the semicolon at the end of
sub faragraph (B);
Sby striking out "; or" at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting in lieu thereof a period; and
(C) by striking out subparagraph (D).
*)Section 1126(a) of such Act is amended by striking out "XIX, and.
and inserting in lieu thereof "and XIX".
(k) Section 1128(a) of such Act is amended(1) in paragraph (2XA), by striking out "or title XX,"; and
(2) in paragraph (2XB), by striking out "or title XX".
(X1) Section 1403(a) of such Act is amended(A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
"( in the case of any State, an amount equal to the sum of the
following proportions of the total amounts expended during such
quarter as found necessary by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services for the proper and official administration of the
State plan"(A) 75 per centum of so much of such expenditures as are
for the training (including both short- and long-term training at educational institutions through grants to such institutions or by direct financial assistance to students enrolled
in such institutions) of personnel employed or preparing for
employment by the State agency or by the local agency
administering the plan in the political subdivisionj plus
"(B) one-half of the remainder of such expenditures. ; and
(B) by striking out paragraph (4).
(2) Section 1403(c) of such Act is repealed.
(mX1) Section 1601 of such Act is amended(A) by inserting "and" before "(b)" the first time it appears;
and
(B) by striking out "and (c)" and all that follows thro'ugh "selfcare,.
(2) Section 1603(a) of such Act is amended(A) by inserting "and" after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (2XB);
(B) by amending paragraph (4)to read as follows:
"(4) in the case of any State, an amount equal to the sum of the
following proportions of the total amounts expended during such
quarter as found necessary by the Secretary of Health and
. uman Services for the proper and efficient administration of
the State plan"(A) 75 per centum of so much of such expenditures as are
for the training (including both short- and long-term training at educational institutions through grants to such institutions or by direct financial assistance to students enrolled
in such institutions) of personnel employed or preparing for
employment by the State agency or by the local agency
administering the plan in the political subdivision, plus
"(B) one-half of the remainder of such expenditures. '; and
(C) by striking out paragraph (5).
(3) Section 1603(c) of such Act is repealed.
(n) Section 1616(eX2) of such Act is amended by striking out ", as a
part of the services program planning procedures established pursuant to section 2004 of this Act,'.
(o) Section 1619 of such Act is amended95 STAT. 873
142
P.L. 97-35
Sec. 2353
P.L. 97-35
Sec. 2353
LAWS OF 97th CONG.-lst SESS.
Aug. 13
(1) by striking out "titles XIX and XX" each place it appears
and inserting in lieu thereof "title XIX", and
(2) by strikin out "title XIX or XX" and inserting in lieu
thereof "title
".
(p) Section 1620(c) of such Act is amended by striking out the
matter following the end of paragraph (7).
(q) Section 407(dXl) of such Act is amended by striking out "a
community work and training program under section 409 or any
other work and training program subject to the limitations in section
409, or" and inserting in lieu thereof "a community work experience
program under section 409, or".
(r) Section 471(aX10) of such Act is amended by striking out
"standards referred to in section 2003(dX1XF)" and inserting in lieu
thereof "standards in effect in the State with respect to child day care
services under title XX".
(s) Section 3(f) of the Social Security Amendments of 1974 (Public
Law 93-647) is repealed.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEc. 2354. Except as otherwise explicitly provided, the provisions of
this subtitle, and the repeals and amendments made by this subtitle,
shall become effective on October 1, 1981.
STUDY OF STATE SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS
SEc. 2355. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
conduct a study to identify criteria and mechanisms which may be
useful for the States in assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of
the State social service programs carried out with funds made
available under title XX of the Social Security Act. The study shall
include consideration of Federal incentive payments as an option in
rewarding States having high performance social service programs.
The Secretary shall report the results of such study to the Congress
within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Source:
U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative
News, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
19881 (Approved August 13, 1981).
143
APPENDIX 2
State Legislation Regarding General Assembly
Review of Block Grant Allocation Plans
(Excerpt From P. A.
81-449)
Sec.
provisions
9.
(NEW)
Notwithstand ing
any
of
the general
statutes:
(I)
If,
during the perio d from July 1,
1981, to J une 30,
1982,
inclusive
any federal categorical grant,
or other grant,
anticipated to fund or re imburse
activity, project or program
any state functi on,
is reduced or el iminated,
"no state funds
shall
expended to replace the federal grant wi thout
be
action of the ge neral assembly, except th at
the
with
the
approval
of
governor,
the
finance
advisory commi t t ee, may authorize the expe ndi ture
of
such
funds for a period not to exceed
sixty
date such grant
from
the
days
is
reduced
or
eliminated;
(2)
if
the state
receives
federal
block
grant funds in lieu of
categorica I
grant
funds
for
the
f iscal
year
ending
J une
30,
1982,
the
gov ernor
shall
submi t
his
recommendations
fo r the allocation of su ch funds
to
the joint stand ing commi t tee of
the
general
assembly
having co gniznce o f the subject
matter
relating
to such r ecommenda t ions
as determined
by
the speaker of the house
of representatives
and
the
president
pro tem pore of
the
senate.
Within
thirty days of recei pt of the
governor's
concurrence
with
the commi t tee
of
cognizance,
shall
advise the g overnor o f the ir
approval
or
modifications,
if
any,
of his recommendations,
provided
if
the
comit tees do not
act
within
thirty days,
the r ecommenda t ions shall be deemed
approved.
Disburse ment of such funds shall be in
accordance with the governor's recommendations as
approved or modifie d by the committees;
(3) if
federal
funding
f or programs financed by
state
appropriations with federal
reimbursements
is
reduced below
the amounts estimated under
the
provisions
of
section
2-35
of
the
general
statutes
for
the fiscal year
ending
June
30,
1982,
the
governor
shall
submit
his
recommendations
to the joint standing
committee
on
appropriations and
to
the
committee
of
cognizance,
for legislation necessary to modify
funding
for such programs consistent with such
reductions in federal funding.
144
APPENDIX 3
GROUNDRULES
1.
Each negotiating team shall consist of
five
permanent
representatives who shall be identifed
prior to the first joint session.
In the
event
of
illness or some similiar and serious cause,
a
team may replace a permanent representative after
notifying
other
teams and
the
mediator.
The
teams,
aware
of the importance of continuity in
the
negotiating process,
pledge
themselves
to
regular
attendance
and
participation
in
all
separate and joint meetings.
Any member of
the
negotiating
team who
speaks during
the
joint
session
shall
be understood to be
speaking
on
behalf
of
the entire
team.
Each
negotiating
team shall designate representatives
to
execute
the
team's
procedural
and
ceremonial
responsibilities during the joint sessions.
2.
At joint negotiating session s, each team may
have
up to a total of five
addi tional
resource
people,
advisers, or altern at es who may speak or
presentations during a sess ion only through
make
These additional
permanent team representativ es.
personnel
on each team may vary from session
to
session, although each team shall , when possible,
provide
the mediator in adv ance with a
list
of
individuals included in the team' s delegation for
a specific joint meeting.
sessions shall be c ons idered open
All j oint
publ ic meetings
and
shall
be
held
in
faci lit ies
that permit observation by members of
the genera I public.
3.
or
4.
The
mediator
may
designate
"official
shall
be
for
joint
sessions,
who
observers"
shall
not
seated
at
a
separate table but who
except
in
deliberations
otherwise
participate
that
they may communicate through the
mediator.
from
organizations
Observers
may
be appointed
for
the
negotiating
that
have
provided funds
and
public
as
well
as other private
process,
bodies
involved
directly or indirectly
in
the
funding
or
promotion
of
human
services
in
145
Connecticut.
Selected legislators and the Connecticut U.S.
5.
of
notified
shall be
delegation
congressional
They shall
joint sessions and invited to attend.
the
in
participate
to
permitted
be
not
address
to
or
teams
the
of
deliberations
meetings.
be
shall
that the public
agree
The teams
6.
process.
negotiating
about the
informed
fully
representatives of the media shall be
Therefore,
be
attend all joint sessions and shall
to
free
public.
general
the
of
as members
treated
Following joint sessions and at other appropriate
the
mediator,
the
the discretion of
at
times
each
fro
representatives
and selected
mediator
shall make themselves jointly available for
team
Team members
interviews or conferences.
media
make
team,
their
of
permission
the
with
may,
media.
the
to
comments
or
statements
individual
7.
During
joint
sessions,
the mediator or any
Each
time.
team may call for a caucus at any
fifteen
of
a
maximum
to
limited
be
shall
caucus
minutes, although the parties may extend a caucus
the
period with the permission of
that
beyond
considered
be
not
shall
Caucuses
mediator.
public meetings.
for
requests
that
all
pledge
The teams
8.
ly
rapid
as
and
fully
honored
be
1
shal
information
o
ne
identify
shall
team
Each
possible.
as
f or
requests
all
whom
through
representative
possibl
e,
Whenever
routed.
be
I
information shal
to
writing
in
proposals
submit
I
shal
each
team
nt
joi
to
prior
mediator
the
an d
teams
other
positi on
Writ ten draft proposals and
sessions.
nt
pursua
confidential
considered
shall be
papers
(1).
(b)
1-19
Statutes
eneral
to Connecticut G
all
of
shall prepare minutes
The mediator
9.
these
of
copies
distribute
and
sessions
joint
minutes within te n working days of the respective
joint
i f another
(or earlier,
sessions
joint
time
the
before
to
occur
scheduled
is
session
the
review
shall
teams
The
elapses).
period
any
of
mediator
the
inf
orm
and
promptly
minutes
keep
shall
team
Each
omissions.
or
errors
of separate team meetings and records of
minutes
of
activities
inter- and in tra-team
other
any
team
Each
process.
ting
negotia
the
to
importance
an
have a "documentor " who shall maintain
shall
146
individual team journal
prepared, presented and
well
as
records
of
communications.
containing all
mater ials
as
received b y the teams
mee t ings
and
pertinent
10.
All
team
members,
as
well
as
the
"documentor",
commit
themselves
to
full,
reasonable
cooperation
with
the
officially
designated program evaluators.
Any team member
shall
apprise
and
obtain the
consent
of
all
to
initiating,
team members
prior
permanent
responding to,
or agreeing to any formal request
Strategy
Investment
the
Negotiated
regarding
if such a request will require the full,
project
reasonable participation of all negotiating
team
members.
11.
The teams are encouraged to communicate with
sessions.
each
other between formal negotiating
Teams
shall provide the mediator with copies
of
all
inter- and intra-team written communications
that occur between joint sessions.
times
The mediator shall coordi nate meeting
12.
control the flow of
and
places, develop agenda,
sessions and assist the teams in writing a formal
proposal.
(Dated:
October 12,
1982)
147
APPENDIX 4
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
A NEGOTIATED INVESTMENT STRATEGY
A Joint Agreement on Principles
Priorities, Allocations, and Plans for the
Social Services Block Grant
October 1, 1983 to September 30, 1984
Prepared by Teams Representing the Executive Branch
of the State of Connecticut, Connecticut Muncipal Governments
and Connecticut Non-Profit Social Service Providers
148
PREAMBLE
The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), which amends Title XX of the Social Security
Act, is an important source of money for the provision of human services for
Connecticut's citizens. For federal fiscal year 1984 (beginning October 1, 1983), it is
likely that Connecticut will receive approximately 33 million dollars. This amount
represents a significant decrease from the 47 million dollars received in federal fiscal year
1981.
Connecticut, through the Negotiated Investment Strategy (NIS) process, has accepted the
challenge and opportunity to re-examine its past and current policies and programs
supported by Title XX and to design a rational course for the future.
Historically, state policies and procedures have evolved through a wide array of
mechanisms and influences, including multi-level planning efforts, guidance from
legislative intent, tradition, needs assessments, federal requirements and fiscal
constraints. The flexibility of the SSBG and of the NIS process has offered a unique and
valuable opportunity to review, revise and improve upon past practices.
The NIS process has allowed the three sectors which provide direct services - the state,
municipalities and non-profit organizations - to take part in an open and participatory
dialogue regarding service priorities, the allocation of block grant monies, reduction of
service duplication and increases in inter- and intra-sector communication. The process
has also facilitated the integration of state and federal funding and improvements in
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
The healthy balance among state, municipal and non-profit service providers which the NIS
has provided will help ensure that we do not return to a narrow categorical perspective
when allocating funds for social service programs and when actually providing services.
This cooperative interaction should be the norm in the- future for the Social Services Block
Grant.
The agreement which follows represents the joint conclusions of the State, Connecticut's
municipalities and the non-profit sector regarding which services should be funded by the
SSBG, how those services should be defined, what criteria should be used in setting
priorities among services, how much funding should be allocated to each and what
procedures and criteria should be used in judging applications from individual service
providers. It also reflects the conclusion and determination of the three sectors that the
type of cooperation established in the NIS process should be maintained through the period
of the agreement's implementation and beyond. The establishment of the Tripartite Social
Services Block Grant Committee will assist the implementation of this agreement and will
help assure that flexibility can be maintained so that effective responses to decreasing
fiscal resources and increased human services needs can occur.
149
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Each section of this document represents a major element of the negotiations. The
guiding principles which appear at the beginning of each section were agreed to by the
parties and served as the framework within which the substantive proposals were
negotiated.
Page
PREAMBLE
1.
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS
A.
B.
C.
D.
11.
6
6
7
7
Statement of Guiding Principles
Resolution 111-1
Resolution 111-2
Resolution 111-3
Resolution 111-4
1. Explanation of Allocation Schedule
a.
Description of Columns on the
Allocation Schedule
b.
Description of Set Asides
c.
State Agency Responsibilities
9
9
9
9
9
13
15
16
SECTION IV: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION AND
SELECTION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS
A.
B.
C.
D.
V.
Statement of Guiding Principles
Resolution Il-1
Resolution 11-2
Resolution 11-3
SECTION III: ALLOCATION MECHANISMS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
IV.
1
4
4
SECTION II: SERVICE PRIORITIES FOR SSBG FUNDS
A.
B.
C.
D.
III.
Statement of Guiding Principles
Resolution 1-1
Resolution 1-2
Resolution 1-3
18
18
19
19
Statement of Guiding Principles
Resolution IV-1
Resolution IV-2
Resolution IV-3
SECTION V: MULTI-YEAR PLANS AND PROCESSES
A.
B.
22
22
Statement of Guiding Principles
Resolution V-1
(continued)
150
Page
VI.
SECTION VI: CONTRACTS OR LETTERS OF AGREEMENT
A.
B.
C.
D.
Statement
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
of Guiding Principles
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
24
24
24
24
25
SIGNATORY PAGE-
APPENDIX
I:
NIS PARTICIPATING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS
AND PERSONNEL
APPENDIX II: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
26
36
This volume contains the terms of agreement as negotiated by the signatories on behalf of
their respective sectors. A copy of the technical assistance manual, which contains copies
of all documents exchanged among the participants during the course of the negotiations,
is on file with the respective secretariat from each sector.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The negotiating teams appreciatively acknowledge financial support for this project from:
Aetna Life and Casualty Company
The Bridgeport Area Foundation, Inc.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
The Hartford Foundation of Public Giving
The George A. Long and Grace L. Long Foundation
The New Haven Foundation
The Norwalk Foundation
The Stamford Foundation
fI~
Special acknowledgement is accorded to the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, whose
encouragement and assistance helped make this project possible.
151
Section
1
DEFINITIONS
STATEMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Conditions of vulnerability, uniform service definitions and budget categories shall
apply to all activities funded by SSBG dollars.
RESOLUTION
1-1
The following definitions for services and pertinent budget categories shall govern all
activities supported in whole or in part by SSBG allocations:
A.
Services
1.
1
Adoption Services: To enable chiloren and youth with special needs (e.g.,
physically, developmentally, neurologically or mentally disabled, minority,
and abused/neglected) who cannot remain with their families to be
adopted by individuals or families through a formal legal process.
2.
Child Day Care Services: To protect and meet the developmental needs of
infants, children, and youth, or to assist families by providing direct care
to children in licensed family or group day care programs.
3.
Client-Oriented Coordination of Services: Assessment of an individual's
needs, development of a plan to ensure that the needs are met, connection
of the individual to the providers that can meet the identified needs,
support of the client in his or her receipt of services, follow up to ensure
the service plan is fulfilled, and avoidance of duplication in the provision
of services.
4.
Community-Based Non-Residential
residential services consist of:
(a)
Services:
Community-based
non-
Adult Day Care Services: Provides for direct care and protection of
adults during a portion of a 24-hour day inside or outside the
individual's own home. The direct care and protection activities are
designed to meet the physical, social, emotional and intellectual
needs of the individual, including physically, developmentally,
neurologically or mentally disabled individuals. Services are geared
to provide caring for an individual's needs for food, activity, rest and
other necessities of physical care, including minor medical care, for
a portion of the 24-hour day in a setting approved by the
administering agency; and
"Youth" is defined throughout as those persons under 18 years of age.
152
(b)
Community Care for the Elderly and Disabled: Includes services
that provide elderly and/or disabled persons in danger of
system to
inappropriate institutionalization with a service
strengthen their ability for independent living, enable them to live
safely in their own homes or to return to their homes or communities
after deinstitutionaliza- tion. Services may be provided to the aged
and/or disabled person, relatives or other interested community
members in order to avoid inappropriate institutionalization of the
service client.
5.
Community-Based Resiaential Services: To avoid, forestall or shorten the
length of institutionalization for individuals who are unable to function
fully in the community without some level of intermediate care or
alternative living arrangements (e.g., halfway houses, group houses, etc.).
This service focuses on treatment, habilitative or rehabilitative care
through the provision of supportive living experiences to enable individuals
to return home, if possible, as soon as personal, social adjustment and
development permit.
6.
Counseling Services: To assess, modify, or resolve problems (e.g.,
psychological, emotional, or behavioral) through individual, group or
family counseling or guidance. (Although most human services include
some type of counseling activities, counseling as here defined is limited to
those situations in which counseling is the major service provided.)
7.
Day Treatment Services: To habilitate or rehabilitate seriously impaired
individuals in order that they can remain in their families and
communities. Day treatment services are available in a planned program
with individuals returning home in the evening.
8.
Emergency Shelter Services: To arrange or provide the minimum
necessities of life on a limited and short-term basis for individuals or
families during periods of dislocation, crisis or emergency, pending
formulation of longer-term plans.
9.
To develop
Employability Services:
opportunities for vulnerable populations.
10.
Family Planning Services: Social, educational and medical services to
enable individuals of child-bearing age (including minors) to limit their
family size, space their children, or resolve fertility problems.
11.
Foster Family Care Services: To protect or support abused and/or
physically, developmentally, neurologically or mentally disabled children,
youth and adults and meet their developmental needs in a licensed foster
family home when the individual's own family cannot provide necessary
care.
12.
Home Management-Maintenance Services: To enable individuals and
families to function adequately in their own homes by providing, when
youth
of
children,
behalf
for
and
on
services
necessary,
153
employability
and
training
and adults by professionals and para-professionals, aimed at supplementing
the clients' efforts to maintain an independent living arrangement when
unable to perform such tasks themselves, or to prevent family disruption
through helping to naintain or improve family functioning.
B.
13.
Information and Referral Services: A broad range of services to impart
information to clients and potential clients regarding the availability and
relevance of social serviCe resources in the State and referral and
follow-up when appropriate.
14.
Legal Services: The provision of legal services to individuals and families
in civil and administrative proceedings.
15.
Recreation, Social Development, and Enrichment Services: To provide
access to recreational and cultural opportunities and encourage the
acquisition of recreation and leisure-time skills to prevent or minimize
psychological, social or economic isolation.
16.
Residential Treatment Services: Provide 24-hour supervised care and
treatment in an appropriate residential setting under the direction of
professional staff to impact significant levels of dysfunction. Placement
for these services may be up to 24 months.
17.
Safeguarding or Protective Services: To protect individuals from physical
or sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment or harm. Safeguarding services
consist of assessment, counseling, referral for treatment, placement (when
necessary) and reunification.
18.
Transportation Services: Assisting individuals and families in obtaining
adequate means of transportation to access needed community services
and activities and, when required by a case plan, to actually provide
transportation and escort.
Pertinent Definitions Related to Delivery of Services
1.
Administrative Costs: Those costs associated with managing a direct
service program such as supervisory personnel costs and the indirect costs
of organizational operations such as supplies, rent, utilities, maintenance,
2
insurance, telephone, and travel.
2.
Direct Services: Those services rendered to individuals eligible under the
vulnerable population categories as established by SSBG eligibility criteria.
3.
Service Provider: Service Provider shall include State of Connecticut,
Municipal and Non-Profit service providers.
4.
Training: Educational programs, conferences, workshops and training
materials to enhance the competence and assure an appropriate supply of
service staff to deliver direct, humane and effective services.
2 These costs do not include those expenditures for direct program staff, contractual
services, or capital outlay.
154
RESOLUTION 1-2
The Social Services Block Grant will be used to provide needed social services to
vulnerable persons or families in Connecticut, with special emphasis on those groups
which are less able than others to care for themselves (e.g., special needs children,
youth and elderly). Vulnerable persons or families are those which exhibit one or
more of the following conditions (not presented in any ranked order):
-
Economically disadvantaged (unemployed, under-employed, or low income).
-
Physically, mentally, neurologically, or developmentally disabled.
-
In need of language and
immigration assistance.
-
Abused/neglected (e.g., sexual assault victims, abused and/or exploited children
and elderly).
-
In need of drug or alcohol services.
-
In need of family planning services.
-
In need of mental health support services (e.g., distressed families or persons
who may be at risk of institutionalization).
-
In need of supportive services in order to remain in the community.
-
In need of shelter assistance.
cultural
awareness
assistance
and/or technical
RESOLUTION 1-3
In addition to the criteria of conditions of vulnerability, the provision of social
services from the resources of the Social Services Block Grant will be subject to the
following eligibility criteria:
-
Recipients of services shall have incomes no higher than 150 percent of federal
poverty income guidelines, except that certain services (safeguarding, family
planning, information and referral and emergency shelter) will be provided
without regard to income.
-
Criminal offenders or ex-offenders may be eligible for SSBG services, but SSBG
funds cannot be used to support services provided directly by staff of a
correctional facility (per federal law and regulations).
-
The Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-210(b) requires the State to
provide day care centers for children disadvantaged by economic, social or
environmental conditions. Potential recipients of service from State child day
care centers shall have incomes no higher than 80 percent of State median
income.
-
Recipients of purchased child day care services (e.g., employed AFDC and low
income) shall have incomes no higher than 45 percent of State median income.
155
-
Recipients of legal services shall have incomes no higher than 125 percent of
the federal poverty income guidelines.
-
Recipients of home management-maintenance services and the DHR Essential
Services Program shall have incomes no higher than 45 percent of State median
income.
-
Fee schedules are being, or will be, used for day care centers, purchased day
care, family planning, and home management-maintenance services, which will
be based on family size and income 3 .
' Currently, a fee schedule is used for day care centers and has begun to be used for
purchased day care services. This fee schedule is based on the concept of free service for
low income people up to a certain level, roughly equivalent to the maximum welfare flat
grant. Beyond that point, service recipients pay fees on a sliding scale, which gradually
increases to the point of the full cost of providing the service. The same principles will be
followed in the implementation of a fee schedule for home management- maintenance
services and may be followed for other services as determined by the Tripartite Social
Services Block Grant Committee (see Section V). Projected fees, based on fee schedules,
are budgeted as income to the programs financed by the SSBG, thus reducing the net State
cost, or can be applied to an expansion of the service if need has been substantiated.
Determinations of fees and the accounting of fee revenues shall be part of the contractual
relationship between the State and appropriate service providers. Finally, the Planned
Parenthood League of Connecticut applies a fee schedule to recipients of family planning
services, which is based on income and family size, the proceeds of which are used to
defray the cost of providing the service.
156
Section 11
SERVICE PRIORITIES FOR SSBG FUNDS
STATEMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.
Service priorities shall be based on social service needs.
2.
Criteria utilized for identifying and ranking social service needs shall be explicit.
3.
Adverse impacts on service recipients should be minimized.
RESOLUTION II-1
In order to establish the
criteria are adopted as
questions accompanying
each criterion is used to
priorities among the SSBG-supported services, the following
indicators of service importance. The specific question or
the statement of each criterion identifies the way in which
measure or evaluate service importance. The criteria are:
Abuse curtailment
Does the service provide intervention and/or shelter from physical or
sexual abuse?
Emergency intervention
Does the service provide intervention in acute, emergency and potentially
life-threatening situations requiring immediate action?
Avoids/prevents greater expenditures for service
Does the provision of this service prevent or delay the provision of more
expensive services? If this service were not available, would the needs of
the recipient require State expenditures for higher, (i.e., more expensive)
levels of service, such as hospitalization, nursing home care and/or other
types of institutionalization?
Human Services Annual Agenda
Does the service address one or more of the categories delineated in the
1983-84 Human Services Annual Agenda (Connecticut General Statutes
Sections 4-85b and 4-85c)?
Prevent inappropriate institutionalization
Does the service provide a humane,
alternative to institutionalization?
157
appropriate
and cost-effective
Reduce dependency
Does the provision of this service reduce the dependency on institutional
support services,' thereby increasing one's self-sufficiency?
RESOLUTION 11-2
Social services, as defined in Section I of this Agreement, are divided into three
priority groupings. In addition to identifying service priorities based upon social
service needs, these three priority groupings also outline the general principles on
which allocation formulas are predicated. Those principles are defined as follows:
High Priority Services
Services within this category shall be eligible for a cost-of-living
adjustment or a cost-of-living adjustment plus additional financial
allocations. Those high priority services for which funding is not being
currently provided shall be financially supported at a level commensurate
with their status as high priority services.
Medium Priority Services
Services within this category shall remain at their present level of funding
or remain at their present level and receive a cost-of-living adjustment.
Low Priority Services
Services within this category shall remain at their present level of funding
or receive a decrease in funding.
RESOLUTION 11-3
Utilizing the service definitions contained in Resolution 1-1 of this Agreement and
the principles contained in Resolution Il-1 and Resolution 11-2, the service priorities
are:
High Priority Services (listed in alphabetical order)
Adoption services
Child day care services
Client-oriented coordination of services
Community-based non-residential services
Community-based residential services
Day treatment services
Emergency shelter services
Safeguarding or protective servicesMedium Priority Services (listed in alphabetical order)
Employability services
Family planning services
Foster family care services
158
Medium Priority Services (continued)
Home management - maintenance services
Legal services 4
4
Low Priority Services (listed in alphabetical order)
Counseling 4
Information and referral 5
Recreation
Residential treatment services
Transportation services
4 To the extent these services are part of a service with a higher priority ranking, they
would retain the priority of that other higher-ranking service.
5 It was agreed to study this service category to see if a unitary statewide system can be
established.
159
Section III
ALLOCATION MECHANISMS
STATEMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.
Mechanisms shall be developed for allocating to social service needs and
providers the full amount of SSBG funds available each federal fiscal year.
Specific allocations shall be identified by budget category (service categories,
set-asides, etc.)
2.
Innovative programming efforts shall be encouraged. Whenever appropriate,
funding shall be available on a competitive basis for service delivery or
management innovations.
3.
SSBG funds shall be used to support those services as agreed to in the NIS
process and in accordance with federal and state law. SSBG dollars shall
directly support human services and shall not supplant general funds within any
agency except in accordance with the agreement reached in the NIS process.
SSBG funds shall be accounted for under generally accepted accounting
principles.
RESOLUTION 111-1
There shall be no transfer of SSBG dollars to other block grants.
RESOLUTION 111-2
A specific set-aside of money shall be available on a competitive basis for service
delivery or management innovations. The Tripartite Social Services Block Grant
Committee established pursuant to this process shall review such innovative
applications and programs.
RESOLUTION 111-3
Funding shall be based on (a) priority needs for social services, (b) service providers'
performance in meeting such needs and (c) cost-efficiency in service delivery.
RESOLUTION 111-4
Allocations of SSBG funds in federal fiscal year 1984 shall be made in accordance
with the attached allocation schedule and its accompanying explanation, with the
provision that "medium priority services" identified in Resolution 11-2 shall be eligible
to receive, on a competitive basis, a cost-of-living increase not to exceed 5.8 percent.
160
-
S
IS S
a
,
.
-
e mu afla~
a
SOS
-~
m a-
SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATIONS FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1984
A
SERVICE/AGENCY OF
PROGRAM COGNIZANCE
B
FEDERAL
FY 1983
ALLOCATION
C
0
CHANGES TO ALLOCATION
ACCGPLISH
AFTER
SWAP
SWAP
E
CHANGES TO
REORDER PER
DEFINITIONS
F
ALLOCATION
AFTER SWAP
& REORDERING
G
REALLOCATIONS
H
PROPOSED
FFY 1984
ALLOCATIONS
1 HIGHPRIORITY SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
20,000
0
0
+20,000
0
0
0
Adoption
3
4
+20,000
20,000
0
0
0
0
0
5
Dept. of Children & Youth Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
0
10,616,967
0
10,616,967
9,815,115
+801,852 10,616,967
Child Day Care
7
8
0
10,616,967
0
10,616,967
9,815,115
+801,852 10,616,967
9
Dept. of Human Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
0
0
+500,000
6
500,000
0
0
0
11 Client-Oriented Coordination
12
0
+500,000 6
500,000
0
0
0
0
Agency to be determined
13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
+400,000
3,079,476
1,502,401
+187,436
1,689,837
+989,639
2,679,476
15
Community Based Non-Residential
16
0
1,114,349
+972,000
1,114,349
0
142,349
142,349
17
Dept. of Human Resources
+360,000
1,907,488
0
1,547,488
+187,436 1,547,488
1,360,052
18
Dept. on Aging
57,639
17,639
+40,000
0
0
0
+17,639
19
Brd. of Ed. & Services for Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
21 Community Based Residential
+663,371
982,436
+612,021
1,594,457
319,065
0
1,594,457
22
2
Alcohol & Drug AbuseCommission
162,590
+819,846
982,436
+612,021
1,594,457
0
1,594,457
0
0
0
0
156,475
-156,457
0
4
Dept. of Correction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25
+260,000
4,007,002
0
3,747,002
2,416,721
+1,330,281
3,747,002
26
Day Treatment
27
6,094
6,094
0
6,094
0
0
6,094
Dept. of leman Resources
28
+200,000
3,940,908
2,410,627
+1,330,281
3,740,908
0
3,740,908
29
Dept. of Mental Retardation
30
Dept. of Children & Youth Services
0
0
0
0
0
+60,000
60,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31
32 Emergency Shelters
894,000
+67,477
961,477
+51,800
1,013,277
+251,066
1,264,343
33
277,477
+67,477
277,477
0
277,477
0
34
Dept. of Human Resources
210,000
684,000
0
684,000
0
684,000
0
684,000
35
Dept. of Children & Youth Services
51,800
0
0
+51,800
51,800
0
36
Alcohol & Drug Abuse Commission
0
+251,066
251,066
0
0
0
0
0
37
Agency to be Determined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38
1,540,655
+366,136
1,440,655
+100,000
1,245,027
-170,508
1,074,519
Safeguarding
39
40
445,302
445,302
0
0
0
445,302
445,302
41
Dept. of Children & Youth Services
0
0
0
0
0
-170,508
170,508
42
Human Rights & Opportunities
686,422
0
686,422
578,422
+108,000
0
578,422
43
Dept. of Human Resources
0
63,995
63,995
50,795
+13,300
50,795
0
44
Protection & Advocacy - Handicapped
0
244,936
244,936
0
+244,936
0
0
45
Commission on the Deaf
+100,000
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
46
Agency to be Determined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47
+1,531,066
22,622,900
21,091,834
+2,879,909 19,072,238
+2,019,596
16,192,329
48 SETOTAL - HIGHPRIORITIES
49----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 See note on line 132.
-trrrr'~
r
~
- -
~
F
E
C
G
B
H
D
CHANGES
FEDERAL
TO ALLOCATION
CHANGES
TO
ALLOCATION
REALLOCATIONS PROPOSED
FY 1983
ACCOMPLISH AFTER
REORDER
PER AFTERSWAP
FFY 1984
ALLOCATION
& REORDERING
SWAP
SWAP
DEFINITIONS
ALLOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MEDIUM PRIORITIES
A
OF
SERVICE/AGENCY
PROGRAM
COGNIZANCE
Employability
Dept. of Human Resources
--Family Planning
Dept. of HumanResources
Foster Care
Dept. of Children & Youth Services
7
Dept. of HumanResources
7
Legal Services
Dept. of HumanResources
Protection & Advocacy - Handicapped
Public Defender
Cost of Living Reserve (5.8 %)8
0
0
1,081,198
1,081,198
0
1,081,198
0
0
1,081,198
-------1,132,701
1,081,198
---
0
0
1,132,701
0
1,132,701
0
1,132,701
0
1,132,701
0
1,132,701
0
0
0
0
0
+120,000
120,000
0
0
0
0
0
+120,000
-
---
0
1,081,198
1,132,701
---
HomeManagement
MEDIUMPRIORITY SUBTOTAL
1,081,198
-----
-
1,081,198
-------------1,132,701
-----------------103,322
-1,080,000
1,183,322
0
1,183,322
1,183,322
0
1,183,322
-1,080,000
2,031,895
-1,023,047
1,008,848
980,276
28,572
1,023,047
0
0
-1,023,047
980,276
28,572
0
120,000
----
----
0
103,322
103,322
0
103,322
0
1,008,848
0
1,008,848
0
0
0
980,276
28,572
0
0
0
0
980,276
28,572
0
+192,912
192,912
----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------3,638,981
5,429,116
-1,023,047
4,406,069
-1,080,000
3,326,069
+312,912
- - ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOWPRIORITIES
Counseling
7
Alcohol & Drug Abuse Commission
Dept. of Consumer Protection
Dept. of Correction
Judicial Dept.
Dept. of HumanResources
Info and Referral
Dept. of HumanResources
Alcohol & Drug Abuse Commission
Brd. of Ed. & Services for Blind
Commission on the Deaf
Protection & Advocacy - Handicapped
Human Rights & Opportunities
Recreation
Dept. of HumanResources
4,847,434
-2,338,427
2,509,007
640,795
0
-86,234
0
-821,495
0
-1,430,698
0
0 1,868,212
-----------2,157,912
-113,672
2,044,240
640,795
86,234
821,495
1,430,698
1,868,212
1,602,183
153,026
17,639
244,936
26,456
113,672
660,075
1,602,183
153,026'
17,639
244,936
26,456
0
---0
660,075
660,075
0
---
0
0
0
0
0
-113,672
-------
660,075
-586,795
-586,795
0
0
0
0
-352,801
1,922,212
1,822,212
-100,000
0
54,000
54,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,768,212
-100,000
1,868,212
---------------891,439
1,691,439
-800,000
0
660,075
-330,000
802,183
76,000
0
0
13,256
0
--330,075
0
660,075
-330,000
330,075
1,602,183
76,000
0
0
13,256
0
0
-77,026
-17,639
-244,936
-13,200
0
--
-800,000
0
0
0
0
0
----
---------
7 Counseling, homemanagement-maintenance and legal services which are part of another service rather than freestanding are ranked with the
services of which they are a part.
8 A cost of living increase will be considered upon an individual review of each service provider.
C\J
~an
r
P
fl
-
t
.
S
A
OF
SERVICE/AGENCY
COGIZANCE
PROGRAM
_________________________________________________________
B
FEDERAL
FY 1983
ALLOCATION
D
C
CHANGES
TO ALLOCATION
ACCOMPLISH AFTER
SWAP
SWAP
-
F
E
CHANGES
ALLOCATION
TO
REORDER
PER AFTERSWAP
& REORDERING
DEFINITIONS
w
P.
~flb
q
H
G
REALLOCATIONS PROPOSED
FFY 1984
ALLOCATIONS
101 LOWPRIORITIES (continued)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------102
2,302,730
0
0
2,302,730
0 2,302,730
2,302,730
103 Residential Treatment
104
2,302,730
0
0
2,302,730
0
2,302,730
2,302,730
Dept. of Children & Youth Services
105
--------------------------------------------106
0
-196,764
196,764
0
0
196,764
196,764
107 Transportation
108
0
-196,764
196,764
0
196,764
0
196,764
Dept. of Human Resources
109
-----------------------------------------------------110
5,346,456
-1,426,764
6,773,220
-939,596
7,712,816
-2,452,099
10,164,915
111 LOWPRIORITY SUTOTAL
~-~
--------112 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------113 SET-ASIDES
--------------------------------------------114
600,000
-258,069
858,069
0
858,069
0
858,069
115 Training
250,000
+250,000
0
0
0
0
0
116 Innovative Projects
117 Data Base, Strategic Planning,
380,000
+380,000
0
0
0
0
0
Evaluation & Technical Assist.
118
138,488
+138,488
0
0
0
0
0
119 Contingencies
------------------------------------120
1,368,488
+510,419
0
858,069
858,069
0
858,069
121 SET-ASIDES SUBTOTAL
--122 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------164,060
0
164,060
0
164,060
-332,396
496,456
ADMINISTRATION
123 CENTRAL
124
0
0
164,060
164,060
164,060
164,060
125
Dept. of Human Resources
0
-0
0
0
-332,396
332,396
126
Office of Policy & Management
--------------------------------------------------127 -------------------------------0
-927,633927,633
0
927,633
927,633
0
FOR REALLOCATION
128 BALANCE
------------ ----------------------------- ----------129 -------------------------------0
33,140,885 9
33,140,885 9
0 33,140,885 9
130 TOTAL
33,140,885
-----------------
131
132
133
134
135
136
--
M,
~
9 There is potentially another $836,998 as listed in the 11/26/82 Federal Register. This, plus any carryover funding, will be apportioned as follows:
Second, an additional $250,000 will be
First, the contingency fund will be restored to 1 percent of the present block grant total ($331,400).
reserved for Client-Oriented Coordination of Services and will be released for that purpose after six months experience with the service in the
fiscal year and a Tripartite evaluation. Third, $125,000 will be reserved for Transportation. Any additional funding will be allocated through a
Tripartite agreement.
1.1
EXPLANATION OF ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
I.
DESCRIPTION OF COLUMNS ON THE ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
A.
Column A lists the service categories and the State agencies of program cognizance
under each. The services are grouped according to the agreed-upon priority rankings.
B.
Column B shows the SSBG allocation for the current fiscal year based upon the
service definitions in effect prior to the negotiations.
C.
Column C reflects all of the pluses and minuses in SSBG funding necessary to
accomplish the swap of SSBG and General Fund money. The swap was negotiated in
order to permit agencies and important services not directly related to the statutory
Block Grant goals to withdraw from the Block Grant. Those services affected as a
result of the agencies' withdrawal are: Community Based Residential (Department of
Correction - line 24), Safeguarding (Human Rights and Opportunities - line 42), Legal
Services (Public Defender - line 85), Counseling (Consumer Protection, Correction,
Judicial - lines 83 to 85), Information and Referral (Human Rights and Opportunities line 95), Administration (OPM - line 126).
The services and agencies which contributed General Fund dollars and are to receive
SSBG dollars in their place are: Child Day Care (Department of Human Resources line 9), Community Based Non-Residential (Department on Aging - line 18),
Community Based Residential (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission - line 23), Day
Treatment (Department of Mental Retardation - line 29) and Emergency Shelter
(Depart:nent of Human Resources - line 34).
D.
Column D is the total of column B plus column C. It is an intermediate step which
shows the allocation after the swap. All other allocations remain the same. In each
instance, swap dollars were placed in high priority services.
E.
Column E reflects changes in classification of existing services to reflect the newly
negotiated service definitions. For example, it is agreed that counseling, home
management-maintenance services and legal services which are part of another
service rather than free standing will be classified with the service of which they are
a part. Each plus indicates an activity moved from somewhere else in the column.
Each minus indicates an activity moved to another classification. There is no net
change in funding in the column; each pTus is balanced by a minus. The changes
include:
1.
Movement of $972,000 from DHR - Home Management (line 66) to Community
Based Non-Residential (line 17).
2.
Movement of $17,639 from the Board of Education and Services for the Blind Information & Referral (line 92) to Community Based Non-Residential (line 19).
3.
Movement of $534,995 CADAC - Counseling (line 82) and $77,026 CADAC Information & Referral (line 91) to CADAC - Community Based Residential (line
23).
4.
Movement of $51,800 from
Emergency Shelter (line 36).
CADAC
- Counseling (line 82) to CADAC
164
-
Home Management (line 66) to DHR
5.
Movement of $108,000 from DHR
Safeguarding (line 43).
6.
Movement of $13,200 from Protection and Advocacy - Information & Referral
(line 94) to Protection and Advoctcy - Safeguarding (line 44).
7.
Movement of $244,036 from Deaf and Hearing Impaired - Information and
Referral (line 93) to Deaf and Hearing Impaired - Safeguarding (line 45).
-
-
F.
Column F summarizes the net effect of the swap changes and the definitional changes.
G.
Column G presents all of the negotiated reallocations of funding. The minuses are
program reductions and the pluses are program increases. The reductions are as
fol ow s:
I.
The $927,613 balance available for reallocation in Column F (line 128)
2.
Transportation - Department of Human Resources (line 109) - $196,764
3.
Counseling - Department of Human Resources (line 86) - $109,000
4.
Information and Referral - Department of Human Resources (line 90) - $800,000
5.
Recreation - Department of Human Resources (line 99) - $330,000
6.
Training (line 115) - $258,069
The increases are:
1.
Adoption - $20,000 - Department of Children and Youth Services (line 5)
2.
Client-Oriented Coordin-ation of Services - $500,000 - agency to be determined
(line 13)
3.
Community Based Non-Residential - $400,000, including $360,000 through the
Department on Aging (line 18) and $40,000 for the Board of Education and
Services for the Blind (line 19)
4.
Day Treatment - $200,000 - Department of Mental Retardation (line 29);
$60,000 - Department of Children and Youth Services (line 30)
5.
Emergency Shelter - $251,066 - agency to be determined (line 37)
6.
Safeguarding - $100,000 - agency to be determined (line 46)
7.
Foster Care - $120,000 - Department of Children and Youth Services (line 62)
It is also agreed that funds will be set aside for the following purposes:
1.
Innovative Projects - $250,000 (line 116)
2.
Data Base, Strategic Planning and Evaluation - $380,000 (line 117)
3.
Contingencies - $138,488 (line 119)
165
)
A reserve is set aside (line 74) for cost of living increases in medium priority
programs. Eligibility for increases will be determined based upon a review of each
provider. Any leftover money will revert to the Contingency Fund (line 119)
The total amount allocated is $33,140,885, the same amount available in the current
year. Data published in the Federal Register on November 26, 1982 indicated that an
additional $836,998 may be available in FY 1984, if appropriated by Congress. It is
agreed that this sum, plus any carryover funding, will be allocated as follows: First,
the Contingency Fund would be restored to $331,400 (1 percent of the present block
grant total). Second, an additional $250,000 will be reserved for Client-Oriented
Coordination of Services and will be released for that purpose after six months'
experience with that service and a review by the Tripartite SSBG Committee. Third,
$125,000 will be reserved for Transportation. Any additional funding would be
allocated by the Tripartite Committee.
11.DESCRIPTION OF SET ASIDES
A.
Training (line 115)
The teams agree to set aside $600,000 in training dollars. This money would be
administered by the Department of Human Resources, with planning by a committee
of involved agencies in order to preserve the integrity and provision of generic
training of staff and service providers.
B.
Innovative Projects (line 116)
There shall be a set aside of $250,000 for the purpose of encouraging and entertaining
new and innovative requests for proposals (RFP's) which fall under the purview of
priorities established under the Social Services Block Grant. RFP's will be reviewed
pursuant to the procedures established in Section V of this Agreement.
C.
Data Base, Strategic Planning, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (line 117)
The teams agree to set aside $380,000 for the tripartite development of an automated
human service data base/management information system, for strategic planning
related to the SSBG, for evaluation, and for technical assistance to SSBG service
providers.
The maintenance of this data base and the coordination of the programmatic and
fiscal data will rest with OPM and DHR. The State will develop the planning and
evaluation of data into an overall management information system which will strive
for computer compatibility throughout the State, initially among grantor and service
provider agencies with automated capacity. It will develop these systems and the
necessary tools for implementation of the system (manuals, forms, etc.). The initial
objective will be an expanded capacity to develop and maintain common service
definitions, fiscal allocations, client characteristics, and related types of data. The
goal will be to provide a common source of reliable data and to assist the Tripartite
Social Services Block Grant Committee in timely policy, management and fiscal
allocation decisions.
In the area of evaluation, the teams agree to hire a consultant to review current State
grant administration requirements, including audit, reporting
166
and evaluating requirements and to offer recommendations to simplify and reduce
administrative burdens on all service providers.
D.
Contingency Fund (line 119)
The teams agree to set aside $138,488 (plus other funding which may become
available as described in the final paragraph of Part I, above) The fund will be
available for activities that are liable to occur during the year but cannot be fully
anticipated in advance of the start of the program year.
Contingency uses would be limited to:
1.
Funding new, unanticipated priority programs
2.
Meeting unanticipated emergency program situations and needs (e.g., flood,
etc.)
3.
Funding unanticipated time-limited activities: studies, consultants, etc., which
will enhance SSBG management and/or service delivery.
III. STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
A.
SSBG Lead Agency: Department of Human Resources
Working with OPM, the Lead Agency has central responsibility for:
B.
I.
Liaison with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2.
Executing letters of agreement with the State agencies of cognizance for the
funds allocated by SSBG service definitions
3.
Coordinating ongoing data base, grant administration reform,
assessments and other ongoing planning and administrative functions
4.
Maintaining appropriate audit records (State/federal)
5.
Liaison with the General Assembly
6.
Providing technical assistance to State agencies of cognizance and other
service providers.
needs
State Agencies of Program Cognizance
10
Identified State agencies of cognizance , in coordination with OPM and the lead
agency, shall have responsibility for:
10
I.
Reviewing current and potential service providers, utilizing the accepted
Criteria For Evaluation and Selection of Service Providers as agreed in Section
IV of this Agreement.
2.
Executing contracts or letters of agreement with service providers
State Agencies of Cognizance include: DHR, DMR, DCYS, DMH, CADAC, SDA,
Board of Education and Services for the Blind, Commission on the Deaf and Hearing
Impaired, and Office of Protection and Advocacy.
167
3.
Monitoring programs
4.
Maintaining appropriate audit records for provider contracts
5.
Performing impact assessments
6.
Participating in ongoing data base, grant administration
assessments and other planning and administrative functions
168
reform,
needs
Section IV
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION
OF SERVICE PROVIDERS
STATEMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.
Performaice criteria shall be established for the selection and evaluation of
service providers.
2.
Service providers must be accountable for the services they provide.
3.
Reporting and evaluation instruments shall be
compatible with service provider accountability.
4.
A consistent, comprehensive data base shall be developed. The three parties
agree to develop an automated SSBG data base and shall set aside funds for its
development.
5.
SSBG funds shall be distributed in accordance with the allocation criteria on
the basis of the service provider's ability to meet social service needs, rather
than on the level of government, public or private sector, or previous funding.
6.
Selection and evaluation processes shall be implemented
compatible with principles of procedural due process.
minimized
to the extent
in
a
manner
RESOLUTION IV-1
The process for selecting a service provider for the delivery of SSBG-supported
services shall be as follows:
1.
The three negotiating teams agree on general criteria to judge
program and management performance, service delivery potential
and the management systems of specific service providers.
Step 2.
The State team identifies specific State agencies with cognizance
responsibilities for each of the services as defined by the Tripartite
Social Services Block Grant Committee.
Step 3.
For each service category, a notice of availability of funding shall be
developed and disseminated. Said notice snail identify goals and
objectives for the service and those criteria used to assess and
evaluate pertinent service providers, if any, and shall identify, for
information purposes only, present recipients of SSBG funding.
Step 4.
The State agencies of cognizance apply criteria to service providers
and make selections. Applications from service providers not under
contract/letter of agreement will be considered along with
evaluations of those service providers which are currently under
contract/letter of dgreernent. Wherever appropriate, nulti-year
(indefinite) funding contracts/letter of agreement, subject to a
Step
169
30-day notice of cancellation provision, will be provided, subject to
the continued availability of funding.
Step 5.
Tripartite Committee reviews selection decisions.
RESOLUTION IV-2
In order that the criteria below may be fairly applied, it is important that each
application submitted by a service provider be complete enough to permit an
accurate rating for each criterion. Further, for an accurate rating 'of any
application and determination of the financial soundness of the applicant, it is
important that the provider submit a budget for that service which includes and
identifies for the service all sources of revenue and support. Such identification is a
basic requirement which must be met before the criteria listed below are applied. 1 I
A.
'
12
(60 points 1 2)
Program and Management Performance
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity
for delivering
client-effective services in a cost-effective manner to one or more of
the vulnerable populations.
-
Ability to meet the goals and objectives of the agency's work plan.
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity to serve the maximum
possible number of targeted clients within budgetary limitations.
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity to live within budget.
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity for coordinating with or
utilizing other available resources for the particular targeted clients and
networking with other agencies.
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity
follow-up.
-
Documented client/staff ratio that permits an adequate standard of care.
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity that staff has appropriate
training, education and experience necessary to perform in their
respective positions as well as evidence of performance competency on
an ongoing basis.
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity to provide an integrated
approach to serving the needs of individual clients.
-
Demonstrated capacity or evidence of capacity for complying with all
federal, state and municipal regulations, statutes and auditing
requirements.
for adequate client
Assuming all the listed criteria are met, preference will be given to existing
providers in order to maintain continuity of services.
The maximum point total for each category reflects the relative weight
attached to each category of criteria.
170
-
B.
C.
Cost effectiveness.13
(40 points
Service Delivery Potential
14
)
-
Presentation of a comprehensive work plan to achieve stated goals and
objectives.
-
Evidence that program design meets the needs of the targeted population.
-
Evidence of service accessibility (e.g., in terms of geographic and
transportation constraints; cultural and linguistic needs; requirements to
meet the needs of the physically disabled; service availability within
minimal waiting time and beyond normal working hours, geared to clients'
developmental needs and time frames).
-
Evidence of explicit client entry systems which include referral and intake
procedures and client eligibility requirements.
-
Clear definition of the services offered.
-
Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of clientele.
Management Systems
Management systems criteria are essential to any provider; thus, no points are
attached to this section.
The items noted below constitute minimum
requirements for the selection of any service provider.
13
14.
-
Evidence of a plan for multi-year operation.
-
Presentation of a workable, service-oriented,
indicating all sources of revenue.
-
Evidence of fiscal and general management capacity, including timely and
accurate fiscal and program reporting.
-
Evidence of quality control.
-
Independent audits or financial reports.
-
Evidence that the organization is duly constituted under the laws of the
State of Connecticut.
-
Evidence of potential for accessing additional
providers.
cost-effective
resources
The Tripartite Committee shall develop, by April 25,
principles for the application of this criterion. In so doing,
pay due attention to the complexity of the services being
various types of measurement appropriate to the respective
The maximum point total for each category reflects
attached to each category of criteria.
171
by
budget
service
1983, standards and
the Committee shall
provided and to the
services.
the relative weight
RESOLUTION IV-3
The negotiating teams agree -to develop a comprehensive, automated human services
data base/management information system and shall set aside funds for its
development.
172
Section V
MULTI-YEAR PLANS AND PROCESSES
STATEMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
A continuing process for the negotiation, implementation and evaluation of the SSBG
shall be the responsibility of a Tripartite Committee which will be constituted in the
same manner as the original process.
RESOLUTION V-1
A Tripartite Social Services Block Grant Committee shall be established. The
Committee, reflecting the three sectors represented in the Negotiated Investment
Strategy process, shall be made up of three members designated by each of the three
negotiating teams plus a chairperson appointed by the Governor. The Committee
shall convene at the call of the chairperson or at the request of the representatives
from two or more sectors. Subject to those exceptions noted in this Resolution, the
Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure. All actions of the Committee
shall be by consensus save for the exceptions identified herein. The chairperson shall
not have voting power. The Committee may, if it deems appropriate, enlist the
services of a mediator, with expenses for said services to be charged to the
contingency fund. In addition to such other functions as the Governor may charge the
Committee with performing, the Committee shall have the following responsibilities
and powers:
1.
Oversight. The Tripartite Committee will have responsibility for overseeing and
evaluating the implementation of this Agreement, for monitoring the impact of
this Agreement and for assuring the continuance of the positive working
relations established among the representatives of the three sectors. Its
oversight responsibilities will include, but not be limited to, training, strategic
planning and the development of the SSBG data base, fees and eligibility
standards, and paperwork reduction.
2.
Interpretation. Should there be elements of the final Agreement that are
unclear, the Committee will be responsible for providing clarification.
3.
Duties.
a.
In the event that the actual funding level of SSBG dollars available in
federal fiscal year 1984 is different from the amount allocated under this
Agreement, the Committee will be the forum for the negotiation of any
necessary adjustments to the Agreement.
b.
The Tripartite Committee will evaluate and advise on the selection of
projects to be funded through the set-asides for Innovative Projects and
Training and on all activities undertaken using the Data Base, Strategic
Planning, Evaluation, and Technical Asssitance Set-aside.
c.
In those cases where this Agreement allocates additional funding to
certain high priority services but does not indicate the specific State
agency of program cognizance, the Committee will review the designation
of the agency or agencies of cognizance.
173
4.
d.
Each State agency of program cognizance, following its selection of
specific providers, will inform DHR and OPM regarding its decisions.
DHR and OPM will then prepare a draft detailed aggregate allocation plan
indicating for each service category the specific allocations to providers
(State agencies, municipalities, and non-profit agencies). There shall be a
public review and comment period with opportunity for a public hearing
after ample notice. After the review and comment period, agencies of
cognizance will be responsible for informing DHR and OPM of any
revisions to the draft allocation plan. The final draft will then be
submitted to the Tripartite Committee
for its review.
Any
recommendations or proposed modifications to the plan shall be specified
in writing and sent to the Commissioner of DHR and/or the Secretary of
OPM for final determination.15 The Commissioner and/or Secretary will
respond in writing to the Committee's recommendations or proposed
modifications and shall state his or her rationale for accepting or rejecting
each of the Tripartite Committee's recommendations or proposed
modifications.16
e.
The Committee will be the forum for the negotiation of any amendments
deemed necessary in order to implement the terms of this Agreement.
f.
The Committee, upon the initiation of the chairperson or representatives
from any two sectors, shall reconvene to consider any amendments to the
Agreement. The adoption of any proposed amendments shall require the
negotiated consensus of all sectors.
Future NIS. The Committee will begin preparation for future negotiations on
the SSBG and will advise the Governor regarding the application of the NIS
process for federal fiscal year 1986 and for future years.
The Tripartite Social Services Block Grant Committee shall carry out its functions in the
spirit of cooperation engendered by the NIS process and in a manner consistent with all
State and federal laws and regulations.
15 The Tripartite Committee, in discharging its responsibilities, is authorized by the
agreement to make written or oral requests of appropriate State agencies, municipalities
or non-profit agencies. Said agencies or subdivisions shall respond to said requests in a
timely manner.
16 Any modifications will be sent to the Commissioner of DHR and the Secretary of OPM
except in those cases in which DHR is the agency of cognizance. For those cases,
proposed modifications will be sent directly to the Secretary of OPM for final
determination.
174
Section VI
CONTRACTS OR LETTERS OF AGREEMENT
STATEMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.
Contracts/letters of agreement appropriate to the service shall be the basis for
the distribution of all SSBG funds.
2.
A funding instrument pursuant to a contract/letter of agreement shall be signed
with each provider. Every effort will be made, subject to Congressional or
State legislative funding decisions, to provide funds to providers by the start of
each fiscal period.
3.
Contractual agreements/letters of agreement shall ensure that all
providers are paid for services on a timely basis.
RESOLUTION VI-
service
-
Service providers shall be paid on a timely basis.
RESOLUTION VI-2
The Tripartite Committee shall examine practices and performance regarding the
aliccation of SSBG funds among administrative and direct service categories. The
Committee shall prepare, adopt and publish a report no later than October 1, 1983
which reflects its findings and contains recommendations, if any, for appropriate
guidelines and practices to govern these fiscal allocations so as to ensure the most
effective program performance possible by a service provider.
RESOLUTION VI-3
The Tripartite Committee shall examine practices and performance regarding the
payment of SSBG funds to SSBG service providers and the manner of investing said
SSBG funds by various State agencies and SSBG service providers. The Committee
shall prepare, adopt and publish a report no later than October 1, 1983 which reflects
its findings and contains recommendations, if any, for appropriate guidelines and
practices to govern the financial investment options that both maximize the use of
SSBG funds and are consistent with all State and federal laws and regulations.
175
We hereby accept and affirm the foregoing statements,
constituting the terms and conditions of our agreement.
Dated
data,
and obligations
December 23, 1982
For the State:
For the Municipalities:
Barbara Brasel
Executive Director
m. on the
af & Hearing Impaired
Hon. Rudolph Arnold
Deputy Mayor
C
of Hartford
Donald M onnell
Executiv rirector
Ct. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission
Jo C en
Ex cuti e Directo
Co
c
onference of
Hon. Stephen B. Heintz
Albert Ilg
Town Manager
Town of Windso
Under Secretary
O c of Policy n
anagement
Hon. Hector A. Rivera
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Human Resources
Hon. Anthon
aiorano
First Select n
Town of Marlborough
Hon. Amy Wheaton
Deputy Commissioner
Dept. of Children and Youth Services
David Russell
Executive Director
Council of Small Towns
For he Non-Profit Sector:
Robert Burgesg
President
Ct. Association for Community Action
the
M
'on T
"Aeph B. Stulberg
yediator
$usan Halperin
Attorney-at-Law
Ernest L. Osborne
Associate Mediator
Raymon Norko
Executiv Director
Legal Aid Society of Hartford County
J. Michael Keating
Secretariat
J6ah Quinn
Eilecutive Director
Connecticut Community Care, Inc.
Jo r R. Quinn
x cutive Director
ster Seal Society of Connecticut
176
m:
unicipalities
as
APPENDIX I. NIS PARTICIPATING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONNEL
NON-PROFIT SERVICE PROVIDER TEAM
Negotiating Team:
Robert Burgess
President
Connecticut Association for Community Action
Susan Halperin
Attorney-at-Law
Raymond Richard Norko
Executive Director
Legal Aid Society of Hartford County, Inc.
Joan Quinn
President
Connecticut Community Care, Inc.
John Quinn
Executive Director
Easter Seal Society of Connecticut
Resource and Advisory Personnel:
Matthew Melmed, Esq.
Connecticut Association of Human Services
Allison Mitchell
Connecticut Counpil of Y.W.C.A.'s
Michael Rohde
Connecticut Association of
Child Caring Agencies, Inc.
Cinda Cash
Connecticut Association of
Substance Abuse Agencies, Inc.
Mark Masselli
Connecticut Association for
Prevention & Treatment of
Child Abuse
Myra Oliver
International Institute
of Connecticut, Inc.
177
Sherry Haller
Criminal Justice Education
Center/PREP Council
Kathryn Katz
Connecticut Association of
Adult Day Care Centers
Jan VanTassel
Legal Services Training &
Advocacy Project
Greg Paleologos
Connecticut Council of
Family Service Agencies
Elaine Andersen
Greater Norwalk Community Council
Robert Charles
Low Income Planning Agency
Charles Shur
Connecticut Council of Community
Mental Health Centers
Beverly Walton
Connecticut Mental Health
Association
Ron Cretaro
Connecticut Association of
Residential Facilities
Terry Edelstein
Connecticut Association of
Rehabilitation Facilities
Charlotte Kinlock
Connecticut Task Force on
Abused Women
Elizabeth Daubert
Association of Community
Health Service Agencies
Luz Gonzalez
Centro De La Communidad
Ann Horne
Connecticut Association for
the Education of Young Children
178
Dennis Keenan
Connecticut Association of
Private Special Education Facilities
Suellen Wood
Planned Parenthood
Catherine Graham
Connecticut Association for Human Services
MUNICIPAL TEAM MEMBERS:
Negotiating Team:
Hon. Rudolph Arnold, Deputy Mayor
City of Hartford
Joel Cogen, Executive Director
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities
Albert Ilg, Town Manager
Town of Windsor
Hon. Anthony Maiorano, First Selectman
Town of Marlborough
David Russell, Executive Director
Council of Small Towns
Resource and Advisory Personnel:
Kathryn Feidelson
Associate Director
Connecticut Conference of
Muncipalities
Carol Femia
Director of Social Services
City of Newington
Ann Sadowsky
Grants Researcher
City of Stamford
Arthur Teal
Director of Social Services
City of Hartford
Dorothy Mascola
Staff Associate for Administration
Connecticut Conference of
Municipalities
179
Dr. Ruth Gonchar, Director
Human Resources Development
City of Bridgeport
Norman Lucas
Administrative Officer
City of Darien
Peter Lowenstein Chairman,
Board of Social Services
City of Greenwich
Edwin Bradley
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Social Services
City of Greenwich
Phyllis McHenry
Administrative Assistant for
Human Services
City of Hamden
Frank Cole, Director
Grants and Management
City of Hartford
Hanna Marcus
Director of Human Services
City of Manchester
Mary Peczynski
Social Services Director
City of Meriden
Carla Hayes, Director
Human Resources Development
City of Milford
Paul S. Vayer
Executive Aide to Mayor
City of New Britain
Carlton Boyd
Human Resources Administrator
City of New Haven
Karyn Gilvarg
Executive Assistant
City of New Haven
Dorothy Giannini
Director of Social Services
City of Norwalk
180
Raymond Allard
Welfare Director
City of Norwich
Paul Mazzaccaro
Assistant to Town Manager
City of Plainville
Joseph Carrah
Assistant to Mayor
City of Waterbury
Barbara Butler
Selectman
City of Westport
Francis Maloney
Director of Social Services
City of Winchester
STATE TEAM MEMBERS:
Negotiating Team:
Barbara Brasel, Executive Director
Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired
Hon. Stephen Heintz, Under Secretary
Office of Policy and Management
Donald McConnell, Executive Director
Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission
Hon. Hector Rivera, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Human Resources
Hon. Amy Wheaton, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Children and Youth Services
Resource and Advisory Personnel:
OPM
Jeanette Dille
Director of Human Services Policy Planning and Coordination
Comprehensive Planning Division
Frank Dallesander
Chief, Budget Section
Budget Division
Benson Cohn
Assistant Director for Plans Development
Comprehensive Planning Division
181
Carroll Stearns
Principal Budget Analyst
Budget Division
Joe Kekacs
Principal Budget Analyst
Budget Division
Donald DeFronzo
Principal Planning Analyst
Comprehensive Planning Division
Eileen Browne
Senior Planning Analyst
Comprehensive Planning Division
John Bantell, Ph.D.
Senior Planning Analyst
Comprehensive Planning Division
Robert Grant
Planning Analyst I
Comprehensive Planning Division
DHR
Hon. Ronald Manning
Commissioner
John Pickens
Director
Bureau of Program Development and Planning
Sarah Logan
Senior Planning Analyst
Alan Boggis
Human Resource Development Program Supervisor
Minnick Sharkiewicz
Chief of Grants and Contracts
Department on Aging
Hon. Marin Shealy
Commissioner
Joan Maloney
Executive Assistant
Kevin Mahoney, Ph.D.
Chief, Elderly Care Division
182
Nan Birdwhistell
Legal Services Specialist
Louis Goldblatt
Senior Planning Analyst
Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission
James Vance
Business Manager
Allan Duran
Principal Planning Analyst
Board of Education and Services for the Blind
John Davis
Chief, Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Department of Children and Youth Services
Janice Gruendel
Director, Division of Planning and Community Development
Barbara Kenny
Executive Assistant to the Commissioner
William Contois
Agency Principal Management Analyst
Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired
Richard Schreiber
Deputy Director
Interpreters:
1. Charlotte Lynch
2. Mary Hoff meister
3. Gary Scharff
4. Zoe Ann Soobit sky
5. Gail Cormier
6. Linda Escalara
Office of Protection and Advocacy for the Handicapped
Elliot Dober
Executive Director
Stanley Kosloski
Deputy Director
Department of Income Maintenance
Hon. Thomas Kilcoyne
Deputy Commissioner
183
Department of Mental Health
Dr. Arnold Johnson
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Mental Retardation
Hon. Lyn Gravink
Deputy Commissioner
John Campion
Chief, Community Services
Department of Health Services
Ellie Kravet
Executive Assistant to the Commissioner
Beth Weinstein
Assistant Director, Preventable Disease Section
Governor's Office
Betty Hudson
Administrative Aide
Department of Consumer Protection
Hon. Joseph M. McDonough
Deputy Commissioner
Robert Cook
Assistant Director of Administration
Department of Correction
Lawrence Albert, Ph.D.
Deputy Commissioner
Joseph Bernadino
Chief Administrative and Financial Officer
Hans Gjellman
Chief of Parole Services
Judicial Department
James Cavanaugh
Executive Director of Administrative Services
Virginia Jones
Director of the Budget
184
Office of the Chief Public Defender
Joseph Shortall
Chief Public Defender
Clement Naples
Deputy Chief Public Defender
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
Robert George
Administrative Services Officer II
185
APPENDIX 11. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
On August 13, 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35)
was signed into law. Section 2351 of the Act constitutes the Social Services Block Grant
Act.
The Social Services Block Grant is an amendment to Title XX of the Social Security Act.
It includes Title XX social services, child day care and training. The block grant gives the
State discretion in providing a wide variety of services aimed at achieving the following
goals:
-
Achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce or eliminate
dependency;
-
Achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of
dependency;
-
Preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults
unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting
families;
-
Preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for
community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care;
and
-
Securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care
are not appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions.
Some of the services which can be supported are child day care, protective services,
information and referral, adult day care, family planning, employability services, legal
services, counseling, training, transportation of program clients, community-based
residential services, community-based non-residential services, and services for children,
youth, and adults in foster care arrangements. Previously existing income eligibility and
State matching fund requirements have been revised. Restrictions on the use of SSBG
funds disallow expenditures for medical care, purchase or improvement of buildings, wage
payments for clients (except for income maintenance recipients in day care jobs),
educational services, long-term room and board costs, and services in the form of cash
payments.
In March, 1981, anticipating the adoption of Block Grant payments by the U.S. Congress,
Governor William A. O'Neill established an Interagency Task Force on Block Grants. The
Task Force was asked to recommend methods for administering the anticipated federal
block grants and also to explore innovative allocation and priority-setting techniques. The
Task Force issued its report in early September, 1981 and recommended that a negotiated
process be used to augment the standard State budget process for block grants involving
multiple State agencies. Because of its complexity, flexibility and scope, the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG), which involved multiple State agencies and a host of
municipal and private human service agency providers, was singled out as most appropriate
for a test of the negotiated approach.
The Task Force identified several advantages in using a negotiated approach: (1) It
provides an open, participatory process leading to an acceptable outcome. (2) It subjects
service providers to a critical peer review and enhances the possibility for setting
priorities by a broad cross-section of service providers. (3) It helps decrease duplication
186
of services while increasing intergovernmental and interagency communication. (4) It
helps integrate federal funds and priorities with State funds and priorities. (5) It promotes
public confidence through an open, innovative process that directly involves the service
providers.
The Task Force's recommendation was due largely to its familiarity with the Negotiated
Investment Strategy (NIS) developed by the- Charles F. Kettering Foundation of Dayton,
Ohio to implement urban policy. The NIS concept involved direct negotiations among
federal, state and local government teams regarding investment decisions and regulatory
actions by each sector to service the needs of a particular city. The process is supervised
by an impartial mediator and results in a written agreement. The Foundation's NIS
experiments in the cities of St. Paul, Minnesota, Columbus, Ohio, and Gary, Indiana dealt
successfully with a wide array of complex issues and interested agencies and parties.
Although the NIS focused on urban policy implementation in individual cities, the
techniques involved are applicable to many intra- and intergovernmental issues. The
Foundation explicitly recognized block grant implementation as a potential application of
the NIS and thus was receptive to providing technical assistance and support in the design
and implementation of a negotiated allocation of Connecticut's Social Services Block
Grant. Funding for the NIS negotiations has been provided by Connecticut community
foundations.
Governor William A. O'Neill, in endorsing the use of the NIS approach for determining
SSBG allocation and administrative guidelines for federal fiscal year 1984, pledged that
the product resulting from the NIS discussions would constitute the plan that he would
submit to the Connecticut State Legislature in January, 1983 for approval and adoption.
Although direct legislative participation in the negotiations was not feasible, NIS
participants scheduled briefings and appropriate consultation sessions with designated
legislators to keep them fully apprised of both the procedural and substantive aspects of
the NIS discussions.
Three negotiating teams, each representing a distinct sector, joined the NIS discussions.
Selected by their respective constituencies, representatives of those State agencies which
currently receive or are eligible to receive SSBG funds included: Barbara Brasel,
Executive Director, Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired; Stephen B. Heintz,
Under Secretary, Office of Policy and Management; Donald McConnell, Executive
Director, Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission; Hector A. Rivera, Deputy
Deputy
of Human Resources; and Amy Wheaton,
Commissioner, Department
Commissioner, Department of Children and Youth Services.
A large majority of Connecticut municipalities belong to the Connecticut Conference of
Municipalities (CCM) or the Council of Small Towns (COST) and some are members of both
organizations. CCM and COST designated the following persons to represent municipal
interests in the NIS discussions: Rudolph Arnold, Deputy Mayor, City of Hartford; Joel
Cogen, Executive Director, CCM; Albert 11g, Town Manager of Windsor; Anthony
Maiorano, First Selectman, Town of Marlborough; and David Russell, Executive Director,
COST.
Both the number and range of nonprofit service providers eligible for SSBG funds are
large. In addition, no network of statewide organizations existed that could naturally
represent the varied interests of nonprofit service providers in the NIS negotiations.
Hence, at the invitation of the Office of Policy and Management, the leadership of
approximately 30 primary human service organizations which represent nonprofit SSBG
service providers convened. They formed a committee to participate in the selection of a
187
mediator and began the arduous organizational task of developing a structure that could
represent adequately the nonprofit interests. A twenty-five person steering committee
was created, with representation from each SSBG-funded service. The steering committee
is responsible for maintaining direct contact with SSBG nonprofit service providers and for
providing direction to and ratification of the negotiating team's efforts. Those individuals
who comprised the negotiating team for the nonprofit organizations were: Robert
Burgess, President, Connecticut Association for Community Action; Susan Halperin,
Attorney-at-Law; Raymond Richard Norko, Executive Director, Legal Aid Society of
Hartford County, Inc.; Joan Quinn, President, Connecticut Community Care, Inc.; and
John Quinn, Executive Director, Easter Seal Society of Connecticut.
The spokespersons for the respective negotiating teams were: Stephen B. Heintz; Joel
Cogen; and Susan Halperin and Raymond R. Norko. Each team had resource personnel and
advisors who assisted it during the negotiations.
In June, 1982, representatives of the negotiating teams interviewed selected applicants to
serve as mediator for the NIS process. Joseph B. Stulberg, J.D., Ph.D., founder and
president of Conflict Management Resources, Inc., Associate Professor of Management at
Baruch College of the City University of New York and an experienced mediator of
various community, environmental and labor-management disputes, was selected to be the
lead mediator. In September, 1982, with the approval of the negotiating teams, Dr.
Stulberg designated Ernest L. Osborne, President of the Greater Hartford Process, Inc. and
former Deputy Under Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs in the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, to join him as his associate mediator. J. Michael Keating, Jr.,
also of Conflict Management Resources, Inc., headed the mediators' secretariat.
In addition to the formal negotiating teams, their respective resource personnel and
advisors, and the mediation team, an observer team representing the private sector was
designated to be present at negotiating sessions. Representing the private foundation,
charitable and business sectors were: William Connelly, the Hartford Foundation for
Public Giving; Richard 0. Dietrich, United Way of Eastern Fairfield County; Dale Gray,
United Way, Hartford; Joseph lerna, Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce; Craig
LeRoy, Connecticut Business and Industry Association; and Parker Lansdale, Bridgeport
Area Foundation, Inc.
The Agreement is a result of the discussions and negotiations which took place among the
parties and the mediating team during the five-month period from August to December,
1982. A formal negotiating session was held on September 20, 1982 to establish the ground
rules by which the substantive sessions would be conducted. Five formal, joint negotiating
sessions involving the full membership of each negotiating team and their respective
five-person resource personnel were held thereafter on: October 12, 1982; November 3-4,
1982; November 23, 1982; December 6-7, 1982; and December 23, 1982. All sessions were
open to the public. A number of General Assembly members observed the negotiating
sessions. Segments of the various negotiating sessions were videotaped for future
informational and educational purposes. Numerous meetings of the respective teams
surrounded each of the formal negotiating sessions. A separate technical assistance
manual which contains all of the documents that were developed and exchanged among the
participants during the negotiation process is on file with the designated secretariat for
each of the three teams.
When the SSBG Act was adopted in August, 1981, it was accompanied by a thirty percent
funding reduction. Since the State was required to assume responsibility for the SSBG on
October 1, 1981, there was little time for careful program evaluation and priority-setting.
188
Funding for training of providers was cut further than funding for services for federal
fiscal year 1982 in order to protect as many direct services as possible. The remaining cut
in appropriations was allocated among agencies on a proportional basis. The negotiating
teams in the NIS process have accepted, and have tried meet, the challenge of
re-examining past and current policies and programs in order to design a rational,
effective course for the future that responds to increasing human service needs in an era
of diminishing fiscal resources.
189
APPENDIX 5
MEDIATION TECHNIGUES
Mediation Techniques
(catorized by relationship
in the mediated negotiation
paradigm)
References
INTERNEGOTIATOR RELATIONSHIP
Clarifies situation
Deliberately
situation
Jackson,
misrepresents
Stevens, 1963
Establishes protocol
Lays out
1952
Jackson,
1952
Jackson, 1952
own perceptions
Interprets complexity of issues
Stevens, 1963
Informs negotiators as to how
similar problems have been
handled previously
Jackson, 1952
Makes negotiators aware of
relevant
Young,
information
Finds and supplies missing
information
Suggests basic negotiation
procedures
Delineates
1970
Taylor, 1 948;
Jackson, 1952
Young,
1970
Douglas,
1972
Douglas,
1972
forthcoming
agenda
Informs each negotiator of
other's
probable
behavior
190
Rehearses each negotiator
in appropriate behavior
Douglas,
Channels initial discussion
towards areas of agreement
Does
raised
not allow demands to be
proposal
above initial
against reneging on offers
Rules
1972
Jackson, 1952;
Maggiolo,
1971
Stevens, 1963
Peters,
1958
Separates negotiators
Stevens,
Pruitt,
Allows
Stevens, 1963;
Fisher, 1972;
Young, 1972
no communication
Clarifies what negotiators
intend to communicate
Convinces negotiators to suspend
disbelief and distrust in other
Burton,
Eiseman,
1963;
1971
1969
1977
Deciphers each negotiator's
strategy
Burton,
1969
Picks up hints of what each
negotiator might concede
Burton,
1969
Filters
Pruitt,
1971
Claims to be source of
information
Pruit t,
1971
Distorts
Pruitt,
1971
information
information
Allows misunderstandings
slip
by
Passes along
of
to
1972
a portion
Stevens, 1963
information
Role
Douglas,
reversal
Johnson, 1967;
Walton, 1969
Requests paraphasing of
other negotiator's position
Bartunek et
al.,
1975
Requires negotiator
other's position
to
discuss
Douglas,
191
1972
Identifies
the
real
issues
Peters, 1952;
Simkin, 1971
Finds dispute underlying
a deadlock
Burton,
1969
Determines concessions
negotiators can make
Pruitt,
1971
the
Finds levels at which the
dispute can be resolved
Burton, 1969
Delineates other negotiator's
Jackson,
Intentions
Convinces negotiator that his[/herJ
perceptions are distorted
Converts negotiation
to tacit bargaining;
to abstract
1952
Burton, 1969
Douglas, 1972
from explicit
from concrete
Schelling, 1960;
Burton, 1969
Informs negotiator that other
cannot
sell
a position to
his constituents
Simkin,
Uses abstract terminology
that obscures disagreements
Burton, 1969
1971
Wa l ton,
Young,
1969;
1972;
Douglas, 1972
Strikes a power balance
Provides direction and acts as
spokes~personJ for weaker side
Perez,
1959
Strengthens weaker side
White,
1978
Exploits weaker side
Douglas,
1972
Tenders agreement points
Perez,
to negotiators
1959;
Stevens, 1963;
Berkowitz et
al.,
1964
192
Highlights negotiators'
common interests
Expands
the
1972
al.,
1975
*Fisher and
Ury, 1981
*Raiffa, 1982
Young,
Barunek et
Lall, 1966
*Fisher and
Ury, 1981
*Raiffa, 1982
agenda
Convinces negotiator that his
high demands will lead to
opponent recalcitrance
Allows face-to-face
communication
Ellsberg,
1965
Lall, 1966;
Baldwin, 1976
Helps negotiator undo
Stevens, 1963;
Kelman, 1965;
1972
Douglas
a commitment
Tenders concessions to
Podell and
Knapp, 1969
negotiators
Restructures the negot
(e.g., from individual
iat ion
negotiators
Jackson, 1952
to committees)
Arranges informal conferences
Reduces
(a)
internegotiator
Pruit t,
1971
tension
Moves discussion to
uncontroversial subject
(b)
Controls emotional
(c)
Tells stories
(d)
Calls
issues
for a break
Creates anticipation that mediator
or arbi trator will enter the
negot ia t ion
193
Jackson, 1952
Walton, 1969
Burton, 1969
Douglas,
1972
Douglas,
1972
Johnson and
Tullar, 1972
Summarizes
Peters,
the agreement
Guarantees compliance
to an agreement
1958
Pruit t, 1971;
Kissinger, 1979
Supervises and verifies
implementation of an
agreement
Young,
Conducts prenegotiation
conference to learn of
negotiators' initial
proposal
1972
Stevens, 1963
Creates an audience effect
with his[/her] presence
Bauer,
1958
Young,
1972
MEDIATOR-NEGOTIATOR RELATIONSHIPS
Rewards
negotiator concessions
Supplies skills that
negotiator
Stevens, 1963
lacks
Educates inexperienced negotiator
Offers negotiator
Pruitt,
1971
advice and
information about other
Jackson, 1952;
Prui tt, 1971
negotiator
Acts as
sounding board
for nego tiator's position;
ing
reality test
Acts as sounding board
Peters,
Pruitt,
1958
1971
Mackraz,
1960
for
negotiator's tactics
Recommends improvements in
Jackson, 1952;
Douglas , 1972
negotiator's strategy
Shares burden of
proposals
initiating
Young,
194
1972
Assumes
for the
some responsibility
agreement
Claims authorship of
negotiator's proposal
Stevens, 1963
Schelling and
1961;
Halperin,
Maggiolo, 1971
Offers convincing rationalization
for negotiator's concession
Inhibits comparisons between
negotiator's present and
past position
Obfuscates negotiator's
posit ion
Stevens,
1963
Young,
1972
Schel I ing,
Threatens compulsory
arbitration
1960
Jackson, 1952
Attacks or raises doubts
about negotiator's position;
"factual
Jackson, 1952
deflation"
Avoids negotiators' bluffs,
threats, appeals to precedence,
Burton,
conscience, etc.
1969
Sends negotiation back
to negotiator;
to mediate
refuse
Stevens, 1963
Indicts negotiators for
Douglas,
their recalcitrance
Threatens to quit if
negotiators do not agree
1972
Stevens, 1963
Shapiro, 1970
Creates commissions with
combined mediating and r eporting
functions
Jackson,
1952
NEGOTIATOR-CONSTITUENCY RELATIONSHIPS
Convinces negotiator's constituents
that negotiator is defending
their interests
195
Kerr, 1954
Publicly indicts negotiator
for being too tough
Shapiro,
1970
Intentionally prolongs
bargaining process
Shapiro,
1970
the
Convinces negotiator that
proposal is salable to the
constituents
Stevens, 1963
Convinces negotiator that
proposal is to his[/herJ
benefit
Burton,
Identifies whether or not
constituency is united
Burton, 1969
Appeals directly
constituency for
to the
concessions
1969
Shapiro, 1970;
Douglas, 1972
Asks negot iators to point
out their constitue nts'
mispercept ions and excessive
Burton,
demands
1969
THIRD PARTY-NEGOTIATION SYSTEM RELATIONSHIP
Brings
to
third party ultimata
Douglas, 1972
the negotiators
Identifies pressure a third
bring
party
could or will
Opens
records on negotiator's
1952
Steven, 1963;
Raskin, 1976
former behavior
Fends
Lovell,
off outside
intervention
Northrup, 1962;
Simkin, 1971
Alters and establishes
preferences and actions
of third parties
Stevens, 1963
Obtains power from third
party to issue recommendation
if mediation fails
Jackson,
196
1952
Resolves
dispute by
the
negotiating a settlement
with powerful third parties
Young, 1967
MEDIATOR-MEDIATOR'S CONSTITUENT RELATIONSHIP
Points out constituent's
misperception and excess
expectation
Argues
that
demands are
Burton,
constituents's
not salable
Stevens, 1963
Misrepresents and distorts
information
Exaggerates extent
Exaggerates
cost of
1971
Burton,
1969
Stevens, 1963;
Shapiro, 1970
Threatens to quit
support
Pruitt,
of
disagreement
Argues that
Is needed
1969
Stevens, 1963
Stevens, 1963
disagreement
SOURCE:
James A. Wal 1, "Mediation -An Analysis, Review, and Proposed
Research," Journal DL Conflict
Resolution,
Volume 25, Number 1,
Sage
(California and London:
March 1981),
Publication, Inc.,
pp. 171 - 12
*Names added by the
thesis.
this
197
author of
BIBILOGRAPHY
Al1 ison,
Graham T.
Essence aj Decision:
Explaining
Crises.
Boston,
MA:
Little,
Brown, and Company, 1971.
IL
Cuban Missile
Theory
Argyris,
Chris.
Intervention
and MLthod:
A
Behavioral
Science
View.
Reading,
AddisonMA:
Wesley Publishing Company, 1973.
A.
Schon.
Organizational
Argyris,
Chris, and Donald
Addison-Wesley Publishing
Learnin g.
Reading,
MA:
Company, 1978.
in
_Theory
Practice:
Increasing
Professional
Effectiveness.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1981.
Bellow,
Gary,
Mineola,NY:
Negotiation.
Moulton.
Bea
and
The Foundation Press, Inc., 1981.
Black, R. R., and J. 5. Mouton.
Decision-Making.
Houston,
Company, 1961.
GrouR
TX:
Dynamics:
Kev la
Gulf
Publishing
What
TL
Implementation Game:
Bardach, Engene.
Cambridge,MA:
After A Bill Becomes A Law.
Press, 1977.
Hapyens
The MIT
Bargaining:
Bacharach, Samuel B., and Edward J. Lawler.
Power Tactics and Outcomes.
San Francisco:
JosseyBass Publishers, 1981.
Bartos,
Otomar J.
Process And Outcome af Negotiations.
New York:
Columbia Univrsity Press, 1974.
Boulding,
Theory.
Kenneth E.
New York:
A General
Conflict And Defense:
Harper and Brothers, 1962.
Chamberlain,
N.
W.
Collective Bargaining.
McGraw Hill Book Company, 1951.
Alan.
Theories Qj jh
Coddington,
Allen and Unwin, 1968.
London:
Bargaining Process.
Social
Lewis.
TheO Functions D
Coser,
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1956.
198
New York:
Conflict.
New
Conflict:
Dj
The& Resolution
Morton.
Deutsch,
New
Processes.
Destructive
Aa
Constructive
Yale University Press, 1977.
Haven,CT:
Negotiations:
Beierly Hills, CA:
ed.
Daniel,
Druckman,
Psychological Perspectives.
Publication, 1977.
Thomas R.
Dye,
Wly
TheT
h
The
Alabama:
Sage
What Governments Da.,
Policv Analvsis:
11 Makes.
Difference
Wha t
and
It.,
University of Alabama Press, 1976.
A Working
Mediation:
International
Roger.
Fisher,
International Peace Academy, 1978.
New York:
Guide.
Getting
William Ury.
and
Roger,
Fisher,
in.
Withoul Giving
Agreement
Negotiating
Houghton Mifflin, 1981.
Bo Yes :
Boston:
New York
Disputes a nd Negotiations.
H.
P.
Gulliver,
Academic Press, 1979.
How Nations
Fred Charles.
Ikle,
Harper and Row, 1964.
Social
Louis.
Kriesberg,
Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Negotiate.
New
Conflicts.
in
Time
of
"Role
Zv i.
Livne,
Institute
Massachusetts
Disserta tion,
1979.
G.
D.
Pruitt,
Academic Press,
Negotiation
1981.
Jeffrey
Pressman,
Implementation.
California Press,
Howard.
Raiffa,
Cambridge, MA:
and
L.,
Berkeley,
1973.
Behavi.981
Aaron
CA:
New York:
Jersey:
Negotiations."
of
Technology,
New
B.
York:
Wildavsky.
University
of
Negotiation.
L
and Science
Ar
Ha
1982.
Press,
Harvard University
social
Rein.
Martin
New York:
Change.
Issuesal
Policy:
Random House, 1970.
Social
The
Brown.
B.
and
Bert
Jeffrey,
Rubin,
Academic
D-L Bargaining And Negotiation.
Psycholocy
New York, 1975.
Press:
Conflict.
DL
he
Strategy
C.
Thomas
Schelling,
Harvard University Press, 1960.
Cambridge, MA:
199
K.
"Anatomy
of
James
Sebenius,
Dissertation, Harvard University, 1980.
La
E.
Mediation
William
Simkin,
Collective Bargaining
Washington, D.
National Affairs, 1971.
Agreement."
C .:
Bureau of
Anselm.
Negotiations:
Varieties, Contexts.
Strauss,
Processes. and Social Order.
San Francisco:
JosseyBass Publishers, 1979.
Stevens,
C.
M.
Negotiation.
Collective
Strateav
and
New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1963
Bargaining
McKersie:
E.,
B.
Robert
Richard
and
Walton,
A
York:
Behavioral
Theory Ui Labor Negotiations.
New
McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Walzer,
Michael.
Sphieres D
1983.
Books, Inc.,
Oran R.,
Young,
Negotiation.
Press.
Justice.
New York:
Basic
ed.
Bargaining:
Formal Theories
f
Ill.:
University of Illinois
Urbana,
Fifty
Percent
The
I.
William.
Zartman,
Doubleday, 1976.
Garden C ity, N.Y.:
200
SoIution.