P&P April 2016

VC stage progression overall, consid- ering what regulative efforts are likely to do so, and what regulative efforts are likely to be barriers (e.g., legal services supporting data sharing within the parameters of privacy law, versus blocking it completely). 2. Related, the VC stages are at times not appreciated as mutually reinforcing building blocks that each, in turn, enable future stage progres- sion. Some systems will attempt to “skip to generative” because it’s the most advanced stage, only to realize later that they have a ton of shoring up to do, especially around technology and workforce barriers that are best addressed at the earlier stages. 3. Most agency leadership teams aren’t clear on how to translate VC stages to individual and functional roles, which is essential in making the model “real world and grounded” with the staff. I’ve been asked to reduce the model stages as closely as possible to “a simple, single word we can all relate to” and have come up with these, to fairly good effect: l Regulative: Integrity (timely, accurate, cost effective, within the rules) l Collaborative: Service (making things easier for your internal/ external customers) l Integrative: Root causes (solving problems at their root vs. addressing symptoms) l Generative: Bigger than the family (using population-level analysis to drive prevention and structural or capacity changes at the system level) methods will best enable VC pro- gression. For example, viewing the effort as entirely novel—separating previously used approaches with an “entirely new” approach—doesn’t work well. Rather, building from the existing approaches by using improve- ment teams and facilitated critical thinking to move forward from the system’s current strengths works much better—a parallel process to Integrative casework, by the way. 5. There is limited understanding in most systems regarding the respec- tive roles of local, state, and federal 4. It’s unclear to most system leader- ship teams what change management

For those of you not yet accustomed to this journey, the Value Curve describes how health and human services are provided to those we serve at four progressive levels of value , each building from and expanding the consumer value delivered at the more formative levels: l At the regulative level , consumers receive a specific product or service that is timely, accurate, cost-effec- tive, and easy to understand. Many agencies and systems around the country are focused on achieving efficient and effective service within a specific program area, and to a large extent this is good for con- sumers. But we know that there are value limitations of sending those we serve through many program doors, engaging them within a limited program scope, or focusing primarily on program compliance and related output goals as measures of our own performance and value, whether or not these outputs have the desired consumer impact. l At the collaborative level , con- sumers “walk through a single door” and have access to a more complete array of products and services that are available “on the shelf.” At this level, agencies with their partners focus on cross-programmatic efficiency and effectiveness, often requiring operational innovations like unified intake and eligibility systems, cross- program service plans that address multiple consumer needs, and shared data platforms or protocols to support these integrated services. Certainly a big step up in value for consumers, but not the best we can do. l At the integrative level , products and services are designed and cus- tomized with input from consumers themselves, with the objective

of best meeting their true needs and enabling positive outcomes in their lives. The focus at this stage is on more consultative consumer engagement methods, product and service flexibility, and enhanced service delivery. This is all geared toward supporting people to prevent problems upstream, versus fixing or recovering from them down- stream. This all requires redefining casework practice and skills, pro- viding real-time technology tools for caseworkers, establishing new forms of data and analysis geared toward problem prevention, and instituting highly adaptive program design and funding mechanisms. l At the generative level , different overall environment better for them, resulting in value that is broader and more systemic than an individual or family might receive directly. At this stage of value, agencies with their partners focus on general consumer advocacy and co-creating capacity at a community-wide level as a means to meet consumer needs. This requires collective efforts targeted at commu- nity-level infrastructure building, and enhancing societal beliefs and norms about government in general, and those we serve in particular. This ulti- mately results in greater commitment to leveling the playing field, plugging everyone into the community as a whole, and employing practical solu- tions that work. I’ve now been privileged to “travel with the Value Curve” and work hands-on with a number of agencies and their communities as they apply models and tools from our Transformation Toolkit. 3 Like all such journeys, the “learning by doing” benefits have been priceless—by sharing a few of them with you here, we hope to provide you with a bit of this travel access: 1. The regulative stage of this model is often viewed as “inferior” to focus upon and strengthen. This creates significant confusion and tension in system change where it isn’t useful. It is important to look at regulative value as essential for organizations providing various products and services are joining forces to make the consumer’s

Phil Basso is the deputy director of APHSA.

Policy&Practice   April 2016 22