Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Conflict of Interest Types in Colorado's DD LTSS System
To provide perspective, there are at least five types of Conflict of Interest in Colorado's DD LTSS system. The type currently of interest (case management vs. service provision) is item (1) in the list.
1) Direct financial and "not invented here" conflict between case
management and service provision when provided within a single
organization, or when provided across two organizations when the
second organization is a not-completely-independent spin-off of the
first organization. For both financial and empire-building reasons,
it is very tempting for a case manager to prefer a
familiar/partnered/allied service provider when referring a vulnerable
person for services.
2) Direct financial Conflict between advocacy principles and support
funding. For instance, if CCDC, a pure advocacy organization which
is known for their slogan "Nothing about us, without us" were to
accept a grant from a State of Colorado agency, then there would
be tension between their advocacy role, and their need to be loyal
to the funding agency.
3) Indirect financial conflict between an advocacy organization
like ARC, and a government-funded organization which provides for
the people the ARC advocates for. ARCs know that being too direct
with CCBs, can reduce their influence in CCBs, the State
Departments/Legislature, and even reduce their own funding.
4) Direct anticipatory outcome conflict between advocates' need to
sit on task forces, Boards, etc.; and the possibility that those
same advocates will be blamed for the final result. This is the
classic "no good deed goes unpunished" syndrome; an advocate can
be blamed for a bad result even though their overall impact may
have been positive.
5) Direct financial/management/outcome conflict between very large
CCB Case Manager loads, a CCB's need to keep its budget down, and
the CM's need to do something. These conditions may lead a CM
to not informing, or misinforming vulnerable clients, because they
need to regulate their workload, cannot organize and track their
workload, or are told what to do by their management.
1) Direct financial and "not invented here" conflict between case
management and service provision when provided within a single
organization, or when provided across two organizations when the
second organization is a not-completely-independent spin-off of the
first organization. For both financial and empire-building reasons,
it is very tempting for a case manager to prefer a
familiar/partnered/allied service provider when referring a vulnerable
person for services.
2) Direct financial Conflict between advocacy principles and support
funding. For instance, if CCDC, a pure advocacy organization which
is known for their slogan "Nothing about us, without us" were to
accept a grant from a State of Colorado agency, then there would
be tension between their advocacy role, and their need to be loyal
to the funding agency.
3) Indirect financial conflict between an advocacy organization
like ARC, and a government-funded organization which provides for
the people the ARC advocates for. ARCs know that being too direct
with CCBs, can reduce their influence in CCBs, the State
Departments/Legislature, and even reduce their own funding.
4) Direct anticipatory outcome conflict between advocates' need to
sit on task forces, Boards, etc.; and the possibility that those
same advocates will be blamed for the final result. This is the
classic "no good deed goes unpunished" syndrome; an advocate can
be blamed for a bad result even though their overall impact may
have been positive.
5) Direct financial/management/outcome conflict between very large
CCB Case Manager loads, a CCB's need to keep its budget down, and
the CM's need to do something. These conditions may lead a CM
to not informing, or misinforming vulnerable clients, because they
need to regulate their workload, cannot organize and track their
workload, or are told what to do by their management.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)