Creating ‘settlements’

Two operational models of case management dominated child support agencies. Practitioners referred to them as ‘cradle to grave’ and ‘management by

20 _{Caseworkers at DAFS, due to their large caseloads, rarely made or returned clients’ telephone calls.}

As noted in the 2006 audit report: ‘[C]ase managers in Clark County in particular tended to prefer mail rather than speaking with customers on the telephone or in-person’ (p. Section C, p. 7).MAXIMUS 2006. Performance Audit of the State of Nevada's Enforcement and Collection of Child Support.

94 specialized functions’. The former is a model where a caseworker manages the

lifecycle of a case from the time it opens to the time it closes (a process articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations). This model provides a framework of operation encouraging caseworkers to act on a case based on their assessment of the history of the case to move it to the next stage. By contrast, under the specialization model by functional area, caseworkers do not have ownership of a case’s lifecycle. Instead, they specialize on a particular phase in the life of a case and deliver specific tasks

associated with that phase. This means that caseworkers are responsible for managing a number of cases (known as their caseload) that, based on certain parameters, belong to the same phase. These operational models, deeply inscribed with the FPMs’ logic, therefore, offered ways to manage practices and shape organizational arrangements that would enable the measures to perform in predictable ways.

Prior to the change in leadership, DAFS was back and forth between the two operational models. As Sarah commented,

There was a lot of reorganizations. Got to be an old joke. When the music starts, grab a chair. ‘Cause there was a… I changed teams 4 times. I was reorganized 4 times, and I think they finally called the last one, they didn’t call it a reorganization, they called it reengineering, which was just a fancy term of going back to a specialized system that they had prior. (Sarah,

FG2Supervisors)

Yet, the last restructuring seemed to have been a deliberate effort to frame and support the measured path and improve the organization’s performance. Calling it ‘reengineering’ was indicative of this framing effort. Indeed, most study participants claimed that specializing allowed them to focus on deploying the tasks necessary to achieve the expected outputs that can be measured. For example, caseworkers assigned to the Establishment Unit focused their activities on establishing paternities (FPM#1) and child support orders (FPM#2), while Enforcement caseworkers

concentrated on collecting support payments (FPM#3 and FPM#4) based on the ordered obligation amount. By organizing caseworkers into specialized units, caseworkers were expected to gain expertise in their area, repeatedly perform the valued actions, and keep delivering the measurable outcomes. As one manager

95 explained, ‘if you have enforcement workers all under the same supervisor who

understands enforcement, then you’re gonna be more productive’;otherwise, he or she would have ‘to be an expert in everything’ (Alyssa, InterviewManagement). Alistair, one of the attorneys, offered a similar explanation.

Well, it’s obviously a complicated system and there are a lot of laws involved and a lot of different fact scenarios, and so to expect one person to understand not only the whole legal system but the whole computer system, how to work it as well, was a major undertaking. So, when someone is specialised in their area, they get very good at it obviously and more efficient, I think. So, it improves the timeframes, it improves the outcomes, it improves everything. (Alistair, FG5Attorneys)

Through this renewed specialization effort, ‘professional boundaries’ were gradually established, allowing ‘settlements’ (Stark, 2009: 107-108) to emerge so caseworkers could get the job done.

The restructuring of DAFS’ employees into specialized functional units was further supported by their relocation to the current site. By 2009, DAFS’ relocated from a six-story building to a refurbished two-building office in a new location. The organization’s operations featured heavily in their use of building spaces. The interior layout of one of the buildings was designed to support the organization’s business model. Spread throughout the ground floor (as opposed to several floors),

caseworkers are clustered and sectioned by functional areas, giving them a sense of their geographic boundaries (see Figures 5-1 and 5-2). Strategically located within each functional unit are supervisors’ enclosed offices (see Figure 5-3) with huge glass windows to maintain visibility and connection with their staff while demarcating their role and position within their unit. Other operations units are conveniently located within the same building floor, creating an impression of a well-contained business ecosystem. But rather than simply making case management work more efficient, these materialities or embodiment (Beunza, Hardie & MacKenzie, 2006) of the FPMs in buildings, sectional work spaces, individual offices, warm bodies of caseworkers with their specialized roles and technical devices, shaped how employees interacted with each other and how they thought about the measures. Thus, by creating the

96 material conditions for the FPMs to perform, DAFS’ employees could be expected to enact the reality that the measures intended to measure.

Figure 5-1 Enforcement Unit

Figure 5-2 Paternity Unit

97 The relocation was extended to the judicial body. A space was created in the main building to allow the Courts to set up shop. The two courtrooms, dedicated entirely to child support, enabled cases to be heard quickly. Prior to the organization’s relocation to this newly refurbished building, attorneys presented their cases at a courtroom located in a different part of the city. Their use of the facility was limited due to the fact that other family-related cases were also heard21_{, making it difficult for}

them to get all their cases in the court calendar for a hearing. Yet, the attorneys needed those court hearings to establish legal paternities or child support orders, enforce or modify existing orders, or present the status of delinquent cases that were ordered to participate in a drug court or employment program to get them back in compliance. Based on two focus group discussions, it was clear that having their own courtrooms on site facilitated the scheduling of court hearings and helped the

organization produce the outputs needed to improve their performance measures.

We basically doubled our court space. We had one courtroom for a long time in the program that 2 hearing masters would share. When we moved to this building about 8 years ago, now we have 2 courtrooms that operate full time, day…. morning and afternoon, so that doubled our amount of court slots, doubled the amount of modifications and contempt hearings we can have and…. So, I think that was one thing that improved the numbers. (Alistair, FG5Attorneys)

Indeed, by bringing the judicial courts to their space, DAFS managed to create a one-stop shop to contain all those involved (i.e. caseworkers, parents, attorneys, judges, clerks, marshals, systems, tools, etc.) in the delivery of the new ‘good’.