Minimizing Organizational Risk

August 2022



One of the important tasks of an agency’s leadership is assessing areas of risk and implementing processes to limit risk to a tolerable level.


This has been most successfully done in the area of finance. Examples of steps to limit risk are:

1.    Bonding employees who manage money

2.    Having a different staff for receiving funds from depositing or expending funds

3.    Using a standard accounting program

4.    Having an annual audit and addressing audit exceptions


In the area of client management, especially in group care and foster care settings, agencies limit risk by;

1.    Establish in policies regarding physical restraint (the national trend is to prohibit its use)

2.    Adopting a nationally recognized program of behavior management, example: Cornel’s Therapeutic Crisis Intervention (TCI) 

3.    Train all staff who have client contact in the model before they work with clients

4.    Have policy and procedures that require all staff to use the chosen program

5.    Annually retrain in the model


I will use TCI as an example:


The five steps of therapeutic crisis intervention are:

  • Step One – Define the Problem. (behavior) In this phase, we help others figure out what the problem is that we are trying to solve. ... 
  • Step Two – Ensure Safety. ... 
  • Step Three – Provide Support. ... 
  • Step Four – Examine Alternatives. ... 
  • Step Five – Make a Plan. ... 
  • Step Six – Obtain Commitment.

 

In the area of personnel management, you also want to limit risk and thus limit lawsuits for discrimination and wrongful termination that are occurring on an increasing basis. You also want personnel management practices that limit turn-over or increase staff retention.

 

We want to do the same actions as we do with finance or client management:

1.    Establish a supervision practice model and procedures for addressing employee problems

2.    Train all employees in one supervision practice model

3.    Require all supervisors to use that model in supervision

4.    Annually retrain in that model 

 

 

We want a model of supervision to use with staff that models the process we want staff to use with clients:

1.    Identify the program behavior

2.    Create safety (make it clear the intent is not to harm or punish but help)

3.    Provide support: Provide knowledge, skills, tools and clear definitions of what success is behaviorally

4.    Ask what needs to occur to be successful (the employee needs to own the solution)

5.    Make a plan (and document) 

6.    It must be a mutually agreed plan (both sign the agree to the plan)

 

 

This is called parallel practice.  Whatever we want staff to do with clients we want management to do with staff in parallel practice. In that way staff can experience the process we then ask them to do with clients. And we limit risk.

 

Nonprofits have done a great job of limiting fiscal risk. Though I must tell you that I hear of CEOs and CFOs being fired regularly for fiscal mismanagement. That is the indicator that the necessary fiscal oversight of the Board of Directors is not adequate and needs to be looked at the Board level with outside consultation not by the CEO or CFO.

 

Nonprofits doing out-of-home care have done a good job of starting to put in behavior management system in place with staff and foster parents but there is a tendency to not maintain it.

 

In the area of supervision, few Nonprofits have done the parallel work necessary to limit their risk. Five questions to assess this area:

 

1.    Does your agency have a frequency of supervision policy that allows for recognition of successful employees rather that everyone gets the same amount of supervision always (bad practice)?

 

2.    Has your agency adopted a supervision practice model that focuses on employee empowerment and success?

 

3.    Does your agency train all supervisors in that model when hired and do annual retraining?

 

4.    Does your agency have policies, procedures, job descriptions and employee handbooks that all support a supervision practice model that focuses on employee empowerment and success?

 

5.    Is your agency turnover of line staff/ foster parents higher than you want it to be?

 

 

If you answered yes to any one of these questions, then it’s time for your agency to address this risk. Supervision for Success is a practice model that addresses all requirements and is easy to teach (3 days or 10 zoom classes) and then you can train inhouse trainers in one additional day (not available on zoom).

 

If you want to limit your risk in the area of personnel email me at [email protected]m or call me at 760.333.9056.

LEADING FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX is a monthly newsletter for human services leaders.

Its purpose is to challenge your thinking and help you improve organizational and outcome performance.


To receive your copy free, simply email Jeff Bormaster and ask to be added to the mailing list. Feel free to share these newsletters with other human services leaders, simply include the contact information. 

You can read previous issues of Leading Outside the Box at www.jeffbormasterconsulting.com/topics



Are you a non-profit struggling to recruit and retain a workforce
By Jeff Bormaster 26 Feb, 2024
Is your primary audience for hiring Gen Y and Gen Z, folks under the age of 41?
02 Oct, 2023
Coaching for Success in Human Service Agencies
By Jeff Bormaster 22 Sep, 2023
Its Time To Teach Supervisors How to Supervise Gen Y & Z
By Jeff Bormaster 17 Aug, 2023
Why Can’t We Keep Front-line Workers?
By Jeff Bormaster 15 Jul, 2023
Why Can’t We Retain Line Staff?
By Jeff Bormaster 11 Jun, 2023
Help – We Need Help! The Forever Labor Shortage
By Jeff Bormaster 11 Jun, 2023
Why Can’t We Recruit & Retain Foster Parents
By Jeff Bormaster 11 Jun, 2023
Our systems are all interconnected and interactive, each one nested within the other. In this image we only have four layers of these nested systems but remember that the layer labeled “government, funders, and the public” is itself nested within larger social and global systems. Therefore everything that happens to one system is likely to be reflected in all of the others. The concept of parallel process taken out of the individual context and applied to organizations is a useful way of offering a coherent framework that can enable organizational leaders and staff to develop a way of thinking “outside the box” about what has happened and is happening to their service delivery systems, based on an understanding of the ways in which trauma and chronic adversity affect human function. Parallel process has been defined as what happens when two or more systems – whether these consist of individuals, groups, or organizations – have significant relationships with one another, they tend to develop similar affects, cognition, and behaviors, which are defined as parallel processes …. Parallel processes can be set in motion in many ways, and once initiated leave no one immune from their influence. Clients bring their past history of traumatic experience into the social service sectors, consciously aware of certain specific goals but unconsciously struggling to recover from the pain and losses of the past. They are greeted by individual service providers, subject to their own personal life experiences, who are more-or-less deeply embedded in entire systems that are under significant stress. Given what we know about exposure to childhood adversity and other forms of traumatic experience, the majority of service providers have experiences in their background that may be quite similar to the life histories of their clients, and that similarity may be more-or-less recognized and worked through [2]. The result of these complex interactions between traumatized clients, stressed staff, pressured organizations, and a social and economic environment that is frequently hostile to the aims of recovery is often the opposite of what was intended. Staff in many treatment programs suffer physical and psychological injuries at alarming rates and thus become demoralized and hostile. Their counter-aggressive responses to the aggression in their clients helps to create punitive environments. Leaders become variously perplexed, overwhelmed, ineffective, authoritarian, or avoidant as they struggle to satisfy the demands of their superiors, to control their subordinates, and to protect their clients. When professional staff and nonprofessionally trained staff gather together in an attempt to formulate an approach to complex problems they are not on the same page. They share no common theoretical framework that informs problem-solving. Without a shared way of understanding the problem, what passes as treatment may be little more than labeling, the prescription of medication, and behavioral “management”. When troubled clients fail to respond to these measures, they are labeled again, given more diagnoses and termed “resistant to treatment”. In this way, our systems inadvertently but frequently recapitulate the very experiences that have proven to be so toxic for the people we are supposed to help. Just as the lives of people exposed to repetitive and chronic trauma, abuse, and maltreatment become organized around the traumatic experience, so too can entire systems become organized around the recurrent and severe stress of trying to cope with a flawed mental model based on individual pathology, that is the present underpinning of our helping systems. When this happens, it sets up an interactive dynamic that creates what are sometimes uncannily parallel processes. The result can be seen in the chart below. Bloom and Farragher, Destroying Sanctuary: The Crisis in Human Service Delivery Systems
By Jeff Bormaster 07 May, 2023
Understanding the Role of Residential in Child Welfare
By Jeff Bormaster 09 Apr, 2023
If You Can’t Bribe Them to Stay How Can You Keep Employees?
More Posts

Share by: