Joining Minds Group Modeling to Link People, Process, Analysis, and Policy Design

1
Joining Minds Group Modeling to Link People,
Process, Analysis, and Policy Design

• GP Richardson, DF Andersen, LF Luna-Reyes
• Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
• State University of New York at Albany
• (Presented at the annual meeting of the
  Association for Public Policy Analysis and
  Management, 2004)

2
Overview

• What is group modeling?
• An extended example Welfare Reform
• Other cases
• The Albany group modeling approach
• Evaluating group model building efforts
• Why does it work?

3
Ancestry of GMB

• GDSS
• Quinn, Nunamaker, Eden Ackmann, DeSanctis
  Gallupe,
• Decision conferencing
• Milter Rohrbaugh, Schuman Rohrbaugh,
• System dynamics
• Forrester, Richardson Pugh, Sterman,
• Mental models systems thinking
• Checkland, Senge,
• For a rich history, see Zagonel

4
What is Group Modeling?

• A form of group decision support, involving a
  group of stakeholders with a complex problem
• Group facilitation
• Model building and refinement in public
• Simulation of scenarios and options
• Extensive facilitated discussion and analysis
• Facilitated policy design and decisions

5
What is Group Modeling?

• Management team (10-20) with a Modeling/Facilitati
  on team (2-4)
• Four full days over 3-to-4 months
• Extensive between meeting work
• Rapid prototyping of model with finished
  simulation product
• Facilitation of implementation plans

6
Primary GMB references in the System Dynamics
Community

• Decision modeling Reagan-Cirincione et al.
• Teamwork Richardson Andersen
• Scripts Andersen Richardson
• Group model building Vennix
• Special issue of the System Dynamics Review on
  GMB (1997)

7
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
8
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
9
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
10
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
11
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
12
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
13
The Albany Teamwork Approach

• Facilitator / Elicitor
• Modeler / Reflector
• Process coach
• Recorder
• Gatekeeper

14
Components of the Process

• Problem definition meeting
• Group modeling meeting
• Formal model formulation
• Reviewing model with model building team
• Rolling out model with the community
• Working with flight simulator
• Making change happen

15
A Typical Room GMB Session
16
An Example Welfare Reformin New York State
Counties

• Initial interest within NYS Department of Social
  Services
• TANF model in Cortland County
• Safety net model in Dutchess County
• Joined TANF/SafetyNet model in Dutchess
• Calibration in Cortland, Dutchess, Nassau
• Implementations in Cortland Dutchess

17
First Group Model Building Meeting

• Introductions Hopes and Fears
• Stakeholders
• Introduction to simulation Concept models
• Client flow elicitation
• Policy resources and clusters
• Mapping policy influences
• Next steps for client group and modeling team

18
Who Was in the Room?

• DSS Commissioner
• Deputy commissioner
• DSS director of medical services
• DSS director of administrative services
• DSS director of income maintenance
• NYS DSS representatives

• Health commissioner Mental health administrative
  manager
• Executive director of Catholic Charities
• Representative from the Department of Labor
• Minority leader of the county legislature
• Managed care coordinator

19
Introduction to Simulation

• Concept models
• Introduce the stock, flow, and causal link icons
  used throughout the workshop
• Demonstrate there are links between feedback
  structure and dynamic behavior
• Initiate discussion about the structure and
  behavior of the real system
• Less than 30 minutes

20
Concept Model ProgressionModels are ours to
change and improve.
21
Concept Model ProgressionBehavior is a
Consequence of Structure
22
Client Flows in the Resulting TANF Model
23
Client Flows in the Safety Net
24
Confidence building processes

• Structure of the model emerging from group
  process
• Parameters based on administrative data
  everywhere possible
• Parameter and table function group elicitations
• Group contributions to tests of model behavior

25
Simulated vs Actual Caseload
26
Three Policy Mixes

• Base run (for comparison)
• Flat unemployment rate
• Historical client behaviors
• Investments in the Middle
• Additional services to TANF families
• Increased TANF assessment monitoring
• Safety net assessment job services
• Investments on the Edges
• Prevention
• Child support enforcement
• Self-sufficiency promotion

27
Investing in the Middle
28
Investing on the Edges
29
Base, Edges, and Middle ComparedPopulations
on the Welfare Rolls
30
Total Job-Finding Flows from TANF
31
Program Expenditures
32
Emerging Lessons

• Unemployment dominates system performance
• Loss of eligibility will shift the next economic
  cycles costs and caseloads
• Endogenous management makes a smaller difference
• Employment programs at the middle of the system
  are low leverage points
• Policies at the edges of the system have high
  leverage
• Community-wide partnerships are needed to
  implement Edge policies
• Performance measures continue to be problematic

33
Resource allocation Unpacking the Policy
Resources for Implementation

• 43 participants about 30 agencies and
  organizations in the county
• Three stage process
• 9 groups
• 6 larger groups
• 3 final groups
• Ending with five initiatives, costing about
  675,000

34
Final proposals implemented in Cortland

• Job center (150K)
• Centralized location for all referrals
• Resource center (150K)
• Coordination of community effort toward diversion
• Program to support employed self-sufficiency
  (200K)
• Job counselors, case managers, private sector
• Computer-based comprehensive assistance (150K)
• Link all providers and case managers, shared
  database
• Expansion of child-care services (75K)

35
Does It Work?

• Categories of evaluation data
• Modeling team reflections
• Participant reflections
• Measurable system change
• Results
• Methodological problems
• Implementation in about half of GMBs
• Positive measure of success in about half of the
  implemented interventions

36
Why Does It Work?

• Engagement
• Mental models
• Complexity
• Alignment
• Refutability
• Empowerment

37
What are we really doing?

• Microworlds?
• Data-based representations of a policy reality
• Tools for finding what options really work best
  to solve a complex dynamic problem
• Boundary objects?
• Socially constructed representations of a
  negotiated world that may not exist
• Tools for facilitating discussion and agreement
  in contentious environments