Efficiency in Social Work Practice and Administration

Abstract

Efficiency is the most misunderstood concept in the human services arena. Efficiency is not achieved by cutting costs or lowering quality. Rather, efficiency can be achieved only by improving the relationship between costs and outcomes. Social workers have expressed a cultural bias against the notion of efficiency as a guiding concept in the delivery of human services. The call for efficiency has been used to rationalize cutting budgets, implementing dehumanizing procedures, and scrimping on quality (Wildavsky, 1991). Indeed, efficiency has been declared the great enemy of equality (Okun, 1975). Although this claim may hold true for the distributive dynamics of social policy, it is difficult to find merit in the inefficient production of personal social services. Rimer (1991) observed that efficiency is a concept that is directly relevant to the world of the practicing social worker: Social workers have historically complained that their caseloads are excessive. While this may often be correct, they overlook the more obvious fact that there is only a limited amount of time in the day, week, or month in which to do the job. The nature of social work is such that there is always something that should be done but is not because of insufficient time. A focus on efficiency would have . . . social workers examine how best to use their time, which clients should be served, how much time should be allocated to each family, child, etc. (p. 135) The need for efficiency is driven by scarcity (Pruger & Miller, 1991). Scarcity is related to the absolute availability of resources and to political decisions regarding the distribution of resources. Good intentions will always be more plentiful than available resources. Therefore, it is important to get the maximum output from every social services input. That is efficiency. Pruger and Miller (1991) pointed out that efficiency is both a conceptual tool and a vision of perfection (p. 5). Wildavsky (1976) observed that pure efficiency is defined as achieving the best possible outcome with the least possible resources. Although this is a laudable goal, most human services managers must settle for mixed efficiency - the maximum possible outcome with a given level and type of resources. In short, efficiency in the real world of human services management is a relative concept. The central question then becomes, How can resources be used to produce greater outcome relative to the current use of those resources? Outcomes-to-Costs Efficiency Matrix Defining efficiency as the optimal relationship between means and ends (Pruger & Miller, 1991) provides the basis of a simple model for categorizing human services programs. This model can be used to examine the relative efficiency of a program and further indicates what needs to be done to improve the program's efficiency. The outcomes-to-costs efficiency matrix [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED] allows for the simple comparison of program outcomes to program costs. Programs with high outcome and low cost are bright (section 1). Bright spots are fully developed programs that can be implemented economically. Programs that are high in costs and outcomes are rising suns (section 2). These programs need only to be implemented on a larger scale or with less costly input to move into section 1. Such programs are worth developing because their effectiveness is already established; the remaining challenge is to reduce such programs' costs without greatly diminishing their effectiveness. Space programs (section 3) cost little and, in turn, produce few real outcomes. Although it may be tempting to keep nonproductive, inexpensive programs in operation because they appear to do no harm, these programs commit an organization to a level of mediocrity. A commitment to excellence entails getting rid of such programs. Finally, programs that produce low output yet involve high cost are black holes (section 4). …