1. G. P. Richardson July 2006 1 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 2 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 3 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 4 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 5 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany What is Group Modeling? Management team (10-20) with a Modeling/Facilitation 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 6 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 7 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Why System Dynamics Modeling?

8. G. P. Richardson July 2006 8 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Why System Dynamics Modeling?

9. G. P. Richardson July 2006 9 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Why System Dynamics Modeling?

10. G. P. Richardson July 2006 10 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Why System Dynamics Modeling?

11. G. P. Richardson July 2006 11 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Why System Dynamics Modeling?

12. G. P. Richardson July 2006 12 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Why System Dynamics Modeling?

13. G. P. Richardson July 2006 13 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany The Albany Teamwork Approach Facilitator / Elicitor Modeler / Reflector Process coach Recorder Gatekeeper

14. G. P. Richardson July 2006 14 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 15 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany A Typical Room GMB Session

16. G. P. Richardson July 2006 16 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany An Example: Welfare Reform in 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 17 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 18 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 19 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 20 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model Progression: “Models are ours to change and improve.”

21. G. P. Richardson July 2006 21 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model Progression: “Behavior is a Consequence of Structure”

22. G. P. Richardson July 2006 22 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Client Flows in the Resulting TANF Model

23. G. P. Richardson July 2006 23 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Client Flows in the “Safety Net”

24. G. P. Richardson July 2006 24 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 25 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Simulated vs Actual Caseload

26. G. P. Richardson July 2006 26 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 27 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Investing in the “Middle”

28. G. P. Richardson July 2006 28 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Investing on the “Edges”

29. G. P. Richardson July 2006 29 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Base, “Edges,” and “Middle” Compared: Populations on the Welfare Rolls

30. G. P. Richardson July 2006 30 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Total Job-Finding Flows from TANF

31. G. P. Richardson July 2006 31 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Program Expenditures

32. G. P. Richardson July 2006 32 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Emerging Lessons Unemployment dominates system performance Loss of eligibility will shift the next economic cycle’s 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 33 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 34 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 35 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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. G. P. Richardson July 2006 36 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Why Does It Work? Engagement Mental models Complexity Alignment Refutability Empowerment

37. G. P. Richardson July 2006 37 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany 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