Centralized Service-Delivery Systems
This kind of delivery boasts its organization because there is a leader directing the staff (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 148 – 149). The problem, however is that since there is a leader, decision-making is sometimes time-consuming because of the fact that everything has to be “passed on to a higher executive level” before making a move (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 148 – 149).
Client-Centered Management and “Inverted Hierarcy” Service-Delivery Systems
The objective of this one is very good since it follows a certain structure however the people working for this kind of delivery are usually given only a small amount in terms of financial reward that’s why they are often absent and unsatisfied, which in turn affect the delivery of service (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 149 – 150).
Federated Service-Delivery Organizations
This kind of delivery system is made up of two or more organizations aiming to work together to provide service to others (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 150 – 151). They divide or delegate the tasks needed to be carried out to serve others (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 150 – 151).
Case Management Service-Delivery Systems
This delivery system leaves the whole responsibility to the “case manager” who in turn will be the one to check if the needs of client’s/consumers are met (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 151 – 153).
Staffing with Indigenous Workers as a Service-Delivery Strategy
This kind of delivery service is advantageous for those whose social problems need to be addressed for instance “Alcoholics Anonymous” (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 153 – 155). They are experts on these kinds or problems (Chambers et. al., 2004, pp. 153 – 155).
Program Consumer/Beneficiary, Client Controlled Organizations as a Service-Delivery Strategy
This type does not have any money or funds to consistently run such delivery service but it makes sure that its beneficiaries, for instance, “the poor & the oppressed” will get what is due to them as mandated by the law (Chambers et. al., 2004, p. 156).
Racial, Ethnic, and Religious Agencies as a Service-Delivery Strategy
This kind of delivery system is beneficial to those who belong to racial, ethnic, and religious groups since this kind of service is focused on such (Chambers et. al., 2004, p. 156).
Privatized Service Delivery
A “privatized” service delivery, on the other hand, establishes a “healthy competition” within the industry because delivery of services may be handled with “greater expertise” that may bring in “higher quality services” at a more economical cost (Chambers et. al., 2004, p. 160).
Good Service and Benefit Delivery
After comparing and contrasting the types of delivery systems discussed in Chapter 7, “what then should agencies want in terms of ‘good’ service and benefit delivery” you may ask? First of all, the service should be delivered in a manner that is “integrated and continuous” (Chambers et. al., 2004, p. 161 – 169). Second, the service should be made available to “clients and beneficiaries”, for instance, it should be easily reached by people otherwise delivery of such service is useless & it should also culturally diverse to cater to those who belong to certain groups (Chambers et. al., 2004, p. 161 – 169). Third, the organization offering the service should be willing enough to be held accountable for whatever “actions and decisions” it carried out related to the service provided; for instance, if the service they deliver is related to abuse, if something happened then the service provider should be held accountable and they should be willing to do answer such problems (Chambers et. al., 2004, p. 161 – 169).
Reference
- Chambers, D. E. & Wedel, K.R. (2004). Social Policy and Social Programs: A Method for the Practical Public Policy Analyst. London: Allyn & Bacon.