IT IS DIFFICULT in the present state fiscal environment to separate actions taken due to crisis from sensible and necessary changes. However, in looking at some recent adjustments at the Department of Social Services, it appears the agency has tried to make the best of a situation that no one would envy.

DSS has lost $48 million in state funding over the last three years. In the past 18 months, the agency has lost 1,300 employees. This hits the social services agency at a time when the numbers of people eligible for food stamps and welfare are increasing. DSS has seen no lessening in another of its vital missions, protecting vulnerable and abused children.

In the midst of all the turmoil, a positive change in the structure at DSS has been largely overlooked. The agency was the focus of an operational review by Gov. Mark Sanford’s Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance. DSS needed a critical review of its structure, which maintained many vestiges of the old, unaccountable systems of state government. An agency with thousands of employees governed by cumbersome state and federal regulations is always going to be more difficult to change. However, there also was an ingrained political culture at DSS that hindered it in achieving the full promise of 1993’s government restructuring. The latest reorganization should help address those flaws. And, once the state’s fiscal situation is on better footing, the new structure at DSS should make it more accountable and responsive.

The MAP Commission recommended reducing the number of state deputy directors from five to two. The differences in the two directors’ jobs are delineated and clear. The greater scope of their individual oversight is appropriate for such high-ranking posts. One deputy director handles operations, including functions such as policy development and its implementation all the way down to county offices. The other deputy director oversees administration, including functions such as hiring, budgeting and information systems. Under the old system, staff development and training were handled by a different deputy director from the one overseeing human resource management. County offices, the front lines for service delivery, were overseen by a different deputy director from the one overseeing the very programs the county offices administer.

This reorganization benefited from the fresh approach that an outside eye provides. But it should be noted that change was not made in a vacuum from the experience and insight of experienced DSS workers. Employee representatives advised the commission. Commission members and DSS Director Kim Aydlette made unannounced visits to county offices to speak directly with the people who use the services of DSS.

Ms. Aydlette does not try to sugarcoat the agency’s present status. “I’m not going to tell you it’s nirvana,” she said during a visit to The State. She has taken action to address some glaring needs, including lifting a hiring freeze for DSS caseworkers in York County. Those workers’ caseloads had soared to the highest in the state after many caseworkers left for better-paying jobs.

The crisis is far from over for our state and for DSS. However, we believe this agency has positioned itself well to make more positive change once the state’s finances stabilize.