Civil Services in the EU of 27 Reform Outcomes and the Future ...

Civil Services in the EU of 27 Reform Outcomes and the Future ...

Civil Services in the EU of 27 Reform Outcomes and the Future of the Civil Service EIPA, Maastricht European Commission, 10 February 2012 Prof Dr Christoph Demmke, EIPA Why this presentation? Comparative Study National Administrations How relevant is the reform process in the Member States for EU officials? Will the EU Institutions follow the reform trend in the Member states? If yes, in which areas? To what extend? How much will your work/job/status be concerned ? COMPARISON: HOW CIVIL SERVICE IS DEFINED IN THE EU MEMBER STATES Similarities among Member States Differences among Member States Similarities all Member States have a specific public law status for civil servants (also in Sweden, UK a specific case, CZ republic in reform vacuum), no abolishment of public law status despite all reforms all EU Member States employ civil servants and other categories of staff, no privatisation of Government (specific ethical obligations remain) In all Member States civil servants have specific working conditions (e.g., specific ethical requirements, enhanced job security, specific recruitment systems and selection requirements) Civil servants in most Member states still work in a specific hierarchical

and organisational structure Bureaucracy (slowly disappearing) In all Member States no trend towards a uniform public employment status but pluralisation of different statuses In most Member States alignment between public employees and private sector employees working conditions (best case is job security) Differences among Member States Different definitions of the term civil service (narrow vs. broad) Ireland vs. France Proportion of civil servants in public employment varies significantly, between 0,5% - 100% in some countries all public tasks may be carried out by civil servants (no restrictions, case NL) some countries reserve specific functions only to civil servants (case D, in theory) in some countries, constitutions and civil service laws require that certain tasks should as a principle! be carried by civil servants trend towards more flexibility (loi de mobilit, France) Working conditions vary significantly, reflecting common private-sector practices or specific public-sector traditions Most Member States employ civil servants and public employees (and fixed-term employees) Employment of civil servants in administrative sectors differs considerably, trend towards a core civil service level Do these administrative sectors belong to central civil service or do they have their own civil service systems? Percentage of civil servants and other employees by Member State Member state Czech Republic Sweden Percentage of civil servants and other employees

0% civil servants, 62% public employees, 38% officials in territorial self-governmental units 1% statutory civil servants, 99% contractual employees Latvia 6% civil servants, 94% public employees Poland Romania 6% civil servants, 94% civil service employees 6% civil servants, 1% specific civil servants, 93% public employees United Kingdom Ireland 10% civil service, 90% wider public sector Italy Portugal 13% civil servants, 87% public servants (*) 15% civil servants (under public law), 85% civil servants (under labour law) 15% appointed civil servants (public law status), 85% civil servants (labour law status) ** Hungary Cyprus 25% civil servants, 75% public employees 28% civil service, 17% education, 15% security, 14% craftsmen and labourers, 20% semigovernment organisations, 6% local authorities Slovenia 34 % civil servants, 66% public employees Denmark Germany

36% civil servants, 66% public employees 37% civil servants, 59% employees 59%, 4% Member state Spain (**) Percentage of civil servants and other employees 59% civil servants, 27% contracted personnel 14% other types of staff (regional and local level excluded) Lithuania 67% civil servants, 28% employees under labour contract, 5% other Malta 67% civil servants, 33% public sector employees France 73% civil servants, 15% contract agents, 12% other specific staff Greece 74% civil servants, 26% contractual personnel Belgium (**) 75% civil servants, 25% contractual employees Luxembourg 77% civil servants , 23% public employees Finland 83% civil servants, 17% public employees (regional and local level excluded) Slovakia 85% civil servants, 10% public employees, 5% contractual employees Estonia 90% public servants, 7% support staff, 3% nonstaff public servants Netherlands 100% civil servants (*) In Ireland only those who work for the ministries are called civil servants, others are public servants. (**) These figures concern only the federal level administration (in Spain the regional level) and the central Government in Portugal. IDENTIFYING MAJOR REFORM TRENDS

Organisational Reforms HR Reforms Change of public employment and substance of public employment. Reduction of public employment Reduction of percentage of civil servants in total public employment (exceptions: Lux, Germany, Bulgaria) Blurring of boundaries: More public employees working in civil service functions Increase of flexible contracts or precarious employment (see also ECJ: 586/10) (a third class emerging?) alignment of civil servants working conditions with other public employees and private sector Main differences between civil servants and other public employees by issue and Member State (1 = different, 2 = similar) Germany Lithuania Estonia Hungary Ireland Romania Cyprus Slovakia Belgium France Greece Luxembourg Spain Italy Poland Austria Malta Portugal Latvia Netherlands Slovenia

Bulgaria Denmark Sweden Finland Czech Republic United Kingdom % Legal status 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 89 Recruitment Job security Careers 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 74 74 70

Salary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 63 Discipline Dialogue Strike 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2

2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 56 52 48 Pension 1 1 1 2 2

2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 44 % 100 100 89 89 89 89 89 78 78 78 78 78 78 67 67 67

67 56 44 44 44 44 44 33 22 0 0 Grand Reform Trends COMMON REFORM TRENDS IN ALL EU MEMBER STATES a broader process of debureaucratisation and organisational reform This entails decentralisation of HR competences responsibilisation (increased discretion for line managers) reform of org. structures (careers) and flexibilisation (cases: recruitment procedures, career development, job security, pay) Decentralisation of powers, competences and responsibilities From central level to decentralised authorities (state level) From central responsibilities (at ministerial level) to decentralised responsibilities in ministries and agencies From Top-level to middle management (let managers manage) Brings more participative approaches Level of central regulation by policy and by EU Member State (1=Centrally regulated, 2=Not centrally regulated) Cyprus Greece

Ireland Luxembourg Malta Portugal Romania Hungary Lithuania Poland France Slovakia Spain Estonia Bulgaria Italy Latvia Slovenia Denmark Finland Sweden Netherlands Germany United Kingdom Austria Czech Republic Belgium Mean A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.08 B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2

2 2 1.19 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1.21 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1.38 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 1.44 F 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.44 G 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.50 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.70 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.29 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.71 1.75 1.75 1.86 1.88 2.00 A = Equality and diversity policy

B = Legal status C = Pension system D = Basic salary E = Recruitment procedure F = Performance appraisals G = Career structure H = Career development policy Vertical decentralisation and multi-actor involvement in EU public administrations high multi-actor involvement 0,6 FR DE SI FI 0,5 MT IE EE HU BE EC DK 0,4 NL AT CY LT IT CZ PT RO ES PL BG UK SE 0,3 LV

LU 0,2 SK EL 0,1 0,0 -1,0 -0,8 highly central -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 low multi-actor involvement 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 highly decentral Source: Demmke, Hammerschmid and Meyer, Decentralisation and Accountability as Focus of Public Modernisation Reforms,

Office of Official Publications of the EU, Luxemburg, 2006, p. 51 Developments in top managers and middle managers responsibilities in recent years by HRM policy (1=lot more, 2=some more, 3=same, 4=some less, 5=lot less) Bulgaria Ireland Czech Republic Portugal Belgium Latvia Denmark Greece Slovenia France Finland Sweden Italy Malta Spain Luxembourg Estonia Austria Netherlands Slovakia Romania Hungary Poland Germany United Kingdom Lithuania Cyprus Mean A 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.38 B 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1

1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.48 C 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.54 D

1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1.56 E 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.62 F 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 1.63 G 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.63 H 1 2 2 2

1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 J 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.65 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.69 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 1.73 K 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.85 L 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.85 M 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2

3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.89 N 1.23 1.23 1.38 1.38 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.71 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.85 1.85 1.92 1.92 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 A = Career development, B = Training, C = Relocating, D = Recruitment, E = Performance pay, F = Promotions,

G = Working time, H = Diversity policy, I = Performance plans, J = Poor performance, K = Code of conduct, L = Dismissal, M = Discipline, N = Mean Consequence: Leadership more important and more problematic Expectations as to good leadership are rising Employees are more critical and demanding but image (and dream?) of charismatic leadership remains Financial crisis Bringing the bad news and decline in trust in Leadership Workload increasing In appraising peole, need for more discussion, feedback, communication, networking, allocation of HR tasks Leadership is not about strategies and thinking , it is tough, ad-hoc and fragmented daily life decision-making (Mintzberg) Often, higher expectations are not matching skill developments. Overestimation authorities but classical image of sovereign and charismatic leader prevailing Conclusion: Leadership more important but more problematic than ever Attitude towards Leaders and Leadership 100 % 90 % 6 8 9 5

9 9 9 17 80 % 70 % 35 45 60 % 47 Cannot say No 50 % 56 Same Yes 40 % 30 % 50 42 20 % 36 10 % 19

0% More communication More critical More participative More respect 17 From traditional, hierarchical and closed organisations to open and flexible org. structures no exclusive ladder-based recruitment system, abolishment of seniority possibility of mid-career and top-level hiring recognition of private-sector experience in career development, pay and pension calculation Relaxation of job security enhanced job security for civil servants still persists lifetime tenure gradually disappearing more grounds for job termination Recruitment of more fixed-term employees Termination of civil-servant employment by type of civil-service structure (Frequencies in parenthesis) Type of civilservice system Few grounds (1-2) Some

grounds (3-5) Many grounds (6-7) Total 50 (9) 28 (5) 22 (4) 100 (18) Non-career 0 (0) structure 44 (4) 56 (5) 100 (9) Total 33 (9) 33 (9) 100 (27) Career structure 33 (9) Termination of civil-servant employment by EU Member State

(1=Yes, 2=No) Germany Greece Luxembourg Belgium Cyprus Ireland Italy Portugal Spain Austria Malta Sweden Czech Republic Estonia France Hungary Lithuania United Kingdom Bulgaria Denmark Finland Latvia Netherlands Poland Slovakia Slovenia Romania Mean A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 B 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 0.71 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.61 D 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.61 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.54 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

0 1 1 0.29 G 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.18 H 1 1 1 2 2

2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 3.93 A = Disciplinary reasons B = Poor performance C = Restructuring D = Downsizing E = Re-organisation F = Economic difficulties G = Other H = Sum Increased mobility organisational mobility: reduction and abolishment of rigid and hierarchical careers > mobility enhanced individual mobility: enhanced voluntary and obligatory job mobility (as basis for promotions) public-private mobility: enhanced mobility between public and private sectors (mostly in theory, in practice little mobility from private to public)

International mobility still very low (check: case law on Art. 45.4 TFEU) ANALYSING REFORM OUTCOMES Successes and challenges The context Reformresistent Public Services a Myth ! Reformboom in most Member States. Reform of Public Employment Reform of Status Reform of Working Conditions and Pay systems Organisational reforms (reform of recruitment systems) Pension Reforms etc. However, Public Services first and easy target for austerity policies, many reforms (mostly cut-back policies) respond to public pressure and clichs (case: public sectors too big, too costly, too many privileges!) And the European Commission? New reforms. The Financial Crisis A widening gap (Germany vs. Portugal) Generally trend towards the freezing or reduction of salaries, less opportunities for promotion because of cuts in employment, longer working week, cut of allowances, longer working life = Impact on attractiveness of public employment? (in some countries more, in others less) Impact of austerity measures on

workplace level (N=25) Effect of financial crisis on public trust (N=25) General government deficit/surplus 2010 (% of GDP) Mean Low-level deficit (< -4,2) 3,00 Middle-level deficit (-7.0 to -4,2) 3,75 High deficit (> -7.0) 4,38 (1=increased trust, 5=decreased trust) Reform outcomes in HR policies Empirical findings Ambivalent outcomes, z.B. PRP, accountability, ethics and fight against corruption (more rules and standards but better effects?, politicisation, decentralisation and cohesion, impact of less job security, performance measurement, increase of performance management bureaucracy, new unfairness perceptions etc. Progress: Citizen orientation, Transparency, AntiDiscrimination, Working Time Flexibilisation, Combination Job-Family, Equality, Mobility, partly reduction of adm. burdens Overall: less progress in central europe (but what is the reference value? 1990?) Vulnerability of HR-reform trends to integrity violations (N=24) The case of Pay reforms: Unfairness in the Seniority System Individual Organizational Unequal pay for equal work Undifferential compensation Discrimination of young Above average performance employees poor performance Free-riders Limited career options

Little alignment with private sector payment 30 to unfairness in the PRP System Individual Organizational Unprofessional Assessment Financial insufficiencies Measured variable Insecurity Favouritism Intensification of work Transformation into benefits Unsteadiness of goals Quota Intransparency Discrimination Pay differentiation within Goal-setting and across agencies Rewards at the cost of other employees Social immobility 31 Findings and preliminary results: micro-level development How would you judge the development of the working conditions in your organisation? 32 Overall Reform Outcomes FROM TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO POSTBUREAUCRACY How to measure? Measuring traditional bureacuracy

indicators (Weber, in: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft) Main components Component items (items relative weighting within component) 1) Legal status public law status (100%) 2) Career structure existence of career structure (50%) career development centrally regulated (20%) entrance from the bottom (15%) promotions to other positions at mid-career or top-level not possible (15%) 3) Recruitment special recruitment requirements (50%) recruitment centrally regulated (30%) private sector experience not relevant (20%) 4) Salary system basic salary regulated by law (50%) wage system based on seniority (25%) wage system not based on performance (25%) 5) Tenure system lifetime tenure (high job security) (40%) termination rather difficult (40%) job security differs from private sector (20%) Moving away from traditional bureaucratic features But: no uniform trend towards a single new European administrative model, however (is NPM dead?) But: Member States showing different reform paths

and reform priorities But: new reforms are not necessarily producing better outcomes Traditional bureaucracy post-bureaucracy continuum score by EU Member State 0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy Development of Administrative Models 0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy la bureaucratie est morte - vive la bureaucratie Future of civil service many anti-bureaucratic changes but no new universally accepted reform model less civil servants less specific working conditions Member States move away from hierarchical, rulebound systems towards more open and more flexible systems No evidence showing that classical civil services have lower corruption levels and less politicisation DO WE STILL NEED CIVIL SERVANTS? Correlation Bureaucratic structures and Corruption 39 Final remarks No evidence showing new solutions and new systems are better: reforms produce both positive and negative outcomes New Public Management did not produce the desired reform outcomes: some features of the traditional bureaucratic model still persist Future of civil service FUTURE CHALLENGES

Managing efficiency doing more with less? Public tasks may change, but do not disappear New challenges (risks, threats) Need for new jobs in certain sectors (health sector, social sector, IT increasing shortages) Introduction of more austerity measures and ongoing budgetary constraints The proportion of elderly population (aged 65 and over) in five case countries, 20102050 (% of the total population) Age Management: Designing new work structures, work mentalities, flighting discrimination a new challenge (Source: Illmarinen) A new understanding of Fairness. Better or simply different? The era in which treating everybody the same meant treating everybody fairly is not anymore the paradigm of our times. The age of standardization were well suited for the belief in and practice that equal treatment for all is fair treatment. Postmodern challenge experts opinion on how to treat people unequally and yet to be fair A new discourse on distributional justice, procedural justice and interactional justice needed? The merit principle is dead. Long live the merit principle !!! Today, the Member States of the European Union have become more meritocratic and, at the same time, more polarized. Today, rising levels of inequality and problems with social mobility can lead to a loss of social capital, frustration, discontentment and aliena The paradox with the principle of meritocracy lies with the problem that our systems which reward talented people leave no hiding place for those who do not succeed in the competitive struggle.

Future of civil service CONCLUSIONS: HOW TO BETTER UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS? UNINTENTIONAL REFORM EFFECTS/ DILEMMAS AND PARADOXES. Reform outcomes Public Services are subject of many images and perceptions. Often not based on facts. Often, reforms are implemented because of reform fashions, perceptions and images but not because of knowledge of facts and rational analysis. For example. Bureaucracy is bad vs New Public Management is good, centralisation is bad vs decentralisation is good, rigidity is bad vs flexibility is good, rules are bad vs. deregulation is good, public services are efficient vs. private sector services are more efficient What do we actually know? 48 Analysing Reform outcomes Most Reform outcomes have paradoxical or unintentional effects Reform language is manipulative Focus is on trendy reforms Many expectations to reforms are contradictory Reforms and institutional design must be seen together Need for better analysing unintentional effects Paradoxes:Pollitt and Bouckaert

Give priority to making savings/improving the performance of the public sector. Motivate staff and promote cultural change/weaken tenure and downsize. Reduce burden of internal scrutiny and associated paperwork/sharpen managerial accountability. Allocate new responsibilities to government/reduce the range of tasks that government is involved with. Create more single-purpose agencies/improve horizontal coordination (joined-up government; horizontality). Decentralise management authority/improve programme coordination. Improve quality/cut costs. [1] Bouckaert, Geert & Pollitt, Christopher (2011). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Second edition. Oxford, p.164. Towards a better understanding of administrative cultures and traditions tradition and administrative culture are still important how to explain convergence and Europeanisation trend and differentiation trend at the same time? significant differences between and within country groups Eastern European countries a heterogeneous group Mediterranean states a homogeneous group Scandinavian states quite post-bureaucratic, despite some variations among them Anglo-Saxon group of countries a quite heterogeneous group Continental countries a rather homogeneous group with the exception of Netherlands classification of civil service-service systems into career vs. position system countries not fruitful anymore

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • LAW &amp; MORALITY - Google Sites

    LAW & MORALITY - Google Sites

    Morality and the law are inter-related >>> Positive Law <<< An act can become legal even if it is immoral. Based on legislation and case laws. Morality and the law are separated. NATURAL LAW. Divine law. Eternal law. POSITIVE LAW.
  • RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS Design, Performance, Analysis ...

    RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS Design, Performance, Analysis ...

    CONSORT guidelines. Framework for reporting RCTs. Required by many journals. Checklist for the content of the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. CONSORT flow diagram. CONSORT=Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.
  • CS 6501 Information Retrieval Co-clustering Documents and Words

    CS 6501 Information Retrieval Co-clustering Documents and Words

    Finding minimum cut vertex partitions in a bipartite graph between documents and words Finding a globally optimal solution to graph partitioning problem: a spectral algorithm Graph Model
  • What do cells do with all that energy?

    What do cells do with all that energy?

    Which organelle(s) are responsible for protein synthesis? Where do ribosomes get their instructions for building new cell parts using proteins? Create a Venn Diagram or a 3 column chart and describe how prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells are alike and...
  • Trust But Verify How can a community learn

    Trust But Verify How can a community learn

    Trust But Verify How can a community learn the facts about the pipelines that run through them? What do the facts mean? Why would communities want information?
  • Abstract View of System Components

    Abstract View of System Components

    Some of the theories are: (1) Consequentialism actions are judged good/bad depending on the outcome/ results of such actions There are three types of Consequentialism: Theories… (I) Egoism- putting an individual's interests and happiness above everyone else's. (ii) Utilitarianism ...
  • Special Cleaning Procedures

    Special Cleaning Procedures

    respiratory devices protective shields and barriers designed to protect the worker from injury or exposure to a patient's blood, tissue, or other potentially contaminated bodily fluids
  • Implementing a Pediatric RD Residency Program Mary Sowa,

    Implementing a Pediatric RD Residency Program Mary Sowa,

    Quiz for candidates as part of the interview process; focus on clinical skills. Implement orientation week. Shift of rotations to focus on one clinical area at a time. Outpatient rotations first-use normal nutrition knowledge for specific disorders. CNL staff able...