In little more than a decade, the use of computer technology has increased dramatically within Massachusetts community action agencies (CAAs). While in the late 1980s computers typically could have been found at CAAs in a handful of programs, in fiscal departments, and in some agency administrative offices, today—on average—one computer exists for every two staff members working at CAAs in the state (over 2,000 computers for a total of more than 4,000 staff). Nearly half of all staff at these organizations now spend at least half of each day working on computers.
While a few of these organizations began utilizing computer technology in a very limited way as long ago as the 1970s, many acquired computers in the 1980s to meet the demands of specific programs or to perform functions related to their fiscal operations. Yet it was not until the late 1980s or even much more recently that the vast majority of Massachusetts CAAs experienced major expansion in the use of computer technology. For many of these agencies, it was special funding during the mid-1990s from the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) (then the Executive Office of Communities and Development, or EOCD), the state’s grantee for federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) monies, that allowed them to significantly expand their computer hardware and software. Thus, the emergence of widespread computer utilization within most Massachusetts CAAs is a relatively recent development.
Hardware. Based on surveys completed in early 1999 by all 25 Massachusetts CAAs, these organizations have a combined total of approximately 1,800 computers that are now in use. In all but one of the agencies, the overwhelming majority of these systems are so-called "IBM-compatible PCs": they are driven by various classes of Intel microprocessors and run some version of Microsoft’s Windows operating system. Specifically, a large majority of these computers are Intel Pentium I or Pentium II-based systems and have Windows 95 or 98 installed. However, a significant number of older systems that are running earlier Windows 3.1 software still are in use within many organizations. These older systems can be found in relatively large numbers within some of the larger CAAs. (Click here for a sidebar that shows the hardware breakdown.)
Basic Software. Most CAAs utilize Microsoft Office (including Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint) for word processing, spreadsheet, database, and graphic presentation tasks. Most of the agencies that use this package have adopted it as an agency-wide standard, or have plans to do so. A handful of agencies utilize Corel’s WordPerfect office software suite for similar functions and have adopted it as the standard for their agencies. In only a few agencies do various staff continue to use more than one software package for word processing and/or for spreadsheet functions. Of course, CAAs utilize other software, too, for other tasks. For fiscal office tasks, the software packages utilized in agencies across the state vary considerably—so much so that there is no perceivable pattern. Some agencies also use desktop publishing software, such as Adobe PageMaker or Microsoft Publisher, to produce newsletters and other publications. (Click here for a sidebar that shows the breakdown of most commonly used basic software.)
CAAs utilize other software for specific programs they operate. This software typically is provided by the funding source for the specific program. (A description of agency-wide client database software that CAAs use or are now adopting is covered in a forthcoming section.)
Networks. All Massachusetts CAAs have networked at least some of their computers. Most CAAs have networks that link most of their computers at their primary site, where administrative offices and some programs are located. At a few agencies, the sole network at their main sites include only some departments, programs, or offices—not all. Some agencies also have networks that exist within other major sites. (Most Massachusetts CAAs have multiple sites.) However, very few agencies have networks that link computers at all their sites.
Peripherals. The vast majority of computers at CAAs either have their own printer or are linked to a shared printer. Most CAAs have at least a few laser printers. The bulk of the remainder are ink jet printers, although some older dot matrix printers are still in use. Nearly all agencies have one or more scanners. However, the use of scanners is not widespread and it would appear, based on this fact, that these organizations are not making widespread use of current Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology to convert text on paper documents to a digital format recognizable by standard word processing software.
Staff with Responsibility for MIS/IT. Nine of Massachusetts’s 25 CAAs have staff (either full-time or half-time) who are specifically and explicitly MIS or IT staff; that is, they are responsible for management, maintenance, and planning of computerized information systems within their respective agencies. In a couple of cases, these staff during the other half of their time perform some other job within their agencies. In the two largest agencies—Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD) and Community Teamwork, Inc. (CTI)—MIS/IT departments exist that have more than one staff person. Two other agencies each use a consultant on a regular basis who essentially performs the role of MIS/IT staff.
In about half of the CAAs that lack a staff person whose work is dedicated exclusively to the agency’s computerized information technology systems, MIS/IT duties fall within the responsibilities of an upper-level staff member. In the remaining agencies, MIS/IT oversight and duties are carried out by two or more senior management staff who effectively function as a team. (Click here to view the sidebar for a breakdown of MIS/IT staffing at Massachusetts CAAs.)
MIS/IT staff in CAAs most often report to the Associate Director or to the Finance Director (perhaps for historical reasons as well as practical ones—since Finance Departments typically have the most experience with computer technology). In a few cases, they report to the Planner or to the Executive Director.
Until very recently, only a few Massachusetts CAAs had formal internal committees, task forces, or working groups of staff to address ongoing questions and issues regarding computer technology. Following MASSCAP’s May 1999 IT conference, at least three more CAAs have formed such internal groups. However, the vast majority of CAAs still lack such structures.
The Role of Executive Directors. The role of executive directors of Massachusetts CAAs in computerized information systems within their respective agencies seems to vary considerably from agency to agency. During the vast majority of site visits during the assessment phase of this project, executive directors participated. At nearly a third of the agencies, executive directors were present throughout virtually the entire site visit. Where they were not present, staff involved in the site visit described their agency director’s involvement in IT issues.
While the executive directors who participated in the site visits often emphasized that they were not experts in information technology, many seemed conversant about the topic, and most of them displayed a general understanding of the systems in place within their agencies as well as their needs and the issues posed by the technology. Many of them displayed an awareness of the increasing role that information technology systems are playing within their agencies. And most seemed highly cognizant of the importance attached to these systems by the public sector agencies with which their organizations contract.
Despite the increased use of computer technology at most CAAs in recent years, the growing awareness on the part of Executive Directors regarding its importance, and the presence at most agencies of at least a few staff who possess considerable IT knowledge, it appears that at many agencies computer information technology has not fully become integrated into the organizational culture. Instead, many agencies still seem to view it as something separate from their work—even though it is transforming how work is carried out throughout many parts of the organization. Thus, the integration of information technology within many CAAs is incomplete.
Absence of IT Planning, Policies, and Procedures. For example, many CAAs have done no real planning regarding information technology through either the development of technology plans or through incorporation of information technology goals within their overall agency strategic plans. While some agencies have begun to include hardware, software, and other system upgrade needs in their annual budgets, others have not. Moreover, written policies and procedures regarding information technology and the handling of information are scarce at CAAs throughout the state.
Absence of Consistent, Ongoing Efforts to Upgrade Staff IT Skills. During the site visits, staff at numerous agencies reported reluctance and/or resistance on the part of many other staff to the use of computer technology. Most of those interviewed indicated that the low level of computer skills and knowledge among many staff using the technology was a major issue. Yet very few agencies had regular training programs or ongoing support programs in place throughout the agency. In fact, representatives of several agencies could not remember any computer training for their staffs within the past two years.
Absence of Internal Structures to Address Ongoing IT Issues. As noted above, at the time of the site visits, just a few agencies had agency-wide committees or task forces in place to address information technology issues. Of course, CAAs clearly have other pressing priorities besides information technology, and they lack time and resources. But the widespread absence of internal organizational structures within CAAs to address IT issues may be an indication that some agencies thus far have not viewed these issues as being of major importance to the organization.
Uneven Development of IT within CAAs. In most agencies, computer technology was introduced earlier in some programs and departments than in others. As a result, in some CAAs computer technology seems to be the domain of the one or two departments/programs where it has existed the longest and where staff with the most IT knowledge typically work. These more advanced programs and departments give their agencies a strong information technology base to build upon. However, this uneven development has compartmentalized computer technology and knowledge within some CAAs where agency-wide dialogue and planning around technology issues is largely absent. In a few cases, staff in other parts of the agency seem to consider IT as the domain of these more advanced departments and programs in their agencies, not as something that concerns them.
Yet it should be noted that some CAAs have made conscious, agency-wide efforts to address the development of information technology and the issues it presents. In most cases, these efforts have been driven from the top down, and in some cases, they have involved broad participation in decision-making from throughout agency departments and programs. Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD) is such an example. (See the sidebar on ABCD's efforts to integrate IT into its organizational culture by clicking here.)
Finally, it may be that the absence of agency-wide organizational approaches to computer technology issues within some agencies is a reflection of the way in which the CAA is organized more than anything else.
"When I first came here some years ago," one CAA executive director reflected during a site visit, "this agency was little more than a cluster of a dozen or so little fiefdoms. There was little sense of overall agency mission and identity, and not much agency-wide collaboration or even communication."
This executive director’s observation was echoed by staff at several other CAAs.
Many of the information technology issues that Massachusetts CAAs now face are, at root, organizational issues, not simply technical ones. The implications of this will be discussed in greater detail in the sections of this report that follow.