The third of the major issues expressed by Massachusetts CAAs related to their information technology needs was a lack of adequate resources. While most CAAs noted that they had spent significant sums on computer technology—including MIS/IT-related staff time, service contracts, and training—over the last decade or so, nearly all of them pointed to IT-related needs that they lack resources to adequately address. And those we interviewed at every CAA in the state—even those agencies that thus far have been most adept at developing their information systems with the future in mind—openly worried about how they would find the resources to keep abreast of the rapid changes in computer technology.
(Click here to view a sidebar on the annual budgets in 1997 of Massachusetts CAAs.)
What IT-related areas do CAAs need more resources for? Nearly all cited the need for resources to pay for more training and education to upgrade their staffs’ IT skills (which has been covered in the preceding section). But they pointed to other major needs as well.
Staff Exclusively Dedicated to MIS/IT. A majority of CAAs still lack a staff member (or members) whose work is solely dedicated to MIS/IT. And many of these agencies told us that they really need such a person, since while staff with other important responsibilities have stepped forward to play that role, these staff have been stretched thin in terms of time and, in some cases, their IT expertise. One administrator at a CAA that lacks MIS/IT staff, and who serves as the agency’s de facto MIS/IT "guru" admitted to us:
"Developing our computer technology is very important to us. I’ve taken on responsibility for it because I see its importance, because I have a lot more knowledge about it than most people in the agency, and because I’m interested in it. But with all the other things I have to do, I just can’t keep up with all the constant change [in computer technology] anymore. I don’t have time to keep informed about all the things I think I need to know in order to really benefit this agency."
His testimony was corroborated by staff at other agencies who also attempt to juggle their MIS/IT roles with other competing demands.
For both large and small CAAs, pulling together the funds to pay for staff dedicated to MIS/IT issues is a major issue. Despite other big agency vs. small agency differences, this seems to be a common problem afflicting agencies in both categories.
The state’s largest CAA, ABCD—which is also the largest human services agency in New England—has just four (FTE) staff in its MIS department to deal with IT system issues that result from the demands of 90 discrete contracts, over 400 computers, and more than 800 staff members. They told us that expanding this staff is a need for them, but they do not yet have the resources to do it.
Another large CAA that lacks an explicit MIS/IT staff member uses an outside contractor to handle such duties. Why? Given the agency’s location near the high-tech industry belt, it could not find a candidate with the skills and background necessary to handle its central MIS/IT responsibilities who was willing to accept the compensation they could offer. This CAA is satisfied with its current arrangement. But its experience indicates that even for large CAAs, the steep price of acquiring the IT expertise they need is no small issue.
For many smaller CAAs, the problem is at just as acute—probably more so. Some agencies would like to find at least a part-time MIS/IT staff person. Many of these agencies now rely on other staff to fill the gap—staff who already have other major areas of responsibilities.
Keeping Up with Constant Changes and Advancements in Information Technology Systems. At most agencies, key staff indicated to us that they are fully aware that the information technology that they have in place today suddenly may be made obsolete by both rapid changes in technology and/or by decisions that are made by their funding sources at the federal and state levels. They worry that they will not have the resources to meet these ever changing and increasing demands.
Their concerns are based upon real experience and seem justified. For illustration purposes, let’s take just one key example: the evolution of Microsoft Windows—the software that is the operating system (a key part of "the engine beneath the hood") in the vast majority of computers now used at CAAs. Two major upgrades (and two lesser ones) of the popular operating system have occurred since 1990. Each major upgrade of Windows (3.0 and 95) and the software applications written for these versions of the operating system taxed or exceeded the capabilities of most personal computers then in existence, forcing much of the computing public to buy new hardware.
In 2000, Microsoft plans to release yet another major upgrade of Windows for which it and other software developers are already writing new applications or revising existing ones. Undoubtedly, today’s hardware will experience a very rapid aging process as a result during the next two years, since one can probably expect that the next generation of Windows and Windows-based software will require more RAM (random access memory), faster and more capable microprocessors, and higher capacity hard disk drives than those typically in use today.
If not immediately, then probably within a couple of years, CAAs will need to upgrade older hardware since the next generation of software probably won’t be able to run on many of these machines. The survey conducted as part of this project showed that the majority of computers now in use at CAAs are Pentium Is or Pentium IIs. While these computers serve the needs of the moment, it should be noted that in today’s rapid changing technology, Pentium Is are now, at best, middle-age machines—equivalent in age to 386s when the Pentium I was introduced. Moreover, many 486s and even some earlier 386s are still in use at CAAs. While a few agencies are discarding some of these older machines partly for Y2K reasons, a number of agencies do not have the resources to replace them. This is especially true at some CAAs with many computers, such as ABCD, Citizens for Citizens, and MOC.
As noted elsewhere, many CAAs—especially smaller ones—were able to purchase new hardware during the last major upgrade (to Pentium-class machines), or to significantly expand the number of computers they had, only because DHCD for two successive years in the mid-1990s made special grants available that could be used for that purpose. Now, most agencies wonder where the resources for the next major change will come from. "I had to do some very creative things to finance the last big purchase of hardware," a finance director at a large CAA told us during a site visit, "but the next time, I doubt whether I’ll be able to do the same things again."
Some CAAs have accepted the fact that technological change has become constant. They are regularly including IT expenditures, where possible, into annual program and central administration budgets. At least one agency, Tri-CAP, has adopted a policy of ensuring that when a staff position turns over, if a computer does not exist for that position, one will be purchased before the position is refilled. However, for virtually all agencies, finding resources to cope with continuing change in IT and staying up-to-date remain difficult, ongoing challenges.
Linking Computers Across Various Sites. Another area of need some CAAs identified is linking together computers that are in place at their various sites. Currently, just a few agencies have networks linking computers among all their sites. While most agencies do not see this as a pressing need at this time, several we interviewed could foresee a time when client/services data collection and reporting demands would reach a point where the need to address this issue would become a higher priority. And it will require more resources.
Widening Access within CAAs to the Internet. Some agencies have taken or are now taking steps to link more of their staff and more of their programs to the Internet. However, for other agencies, the cost of doing so remains an obstacle.
CAAs have major resource needs in the area of information technology, and the current level of funding devoted to meet these needs from their public sector funding sources is not sufficient to satisfy some of them: upgrading staff skills; adding MIS/IT staff at agencies that now need such a staff and lack one; keeping up with changes in the technology, especially in purchasing hardware on a large scale when that hardware suddenly becomes inadequate or obsolete. Some CAAs are taking combinations of small, creative steps to find more resources to address their IT needs and/or to maximize what they currently have. Others certainly could do more along these lines.
However, the lion’s share of CAAs’ revenues comes from their contracts with public sector agencies and CSBG funds. CAAs are unlikely to fully meet their more costly IT needs until they can convince their public funding sources to make a greater investment in supporting these information technology infrastructures. After all, it has been government agencies, through their increasing demands for data, that have been the major impetus behind the widespread emergence of computerized IT systems at CAAs. They now should provide adequate resources to support these systems and to upgrade them as necessary.
MASSCAP, as part of any advocacy effort with state agencies around data issues, should emphasize the need for more resources for CAAs to ensure that their information technology infrastructures are adequate—including training and supporting staff as well as replacing outmoded hardware and peripherals as necessary. In making its case, MASSCAP should point out that CAAs IT needs are largely driven by data demands of public sector funding agencies, and that if the investment that the Commonwealth’s agencies have already made in these systems is to be maximized, major existing needs must be met and the system should not be allowed to atrophy due to inability on the part of CAAs to keep pace with IT changes, or adequately meet user training and support needs. MASSCAP may also want to explore the possibility of special appropriations to address the IT needs of CAAs and other state-funded human services groups.
MASSCAP should actively seek new funding to enhance the IT infrastructures of its members—from special public sector grant funds for such purposes, from foundations, and from private firms, especially, in Massachusetts’ burgeoning hi-tech sector. As a statewide entity, MASSCAP is in a stronger position than individual agencies to obtain certain types of additional, special public and private funding for such projects.
MASSCAP can also be useful in bringing CAAs together to share information about potential funding sources, and to develop creative solutions that could help CAAs in finding the resources to meet their pressing IT needs.
CAAs should also make the case to their public sector funding sources that they need more resources to support their IT systems. The more this message is repeated, the better the chance that it eventually will get a positive response.
If they have not already done so, CAAs might explore private foundation sources in their areas. Many small foundations exist in Massachusetts that make grants, often small ones, but sometimes for capital equipment, to groups in their local area. It is sometimes more difficult to make the case for funding information technology than for other purposes, but cases can be made for IT that is needed to better serve clients or to benefit the local community.
CAAs should take advantage of discounts for which they are eligible under state contracts they hold. One CAA finance director with whom we spoke pointed out that many CAAs either do not know about, or fail to take advantage of significant discounts they can obtain from vendors as a result of the state contracts that they hold. This remark was echoed by a representative of the state’s Executive Office of Administration and Finance’s Operational Services Division who spoke at MASSCAP’s IT conference and noted that information about such discounts is available on the Division’s Web site.
If any CAAs do not now take advantage of nonprofit discounts when purchasing IT products, they should. For CAAs that have educational programs, they may be eligible to obtain educational discounts, which are even greater.
CAAs should engage in more private fundraising. During this project’s assessment, we found very few CAAs that consistently engaged in private fundraising. At present, MOC is planning a major capital campaign, and HCAC has an ongoing private fundraising effort that includes special events and direct mail solicitation. Both QCAP and SSCAC told us that they plan to undertake private fundraising efforts. But we would be hard-pressed to list very many more agencies. While it is difficult to make public appeals to buy computer equipment, appeals made for contributions to other services could generate some new revenues, perhaps allowing other funds to be shifted to address some IT needs. Also, CAAs exist in some areas of the state where high tech firms can be found. Some of these firms might be sources of contributions to worthy programs in their local areas. Some may have foundations for such purposes.
CAAs should consider using appropriate board members as IT resources. We asked most agencies about involvement by CAA boards or individual members in IT issues, but in nearly all agencies told us that board members were not. One exception was Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC), where a former board member who works in the software industry has proved an invaluable resource to that agency, which has a very small administrative staff, in developing its information systems. He continues to effectively serve as a pro bono consultant and gives advice on purchases as well as on technical issues involving the agency’s network. Other CAAs with a need for IT expertise might want to examine their own boards for members who might be helpful, or consider expertise in that area among the priorities when recruiting new board members. Also, CAAs may have a board member or two who have contacts with foundations or technology firms and might be able to volunteer some time exploring such avenues with contributions in mind.
Some CAAs have sought (and obtained) contributions of older hardware from businesses or other sources in their areas. For at least a few agencies, this has allowed them to have computers in settings where they lacked them previously. While sometimes these older machines can be useful to an agency, it should be noted that in some cases, the computers are so outmoded that they cannot run current software (that most staff in the agency are utilizing) and, realistically, cannot be upgraded. General appeals for old equipment may result in a flood of old hardware that will simply add to storage and disposal problems.
Leasing computers. Very few CAAs now lease computers, but it is an option worth exploring. It is unclear how much could be saved by doing so. At least it would not require the major capital outlay involved in purchasing a large number of new systems. Moreover, it is now clear that once the utility of a computer has diminished sufficiently to warrant replacement, it has little resale value. While one cannot be precise about the useful lifetime of a computer in this climate of rapid change, three to five years would probably be not far off the mark.
For CAAs that lack MIS/IT staff, sharing the time of such a staff with a nearby CAA (or CAAs) may be a possibility worth exploring. However, geographical considerations would be a factor, as well as relative similarity among systems and software in use at the agencies involved. For instance, agencies which have very different mixes of programs—all using different data reporting software—as well as different central client database systems might not represent good matches. It would not be impossible, but it would be challenging for one person to learn and stay abreast of changes in such a wide range of software. Scheduling would be another issue—if such a staff person assumed IT crisis management responsibilities at more than one agency, then conflicts might occur depending on distance between agencies. While many such problems can be handled remotely, others must be addressed on-site. Of course, cooperative relations between agencies where such an IT specialist divides her/his time would be important to ensure that this person is not being tugged in two or more different directions at the same time. Nonetheless, CAAs lacking MIS/IT staff that have good relationships with CAAs relatively nearby that have similar systems in place, might consider this option.
CAAs that lack explicit MIS/IT staff, and need them, should look within their own organizations to see if they can find a solution. Identifying staff who have knowledge of, and skills with, computer systems is a first step—and a step that CAAs who would like to build internal IT committees or task forces will need to take in any event. Within most agencies probably lie a few staff who have the prerequisites—skills and interest—to become at least part-time IT staff, provided their agency recognizes and supports them, and allows them to expand their knowledge and skills. At least a couple of the capable and valuable MIS/IT staff now overseeing IT systems at Massachusetts CAAs are home-grown. (Click here to see a sidebar about how one CAA--CAI in Haverhill--has "grown their own" IT specialist.)