Executive Summary
Overview of CAA Computer Systems and Organizational Structures for IT
Top IT-related Issues and Concerns among CAAs
Client Data Collection and Reporting Issues
Staff IT Skills, Training, Education, and Support
Finding the Needed Resources for IT at CAAs
Other IT-related Management and Organizational Issues
CAAs and The Internet
Areas for Collaboration among CAAs and MASSCAP’s Role
Crossing the Digital Divide: Title Page and Credits
Crossing the Digital Divide--Table of Contents and Links to All Sections of the Full Report
The emergence of computerized information technology within the vast majority of Massachusetts CAAs is a relatively recent development. In the last half of the 1980s the use of computers was not widespread at most CAAs except in finance departments, some administrative offices, and a few programs. However, by early 1999 the number of computers in use at all Massachusetts CAAs totalled more than 2,000, or approximately one computer for every two CAA staff members. And the surveys completed by the 25 agencies revealed that nearly half of all CAA staff in the state now spend at least half of their time each day working on a computer.
Thus, in just a decade, the presence and utilization of computer technology has expanded dramatically throughout the state’s CAAs. This expansion has represented a significant financial investment by these agencies and the governmental entities that fund the programs they operate. It has also changed the way in which many CAA staff perform their work. And it has presented new issues for these agencies—some that are technical, and many that are organizational.
While the arrival of this technology presents challenges for CAAs, it also offers these organizations benefits and new possibilities. Among these are opportunities for new levels of communication and collaboration internally, with one another, and with other partners in their communities.
The technological revolution is transforming our economy. Yet, in the process, it is threatening to leave behind those who lack access to IT and the skills to use it—a group that is disproportionately comprised of low-income people, people of color, and those with low education levels. This emerging "digital divide" is an issue CAAs must address in their efforts to help low-income people attain self-sufficiency.
Most of the computer hardware in place today at Massachusetts CAAs, if not state-of-the-art, is adequate for the tasks for which it is used. All but one of the agencies utilizes systems that run some version of the Microsoft Windows operating system. Two-thirds of the computers in use statewide have Intel Pentium I, II, or III processors; in other words, by current standards these computers range from middle-aged to new machines. However, nearly 30 percent of the existing hardware at these agencies is older, and increasingly incapable of running newer software. Most CAAs have networks that link computers at their principal sites and some have networks of computers within their larger satellite facilities. But only a few agencies have networks that connect computers at all or most of their sites.
Nearly all CAAs have adopted an internal standard for basic word processing, spreadsheet, and database software. However, the software utilized by CAAs for other purposes—such as fiscal and database functions—varies widely from agency to agency. And individual agencies typically use different software from program to program for client data collection, tracking, and reporting purposes.
Just nine of the CAAs have staff whose exclusive role is to oversee, maintain, and develop internal computerized information technology systems. Two other agencies utilize regular consultants. At other agencies, the responsibility for MIS/IT systems rests with a senior administrative staff member or a team of two or more staff. Only a half dozen CAAs have ongoing internal IT committees.
Despite the increasingly widespread utilization of computer technology within these agencies, it appears that at many CAAs computer information technology is not fully integrated into the organizational culture. While a minority of CAAs have adopted a pro-active approach to IT, the remainder are just coming to grips with its impacts on their organizations, or remain reactive to it.
We asked CAAs to identify their greatest issues, needs, and concerns regarding information technology. They cited three issues and concerns far more often than any others:
Client Data Collection and Reporting Issues. Nearly all CAAs noted difficulties involved with client data collection and reporting for their many programs to multiple funding sources that use different software and have different reporting requirements. Not every CAA pointed out the same set of problems, but many were shared by numerous agencies.
Staff IT Skills, Training, and Support. All but a few CAAs indicated that many staff members who use computers lack at least some necessary skills and need more training.
Lack of Resources. Virtually all CAAs said they lacked the resources for various IT-related needs. Nearly all expressed concerns about being able to keep up with rapid technological change.
It seems clear that one factor above all others has been the driving force behind the expansion of computer technology at Massachusetts CAAs since the 1980s: the demand for data on services and clients which has come from federal and state funding sources.
Except through anecdotal information, we have no hard evidence that the amount of client and services data CAAs are required to report has actually increased over the last decade or so. However, it would not be surprising if it has: the revolution in computer technology has made it possible to collect, compile, transmit, and analyze data in ways that were not practical until recently. These new capabilities have increased the expectations of everyone—including those in government agencies, who have translated these expectations into requirements. And most of the federal and state agencies that fund CAAs and their programs have made a major investment in computerized information technology systems over the past decade or so.
At the same time, these governmental agencies have increased in number and become more compartmentalized. Each has developed data systems in relative isolation from one another to fit its own needs.
Over the past decade, Massachusetts CAAs have added more programs and consequently now probably have more discrete funding sources spread across more governmental agencies than do other human service organizations in the state. Of course, CAAs must report to each of these many funding sources, which in turn have different reporting requirements.
While these CAAs attempt to cope with the many requirements that stem from the increasing decentralization of the human services system, they must also contend with trends that run in an opposite direction. One example is the new requirement by the one funding source they all share—the state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)—that they develop annual Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) reports with unduplicated counts of clients served across all their programs. Under a related federal requirement, they also soon will have to provide outcome data on all clients.
This move toward centralizing client data reflects a larger trend within human services—the movement toward more comprehensive approaches to service delivery and the case management model. Such a model has its own information requirements—ideally, a case manager should be able to easily access all the relevant information about a client and the services she/he has received or might need.
CAAs increasingly are facing problems inherent in attempting to strike a balance between the opposing forces of decentralization and centralization. Decentralization has produced a wide array of separate funding sources that have data requirements, categories, and definitions that differ from one another. While the majority of CAAs have purchased central client database software that overcomes many of the technical conversion obstacles (or are developing their own such programs), some key data they collect for their programs are incompatible with one another since the categories and their definitions vary.
While no CAA questioned the need for government funders to collect data on the clients they serve and services they provide, many CAAs did express concerns about the burden of data collection and reporting in general. Some questioned whether the volume of data they had to collect and report was really necessary and whether in fact it led to better public policy, wider access, or improved services. Many CAAs complained that they could not retrieve or utilize data that they report to some funders for their own planning purposes. Others expressed concerns over client confidentiality and possible adverse impacts on clients caused by the time spent collecting data.
Many CAAs also pointed out various problems with the mechanics of data collection and reporting. These included: repeating data entry for the same client in the same program for multiple funders with different requirements; excessive IT system specifications that some state funders now require; and many issues related to CSBG annual reporting, such as overlapping service areas and different fiscal years.
Summary of Key Recommendations. Given the fact that CAAs have many programs (and funders) and that government human services agencies have become increasingly compartmentalized, data collection and reporting will remain a major task for CAAs. However, improvements should be possible. For example, Massachusetts state agencies should be able to adopt common demographic data categories and definitions. Moreover, because CAAs lack adequate resources to support and upgrade the IT systems they have acquired to meet the data demands of government funders, these government agencies will need to provide more resources if these systems are to function optimally and not become outmoded. MASSCAP can play a leading role in discussing these and other data-related issues with government funding agencies that individual CAAs cannot. The report contains a number of specific suggestions for MASSCAP—and individual CAAs.
Most Massachusetts CAAs believe that many of their staff members have inadequate computer knowledge and skills. All but a handful of agencies pointed to this issue as a significant problem, and they ranked staff training and education as one their top three IT-related needs. Only a fifth or so CAAs said that staff IT skill levels was not a major issue for them, but even they felt that more intermediate and advanced training for their staffs would be helpful.
In nearly all cases, CAA staff pointed out that IT knowledge and skill levels vary widely within their organizations. However, staff at most CAAs pointed out that many staff who regularly use computers lack basic computer knowledge and skills. They noted that many of these staff can perform a few very basic, repetitive tasks within one software program. But if they stray from those tasks, they become lost or encounter problems that they cannot solve. Some also pointed out that some staff not only lack IT skills, but also are unable to adequately understand, analyze, and evaluate the data with which they work.
Gaps in basic skills among some users present at least a couple of significant problems for their agencies. One is the amount of staff time spent on troubleshooting problems that arise. Another is staff who lack basic skills may be making mistakes in their work.
Many of those interviewed believed that part of the problem is fear and lack of confidence among some staff when it comes to new technology. However, those interviewed at several CAAs felt that some of their staff were not motivated to improve their skills. Many also felt that adequate training and support for staff had been lacking.
Most CAAs also saw the need to upgrade the skills of staff who had acquired basic or intermediate skills. However, they cited lack of time and resources for training as obstacles. And at several agencies, staff noted that some management staff do place a high value on setting time and resources aside to upgrade IT skills. But others suggested that improving staff skills was key to realizing a full return on the investment that their agencies had made in computer technology.
Existing IT Training and Education for CAA Staff. Training varies widely among CAAs. Only a few agencies offer an ongoing program of initial training and continuing education. A few others have made IT training a part of new staff orientation. The majority of CAAs have conducted some agency-wide IT training but have no regular or ongoing training programs. Among these agencies, some have held one-time training events involving many staff; some send staff to outside training as needed; and a handful utilize their MIS/IT staff to do occasional training. At the remaining five or six CAAs, those interviewed could not recall any staff IT training in the last two years.
Some programs within CAAs have had trainings on program-specific software; these usually have been run by the program’s funder.
Follow-up and Ongoing Support. Most CAAs that provide training to staff lack internal mechanisms for follow-up education and ongoing support. Thus, given the infrequency of training sessions, it is not surprising that staff at several agencies noted that those who were trained fail to advance or do not retain new skills. CAAs with MIS/IT staff often rely on them for ongoing IT support to other staff and troubleshooting, but these staff members also have other demands.
Several CAAs, however, have developed internal committees for ongoing education and support. Most of these committees consist of those who possess more advanced IT knowledge and can serve as resource people to assist other staff on IT problems in the departments and programs where they work. The committees offer them a chance to gain education and improve their own skills, to provide feedback and advice on agency IT issues, and to exchange information. The committee structure is promising since it not only serves as a mechanism for developing IT resource people throughout these CAAs, but it also offers an internal forum to address agency IT issues.
Improving Staff IT Skills: An Ongoing Organizational Issue. While most CAAs now recognize the need to improve staff skills, the majority of them have yet to take adequate steps to address it. Lack of resources and time are obstacles, but CAAs also need to approach the problem as an organizational issue and make it a priority. While more training is needed at many CAAs, so are programs of continuing education and ongoing support. With ever-changing technology and staff turnover, the need for ongoing education will not disappear.
Summary of Key Recommendations. CAAs need to develop ongoing organizational approaches to staff training and support. They should survey staff IT skills and needs and identify staff who can serve as internal resources. Creating IT committees would be useful. CAAs should also look for new resources to support training and education. MASSCAP could play a key role by developing regional CAA trainings, seeking new resources, discussing the need with government funding agencies, placing IT training resources on its Web site, and developing partnerships with educational institutions. The report includes many other recommendations for CAAs and MASSCAP in this area.
The third of the major issues related to IT mentioned most often by Massachusetts CAAs was a lack of resources. While most CAAs noted they had spent significant sums on computer technology over the last decade or so, nearly all pointed to IT-related needs that they now lack resources to adequately address.
Some 60 percent of CAAs still lack a staff member whose work is solely dedicated to MIS/IT. Many of these agencies stated that they need one. Several agencies still have relatively large numbers of older 486- and 386-class computers in use and noted that they need to replace many of these machines. Several agencies would like to expand their networks. Most agencies see a need for more staff training. However, in all these cases, lack of adequate resources is a main obstacle.
Virtually all Massachusetts CAAs expressed another concern: they are worried that with the increasingly rapid advances in information technology, they eventually will be unable to keep up due to lack of resources. Many agencies noted that without special grant funds they received from DHCD in the mid-1990s, they would not have been able to afford a significant number of their existing computers.
Recent history supports their concern. Since 1990, each major upgrade in the Microsoft Windows operating system has spawned new software that has required faster, more powerful computers than many of those then in existence. Next year Microsoft will release another major Windows upgrade.
Summary of Key Recommendations. MASSCAP needs to make a strong case to government agencies that these agencies have a stake in the IT infrastructures at CAAs and that more funds are needed to support them and keep them up to date. MASSCAP should also explore private funding sources. Individual CAAs should actively seek more assistance from government funding sources and new support from other sources. CAAs that need an IT staff member but cannot afford one should consider developing existing staff to play the role. CAAs should identify potential IT resource people on their boards. The full report contains a longer, more detailed list of suggestions.
IT Planning. Only a couple of CAAs have written IT plans. A few others are formulating IT-related goals and objectives as part of their new strategic plans for DHCD. Key staff at these agencies and at several others have put significant thought into IT-related issues and demonstrate a clear sense of where they want to go. However, about half of the CAAs have not engaged in any planning—formal or informal—around information technology.
IT-related Policies and Procedures. Most Massachusetts CAAs lack written policies and procedures covering most aspects of their IT systems. Many agencies explained that they actually have other IT policies and standard procedures, but they are not in writing. (This made us wonder how such policies and procedures are communicated throughout organizations with many programs and sites.) The widespread absence of written policies and procedures places these CAAs at some risk—legally and otherwise.
Efforts to Address the Y2K Problem. Nearly all the CAAs are well aware of the threat posed by "The Year 2000 Bug" to their internal systems. However, we discovered that not all agencies were aware of all the possible problems. In the spring of 1999, we found that about half the agencies had already taken steps to solve issues they had identified. The remainder either had developed specific plans to do so by summer, or were about to do so. But only a handful of agencies had considered the possible impacts of Y2K on their low-income clients. Fewer still were working with other local groups to plan for possible Y2K crises in their communities.
Summary of Key Recommendations. CAAs should strongly consider developing IT plans. They should utilize the boilerplate being developed by MASSCAP to create their own written policies and procedures. CAAs that have not yet fixed Y2K problems should do so.
Internet Connections. All Massachusetts CAAs are now connected to the Internet—and many have become connected within the past year or two. However, the breadth of access to the Internet within individual agencies among programs, departments, and staff, varies widely from CAA to CAA.
Just four CAAs reported that nearly all or most of their computers are connected to the Internet. For three others, Internet connections are widespread throughout the agency. Seven agencies have some computers connected, and typically have at least one connection in every program and department. The remaining 11 CAAs have just a few computers linked, and most of these reported that only a couple of staff people use the Internet regularly.
Many CAAs seem excited about the possibilities of the Internet. Several felt that, increasingly, they would need to use it to report to funding sources and to obtain key information. Some agencies plan to connect more computers in the near future. However, senior staff at a few CAAs said they were hesitant to widen internal access to the Internet, citing cost or the potential for abuse as reasons.
Internet Uses. CAAs currently use the Internet for external e-mail, researching information on Web sites, some electronic file exchange, and, in rare instances, client data reporting and banking. Some CAAs gave examples of the Internet’s usefulness: via the Web they have obtained information on government regulations, RFPs, IT product discounts, early childhood education curricula, and more. However, given the constant expansion of material on the Web as well as the fact that only lately have large numbers of Massachusetts CAA staff gained access to it, it remains unclear as to how CAAs ultimately will use it.
CAA Web Sites. Eight CAAs have established Web sites of their own. While they acknowledged that many low-income people now lack access to the Internet, they listed other audiences that they want to reach via their sites: case managers at other agencies; potential public and private funding sources; public officials; the media. Several other CAAs want to create Web sites. Two obstacles that CAAs with Web sites face are effectively publicizing their sites and regularly adding new material so that visitors return. Several agencies have been resourceful in devising ways to overcome both. One CAA has built a Web site committee to tap internal talent, information, and ideas.
The issues at Massachusetts CAAs related to information technology, as noted previously, are not simply "technological and technical," but also are organizational. And many of the issues and problems identified by staff whom we interviewed at various CAAs were the same, most notably: issues related to client data collection/reporting systems; staff IT skills and the need for more training and support; and lack of resources to address key IT-related needs at present and in the future.
Given these similarities, most of those whom we interviewed could see the benefits of collaboration with other Massachusetts CAAs in addressing some of their IT-related problems. In fact, many acknowledged that individual CAAs are incapable of resolving some key issues alone—such as those involving client data reporting burdens, staff training and support, and insufficient resources. They felt that collaboration with other CAAs was essential, and that MASSCAP needs to take a stronger leadership role to enhance it.
While greater communication and collaboration among CAAs could help them address common IT-related issues, the new technology itself makes intra-CAA communication and collaboration more feasible than ever. And most CAAs did express a desire for more communication with other CAAs in the state on a host of other issues. Many endorsed the increased use of e-mail and the development of MASSCAP’s Web site as a hub for communications and information exchange among CAA staff statewide at all levels. Some also would like to see more face-to-face statewide meetings of various CAA staff to discuss common issues.
Summary of Key Recommendations. MASSCAP needs to expand its role to better serve the IT needs of its members. The full report contains many recommendations for MASSCAP, among them: expanded use of e-mail and its Web site as vehicles for communication and collaboration among CAAs on IT and a wide range of issues; new forums to bring together members to discuss IT and other issues.
We are living through what is perhaps the greatest revolution in communications technology since the invention of the printing press and moveable type over 500 years ago. In just a few years, this revolution has produced major impacts on the nation’s economy—and these impacts have not been confined to the high-tech industry. "A majority of jobs involve some familiarity with and use of computers," MASSCAP’s 1997 study of poverty in Massachusetts, Running in Place, pointed out. In July, 1999, a U.S. Department of Commerce study projected that by 2006, "almost half of the U.S. will be employed by industries that either are major producers or intensive users of information technology products and services."
Yet participation in this technological and communications revolution and the economic bounty it has generated has not been universal among Americans. In fact, another 1999 Commerce Department study found that old dividing lines of income, race, region, and education separate those who have benefited from those who have not.
"Poor skills are probably the most important driving force behind low wages at the bottom of the income ladder," the authors of Running in Place concluded. But lack of knowledge and skills is not the only reason why many Americans now find themselves on the wrong side of the "digital divide." Lack of access to computer technology and to the Internet is another. Without access, it is impossible to acquire IT knowledge and skills.
Historically, the mission of Massachusetts CAAs has focused on providing the services, tools, and advocacy that enable low-income people to rise out of poverty and attain self-sufficiency. The array of services that exists at these agencies today all reflect this mission. Over the years, these programs emerged to meet the needs of the times. So, how are Massachusetts CAAs addressing the communications and technological revolution that is rapidly changing the U.S. economy?
Only a few agencies are engaged in projects to widen access to technology and the Internet among low-income people in their areas. Several other CAAs said that they wanted to do more to address this issue. A few agencies have job/skills training programs that cover IT. The "digital divide" is an issue that CAAs can ill afford to ignore if they expect to maintain their central role in the struggle to eliminate poverty and to help low-income people attain self-sufficiency in an economy increasingly driven by technology.
An opening exists for CAAs to play a role in helping to close the "digital divide." Of course, CAAs cannot do the job alone. But many CAAs have programs that might be vehicles for clients to gain IT access and education. Moreover, CAAs are ideally positioned to expand access to IT and the Internet among many who lack it: they serve thousands of low-income people daily at countless sites located within or near neighborhoods where low-income people live. Many of these sites would be ideal for community-based computing centers. If CAAs take the initiative and employ their traditional resourcefulness, they may well find new partners and new funding for such efforts.