| |
Answer
|
|
| |
For many years,
mainstream welfare-to-work and employment training programs
used automated tracking systems to monitor and report
on participant activities. The passage of reforms such
as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA), Welfare-to-Work Grants Program, and the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA), created opportunities
to work with organizations that are new to delivering
services that require collecting and maintaining detailed
information about program participation. These new partners
include small community-based organizations, faith-based
institutions and other groups. Since many of the new
entrants have limited computer capacity, the tracking
and reporting requirements that are routine in the worlds
of welfare to work and employment and training have become
very daunting for them. Often this translates into staff
with very low levels of computer literacy, outdated equipment
that is not suitable for running of the latest software
applications, and a lack of computing infrastructure within
the organization. Challenged to work with new partners
having varying technical capabilities, program administration
managers must pay careful attention to the major decision
of selecting a client information system.
The successful simultaneous introduction of new technology
and an automated client information system into any organization
is an ambitious undertaking. The goal of this two-part
“Questions From the Field” is to provide guidance for
practitioners on how best to proceed. In Part I, we examine
the issues that go into selecting a client information
system. In Part II, scheduled to appear as our next Question
From the Field, we will explore practical considerations
when implementing a tracking system (see QFF
No. 9).
|
|
| |
Paper,
Paper Everywhere! |
|
| |
A
basic technology need of many nonprofit organizations
is an affordable, Windows-based, feature-rich, client
information system that is easy to use. The system they
select should allow them to replace the mountain of paper
records with an efficient way to store, manage, and analyze
electronically the increasing amounts of data they are
required to track. Funders expect grantees to process
more evaluation-quality data on skill and education levels,
income levels, individual history, and services rendered.
Nonprofit agencies must also be able to document changes
over time, further stretching the ability of small organizations.
Contributing to the paper blizzard is the tendency of
staff to maintain their own caseload files, a practice
that creates numerous ‘islands of information’ within
an organization and makes it more difficult to grasp the
big picture across the agency’s entire caseload. Somehow,
all these data must be brought together and turned into
useful information to help guide program decisions. Computers
are the only tools that can accomplish this.
Regardless of the business it is in, when your organization
recognizes the need to implement a client tracking system,
that is a good time to take a fresh look at how your agency
is structured and how it works. The last thing you want
to do is take your existing client information forms and
transcribe them onto a computer. If there are deficiencies
in your organization’s data collection processes, or if
your current system provides inaccurate information, choosing
the wrong computerized tracking system will guarantee
only that you will end up getting bad information faster.
|
|
| |
Understand
and Get Agreement On Your Data Requirements |
|
| |
The
advent of desktop computing and powerful new ‘data mining’
tools have made it easier for an individual user with
modest training to build databases to meet specific needs
and analyze them without having to rely on the support
of technical staff. But if you want them to be fully responsive
to your needs, the availability of low-cost, easy-to-adapt
tracking tools does not relieve you of the responsibility
to plan the information you will collect carefully and
to consider how you foresee the system operating. Here
are the essential steps your organization will have to
take: |
|
| |
 |
Take
the time to do your homework. Find out about the products
that already exist on the market, and evaluate them to
see if the technology can meet your needs.
|
|
| |
|
Be
sure to understand the total costs involved with purchasing
a client tracking system. |
|
| |
|
If
you lack the in-house expertise to evaluate technology,
hire a consultant to help you to differentiate what you
“need” from what you “want”. |
|
| |
Done
properly, a needs analysis takes time, and someone with
the requisite knowledge has to lead the effort. Do not
shortchange the organization on this phase of the project;
a thorough needs analysis will yield many benefits, increasing
the probability that the project will conclude successfully.
|
|
| |
Decide
whether to build a system from scratch or purchase an
off-the-shelf product |
|
| |
This
decision can come only when you have a clear idea of your
data requirements and system needs. Then, you will be
in a position to evaluate products that are commercially
available against defined criteria. Most off-the-shelf
products are not designed with your organization’s specific
needs in mind as to how a particular process should work
or even what data elements are most important. As a result,
you will have to assess whether the system meets enough
of your needs to make the inevitable compromises acceptable.
If your organization decides to build a customized system
that will fully meet its requirements, then clarity as
to what you expect the system to be capable of achieving
becomes even more important. You will have to be able
to communicate to the software developer your data requirements,
the system functionality you expect, and the reports you
will want to generate, just to name a few.
Fortunately, it is no longer always the case that building
a customized system is more expensive than purchasing
an off-the-shelf alternative. You will find readily available
commercial systems that range from moderately priced to
very expensive, and they may be much more complicated
than you need. Customized systems can be constructed
at reasonable costs using development tools such as Microsoft
Access, Visual Basic, or Lotus Notes. Again, there are
trade-offs to be reckoned with, such as the amount of
staff time that will be needed during the development
period, the quality of the final product, and the availability
of on-going technical support, among other things. With
a clear understanding of your system requirements and
data needs, you will be able to decide if a commercially
available product is right for you.
|
|
| |
Be
clear about the goals you have for the tracking system
|
|
| |
With
so many potential competing needs, it is important to
be as clear as you can about why a tracking system is
needed and what it is expected to accomplish. |
|
| |
|
Are
you trying to meet the performance and reporting requirements
of funders? |
|
| |
|
Are
you trying to help program staff stay on top of their
cases or help program administrators and supervisors better
manage resources? |
|
| |
|
Is
your goal to gather research data and/or document participant
outcomes? |
|
| |
It’s likely that you are trying to meet all or some
of these goals. Well-designed tracking systems will
serve multiple purposes – some better than others.
At a minimum, the tracking system should enable you
to meet your program goals. For example, knowing from
the outset that the number one priority is to help employment
counselors and case managers better address client needs
will make it easier to explain later why you are not
collecting all the data the researchers want. Client
tracking systems should support the way an organization
does business; the organization should not have to significantly
change the way it does business in order to accommodate
a particular software application.
|
|
| |
 |
Remember that tracking systems are information repositories.
They can store many different kinds of information — demographic
data, employment history, program participation, etc.
But they will not collect data for you; they simply store,
organize and report it in different formats. This is an
obvious point, but it is one that often gets overlooked
under the pressures to select a system and get it up and
running quickly. As you are deciding what data elements
you need, be clear about where the information will come
from, how it will be collected, and what effort it will
take to gather the data. Do not get caught up in trying
to collect too much information in order to cover everything
you think you will possibly need. Your clients will probably
find your need for so much information intrusive, and
you will create much extra — perhaps unnecessary — work
for your staff. In general, staff will quickly acclimate
to the use of an automated client tracking system if they
see it as an efficient tool that reduces their work level.
(For more information see QFF #9).
|
|
|
| |
Identify the reports and other output you will need
|
|
| |
Users
are likely to want printed reports that are tailored as
closely as possible to their priorities. If your organization
is properly collecting the information it wants, you should
find that reporting is one of the easier functions to
manage. Tracking systems built around Microsoft Access
software can benefit from Access’s powerful report-writing
capability that lets users create new reports, as they
are needed, either through a “wizard” (an automated step-by-step
guide built in to the Access software), or by manually
laying out the report format. Another widely available
software package, called Crystal Reports, is sold as a
stand-alone product. Produced by Seagate Software and
compatible with any non-encrypted Windows-based database,
Crystal Reports can generate reports of even greater sophistication
Access can produce. Given the ready availability of excellent
report writing software tools, the greater challenge than
producing the reports your organization wants is to ensure
that you capture the right data on which the reports are
based in the first place.
In general, reports fall into three major categories: |
|
| |
|
Individual
reports that profile a specific client, summarize
client activities, and can be printed and used to document
a client file; |
|
| |
|
Activity
reports that are used by case managers to follow-up
with clients, monitor caseloads, job placements, and similar
event-driven interactions; and |
|
| |
|
Management
reports that are used by program managers to assess
employee productivity, provide analytical information
on the program’s caseloads, and aggregate data across
the organization.
|
|
| |
As
a rule of thumb, all reports should be printable according
to a specified date range. While tracking systems will
generate aggregate reporting and can be integrated with
other software applications, they are not designed to
function primarily as organizational or financial management
tools. As your organization weighs the desirability and
feasibility of increasing its reporting capabilities,
it is important to be mindful that there will be trade-offs
of cost and operational efficiency that will have to be
addressed.
|
|
|
|
More
information on this topic |
|
|
 |
|
|
Note
*See the May 2002 QFF to
read Part II: What are some of the practical considerations
my organization will face when it implements a new tracking
system? |
|
|
^ Back to top |
|
|
No. 8, March 2002
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
John Padilla
is Vice President of New Paradigms Consulting, a consulting
firm in New Haven, Connecticut, specializing in com-munity
development, organizational development and workforce
issues. John provides technical assistance and consulting
services to nonprofit organiza-tions, foundations, state
and local government, with particular emphasis in workforce
develop-ment strategy and program design, and applying
computer technology and business process analysis to organizations
seeking to improve organizational performance. John’s
background includes twenty years of private sector experience
in high technology industries.
Julie Filbrun
works as a Research Associate in MDRC's Research Technology
Unit. A graduate of Duke University, where she earned
her degree in Public Policy in 1997, Julie develops applica-tions
and researches new technologies to improve data manage-ment
and report pro-duction efficiency at MDRC. She also trains
and supports MDRC programmers. Prior to joining MDRC in
1999, Julie was an information technology consultant for
Pricewaterhouse Coopers.
|
|
|
|
