CalWIN Versus LEADER:
Have they Learned Anything?

December 2002
by Richard Bermack

The navigation in CalWIN is even more inflexible than LEADER. The designers are trying to prevent the work-arounds that Melinda Harrison’s workers use to combat LEADER’s quirks. “They are trying to keep the workers from being able to take it upon themselves to find short cuts and ways to override the system. They don’t want you to be able to do that,” Darlene White states. “You can only move forward in the system. You have to finish one screen and then go on to another. The system is built for the initial interview, not for ongoing case work.”

The logic behind the fixed navigation, according to White, is that it forces the worker to be thorough and relieves them of some responsibility. Workers no longer have to worry about forgetting something. They can’t finish the case without going through every detail or every program. Even if the client says they only want to apply for MediCal, you still have to check their eligibility for other programs as well.

The problem with this approach is the length of the interview, three hours is a long time for both workers and clients, particularly for clients who have brought their children. Three hours is an estimate based on a straight-forward cases. (See page 8, Testing with Perfect Cases.) Real world cases will undoubtedly run longer. When White and other county administrators raised the issue that it takes too long, they were told that an earlier version of the system took four hours.

Updating Regulations

One of the most disturbing reports is how the CalWIN system will handle changes in regulations. Welfare regulations are in constant flux. The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families legislation expired and Congress is currently re-evaluating the program. Legislators will be creating new guidelines and programs. According to what workers were told, the CalWIN system was designed to be reprogrammed to seamlessly accept the new regulations without workers having to be informed about the changes.

White fears workers will come to work one day and find the program processing differently than the day before, and they will have no idea why. “Yesterday it did that. Today it does this. Is there a problem with the computer or is it a regulation change? No one will know what is going on.” One of the most common complaints raised by workers has been that they are often the last to be informed about regulation changes. It is not uncommon for workers to receive calls from clients regarding letters the clients have received notifying them of regulation changes that the workers know nothing about.

The counties will have to find a way to inform workers about the changes independent of the CalWIN system. Evidently it would have been possible to provide an online library of welfare regulations and documentation but the counties didn’t want to pay for that piece of the program. “We were told that every time the county asks for a change, they are told it will cost $1 million,” White recalls.

Designed to Work Perfectly or Perfect for Disaster?

Through the experience of the last 20 years of the computer revolution we have all learned that computer software and hardware have bugs. The more complex the system, the more bugs. One cannot take for granted that a system will work perfectly, therefore a functional system must be flexible enough for the operator to make adjustments for those bugs.

Is the system designed to assist workers by doing what computers do best, organize, process, and store data in an efficient manner? Or is CalWIN designed to control workers by taking all the decision making and knowledge away from the workers, reducing their tasks to mindless data entry?