Why Have the Computer Systems Been Such a Disaster?

December 2000

by Richard Bermack

The Dragon spoke with Don Mueller, the acting president of Public Interest Breakthroughs, national experts on technology and human services. Mueller is the former chief information officer of North Dakota’s Department of Human Services and is currently working with the state of Arizona on the design of its welfare program, called “No Wrong Door.” The philosophy of that program is that no matter where recipients enter the welfare system, they will end up with a full assessment of their needs and receive full services. Mueller stresses that the technology must be part of a holistic approach to welfare. “Our state [Arizona] believes you need to take care of the deeper problems that are keeping someone from working. Otherwise they are just going to keep on coming back,” he explains. The computer system is designed to help with that complete assessment.

Mueller is well acquainted with the shortcomings of California’s welfare computer systems. He participated in a $300,000 study conducted by PIB in 1997-1998 to assess the state’s networks. The report was not very favorable. But instead of taking the report’s criticism to heart, the state Health and Welfare Data Center commissioned another study for $120,000 to put a different spin on the problem. The legislature then directed the Department of Information Technology to conduct a third study, and that study supported PIB’s findings.

What the PIB study concluded, according to Mueller, is that the California system does not do justice to a state that considers itself a leader in technology and human services. “[California’s welfare computer system] is an antiquated system that was built to do eligibility and payments. The business has changed. We have become interested in helping families achieve self-sufficiency, assessing those needs, as opposed to how much did the applicant make last month,” he states. The problem is not just that ISAWS is a poorly performing computer system, but the whole way in which California administrators view welfare reform and the use of technology.

Mueller describes how the Arizona system will work: “We provide finances to get families on their feet, but the goal is self sufficiency... Systems have been developed that go through needs assessment screens with intelligent questions to help the worker identify the needs of that family and the resources that are available to address those needs. If they say food is a problem, then we give them food stamps or WIC or refer them to a community food bank. Maybe they have child care needs, or they have a 13-year-old son who is so involved in substance abuse the parent is being prevented from working. We look at the family from a holistic viewpoint of why they are outside the door.”

The point of welfare reform, according to Mueller, is not to place someone in any low-level job, but to address the problems that are keeping them from being gainfully employed. Any placement may fulfill the federal guidelines, but if the recipient ends up back on the rolls in six months because he or she can’t make ends meet after the transportation or child care subsidies run out, that is not a success in Mueller’s book. He believes that technology can help a worker provide comprehensive assessments and services, but that has to be the goal of the state’s welfare system.

When asked if computer systems that do eligibility determination would turn workers into data entry clerks, Mueller responded, “The computer is a tool to supplement eligibility decision-making and help with identifying needs.” Its purpose is to free the workers from details so they can spend time discussing the clients’ issues. He offers examples of what workers might say: “‘You have a child care issue. We need to talk about this.’ Or ‘Grandma needs to go to a nursing home, but you don't have the resources. Let’s figure out how we can help you.’ The point is to free the workers so they can deal with the family more holistically.“

The problem, Mueller states, is that California welfare administrators may talk the talk about welfare reform and the paradigm change to client self sufficiency, but they are not ready to walk the walk.