HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05231995 - 2.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �£"SE'L ° Contra
FROM: Robert Hofmann, Acting Director �. Costa
Social Service Department 's
o: z
. :: County
DATE: May 10, 19 9 5 �� _• co `Tv
srq..
SUBJECT: COUNTY POSITION PAPER ON STATEWIDE AUTOMATED
WELFARE SYSTEM (SAWS)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE the Acting Director of the Social
Service Department to send a letter and concept paper
(Attachment 1) to our County's Legislative Delegation
endorsing support for a plan to allow county development
of two additional, statewide automated welfare system
consortiums as alternatives to the state planned SAWS
project, with counties free to choose which system best
meets their local needs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No cost impact at this time.
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the State Budget Act of 1994-95, Ernst & Young,
LLP, under contract with the California State Auditor,
recently released its audit report entitled "Department of
Social Services: The Department's Approach to Welfare
Automation Is Too Costly and Unlikely To Succeed. "
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effective-
ness and efficiency of the State Department of Social
Services' approach to statewide welfare automation.
The key element of the State's approach to statewide
welfare automation has been a two year test piloting via a
fourteen small county consortium known as the Interim
Statewide Automated Welfare System (ISAWS) . The ISAWS
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X _YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 23, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Acting Social Service Director is
DIRECTED to report to the Board on the_:::development of criteria toevaluate
the effectiveness of the program.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ---------- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Contact--Don Cruze 3-1582 ATTESTED May 23, 1995
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
E SORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
;7
B DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
Page 2
BACKGROUND (cont'd. ) :
pilot project is using an expanded application of an
automated welfare system known as NAPAS (Napa Automated
Public Assistance System) that has been in implementation
and operation since 1987 in Napa County.
Upon successful piloting of the ISAWS consortium, it had
been the State's intent to expand this NAPAS system
statewide to the remaining forty three counties (excepting
Los Angeles which will have its own approved system known
as LEADER) .
The Ernst & Young report is highly critical of the State's
efforts at statewide automation and has specifically
concluded that a statewide expansion of NAPAS is not cost
efficient nor feasible.
The Case Data System Directors have authored the attached
position paper on statewide automation (see Attachment 1) .
Recognizing the State's failed efforts at implementing a
viable statewide automation system, the Case Data System
Directors' position paper calls for state recognition of
the development of two additional statewide automation
alternatives with counties free to choose which system best
fits their local needs. This paper also advocates counties
having primary responsibility for the development of the
two additional SAWS systems which would provide better
alternative choices to ,Contra Costa.
The California Association of County Data Processors has
now adopted a very similar position, noting the urgent need
of timely, effective operational solutions for the highly
complex and rapidly changing welfare programs (Attachment
2) .
The Acting Social Service Director supports the CDS
position paper and requests authority to send the attached
letter to local legislators to elicit support in effecting
state adoption of this recommended course of action.
Attachments (2)
ATTACHMENT 1
Social Service Department Contra Please reply to:
40 Douglas Drive
Perfecto Villarreal Costa
Martinez,California 94553-4068
Director s7
County
s c
[To. be sent .to the County's :
Legislative Delegation]
ST'9 COU71�
I am writing to ask for your support of local choice in the selection
of welfare automation systems. As demonstrated in the State Auditor's
recent report on SAWS (Statewide Automated Welfare System) , welfare
administration is a labor-intensive process that can save significant
amounts of money and improve services with proper automation.
The Auditor's report, as well as our experience with welfare
administration, points to the need for local choice. The state's
efforts to dictate systems to counties who actually delver services
will not work for our county and many others. We believe that county-
led efforts will be more successful, and that we can meet legitimate
state needs for automation without imposing one system on all counties.
We have seen this approach work as a long-time member of the Welfare
Case Data System consortium, the largest and most successful cost-
effective welfare automation system in California covering over 40% of
the state caseload. The CDS system is now technically outdated, and
needs immediate improvements to allow us to operate efficiently until
we and other counties can develop a more viable alternative.
The attached paper, "SAWS Revisited: A Call for County Flexibility, "
further outlines the case for county flexibility.
I appreciate your support for our position. If you have any questions
or would like to discuss this further, please contact me at
510 313-1579 .
Sincerely,
Robert Hofmann
Acting Director
RH/dc
Attachment (1)
endorse.ltr
SAWS REVISITED:
A CALL FOR COUNTY FLEXIBILITY
Concept Paper
Introduction
The Califoriva Department of Social Services(DSS)and county social welfare agencies
have invested substantial amounts of time, money, and energy in welfare automation. The
SAWS system operating in Napa and the ISAWS (Interim SAWS)counties is one result
of that effort. We support the automation of these counties, and appreciate the lessons that
the experience with SAWS has for the rest of us.
Many of these lessons have become apparent in the Bureau of State Audit's report on
SAWS. Some of the conclusions which we have drawn from the report include:
1. California has a critical need for welfare automatioci.
2. The state can meet its needs without imposing one system on all
counties.
3. California's counties need greater flexibility in the selection of
welfare systems, in part because SAWS will not work for many of
them.
4. Systems other than SAWS which counties could adapt to meet their
needs exist today.
5. The state has had major problems in managing welfare automation.
In its response to the report, the Department of Social Services appears to support an
approach which would continue the expansion of SAWS state-wide and possibly convert
SAWS to LEADER, L.A. County's solution. This would also retain state control over
welfare automation.
Based on the report, as well as our own experience with SAWS and welfare automation,
we believe that the time has come for an evolution of the state's SAWS strategy. While
the report illustrates the need to allow counties the opportunity to pursue systems other
than SAWS, it also presents evidence which suggests that the fundamental approach of
state-controlled management of welfare automation should change to increase the role of
counties substantially.
Thus, we propose that the California Legislature allow counties the flexibility to form
consortia that can select SAWS, LEADER(L.A. County's solution), or other systems.
These consortia would have primary responsibility for development, operations, and
maintenance of a limited number of systems, with the option of state management when so
desired. The state would also retain primary responsibility for key elements described
below. We also propose that the Legislature provide fundmg in FY 1995-1996 to begin
this approach.
The Case for Multiple Systems
We believe that the state has legitimate needs from welfare automation systems, but that it
is not necessary to implement one system state-wide to meet these needs. The state can
create a management and technical infrastructure to meet its three primary needs from
welfare automation:
1. Consistent and rapid application of welfare rules.
2. A centralized database to allow counties to share information on clients and
transfer cases among counties, to reduce fraud, to generate state and federal
reports, etc.
3. A cost-effective solution which reduces costs and improves service.
Maintaining [Velfare Rules: We believe that it is appropriate for the state to maintain
welfare rules for all systems to ensure that rules are implemented rapidly and consistently.
This will also achieve some economies of scale. The state has raised concerns with the
increased costs of this approach because it appears that this requires duplication of effort.
However, the state previously supported an approach— MP SAWS — which would have
required such duplication since the software for the MP SAWS systems would be different
than that for SAWS and LEADER.
Centralized Database: One of the primary benefits of welfare automation should be the
creation of a database or system to allow counties to share information on clients and help
the state to meet reporting requirements. SAWS does not include such a database, but
rather has added a component to MEDS, a centralized system operated by the Health and
Welfare Data Center(HWDC)prior to SAWS with information on welfare. Counties
update and receive information from MEDS every day using a variety of systems and
technologies. Page 3-18 of the report states that"The need to share case or client data
must be carefully analyzed before a decision is made to store either centrally, and a role of
the department is to provide for this transfer."
Cost-effective solution: While there would be higher maintenance costs with multiple
systems, these costs are relatively small compared to overall system costs. Also, the
report suggests that substantial benefits can be achieved by"county efforts to reorganize
and streamline their manual operations before automating(p. S-2)." Many counties have
called for the opportunity to engage in such re-design for months as part of automation, as
opposed to an approach in which"Automating a non-value added process simply allows
you to not add value faster(p. 3-3)." A single state-wide system limits opportunities for
counties to develop innovative solutions to reduce the costs of administering welfare.
During the early years of SAWS, several counties helped to develop the alternative to the
system selected by the state which took the re-design approach, and in 1991 nearly half of
the counties indicated a preference for that system while six preferred the SAWS solution.
Pursuing a strategy to implement one system state-wide could well cost more and delay
automation_ The Department's response to the report calls for a "cautious and deliberate
expansion of SAWS," where it has previously indicated a preference to roll out SAWS
2
quickly. The Department also notes the need to"use an open competitive bid process to
move forward,"despite the report's conclusion that"SAWS is based on a proprietary
system not suitable for competitive procurement."
The history of SAWS demonstrates that the Legislature and Department did not originally
intend to implement one system in all counties. In 1993, the Department recommended
that the state develop system standards and program requirements, while the counties
would select the best solution within necessary limitations. DSS changed its policy in
1991 because it appeared that additional federal financial support would require one
system. The counties endorsed that position, based on financial promises that have since
changed and based on a state analysis which contained many flaws. Despite the
elimination of the potential for additional federal funding, the state has retained its plans to
impose one system on all counties.
In addition, the RFP for LEADER clearly laid out requirements for the winning vendor to
meet state requirements without requiring the adoption of SAWS. In fact, L.A. County
rejected SAWS as inadequate.to meet its needs. While the vendor for SAWS and
LEADER is the same, and despite the department's claim that"LEADER is SAWS"(p.
G-23), the Auditor clearly indicates that"ISAWS is not LEADER"(p. K-1). The
vendor's proposal for LEADER states that"we concluded that no single system could
provide a perfect match for the functionality required for LEADER. We concluded that
the ideal solution would be to transfer California's SAWS and Wisconsin CARES, and
merge appropriate functionalities accordingly"(Unisys LEADER proposal, p. 1-9--1-10).
County Flexibility: A Policy Direction
While there are numerous ways to provide counties with greater flexibility, we recognize
the need to keep the number of systems small, to build on existing systems where feasible,
and to leverage existing investinents in technology.
Thus, we propose allowing counties to form a small number of consortia based on factors
such as business needs, existing systems, and technological preferences. Each consortia
would establish its business requirements for an automation system. Vendors would then
bird solutions. We anticipate that the ISAWS counties would form one consortium, that
LEADER could represent a second, and that there would be approximately two additional
consortia.
Counties within the consortia would have the option to take primary responsibility to
develop, operate, and maintain their systems. This would provide those responsible for
operating programs and delivering services with control over the resources necessary to do
so effectively. For example, this might help counties which have expressed interest in
using automation to promote the integration of human service programs.
3
Consortia will represent multi-county development efforts, reducing the need for later and
potentially expensive county-specific changes. Counties will provide strong contract
management to avoid difficulties which other large automation projects have faced, and
will create incentives for successful vendors to meet their commitments.
With this approach, the state would have the responsibility to create and maintain the
technical and management infrastructure referred to earlier. In addition, the state would
develop, operate, and maintain a system when requested by a consortium.
To move this approach forward, we propose that the California Legislature take the
following steps:
I. Continue funding for ISAWS for those counties which wish to
implement it.
2. Adopt a policy which promotes county leadership in the
management of welfare management.
3. Adopt a policy which allows counties the flexibility to choose from
a variety of automation solutions, including SAWS, LEADER, and
a limited number of other systems.
4. Provide funding to initiate this policy, which could include
developing an RFI as proposed by the Auditor. It should also
include funding to prepare planning documents required by Federal
and state agencies including requests for proposals, to review
business processes to identify ways to use automation cost-
effectively, to identify necessary county-specific functionality at
least equal to existing systems, and to initiate the development of
the actual systems.
County Leadership: A Change in Roles
The Auditor's report found that the LEADER solution proposed for Los Angeles County
is attractive for several reasons, including its low cost, strong county management, shared
risks with the vendor, and technical approach. The state's recommendation to proceed
appears to be part of a plan to migrate SAWS to LEADER, and then to roll out LEADER
as a state-wide solution. The Department describes LEADER as being a SAWS-based
system, states that"LEADER is a potential next generation of SAWS,"and points to the
fact that the vendor is converting software code from MAPPER in SAWS to COBOL in
LEADER as indicative that"SAWS is on the right track(p. G-7)."
While we do not object to converting ISAWS to LEADER for counties which prefer this
option, we do not believe that the state should impose it on other counties. Our reasons
follow:
4
Management Concerns: Our greatest concern with this approach is the apparent
presumption that the state would retain the primary role in developing, operating, and
maintaining one welfare automation system.
The report provides extensive information on the state's management difficulties. For
example, page S-2 states"The complexity of this project has overwhelmed the
department's ability to manage it." At the same time, county-led efforts such as MAGIC,
NAPAS, the Welfare Case Data System, and LEADER have succeeded or are promising
when led by counties. We do not believe that the state's difficulties in managing welfare
automation can be attributed purely to individuals or organizations. Rather, we believe
than the reason for these difficulties is the approach of state-led automation. As the report
highlighted:
Given California's Twenty-Y ear History of Efforts to Automate Welfare,
Los Angeles County LEADER Project Staff Had No Faith in the State's
Ability to Provide a Statewide System (p. 3-7).
The undersecretary of Health and Welfare has stated that"if you were to place projects of
this magnitude in any single department, you're asking for problems" (Sacramento Bee,
April 19, 1995). VVe agree, and thus believe that while changing the managers of SAWS
may result in some improvements, we need to recognize that This does not go far enough.
There is a fundamental flaw in having the state, which does not administer welfare, make
decisions on technology, functionality, staffing, and other key elements of counties'
systems rather than allowing counties, which actually administer welfare programs, to take
on the leadership role. We have no objection to having the state provide the leadership for
consortia of counties which prefer this approach.
While the report could be read to presume that leadership should remain with the state, it
did not examine the issue of fiiture management in depth. We believe that history provides
ample evidence of the need for a new direction. In the simplest terms, state-led efforts
have failed or struggled; county-led efforts have succeeded. And while counties may
require some time to reach agreement on a future strategy, it is certainly better to allow us
to determine our own fate than to leave control with any state-level entity. Also, the
Auditor does indicate that county-led consortia could be viable(p. K-5).
Single-County Development: LEADER will be developed for one county, and should
thus work very well for Los Angeles. One of the lessons of SAWS is that county
operations differ significantly and that we need to incorporate these differences into the
design of systems. As the report states, "It is very difficult to convince 58 different
counties, with 58 different ways of providing welfare services, to adopt one way of doing
things(p. 4-2)."
Technical Concerns: There are significant technical questions about the viability of the
approach of converting at least part'of the SAWS program code from MAPPER to
COBOL,, which LEADER Will use. While it is normally easier to convert an existing
5
application from one technical platform to another, the report states that"Trying to retrofit
a proprietary mainframe application and make it an open distributed application may be
more difficult than starting from scratch(p. 2-3)." It also states that LEADER takes a
more distributed approach than SAWS (p. 1-16), and that"NAPAS code does not parallel
business logic statements. COBOL does. (Conversion)would result in`disparate'
systems(p. E-2)."
In addition to the analysis by the Auditor, some counties believe that this approach poses
extreme technical risk. Taking this approach without the use of CASE tools would be
inadvisable, and pursuing it with a CASE tool would also be inappropriate since SAWS
requires substantial changes to the underlying functionality, something a direct conversion
does not allow.
Furthermore, in the SAWS Evaluation Report the Department's own consultant, the Mitre
Corporation, noted that"Such a code conversion, where NAPAS logic is re-cast in another
language and environment is highly risky in that exact functional duplication would be
very difficult to achieve (p. 32, Appendix 23, SAWS Evaluation Report)."
County technical experts believe that this approach deserves further in-depth analysis
before seriously considering it as a viable option. The state has previously proposed other
technically risky options without adequate review of the risks, such as porting the SAWS
application from Unisys equipment to that of other vendors, and using a semi-automated
approach to convert SAWS from MAPPER to other software code.
Procurement Concerns: On page G-40, the state argues that its approach"allows for
open and competitive procurement." We do not understand how this could occur, given
the report's conclusions that SAWS"is based on a proprietary system not suitable for
competitive procurement state-wide." Also, the report notes that the database software for
LEADER"can only run on a Unisys mainframe with a Unisys operating system and is
closed. . . . It would be difficult to bid on LEADER without the involvement of Unisys
because(LEADER) is tied so closely to this one vendor(p. 3-23 --3-24).
Financial Concerns: The Unisys proposal for LEADER won in Los Angeles County
because of its low cost, an alternative approach scored higher on technical issues. The
projected cost of LEADER is quite low, and if these costs are available to other counties
we would strongly consider this solution.
However, there is no reason to believe that this price would be available to other counties,
and there are reasons to believe it could be higher. For example, the report notes that"The
primary saving in cost is the cost of local site hardware, including the personal computers
and local area networks. . . . The PCs are being supplied at approximately$850 each(p.
1-16)." This is well below the normal market price for PCs, and may include additional
6
counties, with 58 different ways of providing welfare services, to adopt one way of doing
things(p. 4-2)."
Technical Concerns: There are significant technical questions about the viability of the
approach of converting at least part of the SAWS program code from MAPPER to
COBOL, which LEADER will use. While it is normally easier to convert an existing
application from one technical platform to another, the report states that"Trying to retrofit
a proprietary mainframe application and make it an open distributed application may be
more difficult than starting from scratch(p. 2-3)." It also states that LEADER takes a
more distributed approach than SAWS (p. 1-16), and that"NAPAS code does not parallel
business logic statements. COBOL does. (Conversion) would result in `disparate'
systems(p. E-2)."
In addition to the analysis by the Auditor, some counties believe that this approach poses
extreme technical risk. Taking this approach without the use of CASE tools would be
inadvisable, and pursuing it with a CASE tool would also be inappropriate since SAWS
requires substantial changes to the underlying functionality, something a direct conversion
does not allow.
Furthermore, in the SAWS Evaluation Report the.Department's own consultant, the Mitre
Corporation, noted that"Such a code conversion, where NAPAS logic is re-cast in another
language mid environment is highly risky in that exact functional duplication would be
very difficult to achieve (p. 32, Appendix 23, SAWS Evaluation Report)."
County technical experts believe that this approach deserves further in-depth analysis
before seriously considering it as a viable option. The state has previously proposed other
technically risky options without adequate review of the risks, such as porting the SAWS
application from Unisys equipment to that of other vendors, and using a semi-automated
approach to convert SAWS from MAPPER to other software code.
Procurement Concerns: On page G-40, the state argues that its approach"allows for
open and competitive procurement." We do not understand how this could occur, given
the report's conclusions that SAWS"is based on a proprietary system not suitable for
competitive procurement state-wide." Also, the report notes that the database software for
LEADER"can only run on a Unisys mainframe with a Unisys operating system and is
closed. . . . It would be difficult to bid on LEADER without the involvement of Unisys
because(LEADER)is tied so closely to this one vendor(p. 3-23 --3-24).
Financial Concerns: The Unisys proposal for LEADER won in Los Angeles County
because of its low cost, an alternative approach scored higher on tectmical issues.
However, there is no reason to believe that this price would be available to other counties,
and there are reasons to believe it could be higher. For example, the report notes that"The
priniary saving in cost is the cost of local site hardware, including the personal computers
and local area networks. . . . The PCs are being supplied at approximately $850 each(p.
1-16)." This is well below the normal market price for PCs, and may include additional
costs as well so that the true costs of the PCs is closer to $400 each.
7
Simply dividing the state into multiple consortia is a step in this direction. Also,vendors
are likely to propose building upon existing, proven systems. We plan to implement the
systems in a small number of counties and then roll them out to other counties in
manageable increments.
In addition, the Task Force raises concerns about the risks of using unproven technology.
While we may examine some new technology as part of our analysis of our business
processes and the potential for technologies to improve them, we have no intention of
taking unnecessary risks.
The Governor's Task Force identified customer focus as a critical success factor for
information technology. We believe that one of the problems with previous attempts at
welfare automation has been the distance of the state from the local operations of one of
their customers and partners, the counties, and our customers, the welfare clients. We
believe that our proposal will better meet our needs and welfare clients' needs, as well as
providing a cost-effective system that will benefit California's taxpayers--a common and
crucial customer for all of us.
Finally, the Governor's Task Force repeatedly pointed to the need for strong relationships
between government and vendors. While we plan to protect our interests and those of the
state with strong contract management, we believe that one way to do so is to provide
vendor's with the incentive to perform well. We will build such incentives into our
planning effort.
418pm
9
In addition, one of the lessons we can draw from LEADER is that competitive
procurements reduce governments' costs. The savings from bidding multiple solutions
competitively may well generate greater savings alone than the costs of maintaining a
minimal number of systems.
Timing The Department's suggestion to take a"go slow"approach with SAWS is
surprising, given its historical position of automating as quickly as possible. We have
been waiting for many years to automate welfare properly; each year we delay we lose
more of the benefits of automation. We agree with Napa County that"delaying welfare
automation will delay the benefits that could be achieved,"(p. H-51), and that"anything
Which jeapordizes welfare automation moving forward to other counties would be a step
backward"(p. 1-1-1.0).
We believe that the state's management of automation has caused unnecessary and costly
delays, and that following its slow-down approach to SAWS would only further these'
problems by continuing to pursue a strategy which poses major and multiple risks.
We have enough experience with state-directed efforts and information on SAWS to more
than justify the beginning of a new direction, particularly when one considers that
LEADER is not yet operatuig in L.A. County, and will require additional time to prepare
for implementation in other counties. Also, as the report says, "It is important to note that
LEADER is a proposed system, not an existing system such as NAPAS and MAGIC.
Therefore, the actual results of LEADER may differ from the proposal, and such
differences could be significant(p. 3-11)."
County Flexibility: Consistent with Governor's Task Force Recommendations
In developing this proposal we reviewed the recommendations developed by the
Governor's Task Force on Government Technology Policy and Procurement. We believe
that the Task Force has made an important contribution to the discussion of technology
issues in California, and our proposal is consistent with its recommendations.
For example, the Task Force noted the importance of reducing the amount of time it takes
to develop large systems. SAWS is one of if not the largest state system ever proposed.
Our approach will reduce the time necessary to implement a solution. As the Task Force
noted, a shortened delivery time will also reduce project risks. We believe that the state
and Federal agencies can expedite implementation by participating in the planning and
development process, thus reducing the time necessary for lengthy reviews and approvals.
The Task Force also suggested"Reducing the size of large projects by breaking them into
more manageable and quickly accomplished components--current projects are too big."
8
ATTACHMENT 2
OFtNIA ASV.
President GP �9�, First Vice President
David. Macdonald �s�' goy John Wade
Alameda County San Luis Obispo County
Secretary-Treasurer Second Vice President
Steven Steinbrecher �� Russ Waltrip
San Joaquin County �0 y0 Sacramento County
GtirY BATA PR�G�y
May 1, 1995
Mr. Del Skillman
President, CWDA Executive Committee
Tehama County Dept. of Social Welfare
P.O. Box 1515
Redbluff, California 96080
Dear Mr. Skillman:
Attached is the CACDP position regarding Welfare automation in California. This is a
critically important time for both the Welfare and Data Processing organizations in each County.
It has never been more important that we work together closely in order that counties, and
ultimately our clients, interests are served.
Our recommendations are based on the excellent track record counties have in developing
systems and working together. We believe ISAWS and LEADER should be supported with a
consortia of counties. -Two additional consortia should be formed to procure and develop systems
for counties that do not choose either ISAWS or LEADER. Since counties have the responsibility
to administer welfare and deliver services, it is vital that counties have authority to select those
tools that allow efficient delivery of those services.
If after reviewing the CACDP position paper you believe a joint meeting of our organizations
would be beneficial, please let me know,and I will be glad to organize it.
Sincerely,
Aavi acdonald
President, CACDP
DM/CP:CACDPSAWS
cc: Frank Mecca, Executive Director, CWDA
Russ Bohart, Director, HWDC
California Welfare Directors
California Data Processing Directors
a ,
Monday, May 1, 1995
CAMP Call for Action: SAWS .
Two points drawn from the recent State Auditor's report regarding SAWS are addressed
by this position paper.
1. Automation of the day-to-day, highly complex, and rapidly changing welfare2
programs administered by counties is both highly beneficial and urgent.
2. Centralized, State system development efforts to meet county operational
responsibilities is in disarray, costly, late, and largely unsuccessful over the last two
decades, and is unlikely to improve on a timely basis.
CACDP has been consistently supportive of the State's effort to meet the"Welfare
Directors (our clients) automation needs on a uniform, state-wide system development
,basis. We have raised issues, and completed independent studies in an open and
positive manner. We have accepted responsibility for the loss of local revenue that will
result from State operation, even though this revenue loss undercuts an important county
technology infrastructure which Data Processing directors administer. We did this
because we wanted our focus to be on a timely, effective solution urgently needed for
County Welfare operations.
We strongly believe in a change in state-wide automation strategy based on the following
ideas:
Counties have the responsibility to administer welfare and deliver services to
clients. Counties must have significantly increased authority to select, develop and
operate the basic tools essential to their responsibilities.
It is this conflict between responsibility and authority that must be addressed in order for
SAWS to be successful in California. CACDP recommends the following rules and
themes of a revised strategy for development of welfare automation in California.
The State should limit its responsibility for welfare systems to Policy determination.
For example:
1. Key policies such as establishing the number of SAWS solutions to be supported.
2. Establishment of business rules to be replicated in each welfare system.
3. Establishment of common, basic, minimum, model of the data and data
relationships.
4. Administration of program funding.
The State should remove itself from direct management of develpment or operation of
SAWS systems. This does not preclude State data centers from providing services on
behalf of counties as customers. State representatives should participate fully in
consortia activities.
Counties should form consortia to plan, procure, develop, operate and manage a
limited number of systems that meet county needs and build on proven county
system management capabilities.
Counties have an excellent track record in cooperatively developing systems in welfare,
criminal justice and property business areas. Such efforts have been successful in large
part because system development is close to the organizations who must depend on the
systems to meet their business objectives and responsibilities. The Case Data
experience shows that the consortium approach is viable.
A new SAWS strategy should include the following elements:
1 . ISAWS should continue to be supported. ISAWS should be transformed to a county
consortium managed operation, not State managed. This does not preclude
continued HWDC operation.
2. LEADER should continue to be supported. LEADER should develop a consortia
strategy component.
3. Competitive selection of two additional county consortia should begin immediately.
Allocate planning funds to encourage consortia to.form. Establish a timely selection
process that rests on sound business objectives. Then authorize two consortia to
begin the procurement and development process.
4. All counties, large and small, should be required to ally themselves with one of the
four final consortia. The goal should be to automate every county.
5. A third party firm should be engaged to periodically review progress, problems,
plans, risks, cost/benefit, and overall costs. This effort should focus on supporting
program success by periodic constructive and helpful review of all four consortia on
an equal basis.
SAWS-CAMP