Building Better Community Service Information

8/2/2019 Building Better Community Service Information

1/14

Building Better Community

Service Information

Chicago MidSouth Community Resource Directory Project

December 2005

Report and Prospectus


2/14

Introduction

This report reviews the findings of our Chicago MidSouth Community Resource Directory Project and

envisions how better community service information could be provided to Chicagos residents and

to Americans in similar settings around the nation. Several strategies for pursuing this objective are

summarized in the hope of stimulating interest, feedback, and new participation in moving this work

ahead.

Over the past three years, the MacArthur Foundation funded several University of Chicago projects

that assessed the impact of Chicagos public housing transformation on the provision of social

services. This project focused initially on compiling community resource and service information in

order to make it available to relocating public housing residents, and their case managers, in the

citys MidSouth area. The project has delivered rich listings of community services in hard copy and

electronic media.

In this Internet age, many Americans can access information on books, clothing, furniture, and other

products on a personal computer in a matter of seconds. After comparison shopping, a consumer

can make a choice, validate payment arrangements, select a shipping method, place the order, and

receive a receipt. In many places, it is increasingly possible to use this same technology to secure

restaurant, travel and hotel reservations, and even to schedule appointments at upscale, local hair

cutting salons.

What happens, though, when we want help from resources in our communities like social service

centers, medical clinics, houses of worship, schools, and local associations? We discover that we

are supported by a complex array of service systems in which relevant information is frequently

incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated. Finding help whether in person, by telephone, or with

a computer turns out to be

complicated and time-consuming. Too

often, we need help finding help.

Building Better Community Service Information

1

Author

Mark H. Neuffer

A.M., School of Social Service Administration

University of Chicago

[email protected]

[email protected]

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

Foundation, which funded this project. Work was conducted at the University

of Chicago School of Social Service Administration and the Chapin Hall Center

for Children over the period 2003-2005. Particular thanks are extended

to Edward F. Lawlor and Mark E. Courtney for their generous support and

to Jocelyn W. McClelland for her devoted and inspired effort in making the

Chicago MidSouth Community Resource Directory a reality.


3/14

Design Objectives

Figure 1 lists five project design objectives, of which the first two were paramount: to catalog all

community service information relevant to relocating public housing residents, and to present it in a

manner directly useful to them as service consumers. We also sought insight into the needs of other

information users such as service providers, service system managers, government agencies, and

researchers. Finally, while

providing better information

in the short term, we also

sought to determine how

better community serviceinformation could be built in

the future.

We grouped community

resource information into

three logical layers (Figure 1).

The service provider tier at

the top contains information

describing institutional

mission, organization,

and operations. Program

information in the middle tier

offers general descriptive

material about program

offerings, objectives, and

populations served. Our

primary concern was with

the service information in

the bottom tier, because

this is where the informations relevance is greatest to the consumer seeking help. Within this layer,

the Service Offerings cluster details specific services, their locations, contact personnel, eligibility

requirements, and days and hours of operation. This information is the most consumer-actionable

that is, it equips the consumer with sufficient detail to make an informed choice of services and to

contact suitable providers in the community.


2

1. Catalog all relevantcommunity services

2. Take a service consumerperspective

3. Consider the needs of otherinformation users

4. Provide better serviceinformation now

5. Identify ways of providingbetter service information inthe future

Service Provider

Mission

Organization

Operations

Revenues & Expenses

Design Objectives

Programs

Objectives

Populations Served

General Information

Service Offerings

Detailed Information

Eligibility Criteria

Service Sites & Contacts

Days & Hours Open

Service Access

Service Availability

Client Choice

Service Referral

Documentation

Service Delivery

Service Detail

Client Detail

Practitioner Detail

Service Provider Detail

Consumer

Actionability

Lower

Higher

Provider

Information

Program

Information

Service

Information

Figure 1: MidSouth Community Resource Directory


4/14

As the service process unfolds, interaction between the consumer and service provider personnel,

culminating in a referral, generates the information in the Service Access cluster in the diagram. Theparticulars of the service transaction, shown in the Service Delivery box, are then documented. Both

of these information clusters are outside the immediate scope of developing a service directory, but it

was essential to visualize the entire process as we prepared to develop a portion of it in robust detail.

Developing the Directory

As the project was launched, we surveyed the published and computerized information that could

serve as the Resource Directorys foundation. After it became apparent that no single source was

adequate, a combination of multiple sources was then considered. We found that information about

providers and services in Chicagos multi-system network is housed in the various state, county, city,

and community institutions that provide,

fund, or regulate the services. As a

result, information is widely dispersed,

and there is no blueprint to assemble

it. It was also discovered that the

caches of information throughout this

constellation are frequently deficientin quality and out of date. Even if such

material could be integrated, it would

be unreliable.

As noted in Table 1, we responded to

this challenge by collecting provider-

level information from the Internet

Yellow Pages (IYP). Because IYP data

is generated from business telephonelistings, and because almost all

businesses have telephones, the IYP

data enabled us to take a community-

wide snapshot of providers across all

the service systems. The picture also


3

Table 1:Developing the MidSouth Community Resource Directory

Challenges Responses

Provider-level

information widely

fragmented and out of

date

Organizations reluctant

to share program and

service information

Consumer-actionable

service information

generally not available

No standard framework

to define organizations,

services, and

populations

Variable, and generally

low, use of information

technology

Use Internet Yellow Pages to snapshot

provider information across the

community

Team up with recognized community

organizations

Make extensive provider contact at

community functions and in smaller

meetings

Document projects information needs

simply, explicitly, and widely

Make intensive, ongoing contact with

service provider personnel to gather and

validate information

Use nationally-recognized* AIRS/

InfoLine Taxonomy of Human Services

to categorize providers, services and

populations

Use manual and computerized vehicles

for collecting, processing, and publishing

information

*The AIRS taxonomy is used by 211 telephone referral services across the United States.


5/14

included organizations like churches and associations that function outside the boundaries of such

systems. When we applied appropriate quality controls, the IYP information provided a foundation ofcomparatively current provider addresses, telephones, fax numbers, e-mail addresses, and web sites.

The next step was adding more detailed information to this foundation. An entre to the community

was provided by several local organizations that sponsored forums where we explained the purpose

and value of our work. Extensive contact was then needed to motivate service providers to transform

general program-level information to the finer level of detail required for it to be useful to service

consumers. The project team distributed clear and simple documentation on how this could most

efficiently be undertaken, and maintained ongoing contact with provider personnel until the necessary

data was gathered and validated.The difficulty of this process was steeply increased by the lack of generally-accepted standards in

Chicago for defining the diverse types of provider organizations, services, and populations. Without

clear, consistent, and specific definitions of terms like homeless services, youth development (or

even youth) the practical use of the service directory would be very limited. Accordingly, we adopted

the AIRS/InfoLine Taxonomy of Human Services that is now widely used by Information and Referral

organizations and 211 telephone referral services across the United States.

Service providers varied widely in the extent and sophistication of their use of information technology,

with a significant fraction lagging well behind the computing, networking, and Internet standardsof commercial and government sector organizations. Accordingly, we used every medium at

our disposal, including direct contact, US mail, telephone, fax, electronic mail, and electronic

forms, to communicate and exchange information with the service providers. The breadth of the

communications spectrum suggested that the Resource Directory, once compiled, would have to be

published in a variety of media ranging from hard copy to the Internet; no single medium would suffice.


4


6/14

Project Findings

As project data was compiled (Table 2) the

scope and diversity of MidSouth service

providers became apparent. Indeed,

harvesting information from the Internet Yellow

Pages had revealed a greater number and

variety of potential resources than sources

within the traditional service constellations.

As we filled the project database with

service data, the picture became even more

interesting. The MidSouth service environment, we found, is characterized by diversity: many providers

supply different kinds of services to various types of consumers. If the Resource Directory proposed

to depict community services accurately, data collection would have to be extensive. Any approach

focusing on particular provider types, services, or populations would not reveal the full span and

depth of community resources.

The service picture was so diverse

that assumptions about what kinds

of services would be offered by

a particular provider type were

abandoned in favor of on-the-ground

investigation.

Figure 2 highlights this diversity.

Eight different provider types on the

left of the diagram offer a total of 35

after-school programs. Conversely,

a single organizational type in this

example, religious organizations

offers ten different kinds of services

in addition to the mainstream offering

of worship services.


5

Table 2: Snapshot of MidSouth Service Providers

Type No. Pct. Type No. Pct.

Religious 245 17.6% Government Offices 136 9.8%

Health Services 242 17.4% Arts and Cultural 78 5.6%

Education 207 14.9% Parks & Recreation 48 3.5%

Associations/CBOs 205 14.8% Child Care 32 2.3%

Social Services 171 12.3% Employment 25 1.8%

Figure 2

Many MidSouth Service Providers Offer Diverse Services

Many Service Provider TypesOffer 35 After School Programs

Religious OrganizationsProvide Many Types of Services

Social Services

Educational

Family and Children

Community Services

Recreation and Sports

Arts and Culture

Health Care

Mental Health

Employment

Housing and Utilities

Social Services

Child Care

Education

Parks

Arts and Culture

Community

Organizations

Recreation and Sports


7/14

Project Reflections

Canvassing the community for service data produced surprises as well. One church had housed a

charter school for several years, but with its tenant now departed for permanent quarters, the church

had extensive facilities available for instruction and recreation. Another organization with frequent free

access to events like airplane rides and flight lessons realized that these could be more widely enjoyed

by the community if given a higher profile. A national advocacy organization with state headquarters in

the Chicago Loop provides financial counseling services at a landmark MidSouth bank an inexpensive

and important benefit of which many area

residents were unaware. As data gathering

proceeded, the boundaries of the wordservice continued to expand, and this was as

much a revelation to the providers as it was to

the project team.

As we reflected on the project (Table 3) we

were grateful to have produced good-quality

community resource information of a caliber not

previously enjoyed. The Internet Yellow Pages data provided an excellent snapshot of both commercial

and noncommercial community resources. We were confident that the Resource Directory, by providing

detailed service information for specific sites, would be highly actionable by consumers and case manag-

ers in the near future. It was hoped that wider audiences, such as planners in city and state agencies,

would realize that only service-level data provides a fully-detailed picture of a communitys assets.

Our experience also produced several sobering insights. It took much longer to deliver the first service

listing (about 12 months) than originally planned, and the associated effort was much greater. After an

initial mailing of over 1,200 pieces, extensive outreach was conducted in conjunction with our partner

organizations in the community. Hundreds of telephone calls, fax transmissions, and e-mails were

exchanged in three successive waves over fifteen months. With the systems we developed, the same

process could be conducted far more efficiently and quickly today. However, it would still be a labor

intensive effort.

More significantly, only 20 percent of the providers we targeted and mailed had actually participated in

the survey. Despite the effort and time expended, many of the communitys assets had not been brought

into the sharp focus we believe to be essential. Finally, the project was a one-time event, and when it was

concluded there was no mechanism for it to take on a life of its own and become self-sustaining.


6

Table 3: Our Experience at a Glance

Positives Negatives

Pioneered technique for fastscanning of community resources

Identified exact locations of

services in the community

Supported information needs of

consumers, case managers

Identified needs of wider audiences

Required long development time

Demanded intensive involvement

of participants

Provided service information

for only 20% of prospective

providers

One-time effort


8/14

Current Chicago Initiatives

Over the course of the project we encountered many other organizations engaged in some aspect

of cataloging, mapping, or surveying community resources and services (Table 4). At first glance,

the differences between the projects seem to overshadow the similarities. Varied geographies are

under study, ranging from single communities to multiple cities in several states. The investigations

vary in scope from specific clusters of organizations and services to all-inclusive surveys such as our

projects. The audiences served by the different initiatives included service consumers, community

planners, social workers supporting a hospitals emergency room patients, government analysts, and

community school students and their parents.

The differences are nowhere more apparent than in the use

of technology. Some projects are using pencil and paper

surveys; others, hand-held data collection devices; still

others, databases and geographic information systems.The

projects are being pursued independently, so no provision

has been made for the systematic sharing of knowledge,

experience, or data.

In the broader picture, the similarities between the projects

ultimately are more telling. The importance of collectingservice-level as well as provider- and program-level data has

been acknowledged. All projects are seeking ways to more

completely involve provider organizations and to secure

information of better quality. We have also heard a desire

voiced to have projects extend beyond one-time efforts

to an ongoing process that continuously generates good-

quality information. In short, many people are addressing

the right issues and asking the right questions. There is

great promise in this fact.


7

Points of Comparison

Differences

Information Technologies

Geographic Scope

Scope of Providers

Scope of Services

Target Audience/Users

Similarities

Addressing the Right Issues:

Better Data Gathering

Service Focus

Better Provider Participation

Improved Information Quality

Sustainable Information

Community Organizations

Quad Communities Development Corporation

Educational Institutions

Brown University (project in Chicago)

Donohue Elementary School

Northwestern University

University of Chicago (multiple departments)

University of Illinois at Chicago

Government Agencies

Chicago Department of Human Services

Chicago Housing Authority

Chicago Public Schools

Illinois Department of Child and Family Services

Hospitals

University of Chicago Hospital--Family Medicine

University of Chicago Hospital--Emergency Room

Not-for-Profit Organizations

Community Resource Network

One Economy Corporation (multiple projects)

Research Centers and Planning Organizations

Chapin Hall Center for Children (multiple projects)

Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC)

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC)

Table 4:Other Resource-Related Initiatives in Chicago


9/14

Four Critical Success Factors

What would be required for high-quality service information to become a reality in Chicago? It is

tempting to imagine that information technology is the silver bullet solution for many of the problems

our project identified. And it is indeed true that information technology has not been used with notable

effectiveness to communicate about Chicagos resources and services. Wouldnt a major technology

ramp-up be the answer?

We think that technology

alone is notthe answer. As

earlier suggested, the core

challenge lies in the complexity

of systems and providers that

serve the citys residents. Up

to this point, most existing

information delivery methods

have only mirrored this

complexity. In consequence,

information is scattered across

the service constellations

and is expressed without the

benefit of common definitions

to describe providers,

services, and recipient

populations.

A successful information

system must cut a laser-

straight line across complex

systems and deliver its

message swiftly and simply to

the consumer. To accomplish

this, we believe, four critical

success factors must be

satisfied (Table 5).


8

Quality

The sum of all characteristics of

content that make the information

usable

Accuracy

Completeness

Currency

Level of Detail

Exchangeability

The capacity to exchange

information with full support of

quality standards

Documented standards for identifying organization,

service, and population types

Inter-standard connectivity

Technology

Information technology for storing,

processing, and exchanging

information with full support

of quality and exchangeability

standards

Documented standards for defining and exchanging data

Adheres to any technical conventions for information

processing negotiated by system participants

Sustainability

A steady state in which the

ongoing renewal of exchangeable,

good-quality information is assured

by the action of Business Drivers

Business Drivers

Bear compellingly on providers financial, professional, or

operations standing and effectiveness

Require the creation and maintenance of high-quality

information

Require adherence to standards that are required for

exchanging information with external organizations

Foster innovation in the use of information technologies

that support primary system objectives; discourages

unwarranted, low-return experimentation

Reward good participation and penalize poor

performance in the service system

Examples of Business Drivers

Business Driver Stakes Factor..Level of Support

Federal Income Tax

Reporting

(Form 990)

Tax-exempt status

Penalties for late submission,

errors, and omissions

Quality ....................Strong

Exchangeability .......Strong

Technology ... .......... Strong

Service Payment

(Invoices, transaction

records)

Revenue Quality ....................Strong

Exchangeability .......Moderate - Strong

Technology ... .......... Moderate

Exchangeability

Sustainability

Quality Technology

Table 5: Four Critical Success Factors of a Service Information System


10/14

The factor of qualityinvolves every aspect of the informations suitability for use. This may seem

self-evident, but we have encountered no resource information system that meets the four structuralcriteria of accuracy, completeness, currency, and level of detail. These criteria are common-sense

conventions that should be dictated by the nature and use of the information. For example, program-

level revenue data would be considered current by an outside observer if it reflected the most recent

and available provider submission of the federal Form 990 return. By contrast, service site data must

track the more frequent and unscheduled programmatic changes that occur throughout the year to be

considered current by service consumers.

The second factor of exchangeabilityis premised on the possibility of exchanging information between

different providers and systems despite variations of definition and language. The expectation isnot that everybody will settle on a single taxonomy but, rather, that they will adhere to at least one

of several possible conventions for describing the actors, actions, and recipients of the service

process. If providers meet this requirement, the service system software can provide inter-standard

connectivity: that is, it can translate between different definitional standards. This will make cross-

system information sharing and comparisons possible, and it ensures the consistency of information

provided to the service consumer.

The technologyfactor does not endorse any specific configuration of hardware or software. Rather,

technical components should be selected on the basis of how effectively they support the quality

and exchangeability standards, on the cost/benefit of technology investment, and on any accepted

performance standards.

Sustainabilityis a steady state in which the ongoing renewal of exchangeable, good-quality

information is assured. Our project found that voluntary participation by service providers is not

rigorous and complete enough to sustain good information. We think that a successful service

information system must incorporate business drivers that provide compelling financial, professional,

and operational incentives for organizations to produce sustainable information.

Table 5 provides two examples of business drivers. Annual submission of the Form 990 is a verypowerful quality driver because significant penalties attach to errors and omissions. Organizations

seek to follow standards of content and language rigorously in order to ensure the most beneficial

result of the information exchange. The use of suitable information technology is being driven by

the requirement that the not-for-profit sector phase in electronic filing. Service payment is a second

example of a business driver. Organizations that produce accurate service transaction data in formats


9


11/14

required by their funders are better positioned to be paid correctly and in a timely manner, and are

more prepared to substantiate their claims in the event of a dispute. Note that the drivers do notguarantee good information, but they provide a high degree of leverage. They are also specific: the

drivers that produce good financial information do not generate high-quality service information.

If Chicago is to have good service information, the business drivers that foster it will have to be

identified and incorporated in service business models. It will take imagination to construct a system

of incentives for many types of service providers. Even more creativity will be required to induce

service consumers to participate thoughtfully in detailed customer feedback surveys. It will be still

more challenging to make participation attractive to, and mission-compatible with, organizations like

churches and fraternal associations that are generally considered to be outside of mainstream servicesystems. However, these challenges will have to be successfully met if good community service

information is to be made available and sustained.

Moving Forward

Table 6 displays three general frameworks for meeting the challenges and opportunities raised in

this discussion. While focusing on different areas of the service domain, all three are designed to

demonstrate ways of sustaining better service information and to set the stage for subsequent projects.

This strategy recognizes that there will be no single answer to all information needs, and that progress

will be evolutionary through multiple phases.

The first framework (Chicago Service Information Collaborative) focuses on the City of Chicago and its

residents as its primary customers. Its principal intention is to coordinate the activity of Chicagos

multiple resource initiatives in order to produce a combined positive effect that is greater than the sum

of its parts. A collaborative effort would enable participants to share data, methods, and technology

know-how, thereby reducing redundancy and maximizing the use of each projects funding.

Ideally, the City of Chicago would assume a central role in fostering and funding the development of a

centralized service information system staffed by Information and Referral specialists. This system would

be a crucial collection and distribution point for service information, but it would coexist and exchange

information with other systems operated at county, state, and federal levels.

Framework 2, the Public Agency Information Center, takes a large public agency, its delegate agencies,

and its service consumers as the customers. This approach would demonstrate how a service

information center could be built around one institutional service hub as a starting point. A rigorous


10


12/14

analysis would ensure that

the agency identified itsinformation needs in detail,

for both immediate and

longer-term applications.

The analysis would include

plans not only for service

information, but for other

information, such as

utilization. In conjunction

with this, the agency would

develop and test a business

model equipped with the

necessary business drivers

to foster ongoing production

of sustainable, good-quality

information by key project

participants. The project

would be geared to producean operational system and

also a model that could be

further developed by other

agencies with like interests

and needs.

A defined Chicago community

or a targeted set of wards

would be the customer ofFramework 3, the Community

Resource Tool Kit. This

project would initially focus

on refining the tools and

technologies of the MidSouth

Resource Directory and


11

Framework 1

Chicago ServiceInformation Collaborative

Framework 2

Public AgencyService Information Center

Framework 3

Community Resource

Tool Kit

Preliminary Analysisand Planning

PropagationTo Other Systems and

Organizations

CityF

ocus

CommunityFocus


13/14

packaging them as a turnkey system that could be easily used by non-technical personnel. Once the

Tool Kit was developed, it would be installed in one or more appropriate community-based organizations.

The Tool Kit would be provided with a database already populated by appropriate Internet Yellow Pages

data so that community resource surveying could commence immediately. It would include applications

to assist personnel in coding organizations, services, and populations, using widely-used coding

schemes such as SIC, NAICS, and AIRS/InfoLine. User-friendly software applications would be provided

for data entry, inquiries, and reporting. Data would be exchangeable with a simple mapping program

included with the Tool Kit. As with the other project frameworks, the assumption is that this model and

the improvements upon it would be made available for other organizations embarking on similar work.

Concluding Thoughts

People will be arguing about

Hurricane Katrina for years, perhaps

for decades. For many observers,

the catastrophes that racked the

Gulf Coast are allegories of failure,

whether of command and control

structure, of individual leadership,

of urban and environmental planning

the list will continue to grow as

time passes.

We think that Katrina demonstrated

the fragility of a complicated

service infrastructure overtaxed

by extraordinary events. Contributing to this vulnerability was the daunting complexity of federal, state,

county, and local systems. In the end, it appears, they did not mobilize, communicate, or coordinate

with the effectiveness demanded by a disaster of this magnitude.

Louisianas 211 telephone referral services offered a bright contrast to this. Developed by the United

Way, and now operating in more than 30 states, 211 services are consumer-focused, community-based

information and referral centers that draw on community service databases. During the early phases of

Katrina, one 211 center with telephone lines still operational served as a vital, statewide resource and

played an important role in connecting residents with essential services.


12

Satellite photograph courtesy of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration- Environmental Visualization Program


14/14

There are important lessons in Louisianas 211 experience. In extraordinary circumstances,

consumers urgently need information that can be delivered instantly. Novel developments in thiscase, with explosive speed and scale create tremendous demand for services and for information

about accessing them. Service information systems, supported by well-designed databases,

communications capability, and staff, can meet unexpected and vastly increased requirements for the

entry, retrieval, and exchange of new information.

Americas cities and towns have much to learn from this, but not simply about being prepared for

natural or man-made disasters. Chicagos ten-year public housing transformation was certainly not

a dislocation on Katrinas scale, but it did affect and continues to affect thousands of the citys

families. Could Chicago have been better prepared had it possessed accurate, up-to-date, andcomprehensive information on services available to communities affected by the transformation? How

much better prepared could any Chicago family be today when suddenly confronted with a health

crisis, the loss of a job, or the shuttering of a valued neighborhood resource?

Many people in Chicago are asking the right kinds of questions questions like these and we think

that the present affords a rare opportunity to answer them.


13

Documents

Building Better Community Service Information