Social Services Software - Byte the Bullet
Social Work Today
By Matthew Robb, MSW
Vol. 4 No. 3 p. 17

Imagine delivering your services smarter, faster, and better. Imagine streamlining your paperwork, coordinating your activities, producing eye-popping reports, and even boosting your agency’s funding and stature. Sound like pie in the sky? That’s the promise of a whole new generation of social services software.

If you think you’ve already witnessed major change in social work, grab your hat. Ready or not, social work is entering the Digital Age, an era that portends great promise—and possibly great upheaval—led by visionaries such as Steve Butz. Butz, a former social worker, is president of Social Solutions, Inc., a Baltimore-based software firm whose mission statement is nothing less than to transform the way nonprofit agencies do business.

Seasoned social workers will be forgiven for their skepticism. In years past, they’ve heard the sexy sales come-ons, glittering promises that never panned out, and pricey “breakthrough technologies” yielding less-than-stellar results. They well remember glib software vendors vowing to “tame the paper tiger” only to disappear into a blizzard of documentation and defeat.

But the future really is here, our experts say, and with it comes mature technology and sheaves of glowing testimonials. Since launching his firm in July 2000, Butz and his 11-person team have sold 260 nonprofits nationwide on their strategy for delivering services smarter, faster, and better. From their wealth of customer feedback emerges this central theme: Better software means better social work.

The Scientific Method
The genesis of Social Solutions can be traced to the mid-90s, when Butz worked with at-risk youths at a Baltimore nonprofit. Reflecting on this defining period, he says, “I loved my work, but like any thinking person, I kept wondering: ‘Am I being effective?’ It’s one thing to feel like I was doing great work. It’s another to prove it objectively—to be able to say to my supervisor, ‘Look at the great job I’m doing.’”

Butz says he eventually grew discontent with a “soft, subjective work environment that lacked quantifiable objectives.” Such a fuzzy setting, he says, makes it all too easy to believe your way is the right way. Hoping to become a better social worker, Butz broke with convention and turned to the scientific method.

In short order, he began documenting and analyzing everything. He deconstructed his tasks. He established performance benchmarks. When his data stream morphed from trickle to torrent, he taught himself Microsoft Access, a relational database application. Buoyed by his successes, he designed the proprietary software that would form the backbone of his “dot-bust-era” startup. What followed—costly research and development, extensive customer feedback, and ongoing tinkering—soon transformed his buggy beta-version into what Butz today proudly calls “a sophisticated turn-key, hands-off program.”

A Command Performance
Count social worker Stuart Swann as another true believer. Swann, director of business development for Tennessee-based Command Systems, Inc., says he too entered the nascent information technology (IT) end of social work more by accident than design.

Speaking from his Columbia, TN, office, he recalls, “I was an AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] protective service caseworker, spending more than half my time filling out forms and, frankly, just spinning my wheels. It got so bad, in fact, that I wrote a poem titled ‘Papers or People: This is the Choice.’ Wanting to be a social worker, not a paper shuffler, Swann returned to school in the early 1980s, emerged with an MSW, and waded back into the job market. His stint as an intake coordinator came as a splash of cold water, rudely reawakening him to a documentation nightmare grown worse. There was no denying it: The system was broken.

Says Swann, “By then, it was obvious that only computer database technology could save the system and provide needed accountability.” He teamed with his father and brother—both had engineering backgrounds—and they launched a software business. Today, Command Systems boasts a 21-year track record, clients spread across 15 states, and satellite offices in Florida and Virginia. For the past decade, the Swann team has guided dozens of social services agencies into the Digital Age.

The High-Tech Solution
Leading-edge social services software offers three key advantages: allowing personnel to better organize, analyze, and optimize their operations. While Butz and Swann note that most customers are content using only a fraction of their software’s power, they say the technology that runs full-tilt borders on the astonishing. “Some agencies,” Swann says, “are content to keep basic demographics. Others are doing the whole nine yards, including case notes and treatment planning. We respect our client preferences.”

Despite product differences between the four profiled firms—Social Solutions, Command Systems, West Chester, OH-based Social Work Software, and James Frazier Associates, Inc. of Pittsburgh—all principals agree on this point: In an era of tight funding, competitive advantage goes to the tech savvy. The tech averse, by contrast, can expect bumpy road conditions ahead.

Having surveyed the national landscape of nonprofit, community-based organizations—the bread and butter of his business—Butz offers this frank assessment: “Most organizations are still struggling just to get hold of the basics: ‘Who do we serve?’ or ‘How much time are we spending with our clients?’” Perhaps half, he says, are still using paper-and-pencil systems. “Even among the more evolved organizations, most are fixated on worker activity rather than measuring client success.”

Unprecedented Clarity
Agreed, says Russ Araujo, president of Social Work Software. Araujo, a 20-year veteran of IT, provides IT solutions to 20 nonprofits in a dozen states.

“We tend to go into local agencies,” he says, “that are either new to computers or keeping very basic data on Excel spreadsheets or MS Word documents.” Araujo often finds that a quick demonstration of his product line (ClientTouch Classic and ClientTouch SE) turns technophobes into technophiles. “Funding sources these days want very detailed information—far more than can be kept on paper. A well-designed computer database allows you to answer questions that you simply couldn’t answer before.”

Properly harnessed, these applications can provide an administrator with a high-resolution snapshot of his or her organization, yielding unprecedented detail at both the micro and macro levels. Longitudinally, the story is even more compelling. By dynamically capturing dozens of key data points across time, administrators have at their fingertips what is tantamount to a motion picture—a documentary, if you will—telling their organization’s success story (and pinpointing problem areas) with unprecedented clarity and persuasiveness.

James Frazier concurs: “Good data is the lifeblood of all organizations. If you don’t have good information, you’re wasting valuable ‘caring time’ trying to come up with reports. Besides, the validity of pencil-and-paper reports is generally suspect because you’re doing them by hand.” This is something Frazier knows all too well. The former director of housing for the Urban League of Pittsburgh, Inc. recalls the nightmare of once piecing together a monster funding report for the state government. “We had to shut down operations for two solid weeks just to pull together the needed documents before I could do the statistical analysis.” With a weary sigh, he adds, “Our office was in the business of delivering service, not producing reports.” It showed.

Today, the tech-savvy Frazier boasts more than 50 nonprofit accounts and version 5.0 of DataStart. Reflecting on the state of industry, he says, “The organizations that thrive do so by anticipating the reporting needs of funding sources.” Broadening his view, he adds, “Of course, the underlying problem with nonprofits is that they often don’t understand the opportunity cost of gathering all the data needed for a huge report. We also see some technophobia. Because we know the problems that our users bring to the PC, we try to compensate for it.”

Frazier bristles at the broad-brush label—”technophobia”—often applied to social workers. Many social workers, he says, embrace high-tech solutions. Swann agrees, noting a generational response: “The social workers coming out of college are excited about getting their hands on computers.”

Software Features
Mirroring the larger industry, social services software today is mature, powerful, and more intuitive than ever. Among the features offered by the profiled vendors are drop-down screens, report generators, room for case notes and action plans, and even spellcheckers. To-do lists keep social workers on track and looking ahead. A click of the PC mouse generates impressive reports, with screen prompts guiding the way. And, user-friendly interfaces are reminiscent of Microsoft products.

Straightforward, yes, but these applications are not plug-and-play ready. A sometimes lengthy setup process is required, entailing considerable managerial commitment. Databases must be created and customization is often desired. Documentation needs may increase. Conversion from old systems entails finesse. Notes Frazier, “When an agency gets software, it becomes its tool—a tool requiring active participation, training, and the insertion of information specific to that agency.”

For managers tempted to wing it with homegrown systems, Araujo says to think twice. “Without a database design background,” he says, “it’s easy to accidentally recreate on computer the outdated paper forms you’ve been using all along. The problem is, such a system can’t begin to tap the massive power of a relational database—a technology that can pull out, sort, and filter data in ways you can’t do with an Excel spreadsheet.”

By tapping the power of database technology, users can track both individuals and families in simultaneous services at multiple locations. Connecting the dots, Butz says, “The software shows what you’re effective at and what you’re not. It brings a level of accountability until now only known in the corporate world.” Reflecting the consensus opinion, Social Solutions Vice President Adrian Bordone notes, “The architecture of our software [also] allows an organization to be HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]-compliant.” Access for profiled applications are password-protected and allow supervisors to fully control staff access.

A Whole Different World
Norma Davila, president of Education Source, counts herself as an enthusiastic end user. Assessing her Software Solutions package, the San Antonio consultant says, “It’s awesome—I love it. A click of a mouse tells me everything I could possibly want: contacts, time spent, outcomes, and more. For anyone in the social services required to document, this software makes life so much easier. When people need something done fast, they come to me.” Davila is especially pleased with the built-in e-mail functionality and a meeting and contact tracker that she says beats MS Outlook hands down.

Baltimorean April Rose is another enthusiast. Says this director of technology and database management for House of Ruth Maryland, a comprehensive domestic violence program, “Our old system was cumbersome, unreliable, and easily corrupted. [Our new system] is extremely customizable. The contrast is amazing.”

Says Dona Sorce, program director for Bethlehem Haven, an agency serving homeless women in Pittsburgh, “Social Work Software’s ‘ClientTouch’ is a 100% improvement over our old system. The menu-driven program makes mistakes nearly impossible. Client Touch lets us look at both individual and global issues. And because it’s network-based, [Russ Araujo] can periodically customize it for us in his office and then send it to us electronically. Our productivity is definitely up.”

Shock of the New?
Elementary schools may give an “E” for effort, but Butz says effort alone is increasingly irrelevant in the social services—and arguably always has been. The rules of the game are fast changing, signaling a momentous paradigm shift, says Araujo. “In the last five to seven years,” he says, “we’ve definitely seen a strong emphasis away from effort and toward outcomes. Many funding sources are pushing agencies to demonstrate their effectiveness. Sometimes this is easy; sometimes it isn’t.”

It is this singular focus on outcomes—and the increasingly sophisticated application of IT and “metrics”—that so enthuses technologists while simultaneously alarming some frontline workers. “The neat thing,” Butz says, “is that not only does our software do the simple demographic stuff, but it also helps measure outcomes,” hence the branding of their product: ETO (Efforts-to-Outcomes) Software.

“Our software,” Butz continues, “allows agencies to build intangible outcomes and then set incremental performance benchmarks.” So equipped, administrators can hold direct service staff accountable for “driving their clients along” the performance continuum. “If you begin to relate your staff’s efforts toward the achievement of certain outcomes,” he says, “the entire organization gets better, higher efficiencies are achieved, and the rest of the staff can be trained to perform at this peak level.”

Reaching for an analogy, Butz points to major league baseball and box scores. “I’m a huge Orioles fan. With a box score, you know exactly how your players did against organizational objectives the night before. Our software is no different. In the future, direct service workers will analyze their performance as if they’re reading box scores. If you’ve got a .330 hitter, he or she should be paid more.”

The implication for underperformers is less rosy. While Butz concedes his views might strike some observers as more philosophically attuned to business world, he’s convinced his reading of the tea leaves is accurate. Social work is entering a whole new ball game—a game with new rules and expectations.

Produce or Perish
Questions arise. Might not the human element—indeed, the humanity—of social work be lost in a headlong push for smarter, faster, better? Does this linkage of effort to outcomes fundamentally conflict with the core values or spirit of our helping profession? And, what exactly does happen to the social worker-client dynamic when the former is held responsible for the latter’s success or failure?

Butz and his peers are optimistic that the field can reap the benefits while reducing the downside. “The technology will make social work better, not worse,” he says. “I understand the objections, but the fact is, the game has already changed. This is a competitive arena and you have to play ball. It’s in the better interest of the client—the people social workers serve—to be served by workers focused on performance and outcomes.” Pausing to reflect, he allows, “There’s still a lot of room for art in social work. Social work will never by replaced by computers, but the profession is definitely moving toward quantification. We’re seeing amazing stories in the organizations we’re working with.”

Swann shares Butz’s optimism. But, he also notes scattered social worker resistance and wonders about a future backlash.

“The emerging emphasis on agencies cost-justifying their existence is a real hot-potato issue,” he says. “From a social worker’s perspective, we’re going to continue to need a national voice that says we’re here to help people and there will be no surrender to technology or bean counters. Young social workers still need the noble work ethic, but one tempered with the harsh realities of accountability in an Information Age. Ultimately, it’s going to fall on vendors, agencies, and national advocacy groups to work in an orchestrated way to keep the focus on people and individuals. We can’t become cold number crunchers. Caring professionals must keep the human face and voice in the forefront rather than let it fall to the back.”

As social work goes digital, the big question emerges: Are you ready for the revolution?

— Matthew Robb, MSW, is a social worker and freelance writer residing in suburban Washington, DC.