Great! “Shades of things to come,” thought I, as I read the news of poor Vermonters being left on endless hold when they sought assistance with food and fuel following the implementation of new technology by the Department of Children and Families. Yes, that same Department of Children and Families where an employee famously embezzled nearly half-a-million dollars over a period of five years.
In theory, the “streamlining” of various state processes through advanced technology interfaces sounds like just the ticket to cut the fat from state budgets; but like everything in the man-made universe, technical systems are only as good as the planners, programmers and operators who are entrusted with making them work. We are told that modernizing efforts in the Department of Children and Families that have culminated in a bottleneck of epic proportions actually began several years ago; and that the system, initiated “on a shoestring,” was intended to be fully operational by last June.
“When you change a system, there are growing pains,” (Governor) Douglas spokesman David Coriell said.
Tell that to an elderly fuel assistance applicant, sitting in the November cold, as she is informed by an automated voice that she has a wait-time of over 1,000 minutes before someone will get to her call!
What gets me is that this is all so very predictable and speaks volumes of what we might expect in the wake of the Challenges for Change initiatives. So much future thought has been invested in the confidence that massive amounts of data can be easily collected from service-seekers through the internet, stored securely, and efficiently dispersed as needed to every office and agency in the state. Sounds great on paper; and if the human element could just be eliminated everything would run like clockwork.
But we all know what it’s like dealing with badly planned voice-mail systems that never offer an option that “fits;” where one finally hammers desperately at “0” in the faint hope of getting a human being…ANY human being. This isn’t a fault of the technology; it is a fault of the programmer; and it happens time and again when systems are rolled-out without sufficient attention to the practical workability of the interface when confronted with random and unpredictable demands. The assumption is always that every task and demand will neatly fit some planned digital template.
The need to find opportunities for savings in every corner of government is understandable, but to rush those efficiencies on the assumption that technology will make them happen seamlessly, may be counterproductive in the long-run, and downright harmful in the short. If the efficiencies are designed only with cost-savings in mind and not primarily to improve service to the public they are probably going to result in even greater pain for the taxpayers. I would urge the new administration to observe the old carpenter’s adage to “measure twice before cutting once” as you pursue your own “Challenges for Change.” It’s always the least among us who suffer the most when government paints efficiencies with too broad a brush.
Another thoroughly disgusting comment from another clueless Douglas flak.
I get the impression from this spokesman’s statement that the Douglas team have separated in their minds, and believe the people receiving benefits and services to be a distinctly different and somehow less deserving group from those they call taxpayers.
that it’s the heat from the colossal failures in the system that led to Steve Dale’s decision to seek employment outside of state government. I know of advocates who will miss Steve, but replacing him gives Shumlin a chance to put his own person in place to fix things.
It’s worth noting that – whether by design or otherwise – “assistance” has also devolved – unasked-for, uncompensated, and untrained-for – upon the staff of public libraries.
That’s where you go to get computer access to apply online when you can’t
afford to eat or heat – or to own a computer or purchase ISP access.
NanuqFC
I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn’t poor, I was needy. Then they told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me deprived was a bad image, I was underprivileged. Then they told me underprivileged was overused, I was disadvantaged. I still don’t have a dime. But I have a great vocabulary. ~ Jules Feiffer
Democracy is inefficient. Justice is inefficient. Both require the intervention of informed, compassionate human beings, and time.
Laws are words on a page in nice straight lines. Life is messy and often confusing. It takes an intelligent, educated, impartial person, someone who understands both the rule of law and the weaknesses of our species, to make the connection between the words on the page and the reality out here.
Sue Prent is right – it’s not the fault of the technology. It’s the fault of people who have a foolish Utopian dream of replacing human beings with computers. Or, to be ungenerous, it’s the fault of heartless people who want to use the inadequacy of technology to cut off support to the needy.
I think there’s also a danger that Vermont’s escalating “error rates” and wait times could prompt the Feds to impose fines on the State (read: more money flowing the wrong direction out of Vermont). We used to get bonuses for our quality services, but then the panic began and the haphazard cutting commenced. So here we are. Everybody happy?
anybody happen to know the current salary of john sayles, head of the vt food bank?
doesn’t make sense. people out of work. people need help. somehow someone decides to magically convert state systems from real people with real jobs with real benefits that also paid dividends by keeping people in their communities over to ‘technology’ to ‘streamline’ processes. which puts more people out of work. who need help. who can’t pay back those dividends within their own communities. who can then stress those systems that are already stressed.
what is the role of government if not to support its people, to grow their communities, to help those in need – but to also put in place the very systems and the infrastructure and the regulations and the framework for those people to succeed – at making money, true – but also building their families, their relationships, their lives – those social networks – the people kind, the neighborhood kind, the kinds that are featured in all those flag waving, hand shaking, we can overcome anything ads we see every two years when our top exec is up for reappointment?
if it is not a collective effort to better ourselves and our communities… then i say drown it in the damned tub already. but i think it is certainly better than this, better than what its currently been.
lets hope we can improve upon it.