Community Data Link (CDL)

1. Community Data Link (CDL) Accountability Software for the Human Service System “Show what you do; Show how you care”

2. An opportunity to standardize human services. A tool to: Collect standard or unique data elements Generate standard, custom and outcomes reports Report agreed-upon outcomes by collecting measurable indicators

3. Background/Goals: • Vision: create an efficient tool that measures standard outcomes; incorporate into state benchmark goals; enhances communication; encourages shared data • Public-private venture • Let user representatives choose start-up technology • Let users identify what they need to track/collect and report (based on reporting requirements or funding source) • Create a tool that supports health or social service organizations who report to one or more funding source/agency • Bring efficiencies and standards to the human service delivery system. • Develop standard reports to state agencies or funding sources • Designed to interface with other databases (I.e. SQL, Oracle etc.) • Use federal and state definitions for categorical types

4. Software capabilities • Standardized data elements • Report outcomes • Track • programs • risks and assets • clients (identifiable and de-identifiable) • client needs • retain history of clients/services/sessions • internal or external referrals • individual or family specific details • person or provider specific details • Search for providers/resources/case # • CDL can count or measure

5. CDL Key Features • Multiple Family Tracking (one child in multiple families) • Tracks and Reports on Risk or Asset Changes • Tracks complex family issues • Tracks previous family information • System edits prevent duplicate clients (SSN) • HIPAA-compliant role-based model security (lock-out privileges for certain users) • Resource and Referral Reporting • Red Flag indicator prompts user to check notes section (name change, restraining order, allergies etc.) • Agency/Contact Referral Reporting • Comprehensive Outcomes and Standard Report Wizard • Automatically creates mailing labels

6. Agency/Contact • Allows users to input referring agencies or contact case worker (i.e. SCF, AFS, Public Health, Mental Health, School, OYA etc.) with accompanying ID used by the agency to identify child within their agency • Examples: • MMIS Prime # AB12345A • OYA ID # OYA111A • Student ID # SK78933-52 • CPMS ID # 778899 • Dept of Justice # ODJ222B • Any known ID can be searched from the front screen or reported out instantly

7. Search capabilities • By • Family/person • Resource (or category of resources) • Provider/volunteer • Name, Date of Birth or SSN • Any case number in the system

8. Outcomes Measures: • Base line assessments compared with periodic assessments • Changes in Height/Weight • Scores • Family or individual assessments • Survey results • Program participation • Therapy • Workshop • Skills training

9. Community Data Link • Can be used to • Standardize reporting • Track intake and exit information • Report progress • Document “no-shows” • Report participation levels • Report internal or external referral types • Measure outcomes

10. Multiple Family Tracking : • Identifies case status (i.e. open, pending etc.) • Data moves with person through multiple family environments. Examples: • Child in multiple families (ie. Johnny lives with Dad on weekends; Mom on Monday - Friday.) • Child in and out of foster care • Young woman in and out of marital relationship or young woman becomes a new family as a teen parent • Software will track address, contact information and school catchment area for each family or individual

11. Name (or tag if de-identified person) Date of Birth (I.e. age feeds from DOB) Gender Social Security Number Address (location and mailing) Person Type (i.e. Parent Guardian, Youth Dependent, Grandparent, etc.) Farm-worker status Race/Ethnicity Housing and household type Primary Language (person specific and family) Secondary language (and level) Other states lived Is smoker/prefers non-smoking provider Marital Status Phone number Income Source Highest education Years in state Insurance Disabled/Special Needs Veteran School Catchment Tracking complex person and/or family issues Demographics

12. Comprehensive list of service providers from GOODS database (real-time interface with resource database with technology advancement) Users may add their own resources such as Lifespan Respite Providers, Child Care Providers or any other individual provider. CDL Resources

13. 51 users in Marion and Douglas Counties Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (Head Start, Lifespan Respite, Heating Programs etc.) Family Relief Nurseries Family Resource Centers Health Dept. Maternal-Child Program Homeless Program (School District) Shelters Child Centers Community College family and child programs Child abuse programs Alternative education programs Boys and Girls Clubs Alcohol and Drug Programs Marion and Douglas Commission on Children and Families Pilot Users:

14. What we’ve learned. . . • Human service system lacks standards. • Funding sources have settled for any data but are increasingly requiring greater accountability; details • State agency report categories are not always consistent (age categories, race-ethnicity descriptions etc.) • Paper forms from reporting agencies need to be updated (Age vs. DOB) • Terminology is confusing (eligibility) • Users are discovering new ways to use CDL every day.

15. What we’ve learned. . . • The software’s flexibility makes it much more robust than users expected it to be. • Service organizations have trouble articulating “what” they do • Service organizations often do not understand Benchmark process or how they fit in. • Organizations want to get reports in order to measure their own effectiveness, but haven’t had the tools • We can’t bring “standards” to the industry without state and county support and leadership • To change the way they do business now (slash marks and sticky notes), incentives are needed • State and funding sources must promote automation and efficiency; dictate standards, specifications and report requirements

16. What we’ve learned • In-house and user tests have resulted in 26 software iterations in two years to improve functionality, features and stability • Users are desperate for technology support • Users are mostly unskilled on computer • Large user-based organizations are being controlled by IS departments (we consider this a good thing, but users don’t seem to understand “why..”)

17. How we’ve responded • We’ve analyzed their technology needs • We’ve become their technology support to ensure they can test the software (set up networks, corrected mal-functioning hardware etc.) • We’ve taught them how to use their computers and navigate (i.e. What their roller is used for on their mouse etc.) • We can assist them in obtaining Data Conversion Services • We are helping local users better understand “outcome measures, indicators and benchmarks.”

18. Why we want you to know. . . • We think there are broad implications for state-local communication, standardization and service effectiveness measures • Now that “service integration” is happening, you may want to know there is at least one technology tool that supports it today • We are reaching a critical mass regarding “outcomes” that is close to reality in some areas • We need key knowledgeable contact points within DHS, Community Services, ODE in order to coordinate report and outcome standards • You may want to test it yourself.

19. Contact Information Thank you for your valuable time Walter Reed or Sandra Peterson (503) 371-4332 1661 Edgewater St. NW #120 Salem, OR 97304 www.oregonresources.com cdl@oregonresources.com