A Conversation with William Kowalski, Former Executive Director of New Jersey's One Ease E-Link

Fundraising & Grants Innovations Internet Resources Interns & Volunteers Government Special Populations Community Resources Training Troubleshooting Planning & Management

Tech News is proudly supported by IBM

"We accomplished so much, and yet it feels like so little."
A Conversation with William Kowalski, Former Executive Director of New Jersey's One Ease E-Link
By Tech News Staff Writer

The concept of an Integrated Human Services Project (IHSP) – a system to improve the sharing of data and technology among the city's human service agencies – has been floated about in New York City (NYC) for the last decade. But as TECH NEWS reported back in March, the city has moved towards realizing the objectives of IHSP with the creation of its Integrated Human Services Task Force (http://www.unitedwaynyc.org/technews/v6_n4_a2.html).

It's worth noting that New Jersey (NJ) initiated a similar "extranet" project – One Ease E-Link (OEL) – back in the mid-1990s. Using computer and Internet technologies, OEL sought to connect NJ's social service providers "at the local, county and state levels into a single, seamless delivery mechanism," (http://oel-middlesexcountynj.org/a1.html). From OEL's inception, the goal has been to use technology to reduce administrative burden and expense while simultaneously improving service to clients and better securing privacy through the use of electronic systems.

While many of OEL's components are up and running statewide, OEL's complicated history suggests that NYC's task force is embarking on a lengthy and involved process.

In an effort to illuminate some of the issues that may face the NYC task force, TECH NEWS sat down with William Kowalski, former Executive Director of OEL.

TECH NEWS: When and how did the idea for NJ's OEL emerge?

William Kowalski: Back in 1992, several people in Atlantic County – individuals who came from the county government, Stockton College and a local, private nonprofit – began talking seriously about creating a system that would connect all the county service providers. The vision was really quite radical for the time.

TN: How did you sign on with the project?

WK: At about this time the same thoughts were percolating in the NJ State Department of Human Services (DHS). The state has so many service providers that no one knows precisely where to go to find what service – a client can go to five different agencies and answer exactly the same questions. In 1995, DHS issued a document entitled, "The New Jersey Community Link Network." The state envisioned a system that would accomplish three things:

Bill Waldman, our Commissioner of Human Services, thought it made sense to pool our information and resources. I was brought on by the state as the Project Manager because of my extensive experience in community planning and my knowledge of the Department's service delivery system.

TN: Where did the financial support for the pilot program come from?

WK: The Department of Labor (DoL) had received federal funding to work on what was called the "One Stop Initiative." This was a mandate to streamline labor operations and information sharing so that unemployed workers had only to go to one office to find jobs. The grant emphasized the use of technology systems. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) had its "Easy Access, Single Entry" (EASE) funding to insure information sharing for senior citizens. And DHS had its Community Link Network. It made sense for the three departments (DHS, DoL and DHSS) to work together since we all had mandates and funding to achieve essentially the same goal.

TN: How did this state agency triumvirate work with the "Cape/Atlantic County Collaborative?"

WK: We all worked together to develop the community collaborative and establish an Executive Board. This board represented key human service agencies in the community and government.

The collaborative had three standing committees: Agency Relations, Training and Technology. The collaborative also had a Users Group that represented all member agencies. You could say this was our "stockholders" group – each agency had one vote, regardless of its size or budget. They were all equal partners.

The Technology Committee was comprised of "techies" who dealt with those issues, while the Training Committee handled all the training concerns: how to teach people to use the system once it was created, where to find the resources, that sort of thing. The Agency Relations group became the truly critical one over time. It was comprised of program people who figured out how the information would be shared across the system, how confidentiality issues would be resolved, how cooperation and buy-in among the participants could be realized.

A number of pre-established relationships existed between specific service agencies. We sought to capitalize on these, so we created "loops" which paired agencies that were already comfortable with sharing information with each other. For instance, we couldn't pair a substance abuse agency with a childcare agency – the confidentiality and reporting requirement concerns were too great. But Welfare and Labor were already required to share data – so that was a workable information loop. We started with the agencies that had these relationships in place because we could secure their buy-in.

TN: And was this an effective structure for the project?

WK: It was. These were the project's Glory Days. I'm very proud of the work we were doing at this time. We started with nothing and we created a structure that now serves as the template for the state's OEL system. The Executive Board, the three standing committees, the Users Group – these were the requisite guidelines written into the OEL bylaws that were then adopted and followed by each participating NJ county.

TN: How did the Internet factor in your plan?

WK:It didn't, initially. Remember, our pilot effort preceded the real arrival of the Internet. And when we realized the Internet was the way to go, this shifted our plans 180 degrees. But we had the vision at the outset – we just didn't have great tools. Technology caught up with the radical idea and made it that much easier to achieve.

The vendors working closely with our Technology Committee had to adapt their applications to be web-based. We brought in consultants to develop the OEL portal and Groupware. And we were no longer restricted to Cape/Atlantic County – the Internet suddenly made statewide application possible.

TN: How did the rollout go?

WK: What we were trying to do was so vast and comprehensive – it was one of the many reasons that we never really accomplished what we set out to do.

We put out an announcement to all of the counties that if they wanted to participate they had to respond with their willingness to devote resources. The state would give them each $288,000 to develop their own collaboratives. We provided each county with a template for the bylaws, etc. We couldn't mandate participation because NJ has legislation that requires the state to pay for any program it mandates. Also, we wanted financial support from county government and the community. The OEL philosophy is that once the system is operational, it should be self-sufficient, self-sustaining.

TN: Were there problems?

WK: Yes – and that's an article in itself. But briefly and broadly, there were issues of database integration, federal and state confidentiality regulations, technical obsolescence, software delays, categorical funding and lack of help-desk support.

Technologies today can do just about whatever we need. It's the organizational change that creates the obstacles.

There's no place in the country that attempted what New Jersey attempted at this level. It's unique in its vastness. We accomplished so much, and yet it feels like so little.

TN: Based on your OEL experience, do you have any thoughts for NYC as it begins to confront many of these same issues?

WK: [laughing] Do you have a couple of months?!

I think the problems facing NYC will be much the same as those we faced in NJ. I would advise the city to:

By no means is this a comprehensive response – that, too, would be another article – but I think these broad strokes get to the essentials.

It's critical to keep the initiative going. People need to see things accomplished – small steps implemented. Otherwise, it's easy for projects of this magnitude to get bogged down in discussions. The end-users need to see that something is happening even as the discussions and planning are going forward.

Change happens along the way. When I look at NJ's OEL today, it's nothing like we envisioned in our Cape/Atlantic County years. And yet it has thousands of users across the state.

It is a vision that will continue to require energy, technological evolution, commitment, funding and, most of all, collaborative trust.

Mr. Kowalski is currently a private consultant and lecturer. If you'd like further information on OEL's process and implementation, please contact William Kowalski at wgkowalski@earthlink.net or at (908) 735-7512.

Search Home About Tech News Events Link Library Feedback Site Map Subscription