Oregon 211

OR211 Database Review Committee Meeting Minutes

April 25, 2007 

Meeting was held at the 211info office in Portland. Introductions of participants with a brief description of background, experiences with database software, current job and involvement with 2-1-1:Stephen Guntli, Oregon CCR&R Network/OR211 BoardBecky Vorpagel, Information Architecture, IncMary Hogan, formerly Infoline Connecticut (UW/211)Jimi Smith, Community Action/OR211 BoardKathleen McHarg, Multnomah County Aging/OR211 BoardJeri Shumate, 211info/OR211 BoardTom Page, Consultant to OR211 We need to add others to this Tech Committee.  Who should we include:

• Members from other areas of the state.  In particular areas that would like to provide 211 services through a regional call center in their area.
• Member from other fields of service – employment, health, children’s services.
• People with experience in working with a statewide database system.

 History and overview of current 211info system.  Five databases  - one from each of the four Portland metro counties, and the statewide SafeNet (Maternal & child care) data – were merged to create the initial data currently being used by 211info.  Obstacles included ownership of records, duplicate records, combining policies and tools (ie. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria, keyword list, identifying geographic areas, etc.) into a common, equitable system.  For a statewide system we’ll need to find a method of dividing up the larger national and statewide service providers so no one call center is overwhelmed with updating responsibilities.  Mary mentioned this has been a concern in Olympia, WA where all the State programs are housed. Discussion about history, process and rough timeline for selecting a database:

• OR211 went through the selection process once in 2003.  Recommendation to OR211 Board in 9/2004 was to leverage with Multnomah County BHCD to share their ServicePoint software.  However, it was later determined by 211info to not be a good fit for our needs.  Roseburg has gotten ServicePoint, but has still not completed setting everything up yet.  It’s been several years since the committee made it’s recommendation, and the software options really need to re-evaluated.
• 2007- Identify needs and priorities.  Narrow down the number of software vendors to be evaluated to a manageable number.  Put out an RFP for a contractor to conduct an independent, objective evaluation.
• 2008 – Fundraising and purchase of recommended software.  Stephen felt the best option for funding would come from a private funder.  If no private funding can be raised, we may need to take our request for this one-time software purchase and set-up to the State.
• 2009 – Roll out installation and preliminary configuration of statewide system.  Collaborative building of infrastructure, training users and administrators.  The funding for this may come from the State.

 Discussion about the purpose and focus for this committee: 

• At this point we need to stick to the selection and recommendation of software without getting sidetracked by trying to develop the policies and procedures, select telephony, etc. 
• The contractor we select should be familiar with I&R.  Process needs to include front line users who are open-minded about using different types of software to participate in the hands-on testing.

 Collaboration issue is critical to getting State funding. – How do we convince I&R providers to come on board with the statewide software? 

• Should we provide access to statewide system for free?
• Should call centers get seed money for set-up, configuration, data merging and clean-up?
• A statewide system should be able to provide tech support to the more rural areas. 
• It is unknown how many call centers OR211 will have – we are anticipating 4-5, but do not have providers identified at this point.  A statewide system would need a data manager (OR211 staff) to oversee the entire system. 

 When the Tech Committee  submits its proposal to the Board, we need to include two pieces:

1. Software recommendation is this and will cost $xxxx.
2. Proposed plan and roll-out timeline is this and will cost $xxxx.

 When dealing with vendors, we need to be up front about having to raise the money for purchase.  Murdock could be potential funder for software purchase, installation and configuration. Data transfer using XML is wonderful in theory, but there is usually a lot of hurdles along the way.  At this point in time most of the major I&R software vendors can export to XML, but cannot import an XML file.  The import option is probably not going to be available for a few years. 

Notes by Jimi Smith