Home 
Technology Strategy Monitoring for Benefits and Adjusting for Continuous Improvement
Technology Strategy Monitoring for Benefits and Adjusting for Continuous Improvement
Monitoring for Benefits and Adjusting for Continuous Improvement
The technology plan should be a living document that reacts to changes in the public child welfare environment and should be scrutinized and updated to stay current with any change that impacts the agency’s main purpose in some way. Each technology application should be reviewed to determine that it meets the need it is designed to address. It is important to monitor the level of acceptance of new or different tools and how they impact services and work with users to secure their acceptance.
Outcomes, as well as outputs, need to be assessed against each goal. The impact on the agency and its workforce, stakeholders and other community systems and ultimately and most importantly on children, youth and families should be evaluated. When the results are not sufficient or there are unintended negative consequences, changes should be made and new action plans drawn up to resolve the issues. The change plans should cover the adjustments needed to the technology system in place and may include projects to migrate all or part of an existing application system, to build new functionality or to retire existing application systems or parts.
Whether reassessing the entire technology plan or one component, ongoing reassessment is required to validate that the change continues to align with the overarching goals of the agency. Ongoing systemic reassessment will identify areas to optimize and improve to assure that technology will continue to evolve to meet the needs of the public child welfare agency as it moves forward.
Transforming Inputs into Results
.png)
For example, when building a foster care match system, one state found that it was developing a complex system that was cumbersome, had a steep learning curve for the end user, was wasting staff time and of greater concern not contributing to timely and appropriate placements. Staff resorted to the old manual system when a placement was needed quickly. Accepting the loss of funds and staff time working on the system and risking the loss of federal funding, the state reassessed its needs and eventually was able to put a simple user-friendly system in place using a common language. All the federal funds available were maximized. In addition to optimizing placements, placement staff persons were able to develop ad hoc monthly reports for targeted recruitment of homes for children with particular needs that presented ongoing placement difficulties.