Whoops! CBMS just won't go away

In my July 23 post I showed some optimism about the State of Colorado finally making the problems with our infamous Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS) go away like a bad dream.  Sorry, it looks like I was wrong.  The Rocky had an article in the December 15 issue, with Myung Oak Kim's byline entitled "Food stamp applications mired in bureaucracy".  A glance at the article will tell you that "more than 1,000 local residents (have) been waiting for months because of bureaucratic snags".  The principle bureaucratic snagger?  You guessed it:   the Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS), which was converted on September 1, 2004 (yup, 2004) and still does not work properly. 

Here's more from the story: 

"County welfare agencies continue to violate federal protocols - a problem that dates back almost two years - because of funding shortages and staffing problems, including high caseloads, high turnover and workers' resistance to changing procedures.

"The state's notorious computer system - the Colorado Benefits Management System - compounds the problems because of errors and a complex network of screens that take a long time to navigate.

"CBMS also is sending out erroneous rejection letters to food stamp applicants, causing unnecessary panic.

"It's sending out scores of letters saying applicants are denied food stamps because their cases weren't processed within 60 days. In fact, the cases are still being worked.

"It's a huge problem involving thousands of people," said Ed Kahn, a lawyer with the Colorado Center on Law & Policy who sued the state in 2004 because CBMS was restricting public benefits for low-income residents."

The Rocky even wrote an editorial about it in today's paper, entitled "Food stamp food fight."  Please read it.  It starts out by saying:  "We imagine one of the last things Gov. Bill Ritter wants to hear about is more trouble with the Colorado Benefits Management System - the much-maligned $223 million computer system that was supposed to streamline public benefit programs when it was introduced by the Owens administration in 2004.

"Unfortunately, the bad news keeps coming. CBMS remains a headache for county welfare officials who say that its complicated data-entry requirements needlessly delay benefits to qualified recipients" and finishes with:  "As for CBMS, well, poker players warn against "throwing good money after bad". CBMS may be beyond redemption, and further attempts to rehabilitate it could simply divert resources and energy from the low-income Coloradans that public welfare programs are designed to serve. 

"As for CBMS, well, poker players warn against "throwing good money after bad." CBMS may be beyond redemption, and further attempts to rehabilitate it could simply divert resources and energy from the low-income Coloradans that public welfare programs are designed to serve".

How long do you think a large company in the private sector, Molson-Coors, for example, would put up with a $200 million mission-critical system that was installed 3 years ago and still  does not work properly?   It would have been fixed in days, weeks at the most.  Not years.  What's going on here?

 

Comments

[Tracey Stewart]

Thank you for continuing to talk about CBMS. I think what's going on here is what goes on with the implementation of technology. That is the planning, designing and use of any new system will reflect the commitment, resources and philosophy underlining current workflow processes. CBMS is a magnified version of the problems poor Coloradoans have faced for years. Its implementation mirrors our contradictory attitudes around public assistance. I have worked in technology for a while and I have seen this scenario before. Never have I seen its impact on so many people, nor have I seen the denial of such a possibility be so strong. If only we could translate assisting our fellow man into a bottom line or a clear return on investment. Then, I agree with you, this system would be fixed.