education. income. health. safety net. united way of...

Education. Income. Health. Safety Net.

United Way of Metropolitan Chicago

211 Feasibility Study

May 2013

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 9

Approach & Methodology 14

Non-Preferred/ Non-Qualified Options 18

Implementation Scenarios 25

Benefits Analysis 32

Recommendation 36

Appendix 41

Executive Summary

The Task Business Need Statement

The United Way of Metropolitan Chicago (UW-MC) requested support in evaluating the feasibility of

establishing a 211 Information and Referral (I&R) call center for the Chicago-metro area including the

City of Chicago, DuPage County, and suburban Cook County.

Study Design Framework

The team began the study by exploring partnership opportunities with major local and national call

centers. From the exploratory phase, two scenarios were investigated based on partnership potential.

Each scenario partner was evaluated over a standard set of criteria, including:

• Interest level – only those call centers that affirmed interest in serving as Chicago 211 host were

considered as viable partners

• Costs

Implementation / One-time

Run-Rate

• Benefits

Quantitative

Qualitative

Context of Study Current State of Chicago metro I&R services

• Three separate primary I&R call centers exist independently in Chicago and Cook/ DuPage counties

• None of the three call centers provide the around-the-clock service typically associated with a 211

I&R call center

• Only one of the three call centers provides a comparable spectrum of the I&R coverage typically

associated with a 211 call center (DuPage); the other two focus only on homelessness prevention

• Annual costs to operate all three call centers separately is estimated at nearly $2.5 million dollars in

total

Desired Future State

• Call center will provide 24/7/365 coverage to the city of Chicago and all of Cook and DuPage

counties

• Call center will offer a spectrum of I&R services to citizens

• Call center partnership will provide opportunities to scale costs and deliver a higher service level to

residents

Assumptions

• Projections based on DuPage County call center continuing to operate its own county sponsored I&R

call center from 8am-4:30pm, M-F; this assumption is subject to change

• All Chicago and suburban Cook County I&R services will be handled by the new 211solution

• Required political agreements will be reached by the major stakeholders

Executive Summary | 4

Executive Summary

Exclusions

• No other surrounding counties will be served by the call center

• Budgeting considerations will be captured only for the Chicago-metro 211 call center, DuPage

County’s daytime operational budget will not be reviewed or included in projections

Key Activities Research possible partnerships with major call centers

• DuPage County – Community Services

• Cook County - Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County virtual call center

• Catholic Charities Chicago – Homelessness Prevention Hotline

• City of Chicago 311 Services

• State of New Jersey – 211

Conduct interviews with local stakeholders/funders including but not limited to:

• Catholic Charities Chicago

• Alliance to End Homelessness

• Chicago Community Trust

• City of Chicago 311 Services

• Chicago Department of Family and Support Services

• Planning and Development – Cook County

• United Way - Chicago

• United Way - State of Illinois

Work with SMEs to understand work required to stand-up and run 211 call center

• Gabe Cate – Bowman Systems, Chief Operational Officer

• Greg Cott – President 211 Illinois

• Wendy David – Philadelphia 211 Director

• Laura Marx – Director, New Jersey 211/ National 211 proponent

• Stan Orkin – Deloitte Consulting Senior Manager, Infrastructure Operations focused in

telecommunication

• Neale Rath – Deloitte Consulting Manager, Real Estate Strategy


Executive Summary, cont’d

Options Investigated The following table reviews the options investigated as part of the initial vetting process. Those options

that qualified for further analysis are more deeply explored as specific scenarios. For more details on the

eliminated options see the “Non-preferred/ non-qualified options" section of the study.

Scenarios Explored The team worked with UW-MC 211 leaders to identify and explore partnership opportunities for a

Chicago-metro 211. Of the opportunities initially explored, the team identified two potentially viable

scenarios which include partnership with Catholic Charities in Chicago and an outsourced partnership

with an existing major 211 call center. For reasons detailed in this report, these two scenarios appear best

suited to host a Chicago-metro 211 and warrant further investigation and analysis.

Cost projections for both scenarios evaluated appear to significantly reduce total expenditures required as

compared to current I&R type operations in the region. The leveraging of the infrastructure that each

option presents also allows for significant cost reduction as compared to a greenfield approach (which

would entail building all facilities from scratch). The team projects that the costs and benefits of



Call Center Host site potential Rationale

Catholic Charities

Homelessness

Prevention Call

Center

Strong Potential for

Partnership

Interested in hosting, complementary and

scalable infrastructure

Outsourced 211 –

New Jersey

Strong Potential for

partnership

Interest in hosting, scalable infrastructure

experience in implementing and hosting 211

call centers

Chicago 311 City

Services /211 Call

Center Collaboration

Likely not the right partnership High projected cost to operate Chicago-metro

211, level of interest did not appear high

Greenfield approach Likely not the preferred

solution

High projected cost to implement and operate,

lack of ability to leverage expertise and

existing infrastructure

Chicago Red Cross

Call Center

Unlikely to host UW

sponsored 211

Seeking role as partner with 211, not initiative

lead

Alliance to End

Homelessness in

Suburban Cook

County – virtual call

center

Unlikely to host UW

sponsored 211

Lacks of infrastructure from which to build

Chicago-metro 211

DuPage County I&R

Call Center

Unlikely to host UW

sponsored 211 Not interested in hosting Chicago-metro 211

operating either of these two models would be comparable to each other . We have included a list of other

considerations to further compare and examine the two. For more details on the scenarios explored see

the “Scenario Analysis" section of the study.

Recommendation UW-MC should pursue 211 for Chicago-metro

After compiling the findings for scenarios explored and sharing our findings with UW-MC leadership our

team has found that the stand-up and operation of a 211 calling center in Chicago-metro is feasible.

Though many different stakeholders have differing opinions on how best 211 will be executed, several

key players have expressed the willingness to partner with different leaders across Chicago-metro to

make 211 a reality for citizens. With cost projections in line with expectation and key stakeholders

committing to work together, the team sees UW-MC prepared and able to lead the next steps for this

endeavor.

Specific Scenario Feasibility

Both scenarios explored have potential benefits as well as risks that UW-MC will need to measure prior

to choosing its eventual strategy. The team's findings did not show one scenario as an overwhelming

choice over the other and we recommend further analysis of each prior to choosing the ultimate "best fit”

based on considerations we have included in the body of this document.



Introduction

Business Need Statement UW-MC envisions communities where individuals and communities are able to achieve their full

potential. In an effort to serve this cause the four core areas; Health, Education, Income and Safety Net

have been identified and are measured as core priorities.

To achieve success with these priorities, UW-MC has decided that a local implementation of 211

Information and Referral system could provide an excellent platform for goal achievement . UW-MC has

asked Deloitte to conduct a unique evaluation of Chicago metro 211 feasibility by performing

comprehensive local analysis , working with subject matter experts experienced in implementing and

sustaining 211 call centers nationally, reviewing already completed local 211 feasibility research and

researching similar 211 implementations across the US and Canada . This study culminates in actionable

advisement on the feasibility of 211 system implementation within UW-MC’s territory footprint.

Relevant 211 Information Services typically provided by 211 call centers

211 call centers endeavor to be community entry points for any and all needs that citizens have for

human services. The purpose of making 211 a 3-digit dial-in number is that it serves as an easy to

remember telephone number for callers to use. 211 provides a one-stop access to human service related

community services.

While services that are offered through 211 vary from community to community, 211 provides callers

with information about and referrals to human services for every day needs and in times of crisis. For

example, 211 can offer access to the following types of services:

• Basic Human Needs Resource: food banks, clothing, shelters, rent assistance, utility assistance

• Physical and Mental Health Resources: medical information lines, crisis intervention services,

support groups, counseling, drug and alcohol intervention, rehabilitation, health insurance programs,

Medicaid and Medicare, maternal health, children’s health insurance programs

• Employment Support: unemployment benefits, financial assistance, job training, transportation

assistance, education programs

• Support for Older Americans and Persons with Disabilities: home health care, adult day care,

congregate meals, Meals on Wheels, respite care, transportation, and homemaker services

• Support for Children, Youth and Families: Quality childcare, Success by 6, after school programs,

Head Start, family resource centers, summer camps and recreation programs, mentoring, tutoring,

protective services

Introduction| 9

Introduction

1. United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Live United 2020 Impact Plan July 1, 2013-June 30, 2020

1

211 Coverage throughout the United States 211 services have become nearly ubiquitous within the United States, in fact Chicago-metro is the last

major city not offering 211 service to its residents. The map below captures 211 penetration levels for the

entire country:

Requirements for 211 status The team reviewed The Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) Standards Committee 6th

edition of Standards for Professional Information & Referral as its guide to understand the requirements

needed for 211 status in North America. Key tenants of AIRS standards are:

• Service maintains accurate, comprehensive, unbiased information about the health and human services

available in their community

• Service provides confidential and/or anonymous access to information

• Service provides assessment and assistance based on the inquirer’s need(s)

• Service provides barrier-free access to information

• Service recognizes the inquirer’s right to self-determination

• Service provides an appropriate level of support in obtaining services

• Service assures that inquirers are empowered to the extent possible

• Inquirers have the opportunity to access the most appropriate I&R service available in the system

Introduction| 10

Introduction, cont’d

Coverage Highlights

• 90.6% overall coverage

• 40 of 50 US States have greater

than 90% coverage for 211

• Illinois and Arkansas only two

states with under 20% 211

coverage

Map Key

• > 90% coverage

• 21%-89% coverage

• < 20% coverage

2. 211 US Feb. 2013, 211.org

3. AIRS Standards for Professional Information & Referral and Quality Indicators

2

3

Audit of Chicago-metro current I&R landscape Overview of current major resource call centers in Chicago metro:

Many areas within the Chicago-metro footprint lack a single point of entry for human service needs.

Moreover, due to funding restrictions and political partnership limitations many different call centers

operate within a small geographic area. The below chart provides a snapshot of the different major I&R

services in the Chicago-metro area:

Local resource call centers collective strengths:

While the Chicago metro area has not created a uniform I&R service for the region, great effort

continues to be made to provide access to assistance for citizens. Chicago’s 311 service provides

around-the-clock city information about city services for residents, while DuPage County’s call center

provides the entire spectrum of I&R coverage to its residents. DuPage County’s call center actually goes

beyond the traditional 211 I&R model and provides complex assessment and assistance to its residents

through its call center entry point and in-person assessments. The Homelessness Prevention call center

and the Alliance to End Homelessness call center provide residents of both Chicago and suburban Cook

County access to address the most prevalent I&R need, shelter. The current operations in this

community give UW-MC a number of experienced leaders to learn from and partner with as it pursues

211 status. Also, these call centers have infrastructure on which to build a more robust platform for

Chicago metro I&R.

Introduction| 11


Call Center Hours of

Operation

Annual Call

Volume Budget

Spectrum of

I&R Services

Operator

Training

Chicago 311

Services 24/7/365

3.9 million, 20%

of which (500K)

human service

related

$4.6 million

20% of which

($935K) human

service related

Provides I&R

service on an

"as needed"

basis

Not AIRS

certified

Catholic

Charities

Homelessness

Prevention call

center

M-TH

8am-4:30pm 108,300 $800,000

Financial

assistance for

rent, mortgage

and utilities

AIRS

certified

DuPage County

I&R call center

M-F

8am -4:30pm

(overnight calls

directed to local

Crisis Line)

60,000 $500,000

(estimate)

Full Spectrum

of 211 I&R

services offered

AIRS

certified

Alliance to End

Homelessness in

Suburban Cook

County – virtual

call center

M-F

10am – 2pm 36,500 $175,000

Financial

assistance

Not AIRS

certified

Key Totals 704,800 $2.41 million

Local resource call centers challenges

For both call centers focused on aiding residents with financial assistance related challenges, budget

limitations put a significant strain on accessibility. Catholic Charities call center has had to reduce from a

5-day/week operation to 4 days due to a 35% city cut in funds from 2011-2013. This has resulted in call

volume reduction. Suburban Cook County’s limited financial resources has forced the call center to

operate in an “ad-hoc” fashion leveraging call volunteer operators from local assistance agencies within

the community. These operators tend not to be AIRS certified, and are not dedicated call operators. The

Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County hours of operation are also limited, only

running 4 hours/day on weekdays. As both centers are subject to high IT and telecommunications initial

fixed costs, the lack of large geography partnership negatively impacts each call center’s service

capabilities in the area.

While Chicago’s 311 service does offer 24/7 accessibility, human service I&R would not be considered

the specialty of the call center. The center is not configured for AIRS compliance, meaning that many

AIRS specifications are not adhered to.

Finally, DuPage County has a well established and successful implementation of I&R services within the

community. With that in mind, its leaders have expressed desire to receive 211 status; DuPage is

committed to finding a cost-effective way to provide 24-hour coverage for residents. DuPage County

call centers would consider partnership opportunities for non-core business hours.

Rationale for Investigating 211 UW-MC long-term community strategy – Live United 2020

In 2012 United Way – Metro Chicago introduced the Live United 2020 plan. This plan now serves as the

platform from which strategic decisions are made.

Live united 2020 is UW-MC’s transformative commitment to maximize its community partnerships,

volunteer engagement, advocacy and fundraising, in order to realize a bold new vision. Through Live

United 2020, United Way envisions communities where individuals and communities are able to achieve

their full potential. While striving to meet this vision, UW-MC will maintain its commitment to the

regional safety net by answering the immediate crisis needs of 1 million people every year.

Simultaneously, UW-MC focuses on deepening impact within Partner Communities around the region,

where it forwards four bold 10-year goals:

• INCOME: Advance economic stability for 100,000 households

• EDUCATION: Help 50,000 underperforming middle school kids enter high school ready to

succeed

• HEALTH: Connect over 200,000 people with available, preventative health services

• SAFETY NET (maintain goal): Answer the immediate crisis needs of 1 million people every year

by providing shelter, food and freedom from violence

Key UW-MC leaders feel the introduction of a 211 human service call center could bridge the gap

between Live United 2020’s goals being reached and falling short. With that in mind, during our

qualitative analysis we will discuss the manner in which the operation can serve the four core goals stated

above.

Introduction| 12


4. United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Live United 2020 Impact Plan July 1, 2013-June 30, 2020

4

Approach & Methodology

Overview The consulting has broken up the study into four distinct, sequential phases. Within each phase of the

study the consulting team determined objectives to accomplish, then executed specific activities to

achieve the objectives. The phases for conduction of this study are as follows:

Data Collection The following information was researched prior to working with key stakeholders in the study.

Previously Executed 211 Feasibility Studies

In light of the fact that most of the United States and many parts of Canada have operating 211 systems,

the team researched previous evaluations of 211 feasibility. These studies helped to provide an initial

outline for the evaluation criteria during the Options Identification and Scenario Analysis portions of the

study. Our team reviewed the following 211 feasibility studies:

• The Value of 2-1-1 Texas Information & Referral Network - Benefits/Costs Analysis 2011 –2021

• Benefits/Cost Analysis Aloha United Way’s 211 Program

• Report for the First 5 Commission of San Diego - Information and Referral Systems, Resources

Research and Planning for Coordination

• Survey of Existing I&R Services and a Nebraska 211 System Cost/Benefit Analysis

• York Region 211 Feasibility Study

Review of 211 Expected Services and Current 211 Literature

The team felt it important to understand what services a 211 call center typically provides to its residents.

With this understanding, our team gauged whether or not and to what level 211 introduction would

improve the current level of human service access for citizens of Chicago-metro. The team also sought

to understand current trends nationally with 211 service. Trend analysis illuminates general threats to the

211 model as well as provides insight on current best practices within the industry. To aid in our

understanding of these areas the team reviewed the following documentation:

• 50 Ways 211 Works

• Transitioning 2-1-1 for a Sustainable Future

• 211US … Potential ‘actions’ to potential ‘threats’

Chicago-Metro 211 Initiative Background

As much of the rest of the country has found value in having a 211 service available for its citizens, the team

researched to find out those factors that have contributed to Chicago-metro’s implementation delay. The team also

sought to understand what factors, both local and statewide, have provided the impetus for change. Our team

engaged Greg Cott, the President of 211 Illinois and project partner, in preliminary discussions and also reviewed

the following documentation:

• 2-1-1 Illinois 2012 Report

• 2-1-1 Business Plan – Illinois

• 2-1-1 Illinois Application

• An Overview of 211 Services In the Nation - CMAP Strategy Report

• 211 Survey Memorandum – by: John Pfeiffer, Chicago Department of Family and Support Services

Approach & Methodology | 14

Approach & Methodology

Data Collection Options

Identification Scenario Analysis Recommendation

Options Identification Once the team had completed research and began the project, interviews were conducted with key

stakeholders and subject matter experts. Early interviews provided insight on the different options to

explore. Each option identified and explored was considered based upon hosting site interest, financial

requirements, political partnership requirements and technology/infrastructure considerations.

Key Stakeholder Interviews

The below list captures stakeholders and subject matter experts that have been participated in the study’s interview

process:

Project Leads

• Greg Cott - President, 211 Illinois

• Jack Kaplan - Director of Public Policy, UWMC

Key Stakeholders

• Nonnie Brennan - CEO, The Emergency Fund/Chicago Alliance to End Homelessness

• David Cassel - CPO DuPage County

• Gabe Cate - COO Bowman Systems

• Maria Choca-Urban - Director of Planning and Development, Cook County

• Wendy David - Associate Vice President, Community Investments & Operations United Way of Greater

Philadelphia & Southern New Jersey

• Wendy DuBoe – CEO, UWMC

• Tom Galassini - Director, Agency Relations, UWMC

• Bob Haennicke - Catholic Charities, Associate Vice President

• Jennifer Hill - Executive Director, Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County

• Richard Jones - Sr. VP, Community Investment, UWMC

• Mary Keating - Director of Community Services, DuPage County

• Ngoan Le – VP, The Chicago Community Trust

• Laura Marx - New Jersey 211 Director

• Audrey Mathis - Director, 311, Chicago

• Sandra Murray - Catholic Charities, Director of Homelessness Prevention Call Center

• Lucinda Nord - Indiana Association of United Ways Vice President

• Rob Paral - Human Services Database Consultant, UWMC

• John Pfeiffer - Deputy Commissioner, Department of Family and Support Services, City of Chicago

• Gina Strafford-Ahmed - Community Services Manager, DuPage County

• Joe Vanyo - Sr. VP, Operations, UWMC

Subject Matter Experts

• Stan Orkin - Infrastructure and Operations Senior Manager, Deloitte

• Neale Rath - Real Estate Strategy Manager, Deloitte

The team’s co-project leads, Jack Kaplan and Greg Cott, regularly participated in meetings providing

both commentary and submitting questions for participants. Key stakeholders, including those who

operate potential 211 host sites or those stakeholders most critical to 211 introduction, often participated

in multiple interviews throughout the process.

Approach & Methodology, cont’d


Scenario Analysis After our initial vetting process was complete, some initial options were removed as possibilities. For the

options that remained viable for consideration, an in-depth scenario analysis was conducted using a

cost/benefit framework.

Cost Analysis

In 2009, Venture Architects created an expense model specifically aimed at providing competent

measurement of expected costs to implement and operate a 211 call center over a 5-year period. Our

team vetted and received affirmation on the usefulness of this model with internal telecommunications

experts, United Way leaders and directors of 211 call centers. Slight configurations changes were made

to the model to contour financial analysis to Chicago-metro 211 realities. These adjustments were

confirmed with all interested participants . Detailed cost projections were captured for a Greenfield

scenario, providing a cost projection baseline (it presumes no infrastructure leveraged), partnership with

Catholic Charities Chicago call center and an outsourced call center hosted through New Jersey 211. All

other potential partnership scenarios were eliminated as viable prior to financial measurement.

Quantitative Benefits

Measurement of quantitative benefit will focus on two major area:

• Financial – Financial benefits will evaluate the projected costs of operation for the proposed 24/7/365

Chicago-metro call center and compare those costs to costs generated by the separate major human

service call centers operating in Chicago-metro.

• Service level – Service level benefits will offer comparison of the proposed call center service levels

available to the Chicago-metro community and compare that to current call center service levels

within the community.

Qualitative Benefits

Measurement of qualitative benefits are aligned with United Way’s Live United 2020 Plan, discussing

how program could result in better outcomes for those core areas the United Way seeks improvement:

• Income

• Education

• Health

• Safety Net

Recommendation The team’s recommendation was reached in collaboration with project partners and stakeholders that will

partner in 211’s introduction to the Chicago-metro community. Partners and stakeholders were socialized

to the study findings, provided team feedback and helped guide the team to its final conclusions.


Approach & Methodology, cont’d

Non-Preferred/Non-Qualified Options

Description DuPage County I&R call center Site Information

Site Director: Mary Keating

I&R Director: Gina Strafford-Ahmed

Call center services offered: Comprehensive I&R, Senior Information and Assistance (I&A) and general

Human Services

Annual call volumes: I&R – 32,338, I&A – 28,058 and Human Services -113,411

Annual budget: $1 million for the I&R call center

Operator training: AIRS certified

Database taxonomy: AIRS compliant

Call center hours of operation: 8-4:30pm, M-F (overnight calls are outsourced to the Crisis Hotline)

Footprint: DuPage County

Interview Key Findings

DuPage County derives a large sense of civic pride from its human services operations. The call center

acts not only as a call center, but also as a counseling center for citizens in need. Started 30 years ago,

DuPage County has built this community support system from the ground up. Bowman Systems helped

DuPage create its database 10 years ago. Internally, the call center audits the accuracy of records for

partner agencies on an annual level. The database is populated with approx. 1000 partner agency records,

as well as client specific Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) data for those citizens in

the community that require shelter assistance. Within the Chicago-metro area, the DuPage County call

center offers the largest spectrum of human service information for citizens, its services actually extend

beyond what would typically be offered by a 211 call center (e.g. client counseling services are offered to

DuPage residents).With that in mind, DuPage County’s call center represents a model from which

Chicago-metro’s 211 can extract learnings.

Host Elimination rationale

Due to the success of its core M-F human services operation, DuPage County is not looking for radical

change to its call center’s operations. Mary Keating communicated in interviews that DuPage’s call

center neither sees itself as a primary host for the Chicago -metro 211 call center, nor does it want to see

its M-F operation incorporated into a larger call center covering the area. The feeling amongst the leaders

is that expansion into a larger territory would dilute the quality of service available to the community.

Non-Preferred/Non-Qualified Options – DuPage County Call Center

DuPage County intends to continue

operating a local autonomous call

center, while open to the possibility

of partnership during non-core

hours

Thoughts on Partnership with Chicago-metro 211

DuPage County intends to apply for 211 status specific to its own county,

but prior to doing so, DuPage leaders want to understand UW-MC’s plan as

UW-MC immerges from this study. DuPage call center leaders see its core

operations continuing to be run internally through existing M-F

infrastructure. In speaking with Gina Strafford-Ahmed and Mary Keating,

DuPage County has thoughts to possibly extend DuPage call center hours

and outsource non-core hours to its current partner, the DuPage County

Crisis Hotline, should partnership with UW-MC not be preferred.

Geographic Coverage

Non-preferred/Non-Qualified Options | 18

When discussing the possibility of outsourcing DuPage County overnight and weekend calls to a

Chicago-metro 211, Mary Keating expresses openness to this idea. Though DuPage County is exploring

options for its own overnight call center arrangement.

In order for successful partnership to launch, DuPage County leaders will need to understand the

cost/benefits of a broader Chicago-metro partnership to handle overnight calls. David Cassel, United

Way’s Chief Professional Officer for DuPage/West Cook County, suggests working with Candace King,

Executive Director of the DuPage Federation. Conversations with Mary Keating indicate that she

communicates directly with Candace King regularly and can help facilitate/lead communications

between UW-MC and DuPage County political leaders.

ServicePoint Synchronicity

In the team’s initial conversation Gina Strafford-Ahmed, it was conveyed that for DuPage County a

requirement of any partnership solution will be that the partner operate on the ServicePoint database

platform hosted through Bowman Systems. Interviews with potential partner call centers, Catholic

Charities and the New Jersey 211 call center, have shown that Catholic Charities call center operates

using ServicePoint while New Jersey 211 does not. The team worked with Deb Petty and Greg Cate

(COO) of Bowman Systems and has confirmed that database migration could take place between the

local major call centers operating on ServicePoint (Cook County, DuPage County and Catholic

Charities). DuPage County has noted a requirement that only agency specific information, not client

specific HMIS data, be shared between its call center and Chicago-metro 211 should partnership take

place. Bowman Systems has assured our team that database mergers can be executed to client

specifications.

Risks Uncertain Partnership

Because DuPage County has discussed partnering with different organizations should DuPage County

establish its own 211 services, the team would strongly encourage partnership engagement be addressed

as soon as possible. DuPage County’s 211 status is still in an early phase, meaning time permits for

proactive discussion. Conversations with Mary Keating indicate that she needs to have understanding, for

budgeting purposes, of DuPage County’s 211 plans by July, 2013. If UW-MC can not create a clear plan

going forward by that deadline, DuPage County may be forced to pursue alternative partnership for its

overnight and weekend 211 hours.

Next Steps

A Platform to Build From

While it is true to say that DuPage County will not lead the effort to implement and run the 211 system

for all of Chicago-metro, the County can serve as a valuable partner in the establishment of 211 in this

area. With 10 years experience running an I&R call center that covers the spectrum of human service

needs, DuPage County has a developed human service program that Chicago-metro 211 can use as a

reference. Once the decision has been made to implement 211 for the entire Chicago-metro area, our

team would encourage active engagement with leadership at DuPage County’s call center, as many

valuable best practices will be available to leverage in the establishment of Chicago-metro’s 211.

Non-Preferred/Non-Qualified Options – DuPage County Call Center,

cont’d


Description City of Chicago 311Site information

Site Director: Audrey Mathis

Call center services offered: Specializes in city services, not human services calls. Provides some human

services I&R, connects directly to Catholic Charities Homelessness Prevention call center for shelter

related calls

Annual call volumes: 3.9 million – estimated 3.4 million are city service related 500,000 human services

related

Annual budget: $4.6 million, $935,000 projected Human Service cost

Operator training: Not AIRS certified

Database taxonomy: Not AIRS compliant, Chicago 311 currently taking RFPs as it considers transition to

new database

Call center hours of operation: 24/7/365

Footprint: City of Chicago

Interview Key Findings The City of Chicago 311 currently operates much of the city’s I&R human services in an ad-hoc fashion.

The notable exception to this is 311’s partnership with Catholic Charities where it directly refers citizens

out for specific help in preventing homelessness. City and 311 leaders do seem interested in the

introduction a Chicago-metro 211 system, however 311 leadership, due to physical, technical and

leadership capacity issues was unable to engage in an in-depth analysis that would be required to

conclude whether or not 311 would be a suitable partner.

Elimination rationale

In speaking with Audrey Mathis and John Pfeiffer it became clear that using Chicago 311 as a primary

host site could pose some unique challenges. First, Chicago 311 only serves the City of Chicago, while

the proposed 211 call center will serve Chicago as well as outlying counties. Because Chicago 311 is

funded through the city, it became apparent that a partnership similar to New York City’s 311/211 call

center might require extensive political negotiation with the outlying counties. John Pfeiffer also

discussed potential site accommodation challenges; the current 311 call center does not have the needed

space to seat the required increased staffing should 211 launch from 311’s site.

John also mentioned two other significant deterrents to partnership with

Chicago 311. First, Chicago 311 salary research

reveals 311’s employees are drawing higher wages and

benefits than what has typically been associated with traditional

211 call center employees. If partnership were to be established between the

city and UW-MC it is unclear whether salaries for 211 employees would

match those of 311 call center employees or if a large wage chasm would

exist for positions of similar responsibility. Consider, for example, the

position of call center operator, due to the nature of calls received, 211

operators tend to require more elaborate training than 311 operators. If 211

operator wages and benefits are only ½ as lucrative as their 311

counterparts this could pose a significant personnel management challenge.

Non-Preferred/Non-Qualified Options – 211/311 Collaboration

DuPage County intends to continue

operating a local autonomous call

center, while open to the possibility

of partnership during non-core

hours

Geographic Coverage


The final elimination factor that John Pfeiffer discussed centers around the requirement for 211 to

generate philanthropic support. John felt that 211 being housed inside a city government entity would

have a significant negative impact on donators’ decisions to provide financial support. All of these factors

revealed throughout the interview process have led the team to conclude that a 211/311 collaboration is

likely not the best fit.

Risks Duplicative Services

As it is currently comprised, Chicago 311 does provide a version of 211 style I&R services to the

residents of Chicago. This fact stands to present challenges in a number of ways. First, funding from the

City of Chicago may initially be more difficult to solicit because city leaders/ local philanthropy may feel

211 represents a duplication of already provided service. Second, once a certified 211 is introduced

within the Chicago-metro footprint, 311 leaders may view a 211 introduction as confusing the roles and

responsibilities of call centers in Chicago.

Next Steps Proactive Engagement

As the team will mention in the Catholic Charities call center scenario analysis, a relationship is already

in place between Catholic Charities and 311. UW-MC will want to determine if that relationship should

continue in its current state or if adjustments will need to be made. In our work with UW-MC’s

leadership, UW-MC has suggested a tendency towards partnership, our team presumes that it likely is in

the best interests of 211 to seek agreement with Chicago 311 leaders on the nature of the relationship

going forward and to have endorsement from 311 stakeholders that the 211 will be a net positive for the

311 call center. Doing so will help to alleviate potential political roadblocks to a 211 introduction for this

area, and could also provide UW-MC leaders an advocate as discussions begin with city leaders.

Non-Preferred/Non-Qualified Options – 211/311 Collaboration, cont’d


Description Red Cross

The team engaged Harley Jones, COO for American Red Cross of Greater Chicago, for conversation with

Harley to discuss 211’s potential introduction in the Chicago-metro area. Harley and his team expressed

great enthusiasm at the possibility that 211 will be introduced, specifically citing the need for I&R

centralization in the area. During our discussion, Harley informed the team of Red Cross’s existing call

center infrastructure. Currently the greater Chicago chapter of the Red Cross handles some general I&R

calls for people who just view the Red Cross as ‘help’ and contact the general phone number. Harley

noted that this is a by-product of being the Red Cross and they envision always getting some calls like

this and that they will maintain the capabilities to help those cases going forward. The resource database

they use has a few hundred records, and staffing ranges from 1FTE (during normal times) to 4 FTEs

during times of emergency such as the flooding in Chicago in April 2013 (when call volume spiked to

~500 over the course of a week). They also have ad-hoc call center capabilities to stand up in times of

emergency (i.e., natural disaster or mass casualty event) or during events with the potential to be a mass

casualty event (i.e., the Chicago marathon) called Patient Connect. This allows callers to locate and

connect with friends or loved ones who may have been involved and taken to a medical facility but

cannot be reached through traditional means.

The team inquired to determine if Red Cross Chicago has interest in being a potential host site for the

Chicago-metro 211. Harley and his team informed us that Red Cross does not see scaling up and

implementing or operating the 211 center for Chicago as a potential option . Red Cross call centers

currently, and intend to continue to, partner with 211s throughout the state. Red Cross leaders see great

future value in a partnership between 211 in Chicago and the Red Cross for such things as sharing a

resource database and cross referring callers as appropriate.

Description Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County

The team engaged Jennifer Hill, Executive Director of the Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban

Cook County, to learn more about the Alliance’s call center operations and to understand the Alliance’s

wants/needs for the potential Chicago-metro 211 introduction. Our conversation with Jennifer revealed

that no specific call center operates under Alliance leadership, instead multiple local referral agencies

receive calls incoming to the Alliance’s telephone hotline. The phone line receives calls from 10am-

2pm, M-F and with 35,000 incoming calls per year. Due to the lack of required 211 infrastructure

available, the team and Jennifer agreed that suburban the Cook County Alliance call center is a better fit

as 211 partner than site host.

Non-Preferred/Non-Qualified Options – Red Cross and Cook County


High-level Year-One Operational Costs and Sensitivity

Description Run Rate Costs Range +/-5% Assumption Description

Personnel Salaries $1,626,076 $1,544,773-$1,707,380 Based on expected average call center employee salaries for Chicago-

metro area

Training & Certification $23,285 $22,121-$24,450 Standard annual training costs

Telecommunications $340,882 $323,838-$357,927 Standard annual telecomm costs

Software & Technology $11,600 $11,020-$12,180 Costs reflective of agency only, not client specific, data for database

Marketing $60,000 $57,000-$63,000 Standard annual cost estimate based on population served

Administrative Costs $150,468 $142,945-$157,992 Includes projected lease rate for a suburban Chicago call center

Rounded Total Expenses $2,200,000 $2,101,696-$2,322,927


Non-Preferred/Non-Qualified Options – Greenfield Approach

Description and Coverage The greenfield Chicago model has been created to provide a baseline of expected costs

should no existing call center infrastructure be leveraged during a Chicago 211

implementation. As this approach does not appear advisable, our team will capture only the

projected costs for this scenario.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Implementation Cost Run Rate Cost

Implementation and Run Rate Costs

(year 1 baseline) Costs Summary Implementation and run-rate costs were estimated based

on projections to build and develop Chicago’s 211 call

center without using existing infrastructure. Our team

leveraged the expertise of Neale Rath, a Deloitte Manager

specialized in cost projections of business establishment.

Expenses were adjusted based on considerations for the

Chicago landscape. One-time implementation costs were

estimated at $500,000and run rate costs were estimated at

$2,200,000.

High-level Implementation Costs and Sensitivity

Description One-time Costs Range +/-5% Assumption description

Training $5,100 $4,845-$5,355 Standard training costs for a 211 introduction of this size

Office Expansion $214,000 $203,300-$224,700 Expected costs of new facilities for Chicago-metro call center

Telecommunications $110,000 $104,500-$115,500 211 Translation, routing table and ACD purchases

Software & Technology $40,000 $38,000-$42,000 Web development, server purchase and software licensing

Marketing/Travel $9,000 $8,550-$9,450 Initial 211 promotion and leadership travel

Referral Database $120,000 $114,000-$126,000 Database configuration from baseline

Rounded Total Expenses 500,000 $473,195-$523,005

Geographic Coverage

*Detailed expense projections can be found in the appendix

Implementation Scenarios

Implementation Scenarios | 25

Catholic Charities – Homelessness Prevention Call Center Site Information Site Information

Site Director: Sandra Murray

Call center services offered: Specializes in basic human needs for rent, mortgage and utility financial

assistance with direct placement of client at pre-arranged social service agencies for resources. Provides

advocacy reporting among community providers. Also operates Illinois Foreclosure Prevention Helpline.

Hosts the telecom infrastructure for the Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County virtual

call center and provides call reporting.

Current Footprint: City of Chicago for homelessness prevention, Suburban Cook County for virtual call

center hosting and statewide for foreclosure prevention.

Annual call volumes: 108,000 for Homelessness Prevention call center

Annual budget: $800,000 for Homelessness Prevention call center



Call center hours of operation: 8am-5pm, M-Th, most calls are connected directly from 311, overnight

requests are collected and distributed as messages from Chicago 311 call center

Proposed 211 footprint: Chicago-metro

Interview Key Findings & Inclusion Rationale In speaking with Sandra Murray, she has indicated she always believed Catholic Charities Chicago would

be the ideal fit to host the Chicago-metro 211 call center. She feels housing the call center with Catholic

Charities would provide Catholic Charities Chicago the opportunity to expand its scope of services

within the community. This strong desire to expand community assistance efforts through hosting

Chicago-metro 211 led to Catholic Charities call center initial inclusion as a scenario for host site

consideration.

Database Conversion

As mentioned earlier, the ability to merge databases onto the ServicePoint platform is of paramount

importance to DuPage County. Discussions with Sandra revealed that Catholic Charities operates on the

ServicePoint database platform, and that Sandra felt her team could be flexible to the needs of DuPage

County leaders for the data merger to support a potential metropolitan wide implementation. With Cook

County’s main call center also using this platform, there appears to be an opportunity for significant one-

time savings when the databases are merged. Bowman Systems representatives estimate the cost to

merge the databases at $35,000-$50,000. Whereas the estimated cost to build a call center database from

scratch typically projects at $120,000. ServicePoint databases are popular in this area because the

database configures well to Human Management Information Systems (HMIS) data which must be

collected and tracked for call centers to be eligible for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) US

federal government grant.

DuPage County Endorsement

Initial conversations with DuPage County call center leaders indicate that they will feel more

comfortable partnering with Catholic Charities for overnight and weekend calls as compared with an

outsourced call center. Mary Keating states that DuPage County call center’s successful existing

relationship with Catholic Charities Joliet provides her comfort when thinking of partnering with

Catholic Charities Chicago.

Implementation Scenarios – Chicago Catholic Charities Host


Location

Another contributing factor making Catholic Charities call center a viable 211 hosting option centers

around its proximity to UW–MC. Currently, Catholic Charities Chicago and UW-MC operate within

walking distance of each other. Should Catholic Charities be selected as host site, UW-MC be able to

monitor implementation and operation progress in-person at little to no cost, whereas hosting 211

remotely would require significant expense for similar monitoring efforts.

Leasing Options

Prior to this study, Catholic Charities’ leaders had independently begun seeking new facilities to host its

Homelessness Prevention call center. Conversation with Bob Haennicke and Sandra Murray indicated

that they will be seeking a call center large enough to accommodate the required staffing to host 211. As

compared with operating on an outsourced model, UW-MC will likely have significant influence in

selecting call center’s home, meaning UW-MC can give input on call center size, lease cost and location.

Risks Funding

Bob Haennicke has expressed concerns about funding sources for this single call center. UW-MC will

need to determine what government funding sources will continue to be viable after the Cook County and

Chicago homelessness prevention focused call centers are migrated to full I&R service. Also, UW-MC

will need to seek philanthropic investment from other local organizations.

Continued 311 Partnership

As Catholic Charities HP call center has already established a partnership with Chicago 311, in which

311 directly connects all basic human needs call for rent, mortgage and utility financial assistance to the

HP call center, determination will need to be made as to whether to continue that relationship.

Discontinuation of the relationship could result in lower than expected call volume and lower service

levels for citizens calling into 311 needing human service aid. However, continuing the relationship

could cause call volume spikes requiring expansion of first year staffing projections.

Next Steps UW-MC should engage Catholic Charities Chicago through its decision making process for 211. First,

UW-MC should ensure that this study sets a foundational understanding for Catholic Charities needs and

wants to host 211. Once agreement has broadly been reached on concept, UW-MC and Catholic Charities

will need to have detailed conversation outlining roles and responsibilities for the nature of the

partnership.

Implementation Scenarios – Chicago Catholic Charities Host, cont’d


Implementation Scenarios – Chicago Catholic Charities Host, cont’d

Description and Coverage A Catholic Charities 211 call center would provide 24/7/365 I&R coverage to residents of

Cook County and provide non-weekday business hours coverage to DuPage County. All call

volume from Cook County would be serviced by expanding Chicago’s Homelessness

Prevention call center and establishing AIRS certification. Estimated Year 1 call volume for

a Chicago-metro 211 system is approx. 105,000 with volume expected to increase by 40,000

calls per year the next two years. With these call projections, 15 FT call operators will be

required with an increase of 2-3 per year in each subsequent year for two years.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000



(year 1 compared to baseline) Costs Summary Implementation and run-rate costs were based on the

estimated Homelessness Prevention call center facility

expansion. Key stakeholders provided recurring costs per

existing call center operations. The Deloitte team adjusted

expenses based on predictable increases in call volume

and current Chicago real-estate prices. One-time

implementation costs were estimated at $350,000 and run

rate costs were estimated at $1,920,000.

Description One-time

Costs Range +/-5% Assumption description

Training $5,100 $4,845-$5,355 Standard training costs for a 211 introduction of this size

Office Expansion $191,000 $181,450-$200,550 Lower expected costs due to equipment infrastructure available

Telecommunications $70,000 $66,500-$73,500 Standard telecommunications cost minus ACD already in place

Software/Technology $25,000 $2,3750-$26,250 Standard S&T costs minus initial licensing fees

Marketing/Travel $9,000 $8,550-$94,50 Initial 211 marketing

Referral Database 50,000 $47,500-$52,500 Build out of pre-existing ServicePoint database

Rounded Total Expenses $350,000 $332,595-$367,605


Description Run Rate

Costs Range +/-5% Assumption description

Personnel Salaries $1,280,717 $1,216,681-$1,344,753 Salaries based on traditional Catholic Charities wage rates

Training & Certification $23,285 $22,121-$24,450 Standard annual training costs

Telecommunications $340,882 $323,838-$357,927 Standard annual telecomm cost

Software & Technology $76,600 $72,770-$80,430 Costs in line with annual ServicePoint licensing costs


Administrative Costs $147,665 $140,282-$155,048 Includes projected lease rate for a suburban Chicago call center


High-level Year-One Operational Costs and Sensitivity

Geographic Coverage

g Baseline g Scenario


Outsourced call center – New Jersey partnership Site Information Site Information

Site Director: Laura Marx

Call center services offered: Operates state of New Jersey 211, Philadelphia metro 211 and

Call service lines hosted through New Jersey 211 call center: Addiction Hotline for New Jersey, Home

Energy Assistance Hotline throughout state, New Jersey 211, 211 South East Pennsylvania, and Kinship

Guardianship Portal for New Jersey

Annual budget: Varies by call service line



Call center hours of operation: 24/7/365

Footprint: State of New Jersey and Philadelphia

Interview Key Findings & Inclusion Rationale In speaking with both Wendy David, Philadelphia 211 Director, and Laura Marx, Executive Director of

the New Jersey 211 call center, both conveyed a positive experience with the new approach of hosting a

211 call center from outside the footprint of a city. New Jersey’s 211 call center is the first to remotely

host a major city’s 211 operation, making New Jersey an ideal potential outsource partner . Furthermore,

Laura Marx, the New Jersey call center director, has expressed willingness to incorporate Chicago-

metro’s 211 service.

Soft Launch

Wendy David revealed that New Jersey’s experience with 211 operation allowed for Philadelphia to more

easily execute a “soft-launch” in which Philadelphia has had 211 service but has not been publicizing it

to the community. This quiet launch has helped to keep call volumes at a minimum while Philadelphia

211 became fully operational. This strategy has also helped keep costs low in the early operational

stage.

Partnership in Times of Need

Another benefit of hosting separate sites jointly is that the separate call centers can help handle with

overflow should particular instances of need arise. Wendy pointed to Super storm Sandy as a time when

the New Jersey call center was able to use Philadelphia’s operators to help with New Jersey residents'

needs. With Chicago operating through a remote call center, instances such as weather related

emergencies are unlikely to overlap simultaneously. For example, should a snow emergency arise in

Chicago-metro, Philadelphia and New Jersey operators could likely assist with Chicago human service

needs provided that the east region was not experiencing a simultaneous snow emergency.


Implementation Scenarios – Outsourced Call Center

211 Expertise

New Jersey site director, Laura Marx, oversees 211 operations for the entire state of New Jersey. She has

also served as a national advisor 211 in the United States. Her experience in standing-up and operating

211 call centers would prove invaluable in ensuring that the Chicago-metro introduction is done

effectively. Moreover, Laura has experience to know what types of "hidden" funding sources should be

explored. Wendy David, for example, commented that the largest Philadelphia energy company provides

donations to Philadelphia 211. The reason for the support is that one human service offered by 211 is to

help residents find means to pay for gas/electric bills.

Risks DuPage County Partnership

DuPage County intends to continue operation of its own I&R operation during business hours during the

week. Mary Keating, DuPage County’s call center director, has indicated that she would need a greater

understanding of an outsourced model to be comfortable partnering with a call center that she lacked

experience working with. UW-MC will need to work leaders inside DuPage County’s call center and

County government to ensure that this partnership with an outsourced call center can be configured to

suit DuPage County’s needs.

Potential Database Incompatibility

As the three major Chicago-metro call centers operate using ServicePoint, the New Jersey call center

does not operate on the ServicePoint platform. As suburban Cook County would like to run homelessness

prevention through 211, and Catholic Charities may elect to as well, the decision to map a database using

or not using HMIS data could influence the decision of both the Alliance to End Homelessness and the

Homelessness Prevention call centers to become apart of the broader 211 implementation. UW-MC

members will need to address this issue with leaders from all call centers to ensure that the 211 call

center created for Chicago-metro fits well with the community's needs.

Funding

Similar to the Catholic Charities host scenario, UW-MC will need to ensure that Chicago-metro 211

hosted remotely receives needed funds for operation. Another funding consideration from hosting

remotely will be that certain local partners might be less willing to provide funds for an outsourced call

center to out-of-state employees. Funders may have experience with local organizations and feel less

certain that donation sent out of state is actually specifically being applied to Chicago-metro’s human

service needs. With this in mind, UW-MC leaders will want to engage funders proactively to ensure that

remote hosting does not adversely impact funders willingness to support local 211.

Next Steps

UW-MC leaders should continue to engage Laura Marx and the New Jersey call center during the

decision making process. Laura Marx’s and Wendy David’s recent experience with introducing 211 to a

large city will serve as a benefit to UW-MC regardless of the partnership decision.

If time permits, UW-MC leaders should also investigate partnership with different outsourced 211 call

centers. By approaching different call centers UW-MC can evaluate if this model of implementation and

operation could be executed more effectively than would be possible in New Jersey.


Implementation Scenarios – Outsourced Call Center, cont’d


Implementation Scenarios – Outsourced Call Center, cont’d

Description and Coverage An outsourced Chicago 211 call center would provide 24/7/365 I&R coverage to residents

of Cook County and provide non-weekday business hours coverage to DuPage County. All

call volume from Cook County would be serviced by an existing and scalable 211 call

center infrastructure of another state. Estimated Year 1 call volume for a Chicago-metro 211

system is approx. 105,000 with volume expected to increase by 40,000 calls per year the

next two years. With these call projections, 15 FT call operators will be required with an

increase of 2-3 per year in each subsequent year for two years.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000



(year 1 compared to baseline) Costs Summary Implementation and run-rate costs were estimated based

on costs incurred for a recent implementation of an

outsourced 211 call center in New Jersey. Key

stakeholders provided one-time and recurring costs per the

New Jersey implementation. The Deloitte team adjusted

expenses based on additional considerations for the

Chicago landscape. One-time implementation costs were

estimated at $520,000 and run rate costs were estimated at

$1,850,000.

Description One-time Costs Range +/-5% Assumption description

Training $5,100 $4,845-$5,355 Estimates based on budget provided by New Jersey call center

Office Expansion $276,250 $262,438-$290,063 Confirmed expansion requirements with Laura Mark of the New

Jersey 211 call center

Telecommunications $70,000 $66,500-$73,500 Standard telecommunications cost minus ACD already in place

Software/Technology $40,000 $38,000-$42,000 Web development, server purchase and software licensing

Marketing/Travel $9,000 $8,550-$9,450 Initial 211 marketing

Referral Database 120,000 $114,000-$126,000 Database configuration from baseline

Rounded Total Expenses $520,000 $494,333-$546,368


Description Run Rate Costs Range +/-5% Assumption description

Personnel Salaries $1,225,817 $1,164,527-$1,287,108 Salaries were estimated using New Jersey call center budget and

national salary averages for call specialists

Training/Certification $24,855 $23,613-$26,098 Confirmed training and certification estimates with New Jersey

and Philadelphia 211 call centers

Telecommunications $340,882 $323,838-$357,927 Standard annual telecomm cost

Software & Technology $11,600 $11,020-$12,180 Costs reflective of agency only, not client specific, data for

database, New Jersey leaders confirmed estimates


Administrative Costs $190,688 $181,154-$200,222 Includes precise lease rate for facility available to host Chicago-

metro 211 through New Jersey


High-level Run Rate Costs and Sensitivity

Geographic Coverage

g Baseline g Scenario


Benefits Analysis

Benefits Overview Our evaluation of qualitative and quantitative benefits saw minimal distinction between the two

recommended scenarios. The reason s for this are that the expected costs and service levels for both

scenarios are similar. With that in mind, we jointly present benefits without regard to scenario. Please be

mindful of the fact that the team does find significant benefit from implementation of either scenario over

current Chicago-metro service offering.

Quantitative Benefits Cost Comparison

The table below shows significant total costs reductions achieved through the proposed consolidation of

separate major Chicago-metro call centers into a single 211 call center.

Service Level Comparison

The table below captures a service level comparison of the existing major call centers in Chicago,

suburban Cook County and DuPage County. It is evident from the table that residents from each

community will stand to benefit from enhanced service access and /or service quality should a full-service

211 call center begin hosting UW-MC’s 211 for Chicago-metropolitan.

Projected Cost Benefits

Year Catholic Charities 211 Outsourced call center Current I&R model

Year 1 $ 2,279,429 $ 2,374,193

$ 2,410,000

Year 2 $ 2,155,140 $ 2,105,313 $ 2,470,250

Year 3 $ 2,396,046 $ 2,360,146 $ 2,532,006

Year 4 $ 2,488,730 $ 2,456,632 $ 2,595,306

Year 5 $ 2,586,373 $ 2,558,413 $ 2,660,189

Rounded Total Costs $ 11,900,000 $ 11,850,000 $ 12,700,000

Service Level Benefits

Call Center Total Weekly Hours Range of Service Operators Geography Covered

Chicago 311 168 Ad-hoc I&R service Not AIRS certified Chicago

Chicago Catholic Charities 34 Shelter only AIRS certified Chicago

Alliance to End Homelessness in

Suburban Cook County 20 Shelter only Not AIRS certified Suburban Cook County

DuPage County call center 42.5 Full spectrum AIRS certified DuPage County

UW-MC 211 168 Full spectrum AIRS certified Chicago, suburban Cook

County and DuPage County

Benefits Analysis - Quantitative

Benefits Analysis | 32

Benefits Analysis - Qualitative

Qualitative Benefits Income

Once a 211 call center is introduced , it will provide citizens of the Chicago-metro area around-the-clock

access to care for their human service needs. CMAP’s article; An Overview of 211 Services In the Nation,

presents a compelling lens through which to project the 211 program's income related qualitative benefits.

The table, to the left, shows two separate, unrelated locations

with similar income levels for people calling into 211.

Mindful of the fact that 211 call centers throughout the

country receive incoming calls from community members

with income improvement needs, different United Ways

throughout the country have used 211 as a vehicle to promote

change. MyFreeTaxes is a collaboration between United Way

211, H&R Block and Wal-Mart that helps people file their

62%

71%

29%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

S.E Michigan

San Bemardino

211 Call Profile: Income Level

g <$10K g $10K - $24K

taxes online at no expense. Cleveland 211, for example, handled 1,400 calls, chats, and e mails from

persons throughout the community needing assistance last year. Another successful initiative introduced

has taken place in Indiana with Bank On. This initiative promotes 211 as a contact point for non-banking

residents to learn about how to work with a financial institution.

With UW-MC’s stated goal to increase economic stability in over 100,000 households by 2020, this

information gives clear indication that calls placed to 211 in Chicago-metro will likely be made by

households living at or below the poverty level. By giving households a point of entry for human service

through 211 UW-MC could lead local initiatives to reach its own UW 2020 income goals.

Education

UW-MC’s Live United 2020 Plan also focuses on education as a core area of focus. UW-MC’s stated goal

for this period is to, “Help 50,000 underperforming middle school kids enter high school ready to

succeed”. The introduction of 211 into the Chicago-metro area potentially could present a platform for

UW-MC to achieve that goal. In much the same way communities are using 211 to work towards income

improvement, United Way leaders have seen fit to incorporate education focused initiatives to the 211

mission. Below are listed just two of the numerous programs hosted through 211 with education as the

focus:

• Youth Success Initiative (Asheville, NC) – Uses 211 to provide and catalog community resource data

about services for middle school youths. This data is mapped and used by United Way and community

partners to increase the availability and quality of services to support middle school students.

• Kids Need Quality (Indianapolis, IN) - Public education campaign calling on parents to ask more

questions about the quality of their child care. The campaign includes radio, television and billboard,

with 211 as the promoted number.


Benefits Analysis – Qualitative, cont’d

Shelter and Health

Illinois’, 211 Report for 2011, helps to illuminate the shelter and health improvements 211 introduction

will likely spur. It does so by illustrating call types frequency for Illinois 211s in 2011. The percentage

breakdown of calls seen in Illinois maps well to trends seen nationally. With that in mind, the Chicago-

metro call center can expect similar call type ratios as it operates. Approximately 33% of calls coming

into 211 seek shelter related information, while nearly 10% come from community members with health

related needs. As the Live United 2020 Plan seeks to provide shelter aid to 1 million people annually and

seeks to encourage proactive health consultation to 200,000 people, operation of a 211 call center would

provide UW-MC front-line access to these community members in need.

As with income and education, similarly 211 initiatives related to shelter and health have launched

throughout the country. Below are just a few examples:

• Homeless Prevention Rapid Rehousing Program (National) -Uses 211 as launch point to conduct

community outreach, raising awareness about housing services and making specialized referrals for

households.

• Utility / Financial Assistance (Various sites) – 211 provides pre-screening, referral and coordination

application for Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Emergency Food and

Shelter Program, Coordinated Assistance Program and others across the country.

• Smoke-Free Homes Intervention Research Project (Atlanta) - Collaborative relationship between

Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health and United Way 211 Atlanta promoting smoke-

free homes among the 211 caller population.

• My Body My Test (Asheville, NC) - Research study to help prevent cervical cancer by enabling

women to test for HPV at home and connecting them with clinics for additional services. 211 pre-

screened 935 callers and referred 385 high-risk individuals for this health intervention.

19,875 20,590

25,311

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2009 2010 2011

Total Calls

971

1,116

1,301

1,422

1,725

7,151

7,921

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Mental Health &

Addictions

Food & Meals

Health Care

Individual, Family &

Community Support

Income Support &

Assistance

Information Services

Housing & Utilities

Call Volume by Category


Recommendation

Recommendation| 36

UW-MC Should Pursue 211 for Chicago-metro After compiling the findings for scenarios explored and sharing our findings with UW-MC leadership the

team has found that the stand-up and operation of a 211 calling center in Chicago-metro is feasible.

Though many different stakeholders have differing opinions on how best 211 will be executed, all needed

parties for implementation have expressed the willingness to partner with different leaders across

Chicago-metro to make 211 a reality for citizens. By having budget projections that are in-line with UW-

MC's initial expectations and major parties offering to work together, the team sees UW-MC prepared

and able to lead the next steps for this endeavor.

Funding

Over the course of the study, a common query from participants centered around how a UW-MC 211 will

be funded. Though not the focus of the study, our conversations with leaders revealed numerous funding

sources UW-MC should engage as it works to raise the capital required to implement and operate 211.

Below is a listing of potential key funding sources:

• Federal government – Examples of programs eligible for federal funds include; homelessness

prevention and health care

• State government - An example of a state program eligible for state funding is health navigator

Businesses benefitting from 211 introduction – Utility companies, for example, have often provided

211s funding because 211 helps provide residents I&R service that can aid their ability to pay for

utilities

• Consolidated services – For call centers that Chicago-metro 211 consolidate there is continuation

opportunity with funders

• University research projects – Universities can provide 211 call centers funds, a typical partnership

takes place when the call center can help a university execute a research project

• Local public and private philanthropy – Examples include; Chicago Department of Family & Support

Services (DFSS) and Chicago Community Trust

Specific Scenario Feasibility

Both scenarios have potential benefits as well as risks that UW-MC will need to measure prior to

choosing its eventual partner. The team's findings do not show one scenario as an overwhelmingly

preferred choice. With that said, both scenarios will require further exploration from UW-MC prior to

choosing the ultimate "best fit".

Recommendation

Recommendation| 37

Key Considerations The following graphic illustrates the potential strengths/opportunities and threats/risks UW-MC will need

to consider as it makes its 211 sourcing decision.

Catholic Charities Host Opportunities The following section describes in detail strengths and opportunities in hosting 211 through Catholic

Charities.

Database Conversion Cost Savings

One of the largest implementation expenses associated with 211 call centers is setting up a usable, AIRS

compliant database. This expense is captured as a "database conversion". Catholic Charities' call center,

DuPage County's call center and suburban Cook county's call center all operate using the ServicePoint

database. Having the major call centers merge onto the same existing platform presents a significant

"database conversion" cost savings opportunity. If Catholic Charities is chosen as host site and the three

ServicePoint databases are merged onto a single Catholic Charities ServicePoint database, Gabe Cate,

COO, of Bowman Systems, projects a $35K-$50K expense for "database conversion" . An outsourced

211 call center, likely not using a ServicePoint database, would require a traditional, from scratch

"database conversion" with projected cost of $120K.

Lower Projected Total Implementation Costs

Relative to projections for outsourced implementation the team projects cost to implement to be

$170,000 less ($70K for database conversion + an added $100K in other implementation cost savings)

when sourced through Catholic Charities call center. Much of these savings are realized through

leveraging pre-existing local infrastructure for the call center, including furniture, equipment and the

database.

Local Market Experience

Catholic Charities experience in the local market will allow it to extend its existing partnerships with

local referral agencies. This experience working in concert with local agencies should create a smooth

transition period to 211 operation. An outsourced 211 partnership would require extensive local market

familiarization with important agencies in Chicago-metro.

Recommendation, cont’d

Call Center Strengths/ Opportunities Threats/Risks

Chicago Catholic

Charities 211 host

• Database conversion cost savings

• Lower total projected implementation costs

• Local market experience

• Local partnership comfort

• 311 partnership

• Funding certainty

• 211 inexperience

Outsource 211 host

• 211 implementation expertise

• 211 operation expertise

• Precision of cost projections

• Future scalability to support national model

• Local funding availability

• Regional Stakeholder Wariness to

Partner Out of State

Recommendation| 38

Local Partnership Comfort

Catholic Charities leadership also has experience partnering with Cook County's shelter call center and

DuPage County's human service call centers, this suggests that reaching initial partnership agreement

with these local call centers could develop more easily than with an outsourced call center.

Established 311 Partnership

Catholic Charities existing partnership with 311 provides UW-MC the opportunity to potentially build

upon that relationship to seek assistance with infrastructure and funding. The lack of a relationship

between an outsourced call center and Chicago 311 would require UW-MC to develop a 211/311

partnership from the origination stage.

Catholic Charities Host Threats and Risks The following section describes in detail threats and risks in hosting 211 through Catholic Charities.

Funding Certainty

As mentioned in the Catholic Charities scenario section, UW-MC's ability to achieve sustainable funding

for 211 is a major concern for Catholic Charities. Prior to establishing partnership with Catholic

Charities, UW-MC will need to demonstrate a funding plan that ensures 211's long-term feasibility.

211 Inexperience

Locally, there exists little experience with standing-up and operating a 211 call center. This risk presents

particular concern because of the large population being served under the proposed footprint. The

inexperience of local stakeholders dictates that should Catholic Charities be chosen as the 211 hosting

site, nationally experienced SMEs need to be brought in to aid implementation and early operation.

Outsource 211 Hosting Strengths and Opportunities The following section describes in detail strengths and opportunities in hosting 211 through an

outsourced model. For the purposes of this study we have used New Jersey 211 because of their

cooperation in providing feedback and experience in hosting remote 211 operations and interest in being

the Chicago-metro 211 provider. It may be worth gauging the interest and compatibility of other 211

providers, but for the reason outlined below the team feels New Jersey would be a compelling partner.

211 Implementation Expertise

Laura Marx's recent experience incorporating Philadelphia into the New Jersey call center should give

comfort to UW-MC leaders that the New Jersey 211 call center understands the nuance of 211

introduction.

211 Operational Expertise

Laura's expertise in directing multiple 211 operations can ensure that not only the transition but also the

operation of Chicago-metro 211 will be done at expert level.


Recommendation| 39

Precision of Cost Projections

When compared with Catholic Charities cost projections, the outsourced model through New Jersey can

be reasonably assured to be more accurate because a similar implementation has taken place within the

last year. Catholic Charities lacks experience implementing and operating a 211 call center so it may be

more prone to less budget certainty.

Future Scalability

Initial discussions with national 211 leaders revealed that historically, 211 introduction has been done at a

local level. These leaders feel an opportunity to drive down fixed costs to individual call centers has been

missed because of the local nature of 211 programs. Going forward, many leaders feel that moving

towards a regionalized/nationalized model could dramatically drive down the cost of operation and more

efficiently deliver service. By partnering with an outsourced call center, Chicago-metro 211 will be on

the front-end of the regional/national movement, and be positioned to more rapidly realize benefits

associated with scale.

Outsource 211 Hosting Risks and Threats The following section describes in detail risks and threats in hosting 211 through an outsourced model.

Local Funding Availability

Our team estimates that the risk to securing local funding would increase should UW-MC decide to

outsource the Chicago-metro call center. Local funders might have reluctance to work with an out-of-

state entity due to lack of an existing relationship and local funders desire to be assured that Chicago

funds offered would be fully directed to Chicago-metro 211. Should 211 be operated locally, the team

does not anticipate local funders would have the same concerns.

Regional Stakeholder Wariness to Partner Out of State

A number of key desired local partners may have reservations about creating a partnership that sources

jobs out of Illinois. An example of potential challenge can be found with DuPage County. UW-MC has

made clear its desire to integrate DuPage County's overnight and weekend operations into its 211 calling

center. DuPage leaders expressed initial concern over the possibility of partnering with a 211 call center

hosted outside of the Chicago-metro area. UW-MC and outsource call center leaders will jointly need to

engage DuPage County leadership to show the benefit of operating 211 through an outsourced scenario.

Failure to alleviate DuPage County leaders' concerns could result in DuPage County 211 pursuing an

independent solution to overnight and weekend coverage. .


Appendix

Current Year Actuals Estimated Volume at 3rd Year2 Growth Call Volume Projections6

Population % Population # Calls 1 % Population

Calling 2113

Y3 Max Call

Volume4 Y4 & Y55 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cook

County 5,376,741 0.77% 41,400.91 3.0% 161,302 5.0% 50% 75% 100% 105% 110%

DuPage

County 987,878 6.22% 61,446.01 6.2% 61,248 0.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Totals 6,364,619 - 102,847 3.5% 222,551 4.2% 64% 82% 100% 104% 107%

Call Volume Projections Cook County 81,368 121,335 161,302 169,367 177,835

Call Volume Projection DuPage County 61,380 61,314 61,314 61,314 61,314

Appendix

Static Projections

Call Volume Projections, footnotes

Appendix | 41

1. Actual number of calls received in the past year.

2. Much of this table is based on historical data from 211s across the U.S., including CT, TX, ID, NY, and MD.

3. Historical call volume for 211 centers averages 1 call per year for every 16 people in a covered population (6%). However, each region of the U.S. has

unique demographics that may result in a much different usage rate. Further, projections should consider current call rates, marketing efforts, and service

offerings. Rural areas with no services currently in place may expect 1 - 3% by Year 3. With good marketing this number could rise to 5%. Urban areas

have seen rates as high as 10% with little marketing. Generally speaking, areas can expect 3-5% by Year 3 if starting from the ground up. If services

already exist, they may see a 2-3% rise over current levels.

4. The maximum call volume is determined by multiplying the size of the population times the % that will be calling 211. Note that this is a Year 3 estimate.

Due to population growth and 211 branding, historical data shows a 5% annual growth thereafter. In some cases, the Year 3 estimate may be reached

earlier, particularly if public education and awareness are already high. In these cases, we still project annual growth at a rate indicated in the next column.

5. This is the annual growth in call volume that can be expected as a result of demographic changes from Years 3 to 5 (the last year in the model).

6. Based on historical data from other 211s, a 40% increase in call volume can be expected in Year 1 of implementation. That is, 40% above the baseline

number of calls prior to 211. We expect to reach the maximum call volume within 2-3 years of implementation. In Years 4 and 5 (that is, 4-5 years

following implementation), as stated above, we expect an annual increase in call volume by 5%.

Call volume projections and specialist staffing projections are constant throughout all three

implementation scenarios: Greenfield Approach, Chicago Catholic Charities, Outsourced Call

Center

Call Volume Projections

2014 Specialist Staffing Projections


M-F Sat & Sun

8 - 11 11 - 2 2 - 5 5 - 8 8 - 11 11 - 8 8- 4 4 - 12 12- 8

Projected Call Volume

Distribution (%)2 17.2% 22.6% 20.3% 11.3% 7.1% 9.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%

Projected Call Volume Cook

County (#) 13,971 18,390 16,537 9,195 5,774 7,413 3,363 3,363 3,363

Projected Call Volume DuPage

County (#) 10,539 13,872 12,474 6,936 4,355 5,592 2,537 2,537 2,537

Call Serviced by DuPage

County Call Center (10,539) (13,872) (12,474) - - - - - -

Projected Total Call Volume

Chicago 211 Call Center 13,971 18,390 16,537 16,131 10,129 13,005 5,900 5,900 5,900

Arrival Rate (calls/min) 0.30 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.22 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12

Traffic (Erlang)3 2.24 2.95 2.65 2.59 1.62 0.69 0.89 0.89 0.89

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (95%)4 5.19 6.10 5.74 5.65 4.28 2.72 3.06 3.06 3.06

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (85%)4 3.79 4.52 4.23 4.16 3.09 1.90 2.16 2.16 2.16

Nbr of Specialist FTEs to be

Staffed5 4.49 5.31 4.98 4.9 3.7 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0

Salary Equivalent (for use in

Personnel tab) 41,500 41,500 41,500 43,229 43,229 48,417 41,500 43,229 48,417

Annual Call Volume Cook County (2013) 81,368

Annual Call Volume DuPage County (2013) 61,380

Combined Annual Call Volume (2013) 142,748

Projected Chicago 211 Annual Call Volume (2013) 105,863

Projected Maximum Chicago 211 Specialist FTEs Needed (2013) 15

M-F Sat & Sun

8 - 11 11 - 2 2 - 5 5 - 8 8 - 11 11 - 8 8- 4 4 - 12 12- 8


Distribution (%)2 17.2% 22.6% 20.3% 11.3% 7.1% 9.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%


County (#) 20,833 27,423 24,659 13,711 8,609 11,054 5,015 5,015 5,015


County (#) 10,527 13,858 12,461 6,929 4,351 5,586 2,534 2,534 2,534






Traffic (Erlang)3 3.34 4.39 3.95 3.31 2.08 0.89 1.13 1.13 1.13

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (95%)4 6.55 7.68 7.13 6.51 4.96 3.06 3.49 3.49 3.49

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (85%)4 4.89 5.95 5.49 4.86 3.61 2.16 2.48 2.48 2.48


Staffed5 5.72 6.81 6.31 5.7 4.3 2.6 1.2 1.2 1.2


Personnel tab) 41,500 41,500 41,500 43,229 43,229 48,417 41,500 43,229 48,417






Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 42

2016 Specialist Staffing


M-F Sat & Sun

8 - 11 11 - 2 2 - 5 5 - 8 8 - 11 11 - 8 8- 4 4 - 12 12- 8


Distribution (%)2 17.2% 22.6% 20.3% 11.3% 7.1% 9.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%


County (#) 27,695 36,456 32,782 18,228 11,445 14,695 6,667 6,667 6,667


County (#) 10,527 13,858 12,461 6,929 4,351 5,586 2,534 2,534 2,534






Traffic (Erlang)3 4.44 5.84 5.25 4.03 2.53 1.08 1.38 1.38 1.38

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (95%)4 7.73 9.47 8.74 7.23 5.58 3.40 3.90 3.90 3.90

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (85%)4 5.99 7.44 6.83 5.57 4.10 2.42 2.79 2.79 2.79


Staffed5 6.86 8.45 7.79 6.4 4.8 2.9 1.3 1.3 1.3


Personnel tab) 35,000 35,000 35,000 36,458 36,458 40,833 35,000 36,458 40,833






M-F Sat & Sun

8 - 11 11 - 2 2 - 5 5 - 8 8 - 11 11 - 8 8- 4 4 - 12 12- 8


Distribution (%)2 17.2% 22.6% 20.3% 11.3% 7.1% 9.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%


County (#) 29,080 38,278 34,421 19,139 12,018 15,430 7,001 7,001 7,001


County (#) 10,527 13,858 12,461 6,929 4,351 5,586 2,534 2,534 2,534






Traffic (Erlang)3 4.66 6.13 5.52 4.18 2.62 1.12 1.43 1.43 1.43

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (95%)4 8.01 9.83 9.07 7.41 5.70 3.47 3.98 3.98 3.98

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (85%)4 6.22 7.74 7.10 5.72 4.20 2.47 2.85 2.85 2.85


Staffed5 7.11 8.78 8.08 6.6 5.0 3.0 1.4 1.4 1.4


Personnel tab) 35,000 35,000 35,000 36,458 36,458 40,833 35,000 36,458 40,833






Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 43

Specialist Staffing Projections, footnotes


M-F Sat & Sun

8 - 11 11 - 2 2 - 5 5 - 8 8 - 11 11 - 8 8- 4 4 - 12 12- 8


Distribution (%)2 17.2% 22.6% 20.3% 11.3% 7.1% 9.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%


County (#) 30,534 40,192 36,142 20,096 12,619 16,202 7,351 7,351 7,351


County (#) 10,527 13,858 12,461 6,929 4,351 5,586 2,534 2,534 2,534






Traffic (Erlang)3 4.89 6.44 5.79 4.33 2.72 1.16 1.49 1.49 1.49

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (95%)4 8.30 10.21 9.41 7.60 5.82 3.54 4.06 4.06 4.06

Recommended Nbr of

Specialists (85%)4 6.46 8.05 7.38 5.88 4.30 2.52 2.92 2.92 2.92


Staffed5 7.38 9.13 8.40 6.7 5.1 3.0 1.4 1.4 1.4


Personnel tab) 35,000 35,000 35,000 36,458 36,458 40,833 35,000 36,458 40,833






Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 44

1. The average time per call is based on local historical knowledge, when available. Otherwise, a national average of 7.5 minutes is used.

2. The distribution of calls is taken from historical studies of 211 Centers in ID, CT, NY, TX, and MD. Distribution is fairly consistent in most cases.

3. Staffing levels determined by using the Erlang formula (see Erlang Projections tab). The Erlang Formula is a widely accepted formula within the

telecommunications industry. Key assumptions required are service times and availability. Service times = time per call, which should include data entry

time if these staff will be responsible for that function. Talk times average 5.0 minutes. Data entry can consume another 2.5 minutes per call. Availability

= the percentage of time that a staff person (and phone line) will be available. 95% is a considered outstanding service. Note: the results can vary

significantly by changing the Availability (e.g. decreasing it to 85% could decrease staff by 15-40% depending on volume). See the Erlang Projections tab

for a detailed explanation of the assumptions built into these projections.

4. The "recommended" number is the result of Erlang projections.

5. This is an assumption left to management's discretion, based on what the Erlang formula suggests as a guide. The average of the 95% and 85% levels is

used until mgmt inputs its own staffing levels.

6. Some 211 centers outsource the "overflow" of call to 3rd parties who provide I&R service on a fee-per-call basis. To adjust this model to include a fee for

overflow services, users should make sure there are zero FTEs in those shifts where calls would be outsourced. The second step is to make sure that the

cost-per-call is filled in.

7. If the FTE's for a given shift are set equal to zero (0), then the # of overflow calls will appear. This number is only approximate. Beyond the complexities

of the non-linear projection, it is difficult to predict what % of callers will call back at a later time (and get a specialist). Therefore, this is a conservative

number (representing a maximum number of calls for the shift).

8. If calculated in this model, the cost of outsourcing assumes that 100% of all calls will be handled. In the Expense Model, the actual cost can be

adjusted/capped.

9. 12.4% of calls occur on Saturday and Sunday. The exact distribution of calls across shifts, however, is not known. This model evenly divides the % of

calls on the weekends across the 3 shifts. As data is collected, the % should be updated to reflect reality.

Greenfield Approach – Run Rate Projections

Expense Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Personnel1

Personnel Salaries 1,225,817 1,398,637 1,567,046 1,640,888 1,719,020

Training & Certification (cost/FTE/yr)3 24,855 27,053 29,237 29,688 30,159

Total 1,250,673 1,425,690 1,596,284 1,670,575 1,749,179

Telecommunications

PSTN Lines (cost/line/mth)5 219,705 276,486 340,853 353,821 367,431

800/Long Distance (cost per minute; % of calls)6 9,528 13,122 16,719 17,445 18,207

Language Translation (cost per minute; % of calls)7 19,849 27,338 34,832 36,344 37,932

ACD Maintenance8 45,000 46,125 47,278 48,460 49,672

211 Switch Translation Maintenance (cost/switch/mth)9 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000

Bandwidth (e.g. T1; cost/mth) 0 0 0 0 0

VPN (cost/mth)10 0 0 0 0 0

Routing Tables (if needed; cost/mth) 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800

Total 340,882 409,871 486,482 502,871 520,042

Software &

Technology

Web Hosting (cost/mth) 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100

Database Hosting - ServicePoint($3500/yr for DBs on web) 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

Other Database/Software Support ($/yr) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Software Licensing (% of software costs) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Total 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600

Marketing

211 Public Educ Campaign (cost/yr/100k population)11 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

Outreach Events (cost/event; #/yr) 0 0 0 0 0

Newsletters (cost/program; # records in database)12, 13 0 0 0 0 0

Total 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

Administrative

Costs

Office lease (cost/sq ft/yr; total sq ft)14 147,000 151,410 155,952 160,631 165,450

Travel: Local ($/100,000 of population) 0 0 0 0 0

Travel: Prof Dev & Out of County ($/FTE/yr) 0 0 0 0 0

Legal (cost/yr) 0 0 0 0 0

Insurance-Prof, Liability, General, and D&O (cost/yr) 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Audit (cost/yr) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500

Office Supplies (cost/month/staff) 5,699 6,203 6,704 6,807 6,915

Utilities (cost/staff/month) 0 0 0 0 0

Printing & Postage ($/100,000 of population) 3,182 3,182 3,182 3,182 3,182

Directory Printing (cost/yr) 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Memberships, Dues & Subscriptions (cost/yr) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Repairs & Maintenance (% of lease) 3,675 3,785 3,899 4,016 4,136

Contingency (% of budget) 16,632 19,072 21,544 22,450 23,408

Total 190,688 198,152 205,781 211,587 217,592

Annual Run Rate Costs 1,853,843 2,105,313 2,360,147 2,456,633 2,558,413

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 45

Variable Projections

Run rate projections, personnel projections and one time transition cost projections are variable

throughout all three implementation scenarios: Greenfield Approach, Chicago Catholic Charities,

Outsourced Call Center

Chicago Catholic Charities – Run Rate Projections


Personnel1



Total 1,304,002 1,454,867 1,612,791 1,684,745 1,760,720

Telecommunications




ACD Maintenance8 45,000 46,125 47,278 48,460 49,672



VPN (cost/mth)10 0 0 0 0 0


Total 340,882 409,871 486,482 502,871 520,042

Software &

Technology




Software Licensing (% of software costs) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 76,600 76,600 76,600 76,600 76,600

Marketing




Total 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

Administrative

Costs






Audit (cost/yr) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500


Utilities (cost/staff/month) 3,560 3,895 4,229 4,298 4,370






Total 147,665 153,801 160,172 164,515 169,011


Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 46

Outsourced Call Center – Run Rate Projections


Personnel1



Total 1,649,362 1,825,583 2,010,181 2,097,361 2,189,277

Telecommunications




ACD Maintenance8 45,000 46,125 47,278 48,460 49,672



VPN (cost/mth)10 0 0 0 0 0


Total 340,882 409,871 486,482 502,871 520,042

Software &

Technology




Software Licensing (% of software costs) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Total 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600

Marketing




Total 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

Administrative

Costs






Audit (cost/yr) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500


Utilities (cost/staff/month) 3,560 3,895 4,229 4,298 4,370






Total 150,468 156,858 163,496 167,991 172,647


Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 47

Appendix, cont’d

Run Rate Projections, footnotes

Appendix | 48

1. All line items on this tab are either calculated here or pulled from other tabs. Calculations on this sheet are indicated by the variables in blue, with the

variable names in parentheses.

2. The full carrying cost of employees is 28% above base salaries to account for taxes and benefits.

3. This is non-211 training that is a necessary and ongoing part of operations. Accounts for employee turnover, as well.

4. Calls that cannot be handled (overflow) may be routed to a 3rd party I&R service. These costs are calculated on the Specialist Staffing tab. If desired,

users can cap the amount of overflow services they would pay by typing it in.

5. PSTN lines are simply the phone lines that come into the center. The number of lines equals 5 times the number of Specialists.

6. Historical data from 211s shows that 15-20% of calls are either in-bound 800-number callers, or outbound long distance.

7. Translation services via the phone take twice as long as normal calls.

8. The annual cost of maintaining the ACD can range from 10-20% of the original cost of the equipment.

9. Phone companies charge a recurring fee to maintain the routing of "211" numbers to a local, 7-digit number.

10. VPN's add security to data and calls crossing over the Internet. Typically only needed at larger call centers.

11. Where appropriate, costs are estimated based on the size of the population served.

12. The number of database records is determined by dividing the population to be covered by 250. That is, this assumes that 1 record exists for every 250

people in the population. Therefore, a population of 100,000 would require 400 database records (of providers/programs). If the exact number of

programs is known, it should be typed in the cell (replacing the formula).

13. Newsletters to all licensed providers (health, social) in the community, plus non-profit health and human services organizations.

14. Year 2 and beyond increase with inflation at a rate of 3% per year.

15. If there are other budget line item expenses not listed here, use these rows to accommodate them by simply typing over the word "Other“ with the

appropriate expense item description. The expense may then be typed in by year, or if you are able, create a formula. These expenses automatically tie-

in to the Budget Summary tab and are all grouped under "Other". If you have no use for these rows, you can "hide" them by selecting the rows, then

right-clicking on them, and selecting "Hide" from the pop-up menu.

Greenfield Approach – Personnel Projections

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 49

Yearly Salary Levels

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Executive Director 10,390 10,702 11,023 11,354 11,694

Director of Operations 69,206 71,282 73,421 75,624 77,892

Program Director 83,820 86,335 88,925 91,592 94,340

Data Content Manager 71,596 73,744 75,956 78,235 80,582

Staff Development & Training 83,820 86,335 88,925 91,592 94,340

Administrative Assistant/Bookkeeper 48,895 50,362 51,873 53,429 55,032

Shift Supervisor 1 74,100 76,323 78,613 80,971 83,400




Web Content Manager 99,886 102,882 105,969 109,148 112,422

Full time data content 57,626 59,355 61,136 62,970 64,859

Telecom & IT Manager 80,328 82,737 85,219 87,776 90,409

Training Specialist 57,626 59,355 61,136 62,970 64,859

CFO Cost Allocation 32,500 33,475 34,479 35,514 36,579

I&R Specialists - WK1 Shift 218,448 286,774 362,085 387,141 414,099

I&R Specialists- WK2 Shift 179,646 214,880 249,474 263,186 277,770


I&R Specialists - SS1 Shift 43,643 51,416 59,384 62,470 65,745



Personnel Staffing Totals 1,626,076.5 1,800,100.6 1,982,513.4 2,069,242.9 2,160,688.2

Chicago Catholic Charities – Personnel Projections

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 50


2013 2014 2015 2016 2017












Full time data content 44,550 45,887 47,263 48,681 50,141

Telecom & IT Manager 62,100 63,963 65,882 67,858 69,894









Personnel Staffing Totals 1,280,716 1,429,384 1,585,123 1,656,627 1,732,130

Outsourced Call Center – Personnel Projections

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 51


2013 2014 2015 2016 2017












Full time data content - 58,916 60,683 62,504 64,379

Telecom & IT Manager - 32,136 33,100 34,093 35,116









Personnel Staffing Totals 44,826 52,809 60,993 64,163 67,526

Outsourced Greenfield Approach – One Time Transition Cost Projections

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 52

Component 2013

Training & Certification

Training (211-related) -

Certification 2,100

Accreditation (per center) 3,000

Total 5,100

Office Expansion

Build Out (cost/sf; sf)4 155,000

Furniture & Equipment5 90,000

Total 245,000

Telecommunications

Five9 Licenses 40,000

211 Translation Setup7 60,000

Routing Table Setup8 10,000

Total 110,000

Software & Technology

Web Development 10,000

Server(s) Purchase 15,000

Resource House Licenses 15,000

Total 40,000

Capacity Planning

Travel 2,000

Outside Consulting 2,000

Total 4,000

Referral Database

Database conversion10

120,000

Total 120,000

Marketing

Branding Development11

5,000

Total 5,000

Total Transition Investments 529,100

Chicago Catholic Charities – One Time Transition Cost Projections

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 53

Component 2013



Certification 2,100


Total 5,100

Office Expansion



Total 191,000

Telecommunications

Five9 Licenses -



Total 70,000




Resource House Licenses -

Total 25,000

Capacity Planning

Travel 2,000


Total 4,000

Referral Database


50,000

Total 50,000

Marketing


5,000

Total 5,000


Outsourced Call Center – One Time Transition Cost Projections

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 54

Component 2013



Certification 2,100


Total 5,100

Office Expansion



Total 276,250

Telecommunications

Five9 Licenses -



Total 70,000




Resource House Licenses 15,000

Total 40,000

Capacity Planning

Travel 2,000


Total 4,000

Referral Database


120,000

Total 120,000

Marketing


5,000

Total 5,000


One Time Transition Cost Projections, footnotes

Appendix, cont’d

Appendix | 55

1. The one-time investments listed on this tab are meant to be a comprehensive list, based on the historical needs of other 211s. The list was created by

reviewing the startup budgets of 211 centers in CT, ID, MD, NY, and TX. While there was some variation in the amount of line item costs

(particularly telecommunications), the line items themselves were fairly consistent.

2. "Needed" indicates whether or not the transition cost has already been incurred. If an "X" is present, the model WILL include the cost. If there is no

"X", then the model will NOT include the cost.

3. Input a "start" and "end" year in order to control when the one-time expense is incurred. This affects cash flow.

4. As a rule of thumb, estimate 110 sq ft for each work station in the new floor plan.

5. Furniture costs are for new and replaced work stations, and may include new PCs.

6. The cost of an ACD has ranged from $100,000 to $30,000 at the local level. It is difficult to the great variation in cost without knowing what

additional services might have been included. An average cost of $200,000 is suitable as a benchmark starting point.

7. This is the fee for matching a 7-digit or 800-number to 211 so that when users dial 211, calls can be routed appropriately. See TIPI report. The fee is

charged on a per switch basis and needs to be researched because it varies considerably (ex: $0 to $1,600 per switch).

8. Routing tables are necessary ONLY if there are multiple centers across which the phone system must route calls. This cost also varies depending on

the technology involved. VoIP could cost $10,000. An "advanced intelligence networking 800 service" could cost less than $1,000.

9. Software upgrades are usually necessary for each Specialist if they are going to utilize the Internet or access a common database.

10. This cost is the labor associated with converting the referral database to a standard database that meets 211 standards. It is difficult to predict because

there are no consistent rules of thumb from other 211s that can provide a useful benchmark. It has been suggested that the drivers of this cost are the

number of fields of data collected on each provider. In this case, the model assumes that it takes 30 minutes of a staff member's time to verify,

cleanse, and convert a given program (provider) record. If the fully loaded cost of the staff member is $35,000 per year, then 30 minutes costs

approximately $8. The conversion cost then, would be $8 times the number of records (programs/providers) in the database. Note that the number of

programs to be covered is estimated based on the population covered (1 program for every 250 people).

11. The cost of developing branding (marketing) material (e.g. collateral), can vary widely.

12. Leave the cost amount in place, even if the item is not needed, because this figure is linked to the annual maintenance fees required. Annual

maintenance fees are 15-20% of the equipment/software cost. Typically, conversion takes 4-5 FTEs a full year to convert and clean data (at $35,000

per FTE).

education. income. health. safety net. united way of...

Documents