Talk:CalWIN

VFD results
This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of Keep. --Allen3 talk 12:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

CalWIN ready to lockout Foodstamp, Medi-CAL, Calworks accuracy forever
The CalWIN consortium led by EDS (the vendor) established standard training schemes in preparation for sequential roll-out county by county. Now it is certain that the training and support lacks the capacity to carry county staff to any measure of readiness to go-live. CalwIN case-scenario based training is a joke. CALWIN LIVE IS NO JOKE. Case maintenance tasks that took five, ten, or fifteen minutes in CDS (the legacy welfare case data system) - require several hours to complete in the CALWIN system. The neccesity to "resolve discrepant cases" after conversion is about one out of two cases. Intake /application/registration in CALWIN presents an astonishingly vast array of opportunity for erroneous data - entry. It is suggested that the State of California will certainly die trying to live down this half-billion dollar boon doggle.

RE:CalWIN ready to lockout Foodstamp, Medi-CAL, Calworks accuracy forever
In spite of all the horror stories, it did launch and it is working and foodstamps are being distributed, etc. and there aren't large numbers of people not getting benefits, etc. It's only true sin is that it was a new system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.121.66.201 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

—== Reverting to previous version ==

I have pushed the article back to a previous version. It appears that there are several users that continue to update the article w/o following the guidelines of neutrality and verification that define Wikipedia. If anyone feels I have removed too much of the article, please feel free to modify as needed, but I also ask that you provide neutral sources for your information. Fro2020 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fro2020--While I understand your desire to keep biased information out of Wikipedia as it has no place in anything that purports to tell the truth, what you keep deleting out of the entry IS truth. So far over $1,000,000,000 (yes one billion) dollars have already been drained into this software program which isn't much more than a glorified database. Some of the most BASIC functionality components are still crippled and have yet to be fixed with a patch or update. One quick example--correspondence letters are required whenever a person(s) benefits are to be changed, yet the most basic of approval, denial and change notices are incorrect and need to be manually modified (ie--whiteout). This is not an opinion, this is fact. There have already been a few lawsuits against the counties, state and DHS because of poor functionality and incorrect 'automated' decision making happening currently due to CalWIN.

Dear Welfare Advocates, Start posting links to your garbage that you state. CalWIN has had some issues. Name me a piece of software that hasn't. California is NOT considering going to one welfare system. Where the heck did you get that garbage from?

Had some issues ... understatement of the YEAR! BTW: you're not going to find links because it's not something that generates much interest (it's a highly specialized software program--that doesn't mean it's super special, just that it's geared towards one specific task) and frankly it's pretty boring. Additionally, it's only used in a portion of California. So you're talking smallish userbase and boring topic. So big suprise. Heck, even this wikipedia entry keeps getting 'edited' who's censoring who?

To All: Please take the time to sign the page or to create a new subheading when editing so this discussion can be easily followed. Fro2020 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

to Fro2020: I would but wiki changed versions and I can't seem find the link to create a new post.

I also find it funny that in spite of the launch and the settling in process, there still seems to be a movement to "get rid of CalWIN" like there is another alternative all ready to go. Well, there isn't, and turning CalWIN off at this point would make the whole debacle a self-fulfilling prophesy. The system is in place, it does what it's supposed to do and considering the last system (CDS) was in place for 30+ years, the transition is going rather well, people are getting aid, and fraud is down, etc. In any case I can't help wonder who these CalWIN bashers are and what their point is, because all the points they make on this entry is simply reheated rhetoric heard at almost every CalWIN organizational meeting in the last 5 years, and quite frankly, most of the 'concerns' never came to fruition. Convincing the state to scrap CalWIN at this point would be a hellacious waste of money, so I wonder if these are anti-welfare advocates trying to throw a wrench in the works. The web 2.0 world has become 90% dysinformation, and it's disgusting.

17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Boingophreak—

Actually there are 2 other possible alternatives. C-IV and ISAWS. While both have their faults, they are both easier to use and less time consumptive. Boingophreak 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)jbf

ISAWS is not an option.
ISAWS Counties are going to C-IV. This deal is signed, sealed, and currently being worked on for conversion and delivery. LEADER, the LA system, is currently out to bid for replacement. There will be three systems. ISAWS will be retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.216.5 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NO alternative? What about CDS-case data system (previous legacy system)? Worked 1,000 times better than CalWIN!! No 18-month EDBC errors, no UEM mis-match errors, it even had better client correspondence and didn't discontinue Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.154.175 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Contains Political Opinions and Legal Allegations, Not Facts
It is unfortunate that this article is being used by parties involved in supporting legal positions by incorrectly reporting legal allegations as fact. This article was up for deletion and yet someone has removed that tag without a vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.116.80 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Original author ponders the downside of Wikipedia...
I posted the original article a couple of years ago. It was a simple just-the-facts piece: who, what, why, where, when and how, aimed at people who knew nothing about CalWIN or any other welfare automation system. That content has vanished completely, replaced by a mix of in-group jargon and borderline soapboxery, neither of which are helpful to the layperson.

With everyone's cooperation, Wikipedia can provide both informative facts AND a forum to debate related issues. But this only works if people put things where they belong. Articles should contain the basic facts explained in a way understandable to an audience without background knowledge of the subject. Opinion and advocacy belong only in the talk forum.

I may try to re-write and re-post the original article at some point...but right now, the prospect seems too overwhelming, and a bit depressing. Friedputty (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)friedputty

OK, I cleaned it up while retaining others' links, 3/20/08. A lot of the original detail is still missing, but at least this is an improvement over a few days ago; now it speaks a little more to the general public and a little less to warring factions in the CalWIN debate. --Friedputty 161.213.193.159 (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)