DCHS Insights CX Human-Centered Design @ DCHS PROTOTYPE no real data Age, language, and geographic reach in aggregate, with significant privacy and small-number considerations.
The “If our clients were 100 people” format presents the client profile in a form that is easy to compare across weeks. Language access is the measure most directly connected to whether somebody received service in a language they could use.
It is also the group where publishing carries the most weight. Every field on these slides is a question somebody had to answer at a desk, and a small enough group is an identifiable one. Both facts should shape what runs, not just how it looks.
Options to react to, not a recommendation. Strike, keep, and add — reacting to a concrete list is far more productive than starting from a blank page.
One slide, several toggles — age, gender, reach. Normalising to a hundred makes the shape comparable week to week without publishing raw counts, which also happens to be the safer disclosure.
Share by language, and separately whether the request was met. The second half is the one that says something about service quality rather than demographics.
How much of the week was new people. Arguably the single most useful client-side number for anyone planning outreach, and not currently in the deck.
Which parts of the city walked in, compared with where need is concentrated. This is where the community-fact slide and the client profile could reinforce each other instead of sitting apart.
How many of the week's visits were the same family arriving separately. Changes the story about volume considerably, and is likely the hardest of these to produce.
These are the decisions that have to be made before anything here can run every Monday. Most of them are editorial rather than technical.
What each slide needs, and the question that has to be answered before we know whether we can produce it. The systems are named loosely on purpose — which system holds what is exactly what the working group should nail down.
| Metric | Where it would come from | What we would need | The open question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Client demographics in aggregate | The case system, or whatever records intake | Weekly aggregate counts by band — never records, never anything row-level | Which fields are reliably completed at intake, and which are optional enough that the resulting picture is really a picture of who answered? Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Languages served | Intake, plus whatever logs interpretation requests | Weekly counts by language, and separately requests made and requests met | Is language recorded as the client's preference, or as the language the encounter actually happened in? Those are different slides with the same title. Who can answer this: ______________ |
| First visit versus returning | Whatever assigns a client identifier | A reliable way to recognise the same person across weeks and across programs | Does that identifier hold across centers, and is matching good enough that “new” really means new? Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Households rather than individuals | The case system | A household relationship that is maintained, not inferred from an address | Does a household identifier exist, and is it reliable in the programs where it matters most? Who can answer this: ______________ |
| Census context | Public ACS tables | The comparable share for the city, with the vintage stated on the slide | Which geography and which release — and are we comparing our clients with the whole city, or with the population actually eligible for the service? Who can answer this: ______________ |
This planning site is for internal use. Please enter the access password to continue.
Incorrect password. Please try again.