11 minutes
Reading the pattern: records and narratives together Counts tell you how often. Narratives tell you how. Neither tells you who is carrying the uneven part unless you cut the data and ask what the fields never collected.
What you’ll be able to do Examine a set of complaint or incident records, name at least two things the record cannot see, and identify one group whose experience the current fields would never reveal. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What goes on the page? Document a next step for Reading the pattern: records and narratives together: Pull one set of records your area already keeps and make three cuts you have never made: by language or communication method, by who filed, and by whether it was a repeat. Then list two things the fields could not have told you either way. An average is a decision about what you are willing not to see An overall rate is a summary, and every summary is a choice about which differences stop mattering. A steady average resolution time can sit on top of two very different experiences: one group whose complaints are handled in a fortnight because a paid advocate follows them, and another whose complaints take two months because nobody is chasing them and the first letter went out in a language they do not read. The average is accurate. It is also the single number least likely to lead anyone to do anything.
This is where a quality unit most often settles into Minimization without noticing. Every complaint goes into the same queue, is handled by the same procedure, and is measured by the same clock. That sounds fair and it is the definition of identical treatment, which is not the same thing. Identical treatment of people with different access to the process produces different results, and then reports those results as one number. Moving toward Acceptance is not complicated here: cut the data and look.
The second half of the work is what the record cannot see. A complaint record reports only what its fields asked for. If nothing asks whether an interpreter was involved, whether this was the person’s second or third attempt, whether the complaint was about the same worker who would receive it, or whether the person had already stopped using the service by the time anyone called back, then those facts exist nowhere in the file. They are not zeros. They are invisible, and no amount of analysis recovers them.
Which is why narratives belong in the same piece of work as the counts, and why what paid advisors and community organizations tell you is evidence rather than anecdote. Two accounts describing the same obstacle in different words is a finding about a design. The count tells you how often. The narrative tells you what it was like and where it broke. You need both on the page.
What can this tell you? Complaints in this program area rose by a third after the new notice went out.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all Resolution takes twice as long when the person files for themselves rather than through an advocate.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all The caller was asked to repeat the whole account three times to three different people before anything was written down.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all The person had already canceled the service by the time the first call back arrived, so the resolution meant nothing.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all Whether the complaint was made through an interpreter, when the form has no field for it.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all The people who started the form, reached the section requiring a case number, and stopped.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all Six of the nine complaints in one region name the same step in the renewal process.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all The family decided not to complain again because the last answer arrived eleven weeks later in a letter they could not read.
Choose a category What the count can show What only a narrative can show What the record cannot see at all Check matches Reset Cuts worth making before you trust a rate By who filed it
Self, family member, paid advocate, provider, county staff. A large gap between self-filed and advocate-filed complaints is one of the clearest access findings available, and it takes one cut to see.
By language and communication method
Not only the language of the complaint but the method: phone, web form, paper, in person, through an interpreter, through a communication device. This is usually where a route turns out to be theoretical.
By region and by program
Two regions running the same program with very different volumes are telling you about two different routes, two different local relationships, or two different levels of trust — rarely about two different levels of quality.
By repeat
A second or third complaint about the same matter is a different event from a first one. If the records cannot tell them apart, every repeat is being counted as fresh evidence that people are being heard.
By what happened next
Resolved, withdrawn, no response, service ended before resolution. “Withdrawn” and “no contact” often hold the most important cases, and they are the two categories least likely to be read.
Questions to ask of any set of records before you summarize it What did the fields ask for, and what did they therefore make impossible to find?
Who had to get through a route in order to appear here at all?
Which categories are small, and what do the narratives in them say?
What do the withdrawn, unanswered and abandoned records have in common?
What did people who are not in this data tell paid advisors during the same period?
What would have to be added to the form so that the next cycle can answer the question I could not answer this time?
Say the number is small, and act on it anyway What you can change You control whether a finding from a small group is reported with its limits or dropped for lack of size.
What to watch for Do not write “too few records to draw conclusions” and stop. That sentence reads as rigour and functions as a decision to ignore the group least able to reach you in the first place.
Your next step Report the small finding with the count stated plainly, add what the narratives and paid advisors say, and propose one field change so the next cycle can answer it properly.
Carry this forward Counts tell you how often something happens. Narratives tell you how it happens and what it cost. An overall average tells you neither, and it hides whoever is carrying the uneven part by design.
A record can only report what its fields ask. If nothing asks whether the complaint came through an interpreter, arrived from a family member, or was the person’s third attempt, those facts leave no trace and cannot appear in any pattern you build later.
A small number is not the absence of a pattern. When a group is small in the records, two or three narratives plus what paid community advisors already report is often the best evidence available; the honest move is to say the number is small and act on the pattern, not to wait for it to grow.
Cuts that usually cost nothing and often find the barrier: by region, by program, by language and communication method, by how the complaint arrived, by who filed it, and by whether it was a repeat.
Narratives are evidence, not color. Two accounts that describe the same obstacle in different words are a finding; a well-chosen quotation added to an otherwise unchanged report is decoration.
A scenario about resolution times that split by who filed the complaint, sorting practice separating counts, narratives and blind spots, and a knowledge check on reading a small group in the data.
Pull one set of records your area already keeps and make three cuts you have never made: by language or communication method, by who filed, and by whether it was a repeat. Then list two things the fields could not have told you either way.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
