Date post: | 22-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kristin-thompson |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Urban Counties
TEXAS Conference of
TechShare.CourtCriminal & JP ImplementationDallas County
June 2, 2015
2
Texas Conference of Urban Counties
9/2/2014
Established by the six most populous counties in Texas (Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant, El Paso, and Travis) in 1975, the Texas Conference of Urban Counties is a non-profit organization representing large urban county issues.Creating value for
members through collaboration and innovation as the most knowledgeable and trusted resource on Texas county issues.
3
TechShare Mission
Established in 2004, TechShare is an innovative non-profit program of the Urban Counties providing collaborative, county-owned technology solutions for the counties, by the counties.
As a participating county, you will:• Control your own destiny• Own intellectual property• Leverage resources across counties• Own a solution that meets your needs• Provide continuous feedback throughout
Texas Conference of
Urban Counties
TechShare
Texas Indigent Health Care Association
(TIHCA)
Texas Clean Air Working Group
(TCAWG)
4
Current Programs
Common Integrated
Justice System
Juvenile Case Management
System
ProsecutorCourt
Indigent Defense
Live in 18 counties
Initiated by Dallas County with development of JIS, live in 233 counties and
counting
Live in Dallas and Midland counties; Tarrant, Travis and
Potter implementing this year
Dallas and Tarrant collaborating on
development
Live in 9 counties, 2 additional counties
implementing
Urban Counties
TEXAS Conference of
TechShare.Court ProjectDallas County
6
Project Phases & Methodology
7
History of Development: then and now
8
History of Development: Reasons for Delay
• AMCAD resource constraints due to multiple projects• Inexperienced AMCAD project manager, led to turnover• Urban Counties project manager turnover• Requirements more complex then initially understood• Discovery of new requirements during design• Waterfall methodology• Complexity of multi-county collaboration• Riverside acquisition (Sept ’13)
• Re-evaluated company priority and project resources
• Dallas disengaged from project (Aug ‘14 – Feb ‘15)
9
History of Implementation Planning
10
History of Implementation: reasons for delay
• Did not successfully conclude negotiation for implementation (Jun ‘14)
• Dallas disengaged from project (Aug ‘14 – Feb ‘15)
• Release 1 not sufficient for Go-Live• Discovered In Court Processing and Location Issues
• Implementation plan currently not approved
Urban Counties
TEXAS Conference of
TechShare.Court ProjectDallas County Criminal Court Implementation
12
Guiding Principles
• Paper on Demand• All documents should be electronic and moved through the system as such.
We should minimize the need to print and scan documents through the business process.
• Minimize Data Entry• Once data is entered in one time it should flow through the Justice systems and
not be repeatedly entered.
• Single Application• For each new system, we will seek to retire the existing corresponding legacy
system.
• Standardized Process• Prefer to standardize courts on common business processes and usage of the
TechShare.Court software.
13
Milestones
• Release 1: February 2015• The scope of the release is to focus on minimum functionality
necessary for a Texas criminal court to use the application
• Release 1.5: August 2015• Includes charging and sentencing, accounting, scheduling, judges
portal, and interface enhancements• Focus on the underlying requirement of jurisdiction required to
implement a full set of county and district courts
• Release 2: December 2015• Includes administration, expanded case management, bond,
collections, reports, defense attorney portal, and bondsman portal
14
Criminal Courts:Recommended Work Plan: Key Dates
15
Project Start
June 2015
Pilot Courts
Go-Live
April 2016
All County Courts
Go-Live
August 2016
All District Courts
Go-Live
February 2017
Support/Back Office
Go-Live
June 2017
Project Complete
July 2017
16
Criminal CourtsRecommended Approach
• Incremental Rollout – courts go live in phases• Phase I – 2 County Courts and 2 District Courts: April 2016• Phase II – 11 County Courts: August 2016• Phase III – 5 District Courts: October 2016• Phase IV – 5 District Courts: December 2016• Phase V – 5 District Courts: February 2017• Phase VI – Support and Back Office Functions: May 2017
• Convert Data as Necessary
• Ensure Historical Data Available
• Ensure Data In Sync with Forvus via Integrations
Criminal Courts: Recommended Work Plan
17
18
Big Bang Work Plan
Project StartAll Courts
Go-LiveProject
Complete
June 2015 October 2016 December 2016
19
Big BangApproach
• Big Bang Rollout – all courts and support/back office go live in one phase
• No Integrations with Forvus
• Convert Data as Necessary
• Ensure Historical Data Available
• Key Dates:• Project Start: June 2015• All Courts Go Live: October 2016• Project Complete: December 2016
Big Bang Work Plan
ProductionSupport
Planning
Process Mapping, Standardization, SOP
County Integration
Training (Plan, LMS, Deliver)
Project Management, Oversight
TEST
SMOKE
ProductionCutover
LIVESoftwareDeployed
Design & Dev: Portals, Acct, Bond, Integration
R 1.5 R 2.0
DATA
Process Mapping, Standardization, SOPProcess Mapping, Standardization, SOPProcess Mapping, Standardization, SOP
County Integration
Data ConversionData ConversionData Conversion
Training (Plan, LMS, Deliver)Training (Plan, LMS, Deliver)Training (Plan, LMS, Deliver)
Data Conversion
ProductionSupport
Resourcing
20
21
• Incremental (recommended) • June 2015-July 2017• Rollout in phases• Seven Teams by Project
Function• Temporary Integration with
Forvus• Lower Risk • Safety Net
• Big Bang• June 2015-December 2016• Rollout everything at once• Seventeen Teams by Project
Function and Court Group• No integrations with Forvus• High Risk• No Safety Net• Higher Cost
Criminal Courts: Risk Comparison
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 TOTAL
Incremental Approach $ 635,089 $ 3,359,135 $ 1,569,728 $ 5,563,953
Big Bang Approach $ 2,807,200 $ 8,382,880 $ 484,000 $ 11,093,280
Urban Counties
TEXAS Conference of
TechShare.Court ProjectDallas County JP Implementation
23
• Incremental Roll Out • June 2015-July 2016• Two Pilot Courts• Establish Standard Configuration with Pilots• Develop all integrations/improvements with Pilots• Pilots “Go Live” February 2016• Roll Out Remaining Courts on Standard Configuration• All Courts Live by July 2016
JP Courts: Implementation Approach
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 TOTAL
Incremental Approach $ 329,614 $ 1,050,218 - $ 1,379,832
Work Plan: JP Courts
24
Project Start
June 2015
Pilot Courts
Go-Live
February 2016
All Courts
Go-Live
May 2016
Project Complete
July 2016
25
Urban Counties
TEXAS Conference of
TechShareProgram Costs
27
TechShare Program Costs
• Both Urban Counties and Dallas County costs
• All TechShare Components: • Juvenile (Live since March 2011) – Maintenance and Operations• Prosecutor (Live since March 2014) –Maintenance and Operations• Prosecutor LEA and Defense – Rollout Support• Court Development Funding Approved by Commissioners Court
- Scheduled Completion: December 2015
• Criminal Court Implementation• JP Court Implementation (funded by JP Technology Fund)• Indigent Defense Implementation (software funded by State IDC)
28
TechShare Development and Implementation Costs
• Both Urban Counties and Dallas Cost, representing total implementation costs
• Criminal Court Development (Committed)
• Criminal Court Implementation – Incremental Rollout
• JP Court Implementation – Funded by JP Technology Fund
• Indigent Defense Implementation – Grant Funds Available from Texas Indigent Defense Commission
• Law Enforcement/Defense Portal Rollout Support
29
Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation
30
Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation
31
Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation
32
Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation
33
Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation
34
Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation
35
Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation
36
Current & Ongoing Program Costs
• Urban Counties Maintenance and Operations
• TechShare.Juvenile (Committed for CY 2015)• Shared with Collin, Denton, Tarrant Counties and Texas Juvenile
Justice Department
• TechShare.Prosecutor• Includes LEA Portal and Hosted Defense Portal• Shared with Midland, Potter, Tarrant and Travis Counties
• TechShare.Court• Includes Judicial Portal, Bond Portal and Updates to Defense Portal• Shared with Potter and Tarrant Counties
37
Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations
38
Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations
39
Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations
40
Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations
41
Funding Model
• As of May 2015 the Major Technology Fund has borrowed from the Major Capital Fund $14,316,871 and has repaid $2,525,777. So the remainder $11,791,090 is to be paid back over the next 10 years and would be $1,179,109/year.
• Assuming that the Major Technology Fund has to borrow the following funds from the Major Capital Fund in order to implement the various projects the pay back would be as follows for each year.
- FY2016 borrow $10.5 million FY2016 payback $1.2 million- FY2017 borrow $3.7 million FY2017 payback $2.1 million- FY2018 borrow $0 FY2018 payback $2.3 million- Unless additional funds are borrowed for other projects the payback amount would stay at $2.3 million until
FY2028.
• The .2 cents of tax rate and 7% property tax growth means the Major Technology Fund will have around $5 million more funds in FY2016 than in FY2015. This increase in funding should be enough to cover the Major Capital Fund payback and additional Operations and Maintenance for the new systems. Future years property tax growth will be able to be used for new projects.
Urban Counties
TEXAS Conference of
TechShare.CourtCriminal & JP ImplementationDiscussion