Kane County Case Management System Assessment Project URL - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Kane County Case Management System Assessment Project URL Integration – Kane County CMS Assessment Project Final Presentation October 25, 2011 Amir Holmes, Senior Business Analyst & Project Manager Dave Usery, CEO

Proposed Solution • To fully benefit the County as an enterprise , the agencies that exchange information with the court must be included in the solution. • Given current standards , agency systems – from different product vendors - can interoperate at a level not feasible before. • Overlaying all of this is a standardized architecture for justice information sharing, grounded in service oriented architecture. • Common data definitions have been developed and standardized. • The recommended solution provides for an incremental approach to bringing up individual exchanges, as well as CMS components. • The important overriding concern is that all investments meet the standards and build for future growth.

Overall Recommendations • The Clerk’s Office should replace the existing JANO CMS with a new CMS which meets minimally Core Case Management Functions. • The States Attorney’s Office should acquire a CMS to replace paper driven business process and multiple Access databases. • The Public Defender’s Office should acquire a CMS to replace current application. • Court Services should consider reissuing or purchasing from the open RFP they issued last winter. • JANO data should be converted and scrubbed into normalized relational database.

Recommendations – New Court Case Management System (CMS) • While there is consensus that the existing Court CMS should be replaced, a new Court CMS will require changes to the Court business process and the way that other agencies interact with the Courts. • In order for the new Court CMS to be successful, users need to “buy in” to this notion of change; we encourage the County to support this environment of change. • Clerk’s CMS must accommodate the technical architecture that will facilitate data sharing/exchanges in its workflow. • Agencies should share information system to system, via the standards-based approach put forward.

Kane County Information Exchange Analysis • 390 Documented Exchanges • Priorities Defined for Exchange Implementation • For implementation purposes, we have broken these priority and the other exchanges into groups of four phases. The intention is to implement this incrementally.

Recommended Information Sharing Standards • GLOBAL REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE (GRA) • Endorsed by GLOBAL in 2004. • Based on Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), a widely recognized approach to sharing information. • GRA solutions to information exchanges are made up of a combination of the connection method (web services), the exchange language (NIEM), and the security specifications (encryption at the transport layer, data layer, etc.). • NIEM, the National Information Exchange Model, provides a common semantic understanding of data formatted in a semantically consistent manner.

Recommended Technical Architecture • This recommendation proposes a GRA conformant architecture that clearly delineates the functions related to the relevant stakeholders. • High priority exchanges will be established in an incremental fashion using NIEM-conformant messages. • The messages will be triggered by a business event at the sending agency, sent to the receiving agency, and processed into their application.

High-Level Architecture Diagram

Recommended Enterprise Implementation Plan • Establish a justice information sharing governance structure. • All criminal justice partners should have their own case or records management systems. • Process of securing funds and procuring these systems happens immediately. • Criminal justice agencies, including the Circuit Clerk’s Office, should leverage the County IT Department’s infrastructure for hosting and networking, leaving the individual case management applications the responsibility of their respective agencies.

Course of Action • Incremental Approach to Implementation • One of the first activities would be the development of RFPs for the Court, and if possible, the SAO, Public Defender, and Court Services case management systems. • Vendor commits to the interoperability standards and capability to exchange the information the County has identified. • The Service Specifications for the identified exchanges can also begin as soon as resources become available. • Web services can be generated using the work product generated in the Service Specifications. • Infrastructure procurement and implementation can begin in the second year. • Exchanges can be brought on incrementally based upon stakeholder priorities.

Timeline and Related Costs

Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs Comparison • The implementation of the Enterprise-wide solution will certainly be a large undertaking. • This study projects the five (5) year costs of maintaining the existing legacy system to minimally be $5,922,345.85. • That figure does not include costs of the several ancillary systems being currently pursued by the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, with the exception of the proposed data warehouse project. • It also does not assume any funding for case management systems for the State’s Attorney, the Public Defender, or Court Services.

Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs Comparison • The projected total costs for the new Enterprise solution over five (5) years is $12,641,950.05, which includes the full implementation of the “to be” environment. Specifically, our estimates include: • Funds for new Court CMS, as well as CMS systems for the State’s Attorney, the Public Defender, and Court Services. • Costs for current court staff, who will be critical in guiding the implementation of the new CMS. • Maintenance and support costs for the existing system until the new CMS is operational. • Implementation of over 25 cross-agency workflows. • The difference between the existing legacy system costs and the projected costs for the new solution - $6,719,604.20 – represents the County’s true costs over the five-year period of this project.

Year-by-Year Cost Breakdown Kane County ICJIS Strategic Plan - Year by Year Cost Breakdown Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V TOTAL Agency System Data Warehouse for Data Conversion $ 800,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8000,000.00 Existing System Maintenance $ 18,750.00 $ 18,750.00 $ 18,750.00 $ - $ - $ 56,250.00 New Court Clerk CMS $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 4,080,000.00 New SAO CMS $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 1,540,000.00 New Public Defender CMS $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 1,078,000.00 New Court Services CMS $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 1,078,000.00 IT Infrastructure & Project Management ESB Configuration & Support $ - $ 35,000.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 53,900.00 Procurement Assistance, Project Management & Support $ 130,000.00 $ 31,250.00 $ 31,250.00 $ 31,2500.00 $ 31,2500.00 $ 255,000.00 Court IT Staff $ 431,779.92 $ 440,415.52 $ 449,223.83 $ 458,208.31 $ 467,372.47 $ 2,247,000.05 Exchanges Phase I – Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ 90,000.00 $ 210,000.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 375,600.00 Phase II – Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ - $ 105,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 439,800.00 Phase III – Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ - $ - $ 60,000.00 $ 195,000.00 $ 23,400.00 $ 278,400.00 Phase IV - – Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ - $ - $ - $ 90,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 360,000.00 TOTAL $ 3,670,529.92 $3,040,415.52 $2,292,723.83 $1,810,358.31 $1,827,922.47 $12,641,950.05

Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis $3,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $(1,000,000.00) $(2,000,000.00) COST $(3,000,000.00) $(4,000,000.00) $(5,000,000.00) $(6,000,000.00) $(7,000,000.00) $(8,000,000.00) YEARS • Estimated benefit of $1,277,031.50/year beginning in Year III. • Kane County could expect to recover its investment ($6,719,604.20) in the new CMS environment and integration after Year VIII. • We believe this estimate to be conservative, as once the new CMS’s are operational efficiencies will be immediate.

Next Steps • CMS Procurement for Circuit Clerk, Court Services, State’s Attorney, and Public Defender • Begin Developing Exchange Artifacts for Phase I Exchanges: • Arrest/Case Reports • Charging Documents • Arrest Warrant • Warrant Quash • Supplemental Arrest/Case Reports • Defendant Status Query