Data Information Sharing Grant Meeting

Minutes

/
January 31, 2008
/
9:30- 12:00 p.m.
/
DHS- 1575 Sherman ST, Conf 4
Type of meeting / Steering Committee Meeting
Facilitator / Chris Kain
Note taker / Maureen Leif
Attendees / Maureen Leif, Bob Roper, Alicia Davis, John Bernhart, Craig Goellner, Debbie Moss, Chris Kain, Larry Desbien, Diane Degenhart, Cathi Walker (by phone), Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Tracy Harbo. GalinaKrivoruk, Magistrate Betty Strobel (by phone), Richard Moore, Nancy Lawson

Agenda topics

legal workgroupupdate
/
maureen
Discussion / Update on Legal Workgroup
The legal workgroup developed out of the Joint CSE/Judicial User Group that met through the summer. The joint user group had compiled a list of legal issues that they felt needed further input from Magistrates and IV-D attorneys. The workgroup met for a day at the Daniel’s Fund on 11/19/07. The participants included, Magistrate KJ Moore, Jeff Co., 3 IV-D Attorneys: Lara Delka and Linda Nichols from DenverCounty and Richard Moore, Jeff Co., Dan Welch, Mary Clair, Chris Kain, and Robert Kurtz from State CSE, Tracy Harbo, Diana Coffey, and Maureen Leif, Colorado Judicial Branch. We also received written feedback from three other Magistrates.
Legal Issues Discussed:
(1)The group was able to reach an agreement on documents that need to be filed for APA. Eliminated several documents that do not need to be filed with Court. Examples of some of those documents are correspondence, and Request for Court Hearing.
  1. Steering Committee was very encouraged by this result. Members inquired as to why these documents started being filed in the first place if they are not required. Answer that was that it varied, some techs probably just felt that they should file everything that they had. Others probably were being filed due to local Court practice, etc.
  2. No statutes need to be changed to implement the recommendations made by the group on this particular issue.
  3. Magistrates really expressed a desire to have an explanation of the calculation of the guideline to be included in the guideline worksheet. This will be helpful to them when they review the cases later on for modifications.
(2)Discussed jurisdiction of Courts to hear parenting time issues in APA case types-
  1. statutory authority does exist for courts to hearing p/time in Title 19 cases, and Legal Workgroup felt that this could be done through education of the Bench and CSE offices. No statute changes needed.
  2. Magistrate Strobel indicated that in WeldCounty if there is no Allocation of Parental Responsibility Order, parties are sent to Family Court Facilitator for further processing, but with no need to file an actual motion with the Court. Great idea!
(3)Case types for Domestic of Juvenile
  1. Steering Committee felt that this area should be standardized
  2. DenverCounty reviews cases to see if paternity is at issue. If paternity is at issue in a UIFSA case the case is given a JV case type, otherwise it is given a DR case type.
(4)Best business practices and educational information that can be shared as DISH goes live
  1. Alicia said that in distribution of the best practices – it is contemplated that Tracy will go out and sit with clerks- and these best business practices will be incorporated in trainings

Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
Add items of discussion to Best Practices Document to be published / DISH Mgt. Team
technical feasability & solution update
/
chris
Discussion / DISH Management Team conducted a series of joint technical solution and design sessions: 8-10 half day sessions that included the mgt. team members, CSE technical & judicial technical people. Since the time of the drafting of the Statement of Work (SOW) both sides have agreed to an expanded approach to the technical solution.
Benefits to expanded scope:
  • faster case establishment/eliminates time spent sorting through documents and entering data
  • reduction/elimination of paper APA filing
  • automated validation – eliminates errors and the need for human validation
  • eliminates duplicate data entry/error
  • increased level of trust between agencies, which is allowing for a paperless solution
Solutions evaluated:
PDF
  • exchange PDF image of documents with data
  • judicial creates paper on demand from images
  • pros: eliminates filing of many paper forms
  • pros: easy reproduction on demand
  • cons: still must file some paper
  • cons: requires image repository
  • cons: process delayed by paper exchange
E-Form (paper on demand - POD)
* exchange data and document templates
* Judicial creates paper on demand from templates
* pros: eliminates filing of many paper forms
* pros: no image repository required
* cons: still must file some paper
* cons: process delayed by paper exchange
* cons: complex implementation
* cons: tight coupling between Judicial & CSE Systems
Data only
  • exchange data necessary to establish/administer
  • paper documents retained in CSE Office
  • Pros: eliminates filing of most paper forms
  • Pros: image repository required
  • Pros: process delay by paper exchange
  • Pros: achievable solution
  • Cons: significant process change
  • Cons: change in responsibility and accountability
  • Cons: paperless- everyone must accept this
Craig G.: Raises the issue of a training point for the data approach and that is to realize that there is pressure for CSE folks to get their cases to an Order status and thus closing out the APA and move the case on to enforcement. CSE APA techs would have to understand the process has to be absolutely complete before the send button over to Judicial.
Debbie- clarifies that this data approach does not mean that countyCSE offices have to become paperless- using imaging. Debbie does not believe that challenges to APA Order of Financial Responsibilities is a problem. If there was a challenge to an APA Order there would have to be a record of service etc. and that record would be at the CSE Office.
John: this is not to suggest that there is no longer a record kept by CSE. The CSE office would be responsible for maintaining the records, until the case is closed.
Maureen: to add onto what John said, CSE will continue to have the same retention records as required by the Feds that they currently have.
Richard Moore: For CSE, not much will change as far as business flow of paper, but for the Courts, a lot will change. So if someone challenged the APA Order, CSE would have to be able to produce the documents. If parties wanted copies of the file, they would have to go to CSE to get the files.
Jessica: Thought that if you had a supervisory layer for double-checking work, you’ll have to be cautious that it does not slow down the process. (this would be a good proposal to present to the CSE User Group) Maybe you could do a random “audit” and then if it’s ok, then you fly. What are other states doing with APA? Could we do a survey- Clerks, District Administrators, CSE folk.
Bob- thinks that the committee has done a great job and getting from point A to point B- psychologically. It is a major task going through all of the technical solutions and the major challenge will come with dealing with the cultural change in the field.
Chris: Gave update on the APA Case Initiation Data flow for Order of Financial Responsibility, once case information/data flows to Court, Court Clerk will manually verify that the case we’re asking to be filed does not already exist, and there is no other case out there, and/or assign to certain division based upon the one judge/one family designation. Court Clerk will then “accept” filing.
Nancy: Question- what about time frames? Chris- Transactions will be occurring in real-time. The human points of contact are the places for potential delay. The original users group made a recommendation for time frames, and they had suggested 3-5 days for Court Clerks to do their part. A discussion regarding this time frame then followed. Debbie- in JeffersonCounty 3-5 days does not speed up the process for them. It’s noted by other members that that may be true in certain jurisdictions, but in other counties the delay in sometimes 30 days, so 3-5 days is much faster for them.
Jessica: We’re suppose to be looking at that across the state from a systemically standpoint. Chris we made some minor changes to ACSES to be able to start tracking historical info – Jan 08- forward to make a report on the time frames.
Maureen: points out that time is one factor that we’ll be looking at in the evaluation, there is also data reliability, Centralized Info Screen, and other benefits that should come from project DISH.
Cathi: Weld County is very efficient but they do have room for improvement and during the User Group meetings, this time delay was one of the biggest issues discussed- the info back to the court and back at a quicker pace- huge issue for clerks and clerical staff at DHS, she thinks that the benefit will be huge.
Craig: Question, will there need to be an interface developed with the Clerks?
Bob: Yes and they are used to that with CJIS- concept is there and in practice to queue cases coming in.
John: Do we need any action from the Steering Committee to continue with the Data only option?
Bob Motion’s and John seconds- to move forward and nobody opposes.
John and Bob thank the Mgt team for their hard work to develop this option.
Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
Revise Statement of Work (SOW) / DISH Management Team to prepare and John & Bob will sign off.
Survey of other states and how they handle APA cases and the filing / Jessica & volunteers
Outcomes
Steering Committee votes to pursue data only option
Open Questions & Actions
/
Chris
Discussion / How will Defaults be handled?
We need to investigate some different alternatives before we make a final decision on Default Orders. They currently can not be handled exactly like we are planning to handle the Order of Financial responsibility cases because the Court has to review the guideline and supporting documentation and sign the Order, so data only is a tough option because there would be no guideline and no supporting documentation. Linda Bowers, from JBITS, had some ideas about a template etc, so we will investigate further.
Need Chief Justice Directive (CJD) for Pilot?
Bob: Rule 121 CRCP- is the controlling rule over our civil e-filings
Carol Haller, Legal Counsel for Judicial has been consulted and believes that a CJD will get us through a pilot.
May need legislative change for state-wide rollout?
We need to do further research before we decide what legislative changes we need.
Will there be resistance to paperless solution?
How will we assess the resistance to paperless? Bob- thinks that we’re going to have to handle this on a jurisdictional by jurisdictional basis, discussing this with Judges and finding out their reservations. Debbie thinks that we need to discuss this with program managers (CACSEA). Tracy points out that the judicial team met with the Clerk’s Advisory Board and they were very excited. Debbie will help get a DISH update on the CACSEA agenda.
Bob: is trying to play devils advocate and if we pilot Weld & Jeff Co. they are well-run and progressive counties, and we’re going to get less useful input from the pilot than if we pick a more challenged location?
Debbie: do we need to involve IV-D Atty’s?
Verification of filing- who is responsible and how is this done?
Need to further investigate.
*Technical Solution – Next Steps
* Develop Schema for 1st web service
Clarify use of NIEM
* Begin web service design/Development
* Establish necessary network connectivity
* Begin individual system design
* Continue data analysis and schema design for remaining web services
* Revisit default order scenario
* Revise project plan and schedule
Judicial User Group
Meeting Scheduled for 2/13/08
Work on what to do with all of the data court receives
Provide some prototypes of screens, case init., judgments, support orders, etc.
Develop programming specifications
Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
Move legal issues of legislative changes to CSE Legislative Sub-Committee / Larry Desbien / 3/08
Child Support Administrators meeting (CACSEA) agenda item – 3/14/08 – Chris & Tracy will present / Debbie Moss / 3/14/08
CSE 4/08 Celebratory Conference Agenda / Dan Welch / ?
Revaluate pilot county plan / Management Team to investigate
Add DISH to IV-D Atty’s Agenda / Richard Moore
update from center for policy research
/
Jessica pearson, ph.d
Discussion / Handed out the information that we are hoping to track with DISH
  • Number of documents filed with the court in child support cases
  • Amount of time required to obtain a docket number
  • Rejected filings due to error
  • Savings in time
Handed out survey instrument prepared to give to jurisdictions for collection of time surveys for judicial staff-
  • Bob: we need to be careful on the measures, some are good, but others could be troublesome. Policy makers will be acutely aware of the time savings. We need to focus on items such as improved customer service, public safety, welfare of the child, things of that nature are more concrete and important than the time savings, and don’t have the negative connotation of loosing FTE because there was a time savings. What are the children getting out of this? Is it getting $ to people who need it faster, are we enforcing faster, providing services faster? Those are the things that can sell the project in a more global sense, rather than we saved the clerk 5 minutes/day and in the meantime we required a clerk to spend 20 days tracking her time on CSE activities.
  • Jessica:points out that the proposal sold to OCSE included time savings.
  • Nancy: points out to the efficiencies that can be measured such as, the process is streamlined and elimination of steps. Jessica says that the data is not empirical, it’s a flow chart.
  • John: shares Bob’s concern, however he believes that we do need to show efficiencies and time savings. He also throws out the idea of tracking how much faster I/A’s are going out the door.
  • John had a question of a rejection rate? Do we care why it was rejected? Chris- the reason we care is b/c if we see a high rate of rejection for a certain reason, we can build in protections into the system to handle those
types of errors.
  • Nancy: asked if we were capturing case prepping time on the CSE side, items such as making copies, etc. Answer seemed to be no, but that we should.
  • How much time are we saving from the time of the Order back from the Court to when I/A goes out?
  • Bob suggest that we have another meeting to discuss matrix.
  • Tracy read off the queries that we are going to be running on ICON beginning 2/1/08
  • Time between case file date and ORDR event date (Default cases)
  • Time between case file date and the date in which the hearing was set (Temp Order cases)
  • Time between the case file date and the CLAD event (Orders)
  • We need to think about the CIS Screens and potential reports.
  • We have a meeting already scheduled for 3/14/080 with CPR, but we need to reschedule because that is the same date as CACSEA
  • Larry indicated it would be helpful in the minutes to reflect what is going to be captured with the evaluation at this point for each side. Below is an excerpt from Chris K:
Here is what we are currently capturing for each new APA case:
  • APA Type (Temp, Stip, or Default)
  • APA Court Filed Date - This is when the child support has completed all of their APA preparation and filed the APAwith the court.
  • APA Hearing Date - ACSES actually captures several dates related to scheduling & holding hearings. This is because a hearing can be scheduled, continued, rescheduled, etc.. For the sake of these metrics, we are capturing the latest hearing date.
  • Case Verified Date - this is the datewhen the associated order has been entered on ACSES and verified. This indicates that judicial has approved the order and assigned a docket # and that child support has completed the order establishment on ACSESand can begin to enforce the order.
We started capturing this data for APA filings in mid January. We are currently in the process of analyzing the data captured since then to validate that we are able to capture accurate data for all APA case filings.
So, with this data we should be able to report on:
  • The number of APA cases of each type (Stip, Temp, and Default) that are filed with the court
  • How long it takes from the time a case is filed with the court until CSE can to begin to collect payments and enforce the order. We will be able to look at this in aggregate and by APA type
  • For Temp Orders:
  • Duration from filing date to last hearing related activity
Duration from last hearing related activity to establishment date
Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
Further Meeting to discuss Matrix issues / Jessica / Mid March
Committee Members should jot down ideas and send to Tracy Harbo / Tracy / 2/29/08
Minutes should reflect what items will be tracked on ICON and ACSES / Maureen / 2/14/08
NEXT meeting
/
GROUP
Our next meeting is April 3rd from 9:30 – 12:30 at the JBITS Office- Denver West
Maureen will send out an electronic invite to everyone.