eGovernments Next Generation

1
ACCS Project
CTA Standards Committee May 26, 2004
2
Agenda

• Introductions
• Project Background
• Functional Business Standards
• Data Exchange Standards
• Overview of the Automated Tool
• Office of Justice Programs Perspective
• Industry Perspective
• Proof of Concepts
• National Corrections Projects
• Next Steps
• Questions and Answers

3
Introductions
4
Introductions

• The original members of this committee were
• Don Price Washington DOC
• Carol Meraji California DOC
• Dee Pisciella Virginia DOC
• George Camp ASCA
• Paul Di Paolo Massachusetts DOC
• Bob Canart Canart Consulting
• Valerie Stagg Utah DOC
• Brad Wilmot Alaska DOC
• Joseph Wheeler MTG Consulting
• Joe Cantergiani New Mexico DOC
• Tom Clarke Washington Courts
• Chuck Burden Georgia DOC
• Sharad Rao Deloitte Consulting
• Paul Kendall Federal Bureau of Prisons

5
Introductions

• The core members of this committee are
• Carol Meraji Washington DOC
• George Camp ASCA
• Paul Di Paolo Massachusetts DOC
• Bob Canart Canart Consulting
• Valerie Stagg Utah DOC
• Joseph Wheeler MTG Consulting
• Lippman Gee MTG Consulting
• Tom Clarke Washington Courts
• David Usery URL Integration
• Sharad Rao Tetrus Consulting (Formerly with
  Deloitte Consulting)

6
Project Background

• The CTA Standards Committee formed to develop
  standards to help Departments of Correction
  across the United States.
• The Committee consists of Correctional CIOs,
  Private Sector, Representatives from the Courts,
  and Representatives from the Association of
  Correctional Administrators (ASCA).

7
Project Background

• The project was funded with two grants from the
  Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice
  Planning -- United States Department of Justice.
• These grant funds in the amount of 400,000 were
  awarded to the CTA
• The project was initially kicked off on September
  28, 2001 with our first conference call
• Since that time, the team had 4 meetings, and
  over 40 conference calls per year over the past 3
  years
• A number of presentations were also made to ASCA
  to apprise them of the project and obtain their
  support
• We contracted with URL Integration in February
  2003 to develop the Functional and Exchange
  Standards

8
Project Background

• The final document was presented to CTA in May
  2004.

9
Project Background
Project Structure
ACCS Project Board
ASCA Members
CTA Members
Standards Committee Chair
Functional Standards
Data Exchange Standards
10
Project Background

• Developed Common Functional Standards
• Developed Data Exchange Standards
• Developed CTA Web Based Registry

11
Project Background
Benefits to Corrections

• Helps develop understandable and comprehensive
  RFPs
• Reduces the overall costs of correctional system
  projects
• Enhances operational efficiency and effectiveness
• Lowers the risk of project implementation
• Enables standardized data exchanges between
  Corrections and other agencies
• Incorporates American Corrections Association
  (ACA) and Association of State Correctional
  Administrators (ASCA) requirements

12
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS
13
What Are These Standards?

• A guide for state corrections departments in the
  acquisition, development, and enhancement of
  offender management systems.
• The standards detail goals and activities
  required by corrections systems
• While these standards focus around common
  functions, alternative processes that were
  identified have been documented.

14
Common Business Functions

• Caseload Management
• Classification
• Community Supervision
• Discipline
• Grievances
• Housing Bed Management
• Investigation Gang Management
• Medical (High Level Only)
• Programs

• Property
• Reception and Commitment
• Release and Discharge
• Scheduling
• Security
• Sentence and Time Calculation
• Trust Accounting
• Visitation

15
Collection Method

• Conduct Environmental Scan
• Review Source Material
• Normalize into common framework
• Identify Commonalities
• Separate out by common business functions
• Business Function Requirements Modeling
• Exchange Requirements Modeling
• Underlying concepts Unified Modeling Language
• Requirements will be gathered and validated using
  corrections operational staff domain vocabulary
• Requirements will be represented using Object
  Oriented vocabulary

16
Modeling

• Initial Sources
• RFPs
• Review Source Material
• Requirements Documentation
• Washington
• Massachusetts
• Utah
• Site Visits
• Multi-State Feedback

17
Business Function Requirements Modeling

• Identify relevant standards (ACA/ASCA)
• Document user interactions (use cases)
• Document system activities (activities)
• Identify data transitioning out of activities

18
Use Cases

• Use case steps are written in an
  easy-to-understand structured narrative using the
  vocabulary of the domain (corrections).
• Actors are a class of users requiring something
  from the system to achieve a desired goal, or
  from which the system needs assistance.
• Use case describes the sequence of interactions
  between actors and the system necessary to
  deliver the service that satisfies the goal.

19
Use Cases
20
Activities

• The Activity Diagram is a multi-purpose process
  flow diagram that is used to model behavior of
  the use case.
• In Activity Diagrams, all or most of the events
  represent the completion of internally-generated
  actions (that is, procedural flow of control).
• One activity transitions to another until the
  desired state is achieved.
• The completion of an activity may provide data to
  the next activity or the system globally.

21
Activity Diagram
22
Data Identified in Function Requirements Modeling

• Logical groupings of data elements
• Derived from research done in corrections and the
  justice community
• 1998 OJP ASCA Data Element Study
• Pilot States data models
• RFPs
• Map to GJXDM 3.0 Elements where possible
• Used in transitions between activities.

23
Validation Process

• Focus group meetings at CTA Conference 2003
• Site visits to five focus states
• States Review by CTA Standards Committee
• Presentation to ASCA Performance Measures
  Committee
• Review by States responding to Draft
• Presentation at CTA Conference 2004
• Future ongoing review by remaining States

24
Input From 18 States
Washington
North Dakota
Montana
Minnesota
Massachusetts

• 224 Comments
• 28 Model Revisions
• 67 Alternative flows
• 35 Actor/Role Clarifications
• 24 Descriptive Notes

Rhode Island
Idaho
New Jersey
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Utah
Kentucky
North Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Texas
FLorida
25
Focus States

• Washington
• Large group, reviewed each function with one or
  two experts
• New system in development
• Utah
• Small group of functional area liaisons, high
  level staff, extensive field experience
• Consortium Review (Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho,
  Utah, ?)
• Massachusetts
• New system, stepped through screens with
  reengineering staff
• Visit to reception center, work flow focus
• Ohio
• Large Group, focused on one function at a time
  primarily functional area staff
• In depth walk through of reception center
• Pennsylvania
• Large group focused on separate areas
• Many stayed in sessions

26
(No Transcript)
27
Differences Between Focus States

• Community Service Jurisdiction
• Sentencing Laws (Parole, Credits, Parole Board)
• Staff Role Titles and Descriptions
• Offender Management/Program Plans/Referrals
• Boards and Review Processes

28
Differences cont.

• Property Tracking
• Central Office Role in a process
• Collection of Obligations
• Sanctions/Rewards/Privileges
• Review time periods
• Waiting Lists

29
Exchange Requirements Modeling

• Documentation of business rules for information
  transfer between corrections and external
  agencies.
• Modeling Elements
• Agency (Sending and Receiving)
• Event
• Conditions
• Stage of Justice Process the Offender is in
• Documents Exchanged
• Documents exchanged captured in sample GJXDM Sub
  Schemas

30
Agencies Identified in Exchanges
31
Events Identified in Exchanges
32
Events Identified in Exchanges cont.
33
Documents Identified in Exchanges
34
Documents Identified in Exchanges cont.
35
(No Transcript)
36
XML Schema
37
Benefits of Modeling Requirements
38
Extensibility
39
Specifications Document
www.corrections.com/cta or www.urlintegration.com/
cta
40
How Can You Help?

• Providing the team with information on your
  processes
• Review the project outputs
• Participate in the future life of the
  requirements standards
• If you receive a message from any committee
  member, please respond
• Talk to your Commissioners/ Correction Directors
  about this Committee

41
Questions???
42
Office of Justice Programs Perspective
43
Office of Justice Programs Perspective
44
Industry Perspective
45
Industry Prospective
Value to a Professional Services Vendor, projects
may include Strategy IT Planning, Requirements
Definition, System Acquisitions and Migration,
Quality Assurance.
COMMON ISSUES
SOLUTION
VALUE ADD
Agencies with various Terms, Language, and Civil
uniqueness
Tailored approach for unique regulations using
standards practices
Common Language Best Practices
Labor Intensive Data Gathering and Requirement
Modeling
Ability concentrate on truly unique attributes,
seldom done adequately
Baseline Reference
Ability to focus organization(s) and effectively
use resources
Blank Canvas Syndrome
Focus Mechanism
46
Proof of Concepts
47
Objective

• The objective of this Proof of Concept is to
  identify and implement exchanges between the
  Massachusetts Department of Correction and
  Massachusetts Department of Parole

48
Approach
Review and Monitor the System Performance
Define Exchanges and Scope
Conduct Design Activities
Implement the Xchange Hub and the County
Components.

• Define the Exchanges, Conditions, Offender State,
  Next Process Using the JIEM Model

• Define and develop the XML Schemas
• Modify and Configure the Web Services Client
  component and the Xchange components to meet the
  requirements.

• Develop the interfaces between the IMS/ Parole
  systems and the Web Services Client components
• Implement the software components

• Review the data exchange and ensure that the
  exchange is working properly.

49
Proposed Exchanges
Message / Document
Sending Agency
Receiving Agency
Next Event
Event
Condition
Process
If Court Sentences Subject to Corrections AND
Corrections accepts the Subject. If Subject
eligible for Parole AND Todays Date is 90 days
prior to the PE Date If Subject eligible for
Parole AND Todays Date is 15 days prior to the
PE Date If Subject is eligible for Parole and
the Parole Eligibility date changes
Booking Report (Demographic, Sentence
Information) Case Report (Program Participation,
Disciplinary Information) Case Report (Program
Participation, Disciplinary Information) New PE
Date
Parole Planning Parole Board Hearing
Preparation Parole Board Hearing
Preparation Parole Board Hearing
Incarceration Incarceration Incarceration
Incarceration
Intake Release Date Review Release Date
Review Release Date Review
Corrections Corrections Corrections
Corrections
Parole Parole Parole Parole
50
Proposed Exchanges
Message / Document
Sending Agency
Receiving Agency
Next Event
Event
Condition
Process
Discharge Report (Release Date, Reason, Inmate
Status) Parole Agreement/ Disposition (Vote,
Prescriptions, Conditions) Parole Permit (Address
Work, Home Assigned Parole Officer,
Conditions) Parole Violation Document (PVR,
Demographics)
If subject is released from Corrections. If
Subject reviewed by Parole Board If Subject
reviewed by Parole Board AND released on
Parole If Subjects Parole is revoked by the
Parole Department
Parole Planning Incarceration/
Release Release Intake
Corrections Parole Parole Parole
Incarceration Incarceration Incarceration
Post Disposition Supervision
Release Release Date Review Release Pa
role Revocation
Parole Corrections Corrections Corre
ctions
51
Current Status

• The DOC is currently in the process of testing
  the first exchange

52
Exchange Configuration
53
Lessons Learned

• The entire GJXDM model is large and is over
  inclusive and extremely recursive in nature. It
  is extremely important to create sub schemas that
  are smaller are easier to handle
• The transformation from the local data model to
  the GJXDM data set should be handled locally
• It is very beneficial to utilize automated tools
  to create sub schemas as manual creations are
  extremely time consuming
• A consistent mechanism is needed for event
  subscription in legacy systems
• The exchange should have functional
  acknowledgements built into it so that the users
  can be certain that their messages have been
  received
• There should be a consistent and common mechanism
  for reconciliation of errors that occur in the
  transmission of messages
• Data integrity is dependent on the underlying
  systems

54
National Corrections Projects
55
National Corrections Projects

• ASCA Performance Based Measurement System
• Goal is to create a system to allow corrections
  CEOs nationwide to measure performance with other
  member agencies.
• Criteria
• develop a set of key indicators
• define intent of the indicator
• define measurement rules
• base upon industry standards
• allow agencies to enter data or download
  database
• allow agencies to retrieve information from any
  member agency in system
• Agency IT responsibility
• have staff ready to respond to deadlines
• create interface to system

56
National Corrections Projects

• CTA/ASCA Acute Dynamic Risk Assessment
• Goal is to define and develop an acute dynamic
  risk assessment engine adding
• another layer of risk identification to
  determine the risk of reoffending using
• offender diagnostic data criminal history
• offender monitoring data other sources
• get emergent notifications to correctional
  office
• allow an infusion of capability into traditional
  corrections applications
• assist in assessing risk associated with
• placing offenders in less restrictive
  environments
• program placement
• offenders transport
• deployment of corrections resources
• community placement crisis intervention

57
National Corrections Projects

• CTA/ASCA Acute Dynamic Risk Assessment
• Phase 1 - Convened experts/interested parties in
  a working group that creates strategy and grant
  request for Phase 2 (May 3-5 in Chicago) which
  included
• ASCA - CEOs from Washington and Pennsylvania
• Operations Experts - Two field and two prison
  practitioners each from the above two states
• Operations experts from academia Six
  nationally recognized researchers and
  theorists APPA - President
• DOJ OJP Corrections Policy Advisor
• CTA - Utah and Washington CIOs (current CTA
  President and President Elect for next year)
• Other Experts Utah Research Planning
  Analyst, WA State Institute for Public Policy,
• Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. (2 members)
• Phase 2 Perform the research to define the risk
  assessment mechanisms, establish the data
  entities, gather and test the data
• Phase 3 Implement the risk assessment engine
• Phase 4 - Integrate the risk assessment
  capability into a risk-oriented working system

58
National Corrections Projects

• CTA/ASCA Acute Dynamic Risk Assessment
• Agency IT responsibility
• Have staff ready to respond to deadlines
• Create plug in or interface to current
  system

59
National Corrections Projects

• Projects Needing Funding
• 1. Continuation of the functional business
  standards and elements for data exchange
• Expand existing work to include all states
• reduce agencys time and cost of new systems
• ensure new systems meet standards
• assist business partners and vendors to meet
  our needs
• 2. Define correctional data elements necessary
  for the Global Justice XML database.
• Correctional data is very limited
• Must be expanded to create standards

60
Next Steps

• Develop and Implement a Governance Structure
• Obtain Grant Funding to Continue Activities such
  as
• Incorporate Additional Business Functions
• Extend Current Standards to Incorporate a Data
  Model
• Develop and Validate Exchange Reference documents
• Improve Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing
• Provide Regular Input to the Justice Registry and
  the Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM)

61
(No Transcript)
62
What should an EA include?

• Business values, goals and principles
• performance measures
• Business processes best practices
• functional standards
• Enterprise data model
• data exchange standards, GJXDM, GJXDD
• Enterprise technology stack
• web services, SD process, PM process