SAWS Consortium IVJPA Board and General Membership Meeting Minutes

June 30, 20169:00 a.m.

Location: Sierra Health Foundation BuildingBannon Island Room1321 Garden HighwaySacramento, CA 95833

Board Members in Attendance:Region 1 Susan von Zabern, Riverside County DPSS Director and Chairperson Region 2 Linda Haugan, San Bernardino County Assistant Executive Officer, Human

Services Region 4 Kathy Harwell, Stanislaus County Community Services Agency Director

and Vice ChairpersonRegion 5 Scott Pettygrove, Merced County HSA Director Region 6 Mike Dent, Nevada County Social Services Director Region 7 Cathi Grams, Butte County Employment and Social Services Director

Board Member Not Present:

Region 3 Dena Murphy, Kern County DHS Director

Board Secretary: Thomas Hartman, C-IV Project Director

General Members in Attendance:

Colusa – Elizabeth KellyGlenn – Bill WathenLassen - Eric NielsonMadera - Kelly WoodardMarin – Kari BeuermanMariposa - Chevon KothariModoc – Kelly CrosbySan Benito -James RydingswordShasta – Melissa JanulewiczSiskiyou - Katherine O’SheaTehama - Mandy SharpTrinity – Letty GarzaYuba - Jennifer Vasquez

C-IV Project StaffCounty StaffState Stakeholder Representatives

1. Chairperson Kathy Harwell convened the meeting at 9:09 a.m. Kathy Harwell gave an opening “Thank You” speech.

2. Public opportunity to speak on any Item NOT on the agenda. No public comments.

3. Confirmation of Quorum and Agenda Review Tom Hartman read the roster of the County Directors present at the beginning of the

meeting – quorum of the Board of Directors was confirmed. General Membership quorum was confirmed with19 Directors at 9:12 a.m.

JPA General Membership Action Items

4. Pursuant to the JPA Agreement Article II, section 2.04 (b) the General Membership needs to elect a candidate from each of the seven C-IV Regions to serve on the Board of Directors for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.

Present the nomination slate from the Regional Nomination conference calls, gather any further nominations from the floor, and proceed to elect the JPA Board.

Region 1 Susan von ZabernRegion 2 Linda HauganRegion 3 Dena MurphyRegion 4 Kathy HarwellRegion 5 Scott PettygroveRegion 6 Mike DentRegion 7 Eric Nielson

Summary: No additional nominations were made.

A vote was taken with voting cards of all whom in favor of the JPA Board of Directors nominations slate as written, and to elect the nominees. Motion passed unanimously.

5. Pursuant to the JPA Bylaws Article VIII, A., each of the seven C-IV Regions needs to elect a candidate to serve on the Project Steering Committee for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.

Present the nomination slate from the Regional Nomination conference calls,

gather any further nominations from the floor, and proceed to elect the Project Steering Committee.

Region 1 Rocio AguinigaRegion 2 Nancy SwansonRegion 3 Cindy UetzRegion 4 Brian TaingRegion 5 Mary Ellen AranaRegion 6 Bekkie EmeryRegion 7 Debbie Walsh

Summary: No additional nominations were made.

A vote was taken with voting cards of all whom in favor of the Project Steering Committee nominations slate as written, and to elect the nominees. Motion passed unanimously.

JPA Board Action Items

6. Seek Nominations and Creation of a Slate for C-IV JPA Board of Directors Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for SFY 2016/17.

Summary: Pursuant to the JPA Agreement, Article III, Section 3.01, the Board needs to nominate candidates in order to conduct an Officer election for SFY 2016/17.

Nominate from among members, a Chairperson to serve for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.

Nominate from among members, a Vice-Chairperson to serve for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.

Tom Hartman asked the current JPA Board Members for nominations to fill these two positions.

Eric Nielson nominated Scott Pettygrove for Chairperson. Linda Haugan nominated Susan von Zabern for Vice-Chairperson.

Each nominee accepted their nomination.

7. Pursuant to the JPA Agreement, Article III, Section 3.01 the Board needs to conduct an Officer election for SFY 2016/17 to elect from among members, a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson to serve for SFY 2016/17.

Summary: The new seven-member JPA Board was asked to vote on the nominees for Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson to serve as the JPA Officers for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.

Motion to Approve Nominations and Creation of a Slate for C-IV JPA Board of Directors Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for SFY 2016/17 was made by Chairperson Kathy Harwell. Motion was seconded by member Linda Haugan. All present board members were in favor of the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

8. Approve the Minutes of the May 26, 2016, JPA Regular Board Meeting

Action Items from previous meeting Action Item 1- as needed

No Updates

Summary: The Consortium is seeking Board approval of the May 26, 2016 JPA Regular Board Meeting Minutes.

Motion to approve made by Chairperson Kathy Harwell and seconded by member Linda Haugan.All present board members were in favor of the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

9. Approve Agreement with Embassy Suites - Napa for the C-IV Project Retreat/Strategic Planning Conference November 2 – 4, 2016.

Summary: The Consortium is seeking approval of the Agreement with Embassy Suites - Napa for accommodations for the 2016 C-IV Project Retreat/Strategic Planning Conference.

Motion to approve the agreement with Embassy Suites – Napa for the C-IV Project Retreat/Strategic Planning Conference November 2-4, 2016 was made by member Susan von Zabern. Motion was seconded by Chairperson Kathy Harwell. All present board members were in favor of the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

10. Authorize completion of Signature/Fund Custodian Authorization Form 04-7691-000 required by San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector for SFY 2016/17.

Approve the completion of the form in the name of the C-IV JPA Chairperson Scott Pettygrove, authorizing him to approve payments to be made by the controller for C-IV.

Approve the completion of the form in the name of the C-IV JPA Vice-Chairperson Susan von Zabern, authorizing her to approve payments to be made by the controller for C-IV.

Approve the completion of the form in the name of the C-IV Project Director Thomas Hartman, authorizing him to approve invoices to be paid by the controller for C-IV.

Approve completion of the form in the name of C-IV Deputy Director Karen Rapponotti, authorizing her to approve invoices to be paid by the controller for C-IV, in the absence of the Project Director.

Motion to Approve Authorize completion of Signature/Fund CustodianAuthorization Form 04-7691-000 required by San Bernardino County AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector for SFY 2016/17 was made by member Scott Pettygrove. Motion was seconded by member Linda Haugan. All present board members were in favor of the motion.

Motion passed unanimously.

General Membership Informational Items(A PowerPoint presentation was provided for review of Informational items)

11. Los Angeles County Introductions/Update (Refer to Main Slide Deck)Michael Sylvester gave a brief staff introduction and provided an update on the status of LRS Implementation.

Executive Management TeamSheryl Spiller, Deputy DPSSMichael Sylvester, Assistant Director DPSS-ExecutiveAntonia Jimenez, Chief Deputy DPSSLuther Evans, Division Chief of CalWORKs Policy DivisionCorey Hanemoto, Division Chief for RevenueAmy Alvarado, Division Chief of Welfare Workforce & Eligibility Recovery SectionDorothy Avila, Branch Managers at LRS ProjectWinna Crichlow, Line Division ChiefSeth Richman, Project Director AccentureAnd others

PSC Members (Luther, Corey, Amy & Winna are the Region 8 PSC Members) Roll Out Group 3

LRS was piloted in two main offices in September 2016 and quickly expanded after LA found that lots of cases were linked across offices and every office had to be piloted to some extent. Pilot was original supposed to be ran for 6 months but was shorten to 5 because it was going very well. First roll out group was done end of February which contained about a million cases. Rollout group three rolled out Tuesday morning of this well and is going pretty well. LA County has well over a million and two that came out of this rollout. There is one more rollout group (4) that will compromise the rest of DCFS. LA has 83% of their case load in LRS as a result of this last rollout. LA moved up rollout group 3 (a month in between each rollout group to position staff) and rollout group 4 has been moved up as well and will be up at the end of July.

DCFS UpdateRollout preparation for Foster Care, KinGap, AAP, Adoption Assistance and etc. will be up at the end of September. UAT is scheduled to begin in July. By the end of October LA will be fully rolled out across LA County in all departments using LRS including DCFS. There is a six-month performance verification period to make sure the system is performing at full capacity. M&O will not begin until Spring 2017.

Platform PerformanceThe system is performing extremely well with 83% of the caseload. The screen transactions are all meeting the surface levels with three and four seconds between screen refresh. LA is still fine tuning the system and everything LA is learning they are sharing with C-IV/LRS Executive Team, so as LA/C-IV move forward together we build an even better 40 Count approach.

Susan asked how are staff adapting to the change. Michael answered, the staff have really adapted well because the system is very flexible, we have built off a lot of the C-IV base and kept it very similar in terms of navigation (intuitive and very easy to learn). LA developed very sophisticated web based training modules that are very comprehensive and refresher steps available to staff. LA did process training (ILT) with in classroom settings lead by an instructor. Organizational Change Management Team (OCM) that was formed from about 35 dedicated line service staff, clerks and gain eligibility groups. LA is coming from several different interfaces and consolidating to one common system.

Kathy asked about the customer impact. Michael answered the customer facing aspects of the LA system have not changed. LA already established a web-based portal and a lot of the other things that the public interact with us, ahead of the LRS project. All systems interface seamlessly behind the scenes. Call Centers, nothing changed for them, in the lobby LA is using the same devices for lobby check-in, same screens for the reception log.

12. LRS/C-IV Migration Update (Refer to Main Slide Deck)Kathy Harwell, Tom Hartman, Karen Rapponotti, Dorothy Avila, and Scot Bailey provided an update on LRS/C-IV activities:

Sponsor UpdateOn June 9th there was a meeting with DHCS, CPSS and OSI. There were three major issues of discussion; a rate reduction from Accenture, whether to use the FastTrack Implementation Approach and whether to do the translations of NOAs. Michael and Tom did the presentation with a few other colleagues. It was a very positive meeting and all agreed with all three points.On June 22nd there was a conference call briefing with the CMS, FNS representatives and OSI. They walked thru everything (schedule, approach, timelines & timing of the APD) except the numbers and any undecided items. The next steps will be giving them numbers and the APD documents with all its potential drafts.

IAPD UpdateThe IAPDU submission went in June 20th and the reviews are in process and there haven’t been many questions. The statement of works (SOW) is in process and the statement of requirements that came from the side by side comparison are being included in the SOW. IAPD numbers, reduction and differences are shown on slide 21.

Big “G” Governance Status Board of Directors:

o 11 Directors 7 C-IV Directors representing Regions 1 – 7 LA Directors representing Region 8

o 1 State Representative (non-voting seat) explicit stated in the legislative.

Quorum:

o A minimum of 6 Board Directors or Alternative Board Directors from Regions 1 – 8

Must include 2 Directors or Alternate Board Directors from Region 8

Affirmative Votes:o A minimum of 6 Board Directors or Alternative Board Directors from

Regions 1 – 8 which must include at a minimum: 2 Directors or Alternative Board Directors from Region 8, and 2 Directors from Regions 1-7 Fiscal and Legal

o To get to six affirmative votes, if all four LA County Board Directors voted affirmative, there needs to be two Board Directors from the existing C-IV Counties voting affirmative as well.

JPA Agreement Status/UpdatesOption for Directors to appoint Alternate Board Directors: The alternate works in a way that any region with more than more county, can appoint an alternate Board Director to serve in the absence of the Director. The State, represented by the Director of the Office of Systems Integration, will be identified as a State Representative, and shall serve as an Ex Officio member of the Board of Directors, but will not have any voting rights. The Board of Directors will be represented by Directors selected from the existing 7 Regions, with the addition of Los Angeles County, as Region 8, which will be represented by 4 Directors (their 4 Member Representatives). Deletion of the Supermajority Vote provision in the Agreement. In order to amend the Bylaws, there must be a 2/3rds vote of the Directors from Regions 1 – 8, with at least 1 vote from a Director in Region 8, and with the concurrence of the Members as provided in section 2.07. To finalize the JPA Agreement the three following needs to be done: Consortium Name

An email was distributed to the C-IV and LRS projects to solicit names for the consortium and/or system. There was one out fifty-six names that stood out to everyone, which is CalACES (California Automated Consortia Eligibility System). C-IV/LA are still open to any suggestions. The name is needed sooner for legal reasons and will not be changing the system name. We want to get JPA agreement to the board of supervisor by April 2017 so that we are ready to stop operated as one legal and formal entity July 2017.

Fiscal Agent/Operating ModeCurrently San Bernardino is C-IVs fiscal agent. Either San Bernardino County or LA County, or a transition from one to the other is TBD. The Fiscal Agent must be documented in the new JPA Agreement.

Legal RepresentationCurrently San Bernardino is our legal agent. This provision is removed and inserted in the Bylaws to allow flexibility by the JPA Board to change legal advisors. It is also best to designate legal counsel from same county as fiscal agent. Section 4.03 – Operating Mode (either LA County or San Bernardino County) TBD

Section 6.06 – A provision that provides all prior debts, liabilities and obligations of C-IV prior to LA joining the JPA shall remain those of Regions 1 – 7.

The Fiscal and Legal aspect can be a future change with a specific date for transition. C-IV wants the counties to take into consideration the following:

o Impact of Changeo Advance process to pay vendor invoices (C-IV) vs. Claiming in arrears

(LA County)o Cost o Determine best future date certaino Seamless Transition

Susan stated C-IV must think about the short term and long term affects. Eric Nielson asked if the future fiscal and legal representatives were up for negotiation or what is the factors around this decision. Tom answered, LA would like to take over the legal and fiscal and discussions are currently when will that be, However San Bernardino would like to stay the fiscal/legal agent. A questions was asked, if C-IV could clarify when the earliest date this change would occur. Michael Sylvester, stated there as several options C-IV/LA are looking at, which is right when we form the JPA or after all has settled in. He stated that LA has all the staff and tools needed to do the job and LA would look to San Bernardino for training on how processes are done and transitioning. Many of the counties stated they are happy with the current fiscal/legal agent and did not accept the option of future change. Small counties were worried about process, changes and the impact it would have. Discussion/comments commenced regarding this topic.

Migration D&IC-IV/LA are almost to the time to get the JPA Agreement out to the counties, socialized in the counties and on the counties Board of Supervisors agendas. In July 2017we will become one consortium. After migration we will be on same code base and same system; but in two different databases. In the plans for Migration and D&I; some locations are nailed down: Requirements and General Design- In Sacramento (many counties located up north). Detailed Design work- South (LA). PSC Meetings- Alternating Locations (North & South). There will be initial meetings face to face; possibly every other, maybe two here two there, or two here one there it has not been decided yet. Conversion - North, Training & Development- North, Change Management & Implementation- North

Little “g” GovernanceIntegration of C-IV staff on LRS teams begins July 2016. The combined Committees/Workgroups will begin July 2016. There will be co-facilitation by both Project’s BAs at these meetings. This collaboration will ensure we don’t create a bigger gap on code and processes. C-IV/LA will have Joint Change Control Board (CCB) process with joint documentation and members. Karen Rapponotti and Dorothy Avila are currently focusing on HR and personnel impacts- What will the Consortium look like in the future, how will staff be hired? Will the staff work

for counties, the Consortium? Eric asked is there support for counties who cannot send staff. Karen stated as of today we haven’t had any travel help. Karen doesn’t know if that will change in the future or not. It is in everyone’s best interest to field open positions and come up with designs that work for everyone. Most Committees meetings happen by phone; this is helpful. Establishing video conferencing is an item being explored so we can engage more people. Betty Uzupis added, there was a submission to try and get travel expenses covered for county staff who participate. A question was asked how do C-IV/LA staff come together and talk about the system as if it was one. June stated the goal is to have the conversations together so we are not implementing something totally different in one system or another. This would entail joint review of state letters to ensure implementing policy in the system looks the same.

Next StepsThe final JPA Agreement- Due by Mid-Summer; a CRFI will go out in July 2016 to counties asking for a contact in their county who will guide the agreement through the Board in their County. The Project will support the county with information you might need such as background, structure, etc. so there is context, if needed.

Alternative Migration Implementation ApproachC-IV is seeking feedback from counties on pursuing implementing a Fast-Track conversion/implementation approach instead of a multi-wave approach. Scot Bailey gave a background on data conversion, he explained how C-IV went about the ISAWS conversion and Go-live activities. He explained the differences between the Multiwave and Fast-Track Go-live. In the approach being explored, Fast Track, it would only be ‘Transfer’ needed not ‘Extract’ or ‘Load’. The risk associated with Wave is maintaining two systems at the same time, maintain processes related to both of those systems, etc., but with the same staff required to support that happening. C-IV would be using ‘another Lobby Management, another IVR, etc.’ which would create complexities to manage and it would almost be like C-IV versus C-IV to get information over to one another. There is significant risk reduction, time savings and cost savings associated with Fast-Track approach. Eric stated the Fast Track approach seems clean and we could roll back if there was an issue. The overall Project time using Fast Track shortens the time required to convert. C-IV will start ramping down its features and changes as we move closer to cutover. List of Risks for Fast Track is on Slide 45. The cost savings of Fast Track vs. Wave is almost 14 million. The Proof of Concept has already been started; at this point the team is just sharing it. The Proof of Concept will be completed in December and C-IV will present it at the January General Membership meeting and ask for a formal vote on ‘yes’ to Fast Track approach.

13. User Satisfaction Survey Results Overview (Refer to Main Slide Deck)Sean Swift provided a high level overview of the user satisfaction results.

Survey is for all users who were logged in within the 6 months prior to the survey. The point is to have users provide the vendor with feedback on the C-IV system, Training resources and help desk support.

2016- 4.10 overall satisfaction result, which was the highest in any year to date. Response rates by counties are noted on slide 51.

All questions were graded on a 5 point scale. 84% of users gave an overall satisfaction score of 4 or 5. 6% of users indicated dissatisfaction with score of 2 or 3.

The Word Cloud- Slide 53- Depicts Words represented which appeared at least a 100 times in the survey.

User Satisfaction Survey Comments- Slide 54; SCRs listed if any comments map to an existing SCR or one created. Slide 55 shows the SCRs that were created in the 2015 survey.

14. Mobile Application Outreach (Refer to Main Slide Deck)Danielle Benoit provided a high level update on C4Yourself Mobile Application.

An initial introductory webcasts was given to give a high level overview of what the C4Y Mobile Application is and does. The next available opportunity to learn more about this mobile application will be at a C4Y Mobile App Toolkit Roadshow which will be held in Regional locations. This will demo the marketing materials available and county consideration points.The application is a customer facing application that can be downloaded on any smartphone or device. The customer can check benefits, link to info about their case and capture images. Target is a 16.07x release. This release date is dependent upon the Apple and Google Play stores approving the app to be placed in the app stores. It will be free. The presentation and marketing materials will be stored on the Web Portal.

15. Lobby Management (Refer to Main Slide Deck)John Dray gave a high level update on Lobby Management Initiatives.

Reception Log Changes Ability to Call a customer with a ‘call’ icon. Creates Reception Log

Numbers for ‘Now Serving’ to call customers to a specific window; have flexibility to ‘name’ Windows/counters/doors, etc. Looking at adding a page for county to access and add number of Windows or whatever that they need. There will also be a text to speech functionality so that customer will hear the audio message and see visually the number, etc. on a display board (TV/Screen). Include a ‘started’ state for all visit types. Add ability to print a receipt similar to kiosk/FACT containing visit info and assigned number. This would be provided to customer when they check in; so they don’t have to remember their number, they will have it physically provided to them. The receipt could print on regular printer; but print will be smaller as it is also designed to print from a handheld printer or kiosk, etc.

Management Dashboard will include ability to:

Configure wait thresholds and color-coding would assist management in how long customers have waited (green, yellow, red); have email capability to send to appropriate staff so if customers have longer waits help can be called in right away. The counts will include total people waiting and also see counts by visit type. Visit types would also be listed by wait times so that appropriate functional staff can be emailed to address those who have waited longest. Lobby Status viewing would display Waiting, Started and Completed and will all show by reason for visit.

Timeline- April 2016- May 2017- Includes changes already made (next phase and the last phase). Some of the changes do require County Purchase by those who are willing to support D&I costs and counties can opt in to the Dashboards via CRFI.

16. Telephonic Signature (Refer to Main Slide Deck)Jon Burkett gave a high level overview of the difference between telephonic vs. electronic.

The state wants C-IV to expand our IVR system and tie in the telephonic recording attestation and allow the worker to review the recording and if accurate, have worker save it as a ‘Wav’ file associated to the person. There is work currently happening on a voice biometric pilot, so there is a voice/pin authentication. When the person validates via voice, they would be assigned a PIN # and this would allow the person not to have a voice recording and they would input pin if the person agrees to the statement read by the worker. The state would like Consortium to implement Telephonic Signature but has not indicated they would fund that effort. Michele Peterson stated C-IV just learned that the CF Bureau has some funding they want to put toward this effort; no info about when this could happen and when funding might be available but when more info is received C-IV will look at options again and bring that information back to PSC.

17. Predictive Handling and Voice Authentication Update (Refer to Main Slide Deck)Nancy Swanson gave a high level update on the Voice Authentication in San Bernardino.

Initiative for Voice Authentication. There was an increase in customer calls. Their first inclination was

they need more staff to handle the calls; but they can’t continue to do that. They increased the number of “work from home’ staff, they implemented floater workstations and people cross-trained as Call Center Agents could jump in when called upon. San Bernardino wanted to reduce average handle time and wanted customers to have a better experience, faster log in times, easier access to case information and try for philosophy of ‘One and Done’. San Bernardino went Live with Voice Authentication in mid-January- Customer can self-authenticate with their voice; ‘my voice is my password, please verify me’. The system would recognize them once established. The

IVR could identify if a voice password was set up or not; if not, the person could set one up. Slide 70, that showed the call volume dropped with this authentication by customers using voice biometrics. Registered 12 thousand people in February. They average 7 thousand people per month. They plan to ramp up marketing of this concept.

Next Steps- Predictive Handling- Giving a person an up-front more personalized

experience, when person calls in and their number is matched the system would say for example, ‘Hi Nancy, I see you are calling about your CW benefit NOA you recently received, and if that is why you are calling, press x and you will be routed to the appropriate person to retrieve that info’. Go Live is December 3rd, 2016.Cindy Uetz asked if you had to reevaluate your IVR call flow to account for the new functionality? John Dray answered yes, they are evaluating that part of things right now.

18. M&O Application Update (Refer to Main Slide Deck)Michele Peterson and Sean Swift provided a High Level Summary of key C-IV Policy Implementation Items: WTW 25 & 25A

CDSS is in process of redesigning WTW 25 and 25A; it would be one report and be about 9 pages long and include many more data elements. This change will impact staff a lot as a lot more information is being requested and could be displayed. ACL is expected in December 2016. More info would be needed about WTW plans and hours requirements. Hours would have to be captured and calculated for work participation; this is no longer a sample of cases, but all cases. This would necessitate querying the database continually which is almost never done this is a big deal and a lot of work. Workers would have to document why customers were granted extensions and exemptions and require workers to document outcomes (e.g. Employment, education, etc.).

State Workgroup comprised of CDSS, CWDA, SAWS and some counties (only Humboldt, San Bernardino, Marin and Monterey from C-IV). They have met for the past 9 months and continue to meet to review the CDSS design. Drafts of the report were provided with an ACL scheduled to go out in December 2016. The new WTW redesign combines the two prior reports which were single page reports. The report went from 42 to 237 distinct counts. Sections of the report are to be submitted at different times to allow for data collection by counties. There are 90plus new elements need to be added to C-IV.

New areas of the Report include: Initial Engagement 24 MTC

WTW Plans Hours Requirements Hours Participation Persons Leaving WTW Outcomes

Counties must report why the 24-month clock did NOT tick and why they unticked a month. Counties must report households based on a hour requirement. Counties must also report households based percentage of participation. Counties must report households without documented participation. Counties must report why households are leaving WTW. Counties must report outcomes from WTW.

Next Steps: CDSS plans to release the ACL in December 2016. Project begins work to

implement system changes and new report logic. Counties educate and train staff. Counties evaluate process and staffing levels to support ongoing additional workload. Counties enter new data points on all cases as functionality is implemented. Concern from LA’s Director- Leroy- Concern that info won’t be accurate and worried that counties will be called to explain data provided. Trying to capture to much information in this report. Christiana Smith, from CWDA, noted that she realizes there are concerns about the new report and what is and is not feasible. Send the CDSS rep an email about the concerns and ask for a couple more days to provide feedback. This has been discussed a lot at Self-Sufficiency.

Susan Von Zabern asked what would fall by the wayside in SCRs to get this done? And what is cost? Someone answered it will come out of M&O bucket as there is no funding available. Followed by, “We don’t know yet.”

Cost estimate- Don’t even know; they can try to figure it out; if we have to capture actual hours; we need to figure out how would that information be grabbed as soon as possible?

Horizontal Integration - SCR 1801Release 16.05x. Functionality demo was sent out and was posted to Portal.

Approved Relative Caretaker Funding Option (ARC) Phase II – SCR 1023Phase II eliminates use of EBT. Is going to retrospective changes. RE going to 24 months; but MC is one year. State wants all consortia to implement at the same time.

AB 403 – Foster Care Continuum of Care Reform (CCR)C-IV is still not clear on this policy. There is a chart that rates are based on level of care versus the age of a child. The project hasn’t seen the rates yet and we have questions out for response from CDSS. The policy is effective 1/1/17.

Online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool (OCAT)There was an issue with licensing that CDSS has with ICF, the OCAT vendor. They had to come up with an alternative solution for implementing OCAT into SAWS. One option: Lift code from OCAT into one Consortium and the other SAWS would interface with that one systems, or they would rebuild the OCAT system.

Electronic Inter-County Transfer (eICT) Statewide Workgroup

Work was done to clarify ICT processes, policy clarification is needed, updating the ICT protocol document and CWDA is working on getting training together on eICT processes.

C-IV Legislative Watch Please refer to Appendix Handout for information on legislative items currently being

followed.ImagingScot Bailey gave a brief update on the imaging issue.There have been problems since the upgrade and the resolution is taking longer than it should. The background on this issue is there has been slowness that occurs when a large number of user’s log on and has happened since Day 1 of the upgrade. The Tech team worked to apply patches recommended by the Imaging Vendor. One of the patches made the situation worse. The Imaging Vendor then said that Tech team should make configuration changes versus the patches to make it work. They recommended having an Active/Active Server situation so that multiple servers can process a request. C-IV did have one active and one failover server. The tech team was never told that an Active/Active scenario was recommended. They are now scrambling to make that A/A change. The team has tested the best they could and piece meal made changes; but what was done made more problems instead. They waited too long to pull the plug; this then ran into a separate, unrelated to the upgrade issue, storage problem. This storage issue happened again last night. Workers have still been getting the images in, but it is definitely a challenge. About 70-80 thousand images are scanned into system per day. The day of upgrade was bad and workers weren’t able to scan; liquidated damages were assessed. The issue was that imaging crashed when anything was printed from an image scanned. Users were locked out when session timed out. Some users also could not save documents when they were imaging. Kern has experienced some of the issues described Next Steps: To apply the necessary Imaging Configuration changes, C-IV will be taking down the C-IV Imaging System (not the actual C-IV Application) on Saturday, July 2nd 2016 and Imaging is planned to come back up on Tuesday, July 5th, 2016. This will allow the team to take advantage of the long holiday weekend to make the required changes in the hopes of resolving the Imaging performance issues.

19. 2015/2016 Strategic Priorities Update Tom reviewed the progress, activities and resolution of key 2015 priorities.Leverage more from LRS now- As of May 25, 2016, pending APD approvalImprove CalFresh QC Error Rates- Several SCRs have been created to assist with this issue. See Slide 84.Improving Outcome Based Reporting- Include training on available reports for staff in new roles. Establish a new committee to focus on productivity and management reports. Develop solution for distributing reports directly to staff. Redesign reports pages to facilitate finding and accessing reports. Research approaches to allow for org. structure based reporting. Research approaches to have reports reflect county processes or requirements.Improving MC processing- Several SCRs have been created to elevate this issue. See Slide 88.

Task Management- Release 16.05: Redesign layout to be more user friendly. Remove ability to send e-mails on creation of tasks. Enhance Task History.

Release 16.11:Add ability for counties to create their own Task types and sub-typesAdd ability for counties to control the task types utilized by their staffAbility to disable types they do not want their staff utilizingAbility to identify and activate/deactivate system generated tasksAdd a new system task for when documents with a tracking barcode are received

20. 2016/2017 Strategic Priorities Discussion – The C-IV Project is very interested in soliciting suggestions from the counties regarding C-IV automation priorities

Tom solicited the attendees for ideas that could be discussed at the upcoming retreat in November. If Directors have ideas, especially if they require some research, it would be helpful to receive input sooner than later. None was given at this time.

Meeting convened to a Closed Session

21. Closed Session of JPA Board of Directors Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code section 54957)

Title: Project Director

Reconvene Public Session

22. Adjourn Meeting

Kathy Harwell adjourned the meeting at 1:47pm.