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