Kane County Case Management System Assessment Project URL Integration – Kane County CMS Assessment Project Final Report Presentation September 30, 2011 Amir Holmes, Senior Business Analyst & Project Manager
Proposed Solution • The key point to understand is that given the current standards , vendor systems can interoperate at a level not feasible before while maintaining their autonomy. • A traffic cop of sorts can sit in between these systems and manage all of the business rules and guarantee the information has been received. • Common data definitions have been developed and standardized so that case management system vendors understand how information is represented across the justice domain. • Overlaying all of this is a standardized architecture guiding vendors and jurisdictions as to how these systems talk to each other on a technical level. • The recommended solution provides for an incremental approach to bringing up individual exchanges step-wise over time. • CMS components can also be brought on over time to spread costs. The important overriding concern is that all investments meet the standards and build for future growth.
Justice Agency Recommendations • The Clerk’s Office should replace the existing JANO CMS with a new CMS which meets minimally the Core Functions (set out in subsequent slides). • 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.
Recommended Justice Agency Interface Functions • Clerk’s CMS must accommodate the technical architecture that will facilitate data sharing/exchanges in its workflow. • Agencies should share information system to system not through applications provided by another agency.
Justice Information Sharing Initiative – New Court Case Management System (CMS) • While there is consensus that the existing Court CMS should be replaced, a new Court CMS product will require adjustments to the internal court business process and the way that other members of the justice community interact with the courts (in moving from paper to automated exchange of information). • In order for the new Court CMS to be successful, users need to “buy in” to this notion of change, and the County is urged to support this environment of change. • The true benefit of a robust CMS is the ability to electronically share information with other agency information systems, so that information is shared at key decision points throughout the justice process.
Kane County Information Exchange Analysis • Information Exchange Meetings • 390 Documented Exchanges • Prioritization Meeting • Priorities Defined for Exchange Implementation • Arrest Reports /Case Reports • Warrants • Charging Documents (Felony, Misdemeanor) • Traffic Citations • Continuance Orders /Court Orders /Sentence Orders • Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) Reports • Orders of Protection • Dispositions (including Prosecutor Disposition) • Notification of Transport to Court • Electronic Monitoring/GPS (removal/hookup) • Supplemental Arrest/Case Reports • PSI Order • Order for Bond Report • Defendant Status Query – LEA would query court • Address Updates
Four-Phased Implementation Approach • For implementation purposes, we have broken these priority and the other exchanges into groups of four phases. The intention is to implement this incrementally staggering the design and implementation into consecutive years. The groups are as follows with the Circuit Clerk CMS falling under Court: • Phase I Exchanges: Exchanges Sending Agency Receiving Agency Arrest/Case Reports Sheriff/LEA Court Services/SAO Charging Documents Sheriff/LEA Court Arrest Warrant Court Sheriff Warrant Quash Court Sheriff Supplemental Arrest/ Case Reports Sheriff/LEA SAO Defendant Status Query Query comes from Jail Query into Court CMS
Four-Phased Implementation Approach • Phase II: Receiving Agency Exchanges Sending Agency Court Orders Court Court Services/ SAO/PD/Sheriff Citations LEA Court Sentence Orders Court Court Services/ Sheriff Address Updates Court Services Court Dispo Form Evidence SAO Sheriff/LEA Transport to Court Jail Court Services Bond Report Order Court Court Services
Four-Phased Implementation Approach • Phase III: Exchanges Sending Agency Receiving Agency Electronic Monitoring/ GPS (removal/hookup) Court Services Court Orders of Protection Court Sheriff PSI Order Court Court Services PSI Court Services Court
Four-Phased Implementation Approach • Phase IV: Receiving Agency Exchanges Sending Agency Sworn Synopsis LEA/Sheriff SAO Unsigned Order for Probable Cause LEA/Sheriff Judge/Court Unsigned Order for Probable Cause SAO Judge/Court Signed Warrant Judge LEA/Sheriff/Court Warrant – Service of Process LEA/Sheriff Judge/Court PEN Letters SAO DOC
Recommended Information Sharing Standards • GLOBAL REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE (GRA) • In 2004, the US Department of Justice’s Global Infrastructure/Standards Working Group endorsed Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) as a recommended strategy for integrating justice information systems. • The GRA conceptual framework includes the following: • A methodology for identifying what services — exchange points — a jurisdiction should develop to solve some identified business problem. • A standard for describing services so they can be used, understood, and consumed across jurisdictions. • Recommended requirements for infrastructure necessary to support SOA. • Technical communications protocols based on industry standards such as web services and XML, for transmitting information as messages between justice partners and their systems. • Guidelines for governing and managing an SOA in a jurisdiction — how to assign decision rights and responsibilities for implementing elements of an SOA. • Reference service specifications for common capabilities within criminal justice. These references provide a baseline functionality that can be reused to enable the rapid implementation of jurisdiction specific services.
Recommended Technical Architecture • This recommendation proposes a service-oriented architecture (SOA), specifically GRA conformant, that clearly delineates the functions related to the relevant stakeholders. • The exchanges that Kane County has prioritized during the assessment will be used to identify common business processes across the enterprise and will be implemented as common services with identified exchanges 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. • The architecture will also support error handling, as defined by endpoint agencies involved in the exchange. • In proposing this technical solution, we recommend the use of web services as the technical implementation of the GRA.
High-Level Architecture Diagram
Recommended Enterprise Implementation Plan • We recommend establishing a justice information sharing governance structure that ensures all the disparate partners have a voice in the process. • URL believes that all criminal justice partners should have their own case or records management system in order to accomplish their day-to-day responsibilities. • As detailed in our year-by-year action plan (upcoming slides), we recommend the process of securing funds and procuring these systems happen immediately. • Moreover, we recommend that criminal justice agencies, including the Circuit Clerk’s Office, 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 selection should require that the 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 in most CMS environments fairly easily using the work product generated in the Service Specifications. • Infrastructure procurement and implementation can begin in the second year. • Exchanges, or the specific sharing of information and electronic documents between agencies, can be brought on incrementally based upon stakeholder priorities.
Timeline and Related Costs
Recommend
More recommend
