Jci Advisory Committee and Work Group

JCI ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WORK GROUP

JOINT MEETINGMINUTES

September 5, 2002

Committee Members Present:Rawleigh Irvin, Debbie Yonaka, Ernie Veach-White, Dave Yount, Carol Hurlburt, Judy Higgins, Sharon Paradis, Rena Hollis, Larry Barker, Mel Jewell, Bruce Eklund, Cathie Watson,Steve Gustavason (for open KingCounty position).

Committee Members Absent: Pam Daniels, Sentencing Guidelines position open.

Work Group Members Present: Sandy Ervin, Toni Kirschenmann,Margie Holloway, Paul Wood,Sue Trujillo, Frank Trujillo,Myra Larama,Kim May and Jennifer Sapp (for Norrie Gregoire, Walla Walla),Nancy Wilson,Joanne Moore,

Work Group Members Absent: Tom Ball, John DuBois, Susan Fraser, Jim Phoenix, David Ryan.

JCI Project Team Present:Eric Kruger,Norma Bryce,Alan Erickson, Allyson Erickson,Regina McDougall

Guests Present: John Stern (Skagit County Information Technology Department)

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS

Re-evaluate location of Same Course of Conduct Flag on Referral Add screen. Remove from Referral Add, leave on SCOMIS Charge screen.

Create Class B Change Request for Most Serious Charge Display

Convey 30-second Acceptable Form 5/6 Preparation Response Time to MSE

Form 5/6 Changes:

• Batch submit of Form 5/6 Reports
• Display all reasons regardless of Same Course of Conduct
• Display multiple responsible officials
• Modify format for readability & review with Judy

Improve On-line Referral History Display

Set-up September 9 Meeting to Review Referral Processing with Judy Higgins

Set-up meeting with Sandy Ervin to review the JCS Tracking and Notification screen designs and related change requests in detail.

Determine best course of action for making the MHJDAT statewide

Resolve Alert Risk Level Code definitional conflicts

Schedule meeting/conference call with Rawleigh & Margie to resolve all risk level definitions and finalize the Alerts schema

Add 2 additional Detention staff security profiles for:

• Detention with referral; and,
• Limited detention update.

Schedule meeting with Rawleigh, Margie, Toni, Sandy, and Norma to review, validate, and finalize detail access privileges for each profile

Finalize Referral Resolution Changes and Review with select Committee and Work Group members

1. S

Schedule meeting to review Referral Resolution changes

Poll JCAs re exceptional process linking multiple referrals to a single diversion

Determine feasibility and develop change request to gather adjudication date data

Reconcile all codes work to conversion and JCS

Assign work to modify DCH-ICH to display Diversion for juvenile court users only. This appears to be a 'B' change request.

Devise plan to enter Local Laws in JCS and determine if they can be imported from JIS

1. Welcome and Introductions

The Committee chair, Ernie Veach-White, welcomed all Committee and Work Group members. Attendees introduced themselves.

New JCI Committee members include: Sharon Paradis, Benton-Franklin County Juvenile Court Administrator; Cathie Watson, Cowlitz County Juvenile Court Administrator; Steve Gustavason, King County Juvenile Court Services Manager attended for the Committee's open KingCounty position.

Kim May and Jennifer Sapp attended for Work Group member Norrie Gregoire, Columbia/Walla Walla County Juvenile Court Detention Manager

1. Approve March 21, 2002 Meeting Minutes

The Committee approved the March 21stMinutes.

1. Project Status Update

1. JCS & JIS Applications

Alan reported that project's technical team is currently focused on JCS. Work on the JUVIS data conversion programs is complete. Work continues on the JCI-related JIS changes and on the new juvenile data warehouse.

Significant progress has been made since the March meeting, but release dates are not identified. During March-May the project team tested JCS releases focusing on its functionality, its performance (response time) and its capability to work with the hardware architecture. In May, a small set of Work Group members reviewed the functionality in the JCS alpha release. In June, the data warehouse sub-workgroup reviewed and approved the data warehouse design. Then in August, the data warehouse project team met with the Quality Assurance Committee to review the design as it related to Risk Assessment data with the result that the Committee will identify specific queries for the project team by October 1.

During May-August JCS rework (bug corrections) was completed by the contractor, Magic Software Services (MSE), which resulted in the first Beta release and another full iteration of extensive testing, which AOC completed at the end of August.

AOC testing of the Beta-1 release identified approximately 150 problems that the contractor will correct. In addition, the AOC has identified a set of high priority change requests that must be completed before it will recommend the application for acceptance by the work group and implementation in the pilot sites (Columbia/Walla Walla and Yakima). A primary goal of this meeting is to review these change requests with the committee and to gain committee approval.

A second set of change requests has been identified for post-pilot implementation, but before KingCounty; and, a third set for implementation after KingCounty.

For the Future:

During September, MSE is correcting all Beta-1 problems, and the current plan calls for a mid-September release of Beta-2, which the AOC will then test. The goal is to finish another end-to-end functional test on the Beta-2 release in October.

The AOC is awaiting estimates on the high priority change requests and reports. When these are received, then more specific planning can be done for Committee/Work Group Acceptance Testing dates and Pilot Site Training and Deployment dates. It is realistic to expect some rework as a result of acceptance testing.

1. Probation Functionality

JCS for day 1 has some limited probation functionality, including full Risk Assessment functionality, for juvenile courts. Alan stated that he has submitted a Budget proposal for next biennium to complete the probation functionality for both the juvenile and limited jurisdiction courts. The proposal will be reviewed by the Supreme Court prior to submittal during the next legislative session. If it is approved, work can begin next July.

1. Change Control

Alan explained that the JCI project is no longer in the requirements definition mode. Rather, we are in an iterative construction and change control mode. This means that any requested functionality not included in the original JCI requirement document or that was traded-off with the decision to purchase an off-the-shelf system (JCS) will not be constructed for day-1 implementation in the pilot sites. These requests will be documented through a formal client request process for review, approval, and prioritization by the JCI Advisory Committee. Client request forms and guidelines are available on Inside CourtsWebsite at

Bugs will be dealt with directly by the project team through HelpCenter after pilot implementation.

4.JCS Demonstration

Allyson demonstrated the JCS Beta-1 version for the group by stepping through the business processes listed in the expandable menu, including Person, Referrals, Risk Assessment, Detention, Reports, etc. Committee members asked if they could have access to Beta release. The answer is if you have a juvenile RACF Id profile, you can access JCS at provided you first contact the JCI staff to assure that your JCS security is set-up. Alan reminded the group that when accessing the new application you will be accessing real data that has been converted from JUVIS, so all the standard security restrictions need to be observed.

Polygraph Result Codes

The group directed the addition of new code: Inconclusive.

Person Record Views Using Multiple Sessions

The committee decided to make a change request to allow a person record id to be carried forward from one application to the next, i.e. from JCS to JIS when an operator is using that record in one application. Judy Higgins will draft the change request.

Same Course of Conduct

This flag does not belong on the Referral Add Screen since it is part of the finding at adjudication.

Most Serious Charge

Although this is a JCI requirement, it is not a part of the original JTS client-server application that AOC purchased and converted to the Web. The group discussed whether this should be a Day-1 requirement and the impact of such a change. It was agreed that on Day-1, courts would continue using the JUVIS procedure with JCS, that a Change Request to automate display of most serious charge first would be implemented after the pilot site and before the KingCounty implementations.

1. JCS Development Issues

Form 5/6

Question: What is the acceptable response time for preparation of Form 5/6? Is 30 seconds to 1 minute acceptable response time to prepare report provided system is available during execution?

Response: 30 seconds or less is acceptable provided:

• report preparation does not tie up the machine
• preparation time not compounded for multiple reports
• capability exists to submit multiple reports

Question: Shall the Diversion section be removed?

Response: No, Referrals which have a disposition of counseled, warned and released; diversion agreement signed (with no subsequent termination; or diversion agreement completed will be displayed in this section.

Other Form 5/6 Comments:

• Most members felt the report format interfered with its readability. Eric responded that the project team would see if format improvements could be combined with other Day-1 change requests.
• Display all referral reasons regardless of Same Course of Conduct Status.
• Display multiple responsible officials
• Need improved on-line display of referral history

Proposed Change Requests for Day-1 Implementation

Question: The group reviewed Attachment 1, JCS Change Requests. Alan explained that the Project Team recommends implementation of all "Class A"items on the handout before deploying JCS to the pilot sites. These changes are critical to operations. The project team is asking the group to approve these items.

Response: After discussion, the group approved the Class-A Change Requests for day-1 implementation, provided:

• Project Team reviews Referral processing and the related change requests in detail with Judy Higgins. The review was scheduled for Monday September 9 at AOC in Olympia.
• Project Team reviews the JCS Tracking and Notification screen designs and related change requests in detail with Sandy Ervin. This review needs to be scheduled.

Proposed Reports for Day-1 Implementation

Attachment 2, JCS Report List for Day-1 includes items 17, 20, and 28 that were missing from previous report list approved by the Committee in March. No action is required by the group on this agenda item. This list includes all high-priority reports and seven JCS reports native to the original JTS client server application. Alan noted that the usability of the seven reports native to JCS would have to be determined during Acceptance Testing.

Comments on Reports: The group indicated that the Medical Intake (MHJDAT) Report should be statewide.

Alert Categories & Codes

The group reviewed Attachment 3, Alert Codes.

Question:

Is the Category Code necessary since it is not used anywhere in the JCS application?

Response: Although the Category Code is not operational, the group would like to use it for query purposes.

Question: What is the definition of each Category Code?

Response:

• GE General,
• MD Medical,
• MH Mental Health,
• SS Safety & Security.

Question: Is "Risk" the same as "Alert Level Code"

Response: Yes, Risk level is equivalent to alert level code.

Question: What is the definition of each risk code? The current assigned values are confusing because, for example, a risk level of "1" has a different meaning for risk codes SPN (Special Needs) and ASM (Asthma).

Response: Rawleigh and Margie will work with Allyson to resolve the definitional conflicts.

Proposed Security Profiles

The group reviewed Attachment 4, Proposed Juvenile Department Security Profiles.

Question: Is the proposal to establish the following four profiles acceptable: Juvenile Data Entry Staff; Juvenile Detention Staff; Juvenile Probation Staff; and, Juvenile Site Coordinator?

Response:

Yes, provided two more detention profiles are added, including:

• Detention with referral; and,
• Limited detention update.

Allyson and Norma will meet with Rawleigh, Toni, Margie, and Sandy to review the detailed privileges for each profile. This must be accomplished before Acceptance Testing.

JCS Referral Resolution Model

The group reviewed the proposal for the Referral Resolution design and responded to the following issues.

Question: Is it acceptable to remove the disposition code and date from the referral screen?

Response: Yes.

Question: Is it acceptable to use the referral status code and date for indicating the current state of the referral?

Response: Yes.

Question: Is it acceptable to use the status of the case associated with the referral in appropriate situations instead of replicating the case status onto the referral?

Response: Yes.

Question: Is it acceptable to simplify the referral and referral reason status codes?

Response: Yes. AOC to finalize the referral resolution model changes and review with select committee and work group members

Question: Is it acceptable to modify the JCS design to allow only one referral to be linked to a diversion?

Response: It is acceptable for JCS to support linking only one referral to a diversion. Regina will send a List serve query to the JCAs to determine which counties link multiple referrals on one diversion agreement. The group is confident that the volume of diversions with multiple referrals is extremely low, and that work arounds are adequate to handle these exceptions and to mitigate the difficult design issues for the system to handle multiple referrals in a diversion.

Question: Is it acceptable to use the JCS disposition screen to record the agreement signed, refused, terminated, rejected?

Response: Yes.

Question: Are tracking entries needed for diversion dispositions?

Response: Yes.

Question: Should the diversion conditions be attached to the disposition that records the signing of a diversion agreement?

Response: Yes.

Question: Should a diversions display on form5/6?

Response: Yes, counseled warned and release, diversion agreement signed, and successfully completed diversion should display in the diversion section..

Question: Adjudication Date –Should the JUVIS adjudication date be converted and made available in JCS?

Response: Yes, the JUVIS adjudication date should be converted and displayed on the JCS referral screen. For legacy referrals, the converted JUVIS adjudication date will be display only and will display only at the referral level in JCS. For referrals created in the new JCS, there will be an adjudication date for each referral reason. For offender referrals the adjudication date should be obtained from SCOMIS. SCOMIS will require modification to capture the date (result date) associated with the result code entered for each charge count. The group requested that a change request be drafted to allow the collection of the adjudication date in SCOMIS in conjunction with the SCOMIS Result Code for each current charge in a juvenile offender case.

Question: How shall the mismatch of referral status, case resolution status, charge result code and referral reason status codes-be resolved?

Response: Reconcile codes for caseflow. Use existing codes subgroup for review.

JIS Defendant Case History (DCH) & Individual Case History (ICH) Screens

Question: Should completed/signed/counseled, warned and released diversionsdisplay on DCH/ICH?

Response: Yes, for juvenile staff.

Local Lawsvs.Generic Laws

Question: Shall JCS support

Response: Yes, use local laws. AOC will collect and enter all local laws for each juvenile department when each is converted to JCS.

Question: How shall JUVIS generic laws be converted?

Response: Convert as-is to a generic statewide law. Allow continued usage of the statewide law and gradually transition to usage of local laws. The generic statewide laws will be end effective dated after the last court is converted.