Oregon Department of Justice

Transcription

1 Oregon Department of Justice Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice Division of Child Support Oregon Child Support System Project Presentation to Joint Emergency Board Interim Subcommittee on General Government May 24,

2 Child Support Systems All states must maintain a child support automated system that meets federal certification requirements. Oregon s current system (CSEAS) is one of the oldest systems in the nation, using components and databases from the 1970s that are obsolete, difficult to use, and complex to maintain. 2

3 System Replacement Since 2010, DOJ has been working on a multi biennium plan to replace its current COBOL based mainframe child support case management and financial system Feasibility study report (Nov 2011 to Oct 2012) Business process re-engineering (Dec 2012 to Dec 2013) Planning approval (2013 Legislative Session) Planning and implementation (2015 Legislative Session) 3

4 System Functionality A certified child support system must provide a number of key components Data exchange between government entities Certified System Accounting collection, distribution, audit functionality Document generation & management Case management workflows enforcement, establishment & modification, locate, paternity Business intelligence & compliance reporting Automated case action alerts 4

5 System Replacement Goals Increase in support collections for families Increase in recoveries for state agencies Remove increasing risk of catastrophic failure of CSEAS Compliance with federal and state regulations and data security requirements Data warehousing and business intelligence Timely completion of legal actions Reduction in manual processes Public cost savings 5

6 Oregon s Solution Oregon s new child support system will be based on current web-interface technology. Transferring base system functional and technical components from California s system Augmenting with components from Michigan and New Jersey All three systems have been in successful statewide operation for several years Contracted vendor with industry experience and expertise (Deloitte Consulting) building Oregon s system Oregon will own and plans to selfsupport the completed system 6

7 Project Organizational Chart 7

8 Preliminary Project Schedule Where we re going 8

9 System Project Recent milestones: Quality Assurance (CSG) performed quality control reviews of various project documents, System Integrator (Deloitte) deliverables, and transfer code Independent Verification & Validation (SLI) conducted the initial IV&V review and issued first report Project received Stage Gate 3 approval from the Office of the State Chief Information Officer in January 2016 Project received conditional approval for joint application design (JAD) and joint technical design (JTD) sessions from the Legislative Fiscal Office Project purchased the software required for the new system, and Deloitte set up the Application Lifecycle Management environment and populated it with the transfer state artifacts Project completed the controlled funding release plan Project released name of new system: 9

10 System Project In process: Project budget baselining LFO readiness assessment review May 2016 Steering Committee meeting: LFO s principal IT analyst verbally reported the assessment as completed and approved LFO finalizing review documentation and anticipates official approval soon Transfer of application code, system documentation, and technical specifications from CA, MI, NJ Development of missing transfer documentation from CA Proof of concept build Data conversion planning JAD & JTD sessions (Jan 2016 Aug 2016) Business function Technical design 10

11 System Project Goals for the next quarter: Complete procurement negotiations for long-term system hosting Complete project budget baselining Continue design sessions with subject matter experts and development of design documentation Coordinate with partner agencies for system interfaces Continue project planning activities Beginning early execution tasks 11

12 SB 5701 (2016) Budget Note Report 12

13 Advisory Steering Committee (a) Justify why an advisory steering committee is an appropriate form of governance Appropriate model for a project with federal oversight by an agency headed by an independent elected official, who has direct accountability to the citizens of Oregon One of multiple components of the project s oversight structure as outlined in the Project Governance Plan for the Oregon Child Support System Project Provides executive strategic guidance for the Project Members include department heads of state agencies most affected by the design and implementation of the child support system, along with a representative of the district attorney child support offices 13

14 Decision-Making Structure The Project governance structure is based on coordination and increasing levels of decision-making authority. 14

15 Issue Escalation The decision-making structure identifies the hierarchy of escalation for Project issues and decisions. The Project Management Team Drives day-to-day activities and makes decisions based on its Project role, Agency role, and subject matter expertise. Escalates issues, actions, and decisions to the Core Project Team as necessary. The Core Project Team Responsible for key decisions that have a potential political implication, enterprise-level impact, and budget or schedule changes as described in the Change Control and Issue Management Plan. Uses a consensus-building methodology for decision-making with the final decision rendered by the Project Executive who escalates issues to the Executive Sponsor as needed. May forward issues for advice and recommendations to the Stakeholders Advisory Board, Technology Sponsors Group, and the Steering Committee. 15

16 Project Steering Committee Kate Cooper Richardson DOJ - Child Support Program Director Fred Boss DOJ - Deputy Attorney General Karen Coleman DOJ - Child Support Project Exeuctive Dawn Marquardt DOJ - Child Support Deputy Director Gundula Shye DOJ - Child Support Project Manager Tammy Kramer DOJ - Child Support Operations Section Chief Marc Williams DOJ - Admin Services Division Administrator Lorrin King DOJ - Chief Information Officer Art Ayre DOJ Chief Financial Officer Mark Williams DOJ - General Counsel AIC Business Transactions Carol Anne McFarland Oregon District Attorney Association Liaison Sandy Wheeler DAS - ETS Deputy Administrator David Factor OJD Staff Counsel Sarah Miller DHS Chief Operations Officer for Technology Dane Wilson DHS/OHA OIS IT Director of Solution Dev. & Delivery David Franks ODOT, IT Service Delivery Manager 16

17 Additional Accountability Ongoing Collaborative Partnerships Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement Principal Legislative Analyst, Legislative Fiscal Office Principal IT Analyst, Legislative Fiscal Office Chief Information Officer & IT Investment Oversight Coordinator, Office of the State Chief Information Officer Contracted Review Quality Assurance: independent of other contractors, provides a full spectrum of quality management services Independent Verification & Validation: managed by DAS, Chief Information Officer 17

18 System Hosting (b) Provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the decision to use a private vendor vs. Department of Administrative Services State Data Center Hosting Facility State Data Center $ Atmosera $ Difference Maintenance Stand-up Through SFY 2019 Total Project 173,160 $ 2,816,932 $ 2,990,092 5,000 $ 3,590,122 $ 3,595,122 -$168,160 $773,190 $605,030 Estimates calculated with anticipated (under negotiation) final cost for Atmosera hosting and cost estimates provided by Enterprise Technology Services (ETS). State Data Center estimates do not include costs that ETS may have incurred had it increased staffing levels to provide the timeliness of delivery required by the system project schedule. State Data Center figures do not include the standard agency allocation charged to DOJ for the State Data Center s administrative overhead. 18

19 Indirect Rate (c) Provide a justification for the indirect agency administrative charges to the CSEAS project, which may need to be repurposed and used for a general project contingency fund Federally approved rates used to distribute central services costs that have common and joint purposes. Standard practice to charge federal awards for central services through the use of an indirect rate. Funds are continually used to fund services that are required for routine operations, which exist even as components of the Project. These funds provide the Department with the funding necessary to provide vital central services to the agency. Because this is a federally approved rate and assessment, repurposing these funds would jeopardize DOJ compliance with federal requirements. Collected funds could result in an over or underpayment to central services. Any variance between collected indirect charges and actual costs are treated as carry-forward and are included in future indirect cost rate calculation. 19

20 Central Services The indirect cost rate finances the following central services: AG office staff and department administration Deputy AG and staff, administration, and reception Information systems Chief Information Officer, computer services and support, and enterprise purchases Human resources Human Resources Director and staff, recruitment, employee relations, classification and compensation, payroll and benefits Fiscal accounting and reporting services Budget Chief Financial Officer and department budget staff Operations facilities management, mail services, and procurement 20

21 Reporting Improvements (d) Report on improvements to quality assurance and agency status reporting The Department engaged in an interactive process with Legislative Fiscal Office analysts, John Borden and Bob Cummings. Specific improvements to the template include: Removed meeting listings from weekly and monthly status report. Added categories for project start/end dates; current project phase; general project status trending; purpose of status report statement; project change order summary, executive summary; work breakdown structure (WBS) for reporting period project deliverables; decision log. Enhancements implemented with April 2016 status report. 21

22 Budget Update and Funding Request 22

23 Funding Structure Federal Funds provide 66% of eligible program costs under Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act for both development and ongoing operations and maintenance State matching funds from Article XI-Q bonds sales, with General Fund Debt Service, funds the state s portion of bond-eligible development costs State matching funds from the Department s Other Funds and General Fund cover the state s portion of non-bondable development costs (small proportion of project) Ongoing operations and maintenance costs will be funded with General Fund and matching Federal Funds 23

24 Current Project Budget DOJ / DCS - System Project PROJECTED EXPENSES Legislatively Approved 15-17* Project Estimate May, 2016 Difference Personal Services** $3,682,062 $4,429,463 $747,401 Total Personal Services $3,682,062 $4,429,463 $747,401 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES Travel $6,745 $28,906 $22,161 Training $3,177 $40,090 $36,913 Office Expenses $53,047 $2,612 -$50,435 Communications $24,621 $5,166 -$19,455 Data Processing $3,684,679 $408,783 -$3,275,896 Contractors $0 $0 Professional Services $38,283,847 $47,298,595 $9,014,748 Rent/Utilities $138,256 $0 -$138,256 Expendable Properties $801,392 $224,155 -$577,237 Other $494,536 $7,539 -$486,997 Capital Outlay $3,953,375 $3,953,375 DOJ Intraagency Charge $429,059 $567,902 $138,843 DAS Comp Usage/ Hosting Services $693,000 $939,388 $246,388 Total Services and Supplies $44,612,359 $53,476,510 $8,864,151 Federal Share $29,997,991 $38,213,926 $8,215,935 State Share $18,296,430 $19,692,047 $1,395,617 Total $48,294,421 $57,905,973 $9,611,552 * Includes February 2016 Session ** Budget adjustments are outlined in Agency Letter 24

25 Maintaining the New System Projected future maintenance costs estimates for system hardware, software, and hosting. $4,500,000 $3,500,000 $2,500, * * * * * Current System $4,030,671 $4,127,407 $4,226,465 $4,327,900 $4,431,770 New System $2,681,136 $2,745,483 $2,811,374 $2,878,847 $2,947,940 *calculations use standard inflation rate to estimate costs in future biennia. 25

26 Request Breakdown DOJ / DCS IT Project Funding Needs December E-Board /Feb 2016 Session Request SCR additional bond sales and adjustment of timing of existing sales / OST Loan Fee Limitation General Fund Debt Service General Fund (Interest) Other Funds Other Funds (COI /Loan Fee) Federal Funds $1,161,194 $34,683 Total $123,740 $1,319, Limitation for updated projections (funded with bond sales and DCS operating funds) $1,180,558 $2,301,543 $3,482, Bond Proceeds to be used in $2,973,095 $5,771,302 $8,744, fund split correction $249,898 $249,898 $1,161,194 $34,683 $4,403,551 $123,740 $8,072,846 $13,796,014 Feb 2016 Session Senate Bill 5701 Appropriation / Limitation $1,161,194 $34,683 $3,086,760 $123,240 $0 $4,408,877 Unfunded Balance From Feb 2016 Request $0 $0 $1,316,791 $500 $8,072,846 $9,390,137 $78,825 $143,090 $221,915 $1,395,617 $8,215,935 $9,611,552 May E-Board Total Request Feb Updated Budget Projections May E-Board Request $0 $0 26

27 Changes Since February The budget is continually monitored and updated as actual project costs are realized and replace projections. This request comprises the most accurate information available to the Department at this time. The following table shows adjustments to expenditure limitation projections used for the February 2016 session. Projection Adjustments from the February 2016 presentation: 1) Deloitte (Implementation vendor/ system integrator)* $164,843 2) Intraagency Charge, rate increase for 2017 $31,577 3) Capital Outlay $71,041 4) S&S $16,423 5) Vacancy Savings ($61,969) Total Budget adjustments $221,915 * Resulted from a calculation error in a budgeting formula and the budget adjustments from cash to accrual basis. The actual contract costs did not change but the corrections resulted in the shifting of costs between biennia and the roll up of all committed costs into the final figure. 27

28 Anticipated Legislative Impacts Increase in Other Funds expenditure limitation* by $1,395,617 for project expenditures during the biennium. Increase in Federal Funds expenditure limitation* by $8,215,935 during the biennium. * As established by chapter 837, sections 10 and 13, Oregon Laws 2015, for the child support enforcement automated system in the child support enforcement program within the Department of Justice Limitation Adjustments - Project Operating Only SCR Additional Limitation Other Funds Federal Funds Total $ 1,395,617 $ 8,215,935 $ 9,611,552 28

29 Project Costs Increase Impact of Denial DAS procurement costs and AAG costs Personal services and S&S costs Facility costs (through Deloitte contract) Risk Increases Project stall; completion date delayed at least to Reduced contractor support Loss of key state and contractor personnel Current system failure Reduction or elimination of federal funding and support, including potential recoupment Regulatory security findings and penalties 29

30 Thank You Questions? 30