Summary

Automated Child Support System: Selection of Interim System Appears Reasonable November 1998 98025 rotiduA etatS ainrofilaC S T I D U A E T A T S F O U A E R U B You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-0255 or TDD (916) 445-0255 x 248 OR This report may also be available on the worldwide web http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/ Permission is granted to reproduce reports. November 19, 1998 98025 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As required by Chapter 329, Statutes of 1998, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning the selection of an interim automated child support consortia system. This report concludes that the process used by the Health and Welfare Data Center and the Department of Social Services to select the systems that will comprise the interim consortia system was reasonable, and that we agree with the systems selected. Respectfully submitted, KURT R. SJOBERG State Auditor November 19, 1998 98025 Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As required by Chapter 329, Statutes of 1998, the Bureau of State Audits presents its report entitled “Automated Child Support System: Selection of Interim System Appears Reasonable” concerning the selection of automated systems to formulate an interim statewide child support system. SUMMARY I n August 1998, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2779 to transfer the Statewide Automated Child Support System and separate county systems to one of four interim systems to be linked statewide while a permanent statewide system is devel- oped. The Legislature preselected Los Angeles County’s ARS system as one of the four. The Department of Social Services (DSS), the Health and Welfare Data Center (data center), and the California District Attorneys’ Association jointly developed the criteria to select the remaining three. The DSS and the data center evaluated the systems based on county business needs, mandatory software functionality, system cost, software mainte- nance, technical considerations, and county program impact. Based on this evaluation, the DSS and the data center selected the KIDZ (Kern County), STAR/KIDS (Riverside County), and CASES (San Francisco County) systems. We reviewed these agencies’ selection process for the three interim systems and found it was reasonable given the con- straints on time and resources the federal government imposed. Although we have some reservations about the self-reported cost information used in evaluating the systems because the data center’s consultant did not audit it for accuracy, other factors C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 1 support the integrity of the data. Moreover, to ensure future compatibility, we recommend the agencies review Los Angeles County’s ARS system according to the same criteria. BACKGROUND In March of this year, the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) released a report evaluating the Statewide Automated Child Support System (SACSS) Lockheed Martin Information Management Systems developed for the Health and Welfare Agency. Accumulated problems caused the system to fail in November 1997, costing taxpayers more than $111 million and delaying child support payments to waiting children. Addition- ally, the failure of the system subjected the State to millions of dollars in federal penalties because it did not implement SACSS by mandated deadlines. Therefore, the Legislature, in August 1998, passed Assembly Bill 2779, which created a process for the development of a consortia of interim automated child support systems to ensure the continued and improved collection of child support payments while minimizing federal penalties during the development of a long-term statewide system. The bill directed the data center and the DSS to develop a linked statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system as a means of enforcing court-ordered child support payments. To facilitate an immediate, orderly transition of the counties to selected automated systems that comply with federal child support distribution rules and other federal requirements, the bill stipulated that the agencies select no more than four eligible county consortia, including Los Angeles County, as an interim linked statewide collection system. This interim system will also include a state distribution unit, a statewide case registry, and all other necessary databases and interfaces. The bill directed each county to select one of seven consortia systems to transfer its child support caseload to that would subsequently be narrowed to four systems. The six systems specified by the Legislature as the only systems eligible, in addition to the ARS system operated by Los Angeles County, to become one of the four consortia systems were: 2 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R • The BEST system (Alameda County) • The CASES system (San Francisco County) • The CHASER system (San Mateo County) • The KIDZ system (Kern County) • The STAR/KIDS system (Riverside County) • The FACES system (San Diego County) The DSS, the data center, and the California District Attorneys’ Association were jointly charged to develop standards and criteria to evaluate and select three consortia systems from the initial six. Prior to the final selections, our office, in consultation with the federal Department of Health and Human Services and the DSS, will determine the acceptability of the systems’ core child support applications for federal certification and whether they comply with federal distribution requirements. The bureau is to report its findings by June 1, 1999, with the selection of the four consortia child support enforcement systems to follow by the end of June 1999. Federal Government Demands Changed Timelines Subsequently, the federal government stipulated that it would fund only four interim systems and advanced the State’s deci- sion from June 1999 to late November 1998. In response, the DSS and the data center accelerated their evaluation process to meet these federal requirements for emergency and implementa- tion funding. As a result, the bureau’s role changed to that of ensuring the integrity and consistency of the evaluation process used by the DSS and the data center in selecting consortia systems for a statewide automated child support system. This report provides our assessment of the DSS’s and the data center’s selection process. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We monitored and assessed the process employed by the data center and the DSS in selecting the consortia systems. To ensure that the selection process was fair and unbiased, we reviewed and provided input on the proposed criteria, the scoring method (including the point weighting), and the methodologies and survey instruments designed to gather information. Los Angeles County’s ARS system had already been preselected by the Legis- lature as among the four consortia systems; therefore, the data C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 3 center and the DSS only evaluated the ARS for year 2000 readi- ness and conformity with federal requirements for the distribu- tion of child payments. We assessed the accuracy of the evaluation and scoring for the county business needs and system fit criteria by obtaining the counties’ responses to the business needs survey developed by the data center based on input by the California District Attor- neys’ Association and we independently scored the result and compared it with the result reached by the data center. To determine whether the consortia systems under evaluation conformed with the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) distribution require- ments, we accompanied analysts from the data center during three of seven field visits to observe their testing process using a distribution test developed by the federal government. We ensured the data center analysts consistently administered the test at each location and accurately scored them. We accompanied the data center’s consultants during their site visits to each consortia county to observe their determination of year 2000 readiness. To ensure the consistency of the consultants’ efforts, we obtained copies of the survey and data requested from the seven counties visited, independently scored the results, and compared our results to the data center’s. The consortia systems must show capability to establish child support cases and use member-based accounting in compliance with the federal Administration for Children and Families and DSS’s respective guidelines. Therefore, we obtained copies of the surveys administered by the DSS to all the consortia counties except Los Angeles, as well as the methodology used to evaluate the responses to the surveys, and independently rescored the results for each county. To determine the reasonability of the recurring and nonrecur- ring system costs reported by the consortia counties, we re- viewed the assumptions used by the data center’s consultants in gathering this information, traced certain elements of the counties’ reported cost summaries back to the detailed costs reported, and attempted to confirm the totals with the respec- tive consortia counties. 4 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R The evaluation also included review of the software mainte- nance practices used by the consortia counties. We accompanied the data center’s consultants during their field visits and ensured that all questions were asked consistently of each county, obtained copies of the survey responses, and contracted with consultants with expertise in this field to independently review and verify the reasonableness of the results. We assessed the data center’s conclusions regarding the technical considerations for each consortia system by contracting with an expert to independently review the information gathered and methodology used. If a county initially chose a consortia system that was not one of the four systems selected for the linked statewide child sup- port system, it could have an impact on that county and its caseload and users of the system. Therefore, we independently computed the impacts using information about the transitioning counties, caseloads, and users. Only counties that would be operational on one of the consortia systems by January 1999 were included in the calculations. We then com- pared our results to those computed by the data center. Finally, we verified the accuracy of the scores received for testing done in May and June 1998 by the data center, with oversight from the federal government, on the readiness of six of the seven consortia systems’ core child support applications to meet federal requirements. (Los Angeles County’s system had already received conditional approval by the federal government.) We shared the results of our report with representatives of the Health and Welfare Data Center and they agreed with our findings and recommendation. AUDIT RESULTS The data center evaluated six of seven consortia systems in the following areas to determine their suitability for selection: county business needs, mandatory software functionality, system cost, software maintenance, technical considerations, and county program impact. Because the Legislature preselected Los Angeles County’s ARS system as one of the four systems to be linked statewide, the data center only evaluated the ARS for its year 2000 readiness and conformity to federal child support distribution requirements. C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 5 The data center ranked Kern County’s KIDZ system, Riverside County’s STAR/KIDS system, and San Francisco County’s CASES system as the top three consortia systems that will join Los Angeles County’s ARS system to form a linked statewide automated system for child support. See Attachment A for the data center’s detailed scoring for each consortia evaluated and Attachment B for the criteria and scoring methodology used. Our review of the data center and DSS selection process reveals that the selection process was reasonable given the constraints on time and resources the federal government imposed. Further- more, we agree with the point values assigned to each consortia system evaluated. Additionally, although it was not one of the systems chosen, San Diego County’s FACES system does not appear to be a viable interim solution candidate considering the legislative intent in selecting the consortia systems. Specifically, FACES, although scoring fourth and showing considerable promise, is still in development. Further, to allow for an orderly transition of counties to selected consortia systems, selected systems must comply with federal child support distribution requirements and core child support applications must meet federal certifica- tion standards. We agree with the data center’s assessment that, under the best of circumstances, the FACES system cannot realistically demonstrate that it meets these minimum require- ments until at least July 1999. Therefore, we believe that the risks associated with the FACES system are too high at this point to make it a viable candidate for an interim system, but it could become part of the State’s long-term solution for statewide child support automation. While we feel the selection process was reasonable, we noted areas of concern during the evaluation process. First, Los Angeles County’s ARS system, mandated by the Legislature as one of the consortia selected, was not evaluated for many of the same criteria the other competing consortia systems were. To ensure that the ARS system is successfully linked and can communi- cate with the three other consortia systems in the future, it is critical that Los Angeles County’s system be evaluated in all the same areas as the other systems to ensure compatibility. Accord- ing to the data center, it intends to complete the Los Angeles County ARS system review prior to the submission of the State’s Implementation Advance Planning Document in January 1999. 6 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R Second, although the counties self-reported all the cost infor- mation used in evaluating the consortia systems, the data center’s consultant did not formally audit the information, thereby increasing the risk that it may not be reliable. However, our concern was somewhat mitigated by the fact that in all cases except for San Diego County’s FACES system, the initial self-reported cost data was derived from the consortia’s respec- tive historical and current budget information concerning one-time and recurring systems costs, which provided a basis for determining its reasonability. The data center’s consultant then projected these costs using a common inflation factor for future years. Because San Diego County’s system is still being devel- oped, all the county’s cost information was based on its best estimates and could not be compared to any past reported costs for reasonableness. In conclusion, we believe that the process used by the DSS and the data center to choose the three systems that will join Los Angeles County’s ARS to form an interim child support system was consistently applied for all systems evaluated. Fur- thermore, the point values the data center assigned to each system were consistent with pre-established scoring methodolo- gies. Therefore, the selection of the KIDZ, STAR/KIDS, and CASES systems to add to the ARS in forming a linked statewide child support collection system appears reasonable. In the near future, however, the data center must ensure that Los Angeles County’s ARS system is subjected to the same evaluation process as the other systems to verify it will be able to successfully communi- cate with the other consortia systems. Over the coming months, as the DSS and the data center work toward facilitating a long-term solution for the State’s child support collection system, the bureau will continue to be in- volved in monitoring this important effort. C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 7 We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted governmental auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of this report. Respectfully submitted, KURT R. SJOBERG State Auditor Date: November 19, 1998 Staff: Douglas Cordiner, Audit Principal David E. Biggs, CPA Kim Bootman Arn Gittleman, CPA Jerry A. Lewis Jian Wang 8 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R Attachment A CONSORTIA SELECTION SCORING GUIDE Final Scores POSSIBLE SELECTION CRITERIA POINTS BEST CASES CHASER FACES * KIDZ ** STAR/KIDS I. COUNTY BUSINESS NEEDS AND SYSTEM FIT (20%) A. Percent of Total Counties Selecting Consortia System 66 9 66 21 15 51 9 B. Percent of Total Users 67 20 47 19 67 62 18 C. Percent of Total Caseload 67 20 33 11 67 42 20 Subtotal 200 49 146 51 149 155 47 II. MANDATORY SOFTWARE FUNCTIONALITY (25%) A. PRWORA Distribution Compliance 10 15 15 30 30 15 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 B. Year 2000 Compliance by March 31, 1999 15 15 15 15 15 15 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 C. Level I Compliance 1. Case Initiation 15 9 8 12 n/a 13 15 2. Locate 15 11 9 12 n/a 13 15 3. Establishment 15 7 7 12 n/a 14 15 4. Case Management 15 8 9 14 n/a 14 15 5. Financials 25 17 17 25 n/a n/a 24 6. Enforcement 15 12 12 15 n/a n/a 14 7. Reporting 15 9 11 15 n/a n/a 15 8. Security 15 13 14 15 n/a 11 15 86 87 120 0 65 128 D. ACF Case Construct Compliance Capability 30 15 15 30 30 30 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 E. Member-Based Financials Compliance Capability 30 30 30 30 30 30 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 Subtotal 250 171 162 195 105 170 218 Source: Health and Welfare Data Center Page 1 of 3 Attachment A CONSORTIA SELECTION SCORING GUIDE Final Scores POSSIBLE SELECTION CRITERIA POINTS BEST CASES CHASER FACES * KIDZ ** STAR/KIDS III. SYSTEM COST *** (15%) A. Non-Recurring Costs 10 2 1 2 0 10 6 B. Recurring Costs 140 140 56 107 140 95 124 Subtotal 150 142 57 109 140 105 130 IV. SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE (15%) A. Software Development Methodology and Tools 15 30 15 30 15 30 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 B. Unit, System, and Regression Testing Methodology 10 30 15 30 30 30 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 C. Configuration Management Methodology 30 30 30 30 30 30 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 D. Quality of Technical Documentation 30 30 15 30 15 30 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 E. Software Problem Detection and Tracking Methodology 30 30 30 30 30 30 1. Green 30 2. Yellow 15 3. Red 10 150 115 150 105 150 120 150 V. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS (20%) A. Upward Scalability to the Largest California County (excluding LA) 25 50 50 17 25 50 1. Green 50 2. Yellow 25 3. Red 17 B. Downward Scalability to the Smallest California County 20 20 20 20 20 20 1. Green 20 2. Yellow 10 3. Red 7 C. Hardware System Suitability for a Large-Scale CSE Environment 15 15 15 15 15 15 1. Green 15 2. Yellow 8 3. Red 5 Source: Health and Welfare Data Center Page 2 of 3 Attachment A CONSORTIA SELECTION SCORING GUIDE Final Scores POSSIBLE SELECTION CRITERIA POINTS BEST CASES CHASER FACES * KIDZ ** STAR/KIDS D. Programming Language(s) Suitability for a Large-Scale CSE Environment 15 8 8 8 8 8 1. Green 15 2. Yellow 8 3. Red 5 E. Data Storage and Retrieval Suitability for a Large-Scale CSE Environment 8 8 8 8 8 8 1. Green 15 2. Yellow 8 3. Red 5 F. Operating System Suitability for a Large-Scale CSE Environment 15 15 5 5 15 15 1. Green 15 2. Yellow 8 3. Red 5 G. Inter-Application Data Exchange 35 35 70 70 70 35 1. Green 70 2. Yellow 35 3. Red 23 Subtotal 200 133 151 176 143 161 151 VI. COUNTY PROGRAM IMPACT (5%) A. County Disruption 16 2 16 3 1 4 1 B. User Disruption 17 7 17 3 8 11 6 C. Customer Disruption 17 10 17 2 11 9 10 Subtotal 50 19 50 8 20 24 17 BEST CASES CHASER FACES * KIDZ ** STAR/KIDS TOTALS 1000 629 716 644 707 735 713 * The Level I pre-certification review conducted in May/June of 1998 assessed San Diego County's old case management and accounting systems, not their new systems which are being developed. Consequently, FACES was not scored for Level I Compliance (included in Section II. Mandatory Software Functionality) given the absence of data. ** The KIDZ level I pre-certification review conducted in May/June of 1998 assessed Kern County's old accounting system, not their new version currently in production. Consequently, the KIDZ Level I Compliance score (included in Section II. Mandatory Software Functionality) was reduced in those areas directly related to financial processing. *** The Recurring Cost curve (Section III. System Cost) was based on BEST (Alameda County system) given that it represented the lowest recurring cost among the five production systems for which there is a historical basis for estimating recurring costs. However, in recognition of thpeo tential for low recurring costs as reported by San Diego County, FACES was given the full 140 points possible for Recurring Cost. (Note: FACES is still in development; therefore, historical production data does not exist as a baseline for estimating recurring costs). Source: Health and Welfare Data Center Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA CRITERIA HOW MEASURED/SCORED I. COUNTY BUSINESS NEEDS AND SYSTEM FIT I.A Percent of Total Counties, User Population, and MEASUREMENT: Caseload Selecting Consortia System to Meet County · A survey will be taken of all counties to determine which consortia system best fits each Business Needs county’s business needs. · Counties failing to respond within the designated timeframe will not be included in I.A. · Points will be assigned to each consortia system as follows: X = county count or user count or caseload count for the consortia with the highest total Y = county count or user count or caseload count for the consortia being evaluated Score = (Y/X) * (Total Points Possible) MEASURED BY: · County poll to be conducted by the CDAA. · User counts will be based on the most recent child support staffing statistics gathered by the Department of Social Services. · Caseloads will be based on the 1997/1998 Master Case List. II. MANDATORY SOFTWARE FUNCTIONALITY A “red” score on any item in this category will receive further scrutiny and may result in a consortia system being removed as a finalist (i.e., one of the four selected systems.) II.A PRWORA Distribution Compliance MEASUREMENT: (excludes the non-IVD test scenario) · Green – Consortia system successfully passed 100% of the PRWORA test deck scenarios. · Yellow – Consortia system successfully passed 20 or more of the 24 PRWORA test deck scenarios. · Red – Consortia system successfully passed 19 or fewer of the 24 PRWORA test deck scenarios. MEASURED BY: · Tests to be conducted by California Child Support Automation (CCSA) project staff. · Test scenarios provided by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA CRITERIA HOW MEASURED/SCORED II.B Year 2000 Compliance MEASUREMENT: · Green – IV&V engineer has a high degree of confidence that the consortia system in total (i.e. hardware, software, interfaces, etc.) is currently Y2K compliant. · Yellow – IV&V engineer has a high degree of confidence that the consortia system in total (i.e. hardware, software, interfaces, etc.) will be Y2K compliant by March 31, 1999. · Red – IV&V engineer does not have a high degree of confidence that the consortia system in total (i.e. hardware, software, interfaces, etc.) will be Y2K compliant by March 31, 1999. MEASURED BY: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers with Y2K assessment expertise will audit each lead county’s data (i.e. test plans, test results, documentation, etc.) and make color designations. II.C Level I Compliance MEASUREMENT: · The ACF certification questionnaire will be grouped into major categories (e.g. case initiation, locate, etc.). · Questions included in Section F-5, a through m, of the Financial area (which is specific to PRWORA distribution) will not be scored given that PRWORA distribution compliance was previously scored under item II.A. · Each major category will be assigned a total point value. · Results from the Level I pre-certification reviews conducted in May/June of 1998 will be used as the basis for points assignment for each question for all major categories. · Points will be assigned for each major category as follows: X = highest scoring consortia system for a given major category Y = score of the consortia system being evaluated for the category Score = (Y/X) * (Total Points Possible for the Major Category) MEASURED BY: · Points will be computed based on whether the consortium system passed a given test. Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA II.D ACF Case Construct Compliance Capability MEASUREMENT: · Green – Consortia system has the capability to utilize ACF case construct. · Yellow – Consortia system has the capability to utilize ACF case construct with no more than 400 hours of system enhancement/modification. · Red – Consortia system has the capability to utilize ACF case construct with more than 400 hours of system enhancement/modification. MEASURED BY: · Department of Social Services (DSS) staff. II.E Member-Based Financials Compliance Capability MEASUREMENT: · Green – Consortia system has the capability to utilize DSS member-based financials. · Yellow – Consortia system has the capability to utilize DSS member-based financials with no more than 400 hours of system enhancement/modification. · Red – Consortia system has the capability to utilize DSS member-based financials with more than 400 hours of system enhancement/modification. MEASURED BY: · Department of Social Services (DSS) staff. Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA III. SYSTEM COST III.A Non-Recurring Costs MEASUREMENT: · A total cost for Level I compliance development activities will be computed for each consortia system. · Points will be assigned to each consortia system as follows: X = lowest total cost of all consortia systems being evaluated Y = cost of the consortia system being evaluated Score = (X/Y) * (Total Points Possible) MEASURED BY: · MAXIMUS, working with each lead consortia county, will estimate non-recurring costs. III.B Recurring Costs MEASUREMENT: · A cost per case per year will be computed for each consortia system. · Points will be assigned to each consortia system as follows: X = lowest cost per case per year of all consortia systems being evaluated Y = cost per case per year of the consortia system being evaluated Score = (X/Y) * (Total Points Possible) MEASURED BY: · MAXIMUS, working with each lead consortia county, will estimate recurring costs. IV. SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE IV.A Software Development Methodology and Tools MEASUREMENT: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers will develop a questionnaire to collect specific information regarding the consortia’s software development methods. · A green, yellow, or red designation will be made based on county responses to the questionnaire. MEASURED BY: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers with software development expertise will evaluate the county’s data and make color designations. Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA IV.B Unit, System, and Regression Testing Methodology and MEASUREMENT: Tools · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers will develop a questionnaire to collect specific information regarding the consortia’s testing methods. · A green, yellow, or red designation will be made based on county responses to the questionnaire. MEASURED BY: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers with software development expertise will evaluate the county’s data and make color designations. IV.C Configuration Management Methodology and Tools MEASUREMENT: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers will develop a questionnaire to collect specific information regarding the consortia’s configuration management methods. · A green, yellow, or red designation will be made based on county responses to the questionnaire. MEASURED BY: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers with software development expertise will evaluate the county’s data and make color designations. IV.D Quality of Technical Documentation MEASUREMENT: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers will develop a questionnaire to collect specific information regarding the consortia’s documentation methods. · A green, yellow, or red designation will be made based on county responses to the questionnaire. MEASURED BY: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers with software development expertise will evaluate the county’s data and make color designations. Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA IV.E Software Problem Detection and Tracking Methodology MEASUREMENT: and Tools · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers will develop a questionnaire to collect specific information regarding the consortia’s software defect detection and tracking methods. · A green, yellow, or red designation will be made based on county responses to the questionnaire. MEASURED BY: · Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) engineers with software development expertise will review the county’s data and make color designations. V. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS A “red” score on any item in this category will receive further scrutiny and may result in a consortia system being removed as a finalist (i.e., one of the four selected systems.) V.A Upward Scalability to the Largest California County MEASUREMENT: (excluding LA) · Green – System engineer has high confidence that the consortia system will scale to the largest California county. · Yellow – System engineer has moderate confidence that the consortia system will scale to the largest California county. · Red – System engineer has little confidence that the consortia system will scale to the largest California county. MEASURED BY: · A software engineer with system scaling assessment expertise will evaluate each lead county’s data and make color designations. V.B Downward Scalability to the Smallest California County MEASUREMENT: · Green – System engineer has high confidence that the consortia system will scale down efficiently. · Yellow – System engineer has moderate confidence that the consortia system will scale down efficiently. · Red – System engineer has little confidence that the consortia system will scale down efficiently. Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA MEASURED BY: · A software engineer with system scaling assessment expertise will evaluate each lead county’s data and make color designations. V.C Hardware System (native environment) Suitability for a MEASUREMENT: Large-Scale Child Support Enforcement (CSE) · Green – System engineers have high confidence of processing capability/suitability in a Environment large-scale child support application environment. · Yellow – System engineers have moderate confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. · Red – System engineers have little confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. MEASURED BY: · Gartner Group engineers with software development expertise will evaluate each lead county’s data and make color designations. V.D Programming Language(s) Suitability for a Large-Scale MEASUREMENT: Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Environment · Green – System engineers have high confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. · Yellow – System engineers have moderate confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. · Red – System engineers have little confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. MEASURED BY: · Gartner Group engineers with software development expertise will evaluate each lead county’s data and make color designations. V.E Data Storage and Retrieval System Suitability for a MEASUREMENT: Large-Scale Child Support Enforcement (CSE) · Green – System engineers have high confidence of processing capability/suitability in a Environment large-scale child support application environment. · Yellow – System engineers have moderate confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. · Red – System engineers have little confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA MEASURED BY: · Gartner Group engineers with software development expertise will evaluate each lead county’s data and make color designations. V.F Operating System (native environment) Suitability for a MEASUREMENT: Large-Scale Child Support Enforcement (CSE) · Green – System engineers have high confidence of processing capability/suitability in a Environment large-scale child support application environment. · Yellow – System engineers have moderate confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. · Red – System engineers have little confidence of processing capability/suitability in a large-scale child support application environment. MEASURED BY: · Gartner Group engineers with software development expertise will evaluate each lead county’s data and make color designations. V.G Inter-Application Data Exchange MEASUREMENT: · Green – The consortia system uses mainstream network and application interfaces. · Yellow – The consortia system uses non-mainstream network and application interfaces.. · Red – The consortia system uses obsolete or does not support network and application interfaces. MEASURED BY: · A software engineer with networking and data exchange expertise will evaluate each lead county’s data and make color designations. VI. COUNTY PROGRAM IMPACT VI.A County Disruption MEASUREMENT: · Compute the total number of counties that would have to be transitioned if the consortia system did not make the final four. · Points will be assigned to each consortia system as follows: X = total number of counties to be transitioned for the consortia with the highest total Y = total number of counties to be transitioned for the consortia being evaluated Score = (Y/X) * (Total Points Possible) MEASURED BY: · A county must be operational on the consortia system by January 1999 to be included in Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA the counts (i.e. counties in transition will not be considered.). Source: Health and Welfare Data Center ATTACHMENT B CONSORTIA SELECTION CRITERIA VI.B User Disruption MEASUREMENT: · Compute the total number of users who would have to be transitioned/re-trained if the consortia system did not make the final four. · Points will be assigned to each consortia system as follows: X = total users to be transitioned/re-trained for the consortia with the highest total Y = total users to be transitioned/re-trained for the consortia being evaluated Score = (Y/X) * (Total Points Possible) MEASURED BY: · A county must be operational on the consortia system by January 1999 to be included in the counts (i.e. counties in transition will not be considered.). · User counts will be based on the most recent Child Support Staffing statistics gathered by the Department of Social Services. VI.C Customer Disruption MEASUREMENT: · Compute the total number of cases that would have to be converted if the consortia system did not make the final four. · Points will be assigned to each consortia system as follows: X = total number of cases to be converted for the consortia with the highest total Y = total number of cases to be converted for the consortia being evaluated Score = (Y/X) * (Total Points Possible) MEASURED BY: · A county must be operational on the consortia system by January 1999 to be included in the counts (i.e. counties in transition will not be considered.). · Caseload counts will be based on the 1997/1998 Master Case List. Source: Health and Welfare Data Center