1 DISH D ata I nformation SH aring Steering Committee Meeting

2 Meeting Purpose  Update on Legal Workgroup activities & accomplishments  Update on Technical Solution activities & accomplishments  Update on Judicial User Group Activities  Update on “Joint Article”  Update from Center For Policy Research

3 Legal Work Group  Held work group session at Daniels Fund on 11/19, participants included: –1 Magistrate –3 IV-D Attorneys –State Department Staff –DISH Management Team –Weigh-ins from 3 other Magistrates

4 Legal Work Group Accomplishments & Decisions  Agreement reached on documents to be filed for APA, eliminated several documents  Discussed jurisdiction to hear parenting time issues in these case types – statutory authority  Left on table for further research/review: when to file interstate cases as Domestic or Juvenile  There may be some best business practices and educational information that can be shared as DISH goes live

5 APA Docs  Diana/Tracy – This is a place holder for content you want to include related to decisions reached on what documents to file.  *Chris – do we really want to go over the list? Or is it enough to say – we have all gone over it & lgl has looked at it?

6 Technical Feasibility & Solution  Conducted a series of joint technical solution & design sessions 8 – 10 half day sessions 8 – 10 half day sessions Management Team, CSE Technical, & Judicial Technical Management Team, CSE Technical, & Judicial Technical Considered expanding project scope to reduce/eliminate paper filing with APA Considered expanding project scope to reduce/eliminate paper filing with APA

7 Benefits To Expanded Scope  Faster case establishment/eliminates time spent sorting through documents & entering data  Reduction/elimination of paper APA filing  One, less obvious benefit, is the increase in the level of trust between the two agencies. This trust is what is allowing a paperless exchange of data.  Eliminates duplicate data entry/errors

8 Solutions Evaluated  PDF –Exchange PDF image of documents with data –Judicial creates paper on demand from images  E-Form –Exchange data and document templates –Judicial creates paper on demand from templates  Data Only –Exchange data necessary to establish/administer –Paper documents retained in CSE office

9 PDF Solution  Pros: –Eliminates filing of many paper forms –Easy reproduction on demand  Cons: –Still must file some paper –Requires image repository –Process delayed by paper exchange

10 E-form Solution  Pros: –Eliminates filing of many paper forms –No image repository required  Cons: –Still must file some paper –Process delayed by paper exchange –Complex implementation –Tight coupling between Judicial & CSE systems

11 Data Only  Pros: –Eliminates filing of most (maybe all) paper forms –No image repository required –Process not delay by paper exchange –Achievable solution  Cons: –Significant process change –Change in responsibility & accountability –Paperless – Everyone must accept this

12

13 Open Questions & Actions  How will Defaults be handled?  Need Judicial Directive for Pilot  May need legislative change for state- wide rollout  Will their be resistance to paperless solution?  Verification of filing – Who is responsible & how is this done?

14 Technical Solution – Next Steps  Develop Schema for 1 st web service –Clarify use of GJXDM/NIEM  Begin web service design/development  Establish necessary network connectivity  Begin individual system design  Continue data analysis & schema design for remaining web services  Revisit Default Order Scenario  Revise project plan and schedule

15 Judicial User Group  Meeting Scheduled for February 13, 2008  Work on what to do with all of the data Court receives  Provide some prototypes of screens, case initiation, judgments, support orders, etc.  Develop programming specifications

16 Joint Article  Dan/Diana – Content Please  I think this should be handled by CPR – Dan  *Chris – Maureen is out of town – but I think she might know more about this

17 CPR Update