1. 1 DISH D ata I nformation SH aring Steering Committee Meeting 6.28.07

2. 2  Purpose of Meeting: To Introduce the evaluator Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., update the Committee on the management team, update the Committee on the User Group meetings, and discuss next steps

3. 3 Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. The Center for Policy Research is a non-profit corporation established in 1981 to work with public and private sector service providers to conduct research to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of human service agencies, and the justice, health and education systems. The Center for Policy Research is a non-profit corporation established in 1981 to work with public and private sector service providers to conduct research to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of human service agencies, and the justice, health and education systems. center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303/837-1555 www.centerpolicyresearch.org

4. 4 Management Team Update  Mary Clair, Diana Coffey, Alicia Davis, Chris Kain, Maureen Leif, Danielle Stecco, Dan Welch  Frequent meetings: –logistics of User Group Meetings, Steering Committee Meeting –Straw man proposals –Follow-up activities and processing homework  Defining Roles  Primary focus thus far has been on User Group Meetings and analysis.  Future focus will be project management

5. 5 User Group  Federal Representative Diane Degenhart  Judicial Management Team –Danielle Stecco, Diana Coffey, Maureen Leif, Alicia Davis  Judicial Districts Represented: –1 st, 2 nd, 7 th /22 nd /6 th, 8 th, 11 th /12 th, 13 th, 15 th /16 th, 17 th, 18 th, 19 th, 20 th,  State CSE Management Team –Dan Welch, Mary Clair, Chris Kain  CSE Counties Represented: –Jefferson, El Paso, Denver, Larimer, Fremont, Denver, Arapahoe, Boulder, Adams, Weld, Prowers, Delta, Mesa, Morgan

6. 6 Purpose of User Group Meetings  Output of these meetings was intended as the starting point for the technical teams. The technical teams will then have to study the feasibility of the recommendations/ideas from the User Group –Understand the current process April 26 th –Describe the desired process May 23 rd –Understanding what we want to exchange as part of the improved process- June 21 st

7. 7 April 26 th Meeting  Preparation Meeting Jefferson County (4/11/07)  Preparation Meeting Weld County (4/23/07)  Group presented with Overview of Project –Elevator Statement –Project Objectives –National Perspective –SANCA Project Overview –Committee Structure  Presented Outline of APA process flow (prepared ahead of time from the meetings with Jefferson and Weld Counties)  Made corrections/additions to process flow highlighting areas of potential standardization  Sent Users away with homework to meet with their counterpart before the next meeting and come back to next meeting with ideas for opportunities to exchange data or standardize  Maureen developed DISH Dictionary

8. 8

9. 9 May 23 rd Meeting Chris & Maureen met and revised the case flow process as developed from meeting one. Chris & Diana met and flagged potential areas for data exchange From Homework it became apparent that some of the Users are still confused regarding traditional e-filing and data exchange. Danielle gave examples of current data exchange projects Reiterated Elevator Statement and Project Objectives Reviewed APA Case Flow and started highlighting opportunities for data exchange and improved or standardized processes Users sent home with homework to review three different options for issuance of a court case number to review at the June meeting

10. 10

11. 11 June 21 st Meeting  Introduction of Dr. Jessica Pearson –Overview of Evaluation Process  Continue case flow process highlighting opportunities for data exchange and standardized processes  Began identifying data elements to be exchanged  Chris gave an explanation of data elements/schemas and data maps, showed group an example of the proposed National Data Standards  Discussed homework assignment of case numbers and the need for a state-wide survey

12. 12 Examples of Data Elements  CSE prepares Order and files with Court –Data ACSES may want to share with jPOD Parties names Parties names Child(ren) Info Child(ren) Info Employment Info Employment Info SSN SSN Addresses Addresses NCP’s Physical Description NCP’s Physical Description Case Type (Paternity/Support) Case Type (Paternity/Support)

13. 13 Issues from User Group Meetings  Continue to focus on understanding the value to each side from data exchange  CSE getting Court Case number quickly  Assignment of FSR numbers and activation of account  Definition of “APA”  Modification Process

14. 14 Accomplishments  Improved Communication between Judicial/CSE counterparts  Generally a better understanding of each other’s processes and challenges –Open case reports –Delay in enforcement  Standardizing Report Paternity Determination  Jefferson County improved internal case processing to speed up getting orders back  Standardizing case types for Judicial

15. 15 Next Steps  Mini-Modification User Group meeting 6/18/07  Fourth Joint User Group Meeting 8/2/07 –Purpose of meeting will be to finalize modification process, complete discussion on potential data exchanges, discuss centralized information screen, strategize on future operation of User Groups  Statewide Survey regarding items that arose during User Group Mtg’s that we would like more input on  Project Planning Meeting between Judicial and CSE set for July 16 th  Finalize Project Plan, Finalize Statement of Work  Draft Business Rules, Develop System Requirements  Define System interfaces  Set Future Steering Committee Meetings