DISH Steering Committee Meeting Updates – Legal & Technical Solutions

1. DISH Data Information SHaring Steering Committee Meeting 1.31.08

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 GroupAccomplishments & 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 • Management Team, CSE Technical, & Judicial Technical • 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

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 1st 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