Tying a Sensible Knot: A Practical Guide to State-Local Information Systems:

Chapter 3. Best Practices

Define purpose and scope

Projects are initiated in a variety of ways. Some result from policy changes, new legal mandates, or changes in elected office holders. Others emerge from grassroots discussions about the need to change, advance, or simplify a process, take advantage of a new technology, or factor in a new information requirement. Regardless of the motivating factor, a well-defined project purpose and scope are instrumental to success. Defining purpose and scope means resisting the lure of the "end all" project and relying instead on realistic incrementalism. We would all like to create the system that addresses all of the information and service delivery needs of state and local agencies. However, to be realistic and successful these needs must be identified, discussed, categorized, and prioritized. The huge range of programmatic issues must be culled for a project purpose and scope that are consistent with those priorities. Further, these needs must be analyzed against the resources that are likely to be available. Ideally, the selected purpose and scope not only attack current problems, but lay a foundation or build capacity to deal with future ones.

State and local participants must work together to identify the information and service delivery needs of a particular program area. Participants from the eleven state-local projects in this study used professional meetings, association conferences, and regular meetings with state agency regional representatives to carry out the needed discussions. State and local participants both saw these meetings as opportunities to discuss program needs and to establish working groups able and willing to participate in a project to address shared goals.

Resources are a key factor in decisions about project scope. The projects we reviewed were typically volunteer efforts at the local level and subject to restricted funding at the state level. Even when both state and local participants are convinced of the overall value of a specific project purpose, they are often unable to bring enough resources to the table to support a broad scope of work. Therefore, collectively prioritizing needs and collaboratively working toward a scope that is appropriate for the available resources serves all participants well. Communication skills, creative funding, and effectively managing existing resources all figure prominently in this stage of the project activities.

Probation Automation: Focus on core functions

The criminal justice community recognizes that the county-level Probation function is a critical piece of the public safety puzzle, but one that has typically been left behind in the technological advances that have become standard in the rest of the community. While larger counties with MIS departments have managed to support their Probation offices fairly well, small and medium- sized operations (50 of the 57 in the state) can offer little to help Probation officers do their jobs. In order to identify the best focus for this project, a design team consisting of both state and local officials examined the current functions performed by all 57 County Probation Departments and New York City. The team interviewed Division of Probation and Corrections Alternatives senior staff to identify the functions of the Probation Departments. Based on these interviews the functions were categorized into three levels:

Level I encompassed mission critical probation core functions (such as criminal court investigations and supervision; family court intake, investigation and supervision; and basic administrative functions like restitution collections).
Level II covers alternatives to incarceration such as community service and house detention.
Level III functions involve external treatment providers such as mental health and drug and alcohol treatment services.

An analysis of Probation functions across the entire state revealed that all local departments perform Level I activities, but Level II and III activities are more specialized and not evenly distributed. This categorization was reviewed and affirmed by those interviewed and continues to be reviewed in the project activities. Since the project’s purpose is to provide one standard support system, the scope of effort was limited to support Level I functions. All participants agree that this focus will generate the greatest return on investment in the system.

Projects often begin with open-minded brainstorming sessions aimed at garnering as many solutions as possible. It is important in this early phase of idea generation to be relatively unburdened by real-world restraints in order to maximize the number of ideas and potential solutions produced. Once ideas are generated, the team must choose from among the possible solutions and evaluate each using such factors as alignment with project purpose, cost, benefit, skill level required, time requirements, and ability to integrate with other systems.

The following steps very briefly outline a procedure which can help your team establish and stick with realistic expectations:

Prioritize project goals
Identify resources - funds, time,people, technologies
Consider time constraints - legal requirements, timing for maximum impact, budget cycles, elections
Generate a wide range of potential solutions
Choose those solutions which can best support project goals while staying within resource and time limits
Identify measurable performance factors within those solutions
Map out an implementation plan; assign responsibilities and chart project milestones on a timeline
Create a budget
Monitor and manage the project over time
Discuss progress with the team regularly and adjust the project plan as needed

Immunization Information: Compelling purpose is a strong incentive
The NYS Immunization Information System (NYSIIS) project operates under state law and a grant from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). It comprises four demonstration projects around the state involving the voluntary participation of counties, physicians, and other health care providers. The demonstrations are testing the feasibility of a statewide registry for tracking and monitoring the immunization of children. The demonstration sites have wide discretion in how they set up their systems and forge partnerships with both public and private participants. The State Health Department hired a system integrator to work with each site to design a system that suits the needs and capabilities of that community. The ultimate goal is to increase the rate of fully immunized children in New York State through an electronic recordkeeping process that enables health care providers to track and recall children to ensure that they are age-appropriately immunized, and allows public health officials to assess the immunization status and issues in their communities.

The project is a difficult one for several reasons: it deals with highly confidential information, it needs to be integrated into the existing systems and practices of thousands of physicians and other practitioners, and none of the players is required to participate. The demonstration sites need to sell the project to health care providers and heath agencies in an environment where busy practitioners with existing (mostly proprietary) business systems have few dollars to spend on new systems and little interest in systems that deal with a single issue like immunization. The project leaders at both the state and local levels have worked hard to bring all parties to the table and address these issues in each site, but one factor stands out as a reason why participants become and stay engaged in this project: The purpose, (healthier children) and the project focus, (ensuring full immunization against communicable diseases) are clear, compelling, and widely endorsed. Since no other state has tackled this problem in a way that will serve New York’s needs, the participants look on themselves as pioneers and have a real stake in its success.

< Previous |

| Next >