Skip Navigation
acfbanner  
ACF
Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
          
ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

  Questions?  |  Privacy  |  Site Index  |  Contact Us  |  Download Reader™Download Reader  |  Print Print      

National Human Services IT Resource Center

Risk Management Case Study - Estimate of the Situation

        Click here to download the MS Word (39.5 KB)        


This version of the Estimate of the Situation (EoS) is for the implementation
of a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS).

1. Overview

2. Project Description

The State of CaseState is in the process of a phased implementation of its SACWIS through a firm-fixed-price contract with a vendor.  Workers were provided with computer workstations; office automation applications; and limited Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System (AFCARS) such as data collection while the SACWIS application was being developed. Implementation of full SACWIS functionality State-wide was to be done on a County-by-County basis and originally scheduled for completion in September 1998. State-wide implementation is now scheduled for September 2000.  Furthermore, the delay in implementation necessitated a change in procurement strategy to obtain the last 2 years of contractor services through a time and materials task order off the State's master contract.

The mission of the SACWIS project is to implement the Federal and State requirements related to child welfare.  The significant dates for these requirements are as follows:

August 10, 1993
December 22, 1993
May 19, 1995
November 19, 1997		 Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993
Federal Child Welfare automation regulations were published in Interim Final
Federal Child Welfare automation regulations were published in Final
Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)

  

The data specifications for most requirements have also been disseminated. The specific requirements under ASFA are currently being drafted.

The project's mission from the client/user perspective is the successful implementation of the Federal and State requirements with minimum disruption to the processing of existing child welfare cases during the implementation phase.  The immediate goals of State of CaseState are to:

  1. Successfully roll-out the SACWIS throughout the State
  2. Integrate the future requirements under the ASFA
  3. Maintain the system

3. Project History

The planning portion of the SACWIS project began in the fall of 1996, but the resources needed to roll out the system State-wide during 1997-1998 were inadequate.  Other factors contributing to the delay include the converting of data from the existing legacy systems, scope creep due to change orders requested by the users, and political backlash against the Department due to bad press surrounding the project.

The State of CaseState is having difficulty obtaining and keeping qualified systems staff at both the State and contractor level.  The State has found that they were ill equipped to take over the SACWIS system from the original implementation vendor and now find themselves very dependent on vendor support to maintain the current system, much less implement the new ASFA enhancements when they become finalized.

The State is under Court Order to implement a child welfare system no later than September 30, 2000.

The Federal government will provide Federal funding for system development within the SACWIS system. There is no limit on the amount of system development eligible for 50% match.  However, there are the following requirements for obtaining approval for Federal funds for system development:

  1. The State must submit an Implementation Advance Planning Document (I-APD).
  2. Update the APD at least once a year, and more often if certain events are triggered.
  3. All RFPs, contracts and contract amendments require prior approval. 

The State of CaseState failed to seek prior approval of its time and materials contracts last year and found that it cannot seek Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for any of the contractor work performed during the expensive implementation phase. The State has since made timely submissions for Federal financial approvals and does not want to incur any additional penalties.

4. Project Characteristics

The stakeholders of CSES include the following:

  1. Child welfare clients
  2. Caseworkers
  3. Child welfare managers
  4. Courts
  5. Service providers
  6. Information Technology Data Center
  7. Vendors:
    • System design, development, implementation, maintenance
    • Facilities management
    • Data conversion
    • Hardware
    • OTS software
    • Telecommunications
  8. Other State agencies that interface with SACWIS system
  9. Other States (Interstate Compact)
  10. ACF
  11. Advocacy groups
  12. Congress
  13. State legislature
  14. Governor's office
  15. Local government (geographic districts as they exist)
  16. State Attorneys general
  17. Courts
  18. Persons under consent decree
  19. Unions
  20. Department management
  21. Official advocacy groups
  22. CWLA (if under contract)
  23. Juvenile Justice System

5. Project Objectives

  1. Satisfy the court ordered completion of a child welfare system by September 2000.
  2. Stabilize the requirements and implement the State-wide SACWIS system to meet the Federal and State requirements, which include but are not limited to the following modules, all of which include non-IV-E case data not previously maintained by the automated SACWIS system:
    • Adoption and Foster Care Reporting
    • Adoption and Safe Family Act
    • Adoption 2002
    • NCANDS requirements
  3. Address maintenance and operations issues and reprocurement strategies.
  4. Achieve data reliability for State-wide, comprehensive, timely data for appropriate users of the system.
  5. Achieve the performance of the SACWIS system to address user complaints and suggestions for improvement, and state wide, comprehensive, timely data for appropriate users of the system.
  6. Obtain reasonable user buy-in and acceptance. The system needs to be perceived as beneficial to the caseworkers in performing their tasks.
  7. Provide flexibility and scalability. The system shall be able to evolve once it is installed. The State and Federal government have a history of requiring additional enhancements before the previous revisions are implemented.  Users will undoubtedly request changes and additional capabilities once they feel comfortable with the system.  The system design must be flexible and adaptable with a clear evolutionary path as new needs are identified.
  8. Provide a case management tool to allow better and more consistent support to families and children.
  9. Provide a management decision tool based on "good" data.
  10. Maintain client confidentiality.
  11. Support appropriate Federal, State, and local statutes.

6. Assumptions

  1. Users will want to make changes to the SACWIS system that are not Federal or State requirements, but which they believe are essential to improve the usefulness of the system.
  2. The hardware used by caseworkers is obsolete and will need to be upgraded every 3 years (this would only apply to certain States).

7. Constraints

  1. The most important constraint is meeting the court-ordered deadline for the full State-wide implementation of the SACWIS by September 2000. 
  2. Federal financial participation has dropped from 75% to 50%.
  3. The State's share of 50% funding is available for expenditures incurred from October 1997 and can be used to finish SACWIS requirements as well as those enhancements resulting from the ASFA requirements. 
  4. 50% funding only apples to child welfare.
  5. State funding profile.
  6. Federal and state regulations will change.
  7. Time and resources that are required to make changes
  8. Changes will require federal and state approval.
  9. Fifty percent funding can be used for system maintenance and operation, or for replacement of obsolete hardware/software.  State legislatures have balked at the cost overruns of State wide SACWIS system projects and have been especially vocal about ongoing operational costs.  Most State legislatures considered the SACWIS system development projects to be a one-time cost, and they are upset to see the estimates for ongoing operational costs.
  10. Qualified staff are difficult to recruit, train, and retain.
  11. Y2K issues are a priority in every State, and Y2K activity competes for staffing and financial resources, as well as for data center accessibility.

8. Project Assessment

  1. Expertise in SACWIS systems within the State has grown significantly during the development and implementation of the statewide SACWIS system.  Although the State still has difficulty recruiting, training, and retaining State systems staff, the current staff has learned a great deal during the previous system development.
  2. Both the financial and intangible benefits of the statewide SACWIS system are beginning to emerge.

9. External Factors

New Governors are elected, and this can lead to:

  1. Changes within the Administration
  2. Delays in system implementation efforts while a new Governor reviews State priorities
  3. Department reorganizations
  4. Loss of experienced managers

10. Assessment of Requirements

  1. Schedule:  The schedule was delayed because the State of CaseState did not allow sufficient time to address the eligibility determination and interface requirements.
  2. Penalties:  If the State fails to implement SACWIS to meet the requirements proposed in the APD the State of CaseState may be required to repay the enhanced funding received for the project.  Penalties may also be imposed if the SACWIS does not meet the AFCARS reporting requirements.  Finally, the State may lose out on incentive funds if it does not ultimately include the ASFA requirements.
  3. Cost:  Funding is currently available, and the Federal Government will match expenditures at the 50% FFP rate.  In the past, the State of CaseState failed to submit contract amendments for prior approval and failed to obtain FFP for the work incurred prior to contract approval.  The Governor was not happy with this and indicated she would not provide the funds to compensate for the State HS Agency's mismanagement.

 

Top



Last Updated: May 4, 2005