Child Care Administrator’s Improper Payments Information Technology Guide

Download Guide in Word (993 KB) or PDF (635KB) format.

B. Descriptions of the Technical Approaches

For an accurate analysis of different technology solutions, it may be helpful to better understand the advantages, challenges, and key considerations of different IT investment approaches. This section discusses the merits of the following: using in-house development, implementing COTS solutions, and contracting out. The focus is on the choice of approach to implementing a system solution, not the process for determining the specific IT solution. In other words, it is the “who” and not the “what” of the systems investment effort. While the characterization of these approaches follows findings from research and common perception, there are no absolutes in assessing approaches because each project possesses unique requirements and each organization has a unique composition. Prudent in-house development in one State with the hardware, software, and skilled staff to support web applications may not be a good decision in another State working in an environment void of the necessary technical infrastructure to support web applications.

1. In-House Development and Systems Integration

For the purposes of this guide, in-house development includes those development or systems integration efforts led by the State Agency with State staff, contract staff, or a combination. The efforts include enhancements to current systems, building new systems, and systems integration activities, which could include using a system transferred from another State or leveraging existing Agency or State applications. Traditionally, in-house development and systems integration follow a disciplined systems development life cycle and thus can be time-consuming. Chapter III, Section B discusses the development lifecycle in more detail.

Agencies typically embrace this approach with the resources, time, and expertise to perform custom development for systems that are not generic in functionality, and therefore not available as COTS products in the marketplace. Given the strain on State and Agency budgets and the dynamic nature of public policy, there are almost always competing demands for in-house development resources that have to support both new development and maintenance activities. For this reason, it is often difficult for child care projects without any significant, dedicated technical resources to move forward with in-house efforts requiring significant new functionality.

Another option is the transfer and integration of another State’s system, which is available in the public domain. The significant variance in IT infrastructure, program policies, and business processes across the States makes such transfer a complicated endeavor, needing careful analysis before pursuit.

As more States adopt an SOA, however, there may be more opportunities for smaller, more discrete web services to be transferred successfully from one State to another or, possibly, for one State to use another’s web service as part of its own set of automated processes that support the prevention or identification of improper payments. For example, if one State developed a data-brokering web service that queried a third-party employment verification service (that used real-time employment and wage data), other States could leverage this development effort for their child care programs.

The following table describes the advantages, challenges, and key considerations related to in-house development.

Table 1 – In-house Development and Integration