Administrative Office of the Courts Information Technology and FARE Program

REPORT Added Steps Can HIGHLIGHTS PERFORMANCE AUDIT Improve AOC’s Sound IT Project Management Subject

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) The Arizona Constitution gives the Chief provides a variety of Justice of the Supreme Court services and programs administrative supervision over all courts to assist courts throughout the State in in the State. The Constitution also fulfilling their requires the Supreme Court to appoint responsibilities. This an administrative director who heads the includes implementing Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) wide use. For example, the Pima County state-wide information to assist the in his/her Superior Court is developing a new case technology initiatives to administrative responsibilities. As part of help courts manage management system for potential use in cases, collect fines, and its administrative responsibilities, AOC superior courts state-wide. track probationers. implements state-wide information technology initiatives for all courts under Examples of Information Technology the guidance of the Commission on Projects in Development Technology (Commission). Our Conclusion z Case management system for superior Although AOC has Technology initiatives are major AOC courts established a fairly focus—Almost 25 percent of AOC’s over z Case management system for comprehensive 400 positions are assigned to its municipal and justice courts framework for managing Information Technology Division. In fiscal z Automated collections system for fines, its staff’s development year 2006, AOC planned to spend $9.8 fees, and restitution of information z Automated information on warrants technology systems, million on technology infrastructure and z Electronic document management additional steps will support and $2.8 million on information system enhance its process. technology system development. Under AOC can also improve the guidance of the Commission, which management of the judicial collections is headed by the vice chief justice and AOC developed IT projects program by increasing comprises members from the courts, vendor oversight and state, county, city/town officials, and the AOC has developed a fairly adopting performance public, AOC is planning or developing 11 comprehensive framework to guide measures. state-wide IT projects at a cost of $10.5 internal project development. However, it million during fiscal years 2006 through can take several steps to further improve 2008. this framework.

The Commission has taken two IT project management generally approaches to developing IT projects. In sound—AOC has developed an IT some cases, AOC has developed the project management framework to 2006 projects internally. However, AOC has provide guidance to project managers recently partnered with individual courts who are internally developing an IT August • Report No. 06 – 08 to develop IT systems for potential state- system. This framework addresses most of the key areas recommended by IT project status—When JOLTS began to industry standards for project experience problems, the project management. Use of this framework managers provided inaccurate reduces the risk of cost overruns and information to management on the project cancellations, improves project’s status. Management became communication with end users, and aware of the problems only after the project was about 6 months behind ensures project value and quality. schedule.

As an example of the framework’s Also, AOC has not always monitored effectiveness, its use has facilitated the whether project management adheres to development and implementation of the the framework. For example, although Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking JOLTS had a project scope, the scope System (APETS). APETS’ development changed but was not formally updated, has closely adhered to the framework and AOC and stakeholders did not have and as a result, AOC has been able to an opportunity to review and approve the successfully implement APETS in 10 changes. AOC should adopt policies and counties as of May 2006. Although procedures requiring all IT projects to use APETS experienced some delays due to the framework and the circumstances staffing shortages, use of the framework under which a project does not have to ensured that project plans were updated implement the full framework. and management was informed as the delays occurred. AOC and the Commission AOC can improve in three areas— monitor court-ddeveloped Although AOC has a generally sound framework for managing internal IT projects projects, it can improve it in three areas. As part of partnering with individual These areas are illustrated in problems courts to develop projects for state-wide AOC experienced implementing the use, AOC and the Commission have Juvenile On-line Tracking System implemented processes to monitor these (JOLTS). Specifically: projects. However, some improvements 1) Risk management—The AOC framework can be made to this monitoring. requires project managers to develop a plan to address risks to the project but JPIJ process—To help in monitoring does not provide guidance on how to projects, the Commission adopted a identify and address risks. Managers of Judicial Project Investment Justification the JOLTS project identified lack of (JPIJ) form and process that are programmer experience with the system patterned after the form and process technology as a risk. In response, AOC used by Arizona’s Government provided training for the programmers, Information Technology Agency. While but did not monitor whether the training the Commission must approve all IT addressed the risk. The project projects, only those costing more than eventually fell 6 months behind schedule $250,000 must submit a JPIJ form. The before additional action was taken. 2) Stakeholder communication—While the form requires information about the type framework requires approval of the of system or application, the need for the project scope before detailed planning system, benefits of the system, its cost, can begin, it does not require the project and funding sources. managers to specify the frequency and form of stakeholder communication. As a As of March 2006, the Commission had consequence, on JOLTS the project approved four JPIJ applications and managers did not have communication another was under review. with an important stakeholder for 4 to 5 months. Monitoring milestones—In addition to the 3) Independent monitoring and review of JPIJ application, the Commission only page 2 releases funds as the project reaches AOC should also assess and manage milestones. The Commission also risks identified with the development of receives monthly status reports and other systems. AOC does not have a process court personnel receive regular project for assessing risks for IT systems demonstrations. Further, AOC’s chief developed by courts. For example, in system architect routinely reviews the order to implement state-wide the code written for projects. superior court case management system developed by Pima County, the superior Improvements to monitoring—Additional court in each county will need to information about projects could help standardize its business processes. with project oversight. AOC should have Currently, each court may have different formal partnering agreements with each business processes, but AOC has not court. Such an agreement would specify assessed the risks to the project if the project deliverables and assign courts do not standardize their business responsibilities. processes.

Recommendations

AOC should:

z Continue to improve its project management framework, such as monitoring risks, specifying the frequency of communication, and monitoring project status; z Develop policies and procedures requiring all IT projects to use the project management framework; and z Improve oversight of state-wide IT systems courts have developed by creating formal agreements and implementing risk assessments.

AOC Needs To Improve Collection Contract Oversight

To assist the courts in collecting fines, FARE until the new case management fees, and penalties, AOC created and system is developed. implemented the voluntary Fines, Fees, and Restitution Enforcement (FARE) FARE Information as of July 2006: program. FARE provides several services such as skip-tracing, intercepts of tax z 58 courts participate refunds and lottery winnings, and holds z $60.6 million collected since on vehicle registration. In June 2003, August 2003 AOC contracted with a vendor to provide z Outstanding fines, fees, and these collection services. The vendor penalties total about $382 million charges a fee for each case submitted, and AOC adds a $7 general service fee. AOC can improve vendor oversight—To AOC’s goal is to have all 187 courts better manage the vendor’s contract, participate in FARE. While 58 courts AOC needs to address some gaps in the participate in FARE, only 2 courts have contract: the technology to allow full participation. The remaining courts use an interim z Some contract requirements do not carry a option that gives them partial access to penalty for failure to comply, such as those

page 3 related to the backlog for special FARE performance measures are collections services. needed—AOC has not yet developed performance measures for its FARE z The contract does not require a general program. The National Center for State assurance review by an independent Courts (NCSC) recommends eight auditor to ensure that the vendor has measures for court collections programs, sufficient internal controls and security to protect data, money, and other assets. The including: vendor has undergone such a review voluntarily. z The total dollar amount of penalties collected; Although AOC uses a performance log to z A comparison of the dollar amount of track the vendor’s compliance with penalties collected to the amount of penalties due; contract terms, AOC has not decided z A comparison of the amount of penalties how frequently it will monitor compliance and restitution collected to the total amount or how it will verify that the vendor has due; and actually complied. For example, although z A comparison of restitution collected to the the log indicates that the vendor uses amount of restitution due. skip-tracing as required for undeliverable notices, the log contains no information AOC collects data for seven of the eight on how staff determined compliance. measures and could establish several of the NCSC collections measures for the TO OBTAIN FARE program. MORE INFORMATION

A copy of the full report Recommendations can be obtained by calling (602) 553-00333 AOC should:

z Address gaps in its current FARE vendor contract; z Improve its oversight of the FARE vendor by defining when and how to assess or by visiting compliance; and our Web site at: z Develop and implement performance measures for the FARE program. www.azauditor.gov Contact person for this report: Dale Chapman

Arizona Supreme Court REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Administrative Office of the Courts PERFORMANCE AUDIT Information Technology and FARE Program August 2006• Report No. 06 – 08 page 4