O-TRACK Funding and Challenges

Funding Challenges
The lack of funding posed several challenges and offered corresponding benefits.

One aspect of this was that the relationship between UDC and Informix had to become more than a client-provider relationship. A "true" partnership was needed to jointly overcome the hurdles.

The lack of funding forced slower development and implementation, which turned out to be a benefit, as it stimulated the creation of better procedures. As the project progressed it became necessary to "throw out" the rule books.

The system had to be built in modules. Partial requirements were developed, a prototype was prepared, then complete requirements were firmed up. No change orders were allowed.

Development and implementation proceeded on a 6-week cycle. This might include a single module or several. One advantage of this was that users were able to learn lessons from the previous modules.

Ultimately, creative financing was required to overcome the funding shortage. A summary is provided below.

Internal Challenges
Introduction of O-TRACK into the institution also raised several challenges occasioned both by the change of technology and the installation of new equipment.

An entirely new infrastructure had to be created. The prisons and Adult Probation and Parole offices had to be rewired, and existing Wang systems had to be replaced with LANs. Dumb terminals and outdated PCs also had to be replaced, leaving only 2 existing PCs that were usable.

The new system necessitated hiring a DBA and Unix Administrators.

Since the entire department had been using the Wangs, users had to be trained from scratch in the use of personal computers. Likewise, BIT staff had to be trained in the use of client-server technology, Informix, SQL and PowerBuilder.

In addition, new security concepts had to be understood and implemented.

Funding
Several approaches were used in combination to meet the funding problems, so that funding was ultimately a combination of Legislative appropriation and creativity.

The contract with Informix was awarded for $3,751,100.60. This was a three-year contract. Nevertheless, the Legislature funded the project at only $400,000 per year. It became immediately apparent that the implied 10-years to pay for the project would be a "death sentence."

UDC had hoped to fund an additional $600,000 per year internally, for a total of $1 million per year toward the contract, but an increasing prison population resulted in those funds not being available.

In addition to funding only a portion of the contract, the Legislature did NOT approve the necessary new staff. As a result the contract was increased by $1,448.899.40 to a total of $5.2 million.

As enhancements and new modules were added, O-TRACK became a $7 million dollar system

With creative financing, Utah paid only $4,270,000.

Indirect Costs In addition to the direct costs of creating the software system, there were also a number of indirect costs:

O-TRACK Indirect Costs
JAD	$311,140
Quality Assurance	$183,264
Project Management	$215,648
Research & Planning	$184,000
UNIX Administration	$178,296
Manuals	$62,560
Management	$230,000
Miscellaneous	$211,000
DBA	$214,728
Total	$1,790,636

Creative Financing
Creativity was the key to success, with conventional funding options not available. However, some options worked against us as well as for us.

One very successful approach was to seek grant money. Several sources were found, which have provided funding of approximately $2 million over the span of the project.

Another approach stemmed from the fact that the legacy OBSCIS system was not Y2K compliant. This was of limited value. Because of the good condition of UDC's IT plan, only $500,000 was allotted.

Some of the costs of the system were charged back to the divisions within UDC, which helped to supplement the smaller budget of BIT.

System Built to Work in Other States
By far, the most successful strategy was for Utah Corrections to partner with other states in the development of O-TRACK. Although, this proved to be the mainstay of the funding, it had an unexpected drawback: the Legislature commended UDC for innovative financing and then cut all funding for the project. The Governor and State CIO gave UDC an award for innovation.

A questionnaire was sent to other states with an offer to join a consortium in the development of O-TRACK, paying a small cost for the base system that had already been developed.

Two states, Alaska and New Mexico joined quickly: Alaska just prior to completion of the Adult Probation and Parole module, and New Mexico just after. These two states participated in the evaluation of the AP&P module, as well as making their own requests for modifications.

The process for development since that point has been as follows: JAD sessions are held with Utah users to determine specifications and needs for new modules. These specifications are then brought to the consortium states for comment. The Utah user groups then review the new ideas/enhancements and negotiate the final changes.

Special modules have been created for other states, at their cost, for functions not relevant to Utah.

Additional States Joined Group
With Alaska and New Mexico already on board, additional states expressed interest. Colorado purchased the AP&P portion of O-TRACK and showed interest in the Medical system. At the same time, several states wanted the Pharmacy system already built by Colorado. As a result, Colorado agreed to bring the Pharmacy system into the mix, and Alaska and Utah agreed to pay for development of the Medical system, which the three states would design jointly. Currently, Idaho has also joined the consortium by purchasing the base system and hopes to be the fourth partner in design and development of the Medical system.

Funding Sources
O-TRACK has been funded through various sources. To date, the cost of creating the system is more than $7 million. Software development by other states has given added value to the system, increasing its worth to $12.5 million. However, through careful use of creative funding approaches, the net cost to Utah taxpayers has remained less than $4 million to this point-only 30% of the total development cost. As a bonus, Utah taxpayers have saved a considerable amount in the delivery of public safety services due to the cost effective administration of offender data.

O-TRACK Funding Sources
Grants*	$2,046,752.72
Other States	$1,450,00.00
Utah Tax Payers*	$3,793,881.13
Total	$7,290,633.85

O-TRACK Added Value
Grants*	$2,046,752.72
Other States	$1,450,00.00
Utah Tax Payers*	$3,793,881.13
Added Value*	$5,216,002.50
Total	$12,506,636.35

--> O-TRACK Statistics