Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Continuity of patrol operations in a
COVID-
19 environment

05.28.20

Read this if you are a police executive, city/county administrator, or elected government official responsible for a law enforcement agency. 

Who you gonna call? 

Law enforcement agencies provide essential services to our communities vital to maintaining order and public safety. These critical organizations always answer the call, and they are prepared for every type of disaster imaginable: floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, train derailments, and even... a pandemic?

Police agencies plan, prepare, and train for disasters, and are particularly adept and agile in their response to them. As an industry, law enforcement agencies are also very good at helping one another in times of need. When there is a major disaster in your community, your agency can always count on neighboring departments sending you some much needed resources―that is, unless everyone has the same problem. Then what do you do?

Although law enforcement agencies are very capable, their strength is in sprinting, not running marathons. Even the best and most-qualified police agencies struggle with the strain of long-lasting disasters, particularly when there are no other resources to help. That is when having the right patrol-schedule design can be critical. If your patrol schedule is inefficient in the first place, managing a lengthy disaster or critical event will magnify those inefficiencies, exhausting your personnel and fiscal resources at the same time.

Flaws in patrol schedule design = reduced efficiency

Flaws in the patrol schedule design often contribute to reduced efficiency and suboptimal performance, and design issues may work against your ability to maintain operational staffing during critical times of need. So, how do you know if your patrol schedule is serving you well? 

To help agencies evaluate their patrol schedules, BerryDunn has developed at free tool. Click here to measure your patrol schedule against key design components and considerations. If your agency scores low in this self-assessment, it may be time to consider making some adjustments. 

The path to resolving inefficiencies in your patrol work schedule and optimizing the effective deployment of patrol personnel requires thoughtful consideration of several overarching goals:

  • Reducing or eliminating predictable overtime
  • Eliminating peaks and valleys in staffing due to scheduled leave
  • Ensuring appropriate staffing levels in all patrol zones or beats
  • Providing sufficient staff to manage multiple and priority Calls for Service  in patrol zones or beats
  • Satisfying both operational and staff needs, including helping to ensure a proper work/life balance and equitable workloads for patrol staff

Accomplishing these goals requires an intentional approach, customized to your agency’s characteristics (e.g., staffing levels, geographic factors, crime rates, zone/beat design, contract/labor rules). BerryDunn can help your agency assess the patrol schedule, and if necessary, provide guidance and assistance on implementation of a more effective model. 

If you are interested in a patrol work-schedule assessment or redesign or a patrol staffing study, our dedicated Justice & Public Safety consultants are available to discuss your organization’s needs.

Related Industries

Related Services

Related Professionals

Principals

BerryDunn experts and consultants

Read this if you are a member or leader of a policing agency. 

Due to recent events, community members have taken to the streets nationwide to demand what they deserve from the police as a starting point: social and procedural justice. 

Social justice is an essential component of healthy, effective communities. It is based on a fair and just relationship between individuals and society. Social justice demands that those in the community feel safe—including feeling safe from the police. Feeling safe starts with procedurally-just policing. Procedural justice in policing is the principle that forms the foundation of the community’s willingness, individually and aggregately, to accept the actions of the police, obey laws, participate in the criminal justice system, and partner with law enforcement to reduce crime and disorder, and is dependent on the community’s acceptance of policing actions as fair and equitable. Procedural justice consists of four primary pillars:

  1. FAIRNESS
    Being fair in processes
  2. VOICE
    Providing the opportunity for voice 
  3. TRANSPARENCY
    Being transparent in actions
  4. IMPARTIALITY
    Being impartial in decision-making

Achieving social and procedural justice within policing requires meaningful change and reform that must extend beyond prior efforts. 

Across the United States, communities are calling for revised policies, targeted training, increased accountability, and better screening of police candidates. All of these efforts are important and should be explored. However, these same efforts have been pursued since community-oriented policing (COP) became popular in the 80s and 90s, and even as COP gained additional interest and momentum following a series of high-profile excessive-force incidents that trace back nearly a decade. Despite substantial focus on these areas within the law enforcement industry, concerns over systemic racism, biased policing, and a lack of trust between the police and the community continue to persist.

Community Co-production Policing: The crucial next step

The current policing environment calls for broad and deep reforms in the operations and collaborative culture of police agencies. This level of reform requires a coordinated effort to reframe the police department as a community-owned resource, and can be accomplished through engaging a Community Co-production Policing (CCPP) model. Implementation of the CCPP model, developed by BerryDunn in collaboration with practitioners and community members across the country, merges and unifies police agencies and communities through multiple collaborative pathways, resulting in shared responsibilities in areas such as guidance, oversight, and the development of policies, operational strategies, public safety priorities, and other shared goals.  

Co-production expands the focus of traditional community-oriented policing and includes a greater level of community participation and involvement in key policing strategies that affect the community. The key distinction is that while community-oriented policing is informative, interactive, allows for community input, and is often collaborative with regard to problem solving, co-production involves a greater level of influence and involvement by the community regarding the overarching policing strategies and priorities that ultimately affect those being served by the police agency.  

Building trust and confidence with the community

From a co-production policing perspective, influence and involvement from the community form the foundation for trust and confidence in the police agency and agreement in the processes, procedures, and practices used in pursuit of public safety for those who live in or visit the community. This level of involvement serves as a persistent external accountability process, which helps ensure consistent alignment between community desires and expectations and the actions the police use to meet them. 

Co-production is a collaborative process, not an oversight process. It involves working together to cooperatively co-produce public safety, in a respectful and thoughtful manner that places value on mutuality.

Below, the goals and predicted outcomes of the CCPP model are outlined. Accomplishing the CCPP goals is expected to produce the predicted outcomes, and these new positive outcomes address the longstanding negative outcomes that remain unresolved within the policing industry.

Community Co-Production Policing Goals and Predicted Outcomes
CCCP GOALS PREDICTED OUTCOMES
Reducing fractionalism: The inharmonious separation which has occurred between the community and those responsible for policing it. Increased community trust: Because the community shares decision-making authority in substantive policing matters, they will have shared ownership over the results.
Creating transparency: There can be no more secrecy in accountability or policymaking, or in determining strategies to address and reduce crime and disorder. Enhanced public safety: Trust is the cornerstone to solving crimes, and when trust is established, people will more readily assist in public safety matters affecting them.
Balancing power: Those who police the community must have the authority to do so, however, police department governance should be a shared responsibility. Improved racial/diversity equity: Diverse partnerships lead to greater understanding, which in turn, changes perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors.


The public outcry for police reform provides cities, towns, and counties with a rare opportunity to affect how their communities are policed in the future. This opportunity involves transforming policing towards a collaborative model where the police departments of the future are increasingly community-based and community-operated. BerryDunn’s CCPP model can help communities achieve this level of police reform and transformation. 

For more information on community policing

Mitch Weinzetl and BerryDunn’s public safety consulting team are leading this unique service. Our independence and objectivity enables a facilitation-based approach to engaging stakeholders across the community with the goal of collaborating on a future community policing model that addresses the need for public safety in a way that is informed and inspired by the community that the police departments serve. 

To learn more about how the CCPP model can help reconnect your police department and your community, contact Mitch Weinzetl.
 

Article
Policing in America: Time for a change

Read this if you are a police executive, city/county administrator, or elected government official, responsible for a law enforcement agency. 

“We need more cops!”  

Do your patrol officers complain about being short-staffed or too busy, or that they are constantly running from call to call? Does your agency struggle with backed-up calls for service (CFS) or lengthy response times? Do patrol staff regularly find themselves responding to another patrol area to handle a CFS because the assigned officer is busy on another call? Are patrol officers denied leave time or training opportunities because of staffing issues? Does the agency routinely use overtime to cover predictable shift vacancies for vacations, holidays, or training? 

If one or more of these concerns sound familiar, you may need additional patrol resources, as staffing levels are often a key factor in personnel deployment challenges. Flaws in the patrol schedule design may also be responsible, as they commonly contribute to reduced efficiency and optimal performance, and design issues may be partially responsible for some of these challenges, regardless of authorized staffing levels.
 
With community expectations at an all-time high, and resource allocations remaining relatively flat, many agencies have growing concerns about managing increasing service volumes while controlling quality and building/maintaining public trust and confidence. Amid these concerns, agencies struggle with designing work schedules that efficiently and optimally deploy available patrol resources, as patrol staff become increasingly frustrated at what they consider a lack of staff.

The path to resolving inefficiencies in your patrol work schedule and optimizing the effective deployment of patrol personnel requires thoughtful consideration of several overarching goals:

  • Reducing or eliminating predictable overtime
  • Eliminating peaks and valleys in staffing due to scheduled leave
  • Ensuring appropriate staffing levels in all patrol zones or beats
  • Providing sufficient staff to manage multiple and priority CFS in patrol zones or beats
  • Satisfying both operational and staff needs, including helping to ensure a proper work/life balance and equitable workloads for patrol staff

Scheduling alternatives

One common design issue that presents an ongoing challenge for agencies is the continued use of traditional, balanced work schedules, which spread officer work hours equally over the year. Balanced schedules rely on over-scheduling and overtime to manage personnel allocation and leave needs and, by design, are very rigid. Balanced work schedules have been used for a very long time, not because they’re most efficient, but because they’re common, familiar, and easily understood―and because patrol staff are comfortable with them (and typically reluctant to change). However, short schedules offer a proven alternative to balanced patrol work schedules, and when presented with the benefits of an alternative work schedule design (e.g., increased access to back-up, ease of receiving time off or training, consistency in staffing, less mandatory overtime), many patrol staff are eager to change.

Short schedules

Short schedules involve a more contemporary design that includes a flexible approach that focuses on a more adaptive process of allocating personnel where and when they are needed. They are significantly more efficient than balanced schedules and, when functioning properly, they can dramatically improve personnel deployments, bring continuity to daily staffing, and reduce overtime, among other operational benefits. Given the current climate, most agencies are unlikely to receive substantial increases in personnel allocations. If that is true of your agency, it may be time to explore the benefits of alternative patrol work schedules.

A tool you can use

Finding scheduling strategies that work in this climate requires an intentional approach, customized to your agency’s characteristics (e.g., staffing levels, geographic factors, crime rates, zone/beat design, contract/labor rules). To help guide you through this process, BerryDunn has developed a free tool for evaluating patrol schedules. Click here to measure your patrol schedule against key design components and considerations.

If you are curious about alternative patrol work schedules, our dedicated justice and public Safety consultants are available to discuss your organization’s needs.

Article
Efficient police patrol work schedules―By design

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer—or if you work on a State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification or modernization efforts.

Click on the title to listen to the companion podcast to this article, Medicaid Enterprise Systems certification: Outcomes and APD considerations

Over the last two years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has undertaken an effort to streamline MES certification. During this time, we have been fortunate enough to be a trusted partner in several states working to evolve the certification process. Through this collaboration with CMS and state partners, we have been in front of recent certification trends. The content we are covering is based on our experience supporting states with efforts related to CMS certification. We do not speak for CMS, nor do we have the authority to do so.

How does the focus on outcomes impact the way states think about funding for their Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MESs)?

Outcomes are becoming an integral part of states’ MES modernization efforts. We can see this on display in recent preliminary CMS guidance. CMS has advised states to begin incorporating outcome statements and metrics into APDs, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and supporting vendor contracts. 

Outcomes and metrics allow states and federal partners to have more informed discussions about the business needs that states hope to achieve with their Medicaid IT systems. APDs will likely take on a renewed importance as states incorporate outcomes and metrics to demonstrate the benefits of their Medicaid IT systems.

What does this renewed importance mean for states as they prepare their APD submissions?

As we’ve seen with initial OBC pilots, enhanced operations funding depends upon the system’s ability to satisfy certification outcomes and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). 

Notably, states should also prepare to incorporate outcomes into all APD submissions—including updates to previously approved active APDs that did not identify outcomes in the most recent submission. 
 
This will likely apply to all stages of a project’s lifecycle—from system planning and procurement through operations. Before seeking funding for new IT systems, states should be able to effectively explain how the project would lead to tangible benefits and outcomes for the Medicaid program.

How do outcome statements align with and complement what we are seeing with outcomes-based or streamlined modular certification efforts?

Outcomes are making their way into funding and contracting vehicles and this really captures the scaling we discussed in our last conversation. States need to start thinking about reprocurement and modernization projects in terms of business goals, organizational development, and business process improvement and redesign. What will a state get out of the new technology that they do not get today? States need to focus more on the business needs and less on the technical requirements.

Interestingly, what we are starting to see is the idea that the certification outcomes are not going to be sufficient to warrant enhanced funding matches from CMS. Practically, this means states should begin thinking critically about want they want out of their Medicaid IT procurements as they look to charter those efforts. 

We have even started to see CMS return funding and contracting vehicles to states with guidance that the outcomes aren’t really sufficiently conveying what tangible benefit the state hopes to achieve. Part of this challenge is understanding what an outcome actually is. States are used to describing those technical requirements, but those are really system outputs, not program outcomes.

What exactly is an outcome and what should states know when developing meaningful outcomes?

As states begin developing outcomes for their Medicaid IT projects, it will be important to distinguish between outcomes and outputs for the Medicaid program. If you think about programs, broadly speaking, they aim to achieve a desired outcome by taking inputs and resources, performing activities, and generating outputs.

As a practical example, we can think about the benefits associated with health and exercise programs. If a person wants to improve their overall health and wellbeing, they could enroll in a health and exercise program. By doing so, this person would likely need to acquire new resources, like healthy foods and exercise equipment. To put those resources to good use, this person would need to engage in physical exercise and other activities. These resources and activities will likely, over time, lead to improved outputs in that person’s heart rate, body weight, mood, sleeping patterns, etc.
 
In this example, the desired outcome is to improve the person’s overall health and wellbeing. This person could monitor their progress by measuring their heart rates over time, the amount of sleep they receive each night, or fluctuations in their body weight—among others. These outputs and metrics all support the desired outcome; however, none of the outputs alone improves this person’s health and wellbeing.

States should think of outcomes as the big-picture benefits they hope to achieve for the Medicaid program. Sample outcomes could include improved eligibility determination accuracy, increased data accessibility for beneficiaries, and timely management of fraud, waste, and abuse.
 
By contrast, outputs should be thought of as the immediate, direct result of the Medicaid program’s activities. One example of an output might be the amount of time required to enroll providers after their initial application. To develop meaningful outcomes for their Medicaid program, states will need to identify big-picture benefits, rather than immediate results. With this is mind, states can develop outcomes to demonstrate the value of their Medicaid IT systems and identify outputs that help achieve their desired outcomes.

What are some opportunities states have in developing outcomes for their MES modernizations?

The opportunities really begin with business process improvement. States can begin by taking a critical look at their current state business processes and understanding where their challenges are. Payment and enrollment error rates or program integrity-related challenges may be obvious starting points; however, drilling down further into the day-to-day can give an even more informed understanding of your business needs. Do your staff end users have manual and/or duplicative processes or even process workarounds (e.g., entering the same data multiple times, entering data into one system that already exists in another, using spreadsheets to track information because the MES can’t accommodate a new program, etc.)? Is there a high level of redundancy? Some of those types of questions start to get at the heart of meaningful improvement.

Additionally, states need to be aware of the people side of change. The shift toward an outcomes-based environment is likely going to place greater emphasis on organizational change management and development. In that way, states can look at how they prepare their workforce to optimize these new technologies.

The certification landscape is seemingly changing weekly as states wait eagerly for CMS’ next guidance issuances. Please continue to check back for in-depth analyses and OBC success stories. Additionally, if you are considering an OBC effort and have questions, please contact our Medicaid Consulting team

Article
Outcomes and APD considerations

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer—or if you work on a State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification or modernization efforts.

This article is based on the Outcomes-Based Certification scalability and project outcomes podcast:


Over the last two years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has undertaken an effort to streamline MES certification. During this time, we have been fortunate enough to be a trusted partner in several states working to evolve the certification process. Through this collaboration with CMS and state partners, we have been in front of recent certification trends. The content we are covering is based on our experience supporting states with efforts related to CMS certification. We do not speak for CMS, nor do we have the authority to do so.

How might Outcomes-Based Certification (OBC) be applied to more complex areas of the Medicaid enterprise?

The question of scaling—that is, to apply the OBC process to more complex components while maintaining or increasing its level of efficiency—is an important next step in certification. OBC has been (or is being) scaled across the technical components of the MES in two primary ways. First, OBC has already successfully been scaled horizontally across similar but discrete components of the MES such as electronic visit verification (EVV), provider management, or pharmacy. The second, perhaps more interesting way we are seeing OBC scale is vertically. OBC—or what is now being referred to as Streamlined Modular Certification (SMC)—is now being scaled up and into larger and more complex components like financial management and claims processing. Beyond that, however, we are now seeing outcomes-based concepts scale a third way—across the Medicaid business.

How does the certification of one module impact the rest of the MES?

We are seeing CMS and states work through this question every day. What we know for sure is that each state is likely going to draw its own set of boxes around its business modules and service components based on its Medicaid business. Because modularity is only defined at a macro level, states have the freedom to work with their vendors to define the parameters of their modules. As a result, we have seen CMS work with states to define those boxes and in doing so, we are really seeing a three-layered approach.

The first layer represents the primary module a state is certifying. A primary module is that module that is responsible for all or most of a business process such as paying a claim. It is safe to assume that the most detailed evidence will come from the primary module. The second layer represents the module—or modules—that might not have responsibility for a business process, but provide functionality integral to that business process being performed successfully. Finally, the third layer represents the module—or modules—that feed data into the business process, but do little else when it comes to performing that business process. For the second and third layer, a state can likely expect to provide evidence that supports the successful transmission of data at a minimum. This is where we are seeing CMS and states work together to define that scope.

What is the role of business process improvement, organization development, and organizational change management in MES modernizations?

This is really the cornerstone of this fundamental shift in certification we have seen over the last 12-18 months. During the 2020 virtual Medicaid Enterprise Systems Conference (MESC), we saw that CMS appears to be signaling it is no longer going to readily accept modernization efforts that do not reflect tangible improvements to the Medicaid business. Think about it this way: a state will likely not be able to go to CMS to request enhanced funding simply because it can no longer renew its existing contract vehicles or it is trying to procure new technology that fails to represent a marked improvement over its legacy system. 

As a result, states need to start thinking about reprocurement and modernization projects in terms of organizational development and business process improvement and redesign. What will a state get out of the new technology that they do not get today? That’s the question that needs to be answered. States should begin to focus more on business needs and less on technical requirements. States are used to building a custom, monolithic enterprise, often referred to as a Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). Today, vendors are bringing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products that allow states to perform business processes more efficiently. In turn, states need to move away from attempting to prescribe how a system should perform and focus on what the system should do. That means less prescriptive requirements and more business-oriented thinking.

Additionally, the concept of outcomes management will become integral to a state’s Advance Planning Document (APD) requests, Request for Proposals (RFP) development, and certification. We are seeing that CMS is beginning to look for outcomes in procurement documents, which is leading states to look critically at what they want to achieve as they seek to charter new projects. One way that a state can effectively incorporate outcomes management into its project development is to identify an outcome owner responsible for achieving those outcomes.

The certification landscape is seemingly changing weekly, as states wait eagerly for CMS’ next guidance issuances. Please continue to check back for in-depth analyses and OBC success stories. Additionally, if you are considering an OBC effort and have questions, please contact our Medicaid Consulting team

Article
Scaling project outcomes

Read this if you are at a rural health clinic or are considering developing one.

Section 130 of H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Covid Relief Package) has become law. The law includes the most comprehensive reforms of the Medicare RHC payment methodology since the mid-1990s. Aimed at providing a payment increase to capped RHCs (freestanding and provider-based RHCs attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds), the provisions will simultaneously narrow the payment gap between capped and non-capped RHCs.

This will not obtain full “site neutrality” in payment, a goal of CMS and the Trump administration, but the new provisions will help maintain budget neutrality with savings derived from previously uncapped RHCs funding the increase to capped providers and other Medicare payment mechanisms.

Highlights of the Section 130 provision:

  • The limit paid to freestanding RHCs and those attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds will increase to $100 beginning April 1, 2021 and escalate to $190 by 2028.
  • Any RHC, both freestanding and provider-based, will be deemed “new” if certified after 12/31/19 and subject to the new per-visit cap.
  • Grandfathering would be in place for uncapped provider-based RHCs in existence as of 12/31/19. These providers would receive their current All-Inclusive Rate (AIR) adjusted annually for MEI (Medicare Economic Index) or their actual costs for the year.

If you have any questions about your specific situation, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Article
Section 130 Rural Health Clinic (RHC) modernization: Highlights

Read this if your agency is involved with COVID-19 vaccination distribution.

Although states have already created COVID-19 vaccination plans, your state can still implement critical strategies to improve your distribution plan. In October 2020, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released the Interim Playbook version 2.0, providing a key framework for states and jurisdictions to build their COVID-19 vaccine distribution plans. The federal government asked that immunization programs in each state plans based on this model. The Playbook contains 15 sections of planning elements for states to consider in the development of their plan. Completing a plan of this extent while simultaneously trying to manage the pandemic has led some states to leave out or not thoroughly address critical components in their plans. 

The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analyzed and collected common themes from each of the 47 state vaccination plans. Their analysis identified areas of weakness in the following areas of each plan: 

  • Priority populations for vaccinations in states 
  • Identifying networks of providers 
  • Developing data collection and reporting
  • Forming communication strategies

Each of the four areas each contained multiple findings, but since the vaccine has already started to roll out, some aspects of the plan cannot be revised. However, it is not too late to improve upon certain elements, especially for data collection and reporting, as well as communication strategies. 

The following recommendations for improvement of state plans are based on the findings from the KFF State COVID-19 vaccine distribution analysis report

States should identify a clear data reporting and collection plan that accounts for the COVID-19-specific data requirements.

According to KFF, an immunization registry or database has been included in 53% of the state COVID-19 plans; in the others it was an unclear component of the plan. The data collection process for COVID-19 vaccinations will be complex and unique due to a number of factors including the nature of a phased rollout, new provider enrollment and onboarding, storage requirements, multiple vaccines and doses, and off-site vaccination locations

Since a little over half of all states have arranged for either new systems or are developing or adding features to current immunization registries, states that are lacking a comprehensive approach could benefit from adopting elements present in the other plans. For example, some states detail how their current immunization system is being utilized for the COVID-19 vaccine, in addition to upgrading certain features in order to meet the anticipated increase in demand. 

Other states have also described their transition to the Immunization Gateway, a centralized technical infrastructure sponsored by the CDC Immunization Information Systems Support Branch, and led by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Chief Technology Officer. The Gateway is securely hosted through the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). States can review the data collection and reporting sections of other states’ plans to gain a greater understanding of how their plan can be improved by describing data reporting and collection processes.   

States should address racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine distribution and acceptance through targeted and evidence-based communication strategies. 

The KFF analysis of state COVID-19 plans indicated about 49% of state plans include specific mention of racial or ethnic minority populations in regards to communication. Communication plans need to include targeted strategies as minority populations and people of color have shown greater hesitation in receiving the vaccine, even if it is free and determined safe by scientists and federal authorities. The virus has had a disproportionate impact on communities of color and minority populations, and a lack of communication to these populations may continue to enhance these disparate health outcomes.

One way to improve a communication plan by addressing racial or ethnic minority populations would be by incorporating the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS), specifically the standards for Communication and Language Assistance:

  • Offer language assistance to individuals who have limited English proficiency and/or other communication needs, at no cost to them, to facilitate timely access to all health care and services
  • Inform all individuals of the availability of language assistance services clearly and in their preferred language, verbally and in writing
  • Ensure the competence of individuals providing language assistance, recognizing that the use of untrained individuals and/or minors as interpreters should be avoided
  • Provide easy-to-understand print and multimedia materials and signage in the languages commonly used by the populations in the service area

A communication plan that considers the racial and ethnic minority populations most vulnerable to adverse health outcomes and have shown a lack of trust in the scientific community would be advisable in order to combat disproportionate negative outcomes from the COVID-19 virus in the future. 

A COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan is an important aspect of each state’s strategy to control the spread of the virus. In order to lead to effective vaccine distribution, it is vital for the plans to thoroughly address data collection, reporting, and tracking. It is also important to consider implementing a communication plan that incorporates strategies to reach racial and ethnic minority groups who might have been disproportionality impacted by COVID-19 as a way to improve your state’s health equity approach to COVID-19 vaccination efforts. By implementing these considerations, your state’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan could become more effective in improving the health outcomes of your population. 

Article
Two ways states can improve their COVID-19 vaccination distribution plans

Read this if you have a responsibility for acquiring and implementing victim notifications for your jurisdiction.

In the first article of this three-part series we explored the challenges and risks associated with utilizing multiple victim notification systems across your state, while the second focused on exploring what the choices are to address these challenges. In this final installment, we demystify the process of developing requirements for a victim notification system. Here are some things to address when developing requirements:

  • Considering all of your victim notification stakeholders and their specific needs
  • “Mining” requirements from your current victim notification system to ensure that your current needs are met in the future system 
  • Determining what the market can support (and what it can’t)
  • Utilizing standards to increase the likelihood that market solutions, designed based on these standards, will meet the needs of your jurisdiction 

Understanding the needs (and wants) of your stakeholder group is critical to defining a successful set of requirements that meets your specific needs. Representative stakeholders may include:

  • Victim advocacy groups (both government run and private sector)
  • Police and sheriff departments
  • Department of Corrections 
  • The courts
  • Probation department
  • Prosecutor offices
  • The victims themselves

Of course the stakeholder group in your jurisdiction may differ, and the needs of these groups will also differ. For example, victims and advocacy groups are concerned about ease of use, accuracy, and timeliness of notifications. Police and sheriff departments may be concerned about ensuring they are meeting their statutory and moral obligations to notify the victims when offenders are released from custody. 

Since these groups have varied needs, it’s important to engage them early and throughout the requirements development process. Talk to them, observe their practices, and review their current systems. It’s possible, for example, that it’s important that sheriff departments can integrate their jail management system to the replacement victim notification system and the integration creates a seamless and timeline notification process when an offender is processed out of jail and into the community. Because the Department of Corrections is designed to hold offenders for a longer period of time, the department may require that their offender management system triggers an alert to victims when pre-release planning activities begin.

Scaling victim notification systems

Utilization of victim notification systems can also include a broad spectrum; from a single jail engaging with a victim notification system vendor to provide specific notification services, to a statewide victim notification system that provides these services for the larger stakeholder group. Because of this, your requirements must reflect that “scale.” Consider the utilization of the system before developing your requirements so that you don’t over (or under) engineer the system for your jurisdiction.

As mentioned in the second article in this series, there are many victim notification system options to consider, from home-grown applications to turnkey software as a service (SaaS) services. Regardless of the path you choose, consider leveraging the victim notification system standards as defined by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA SAVIN Guidelines). These guidelines and standards are terrific sources for victim notification system requirements, and can be thought-provoking as you engage your stakeholder groups. 

Though these standards are extremely useful, be sure to identify and include any jurisdiction-specific needs in your set of requirements. They may be driven by state statutes or by local policy or process. In defining your unique requirements, just ask, “Why are they important? Were they defined based on processes put in place because you don’t have a strong victim notification system, or are they critical to satisfying statute or policy?”

Stakeholder communication and engagement

Once you develop a preliminary set of requirements, it’s important to meet with the stakeholder groups to refine and prioritize the requirements. This exercise will result in a clear and concise set of requirements that are understandable by victim notification system vendors that may be responding to the resulting solicitation. When defining the requirements themselves, we find it useful to follow the guidelines from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) called “IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications.” According to the IEEE standard, good software and hardware requirements should be: 

  1. Correct
  2. Unambiguous
  3. Complete
  4. Consistent
  5. Ranked for importance
  6. Verifiable
  7. Modifiable
  8. Traceable

Prioritization of the requirements also helps responding vendors understand which requirements are most important to your jurisdiction. This prioritization model can also be used when scoring the vendors’ responses to the requirements once proposals have been received. 

Conclusion

In summary, it is important your victim notification system requirements reflect the needs of your stakeholders, are realistic, and clear. Vendors will be asked to respond to how they can accommodate the requirements, so using the IEEE method described above can be useful. 

Though this article doesn’t dive deeply into the development of the request for proposals (RFP) for the victim notification system, below are some actions to take to improve your chances for a successful system selection project:

  1. Define a meaningful project scope to scale the vendor market
  2. Assign a balanced evaluation committee with impartial scoring criteria
  3. Craft a structured procurement package that attracts multiple vendors
  4. Design a reasonable and achievable RFP schedule of events
  5. Reduce ambiguity and increasing clarity of RFP terms

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact our Justice & Public Safety consulting team. We’re here to help. The BerryDunn team has developed a mature methodology for determining victim notification system requirements, and has a rich repository of requirements to start with so that you don’t need to start from scratch.
 

Article
Victim notification system requirements: It's easier (and harder) than you think