Re: Written Testimony of Federal Defender Steven Kalar · 2016. 3. 4. · Written Testimony of FPD...

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19TH FLOOR FEDERAL BUILDING - BOX 36106 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 STEVEN G. KALAR Telephone: (415) 436-7700 Federal Public Defender Fax: (415) 436-7706

E-mail: [email protected]

Honorable Kathleen Cardone Chair, Ad Hoc Committee Thurgood Marshal Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, DC 20544 VIA EMAIL

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Re: Written Testimony of Federal Defender Steven Kalar

Dear Judge Cardone:

Thank you for the invitation to speak with the Committee to Review the Criminal Justice Act Program, during your March hearings in San Francisco.

While meeting in San Francisco, the Committee will be located in one of the world’s leading technological hubs. Blocks away from the San Francisco federal building is the new home of Twitter; just beyond, dozens of “SoMa” tech firms.1 In nearby Silicon Valley, Google, Apple, Oracle, HP, Yahoo, Ebay and Intel jostle for market shares and patent rights. San Francisco thus seems an appropriate venue for the subject of my comments to the Committee: IT, data integrity, and Defender independence.

Data and IT may appear to be mundane subjects for a Committee wrestling with the profound structural questions associated with meaningful indigent defense. I would argue, however, that a narrow case study of the problems with IT and data management reveal much about the structural shortcomings of our current system.

1 See https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=z0K33fLxahaU.kMBt4r4w_lUI&hl=en

Figure 1 – ND Cal Technology Firms

Written Testimony of FPD Kalar February 17, 2016

I also believe any governance structure recommended by the Committee will necessarily rely heavily on data. Any institution tackling the tough resource-distribution questions that underlie much of the independence inquiry must necessarily start with reliable and accurate representation data. Of course, data should never be the end-all when considering how to secure a core constitutional right like the Sixth Amendment.2 With our billion dollar budget, however, data must be a factor when considering indigent defense funding, staffing, and resource allocation.

I also focus on data because of its essential role in advocacy. Sequestration and the Work Measurement Study taught us that Defender mastery of our own data is critical, to educate policymakers and appropriators on the resource needs for indigent defense. For example, our community has anecdotally reported the under-staffing of border offices for years. It was, however, the phalanx of Work Measurement data that definitively revealed the disparities in weighted caseloads between the Defenders in the border districts and the rest of the nation. It was that same Work Measurement data that ultimately produced unprecedented increases in authorized staffing for the Southwest Border cohort.3

My Defender colleagues share my views on the importance of reliable data, and its critical role in securing funding that is essential to our mission. After the Work Measurement formula was adopted, the Defender members of the Defender Services Advisory Group (“DSAG”) recommended a detailed “Action Plan” to DSO. 4 The DSAG Action Plan is our proactive initiative to ensure that we meet our ongoing responsibilities to provide reliable and accurate data, and to continue our engagement with the Work Measurement process.

My observations on the interplay of indigent defense, data, and IT arise from my experiences while serving as the Federal Defender for the Northern District of California. I was sworn in as the Defender in October 2012, and inherited a widely-respected office from my predecessor, Barry Portman. Within six months of my swearing-in, Defenders suffered the brutally unfair cuts of sequestration. Roughly ten percent of my staff were lost; remaining staff suffered furloughs.5

2 For a thoughtful discussion of how wise policy decisions synthesize “big data and human intuition,” see Felix Salmon, Why Quants Don’t Know Everything, January 7, 2014, at http://www.wired.com/2014/01/quants-dont-know-everything/ 3 The Federal Defender offices within the Southwest Border Cohort were authorized for the following full-time employee (FTE) additions, above staff on board, from the Work Measurement Study formula: Arizona, 25 FTE; New Mexico, 13 FTE; Southern District of Texas, 25 FTE; Western District of Texas, 25 FTE. In addition, the Southern District of California received 13 FTE above staff on board. In sum, the Work Measurement formula authorized 101 additional FTE for the border offices, above staff on board. 4 See generally Exhibit A, Letter of DSAG Chair Jon Sands to Cait Clarke, August 21, 2015, and Action Plan. As explained by Mr. Sands, “The Letter and Action Plan expressed the goals and proposals unanimously adopted by DSAG and PMWG after the adoption of the Work Measurement Study by the Judicial Conference.” Id. 5 See generally Letter of Federal Defender to Chief Judge Claudia Wilken, June 7, 2013, available at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/kalar_letter061013.pdf


Six months later the Steering Group for the inaugural Defender Work Measurement Study was composed. I served on the Steering Group for the Study’s duration, and remain active in data issues related to Work Measurement. During the Work Measurement study my staff and I collaborated deeply with PSIO6 as it conducted the statistical analyses of data produced by the study. The collaboration between PSIO and the entire Defender community ultimately produced the inaugural Defender Work Measurement formula adopted by the Judicial Conference. Finally, I am now serving my second term as the Ninth Circuit’s representative to the Defender Services Advisory Group. In that capacity I have been involved in many of the national policy decisions relating to data, IT, and funding over the last four years.

With those experiences in mind, I present a case study of one core structural problem faced by Federal Defender Organizations and Criminal Justice Act counsel: the control of our IT and data by the Administrative Office’s Case Management Systems Office (CMSO).7

Structural Limitations Prevent CMSO from Serving the Defender Mission

In June 2013, the then-Director of the A.O. announced his plans to restructure the Administrative Office. That restructuring including imposing A.O. IT onto the (new) Defender Services Organization:

His goal was to reduce operating costs and duplication of effort, simplify the agency’s administrative structure, and provide enhanced service to the courts and the Judicial Conference. In an effort to accomplish these objectives, a consolidation of information technology resources was implemented. This meant that Defender Services Office IT staff would no longer be supervised by Defender Services Office (DSO) but would be supervised by the Case Management Systems Office (CMSO).

Exh. B, Memorandum of Associate Director Minor to Federal Public / Community Defenders, and Memorandum of Understanding April 24, 2014.

For Committee members not familiar with the Administrative Office, the 2013 A.O. re-organization meant that Defender IT and data would no longer be controlled and supervised by

6 “PSIO” is the “Policy and Strategic Initiatives, Human Resources Office, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.” PSIO is currently headed by Mr. Harvey Jones. 7 Leaders in the Defender share my commitment to IT independence. Ms. Maureen Franco – the Defender who hosts NITOAD, and an active member of the Work Measurement Steering Group – has explained “Defender IT should be removed from the AO IT in order to ensure the independence and confidentiality of the defender IT function.” Written Testimony of Federal Public Defender Maureen Franco, Nov. 2, 2015 at 6. See https://cjastudy.fd.org/sites/default/files/hearing-archives/santa-fe-new-mexico/pdf/maureenfrancofpd.pdf. Other Defenders who will address the Committee in San Francisco will also urge that CMSO be removed from its involvement with Defender IT and data.


those actually charged with supporting the mission of indigent defense: DSO, NITOAD,8 and the IT staff employed by Defender offices. Instead, the 2013 re-organization stripped control and supervision of extraordinarily sensitive client information (and related funding data) from these established groups, and put it under the control of what was, effectively, a completely foreign agency: CMSO.

For most units within the Judiciary, the new CMSO control of IT was a mundane and uneventful bureaucratic shuffle. CMSO serves the IT needs of forty court units – including Probation, Pretrial, and CM / ECF.9 All of these court units have data that is -- unsurprisingly -- directly controlled by, and accessible to, the Judiciary. Indeed, CMSO’s core premise is “pooling resources” from “Legacy offices” from before the reorganization. See Exh. C, Department of Program Services, Case Management Systems Office (CMSO) Powerpoint, Aug. 6, 2014.10

For DSO, however, the imposition of CMSO created immediate structural problems. These structural problem arise because Defender Services – and the Federal Defender Organizations and CJA Counsel that operate under the DSO umbrella – are not, and cannot be, normal court units. Because our mission is fundamentally adversarial, our data is fundamentally not amenable to “pooling.” DSO, Federal Defender Organizations, and CJA counsel have radically different missions from Probation or Pretrial, and we control privileged client information and data that is heavily governed by ethical rules of professional conduct.11 Our unique mission creates radically different IT needs – and data limitations -- than other court units.

The reality of the CMSO acquisition of Defender IT has fallen far short of the stated goals of the 2013 re-organization. Operating costs have increased, as layers of redundant CMSO bureaucracy

8 “NITOAD” is the National IT Operations and Applications Development Branch. It is an IT unit that is both respected and trusted by the Defenders, and is housed within the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas. Critically, NITOAD employees are under the administrative control of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas. Unlike CMSO employees, NITOAD staff are therefore directly subject to the privacy and privilege limitations that constrain Defender staff. Under the direction and supervision of Defender Franco, NITOAD staff take extraordinary care to respect those confidentiality limitation. 9 “The CMSO manages all programmatic systems for the Administrative Office of the US Courts (AOUSC) and the Judiciary. Within CMSO’s purview are over 40 enterprise systems, which span all court types (Appellate, Bankruptcy, and District Courts), Federal Defenders, and Probation and Pretrial Services functional areas and support the direct business of the courts.” See https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/PrintPreview/391150000 10 Available at https://www.ce8.uscourts.gov/judconf/Presentations/2014_08_06_1445_GRND_CNT_BLRM_C_CMSO%20Presentation%20-%20Omaha.pdf 11 See, e.g., California Business and Professions Code Section 6068(e)(1) (providing it is the duty of a member of the State Bar of California “To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.”), available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=6068. See also California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-100, Confidential Information of a Client, available at http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule3100.aspx


have been added on top of Defender IT. Efforts must be expressly duplicated, as IT work involving privileged material must be explained and justified to CMSO supervisors that cannot even legally see the privileged data that is being worked upon. With the new CMSO bureaucratic overlay, the IT administrative structure for Defenders is now hopelessly Byzantine. It is unclear to the Defenders whether the new “Chief of Defender IT Support Division, Case Management Systems Office, Department of Program Services” answers to CMSO, or to DSO, or to neither, or to both. When Defenders have encountered problems, our questions trigger of tsunami of flow-chart discussions and conference calls on bureaucratic structures. There is, however, no “buck stops here” responsibility for IT and data problems.

Meanwhile, simple and inexpensive IT fixes are inexplicably delayed, and our requests languish in the shifting maze of CMSO bureaucracy.

These problems were foreseen. The serious ethical problems of CMSO control were immediately obvious when the re-organization was announced. In August 2013, Federal Defender David Stickman, the Chair of the Defender Services Automation Working Group (DAWG) wrote to Associate Director Laura Minor to advise her of the objections of the Defender community to any transfer of duties from the NITOAD branch to the new Department of Technology Services. See Exh. D, Email of Federal Defender David Stickman to Associate Director Laura Minor, Aug. 1, 2013. As Mr. Stickman explained:

Quite simply, we believe it would be unethical for offices within the Department of Technology Services to have access to Federal Defender data while at the same time having similar access to data belonging to appellate, district and magistrate judges, probation and pretrial offices and the Administrative Office. Viewed another way, we can not imagine that judges would allow a database administrator to have simultaneous access to both confidential judicial and federal defender databases.

Id.

The “solution” for the Defenders’ serious ethical concerns was the A.O.’s creation of a “tiger team.” This group spend many months to create a thirteen-page memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) detailing the various roles and responsibilities of CMSO, NITOAD, and Defender IT. See Exh. B, Memorandum of Associate Director Minor to Federal Public / Community Defenders, and Memorandum of Understanding April 24, 2014.

I would urge the Committee to review this complex MOU and ask if the CMSO acquisition of Defender IT “simplified” the administrative structure of DSO.


Despite this MOU, CMSO supervision of Defender IT has proven unworkable. For example, when Defenders pointed out routine fixes needed in defenderData (our privileged and confidential database) the embedded CMSO supervisor suggested that the database be replicated with an anonymous set of data so CMSO could oversee the repairs. By way of reference, during the eight-week study period of Work Measurement, dData generated 150 million points of data. Replication and anonymization of the massive, privileged defenderData database into a specially-created CMSO sandbox, for the sole purpose of permitting CMSO staff to “supervise” a simple repair, illustrates how absurd our current structure has become.

Bureaucratic roadblocks ultimately became so profound that in October 2015, DSAG unanimously requested that project management for our privileged dData database be removed from CMSO. DSAG asked that project management for dData instead be entrusted to NITOAD. After hearing DSAG’s concerns, the Chief of CMSO agreed to the Defenders’ request. Despite these agreements, however, the debilitating entanglements of CMSO in NITOAD project management of dData continue.

This dysfunctional IT relationship is frankly unfair to CMSO and its staff, who can never meet our IT needs. It is also untenable for the Defenders, for CJA Counsel, and for DSO. Every acronym swimming in this alphabet soup – DSO, CMSO, NITOAD, and the Defenders – have spent years writing MOUs, drafting and revising flow charts, and debating the various bureaucratic work flows necessary to try to accommodate CMSO in our IT structure. DSAG, DAWG, NITOAD, DSO and CMSO still have not resolved these core debates: necessary revisions to longstanding Judicial IT policies remain pending.

Meanwhile, critical IT work is not getting done.

It bears emphasis that the Chief of CMSO has been an earnest and honest broker. He has met repeatedly with myself, with DSAG, and with DAWG to try to address our many concerns. Ultimately, however, CMSO control of our IT and data is a square peg pounded into a round hole. No amount of conference calls, MOUs, or flow charts can cure this fundamental structural problem.

A recent experience with a large CMSO project illustrates the problems with A.O. oversight of Defender IT and data. In January of this year, the “Chief of Defender IT Support Division, Case Management Systems Office, Department of Program Services” announced a new database --“DSMIS 2.0.”12 DSMIS itself is a database that has existed for years: it is the main conduit between the case and charge data created by the Defenders in the field, and the funding data that

12 See Exh. E, Email of Chief of Defender IT Support Division, Case Management Systems Office, Department of Program Services Pauly to Defenders, January 19, 2016


is reported to the A.O. and Congress.13 Put differently, DSMIS is the freight train that shuttles data between the Defenders and the Administrative Office. DSMIS itself is a pedestrian example of a typical government website, but it is nonetheless important for this core data-conveyance function.14

CMSO supervised the creation of a number of dramatic revisions to DSMIS 2.0. Despite our requests, DSMIS 2.0 was not shown to Defenders or to the Defender Advisory Groups15 before it was deployed, never underwent quality control review by PSIO or by Steering Group Defenders familiar with Work Measurement, and was never made available for beta testing by Federal Defender Organization executives before the database was unveiled. The analogy for the private sector would be for a law firm’s IT unit to unilaterally change all billing mechanisms – without bothering to inform the managing partners.

Given the lack of quality control or Defender involvement, it is not suprising that when DSMIS 2.0 was finally unveiled the system proved reminiscent of the notorious eCJA project.16

The errors in DSMIS 2.0 were deeply troubling. For example, due to formula errors the funding case weight of one office was over-reported ten-fold in DSMIS 2.0 (see DSMIS 2.0 screen shot in Figure 2.). The (erroneous)

13 “DSMIS” is “The Defender Services Management Information System. A data mart which contains FDO and CJA related workload, financial, staffing, personnel, time use, and other relevant information which is accessed and used to support the DSO in its oversight of the Federal Defender Program and respond to internal and external inquiries, and by FDOs to provide insight into their local operation. This application is now operated and maintained for DSO by the CMSO Defender IT Support staff.” Exh B, Memorandum of Associate Director Minor at 5. 14 DSMIS is unavoidable legacy software needed to shuttle data from the Defenders to the A.O. It has proven unworkable, however, for the Defenders’ Work Measurement needs. Defenders have thus asked that WMS management tools be developed in the defenderData database, which is far more nimble, far more responsive to our management needs, and far less expensive. See supra at fn. 1, Action Plan page 2 Section 3 (“Defenders will look to dData, not DSMIS, as the primary tool for accessing and viewing their data, but DSMIS may still be useful to DSO for reviewing and reporting data. We should ask Justice Works to develop and maintain tools, such as graphical dashboards, to permit timely and meaningful access to the office’s data.”) Despite this DSAG request, DSMIS 2.0 was instead coded with Work Measurement tools. 15 Inexplicably, CMSO chose Administrative Officers as the beta testers for this central funding mechanism – and did not even inform the Defenders in those offices that beta testing was taking place. 16 See generally Nevada-Grown eVoucher System Going National, May 7, 2014 at http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2014/05/07/nevada-grown-evoucher-system-going-national

Figure 2 – DSMIS 2.0 Projected WCO Screen Shot


weighted case open data in DSMIS 2.0 would have authorized 148.3 staff, for an office that is actually only authorized for fifty.

Formulas in DSMIS 2.0 showing the operation of Work Measurement also suffered from profound (and basic) mathematical errors. (Contrary to the screen shot at Figure 3, “1910.6 / 41.3” does not equal “35.1”).

Of greatest concern, without seeking the input of Defenders or the established Defender advisory groups, CMSO created an automatic data-stripping mechanism. See Figure 4. That mechanism

would have defaulted to an automatic push of case and charge data from the Defenders’ dData system, into DSMIS and ultimately to the A.O. and Congress. This automated data-push mechanism would have eliminated meaningful Defender initial quality-control review of our own case and charge data – a key aspect of our existing system.

Most importantly, the new CMSO automatic-data mechanism would have allowed Defenders to unilaterally and retroactively change their core case and charge data, after funding data had already been reported to Congress.

The new CMSO data-overwrite mechanism would have had profound and negative consequences for the integrity of the funding data that is at the heart of the Work Measurement Study. This CMSO mechanism would have allowed Defenders to retroactively change our reported case and charge data, at our sole discretion, up to a year in the past. The case and charge data that would have been affected by this mechanism controls the vast majority of the funding for the Federal Defender organizations. CMSO’s DSMIS 2.0 data-overwrites would have directly impacted funding and staffing levels, our retroactive changes would have been made without DSO knowledge or approval, and these revisions would have happened after official data reports had been made to the A.O. (and appropriation requests had been made to Congress).17

17 See generally Chapter 18, Case Management and Statistical Reporting, revised Apr. 1, 2014 at 18-8 (“DSO compiles all information reported in the JS-50 and it is presented in the Annual Report of the Director of the AO and in other judicial workload statistical reports. DSO uses this information, along with time data from dD, to evaluate

Figure 3 - DSMIS 2.0 Formula Screen Shot

Figure 4 - CMSO Automatic Data Production Mechanism


Given the obvious funding ramifications, Judicial policy wisely and expressly prohibits Defenders from making unilateral and retroactive changes to core funding data. (See “Overview of JS-50 Report at Figure 5).18 CMSO’s data-overwrite mechanism would have unilaterally abrogated this policy.

Defenders immediately recognized the threat to data integrity posed by this new CMSO automatic data-overwrite mechanism. Our concerns about DSMIS 2.0 ultimately lead to widespread protests by the Defender community at the recent Defender conference in Portland. Ultimately, DSO mediated an agreement between the Defenders and CMSO, and the CMSO data-overwrite function was shelved.

During the heated Defender discussions regarding DSMIS 2.0 and CMSO, a veteran Defender cogently summarized the episode:

The errors in DSMIS 2.0 are, by themselves, annoying and potentially dangerous. However, they can all be fixed with Defender intervention. The real problem with the DSMIS 2.0 mess is that it shows that our national structure is fundamentally broken.

That respected Defender was correct: our current national system is broken.

These endemic IT and data problems are particularly troubling given our participation in the Work Measurement Study. Three thousand, two hundred and sixty-three Defender staff devoted a staggering amount of time and resources to engage in our inaugural Work Measurement Study.19 That Study was imposed on us in the immediate aftermath of sequestration, and was

trends in such data, analyze the resource requirements of the defender program, and to assist in execution of FDO budgets throughout the fiscal year. Because the cost of providing defense services has increased over the years, it has become necessary to provide Congress with more detailed information to support budget requests for the Defender Service appropriation. Therefore, workload statistics assists DSO in evaluating FDO caseloads and anticipates the need for additional resources to ensure effective and timely representation of clients. dD provides DSO with information to respond to inquiries from Congress, the AO and the Judicial Conference about the costs, needs and operation of the program. The tracking of time spent on cases in dD also facilitates reviews of workload and staffing levels in the FDO.”) 18 See id. at Section III.B., page 18-8. 19 For one example of the efforts of the Defender community, visit the Work Measurement Blog at http://workmeasurementstudy.blogspot.com/ That blog, and all content within, was created and maintained by the Defender Steering Group and staff of the Federal Defender organizations.

Figure 5 - Chapter 18, Case Management and Statistical Reporting, revised Apr. 1, 2014 at 18-8


accelerated by the Executive Committee. Despite sincere reservations, all Defender staff participated in the study. Our deep collaboration with PSIO and the Judicial Resource Committee is without parallel by any other Work Measurement Study. Collaborating as respected partners, Defenders, PSIO, and the Judicial Resource Counsel together “won the war” of Work Measurement. We are learning, however, that our real challenge is surviving the ensuing peace.

Given our extraordinary efforts during Work Measurement it is now bewildering to see our hard work undermined by an IT and data structure that -- by very design – can never accommodate and advance the independent mission of the defense function. Put simply, Defenders cannot meet our continuing Work Measurement obligations when our fundamental data integrity is undermined by CMSO.

Conclusion

CMSO, IT, and data integrity are but small parts of a large problem. This small case study, however, illustrates how systemic and structural constraints threaten the core goals of Gideon.

It is important to emphasize that these issues are not driven by personality conflicts or by individual hostility to the defense function. The Chief of CMSO has never demonstrated any animus towards the defense function or the Defenders. He has struggled mightily to understand our thoroughly foreign mission and to salvage a bureaucratic structure that is destined for failure. These problems with CMSO are neither personal or philosophical.

These problems are structural.

CMSO’s laudable mission is greater efficiency for the Judiciary through the active consolidation of court unit IT and data management.20 Our Sixth Amendment mission, by contrast, is vigorous advocacy on behalf of our indigent clients. We must “maintain inviolate the confidence, . . . and at every peril to [ourselves], preserve the secrets of [our] client[s].”).21 The Defenders’ and CMSO’s conflicting missions cannot be reconciled. These fundamental structural problems cannot be resolved, in my view, without fundamental structural change.

All of these training activities and guidance were part of the close collaboration between the Federal Defender Organizations, and Mr. Harvey Jones and the staff of PSIO. 20 “The CMSO manages all programmatic systems for the Administrative Office of the US Courts (AOUSC) and the Judiciary. Within CMSO’s purview are over 40 enterprise systems, which span all court types (Appellate, Bankruptcy, and District Courts), Federal Defenders, and Probation and Pretrial Services functional areas and support the direct business of the courts.” See https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/PrintPreview/391150000 21 See supra at fn.11.


Political scientists and historians teach that detailed examination of narrow case studies can reveal a great deal about larger institutional issues.22 In that vein, I would ask if this narrow case study on CMSO, IT and data, is anomalous? Or is it instead symptomatic of the entire national structure for federal indigent defense? I have reported on one small corner of the house that Gideon built. But do these IT and data problems resonate with structural concerns for the entire edifice?

I look forward to discussing these questions, and ideas for change, during my testimony in San Francisco.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVEN G. KALAR Federal Public Defender

Northern District of California

22 See generally Michael D. McGinnis, An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework for the Analysis of Institutions and Their Development, Policy Studies Journal, March 2011, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1762685

Exhibit A Letter of DSAG Chair Jon Sands

to Cait Clarke and Action Plan

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER District of Arizona

850 W. Adams, Suite 201 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

JON M. SANDS Federal Public Defender

602-382-2700 (Fax) 602-382-2800

1-800-758-7053 August 21, 2015 Ms. Cait T. Clarke Chief Defender Services Office DPS-DSO Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, DC 20544 Dear Cait: I am writing on the eve of the Judicial Conference vote on the work measurement plan (WM) for the federal defender program (FDO). The new staffing formulas will be a monumental change for our program. The past year has taught us certain hard truths, and revealed problems, that need to be addressed. The new staffing formulas, and the work measurement process, come in the context of (1) Judiciary-wide cost containment efforts; (2) AO dissatisfaction with how DSC, DSO, and the FDO have previously allocated staffing resources; (3) the decimation resulting from sequestration; and (4) the expectation that, nationally, criminal case filings will continue to decline and level off for the foreseeable future. DSAG and PMWG co-chairs have identified areas of concern that we feel defenders need to have the opportunity to address, so we may successfully implement the formulas and be well prepared for the next work measurement study. The reformulation will occur in the next several years. We look to DSO, and you, for systematic changes to ensure that the program can thrive now and continue to survive in the future, even after the next imminent WM study. DSAG and PMWG believe we must now revamp how we collect, record, report, analyze and, above all, manage our own data. We now exist in a work measurement world, so we must fully comprehend the rules and understand the consequences. Every office and DSO must be fully committed to our mutual effort. To this end, we endorse the following eight concrete steps (the eight fold way to enlightenment) necessary for success. 1. Appoint a Special Deputy of Operational Analytics and Information Management; 2. Expand and re-define the role of Budget Analyst staff;

3. Assure open and transparent access to operational data by developing and providing to Defenders data analytics tools and technology; 4. Revise and simplify timekeeping by reducing the number of task codes in dData (12 task codes); 5. Provide uniform training and clear guidance on weighted case openings; 6. Calendar and circulate regular status reports to DSAG on operational analytics and work measurement initiatives; 7. Retain RAND for continuation of case weight updates and studies; and 8. Increase FDO involvement via Advisory and Working Groups. We provide, in the attached Action Plan, our reasoning for such steps and crucially the goals we hope to achieve. Our commentary explains why such actions are critical. We envision the steps as providing a way for DSO to secure the future for the FDO. We must make these changes throughout the FDO and DSO. If we do, we can adapt to the changing metrics, cases, and work measures. We can use our analytical skills to present the best possible case for funding for each office in an environment with nationally declining criminal case filings. We must take action now to meet the challenges ahead. We do so knowing that both DSO and the FDO must work together on this, with an open mind and full engagement. We look forward to achieving the implementation. Sincerely, JON M. SANDS Chair, Defender Services Advisory Group Enclosure

1

ACTION PLAN On August 20-21, 2015, DSAG and co-chairs of PMWG assessed the inaugural Defender Work Measurement Study and the resulting initial staffing formulas (WMS 1.0). We are hopeful that, on September 17, the Judicial Conference will approve WMS 1.0, which has already been endorsed by the Judicial Resources Committee and the Executive Committee. The new staffing formulas will fundamentally change FDO funding. WMS 1.0 seeks to allocate resources rationally. WMS 1.0 will be followed by WMS 2.0, the inevitable work measurement update process. In light of this, DSAG wrote a letter on August 21, 2015 urging DSO to take eight concrete steps to allow for the successful, immediate implementation of the staffing formulas and to prepare for the next work measurement update process. They are:

1. Appoint a Special Deputy of Operational Analytics and Information Management;

2. Expand the role of Budget Analyst staff;

3. Assure open and transparent access to operational data by developing and providing to Defenders data analytics tools and technology;

4. Revise and simplify timekeeping by reducing the number of task codes in dData (12 task codes);

5. Provide uniform training and clear guidance on weighted case openings;

6. Calendar and circulate regular status reports to DSAG on operational analytics and work measurement initiatives;

7. Retain RAND for continuation of case weight updates and studies; and

8. Increase FDO involvement via Advisory and Working Groups.

In this memorandum, we provide further guidance on what we seek to achieve. Accordingly, to enhance and ensure the effective delivery of indigent defense services by FDOs, DSAG recommends the following: 1. A Special Deputy of Operational Analytics and Information Management WMS 1.0 taught us that resource allocation is fundamentally data-driven. To successfully implement the formulas and to prepare for WMS 2.0, DSO needs to add a high level position, a Czar, to monitor and measure data. DSO must have a special deputy position responsible solely for operational analytics and information management. The Special Deputy would be an attorney, with a specialized skill set: facility with statistical analysis and a hands-on understanding of the Defender mission and governance structure. The Special Deputy’s portfolio will be work attendant to staffing formula implementation in every FDO and data analytics. The Special Deputy will have a focused mission: to advance informed managerial decision-making in connection with FDO staffing and resource allocation, in anticipation of an update to initial formula results within the next five years. Within DSO, the Special Deputy

2

would report directly to the Chief of DSO and, for items relating to the portfolio, would have plenary supervisory authority. In consultation with DSAG, the Special Deputy would undertake projects on matters of national and local priority. For example, to enhance national uniformity in case opening practices and to maintain meaningful case weights, the Special Deputy would develop a training program in case opening practices, revise and refine existing case management manuals such as Chapter 18, and track and investigate national events of consequence for FDO staffing requirements and caseloads (such as Amendment 782 and Johnson). In addition, the Special Deputy would work on projects at the individual FDO level by performing district and circuit specific data analysis to identify or forecast changes in caseloads, hiring trends, criminal filings, court projects, circuit ceilings, changes to CJA Plans, and the like. The Special Deputy will serve Defenders in an immediate and practical way, and the creation of this position will demonstrate DSO’s timely commitment to system-wide data integrity. 2. Expand the role of Budget Analyst staff Budget Analysts must take on an expanded role post WMS 1.0. Defenders will depend on Budget Analysts to become Program Managers, with critical new responsibilities for district and circuit specific data analysis and information management. In this new expanded role, Budget Analyst staff must be able to advise FDOs about formula implementation and assure compliance with the staffing formulas. Budget Analysts must also have access to data analytics tools and technology to help managers make staffing decisions. Budget Analyst assignment to respective Defender offices should be periodically rotated. This will facilitate information exchange within the DSO and enable Budget Analysts and DSO to gain specific knowledge of district and circuit practices. 3. Assure open and transparent access to operational data by developing and providing to Defenders data analytics tools and technology. WMS 1.0 taught us about the importance of robust data collection tools; the use of dData during WMS provided a particularly rich data set for analysis. WMS 1.0 yielded 150 million data points, significantly more than any other court unit studied to date. To successfully implement the WMS formulas and to prepare for WMS 2.0, FDOs now need access to equally sophisticated data analysis tools. Justice Works is developing customized dashboards and charts, visualizing these key data elements, to help Defenders make informed management decisions. Data should be transparent and accessible to FDO management staff. FDO management must be able to access data for use in forecasting, staffing, and planning. Such access is crucial to present implementation, and WMS 2.0 preparation. IT support at DSO must be restructured to provide Defenders the support, and the tools, necessary to respond to the next work measurement study. Defenders will look to dData, not DSMIS, as the primary tool for accessing and viewing their data, but DSMIS may still be useful to DSO for reviewing and reporting data. We should ask Justice Works to develop and maintain tools, such as graphical dashboards, to permit timely and meaningful access to the office’s data.

3

This will allow DSO and the Budget Analyst staff to work directly and more efficiently with Defenders on the implementation of the staffing formula. 4. Revise and simplify timekeeping by reducing the number of task codes in dData (12

task codes) During WMS 1.0, we sought to answer three basic questions using the most accurate data available: What work does the office perform? How often does the office perform the work? How long does it take to perform the work once? To successfully implement the WMS formulas and to prepare for WMS 2.0, dData should be modified to reduce the number of task codes – from 98 to 10. Put differently, fewer task codes will help us more specifically define the parameters of the defense function, and thereby enable us to better answer the basic questions animating a workload-driven staffing formula. DSAG recommends eliminating all but the following 12 task codes in dData:

ADMINISTRATION (including time) CLIENT COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION COURT FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT (investigation, mitigation, discovery review, etc.) INTERPRETATION LEAVE LEGAL DEVELOPMENT (research and writing, case conferences, etc.) SUPERVISION TRAINING TRAVEL

PMWG will define the sub-tasks that related to these twelve codes. Justice Works should be directed to reconfigure the dData task codes to reflect the twelve codes shown above. Deployment should be achieved on or before January 1, 2016. 5. Provide uniform training and clear guidance on weighted case openings. WMS 1.0 taught us that FDOs will not receive additional staff without corresponding increases in workload. WCO – weighted cases open – is the single most important factor in determining staffing, and thus funding. Going forward, DSO should prioritize uniform training and guidance on WCO. This training should have three substantive components: first, weight - an overview of RAND 2.0 case weight, and how weight figures in the funding formula; second, case type - an overview of case types within Chapter 18; and third, case opening practices – guidance on the mechanics of opening a case, including conducting a conflict analysis, reviewing a charging document, entering (and updating) charges in dData, and selecting a case type. The training should be made available by webinar to all Defender employees. In addition, Chapter 18 should be updated and revised by FDO and DSO lawyers.

4

Assessments should change, to primarily focus on WCO and to correct WCO practices. Budget analysts should be part of the assessment team, and should undertake this WCO review. DSO should not make unilateral changes to case types and case weights. This is because the JRC's jurisdiction might extend to the operation of weighted caseload metrics. DSO must ensure that all are trained on WCO accounting. It is fundamental to our existence. The staff position of Case Manager in our system assumes greater importance than ever. 6. Calendar and circulate regular status reports to DSAG on operational analytics and work measurement initiatives DSAG recommends that, at each meeting, the Analytics Deputy provide an in-person status report on operations, addressing system-wide FTE hiring trends, WCO trends, new issues (DR1, Johnson, circuit ceiling changes), and WMS 2.0 preparation. DSAG should also receive quarterly reports from the IT Head on the development and deployment of analytics tools for Defenders. The head of PSIO should be invited at least annually to present to DSAG on the Judiciary’s continued refinement of the work measurement process. 7. Retain RAND to continue case weight updates and studies WMS 1.0 taught us the importance of RAND’s updated case weights, without the Judiciary’s severity codes, as a key data element in staffing formula development and implementation. RAND 2.0 best represents case-related resource requirements, offers a comparative metric across districts, and serves as a sound prediction of FDO staffing needs. Given the critical role of WCO in staffing and funding and in light of RAND’s long-standing institutional relationship with Defenders, DSAG recommends an affirmative effort to engage RAND even more fully in operational analytics projects. 8. Increase FDO Involvement through Advisory and Working Groups We are all in this together. Every action by an FDO impacts the system in a measure we have never seen, or felt, before. Defenders and Executive Directors must become more involved and made more aware of the consequences of their actions. It is therefore necessary that the FDOs be informed and involved in formal working and advisory groups and in informal working groups. Information must be transparent, and circulated, and defenders must be held accountable. FDOs must be involved to an unprecedented degree in working groups. DSAG should maintain ongoing dialogue with DSC. It is within the scope of the DSC’s jurisdiction to “review and make recommendations to the Committee on Judicial Resources on policy concerning compensation and staffing for federal public and community defender organizations.” See JCUS - Jurisdiction of Committees, February 2013 (Committee on Defender Services, Jurisdiction). For this reason, DSAG should provide regular updates to DSC through DSO about implementation of WMS 1.0 in the field and the preparation for WMS 2.0, including the recommendations outlined above.

Exhibit B Memorandum of Associate

Director Minor to Federal Public/Community Defenders and

Memorandum of Understanding

HONORABLE JOHN D. BATESDirector

JILL C. SAYENGADeputy Director

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THEUNITED STATES COURTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

LAURA C. MINORAssociate Director

Department of Program Services

April 24, 2014

MEMORANDUM

To: Federal Public/Community Defenders

From: Laura C. Minor, Associate Director

RE: AOUSC REORGANIZATION AND THE MOVE OF DEFENDER SERVICE IT STAFF

(INFORMATION)

In June, 2013, the Director announced his plans to restructure the AdministrativeOffice. His goal was to reduce operating costs and duplication of effort, simplify theagency’s administrative structure, and provide enhanced service to the courts and theJudicial Conference. In an effort to accomplish these objectives, a consolidation ofinformation technology resources was implemented. This meant that Defender ServicesOffice IT staff would no longer be supervised by Defender Services Office (DSO) butwould be supervised by the Case Management Systems Office (CMSO).

This move caused concerns with the defender community that ethicalresponsibilities of client confidentiality could potentially be compromised. Afterlistening to all of the concerns, I created a “tiger team” that included me, members of myimmediate staff, DSO leadership, CMSO leadership (including members of Defender IT),the Office of General Counsel, and two Federal Public Defenders. We worked throughthe issues and drafted the attached memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to cover (1) control of and access to Defender applications, systems, and data; (2) the supervision andadministration of NITOAD by CMSO and the Federal Public Defender’s Office for theWestern District of Texas (TXW); and (3) an agreement on how Defender IT supportresponds to information and system-related requests from entities external to the DSO.

In addition to the signatories of these documents, they have now been reviewedand approved by the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services, the DefenderServices Advisory Group, and the Defender Services Automation Working Group. Webelieve that by following the procedures outlined in the MOUs, we can meet the goals of

A TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

AO Restructure and the Move of Defender Service IT Staff Page 2

the AO restructure while providing you and your staff members access to a greaternumber of information technology specialists to assist with development of defendercentered applications. This additional group of resources, along with more standardizedbusiness processes, will improve the ability of DPS to deliver quality solutions to meetyour client needs. By following the processes currently in place for managing data,which are modified by this agreement to conform to new organizational structure, we willbe able to protect the confidentiality of your data.

Please know that protecting your sensitive client and representation-related data isof paramount concern to me and to the leadership of the AO, the DSO, and the CMSO. You and DSO are the owners of the data in defender applications. We will work with diligence to ensure we are successful in this important responsibility.

I want to thank you for all of your patience as we worked through this, and foryour support in helping us meet the goals of the agency.

3 Attachments

Defender SystemInformation Requests


between

AO DPS Defender Services Office

and

AO DPS Case Management Systems Office

Final February 27, 2014

Defender Systems Information Requests

Memorandum of Understanding – Defender System Information Requests

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................. 3 1.4 COMMENCEMENT DATE ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 AGREEMENT’S DURATION ..................................................................................................................... 3

2 PERIODIC REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 4

3 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 5

4 SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................... 7 4.2 ENHANCEMENTS AND DEFECT REMEDIATION ...................................................................................... 7 4.3 TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION AND DATA REQUESTS ............................................................ 7

5 POINTS OF CONTACT ............................................................................................................................. 9

6 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 10

7 AGREEMENT APPROVAL ..................................................................................................................... 11



3

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW The reorganization within the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) went into effect on October 1, 2013. Under the new structure, the former Office of Defender Services Information Technology Division (ODS ITD), including the National IT Operations and Applications Development, is moved from the Defender Services Office (DSO, formerly called the Office of Defender Services (ODS)) to the Case Management Systems Office (CMSO) and renamed Defender IT Support. The Defender IT Support staff and NITOAD Branch will continue to manage and maintain the Defender Services Program’s applications and systems while part of the CMSO. DSO will maintain a Defender IT Liaison position to act as liaison between CMSO and DSO. The NITOAD Branch will remain employees of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (FPD-TXW), will be funded through the Defender Services account, and will function under the operational control of the Defender IT Support Chief.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES This Agreement outlines the terms and conditions under which Defender IT Support responds to information and system-related requests from entities external to the DSO. Its objective is to provide a framework to deliver timely and quality reports and services while preventing inadvertent release of sensitive data or information which could violate Defender clients’ attorney-client privilege, Defender work product privilege, or the ethical responsibilities of FDO staff or CJA panel attorneys using these applications.

1.3 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT This Agreement is made between:

• the Chief, CMSO, and • the Chief, DSO, and • the Associate Director, supervisory department for CMSO and DSO, the

Department of Program Services (DPS) of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, located within the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building at One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington DC 20544.

1.4 COMMENCEMENT DATE This Agreement begins the date all signatories give approval to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding – Defender Systems Information Requests.

1.5 AGREEMENT’S DURATION This Agreement is valid from the date the DPS Associate Director signs this Agreement and is valid until otherwise superseded in writing and agreed to by all parties to this Agreement. Any signatory to this Agreement may terminate the Agreement effective 120 days from providing written intent of such to the other signatories or by future AO reorganization affecting any signatory department, division, office, or branch. In such event, the principal parties to this MOU will meet to resolve the issue prompting the proposed termination.



4

2 PERIODIC REVIEW . This Agreement should be reviewed a minimum of once a year. Failure to review once a year will not impede or cancel this Agreement. The Defender IT Liaison and the Chiefs of Defender IT Support are responsible for facilitating regular reviews of this Agreement with the Chiefs of DSO and CMSO. This Agreement’s content may be amended or modified as required provided all signatories mutually agree. This Agreement will be posted to the Defender intranet website (DWeb) and DSO and CMSO network share drives to ensure it can be accessed by all stakeholders.



5

3 DEFINITIONS

ITEM DEFINITION CMSO The Case Management Systems Office within the AO Department

of Program Services.

CMSO Defender IT Support

Case Management Systems Office Defender IT Support staff, before re-organization working in the IT Division of the Office of Defender Services. This includes the NITOAD Branch.

defenderData A COTS case management system, developed by JusticeWorks, which replaced the former in-house Defender Case Management System (CMS). This system contains federal defender representation, time use and other litigation sensitive and client confidential information/work product for use by the FDO and its defense teams, and from which workload and time data are reported to the AO. Unauthorized access to or disclosure of this litigation sensitive information would violate the attorney-client and work product privileges and the ethical responsibilities of Defender attorneys.

DSMIS The Defender Services Management Information System, a data mart containing FDO- and CJA-related workload, financial, staffing, personnel, time use, and other relevant information, is accessed and used to support DSO oversight of the Federal Defender Program, to respond to internal and external inquiries, and by FDOs to monitor their local operations. This application is operated and maintained for DSO by Defender IT Support staff.

DSMIS Protocol Rules published in the AO Manual, Volume 9, Chapter 1, § 140 Disclosure of Information from the Defender Services Management Information System (DSMIS) outlining the procedures and processes for release of information from DSMIS.

DSO The Defender Services Office within the AO Department of Program Services.

DSO Chief Information Officer (CIO)

Primary person overseeing transfer of Defender information to external entities, the DSO Chief.

DSO CIO Designee Person delegated temporary authority by the DSO CIO to oversee CIO responsibilities.

DSO Defender IT Liaison

Person within DSO acting as IT Liaison between CMSO and DSO.

DSO Systems Supported by Defender IT

A listing describing the various systems supporting the DSO and Defender Program, originally managed by the ODS IT Division and NITOAD Branch, which now fall under the purview of the CMSO. November 27, 2013, Memo to Cait Clarke from George Drakulich, outlining the defender systems supported by CMSO Defender IT Support.



6

External entity Entities outside of the AO but within the Judicial Branch.

FDOs Federal Defender Organizations. This term includes all Federal Public Defender Organizations (FPDOs) and Community Defender Organizations (CDOs).

Internal entity Entities within the AO but outside of DSO

Lotus Notes The email system used by the Judiciary (Courts, AO and Defenders) to exchange information. The Defender Lotus Notes Domain is supported and managed by NITOAD Branch for the Federal Defender Organizations (FDOs). The application is located on the Defender Wide Area Network (DWAN).

NITOAD Branch The National IT Operations and Applications Development (NITOAD) Branch. Those employees of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (FPD-TXW) who provide operational support, maintenance and helpdesk support for the various applications supporting the FDOs. While under the administrative control of the FPD-TXW, they are within Defender IT Support’s operational control for the national role and funding of the systems they provide to the FDOs. However, the staff of the NITOAD Branch will remain as employees of, and under the administrative control of the FPD-TXW.

Non-judiciary entity Entities outside of the Judicial Branch.

Data Owner The Defenders own the data in the defenderData application. DSO owns DSMIS data, much of which is reported to the AO by the FDOs. DSMIS and defenderData applications (and others) are managed and maintained by Defender IT Support staff, including the NITOAD Branch. As owners of the data, the Federal Defenders and DSO are ultimately responsible for data release from and data transfers in these systems.

Change Control Board

Group constituted to review recommendations from the user community to make changes to the applications. Includes, but is not limited to changing the application by adding new capability, adjusting the format of screens, providing new reports, etc, which will enhance the application to the user. This group will determine the impact, cost and viability of the requested changes and work with the vendor to implement approved changes. The CCB does not have access to the data of individual FDOs.



7

4 SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS The Defender IT Support is responsible for providing the following services for DSMIS and defenderData:

• Operations and maintenance (O&M); • Enhancements, defect remediation; • Training FDO personnel; • Developing informational requests and reports.

4.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

To view the operations and maintenance procedures for DSMIS and defenderData systems, please refer to the corresponding contract/vendor task order.

4.2 ENHANCEMENTS AND DEFECT REMEDIATION

The process for enhancements and defect remediation to the DSMIS and defenderData applications are in the corresponding vendor task order with CMSO. The CMSO Defender IT Support staff and NITOAD Branch will establish and maintain appropriate modification and change control processes for each supported application/system through a Change Control Board (CCB) or other mechanism as appropriate. The membership for these processes may come from CMSO Defender IT Support, NITOAD Branch, DSO, or FDO stakeholders, as appropriate. These processes do not provide access to the individual FDO data within the applications.

4.3 TRAINING The training provisions for the DSMIS and defenderData systems are in the corresponding vendor’s task order.

4.4 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION AND DATA REQUESTS Release of some information either in DSMIS or defenderData may be controlled by the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol.20, § 820 et seq (Testimony and Production of Records) and/or Volume 7, Defender Services, Chapter 5, Disclosure of Information on CJA-Related Activities. If there is any question on whether or how to respond to a subpoena or request for records, information or testimony, the AO’s Office of General Counsel should be contacted. DSO and Defender IT Support staffs are responsible for ensuring quality service while addressing information requests as well as protecting defender information and data contained in the supported systems. As owner of DSMIS data, DSO must first approve the information request before routing it to Defender IT Support staff to compile for release, which shall be reviewed by DSO before release. As owner of defenderData data, the Defender whose Office’s data has been requested must first approve the information request before routing it to Defender IT Support staff to compile for release, which shall be reviewed by the affected Defender before release. In the event a request bypasses DSO or the affected Defender and is submitted directly to Defender IT Support or CMSO, Defender IT Support is responsible for routing the request to the DSO CIO or designee or the affected Defender for review and approval before taking further action. The DSO and Defender IT Support staff responsibilities are:



8

Defender IT Support Responsibilities • Ensure DSMIS access is not provided to anyone outside the DSO except those

Defender IT Support staff required to use DSMIS in performing their duties and specifically designated FDO staff. While DSMIS is intended to provide Defender Services Program oversight information and support, and to respond to inquiries from internal and external entities, it was developed and is intended for DSO and Defender access only.

• Operate and manage DSMIS and defenderData to ensure the information required by the DSO staff and FDOs is available in a timely fashion.

• Work with the DSO staff to modify the DSMIS application to maintain its viability and responsiveness to its user’s needs.

• Ensure appropriate protocols are observed and followed. • Log incoming system-related information requests:

o if sent to CMSO directly, send the request to DSO for processing and advise requester of the need to go through DSO first;

o receive DSO (approved) request form with details prior to developing response;

o design and develop operational reports and forward final product to DSO CIO or designee; and

o track requests and ensure closure. • Develop and maintain modification and change control protocols through Change

Control Boards (CCBs) foe DSMIS and defenderData. The CCB’s membership will include staff from both CMSO, DSO and others as appropriate to:

o Manage application enhancements and/or o Remediate bugs/defects.

• Train FDO staff on the supported applications. DSO Responsibilities • Work with Defender IT Support to create a Standard Request Form (Name,

Requester Affiliation, Date, Description, Priority, etc.). Proposed Draft attached. • Ensure appropriate protocols are observed and followed. Receive incoming

information requests/inquiries. • DSO CIO or designee will determine whether the requests or inquiries should be

addressed. • DSO CIO or designee will determine the priority of approved requests. • Obtain Information Request Form signoff by DSO Chief Information Officer or

designee and forward it to the CMSO Defender IT Support or an internal DSO staff for processing

• Upon receipt of the processed request: o the DSO CIO or designee will ensure that the information has addressed

request(s) accordingly o determine the level of coordination, if any, that is required with FDO(s) or Court(s)

and provide a copy of the report or other documentation to the FDO(s) or Court(s) o upon assurance that all appropriate coordination and consultation has been

accomplished, approve or deny release of report(s) or information to the requester

o communicate final decision to Defender IT Support staff



9

5 POINTS OF CONTACT

The following are responsible for the deployment and ongoing support of this agreement: Contact Person Title / Role Contact Information

Cait Clarke Chief, DSO 202-502-3030

Andrew Zaso Chief, CMSO 202-502-1319

John Fay Supervisory Management Analyst CMSO Defender IT Support 202-502-1640



10

6 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The following referenced documentation contains the types of services and other relevant information available for Defender applications supported by the CMSO. Documentation Description DSMIS Contract (USCA12F0426 /0001) DSMIS task order with contractor Galindo

Consulting Inc. defenderData Contract (USCA11D0741) defenderData task order with contractor

Justice Works

DSO Systems Supported by Defender IT A listing describing the various systems supporting the Defender Services Program, originally managed by the ODS IT Division and the NITOAD Branch, Now moved to CMSO, (November 27, 2013, Memo to Cait Clarke from George Drakulich, outlining the defender systems supported by Defender IT Support).

Defender ApplicationSupport and Access


between


and


and

National IT Operations and Applications Development Branch

and


Final February 27, 2014

Defender Application Support and Access

Memorandum of Understanding – Defender Application Support and Access

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................. 3 1.4 COMMENCEMENT DATE ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 AGREEMENT’S DURATION ..................................................................................................................... 4

2 PERIODIC REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 4

3 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 5

4 SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................... 7 4.2 ENHANCEMENTS AND DEFECT REMEDIATION ...................................................................................... 7 4.3 TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION AND DATA REQUESTS ............................................................ 7

5 POINTS OF CONTACT ........................................................................................................................... 10





3

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW The reorganization within the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) went into effect on October 1, 2013. Under the new structure, the former Office of Defender Services Information Technology Division (ODS ITD), including the National IT Operations and Applications Development (NITOAD) Branch (Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (TXW) employees who provide the operational, maintenance and help desk support for various applications and systems supporting Federal Defender Organizations (FDOs)), is moved from the Defender Services Office (DSO, formerly called the Office of Defender Services) to the Case Management Systems Office (CMSO) and renamed Defender IT Support. The Defender IT Support staff and NITOAD Branch will continue to manage and maintain the Defender Services Program’s applications and systems while part of the CMSO. DSO will maintain a Defender Liaison position to act as Liaison between CMSO and DSO. The NITOAD Branch will remain employees of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas, will be funded through the Defender Services account, and will function under the operational control of the Chief, CMSO Defender IT Support.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES This Agreement outlines the terms and conditions under which the CMSO Defender IT Support and the NITOAD Branch will operate, function and control access to Defender applications and systems they support. Its objectives are to provide a framework for controlled and limited access to Defender applications and systems and the data and information they contain, to prevent inadvertent release of sensitive data or information which could violate Defender clients’ attorney-client privilege, Defender work product privilege, or the ethical responsibilities of FDO staff or CJA panel attorneys using these applications.

1.3 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT This Agreement is made between:

• the Federal Defender for TXW, • the Chief, NITOAD Branch, located at the Northwest Center, IH 10, San Antonio,

Texas, • the Chief, CMSO Defender IT Support, • the Chief, CMSO, • the Chief, DSO, and • the Associate Director, supervisory department for CMSO and DSO, the

Department of Program Services (DPS) of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, located within the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building at One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington DC 20544.



4

1.4 COMMENCEMENT DATE This Agreement begins the date all signatories give approval to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding – Defender Application Support and Access.

1.5 AGREEMENT’S DURATION This Agreement is valid from the date the DPS Associate Director signs this Agreement and is valid until otherwise superseded in writing and agreed to by all parties to this Agreement. Any signatory to this Agreement may terminate the Agreement effective 120 days from written intent of such to the other signatories or by future AO reorganization affecting any signatory department, division, office, or branch. In such event, the principal parties to this MOU will meet to resolve the issue prompting the proposed termination.

2 PERIODIC REVIEW . This Agreement should be reviewed a minimum of once a year. Failure to review once a year will not impede or cancel this Agreement. The CSMO Defender Liaison and the Chiefs of CMSO Defender IT Support and NITOAD are responsible for facilitating regular reviews of this Agreement with the Chiefs of DSO and CMSO. This Agreement’s content may be amended or modified as required provided all signatories mutually agree. This Agreement will be posted to the Defender intranet web site (DWeb) and DSO and CMSO network share drives to ensure it can be accessed by all stakeholders.



5

3 DEFINITIONS

ITEM DEFINITION CMSO The Case Management Systems Office within the AO Department

of Program Services.


Case Management Systems Office Defender IT Support staff, reports to the Chief, CMSO. This function, before re-organization was the IT Division of the Office of Defender Services. This entity includes the NITOAD Branch as a subordinate element.

defenderData A COTS case management system, developed by JusticeWorks, which replaced the former in house Defender Case Management System (CMS). This system contains federal defender representation, time use and other litigation sensitive and client confidential information/work product for use by the FDO defense team and from which workload and time data are reported to the AO. Unauthorized access to or disclosure of this litigation sensitive information would violate the attorney-client and work product privileges and the ethical responsibilities of the attorneys.

DSMIS The Defender Services Management Information System, a data mart containing FDO- and CJA-related workload, financial, staffing, personnel, time use, and other relevant information, is accessed and used to support DSO oversight of the Federal Defender Program, to respond to internal and external inquiries, and by FDOs to monitor their local operations. This application is now operated and maintained for DSO by CMSO Defender IT Support staff.

DSMIS Protocol Rules published in the AO Manual, Volume 9, Chapter 1, § 140 Disclosure of Information from the Defender Services Management Information System (DSMIS) outlining the procedures and processes for release of information from DSMIS.

DSO The Defender Services Office within the AO Department of Program Services.


Primary person overseeing transfer of Defender information to external entities, the DSO Chief.

DSO CIO Designee Person delegated temporary authority by the DSO CIO to oversee CIO responsibilities.

DSO Defender Liaison

Person within DSO acting as Liaison between CMSO and DSO.


A listing describing the various systems supporting the DSO and Defender Program, originally managed by the ODS IT Division and NITOAD Branch, which now fall under the purview of the CMSO. November 27, 2013, Memo to Cait Clarke from George Drakulich, outlining the defender systems supported by CMSO Defender IT Support.



6



Internal entity Entities within the AO but outside of DSO

Lotus Notes The email system used by the Judiciary (Courts, AO and Defenders) to exchange information. The Defender Lotus Notes Domain is supported and managed by NITOAD Branch for the Federal Defender Organizations (FDOs). The application is located on the Defender Wide Area Network (DWAN).

NITOAD Branch The National IT Operations and Applications Development (NITOAD) Branch. Those employees of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (TXW) who provide operational support, maintenance and helpdesk support for the various applications supporting the FDOs. While under the administrative control of the TXW FPDO, they are within CMSO Defender IT Support’s operational control for the national role and funding of the systems they provide to the FDOs. However, the staff of the NITOAD Branch will remain as employees of, and under the administrative control of the TXW FPDO.

Non-judiciary entity Entities outside of the Judicial Branch.

Data Owner

The Defenders own the data in the defenderData application. DSO owns DSMIS data, much of which is reported to the AO by the FDOs. DSMIS and defenderData applications (and others) are managed and maintained by CMSO Defender IT Support staff, including NITOAD Branch. As owners of the data, the Federal Defenders and DSO are ultimately responsible for data release and data transfers regarding these systems.

Change Control Board

Group constituted to review recommendations from the user community to make changes to the applications. Includes, but is not limited to changing the application by adding new capability, adjusting the format of screens, providing new reports, etc, which will enhance the application to the user. This group will determine the impact, cost and viability of the requested changes and work with the vendor to implement approved changes. The CCB does not have access to the data of individual FDOs.



7

4 SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS The CMSO Defender IT Support and NITOAD Branch are responsible for providing the following services for a variety of IT applications supporting the FDOs:

• Operations and maintenance (O&M); • Enhancements, defect remediation; • Training FDO personnel; • Developing operational reports for management reviews; • Coordinating with other organizations which may provide hardware and software

support to ensure the efficient operation of these applications; • Identifying the O&M costs associated with these applications for inclusion in the

Defender Services budget.

4.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

To view the operations and maintenance procedures for DSMIS and defenderData systems, please refer to the corresponding contract/vendor task order. In addition, the NITOAD Branch staff operates and maintains the FDO’s Lotus Notes domain.

4.2 ENHANCEMENTS AND DEFECT REMEDIATION

The process for enhancements and defect remediation to the DSMIS and defenderData applications are in the corresponding vendor task order with CMSO. The CMSO Defender IT Support staff and NITOAD Branch will establish and maintain appropriate modification and change control processes for each supported application/system through a Change Control Board (CCB) or other mechanism as appropriate. The membership for these processes may come from CMSO Defender IT Support, NITOAD Branch, DSO, or FDO stakeholders, as appropriate. These processes do not provide access to the individual FDO data within the applications.

4.3 TRAINING The training provisions for the DSMIS and defenderData systems are in the corresponding vendor’s task order.

4.4 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION AND DATA REQUESTS DSO staff, CMSO Defender IT Support staffs, and the NITOAD Branch are responsible for ensuring quality service while protecting defender information and data contained in the supported systems. As providers of the national Defender Services Program’s systems and applications, each must work with the CMSO to establish rules and procedures which will prevent the inadvertent release of sensitive data or information which could violate Defender clients’ attorney-client privilege, Defender work product privilege, or the ethical responsibilities of FDO staff or CJA panel attorneys using these applications, and to provide a framework for controlled and limited access to the Defender applications and the data and information contained in those systems. The key responsibilities of each unit are: CMSO Defender IT Support Responsibilities

• Ensure DSMIS access is not provided to anyone outside the DSO except those CMSO Defender IT Support staff required to use DSMIS in performing their duties and specifically designated FDO staff. W h i l e DSMIS is intended to provide



8

Defender Services Program oversight information and support, and to respond to inquiries from internal and external entities, it was developed and is intended for DSO and Defender access only.

• Operate and manage DSMIS and defenderData to ensure the information required by the DSO staff and FDOs is available in a timely fashion.

• Work with the DSO staff to modify the DSMIS application to maintain its viability and responsiveness to its user’s needs.

• Develop and maintain modification and change control protocols through Change Control Boards (CCBs) or other control mechanisms established for each assigned application. Membership for these processes may come from CMSO Defender IT Support, NITOAD Branch, DSO, or FDO stakeholders, as appropriate.

• Ensure FDOs are notified regarding system changes, adjustments, or services associated with assigned Defender IT applications.

• Develop and submit to the appropriate DSO staff CMSO Defender IT Support budget requests for funding necessary to maintain and support DSMIS, defenderData, and other assigned applications for inclusion in the Defender Services account budget, with an information copy to the CMSO Chief.

• In conjunction with DSO and the NITOAD Branch, take appropriate action to remedy and advise Defenders of any breach, inadvertent access to or unauthorized access or release of information from the supported systems.

• All CMSO Defender IT Support staff must be alert and notify the CMSO Defender IT Support Chief, NITOAD Branch Chief, and the DSO Defender Liaison if any learn of any attempt to access, obtain, or disclose the data from any Defender IT application without appropriate approval.

DSO Responsibilities

• Work with CMSO Defender IT Support and NITOAD Branch to ensure that this MOU’s intent to safeguard and protect the sensitive data and information contained in Defender IT applications/systems supporting the FDOs is achieved.

• Be alert and notify the DSO Chief, DSO Defender Liaison, the CMSO Defender IT Support Chief, and the NITOAD Branch Chief, if they learn of any attempt to access, obtain or disclose the data from any Defender IT application/system without appropriate approval.

• Ensure FDOs are notified regarding system changes, adjustments, or services associated with the Defender IT systems.

• Ensure the agreements and protocols established for protecting and securing Defender applications are observed and followed.

• In conjunction with the CMSO Defender IT Support and NITOAD Branch, take appropriate action to remedy and advise Defenders of any breach, inadvertent access to or release of information from the supported systems.

• Participate in reviewing and approving application/system enhancements when appointed to appropriate Change Control Boards (CCBs) or other control mechanisms.

• Ensure requests for funding to continued effective operation and support to Defender IT applications and systems are included in the Defender Services account budget.



9

NITOAD Branch Responsibilities • Ensure that access to supported Defender applications/systems is not provided to

anyone except those FDO employees specifically identified by the local Defender to have access to the office’s information.

• Specific, limited application access will be allowed for NITOAD Branch staff involved in the management and/or operating of an application/system (i.e., the two NITOAD Branch Lotus Notes Domain Administrators, the NITOAD Branch manager of the Defender Video Conferencing System)

• In addition, specific, limited application (not data) access will be allowed for CMSO Defender IT Support and DSO staff engaged in managing and/or operating an application/system (i.e., CMSO Defender IT Support Program Manager for defenderData).

• Ensure appropriate procedures are in place and observed to assure the Federal Defender community that their data is secure and not open or available to unauthorized individuals or entities.

• Work with DSO and CMSO Defender IT Support staffs to ensure this MOU’s intent to safeguard and protect the sensitive data and information contained in Defender IT applications/systems supporting the FDOs is achieved.

• Provide appropriate levels of security and control over these applications to maintain the required restricted access.

• Participate in managing and/or maintaining Defender Services applications/systems and the Defender Wide Area Network (DWAN) as appropriate.

• Participate in and/or manage application/system enhancements through appropriate Change Control Boards (CCBs) or other control mechanisms.

• Be alert and notify the NITOAD Branch Chief, Defender IT Support Chief, and the DSO Defender Liaison if any learn of any attempt to access, obtain or disclose the data from any Defender IT application without appropriate approval.

• Provide FDO training on the applications identified. • Ensure FDO notification regarding system changes, adjustments, or

services associated with the Defender IT applications/systems. • In conjunction with the CMSO Defender IT Support and DSO, take appropriate

action to remedy and advise Defenders of any breach, inadvertent access to or release of information from the supported systems.

• Develop and submit their budget funding requests, necessary to support and maintain Federal Defender IT systems and applications, to the appropriate DSO staff for inclusion in the Defender Services account budget, with an information copy to the CMSO Defender IT Support Chief.



10

5 POINTS OF CONTACT

The following are responsible for the deployment and ongoing support of this agreement: Contact Person Title / Role Contact Information

Cait Clarke Chief, DSO 202-502-3030


Maureen Franco Federal Public Defender, Western District of Texas 915-534-6525

John Fay Supervisory Management Analyst CMSO Defender IT Support 202-502-1640

Rafael Delgado Chief, NITOAD Branch 210-308-3210



11

6 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The following referenced documentation contains the types of services and other relevant information available for Defender applications supported by the CMSO. Documentation Description DSMIS Contract (USCA12F0426 /0001) DSMIS task order with contractor Galindo

Consulting Inc.

defenderData Contract (USCA11D0741) defenderData task order with contractor Justice Works

DSO Systems Supported by Defender IT A listing describing the various systems supporting the Defender Services Program, originally managed by the ODS IT Division and the NITOAD Branch, Now moved to CMSO, (November 27, 2013, Memo to Cait Clarke from George Drakulich, outlining the defender systems supported by Defender IT Support).

NNIITTOOAADD BBrraanncchh OOppeerraattiioonnaall aanndd AAddmmiinniissttrraattiivvee SSuuppeerrvviissiioonn


between


and

Federal Public Defender for Texas Western

and

National IT Operations and Applications Development Branch

and


Document Version: Final Date: February 27, 2014

NITOAD Branch Operational and Administrative Supervision

Memorandum of Understanding 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................. 3 1.4 COMMENCEMENT DATE ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................... 4

2 PERIODIC REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 4

3 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 5

4 MANAGEMENT DELINIATION OVER THE NITOAD BRANCH ........................................................ 7 4.1 CMSO DEFENDER IT SUPPORT OPERATIONAL SUPERVISION ........................................................... 7 4.2 ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................... 8 4.3 TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 NITOAD BRANCH RESPONSIBLITES .................................................................................................... 8 4.5 DSO RESPONSIBILITES ........................................................................................................................ 9

5 POINTS OF CONTACT ........................................................................................................................... 11





1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW The reorganization of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) went into effect on October 1, 2013. Under the new structure, the former Office of Defender Services Information Technology Division (ODS ITD) was realigned to the new Case Management Systems Office (CMSO) as Defender IT Support. This revised structure for the Defender IT Support and the National IT Operations and Applications Development (NITOAD) Branch (Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (TXW) employees who provide the operational, maintenance and help desk support for various applications and systems supporting Federal Defender Organizations). Ensuring the CMSO Defender IT Support and the NITOAD Branch can continue to manage and maintain the Defender Services Program applications and systems at or above the support levels previously provided is essential. The delineation of operational supervision, administrative management, business processes, and funding between the CMSO, DSO, Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (FPDTXW), and NITOAD Branch, through this memorandum of understanding, will ensure the continued national IT support for the Federal Defender community.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES This agreement outlines the terms and conditions under which the CMSO will provide operational supervision over the NITOAD Branch, the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (FPDTXW) will provide administrative management, and the DSO will provide funding and project direction. The objective is to provide a basis and framework for defining the “day-to day” operational supervision of the NITOAD Branch, the coordination required for administrative management, and the NITOAD Branch’s participation in DSO budgetary development and procurement of IT hardware, software, and services.

1.3 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT This agreement is made between the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas, located at 727 East Cesar E. Chavez, San Antonio, Texas, and the parties organizationally assigned to the Department of Program Services (DPS) of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts: CMSO Defender IT Support; Chief, Case Management Systems Office; and Chief, Defender Services Office; located at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington, DC 20544.

1.4 COMMENCEMENT DATE This Agreement will commence on the date approval is obtained from all signatories.



1.5 DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement is valid from the signature date of the DPS Associate Director and is valid until otherwise noted. This agreement may be terminated by any of the signatories by providing one hundred and twenty (120) day notice of such intent to the other signatories. In such event, the principal parties to this MOU will meet to resolve the issue prompting the proposed termination.

2 PERIODIC REVIEW . This Agreement should be reviewed at a minimum of once per year; however, in lieu of any review in any period, this Agreement shall remain in effect. The DSO Defender Liaison, the Chief, NITOAD Branch, and the Chief, CMSO Defender IT Support, are responsible for facilitating regular reviews of this document with the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas, the Chief, DSO and the Chief, CMSO. Content of this Agreement may be amended or modified as required provided mutual agreement is obtained from all signatories. This Agreement will be posted to the Defender intranet web site (DWeb) and to the DSO and CMSO network share drives to ensure it is accessible to all stakeholders.



3 DEFINITIONS

ITEM DEFINITION CMSO The Case Management Systems Office of the AO, Department of

Program Services CMSO Defender IT Support

Case Management Systems Office Defender IT Support staff previously (pre- re-org) working in the IT Division of the Office of Defender Services. This includes the NITOAD Branch.

defenderData A COTS case management system, developed by JusticeWorks, which replaced the former in house Defender Case Management System. This system contains federal defender representation, time use, and litigation sensitive information/work product for use by FDO defense teams and from which selected workload and time data are reported to the AO. Unauthorized access to or disclosure of this litigation sensitive information would violate the attorney-client privilege and ethical responsibilities of the attorney.

DSMIS The Defender Services Management Information System. A data mart which contains FDO and CJA related workload, financial, staffing, personnel, time use, and other relevant information which is accessed and used to support the DSO in its oversight of the Federal Defender Program and respond to internal and external inquiries, and by FDOs to provide insight into their local operation. This application is now operated and maintained for DSO by the CMSO Defender IT Support staff.

DSMIS Protocol Agreement published in the AO Manual, Volume 9, Chapter 1, § 140 Disclosure of Information from the Defender Services Management Information System (DSMIS) outlining the procedures and processes for release of information from DSMIS.

DSO The Defender Services Office of the AO, Department of Program Services

DSO Defender Liaison

Person within DSO designated as Liaison between CMSO and DSO.


A listing describing the various systems supporting the Defender Services Program, originally managed by the ODS IT Division and the NITOAD Branch, which now fall under the purview of the CMSO (November 27, 2013, Memo to Cait Clarke from George Drakulich, outlining the defender systems supported by CMSO Defender IT),


Primary person overseeing transfer of Defender information to external entities. This person is the Chief, DSO

DSO CIO Designee Person delegated temporary authority by the DSO CIO to perform DSO CIO responsibilities.





Internal entity Entities within the AO but outside of DSO.

Lotus Notes The email system used by the Judiciary (Courts, AO and Defenders) to exchange information. The Defender Lotus Notes Domain is supported and managed by the NITOAD Branch for the FDOs. The application is located on the Defender Wide Area Network (DWAN).

NITOAD Branch The National IT Operations and Applications Development (NITOAD) Branch. Those employees of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas (TXW) who provide national operational, maintenance, and help desk support for the various IT applications and systems supporting the FDOs. Because of their national role and the Defender Services account funding of the systems and services they provide to the FDOs, the NITOAD Branch has been placed within and under the operational control of the CMSO Defender IT Support. However, the staff of the NITOAD Branch will remain as employees of, and under the administrative control of, the TXW FPDO.

Non-judiciary entity Entities outside of the Judicial Branch

Data Owner The Defenders own the data contained in defenderData. DSO owns the data in the DSMIS, much of which is reported to the AO by the FDOs. These systems and others are supported and maintained by CMSO Defender IT Support staff which includes the NITOAD Branch. As owners of the data, the Federal Defenders and the DSO are ultimately responsible for data release and data transfers regarding these systems.



4 MANAGEMENT DELINIATION OVER THE NITOAD BRANCH The NITOAD Branch members are employees of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Texas, funded through the Defender Services account as a separate organizational unit, to provide national information technology support for the Federal Defender Organizations. Working through the CMSO Defender IT Support, the NITOAD Branch is responsible for providing the following services for a variety of IT applications, systems and contracts supporting the Federal Defender Organizations (FDOs) and the DSO:

• Operations and maintenance (O&M) • Enhancements and defect remediation • Guidance and consultation of IT purchases • Assistance with hiring of Federal Defender IT staff • Training of Federal Defender Organization personnel • IT policy development and guidance • Strategic planning and execution • Coordinating with other organizations which may provide hardware and software

support to ensure the efficient operation of these applications • Identifying the O&M costs associated with these applications/systems for inclusion

in the Defender Services account budget submission • Execution of procurement actions and contract management

4.1 CMSO DEFENDER IT SUPPORT OPERATIONAL SUPERVISION The CMSO is responsible for providing the management oversight of the Defender IT Support as part of the AO’s reorganization. Incorporated in this oversight will be the “day to day” operational supervision and support of the NITOAD Branch to ensure the information technology needs and services, required by the FDOs, are met in a timely manner and are coordinated and consistent with the Judiciary goals, projects, and policies developed by the AO’s Department of Technology and the CMSO. The Defender IT Support will provide the operational supervision through the Chief and Deputy Chief of the NITOAD Branch. To observe and maintain the delineation of supervisory duties, the Defender IT Support will meet with the FPDTXW yearly. CMSO through Defender IT Support will provide the following areas of supervision and leadership:

• Project planning, coordination, support, and guidance • Application design and development, in coordination with NITOAD and defender

organizations, including DSAG and DAWG • Developing funding requirements for operations and maintenance • Strategic planning • Policy development and enforcement • Procurement execution of DSO IT budget • Oversight of DSO IT contracts • Development of NITOAD Branch budget in coordination with DSO • Providing travel approval and authorization • Participating in employee hiring and discipline • Yearly evaluation of the Chief of the NITOAD Branch to be submitted to the

FPDTXW



• Participation in the interview and selection of candidates for the Chief and Deputy Chief of the NITOAD Branch

•

4.2 ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT The FPDTXW will retain the administrative management, control, and support for the NITOAD Branch. To observe and maintain the delineation of supervisory duties and administrative management, the FPDTXW will meet with the Defender IT Support yearly. The administrative management of the NITOAD Branch will include:

• Employee hiring and discipline • Budget development, oversight, and execution of the NITOAD Branch operational

expenses • Procurement assistance for NITOAD Branch requirements • Administrative assistance with processing of personnel, time and attendance,

travel, shipping, and procurement actions • Participate in the interview and selection of candidates for the Chief and Deputy

Chief of the NITOAD Branch.

4.3 TRAINING To ensure the NITOAD Branch staff can support the FDOs with newer technology and application releases, it is imperative that the NITOAD budget contain sufficient funding to allow each staff member to attend two weeks of technology training. The FPDTXW, Defender IT Support, and the NITOAD Branch will develop the yearly training allotment required for submission to DSO. DSO and CMSO will ensure that adequate funding for NITOAD staff training needs is available through the Defender Services Program appropriation.

4.4 NITOAD BRANCH RESPONSIBLITES The NITOAD Branch provides national applications and services to the FDOs and DSO. Safeguarding the FDO client sensitive data is paramount and essential for maintaining the confidentiality and attorney-client privilege responsibilities. Therefore, it is critical that the NITOAD Branch operate in a manner that provides the upmost security of the FDO data. The NITOAD Branch responsibilities are:

• Ensure that access to supported Defender applications/systems is not provided to anyone except those individuals in the FDOs specifically identified by the local Defender to have access to their information. In addition, specific, limited access will be allowed for CMSO Defender IT Support, NITOAD Branch, and DSO staff engaged in the management and/or operation of an application/system (i.e., the two NITOAD Branch Lotus Notes Domain Administrators, the NITOAD Branch manager of the Defender Video Conferencing System or the CMSO Defender IT Support Program Manager for defenderData (access to the application’s training database)).

• Ensure that appropriate procedures are in-place and observed to assure the Federal Defender community that their data is secure and not open or available to unauthorized individuals or entities.



• Work with DSO and CMSO Defender IT Support staffs to ensure that the intent of this MOU to safeguard and protect the sensitive data and information contained in Defender IT applications/systems supporting the FDOs is achieved.

• Provide the appropriate levels of security and control of these applications to maintain the restricted access that is required.

• Participate in the management and/or maintenance of Defender Service applications/systems and the Defender Wide Area Network (DWAN) as appropriate.

• Participate in and/or manage application/system enhancements through appropriate Change Control Boards or other control mechanisms.

• All NITOAD Branch staff must be alert and notify the Chief, NITOAD Branch, Chief, Defender IT Support, and the DSO Defender Liaison if they learn of any attempt to obtain or disclose the data from any Defender IT application without appropriate approval.

• Provide training to Federal Defender Organizations on the applications identified. • Ensure notification of the FDOs regarding system changes, adjustments, or

services associated with the Defender IT applications/systems. • In conjunction with the CMSO Defender IT Support and DSO, take appropriate

action to remedy and advise Defenders of any breach, inadvertent access to, or release of information from the supported systems.

• The NITOAD Branch will develop and submit their budget requests for funding necessary to support and maintain Federal Defender IT systems and applications to the appropriate DSO staff element for inclusion in the Defender Services account budget with an information copy to the Chief, CMSO Defender IT Support.

4.5 DSO RESPONSIBILITES To maintain necessary national FDO IT support, adequate funding is required for the NITOAD Branch. Additionally, the DSO needs to communicate strategies, projects, and policy requirements to the NITOAD Branch, through the CMSO Defender IT Support. Therefore, coordination is required between DSO, CMSO Defender IT Support, and NITOAD Branch to ensure the highest level of IT support is afforded the FDOs.

To achieve these goals, the DSO responsibilities are: • Work with CMSO Defender IT Support and the NITOAD Branch to ensure that the

intent of this MOU to safeguard and protect the sensitive data and information contained in Defender IT applications/systems supporting the FDOs is achieved.

• Ensure that requests for funding for continued and effective operation and support of Defender IT applications and systems are included in the Defender Services account budget.

• Participation in the interview and selection of candidates for the Chief and Deputy Chief of the NITOAD Branch

• All DSO staff must be alert and notify the Chief, DSO, the DSO Defender Liaison, the Chief, CMSO Defender IT Support, and the Chief, NITOAD Branch, if they learn of any attempt to access, obtain, or disclose the data from any Defender IT application/system without appropriate approval.

• Ensure the notification to FDOs regarding system changes, adjustments, or services associated with the Defender IT systems.



• Ensure that the agreements and protocols established for the protection and security Defender applications are observed and followed.

• In conjunction with the CMSO and the NITOAD Branch, take appropriate action to remedy and advise Defenders of any breach or inadvertent access to or release of information from the supported systems.

• Participate in the review and approval of application/system enhancements when appointed to appropriate Change Control Boards or other control mechanisms.



5 POINTS OF CONTACT

The following are responsible for the deployment and ongoing support of this agreement: Contact Person Title / Role Contact

Information Cait Clarke Chief, DSO 202-502-3030


John Fay Supervisory Management Analyst, CMSO Defender IT Support

202-502-1640

Rafael Delgado Chief, NITOAD Branch 210-308-3210

Maureen Franco Federal Public Defender for Texas Western

915-534-6525 x254



6 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The following documentation contains the types of services and other relevant information available for Defender applications supported by the CMSO. Documentation Description DSMIS Contract (USCA12F0426 /0001) DSMIS task order with contractor

Galindo Consulting Inc.

defenderData Contract (USCA11D0741) defenderData task order with contractor Justice Works

DSO Systems Supported by Defender IT November 27, 2013, Memo to Cait Clarke from George Drakulich, outlining the defender systems supported by CMSO Defender IT Support

Exhibit C Department of Program Services,

Case Management Systems Office (CMSO) PowerPoint

DEPARTMENT OF PROGRAM SERVICES

August 6th 2014

Case Management Systems Office

(CMSO)

2

• Overview of Organization

• Case Management Systems Officer (CMSO)– Time Line– Goals– Agile Development

• Partner Program

• Next Steps


Agenda

3


4

Technology Across the AO


5

CASE Management Systems Office

CHIEF

PROJECT DELIVERY DIVISION

DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OFFICE

RELEASE MANAGEMENT

DIVISION

APPLICATION SUPPORT DIVISION

Project Management

Requirements

SolutionsArchitecture

CodeDevelopment

Business Systems Staff

Special ProjectsStaff

Defender IT Support Staff

Portfolio Management

Staff

Implementation and Technical Documentation

Internal Testing Issues Management

Environment Management

DEPUTY CHIEF

“WHAT GETS BUILT” “HOW WE BUILD IT”

6

Status of Reorganization

Resources pooled from Legacy offices• CM/ECF• Pretrial Probation• Defender Office

Time Line• Interim – April 7th

• Final Approval June 25th

• Process of Staffing Vacancies over the next few months


7

• Increase transparency • Improve relationship with Local Courts• Standardize Process (CM, Code Repository, testing etc.)

CASE Management Systems Office

Goals as we move forward

Agile Development• Increase frequency of delivery• Increase Accountability• Better Project oversight• Increase Flexibility

8

Goal– Tap into the creativity happening within the local courts– Leverage what the local courts and AO do best– Identify great products and turn them into national applications

– Leverage the experts through the TDY program

Examples:

Probation Projects– Case Plan (North Carolina Middle)– PICTS (NY Southern)– Field Application (Northern District of Oklahoma)


Partner Program

9

NextGen– Citation Application (New Orleans)– CHAP Calendaring– CEO Calendaring


Partner Program (Continued)

10

Staffing the Organization ‐ Need to find the best and brightest people‐ People willing to ask ‘why’ and create new processes

Agile Development‐ Implement process in stages‐ Automate build process, testing, and security reviews‐ Provide better insight to projects through test servers

Transparency / Outreach‐ Refine the Application Inventory (National and Local Apps)‐ Learn more about what is happening in the local court‐ Tap into technology experts – leverage TDY Program

Case Managemement Systems Office

Next Steps

11


Exhibit D Email of Federal Defender David

Stickman to Associate Director Laura Minor

From: David StickmanTo: Laura MinorCc: George Drakulich; Ben Seal; Jon Sands; Reuben Cahn; Cait Clarke; Rafael Delgado; AOml_DS

DAWG@USCOURTSSubject: NITOADDate: 08/01/2013 05:23 PM

Dear Ms. Minor,

I write as the Chair of the Defender Services Automation Working Group (DAWG) toalert you to the objections of the Federal and Community Defenders to any transferof the duties of the ODS ITD NITOAD Branch to the new AO Department ofTechnology Services.

As you know, the Federal Defenders hold a unique position within the Judiciary. Weare, in essence, law offices representing indigent individuals facing serious criminalcharges. We have attorney client confidentiality and privilege concerns with respectto our use of technology in representing our clients. The NITOAD Branch serves ourneeds in this and other vital respects.

The Federal Defenders are very concerned with the confidentiality of their individualoffice's data. In this respect, the recent implementation of the case managementsystem for the Defenders, "defenderData", was accepted by the Federal Defendersonly after several prerequisites were met. Chief among these was that the databaseadministration would remain under the control of the Office of Defender Services andthe NITOAD Branch. Another example is the Lotus Notes e-mail application used byall Federal Defenders to transmit sensitive and confidential communications. Shouldthe new Department of Technology Services assume the various responsibilities ofthe NITOAD Branch, we foresee a conflict of interest which would severely restrict oreven preclude further use of defenderData, Lotus Notes and other useful programs. Quite simply, we believe it would be unethical for offices within the Department ofTechnology Services to have access to Federal Defender data while at the same timehaving similar access to data belonging to appellate, district and magistrate judges,probation and pretrial offices and the Administrative Office. Viewed another way,we can not imagine that judges would allow a database administrator to havesimultaneous access to both confidential judicial and federal defender databases.

Should the IT functions of the NITOAD Branch be integrated into the Department ofTechnology Services, numerous actions would have to be taken by the FederalDefenders to comply with their ethical responsibilities. For example, rather thanusing the current centralized servers for our case management system, offices wouldhave to invest in individual local servers to maintain control of their sensitive data. Thus, instead of two centralized servers hosting defenderData nationally, up to 81servers each with their own instance of defenderData (one for each FDO) wouldhave to be purchased and administered locally.

The NITOAD Branch has served the Defender community well. They interact withover 110 computer systems administrators (CSAs) and assistant CSAs. NITOADmaintains and secures virtual private network and wide area network access. OurLotus Notes e-mail services are provided by the NITOAD Branch. Our Continuity ofOperations Plans have replication capabilities supported by the NITOAD Branch. Additionally, NITOAD assists with Federal Defender assessments, recruitment, hiringand training of IT staff and provides national web hosting and design services. TheNITOAD Branch is able to provide these necessary services without any concern of a

mailto:CN=David Stickman/OU=NEF/OU=08/O=FDO

mailto:CN=Laura Minor/OU=DCA/OU=AO/O=USCOURTS@USCOURTS

mailto:CN=George Drakulich/OU=DCA/OU=AO/O=USCOURTS@USCOURTS

mailto:CN=Ben Seal/OU=DCA/OU=AO/O=USCOURTS@USCOURTS

mailto:CN=Jon Sands/OU=AZF/OU=09/O=FDO@FDO

mailto:CN=Reuben Cahn/OU=CASG/OU=09/O=FDO@FDO

mailto:CN=Cait Clarke/OU=DCA/OU=AO/O=USCOURTS@USCOURTS

mailto:CN=Rafael Delgado/OU=TXWF/OU=05/O=FDO@FDO

mailto:AOml_DS DAWG@USCOURTS

mailto:AOml_DS DAWG@USCOURTS

potential conflict of interest because it is an element of the Federal Public DefenderOrganization for the Western District of Texas and under the operational control ofthe Office of Defender Services. We cannot see how this capability could continue tobe met through a realignment of these functions outside of the Defendercommunity.

The Federal Defenders are keenly aware of the need to reduce costs wherepossible. Within the last year, Federal Defenders across the country have beenforced to terminate employees, impose lengthy furloughs, reduce all discretionaryspending, and in some cases, close branch offices. We have and remain open toideas which will save money and allow us to perform our core function ofrepresenting individuals while maintaining the security and confidentiality of oursystems. However, we see a transfer of the NITOAD Branch's functions within theAO, but outside the Office of Defender Services, as neither workable nor costeffective.

Thus, I urge you to convince the leadership within the AO to keep the NITOADBranch as a separate element of the FPDO for the Western District of Texas andunder the operational control of the Office of Defender Services.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding thiscorrespondence.

Very truly yours,

David StickmanChair,Defender Services Automation Working Group

David R. StickmanFederal Public DefenderDistrict of Nebraska222 South 15th Street, Suite 300NOmaha, Nebraska 68102-1641(402) 221-7896 (office)(402) 221-7884 (fax)

Exhibit E Email of Chief of Defender IT

Support Division, CMSO, Department of Program Services

Pauly to Defenders

From: Ana-Marie Pauly/DCA/AO/USCOURTSTo: zzFDOml_Admin@FDO@USCEXT, AOml_DS Defender@USCOURTSCc: Stephen Macartney/DCA/AO/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Cait Clarke/DCA/AO/USCOURTS@USCOURTS

Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 10:37AMSubject: DSMIS 2.0 Announcement

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Good afternoon to all DSMIS Users!

Tomorrow, January 20th, a new version of the Defender Services Management Information System (DSMIS) data warehouse, called DSMIS 2.0, will be rolled out to production. The new version is necessary as the software used in DSMIS 1.0 is at the end of life with increased risk in obsolescence, maintainability, and security. Although we implemented DSMIS 2.0 back in December, we unfortunately had to take it down for a security assessment. The old DSMIS web link will automatically be redirected to the new DSMIS 2.0 version. You can also access DSMIS 2.0 directly by typing http://dsmis-ods.jdc.ao.dcn/dsmis/ on your browser. Please note that you will be prompted to create a new password for use in the new system at your first login attempt.

What is new in DSMIS 2.0?

DSMIS 2.0 includes a tool that allows defenders to analyze trends in weighted case openings, and provides a way to estimate possible future changes in the number of authorized FTE under the staffing formulas. This tool is almost identical to the Excel calculators sent by DSO in August 2015.

Another new feature of DSMIS 2.0 is the capability to collect reports automatically. In the very near future, offices will have the opportunity, through dData, to authorize transmission of the standard JS50 report, the JS50 report without severity codes (which DSO needs to calculate weighted case openings), and the standard Timekeeper report. By authorizing this transmission, defenders will no longer be required to conduct monthly manual uploads of these reports to DSMIS. The Timekeeper tab will have a certified button which, when selected, will inform DSO when the Timekeeper report includes the correct information for the preceding month. The JS50 reports will automatically populate the staffing formula tool.

Further instructions for the data authorization and instruction on future reporting will be forthcoming.

On the day of implementation, the DSMIS system will not be available for use until 6:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact your DSMIS team.

Stephen Macartney

Chief,

Program Operations Div

[email protected]

Ana-Marie Pauly

Chief,

Defender IT Support Div

[email protected]

Sylvia Fleming

DSMIS Support/

Contracting Officer

[email protected]

Johnny Ha DSMIS Developer/

DSMIS Helpdesk support

[email protected]

DSMIS 2.0 Support Hotline: 202-502-3579

Jorge Galindo DSMIS Developer/ [email protected]

Page 1 of 2

2/15/2016https://vpnwest.fd.org/mail/can/skalar.nsf/(%24Inbox)/5D67470E4776EFAD85257F3F00...

User Guide --> (See attached file: DSMIS_2.0_User Manual_v2.0_01142016.docx)

Thank you_____________________________________________________________________________________Ana-Marie R. Pauly, PMP, CLSSGBChief, Defender IT Support Division | Case Management Systems Office | Department of Program Services Office: 202-502-3173 | Cell: 202-650-4604 | email: [email protected] Marshall Federal Judiciary Bldg, 1 Columbus Circle, NE Suite 4-303, Washington, DC 20544

DSMIS Helpdesk support

DSMIS 2.0 Support Hotline: 202-502-3579

Attachments:

DSMIS_2.0_User Manual_v2.0_01142016.docx

Page 2 of 2

2/15/2016https://vpnwest.fd.org/mail/can/skalar.nsf/(%24Inbox)/5D67470E4776EFAD85257F3F00...

Re: Written Testimony of Federal Defender Steven Kalar · 2016. 3. 4. · Written Testimony of FPD...

Documents

Transcript of Re: Written Testimony of Federal Defender Steven Kalar · 2016. 3. 4. · Written Testimony of FPD...