Technology Working Group

Information by State  Print version   Working Groups   States   Consortia   Counties   Cities (CDBG-only)   Cities (multi-funded)   Technology   Steering Committee Want More Information?   Technology Working Group Membership List Jump To...   October 15, 2002   August 28, 2002   August 26, 2002   August 20, 2002   July 23, 2002   July 12, 2002   June 28, 2002 Related Information Summary List of Ideas

Summaries of the ConPlan Improvement Initiative Technology Working Group Meetings

Tuesday, October 15, 2002 -
Key Issues

	Learn current status of CPII
	View demo of LA County CAPER System and compare to our recommended pilot

Co-chairs submitted White Paper describing scope and recommendations of our pilot recommendation to Jim Barnes.

	Clete Houdek and Marcia Bergeson finalized PowerPoint file that demonstrated the look and feel of a possible application. Forwarded to Jim Barnes by Co-chair Dee Ann.
	Dee Ann reformatted Data Elements Spreadsheet, wrote cover page for guidance and sent both to Jim Barnes.
	Technology Working Group's pilot is on the list of 10 pilots being considered for implementation in 2003. Some members of Steering Committee are hesitant to endorse creation of a new system for purposes of the pilot. They recommend finding systems already tested in the field to see if they could be transferred to other grantees and possibly modified to include other desired features.
	Steering Committee members held call with Field Offices last week to discussed pilots and charged them with identifying pilot volunteers among their grantees.

	Integrated database used for annual grant planning, contract development, funding request processing, contract management, and performance reporting.
	Built to accommodate all four entitlement programs, however, currently used (and thereby tested) only for CDBG because other entitlement programs are not administered by their office.
	Data repository for programmatic and financial data and generates all reports for Action Plan, performance reporting, and financial reporting including ones required by HUD.
	Currently over 54 CAPER users and 2,800 projects.

	Not currently integrated with IDIS. Tried using Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) but IDIS never accepted the data. Data fields still exist in CAPER system that would be useful for integrating with IDIS but fields are not currently shown on user interface.
	Front end Visual Basic 6 with Crystal Reports 8.5 backed up by SQL Server 2000 database server software. Have dedicated server with MS Windows NT Server as operating system.
	User interface is optimized for large grantee, small grantees would need to overlook unneeded data entry fields. There is a training and support function that needs to be available by any size grantee. Currently uses a dedicated server running SQL Server. The software could scale back to an Access system for small grantees.
	The system is proprietary, developed by Dan Kelly, owned by LA County. HUD and LA County have not yet talked about this issue.
	System does not include Continuum of Care or Fair Housing narratives.
	Part of the CAPER submission is generated from one of the customized reports in the CAPER System. Volume 2 of their submission provides a CDBG Activity Listing and was 1066 pages for 2001-2002. Volume I is equivalent to the former GPR with narrative including the performance assessment. This volume is assembled manually from input from the various office administering the four grant programs. The CDBG part of Volume 2 uses the Volume 2 report to inform the narrative.
	HOME activities are not currently included in the CAPER System, however, the system can handle HOME data. (In LA County a different administrative division administers the program.) The challenge for making it work is identifying where the two programs have commonalities and where they differ. HOME program requires more site specific reporting than CDBG.
	Performance indicators match IDIS accomplishment codes. They currently have a system of "sub-codes" to help them organize to a finer level of detail.
	54 users are all county employees. Reports for public consumption are generated by county employees. They are looking at electronic forms for sub-grantees to enter their data directly. They are looking at methods for electronic signatures and security.
	Agencies who enter into contracts to be sub grantee sign contract and that is the mechanism to enter the contract value into the CAPER System.
	CAPER System could stand alone but it would loose the automatic daily financial data upload that comes from their PeopleSoft financial system. If not coupled with the grantee's financial system, there would have to be manual entering and updating of financial transactions.
	CAPER System could integrate with another system, probably without too much problem.
	They expect to have GIS connection by mid-November. If pilot includes this function, we must keep in mind that address matching is often more challenging in rural areas.

Discussion -
Some expressed that the CAPER System looks promising for use as a pilot. Several issues need further investigation. A sub-committee was established to define those issues. The purpose for the subgroup is to:

	Look at our pilot proposal and look at the LA CAPER System and determine where they differ.
	Create a list of issues that would need to be addressed if HUD wanted to pursue using the LA CAPER system as a CPII pilot.