The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFollow-up of Justice Court Software ImplementationFollow-up report on Justice Court Software Implementation #13/14-5 September 2013 FOLLOW-UP REPORT Justice Court – Software Implementation (Internal audit report #11/12-11 issued November 2012) To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 330-4674 or send email to David.Givans@Deschutes.org Deschutes County, Oregon David Givans, CPA, CIA, CGMA Deschutes County Internal Auditor 1300 NW Wall St PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 330-4674 David.Givans@Deschutes.og Audit committee: Gayle McConnell, Chair - Public member Chris Earnest - Public member Jean Pedelty - Public member Michael Shadrach - Public member Jennifer Welander - Public member Anthony DeBone, County Commissioner Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Director Follow-up report on Justice Court Software Implementation #13/14-5 September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background ………………………………………...………………................................... 1 1.2. Objectives & Scope ……………………………………..………………………….…….… 1 1.3. Methodology ……………………………………………………..…………………….……. 1 2. FOLLOW-UP RESULTS ……………….…...………………………….............................. 2 3. APPENDIX I – Internal Audit Recommendations - Updated Workplan for Report #11/12-11 (Status updated as of September 2013) ….……...….................... 3-5 Follow-up report on Justice Court Software Implementation #13/14-5 September 2013 Page 1 1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND Audit Authority: The Deschutes County Audit Committee has suggested that follow-ups occur from nine months to one year after the original report issuance. The Audit Committee’s would like to make sure departments satisfactorily address recommendations. 1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE Objectives: The objective was to follow-up on the outstanding audit recommendations. Scope: The follow-up included eleven (11) recommendations from the internal audit report on Justice Court – Software implementation (#11/12-11) (issued November 2012). The follow-up reflects the status as of September 2013. The original internal audit report should be referenced for the full text of recommendations and discussion. 1.3 METHODOLOGY The follow-up report was developed from information provided by Jodi Stacy, Court Coordinator; Tom Anderson, County Administrator; and Joe Sadony, Director of Information Technology. In cases where recommendations have not been implemented, comments were sought for the reasons why and the timing for addressing these. The follow-up is, by nature, subjective. In determining the status of recommendations that were followed up, we relied on assertions provided by those involved and did not attempt to independently verify those assertions. Justice Court, Administration and IT should be acknowledged for their work in addressing these recommendations. Since no substantive audit work was performed, Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States were not followed. DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT Follow-up report on Justice Court Software Implementation #13/14-5 September 2013 Page 2 2. Follow-up Results Figure I - How were recommenda- tions implemented? The follow-up included eleven (11) recommendations. Management agreed with all of the recommendations. Figure I provides an overview of the implementation status of the recommendations. The details of the updated workplan are provided in Appendix I. With this follow-up, 6 of the recommendations (55%) have been sufficiently completed. Justice Court, Administration and IT are working on the other 5 recommendations. Follow-up report on Justice Court Software Implementation #13/14-5 September 2013 Page 3 3. Appendix Appendix I –Updated Workplan for Report #11/12-11 (Status as of September 2013) Rec# Recommendation text STATUS Expected Completion Date Responsible UPDATED Department Comments 1 It is recommended that County operations going through a software implementation have a mandatory team of stakeholders that should be involved from planning through implementation. These stakeholders would likely include operational staff, information technology staff, and finance staff (and might include internal audit). Ongoing/ Completed The Justice Court software implementation was a bit of an anomaly. County Administration and IT do have opportunities to be involved and direct how departments go through implementation and execution of the software. The County will be mindful of situations that will require additional involvement 2 It is recommended, when possible, a test environment be employed and run parallel to assure the system is ready for operation and has all of the controls and reporting developed. Ongoing/ Completed The Justice Court software test environment was a bit of an anomaly. The software vendor has now rectified the problem. County IT thinks that most other implementations are using appropriate test environments. 3 It is recommended for the department, with the provided variance report, complete the research and reconciliation of the opening customer account balances. This should result in most, if not all, of the balances being accounted for. {The Justice Court is currently in the process of going through the report and fixing the identified variances.} Completed All identified variances have been corrected. Follow-up report on Justice Court Software Implementation #13/14-5 September 2013 Page 4 Rec# Recommendation text STATUS Expected Completion Date Responsible UPDATED Department Comments 4 It is recommended for Justice Court to work on addressing the areas noted above for improvement. o a written business continuity plan, o documentation of pertinent user settings for software and the software’s operation, and o an interface from the collection agent for efficiently posting of payments. 1. BCP - Planned 2. Documenta tion of user settings - Completed 3. Incoming collection payment interface - Underway 1. 06/30/2014 2. 3. Anticipated completion 10/01/13 1. Jodi Stacy & Charles Fadeley 2. 3. Jodi Stacy, Deb Walker and Joe Sadony We are currently working diligently on the incoming payment interface. This requires a group effort between our collection agency, our software provider, the Deschutes County IT Department and myself. As of today, our collection agency is working on merging cases in order to allow old cases reported by Accuterm to report payments to the new Showcase software. It is a slow process, but it must be done due to the fact that the old Accuterm case numbers were not migrated into the new software. 5 It is recommended the County utilize the presented financial reporting analyses (or something similar) to better highlight the Justice Court activity and whether it contributes or requires contributions from the general fund. Completed In the most recent budget, Justice Court's fines and fees are now a resource for Fund 123 (previously were in the General Fund non-departmental) resulting in better matching of revenues to expenditures in reporting. 6 It is recommended for County management to investigate whether there are opportunities to get more filings through to the Justice Court system. Ongoing/ Completed County Administration has discussed this with the Sheriff's Office and the Justice of the Peace. 7 It is recommended for the County to consider budgeting and accounting for capital outlays in the associated operating department. This might require general fund support coming through a transfer instead of an expenditure. Planned June-2014 County Administrator Anticipate improving capital budgeting process in next budget cycle. Follow-up report on Justice Court Software Implementation #13/14-5 September 2013 Page 5 Rec# Recommendation text STATUS Expected Completion Date Responsible UPDATED Department Comments 8 It is recommended for the County to implement additional procedures to identify and budget non-recurring capital expenditures. It is recommended the County review the current capital outlay form to see if the process is needed or could be improved. This might require reconciling capital projects between periods to assure sufficient resources are maintained through their acquisition. Planned June-2014 County Administrator Anticipate improving capital budgeting process in next budget cycle. 9 It is recommended the County consider improving the County’s process for capital budgeting of projects by utilizing the guidance provided by GFOA. Planned June-2014 County Administrator Anticipate improving capital budgeting process in next budget cycle. {END OF REPORT}