The National Sheriff's Association (NSA) held its 69th annual conference in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida last week – and while this event typically highlights State and Local Law Enforcement initiatives and First Responder technologies – this year's sessions had the added touch of Federal involvement in Tuesday's Keynote Greeting via Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano. While Secretary Napolitano gave appropriate credit to our nations Sheriff's for being the front running "eyes and ears" of monitoring the protection of our citizens, she also peppered her speech with a few items to correlate her department's main goals in support of Law Enforcement.

Particularly significant was Napolitano's comments on the REAL ID program – which as Governor of Arizona she repealed as an unfunded mandate – and where now running that program acknowledges Drivers Licenses will still need to be more secure, and she does expect a revamp of the program, but at the heart of the focus will be thwarting illegal immigrants at our borders, holding accountable those employers which harbor the use of immigrants in our country illegally, and especially identify those immigrants in the corrections facilities and our jail's systems who are not in this country legally (and who should be deported).

Napolitano stressed that it is City, County, Tribal and Local Law Enforcement which indentify the greatest records of suspicious criminal behavior at the heart of data collection in over 77 Intelligence Fusion Center Analysis points across the country. (Sessions during the Conference, and the message of this keynote speech, further support the sharing of data across state lines - and between federal and state agencies - for the purpose of proactively indentifying criminal behavior and terrorist threats in our homeland).

Through a FEMA, which has learned some hard lessons, and State and Local Emergency Operations Centers (EOC) that must face the realities of Federal Aide limits: these departments will have to communicate further and develop processes from proven results: accordingly it will be local First Responders that MUST bear the greatest planning resources and education of its citizens to insure safer outcomes in the event of our countries next disaster.

Many of the Sheriff's I spoke with at the event felt it's "too soon to tell" how this Administration's Homeland Security efforts will actually effect local Law Enforcement – as Secretary Napolitano is only 5 months into term – but they all admitted encouragement in a more "open" DHS (One that seems to acknowledge the powerful necessity of data, resources, analysis, funding and support of the Law Enforcement community; and one that also wants to make sure it's working hand-in-hand with Patrol Officers responsible for the monitoring of our nation's vulnerable borders).

Government Contractors should also be encouraged by some of this optimism. Many agencies expressed their interest in acquiring technologies to equip officers NOW – both as a push to outfit new recruits, and as part of integrating more field reporting tools to further access DOJ Information Sharing initiatives – yet the core of these purchasing motivation's has always been Sheriff's Offices willing to "go their own way" rather than waiting for Federal oversight, slow nationwide network deployments or State solutions not yet interoperable at the local level.

INPUT will post my Analyst Re-Cap of the Event – under our Industry Analysis and Public Safety Solutions portal – by the close of this week.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) issued an intent to award the Eligibility Support Services contract to Maximus, Inc., on June 24, 2009. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released back in July 2008 and proposals had been under evaluation since October. HHSC is hoping to use this procurement to optimize eligibility determination for its health and human services programs. HHSC currently determines eligibility through two distinct automated systems and two business processes. This contract will implement an eligibility process that offers multiple access channels to support client inquiries and maintain effective call center operations. HHSC is looking to join the current trend of social service programs using one statewide eligibility system to deliver services for all health and human services benefit programs, instead of siloed systems with inadequate integration components for each individual program.

INPUT is monitoring the Eligibility Support Services solicitation under Opportunity ID #41073. The intent to award that was issued to Maximus is not a final contract award and is contingent upon successful negotiation.

On Monday, OMB released new guidance for the reporting of stimulus-related projects. After reading the document, I walked away with two thoughts - "State governments will be buried under the weight of this," and "The job calculation situation is a nightmare waiting to happen." While we knew that states would be required to report on their own activity as well as the local entities that receive money, this new guidance adds a new layer of complexity. Starting in October, states (e.g. "prime recipients) must track dollars down "to the street", from their door to the "sub-recipient" to the sub-recipient's vendors.

After quickly celebrating new rules that provided them with funds to cover the administrative and management costs of stimulus activities, states now face another set of challenges. Reporting requirements at the prime recipient level will undoubtedly flow down to S&L vendors, who as implementers, will bear a fair amount of the burden.

Some of the required data elements:

Amount of Federal Recovery Act funds expended to projects/activities

Project description and status

Infrastructure expenditures and rationale, if applicable

Total number and amount of small sub-awards (less than$25,000)

Job creation "narrative" and number

This last item also presents a challenge. OMB directs recipients to divide the number of hours work on stimulus projects by the total number of hours in a full-time schedule to come up with recovery-related FTEs. For example, if there are 480 hours in a quarter and an employee works 240 hours on stimulus work, that represents .5 FTE. The calculation for determining jobs created or saved seems fairly simple on the surface, but this could get a little sticky if:

a) a vendor's employee is working on multiple projects and must track stimulus time separately

b) stimulus money partly funds a stimulus project, which makes it difficult to attribute job creation to stimulus vs. non-stimulus activities

Federal contractors - this guidance does not apply to you, but your day is coming. Final FAR rules for recipients of Federal contract awards directly from the Federal government are pending.

OMB's guidance also provides step-by-step instructions for submitting the required information. I'm thinking that detailed instructions on how to collect the data requires much more detail than how to submit it. The silver lining: prime recipients may actually create more jobs to manage and report stimulus data than to complete the actual projects.

When it comes to trying to figure out what the Obama administration--or any administration, for that matter--has planned for a given function of state and local government, it's easy to make one of two mistakes.

1. Taking the administration at its word – That is, believing what the administration says is or will be a priority will actually be so.

2. Reading too much into what is or isn't said – Trying to read tea leaves is always risky. Government is a messy business and it's easy to read too much (or too little) intent into statements that end up vague and/or contradictory after being run through the sausage-maker of bureaucratic politics.

So, what's a sure-fire indicator of intent? Staffing up.

I read in an obscure article that DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate (PPD), which includes the Office of Intergovernmental Programs (OIP), hired 300 people last year and is looking to add 621 more this year. This will include 71 new workers in cybersecurity and will bring the directorate's total workforce to 2,710 by September 30, 2010.

One thing is for sure, DHS isn't hiring all of the folks to twiddle their thumbs. Critical infrastructure protection (CIP) is second only to emergency response in requiring federal-state-local coordination. States and localities operate and/or provide day-to-day protection for many critical infrastructure components, including mass transit systems, utilities, medical facilities, air/sea ports, education campuses, emergency operations centers (EOCs), data centers, and prisons (among many others). CIP was important to the Bush administration, but it had to take a back seat to more immediate concerns at the airports (TSA), borders (SBI), and drivers licensing offices (REAL ID). The cybersecurity subcomponent, however, was even farther down the list of priorities than CIP and never really gained any traction during the Bush years.

INPUT will be watching for more specific development in this area. For now, vendors should begin looking at their relevance to state and local CIP and making plans for 2010 and beyond as CIP moves up DHS's priority list. Don't forget to review INPUT's research on the recent federal stimulus for Justice/Public Safety and Homeland Security for some early insights into the Obama administration's funding priorities in this area.

New Jersey lawmakers are reportedly considering a bill that would outlaw health information technology (IT) products not certified by the Certification Commission for Health IT (CCHIT). The bill outlines financial consequences for not adhering to the bill, including a $1,000 fine for the first violation, a $2,500 fine for the second violation, and a $5,000 fine for the third and each subsequent violation.

While the bill has good intentions, it seems to be misguided and as a result has received significant criticism from industry stakeholders. Questions have been raised surrounding how New Jersey intends to enforce such a bill; what kind of manpower and other resources would this require? Further, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not officially selected the health IT certifying body as mandated in the economic stimulus package and the possibility another entity or multiple entities may be selected remains. Making systems illegal is an extreme measure that sends the wrong message and does not "unlock the positive incentives for health IT adoption" that CCHIT is trying to encourage, according to Mark Leavitt who leads CCHIT. Leavitt posted a comment on June 12, 2009 on an ihealthbeat article discussing the bill, which read, "CCHIT feels this is an inappropriate use of certification and was not involved in any way with the bill's creation". Finally, the bill would impact all health care providers, not just the Medicare and Medicaid providers who are eligible to try to receive electronic health record (EHR) incentives from the stimulus package.

While the bill under consideration is unwise it does highlight the fact that states are working furiously to prepare for the stimulus funding that will be funneled down and to align their governance policies with federal requirements. Further, the bill underlines the fact that CCHIT is a front-runner for the certifying body position. Monitoring this decision will be vital for vendors interested in getting a piece of the action, as systems must receive the stamp-of-approval from the selected entity(s). Further, states are already considering how to extend beyond Medicare and Medicaid providers and bring the remaining providers on board the health IT train. While providers working with entitlement beneficiaries are the focal point of the stimulus funding incentives, vendors should keep an eye on plans to reach all other providers in the future.

California welfare program CalWorks could be one of the many programs feeling the squeeze during the current budget crisis.

On May 26, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed axing California's main welfare program, CalWorks, to help shrink the state's $24.3 billion budget deficit. Nearly 1.3 million Californians received benefit payments under the welfare program in February. By eliminating CalWorks and rejecting the $3.7 billion Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the state will save its matching portion of $1.8 billion, but lose $600 million in federal stimulus funds- money that is desperately needed to invigorate the stagnant economy. If the program is cut, California will be the only state to not have subsistence benefits for children.

Taking matters into their own hands, Los Angeles County voted on Tuesday to simply push for changes to CalWorks instead of cutting Welfare to Work outright. The County is looking to offset the cost of subsidized child care ($500 a month per child) by allowing parents to stay home and still receive benefits. LA County estimates that these changes could save the state nearly $140 million this fiscal year. Later that day a legislative budget committee in Sacramento rejected the Governor's elimination plan and instead proposed cutting CalWorks by $270 million, which include reductions to child-care and employment services. The Governor has not signed off on the California budget yet and it is already two days past the June 15 deadline.

INPUT is tracking four opportunities related to the CalWorks program which may take a hit due to budget cuts or the possible welfare elimination:

• Los Angeles Eligibility Automated Determination Evaluation and Reporting System Replacement Project (LEADER) 15968: The Governor has already delayed an award for this project for six months, and some are calling for an additional two years.
• Los Angeles Eligibility Automated Determination Evaluation and Reporting System Maintenance and Operations (LEADER) 49872: Dependent upon Replacement Project award
• Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) 15428
• Employer Agent Services 56472

The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) held its annual conference in Ft. Worth, Texas last week – as a continuing attendee I was interested in how this year's sessions would differ from years past – given some new political climates, budgets, economical issues, and post issuance of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

For one thing there seemed to be less State Communications representation – this could have been based on Agencies cutting costs and the economy – but much was gleamed from those that spoke; and from the vendor community that supports this sector. Also, many agencies are professing that with so-little being furthered on the FCC D-Block Auction and other funding restrictions, that they are considering everything from a "wait and see" mode, to participation with other agencies, on up to seeing what can be done with the legacy equipment they have in place already.

For Government Contractors that cater to this marketplace, a few things can be considered as we move forward this year, and look to Public Safety Communications in 2010.

Any deployed ARRA Funding cannot be expected to immediately be invested in brand new contracts or a forklift of existing systems (in many cases the funding applied to technology may not see Contract Awards till next year).

Many Agencies are utilizing the support of Consultants – more now than ever before – to increase an identification of JUST HOW FAR their current Systems can last or be used for E9-1-1 and NG9-1-1 migrations.

Within the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP): Interoperability still applies to multiple equipment pieces that have not traditionally worked together – add to that the increasing demands of the public (i.e. in some jurisdictions as many as 80% of 911 calls are placed from a wireless device) – and the need for vendors to address these data-center challenges and public-education become 10-fold!

In the coming weeks NENA will post many of the Conference Session Presentations on their website, INPUT will post an Analyst Re-Cap of the Event – both under our Industry Analysis and Public Safety Solutions portal – by the close of this week.

Until then: I am planning our INPUT attendance to the National Sheriff's Association (NSA) Conference in Ft. Lauderdale next week and the Las Vegas based Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) Conference in August – both which will further our coverage of these issues – I look forward to seeing you there; and am open to your comments in the meantime!

What the future holds for Real ID is about as unsure as the temperature a year from today. However, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has expressed her desire to repeal and replace the $4 billion initiative with a bill that would create the Pass ID initiative. This initiative might be more appealing to those states who have opposed Real ID from the beginning (AK, AZ, GA, ID, LA, ME, MT, NH, OK, SC, WA).

The new plan keeps many of the same elements of Real ID such as a digital photograph, signature and bar code recognition equipment. Federal databases will still need to be utilized to verify status of an individual, however, the demand for new and updated databases will be eliminated. This new plan will in essence penalize states who have recently implemented costly driver's license systems, such as Michigan, California, and New Hampshire, who have spent a total of roughly $60 million to comply with Real ID requirements.

If passed, the Pass Id initiative will provide state governments with more funding options to help implement the necessary hardware and software. With a recession that is worsening by the day, it will be interesting to see where this money will come from and when will it be issued. Some states are in the process of replacing their existing driver's license systems, such as North Dakota, Mississippi, and Illinois. With the potential for more funds, I expect to see these states, along with others, place their projects on hold until the Real ID/Pass ID issue can clear up.

Vendors need to watch this legislation closely as it could possibly rewrite system requirements down the road. States have begun planning for new driver's license systems that are compliant with Real ID. Vendors should begin a dialogue with these agencies NOW in order to position themselves for any changes that may occur to their requirements. Vendors should also expect to see extended use of existing infrastructure should Pass ID become a reality. Costly and complex systems may not be needed as the timeline for the proposed Pass ID is narrow.

On June 4-5, 2009, the Health Information Management and Systems Society (HIMSS) held the annual Government Health IT Conference in Washington, DC. A myriad of prolific speakers from all parts of the health information technology (IT) industry addressed conference attendees, touching upon topics such as the economic stimulus package, the role of electronic health records (EHRs) in health care reform and the new administration's priorities. Amongst the speakers was the newly appointed Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Aneesh Chopra, who provided the closing keynote address. Chopra was the Virginia Secretary of Technology before accepting his new federal role.

Technology vendors may see major improvements in the contracting process under Chopra which could enable them to more frequently engage in discussions and they may get more face-to-face time with government officers. Throughout Chopra's speech he focused on the ineffectiveness of the current Request for Proposal (RFP) process that has become commonplace in the government contracting world. He indicated that innovation by RFP is silly because RFP's stifle innovation with long lists of requirements. Historically, procurement rules and processes were built around obtaining the best and fair prices for commodities, but overtime have evolved to encompass complex IT systems that really don't fit within the model. Chopra indicated that it's hard for companies with innovative ideas to create a business case when they don't have input in the development of the RFP which has led to a gap between federal architecture and IT acquisition. Chopra is interested in exploring different approaches to procurement that will foster innovation and align policy goals when purchasing technology. He intends to seek a separate, new methodology to acquire health IT systems. One example he cited of an innovative approach to IT procurement is an application that the Department of Defense recently released, called DefenseSolutions.gov, which is a web-site that outlines the problem and seeks vendor input on potential solutions. Chopra will be looking to utilize similar innovative forums to spur health IT market innovation.

As the health IT industry tries to tackle health care reform, out of control expenditures and improve health care outcomes, contractors will be called upon to provide innovative solutions which will no longer be smothered by lengthy requirements.

Oklahoma's Governor, Brad Henry, recently signed the State Agency Technology Services Bill (HB 1170) into law creating the position of state chief information officer (CIO). One of the most significant benefits associated with the new position is the potential for cross-department technology investments. The new officer must drive this collaborative vision to open the door to the new business process changes that will surely occur in consolidating the agencies' technology contracts. The new CIO will be charged with saving the state money by making purchasing more uniform and showcasing that information technology (IT) can make their government run more economically. According to this article the state spends around $340 million a year on Internet technology services and the legislation states the appointed CIO must achieve 15% in savings of what the state spends on Internet services.

Still this position can be highly politicized and there are some suspicions that the governor already has someone in mind and that the legislation was created for him or her. The position will hold a great deal of power, awarding big money contracts to technology vendors. Those opposing the bill were concerned that the legislation could hinder the competitive bid process and the CIO prospect may have already shaken hands with certain IT vendors.

It remains to be seen just how the new appointee's role will shake out; will they function in more of an operational or policy role? Whatever the case, vendors will want to get to know the new CIO and further target their solutions around the state's IT plans. No matter the appointee's strategic or tactical approach, it all boils down to the administration and management of state IT. The CIO will look to vendors that can enhance the state's architecture and comply with standards across agencies in order to reduce unnecessary redundancy.

The Governor has until the start of 2010 to appoint the CIO.