Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · y2Ky2Tryny."-kint.,-,1/4,-,T ... dents self-assessment of Y2K progress may ... ty of respondents have not developed

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 437 016 IR 019 817

AUTHOR Petro, JimTITLE Y2K Survey Results: Counties, Cities, School Districts.INSTITUTION Ohio Auditor of State, Columbus.PUB DATE 1999-05-03NOTE 18p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *City Government; Computer Security; Counties; Elementary

Secondary Education; Information Sources; InformationTechnology; *Local Government; Problems; School Districts;State Action; *State Government; State Surveys; StatewidePlanning

IDENTIFIERS *Ohio; *Year 2000 (Programming)

ABSTRACTSurvey data obtained in recent audits updated Ohio's local

government units' assessment of Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness. The survey wasdeveloped with three intended objectives: (1) to provide an accurateassessment of the efforts to remediate the Y2K problem in Ohio's schooldistricts, cities and counties; (2) to identify issues that could affect theY2K remediation efforts; and (3) to report information and analysis that willbe useful to elected officials developing responses to the Y2K problem. Inthe findings there are a list of recommendations to assist governments inachieving Y2K compliance. These suggestions are grouped into six areas:Project Planning; Priority Setting; Data Exchange; Embedded Systems; Testingand Business Continuity; and Contingency Planning. Additional resources ofY2K information includes survey results and a list of web sites, handbooksand guides. (Contains forty-six pie charts.) (AEF/EPC)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

0N

4-1

JIM PETROAUDITOR OF STATE

STATE OF OHIO

Y2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2K12 41 7):1144.44KA,y2KYAKpi<c27i T Yri14{2KY2KY2M.41AWIA11,-.),PM'IMWA(21W2k. :14214AiKY2K'Y2KY2KY2KY''K;V2KY24tv'ZKY?KY2KY2KY2:KY2KY2KY2KY2KJIM2T-2etro::y2Ky2KY2KY2KY2KY2K). 2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2K

y246.8Nievy,0,-,-Ky2 T,,v1114(25K

Y2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2.KY2 KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2r 2n.vY?Xi4Y?*4'2T<.Yc2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2A',YLY. ?KY2KY7KY7KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2.KY2KY2KY2K.Y21KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2Cr 117er11KY2KY2KY2KY2K"sY2KY2KY2KY2K.Y2. ZK1r. 21\ .1 2.K.Y2K12.K.Y2KY2K.'Y2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2.KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2K

Y2KY2SA26Y612T iStrietg2KY2KY2.KY2.&YKi' 2.N.Y.LK Y2.N 1(21K Y 2KY2K Y. 2K 2KY2K

Y2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2K12K12KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2KY2K12KY2KY2Ky2Ky2Tryny."-kint.,-,1/4,-,T.,,,,,,,,,Kynir,-,

{,--, , -,,,,, ..........

Y2.KY'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND ,. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONy Office of Educational Research and Improvement

DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL ' EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

Y"KY: HAS BEEN GRANTED BY:fY

CENTER (ERIC)0 This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

Y2KY: G.W. Kelly 'N originating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to

Y. 2.KY: :Yimprove reproduction quality.

Y,KY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES -V Points of view or opinions stated in this

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)document do not necessarily represent

Y2KYLofficial OERI position or policy.

_a <4*.i.

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

JIM PETROAUDITOR OF STATE

STATE OF OHIO

May 3, 1999

Public Officials and Citizens of Ohio:

I am extending a personal thanks to the public officials and managers that responded to our second Y2Ksurvey.

Since 1996 we have taken a leadership role in making Y2K readiness a priority for units of government inOhio. Our office was the first audit organization, public or private, to provide written comments aboutY2K in the audit reports and/or management letters of all its clients.

In October 1998, we issued our first report on the Y2K readiness of Ohio's government units. Since thattime we have seen a heightened awareness of the problem and a greater sense of urgency to resolve it.Since our first report there have been a number of legislative initiative directed at solving the problem. Inaddition, there has clearly been an increase in executive management's attention at all levels of government.

As part of our continuing effort to support the Y2K remediation efforts of governments in Ohio, we areissuing a report on the results of our second Y2K survey. I am encouraged by survey results that indicateimprovements in project management practices. The results of recent audits would indicate that respon-dents self-assessment of Y2K progress may be overly optimistic. However, I am concerned that the majori-ty of respondents have not developed contingency plans and set dates to test those plans in advance of theYear 2000. At this late date any government that is not fully Y2K ready should consider developing busi-ness continuity and contingency plans concurrent with their Y2K remediation efforts.

This report is being issued as a service to Ohio's elected and appointed officials, government employees,and its citizens. I hope you find the information in the report useful in dealing with the Y2K problem.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact Daniel Schultz or Greg Kelly at1-800-282-0370.

Very truly yours,

Jim Petro

3

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Objective 1

Scope 2

Y2K Disclosures in Recent Audits 6

Best Practices 6

Contingency Planning 10

Conclusion 11

Resources 13

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

4

Introduction

On October 22, 1998, Auditor of State Jim Petroissued his first survey on the efforts of Ohio's govern-mental units to address the Year 2000 computer prob-lem. Computers are critical to the financial and admin-istrative functions of governments and their delivery ofservices to citizens. The Year 2000 problem is caused bythe standard computer programming technique of usingtwo digits to represent a year. If not corrected in time,many computer systems will mistake a 00 entry (2000)for the year 1900. Consequently, these systems willperform inaccurate calculations or cease to operate alltogether. Some computer programs that perform func-tions requiring the earlier use of post-2000 dates may beaffected even earlier. The report and news media cover-age of key highlights from our first survey significantlyincreased awareness of the problem in both the publicand private sector. In addition, it provided governmentmanagers and legislators useful information necessaryfor them to respond to the Y2K problem.

Objective

The first report was intended to achieve three objec-tives:

1. Provide elected officials, public entitymanagers, and citizens of Ohio a generalassessment of the efforts of governmentalunits to remediate the risks associatedwith the Y2K issue;

2. Increase the level of understanding andawareness of elected officials and publicentity managers about the significantY2K related risks and theirresponsibilities to remediate those risks;

3. Provide a forum for the exchange andsharing of "best practices" amonggovernmental units that would benefitthe overall remediation process.

Based on the improvement in responses to criticalsurvey questions, and the positive actions and initia-tives taking place among all levels of government webelieve those objectives were met.

In designing the second survey, we considered theneed to measure the change in responses to critical

1

5

Results of Y2K Status Survey

Have you appointed a Year2000 (Y2K) Project manager?

Yes [11 No

Have you developed a project planwhich identifies all major tasks to

be performed along with targetdates to ensure your organization

will be utilizing only Year 2000compliant hardware and software?

[i] Yes No

Is the Y2K conversion processmonitored by senior manage-ment to ensure its successful

completion?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

questions from the first survey to the second. We alsoconsidered the need to gather new information aboutthe need for financial and technical assistance, and thelevel of contingency planning. The availability of finan-cial and technical resources, and good contingency plan-ning becomes extremely important as we approach theYear 2000 and possibly earlier for some systems.

In this report we combined the information gath-ered through surveys of counties, cities and school dis-tricts with objective data obtained in recent audits toupdate our assessment of the Year 2000 readiness oflocal governmental units in Ohio.

This report is issued to meet the followingobjectives:

1. Report an accurate assessment of effortsof Ohio's counties, cities and schooldistricts to remediate the Year 2000problem.

2. Identify issues that could negativelyaffect the Year 2000 remediation efforts ofgovernmental units.

3. Provide information and analysis thatwill be useful to elected officialsdeveloping responses to the Year 2000problem.

Scope

There are currently 4,522 public entities in Ohio sub-ject to audit by this office. We limited our scope tocounties, cities, and school districts because collectivelytheir readiness will directly affect all the citizens ofOhio. However, our decision on the scope of this reportin no way implies the readiness of units of governmentnot included in our scope are less important. Thethought of Year 2000 problems disrupting the processesperformed by a water and sewer district is not a pleas-ant thought. The failure becomes even more seriouswhen you consider the health risk associated with thelack of clean water and the inability to properly disposeof waste. Our survey target population and the numberof respondents is presented below:

SurveysCounty Commissioners 88County Auditors 88County Treasurers 88Cities 250School Superintendents 612School Treasurers 612

2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Responded12311177

230125

6


0 Yes p NoDo you have an organization policy

to prevent the purchase ofnon-century compliant softwareproducts and use of non-century

compliant date fields in futureapplication development?

El Yes El No

Do you have an organization poli-cy to determine if previously pur-chased hardware and software

need to be upgraded or replacedto ensure Y2K compliance?

Yes El No

Do you have an organization policyto dictate that any new software

licenses require that a product bedelivered century compliant by a

specific date?

In our first report issued, October 22, 1998, we notedtwo conditions influencing Year 2000 in Ohio: "Theyear 2000 problem for the State of Ohio as a whole iscomprehensive and complex. The problem for eachindividual unit of government is dependent upon thatentity's reliance on technology in the areas of financialreporting, revenue billing and collection, and perform-ing mission-critical functions."

We also stated that, "under the current organizationand structure of state and local government in Ohiothere is no single office or entity with the authority andresponsibility to supervise remediation for the state as awhole. The authority and responsibility for Year 2000remediation is placed on the elected officials of eachindividual unit of government."

Consider these conditions in light of the fact that theYear 2000 poses a nonnegotiable deadline, and it is clearthat some governments are facing a significant risk.Governments that report they are just beginning to plantheir project face a significant risk that time will run outbefore they complete the project. Likewise governmentsthat don't possess the financial and/or technicalresources face similar problems.

The survey information provided by governmentalunit respondents indicated a general increase in favor-able responses in the areas of project management,awareness, assessment, remediation, and testing. Inaddition, respondents expressed high levels of confi-dence that their organizations would not encounter sig-nificant Y2K problems.

Survey respondents were asked to assess the likeli-hood their organizations would encounter significantY2K problems.

They reported their likelihood of encountering seri-ous Year 2000 problems as follows:

E High Moderate

Low None

What is your assessment ofthe liklihood of the entityencountering significant

Y2K problems?

3

7


Do you have necessary fundingfor Y2K remediation in your FY

99 operating budget?

Yes No 7 N/AHave you developed contin-

gency procedures in the eventany Mission Critical System willnot operate in the Year 2000?

ChM

Yes No P N/A

Have you established anawareness program throughout

the institution to communicate theproblem, potential impact, user

responsibilities, and organizationpolicies to resolve the problem?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

However, based on survey responses to questionsrelated to process control systems, contingency plan-ning and the need for technical and financial assistancewe believe their assessment may be too optimistic.

Although favorable responses increased in certaincritical areas, we do not believe they improved suffi-ciently to support such an optimistic assessment aboutthe risk of Year 2000 failure.

Based on our review of Y2K activity in governmentsacross the State of Ohio, we believe five factors createthe greatest potential risk to their avoiding significantY2K problems:

1. Lack of awareness of the true nature andfull extent of the problem

2. Lack of financial resources

3. Lack of project management skills andhuman resources

4. Lack of political and media attention tolow profile units of government

5. Lack of time to complete Y2Kremediation and contingency planning

Public officials and managers are generally aware ofthe Year 2000 computer problem. But survey responsesindicated that a significant number of government offi-cials may not fully understand the nature and extent ofthe problem and actions required to resolve it.

With less than seven months until the Year 2000,only 68% of our respondents had taken an inventory toidentify all mission critical system and application soft-ware for Year 2000 compliance.

Failure to inventory and assess mission critical sys-tems increases the risk that the remediation effort maynot be successfully completed on time.

The cost of fixing the Year 2000 problem will be sig-nificant. It is difficult to make comparisons and drawconclusions because there is no single way of classify-ing and reporting Year 2000 cost that is used by all gov-ernments. Some governments use funds from theirinformation technology budgets while others use spe-cial Year 2000 appropriations.

Furthermore, when classifying costs some govern-ments only record vendor purchases thereby failing to

4

8


Yes No

Has an inventory been taken notingall hardware system software

and application software (MissionCritical System) that are not

Year 2000 compliant?

Yes No N/A

Have you inventoried inter/intraorganization interface relation-

ships to your computerapplications software?

Yes El No E N/A

Have you performed a Y2K compli-ance determination for each com-

ponent (application software, main-frame, mini-computer, and/or PChardware, embedded microchips)of your Mission Critical Systems?

capture and identify the costs of Year 2000 tasks per-formed by their employees. Regardless of the methodused to compile cost data, the ability to bear these costswill vary among governments. Based on survey results40% of our respondents did not have adequate Year2000 funding in their fiscal 1999 budgets.

FD Yes No I 1 N/A

Do you have necessaryfunding for Y2K remediation

in your FY 99 operatingbudget?

Thirty-six percent reported needing financial or tech-nical assistance from the state while only 18% expectedto receive state assistance.

r

0 Yes 0 No N/A

Does your entity need stateassistance to make yourmission critical systems

Y2K compliant?

E Yes No 7 N/A

Does your entity expect toreceive state assistance tomake your mission criticalsystems Y2K compliant?

5 9

Results of Y2K. Status Survey

[1] Yes D No N/A

Does your agency rely on processcontrol systems that may need tobe modified to run in Year 2000?

(Simple examples include, automat-ed lighting and heating systems,elevators, telephone system, FAX

machines, scales, etc.)

Yes El] No N/A

Have you begun makingcompliance changes to your

Mission Critical Systems?

Yes No

Have the vendors of the appli-cation software been contactedto determine if their software is

Year 2000 compliant?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The shortage of trained information technology per-sonnel has been widely reported in the media. There isa high demand for experienced programmers driven bythe short time frame and competition from the privatesector for technical staff. According to the U.S. Senatereport "Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000Problem," "States can expect formidable challenges inretaining their IT employees and finding outside con-tractors in an increasingly competitive market." It goeson further to say, "State legislatures may need to takespecial action to provide flexibility in personnel policiesand additional resources to cover increasing Y2K costs."

It seems that the public and media focuses its atten-tion on the Year 2000 condition of governments that arehighly visible sometimes overlooking smaller entitieswhose operations have significant effect on servicesprovided to the public.

Y2K Disclosures in Recent Audits

The Auditor of State has completed its audits ofschool districts for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998. Todate, 376 audit reports issued after the effective datethat the Governmental Accounting Standards Board(GASB) required year 2000 information in financialstatements have been analyzed. The GASB disclosurerequired school districts to disclose their stages ofaddressing the year 2000 issues for internal systems.Seventeen, 4.5%, have not yet entered the first stage, theawareness stage, for addressing year 2000 issues forinternal systems. Three hundred and eleven school dis-tricts, 82.7%, have completed the assessment stageresulting in an inventory of potentially affected systems,a determination of mission critical status, and a determi-nation of needed remediation.

In 115 (36%) of the 376 school district audits issued,our staff provided management with recommendationsto improve the management of their Y2K projects. Sinceschool districts utilize the Ohio Educational ComputingNetwork for significant amounts of their computingneeds, the extension of school district results to othertypes of governmental units is not appropriate.

Best Practices

In our first report issued October 22, 1998, we pre-sented a number of best practices in the areas of projectmanagement and the awareness, assessment, remedia-tion and testing phases of the Y2K project.

As we rapidly approach the Year 2000 deadline, webelieve the issues of thorough testing and contingency

6

10

Results-of Y2K StatuS Survey

26%

El Yes El No N/A

Have the vendors communicatedwhen Year 2000 compliant

versions of their applicationsoftware are to be compliant?

296

0 Yes D No E N/A

Have monitoring proceduresbeen estimated to ensure the

vendors are taking appropriateaction to achieve Y2K readiness?

Yes p No LIB N/A

Based upon the vendor's communi-cation about the release of their

compliant software version, is therean established installation date forthe compliant release well before

the estimated software impact date?

planning are critical and we'll focus on the best practicespresented in this report on the areas of testing and con-tingency planning.

Most experts estimate testing will consume 40-60% ofthe project resources. Effective and efficient testing iscritical to the success of any Y2K project. We recom-mend that organizations use a non-production, standalone system to perform Year 2000 testing if resourcespermit. Prior to testing, you should perform a completesystem save that includes all of your application pro-grams and user libraries. When testing is complete,restore the system to its original state before being usedfor any other purpose. If you must test on your produc-tion system, do so by using highly controlled environ-ments after carefully studying and considering theimpacts of each testing scenario.

You should make every effort to avoid unpredictableresults and retain the ability to recover from problemsthat could occur when testing on a production system.We recommend the following general procedures:

Schedule testing of Year 2000 changesimmediately after complete system saves.

Develop a test of basic productionactivities as part of your testing plan.Perform the basic production activityafter the system is returned to a normalproduction environment.

Schedule time in your testing plan forrecovery activities that might be requiredbased on your test of productionactivities.

Make all basic system definition andsystem object changes while the system isin a restricted state both going to andreturning from the Year 2000 testingenvironment.

To the extent possible, do not useproduction objects such as files, journals,subsystems, user IDs when testing. Thegoal is to create an independentenvironment within the limits ofrequired activities.

Design your testing in a modular fashionand do not start any productionsubsystems that are not required fortesting the current module when coming

7

11


Yes [i] No 7.-- N/A

Has alternative software been iden-tified for those applications wherethe vendor no longer supports theapplication or will not have a com-pliant version in a timely fashion?

Yes No E N/A

Has a data conversion plan beendeveloped to ensure that all cur-rent date fields are properly con-verted to the new date format?

Yes No N/A

Does your conversion planidentify files requiring

conversion?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

out of restricted state into the Year 2000.

Any subsystems that are required fortesting should be analyzed for potentialactivity outside the test environment.Potential unpredictable activity mightrequire putting the subsystem's job queueon hold and manually activating onlythose jobs required for testing.

Develop testing strategy that ensuresverification of program coding (unittesting and integration testing) andvalidation of program requirements anddesign specifications (system testing andacceptance testing).

Stress test the system. Determine if thesystem can function when transactionvolume exceeds normal amounts.

Perform recovery testing to determine ifthe system can restart processing afterlosing system integrity.

Testing the systems functionalrequirements and design specificationsover a continuous period of time.

Test the systems ability to properlyprocess incorrect transactions that can bereasonably expected to occur. Forexample, programs that accept only4-digit year formats should generate errormessages if data is entered in 2-digit yearformat.

Exercise caution when setting the systemdate to a point where Y2K can be tested.Access controls, particularly endusers-access expiration dates, could beaffected. In addition, it may affect thelicense expiration date of some vendorpurchased software.

The scenarios for Year 2000 testing depend heavilyon the system environment and applications. Somebasic Year 2000 testing scenarios that are common formost installations are suggested here:

Set the clock to test process cycles andautomatic functions that are activated ona regular basis. These scenarios can beused to identify Year 2000 exposures thatneed to be fixed as well as to validateprograms after applying Year 2000solutions.

8

12

Results of Status Survey

gj Yes No N/A

Is there a plan to test vendorpurchased software before

Year 2000?

ICI

Yes 0 No N/A

Is a test environment establishedwhich is separate from the

production environment used fornormal processing?

Does your testing plan include areconcilement process?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Daily

Weekly

Semi-monthly

Monthly

Bi-monthly

Quarterly

Semi-annually

Annual

Automatic archiving

Automatic restart/restore

On demand

Test the setting and display of specialdates, including:

1900/2/29 should fail the year1900 is not a leap year

1996/2/29 should succeed theyear 1996 is a leap year

2000/2/29 should succeed - theyear 2000 is a leap year

00/01/01 - should display anunambiguous 4-digit-year date,the value of which depends onthe application. For example,1900/01/01, 2000/01/01, andso on

1999/12/31 should be able todistinguish between a regularend-of-year 1999 date and aspecial meaning date. Forexample, a never-expiring dateindicator.

Test the processing of time-sensitive datawith different combinations of data andtime.

Use the current system clock and thentest data with dates:

before 2000/01/01

after 2000/01/01

9 13

Resultg Y2K Siatus Survey

0 Yes 0 No E N/A

Does your test plan include Unit Testingto verifies that the smallest defined

module (one application date field orhardware component or system software

or embedded chip(s)) is operating asintended. Unit testing is usually performed

by the software engineer or programmerwho modified the module?

0 Yes 0 No N/A

Does your test plan includeIntegration Testing to verify that the

units (application or component), whencombined, work together as intended.

Because the units being integrated havealready been tested successfully, integration

testing focuses on ensuring that the inter-faces work correctly and that the integrated

software meets specified requirements?

Yes oN 7 N/A

Does your test plan includeAcceptance Testing is to verify

that the complete system satisfiesspecified requirements and is

acceptable to end users?

Set system clocks before the year 2000, forexample 1999/12/31, and then test datawith dates:

before 2000/01/01

after 2000/01/01

Set the system clock after 2000/01/01 andthen test data with dates:

before 2000/01/01

after 2000/01/01

Other tests to consider

Test to verify that algorithmsfor performing leap yearcalculations performcorrectly

Test to verify that systemsfunction correctly when thefiscal year changes from"99" to "00"

Test to verify that systemsfunction correctly onSeptember 9, 1999 (whenwritten in the GregorianCalendar, "9999")

Test to verify that systemsfunction correctly on April 9,1999 (when written in theJulian Calendar the 99th dayof 1999, or once again,"9999")

Contingency Planning

We believe most governments are working hard toremediate their Y2K problem. However, system failureswill occur for a variety of reasons:

Delays in remediation project

Delays in implementing new systems

Data trading partners may not be ready

Testing may not cover all date changescenarios

10

14


E Yes D No WA

Does your test plan include End-to-End Testing to verify that a defined

set of interrelated systems whichcollectively support an organization-

al core business area or function,inter-operate as intended in an

operational environment?

Does your test plan includetesting of the following date of

9/9/99?


1/1/00?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Vendors may not deliver commercial offthe shelf software on time.

Therefore, it is imperative that each government planfor contingencies. To assist government in their contin-gency planning efforts we recommend the following:

Adopt a contingency planningmethodology. The GovernmentAccounting Office presents a four-phasemodel (Initiation, Business ImpactAnalysis, Contingency Planning, andTesting) in its guide book "Year 2000Computing Crisis: Business Continuity andContingency Planning." Thesepublications are available at theGovernment Accounting Office's website(http://www.gao.gov)

Consider a checklist to facilitate Y2K contingencyplanning. For example:

Create Awareness within the organization

Establish a contingency planning team

Identify key business functions

Categorize/prioritize business functions

Perform risk assessment

Develop mitigation strategies

Define alternative solutions and performtrade off analysis

Establish trigger points

Obtain management approval

Develop deployment and implementationprocedures

Test and rehearse contingency plans

Develop reconciliation and reinstatementprocedures

Conclusion

We are encouraged by the progress in the areas ofproject management, awareness, assessment, remediationand testing indicated in the survey. However, we remaincautious for two reasons. The progress reported does not

11

15


Yes LI No N/A

Does your test plan include testingof the following date for the last day

of the week ending 1/7/00?

E] Yes El No El N/A

Does your test plan include test-ing of the following date for theend of first month (Jan. '00)?


2/29/00?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

reach a level sufficient for us to conclude only a few gov-ernments may have problems. We are also aware thathistorically self reported assessments tend to be overlyoptimistic. Therefore we strongly urge responsible publicofficials to continue to treat Y2K compliance as a majorpriority until compliance is achieved.

During our financial audits we have made specific rec-ommendations to assist governments based on theirunique circumstances. Those recommendations can gen-erally be grouped into six areas; project planning, prioritysetting, data exchange, embedded systems, testing, andbusiness continuity and contingency planning.

Project planning. Develop and implementa project plan that includes time and costbudgets, a completion schedule andprovides four management oversight.

Priority setting. Entities may not have timeto fix everything, especially those that got alate start. Therefore, it is critical toestablish priorities that focus on criticalbusiness processes and life, health, andsafety systems.

Data exchange. Identify noncompliantdata exchanges and coordinate with dataexchange partners.

Embedded systems. Identify missioncritical systems controlled by date sensitivemicroprocessor and take remediationaction. (Embedded systems often operatesecurity systems, elevators and HVACsystems)

Testing. Conduct thorough testingincluding end to end testing of multiplesystems that support a business function.

Business continuity and contingencyplanning. Develop and test a businesscontinuity and contingency plan to reducethe risk that unforseen Y2K problems willcause a significant disruption of thegovernment's operations.

Y2K compliance will not come without a cost. Oursurvey indicate that 40% of our respondents did not havesufficient funds for their Y2K projects in their FY 99 oper-ating budgets. While 36% of our respondents reported aneed for financial assistance. Currently the legislatures isconsidering the matter of financial assistance for Y2Kremediation. I strongly recommend prompt action on this

12

BEST COPY AVAILABLE16


Yes No N/A

Does your test plan include testingof the month/quarter/year end

processing for '99?

0-34% 35-67% 68-100%

What percent of your entity'smission critical systems will be

made Y2K compliant by3/31/99?

0-34% 35-67% E 38-100%



matter because the window of opportunity for avoidingY2K problems is rapidly closing.

The Y2K challenge can be met. While considerableprogress is being made there is a lot left to be done. Weencourage governments to focus on testing and businesscontinuity and contingency planning. Our office will con-tinue to assist governments in their Y2K efforts throughthe millennium.

Resources

Some of the resources available to organizations con-cerning the Y2K problem include web sites, handbooksand guides. Most are freely available to the public andreside in the public domain. The following are somesources of Y2K information.

State Y2K Web Sites

State of Ohio: http: / /www.state.oh.us /y2k/

Other State & Local:http: / /www.y2k.gov /java /info6a.html

Y2K Guidebooks

State of Ohio Y2K Guidebook for LocalGovernment (in development see Ohio Y2K WebPage for future Posting)

State of Ohio Y2K Independent Verification andValidation Guide (in development see Ohio Y2KWeb Page for future Posting)

Warren County, Ohio Year 2000 Plan - ContactGary V. Browning, (513) 933-1114

Texas Guidebook 2000:http://www.dir.state.tx.us/y2k

Federal Web Sites

Federal Council on Y2K: http://www.y2k.gov/

City & County

National Association of Counties:http://www.naco.org/resources/issues/

infor tech /y2k.cfm

13

17


0-34% 35-67% 68.100°/



LI 0-34% 35-67%

1% I

2%

7' 68-100%



0-34% 35-67% 7 68-100%


made Y2K compliantafter 2000?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

National League of Cities:http://www.n1c.org/pres-y2k.htm

Other Information

Year 2000 Web Page: http://www.year2000.com/

Y2K - Status: http://www.y2k.status.org/

Small Business Administration:http://www.sba.gov/y2k/

Presidents Council on Year 2000 Conversion:http://www.y2k/gov

U.S. CIO Council:http://www.Hpolicy.gsa.gov/mks/yr2000/

cioy2k/htm

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

14 18

Results of Status Survey

Yes 0 No ri N/A

Have you developed acontingency plan that

addresses all the internaland external Y2K issues that

could affect your entity?

84%1

El Yes 0 No n N/AHave you established a date

for testing the entity'scontingency plan?

High

n LowModerate

None

What is your assessment of theliklihood of the entity encounter-ing significant Y2K problems?

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

Title: Y2K Survey Results, Counties, Cities, School Districts

Author(s): Ohio Auditor of State's staff

Corporate Source:

Ohio Auditor of State

Publication Date:

May 3, 1999

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in themonthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

X

Check here for Level 1 release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other

ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and papercopy.

Signhere,-)please

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2A

\e,


Level 2A

Check here for Level 2A release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in

electronic media for ERIC archival collectionsubscribers only

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2B

C.


Level 2B

Check here for Level 2B release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

rcimizmommdress,

88 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215

Printed Name/Position/Title: Assistance ChiefGregory W. Kelly, elluty Auditor

4-466-4490gler2728-8537 gTE-Mail Address:

DateNov. 3, 1999

(over)

I

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the documentbeingcontributed) to:

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility1100 West Street, 2nd Floor

Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598

Telephone: 301-497-4080Toll Free: 800-799-3742

FAX: 301-953-0263e-mail: [email protected]

WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.comEFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)