Archive for the “The Future” Category

The Center for Public Policy Studies has been involved in several interesting court-related projects over the years, but their latest initiative to examine the impacts of immigration on our state courts is a whopper. It began two years ago and is far from over, but the scope and breadth of the issue are staggering. To quote CPPS, state courts across the nation face unprecedented challenges resulting from the size and diversity of expanding immigrant populations, as well as the complexity of the nexus of federal state, and local immigration law, policy, and practice.

I highly commend to you their update that appeared in the Spring 2009 edition of the National Association for Court Management’s (www.nacmnet.org) Court Manager magazine (issue 24-1). The link in the first paragraph of this posting will lead to a pdf version of that article.

Meanwhile, I can do no better than quote from the CPPS summary of this far reaching initiative:

INITIATIVE BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Initiated in May 2008, the multi-year Immigration and the State Courts Initiative is being conducted by the Center for Public Policy Saidies (CPPS) in partnership with the State Justice Institute (SJI). The Immigration and the State Courts Initiative is focused on four strategic priorities:

• Increasing understanding and awareness about the impacts of immigration in the state courts;
• Developing and testing state and local approaches for assessing and addressing the impact of immigration in the state courts;
• Enhancing state and local court capacity to improve court services affected by immigration; and
• Building effective national, state, and local partnerships for addressing the impact of immigration in the state courts.

SERVICE ACTIVITIES

Six types of activities have been undertaken to address these four strategic priorities. First, we are identifying the major challenges and opportunities state courts need to address when dealing with immigrants in the courts and establishing a web-based resource network. We are interested particularly in the impacts of immigration on caseloads, court-room and court operations, resources, service delivery and overall performance.

Second, we are working with nine diverse court jurisdictions to learn firsthand what challenges they face in addressing the needs of immigrant populations that use the courts and how to best address those challenges.

Third, we have prepared an electronic, interactive bench guide for assisting judges across the nation address the practical implications of state court criminal case processing involving immigrants, and a second bench guide addressing the nexus of federal immigration status and family, juvenile, and dependency case processing.

Fourth, we are preparing and periodically updating an interactive electronic Guidebook for Addressing the Impacts of Immigration in the State Courts that can be used in courts across the nation. The contents of the Guidebook are structured around a detailed description of a step-by-step assessment and improvement process accompanied by a series of tools and resources, such as answers to frequently asked questions, summaries of lessons learned, session worksheets and extensive web-links to statutes, census data and numerous other types of information about immigration topics.

Fifth, we are developing and conducting courses for judges and court personnel for addressing the impacts of immigration in the state courts and establishing and coordinating a nation-wide training network.

Sixth, we are helping to establish and facilitate an on-going federal / state dialog to promote better collaboration between federal and state courts and justice organizations when addressing immigration issues that impact the state courts. This includes preparing a detailed assessment of the potential implications for the state courts of federal immigration reform.

For more information on the immigration and the state courts initiative, contact John Martin at: jamartin@indra.com or 303-449-0125

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = The Library of Congress

I admit to proselytizing for improved project management skills among court managers as one of the key survival skills of our time. With the financial crisis driving transformational process re-engineering in courts, it is becoming even more apparent that PM is the latest core competency that will ensure we make it through to the other end of this ordeal. So here is my primer on the subject in the form of Frequently Asked Questions:

WHAT IS A PROJECT?  - A project has a beginning and an end. It has deliverables and goals, and creates something that didn’t previously exist. It is not ongoing operations or maintenance. A project requires the direction of resources over a period of time to create a product or program, the quality of which will be determined by the amount of resources, amount of available time and how well the process is managed.

WHAT IS A PROJECT MANAGER? - The individual or groups of individuals that manage the deployment of resources and manage the time constraints to accomplish a project are project managers.

WHAT IS THE “TRIPLE CONSTRAINT?  - A project is affected by the amount of available resources and available time, and the quality of the output is affected accordingly. This concept is called the “triple constraint” and is depicted in the following graphic:

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR PROJECT FAILURE?  - The updated 2001 list of reasons why projects fail from the Standish Group study is ranked in the far left column, along with a survey of members of the National Association for Court Management, also conducted in 2001:

Standish Group 2001 Rank	NACM 2001 Rank	Reasons for project failure
1	2	Lack of executive support
2	10	Lack of user involvement
3	1	Inexperienced project manager or management
4	7	Unclear business objectives
5	6	Too complex scope of project
6	4	Lack of standard software infrastructure
7	5	Lack of firm basic requirements
8	9	Lack of formal methodology
9	3	Lack of reliable estimates
10	7	Other criteria

THE BOTTOM LINE

It is clear that the need for solid project management skills is of significant importance when it comes to the likelihood of project success. This was ranked #1 as the reason for project failure by the court management profession, and #3 by the Standish Group for projects in every other industry.

The above list of reasons for project failure also serves as a positive roadmap to show what is needed to improve the odds of success:

√ Make sure that management and court leadership support the project.

√ Make sure to involve the end users in your project development and execution.

√ Be clear about your objectives and take the time to develop a comprehensive scope of work.

√ For IT projects, make sure to have the right infrastructure in place, adequate user requirements, formal methodologies and accurate estimates.

… and for every project, make sure you apply solid project management skills

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Title graphic credit = Microsoft clip art

Triple Constraint graphic credit = Projections Consulting

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) released the 2010 edition of their popular Future Trends in State Courts publication and the content this year is bold. It focuses on public education about courts as an institution and the current transformation taking place as a result of the financial crisis.

Coincidentally, the National Association for Court Management’s Court Express e-publication for Spring 2010 headlined The New Reality for Court Managers, which mirrors many of the process reengineering themes in the Trends report. These include:

1. The financial crisis will be deeper and more prolonged than most expect.
2. While past budget savings focused on cuts and revenue, future savings will likely focus more on process reengineering and/or substantial technology development.
3. Reengineering must focus on core values and purposes of courts.
4. Relations between the courts and other branches of government will continue to be altered by the financial realities.
5. (Direct quote): The idea that the court will be in a much better place when things “get back to where they used to be” is a misconception that needs to be addressed by court leadership. Accepting the notion that we are not likely to return to the circumstances of the past is very important if we are to solve our current problems.

I am still reading the Trends report, so I cannot offer an in-depth analysis as yet, but it is clear that NCSC has been in front of the financial crisis and much of this work includes reengineering efforts in a number of court jurisdictions as part of their technical assistance to states weathering the financial storms.

As a Phoenix rose from the ashes in Greek mythology, courts, too, will rise from the current financial crisis as a new and vibrant 3rd branch of government. To do so, it will take leadership, focus, hewing to core values and the courage to make the right changes.

Easy? No! Necessary? Absolutely!

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = Cracker Jack Phoenix League

I previously mentioned that Karl Heckart and I are presenting a session at both East and West coast eCourts conferences this year. The name of the session is Technology trends, cool and edgy, which leaves a pretty wide open canvas upon which to paint.

Thus far, we have agreed upon this session description:

How can we best align court service delivery with the technology tools and toys, as well as the increasingly sophisticated expectations of court users? This session will offer mini-presentations on tech topics, including wireless applications, e-signage, e-forms, e-signature pads, applications for Personal Digital Assistants, e-readers, cloud computing, IT consolidation, social media.

Challenging enough? Hardly !! Add to the breadth and depth of the subject matter these two little twists … the sessions are only 30 minutes and they end the 2nd day of each conference, after which is a reception. Hah !!

We have yet to put the finishing touches on the content, but we have agreed roughly to have a lot of fast paced music and streaming video, but at some point ask the question, what are courts doing to prepare to serve the needs of increasingly tech-savvy consumers who are used to receiving information and services in altogether different delivery methods?

ANY (and I do mean ANY) help, advice, references to media clips and/or spiritual guidance are welcome. What would YOU like to see in this session?

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = Dali at Mr Moif’s MySpace page

Paul Wormeli at the IJIS Institute is the principle author of an annual Wormeli Report on the state of technology and funding initiatives in the criminal justice arena (you have to be an IJIS member to receive it). This year, Paul has asked that I contribute court-specific content in my capacity as chair of the Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology. Please help in this effort by commenting on this post.

I would categorize court IT trends in three categories: budget-related, infrastructure-related and green.

Budget-related

It is no coincidence that this category is listed first as efforts to cut costs and raise revenue are by far the biggest driver this past year and it looks as if the next year will be no different. In September, the Court IT Officers Consortium made this a focus at their annual meeting, with interesting results. There are a few particular areas worthy of note:

Increased use of electronic audio and video recording to capture the verbatim record – the promise of instant cost savings has pushed this technology to the forefront in many jurisdictions. The main advantage is reduced personnel costs, however, most authorities on this subject recommend staff monitoring of recording equipment in order to render recordings more useful through annotation and to avoid problems with equipment malfunction. I would advise reading the Florida courts’ December 2002, February 2005 and October 2007 reports on this topic to get a full picture of the administrative changes that are needed to support a successful migration of this sort in order to avoid unintended consequences and problems.

Paper-on-demand – as a more pragmatic application of imaging and paperless electronic processing of cases and files. This concept recognizes that it is nearly impossible to eliminate all paper, so produce it when needed and operate electronically to the furthest extent possible.

Video and teleconferencing – to cut down on meeting, training and travel costs.

Revenue enhancement – both by acquiring accounts receivable software and outsourcing collections and collection-related tasks such as noticing and skip-tracing.

Website service delivery – recognizing that reducing staffing and courthouse closures mean less customer service unless these services are available in alternative delivery methods. Static websites are becoming more dynamic and interactive with e-filing, fine payment and service delivery taking a higher priority than in the past.

E-filing – although this has been around for a long time, there is increased attention to begin if a court has not in the past, and to expand if courts have already put e-filing to limited use.

Infrastructure-related

Courts are no different than other IT enterprises in their increased attention to virtualization and cloud computing, although these are more trends than reality. Wireless applications and service delivery are also attracting attention, but similarly as a trend as opposed to widespread implementation. Probably the most interest and action is in use of open source software instead of costly name brand products (e.g., Open Office vs MS Office). All of these infrastructure issues are influenced, if not driven entirely, by budgetary concerns.

Green

The greening of business and government is also affecting the courts. The National Association for Court Management published a mini-guide in 2009 on Achieving and Sustaining the Green Court, covering courthouse design, facilities maintenance, energy use, recycling, reduction of solid waste, water efficiency, and the usual related topics; the publication also covers access to IT by staff and the public to make court operations more efficient and green (some of which are covered in Budget, above, such as Paper-on-demand, websites and teleconferencing).

So here the central question … are the operational differences of courts such that the IT trends are significantly different compared to general criminal justice agencies? I would say the electronic recording phenomenon for the verbatim record is one significant difference, and perhaps the depth and breadth of prospective applications for e-filing is another.

I encourage you to add to this discussion to ensure that Paul gets a fully rounded perspective on this fascinating topic. It’s easy, just comment, below!

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

Dear Santa … this has been one helluva year, big guy, and all the good little judges, court managers and staff have worked their tushies off trying to deliver quality justice with scarce resources, no raises and an increasingly cranky public that is only surpassed in its crankiness by the funding authorities. So here is my wish list for our courts and the heroes that work in them.

1. A stable, predictable funding source – OK, things are tough, I get it. We all know it’s time to tighten our belts, postpone big ticket purchases and defer widespread raises. However, we cannot exist without some indication of what we can expect in terms of funding in the next few years. We can’t plan, develop programs, react to caseload shifts and respond to public needs if we have no clue whether this is a temporary blip or a full time hell. You’re not closing the police department or fire department, and you should consider courts in the same category of urgency. As the New York Times opined about the budgetary impacts on NY courts, state courts are not just another government agency. They are at the center of the nation’s legal system and enforcement of the rule of law, handling more than 95 percent of all civil and criminal litigation. This vital institution — constitutionally, an independent, co-equal branch of government — has been spiraling into crisis as cash-starved states struggle with huge deficits.
2. Read the rest of this entry »

Both the Associated Press and the San Francisco Chronicle reported this week that the advent of robotics introduces the prospect of legal problems associated with their higher number of contacts with humans.

So, is Robbie the Robot plotting your demise, requiring that you get a restraining order? If your Massage-o-Matic fails to heal your deep tissue kink, does that give you cause for a breach of contract or detrimental reliance suit? If any of these things come to pass, do robots have a legal defense? Most experts say no.

As early as 1985, Robert Freitas opined in Young Lawyer that robots are just inanimate property without rights or duties. Most legal experts cite product liability or legal actions against a robot’s owner as the most likely legal redress. The caselaw to date confirms this view.

The interesting twist on this subject is whether the litigiousness of the United States will stifle research and development of robotics here, leaving us at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to the products and services that are emerging in the field. Some suggest that the US should adopt laws similar to those affecting computers and the Internet, which shield certain legal liabilities in the name of progress.

Still, the use of robots is emerging in healthcare, customer service, home care/cleaning, construction and just about every aspect of our lives. This just creates more opportunity for things to go wrong, resulting in court cases seeking redress.

Once again, society is bringing its ills and technological advances to the courthouse steps, and it will be up to the courts to sort these problems out. Will it present a conflict if the clerk’s office uses a robot to bring the casefile into court?

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = Rich Muller of Guy Robot as reported on Neatorama.com

While most of us are carving another hole to expand our belts after a sumptuous Thanksgiving, let us ponder how the future of technology in our courts is determined. The clue can be found on Wednesday, December 2, where the Joint Technology Committee of NACM and COSCA meets in St Augustine, FL.

Most people think technology just happens. In practical terms, technology requires strong oversight, visionary planning, keen strategy and perseverance. Most industries have oversight and planning groups that attempt to address a myriad of tech-related questions such as what standards to apply, where to focus research & development efforts, what is needed to address market conditions and how to resolve conflicts. In the courts arena, that group is the Joint Technology Committee.

The committee is staffed by the National Center for State Courts and comprised (among others) of representatives from NACM, COSCA, NCSC, CITOC and FACT.

Here are some of the many projects on the Joint Tech plate:

Court Technology Framework - a conceptual framework that attempts to portray the complex role that technology plays in court operations.

Court IT Standards - common guidelines to describe how data exchanges, e-filing and case management systems are developed and deployed.

Data exchanges – the courts are being asked to adopt varying sets of standards so that data exchanged with external agencies comply with uniform formats. Some of these dynamics include the Global Justice XML Data Model, National Information Exchange Model and Information Exchange Package Documentations.

I am privileged to serve on this committee as an advisory member on behalf of the Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology representing the courts’ private sector partners in IT. While there are many challenges ahead with courts facing budget shortfalls amid calls for more services and demands for more data, it is groups like the Joint Tech Committee that somehow grease the wheels to get it done.

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

ADDENDUM: For a PDF of the minutes from this meeting, CLICK HERE

The great Court Information Technology Officers Consortium (CITOC) held their annual meeting immediately following the 2009 Court Technology Conference in Denver and one of the powerful items on their agenda was to go around the room and ask how technology has helped to weather the recent financial storms. The responses were revealing.

Here are a few …

• Ask staff how to regain one hour per day – some suggested taming Internet surfing, social media and email as great places to start. This is an odd juxtaposition of technology helping and hindering productivity.
• Move archived files (especially microfiche files) online – staff complained that helping folks to use the fiche readers alone was a major effort.
• Install video equipment in court to use both as an alternative means to capture the verbatim record and for videoconference training and meetings.
• Use Voice over IP to reduce long distance telephone charges.
• Redefine the role of court staff into two career tracks: management and “professional decision resource” in a judicial support capacity.
• One jurisdiction created 16 business reengineering teams with an IT staff person on each.
• Create “skinny” files that rely as much as possible on electronic processing – in this application, just the essential documents were housed in a physical file jacket, mostly for judicial processing.
• Raise revenue using a variety of compliance techniques.
• Centralize paper submission functions and use them as the gateway to migrate to electronic files.
• Use open source software instead of costly name brand products (e.g., Open Office vs MS Office).
• Use and encourage filing agencies to migrate to e-citations as much as possible.
• Delegate routine judicial functions such as distraint (overdue tax) warrants to clerical staff and automate the process as much as possible.
• Beef up data transfers in as many applications as possible.
• Enhance the courts website identifying high touch points with customers as prime applications.
• Add “auto-populate” features to case management systems to cut down on the need for excess key stroke data entry.
• Migrate to Paper-on-Demand.

These are wonderful places to start. Anyone wish to add to the list??

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

There are some subjects so filled with urban myths and deep seated prejudices that any rational discussion is difficult. The question of whether court reporters are “better” than electronic recording is one of these subjects.

COST

The first stumbling block in the quest for truth is the automatic assumption that electronic recording (ER) is cheaper than a court reporter. In some respects, this is true, but in many other respects this is not true. First, tape recorders don’t (and shouldn’t) run themselves. The American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers recommends: At all times, electronic recording equipment should be overseen by an experienced reporter, who also takes simultaneous notes regarding the proceedings. In digital systems, these notes can be very extensive. This means in terms of personnel costs, it is not merely a court reporter being replaced by technology, but by equipment and replacement staffing. Moreover, court reporters act largely independently, while ER monitors require closer supervision, resulting in increased management costs. Second, transcript production cost savings are achieved by a court reporter using computer-aided transcription software and privately-paid staff, both of which (technology and staffing) would become court costs when using ER. A free market inquiry among private transcribers to produce a transcript from ER vs a court reporter results in costs as much as 3 times higher.

TECHNOLOGY

Court reporters self-fund hardware, software, networking, maintenance and upgrades, all of which would become court costs if they are replaced with a machine. Court network and server costs tend to rise, as well, because creating, transmitting and storing huge audio files is something most tech infrastructures cannot support without significant upgrades.

QUALITY

There is no argument that court reporters produce a more accurate record. A microphone failing to pick up utterances, or picking up competing noises means that side-by-side comparisons of transcripts shows a substantial amount of inaudibles in a typical ER setting. This is exacerbated if an ER monitor is not present. And if that missing piece is a ruling or critical testimony, the impact could be very costly indeed.

PRODUCTIVITY

In human physiology, we read a written transcript three-to-five times faster than we hear an audio recording. That means judges, lawyers and litigants are losing productivity when they are given a tape vs a transcript. And once again, if an ER monitor is not present, that means a tape is not annotated to show what happened where, necessitating the review of an entire three hour hearing instead of queuing to the general vicinity where something occurred in the recording.

MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?

So does this mean I am a court reporter advocate with no appreciation for ER? No. It means that there are appropriate hearing types that lend themselves to a court reporter solution and others that would be better suited for ER. Generally speaking, the higher the stakes (felony, complex civil, etc), the more instance of requiring a transcript and the sooner a transcript is needed, the better suited for a court reporter. The lower the stakes (infractions, some misdemeanors, etc.) and the lower the need for transcript, the better suited for ER.

ER is used in courts in 46 of the 50 United States and all but a handful use a combination of court reporters and ER. A blended solution is the best and most practical choice, and a good place to research these issues is the National Association for Court Management mini-guide on Making the Court Record.

In closing, there may be a game changer on the horizon that would flip this debate on its head … a significant problem in managing courts is the need to capture what occurs in courtrooms and get that information into the court’s automated case management system as quickly and accurately as possible. The result is that courtroom clerks have become key punch operators furiously typing minutes among their other duties. Since everything that a courtroom clerk enters into the data system also resides in a court reporter’s stenographic notes, it is merely a matter of tagging, blocking and sweeping selected portions of the verbatim record from the court reporter to the clerk so it may be edited and swept into the data system.

This technology is called Reporter Electronic Data Interchange, or REDI, and it’s high time we start using it. If use of REDI becomes widespread, the added value for court reporting costs would be impressive.

I know several court reporting vendors with the wherewithal to offer REDI. Any courts interested in taking it out for a spin?

Chris Crawford

www.justiceserved.com

Photo credit = Avicore Reporting