Trial Court Roundtable

Transcription

1 Trial Court Roundtable Automating Court Processing Moderated by: Steve Glisky, Vice President, Government Practice Manager, ImageSoft, Inc.

2 Agenda Moderator Introduction Steve Glisky, VP, Government Practice Manager Solution Spotlight: Arlington County, VA Presented by Judy Wheat, Chief Deputy Clerk Roundtable Discussion 2

3 Panelists Rob Curtis Court Administrator, 37th District Court Christina Dietrich Director, Court Information Systems, Arlington County, VA Anthony June Information Systems Director, 16 th Judicial Circuit Court Judy Wheat Chief Deputy Clerk, Arlington County, VA 3

4 Arlington County and the City of Falls Church About Arlington County Arlington County is an urban jurisdiction of approximately 200,000 residents nestled between Washington, D.C. and Fairfax County, Virginia. The City of Falls Church, which has about 25,000 residents, also utilizes Arlington s courts. The Circuit Court has original jurisdiction over civil cases having a value of $25,000 or more, all criminal felonies, misdemeanor and juvenile appeals. The Circuit Court has three judges who collectively preside over more than 6,000 matters annually. The Clerk of the Court is elected and serves an 8-year term 4

5 Driving Forces In 2008, Circuit Court Clerk Paul Ferguson wanted a better way to process and account for the approximately 1,000,000 pieces of paper filed with his office each year. The solution needed to address the following challenges: Documents were easily misplaced, misfiled, or not easy to locate staff spent a minimum of hours per week tracking down missing documents and files Prioritizing documents for processing was labor intensive and many were not processed or added to the file in a timely manner Staff had no way to verify whether missing documents actually had been filed Only one user could access a document or file at any given time There was no backup records retention system in case of emergency 5

6 Paradigm Shift The process to move from paper to digital: Step 1 - Develop a database In mid-2009 we started scanning most criminal and civil pleadings while continuing to use and maintain complete paper files. Step 2 - Document existing workflows In 2010 we hired a consultant to capture existing paper flow to identify and better understand bottlenecks and areas for process improvement. Step 3 - Determine desired functionality/explore options In 2011, we began to brainstorm internally, with judge s chambers, and with the County technology staff regarding desired functionality. We visited other courts and engaged in multiple vendor demonstrations. Step 4 - Make business case for funding Generate white paper identifying issues, options and costs. Step 5 - Jump in with both feet and don t look back! 6

7 Vendor Selection/Funding Selection Process Worked with the National Center for State Courts to identify available technology. Identified potential vendors through a Request for Information process which sought Custom-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) applications that worked with OnBase, the County s records management software. Visited and/or viewed systems being used by other courts to better understand differences in system functionality. Developed a sole source procurement package approved by County staff to utilize ImageSoft s unique system. Funding Initial system costs were funded by the Arlington County Board through one-time spending from general funds. Retained a consultant with technical expertise as Program Manager, and a second with OnBase expertise, with funding assistance from the County s Dept. of Technology Services. Additional hardware costs and software enhancements were funded by stateauthorized user fees, and from our operating budget. Reclassified a court staff position to become the business systems analyst to manage day-to-day system operations in house. 7

8 Change Management 1. Manage Expectations Actively involve staff, judges and other system users in design, development, and testing to enhance buy-in and ease transition issues Communicate frequently regarding product design, implementation schedule, anticipated process changes, and expected results Troubleshoot system shortcomings, identify and prioritize areas for improvement, and communicate proposed changes as quickly as possible to affected user groups Keep your end goal in view when reality and expectations clash Be patient, flexible and adaptable change is difficult! Be a cheerleader! 2. Train, Train, Train! 8

9 Arlington s Project Paperless Is an automated system utilizing: OnBase for records retention/management and automated workflows Virginia s Circuit Court Case Information System (CCMS) for case/docket management ImageSoft s ijustice, TrueCertify, and TrueFiling for everything else 9

10 Project Paperless System benefits include: Electronic filing and service of civil and criminal pleadings Paperless order generation and electronic signing Automated notifications to attorneys regarding order entry including digital copies Automated clerk workflows based on filing/document type Scheduling prompts for hearings/docket management Workflow management tools to measure, reassign and better manage individual workloads Audit trail functionality for greater staff accountability 10

11 Project Paperless Who Uses Project Paperless? efiling Any attorney authorized to practice in Virginia who registers through ImageSoft s TrueFiling system may electronically file into pending Arlington Circuit Court cases. efiling is not limited to hours court is physically open. ecommerce/secure Remote Access Licensed Virginia attorneys are able to access non-confidential criminal and civil case files from their office or other location upon approval of an SRA application and payment of fees. Electronic records Clerk s Office personnel are able to access and view any scanned record immediately, regardless of where it is in workflow. Security levels determine individual access. Members of the public and attorneys may view any scanned record at kiosks in the Clerk s office during normal business hours. Judges and court staff may view electronic records and documents in the courtrooms from a variety of devices. Judges and their staff can access court files at all times from their office or from a remote location. 11

12 Project Paperless Where did the Paper go? Paper documents are maintained for 6 months, then discarded (a limited subset of original documents are returned to the parties) Paper documents can be generated from electronic files on demand, copy costs of $0.50 per page apply E-certification available for all electronic records Case files are electronic and accessible in court and in the clerk s office via laptops/public access terminals 12

13 Solution Evolution Enhanced Understanding/Use of Existing Functionality Ongoing staff training regarding system functionality/workflows Staff and user suggestions regarding process improvements New Functionality Added Enhanced Sort/Filtering Capability for Judicial Clerks Electronic Notifications/Document Transmission to Probation, Police Department, Commonwealth s Attorney and others Electronic transcript retrieval and upload Pend Queue Functionality Batch Signing Performance Measures/Reporting 13

14 Outcomes Process improvements Files instantly available to court staff and judges, no more carrying buckets of files back and forth Files are easier to locate and review, documents can be tracked using electronic search features Fewer people handling documents eliminates redundant actions, saves time, and provides greater accountability Efficiencies gained Less time spent looking for files/ documents More time spent ensuring records are complete and accurate Filing and case access for attorneys 24/7, automated notice to parties of court decisions and orders More space, less clutter 14

15 Outcomes (cont.) Constituent service benefits WOULD STAFF GO BACK TO PAPER IF GIVEN THE CHANCE? NO! Staff has more time to assist customers at the counter and on the phone. Case information is readily accessible, eliminating need to call customers back with information. Access to case information is no longer dependent on one person or whether clerk s office is open. More secure record retention, greater disaster recovery alternatives 15

16 Lessons Learned What we would do if we had it all to do again? Involve other court users earlier in the system design, development and testing phases Design testing plans/environments which will help assess system impacts on other users prior to implementation Create more realistic user expectations No, this won t work exactly like PACER No, this won t resolve every issue overnight No, we can t operate with fewer staff or substantially reduce our budget Yes, it takes time to appreciate the benefits from a change of this magnitude Yes, we expected there would be glitches and problems along the way Yes, it will be worth it in the long run 16

17 Roundtable Discussion 17

18 Electronic Trial Court

19 Topics for Discussion Why OnBase? Implementation Approach Process Automation Judicial Docket Integration with External Agencies Lessons Learned Working with ImageSoft

20 Why OnBase? Configurable Workflow Electronic Case File JusticeTech

21 Implementation Approach Big Bang or Phased? Process Improvement Back-file vs. Day Forward

22 Process Automation Best Practices Document Generation & Electronic Signing Electronic Notification Electronic Arraignment

23 Judicial Docket Preparation Party Check-In Electronic Orders

24 Integration with External Agencies Public Safety City / Prosecuting Attorney Probation Dept of Corrections

25 Lessons Learned

26 Working with ImageSoft

27 Audience Questions Thank You Please complete your Workshop #4 survey and put it in the orange bin 27