State Courts and Reporting

Transcription

1 National Center for State Courts State Courts and Reporting 2012 SEARCH Winter Membership Group Meeting San Diego, California Richard Schauffler, Director, Research Services, NCSC

2 The Varieties of State Court Systems Broad Organizational Differences in Trial Courts Funding Information systems Degree of centralization at State level Structure: Single-tier e.g., Minnesota Two-tier e.g., Hawaii Multiple courts, two tiers e.g.,georgia Multiple courts, multiple tiers e.g., NY

3 Minnesota Single-tier Trial Court

4 Hawaii: Two-tiered Trial Courts

5 Georgia Multiple Limited Jurisdiction Trial Courts

6 New York: Multiple Courts On Multiple Tiers

7 Practical Effects of this Structural Variation Automation of systems & processes Centralization of systems & processes Standardization of systems & processes Outsourcing of systems & processes

8 Court Variation Mirrored at AOC (State) Level Highly centralized state AOC Control of IT infrastructure Standardized statewide reporting Semi-centralized state Some control/influence on IT Some control/influence on reporting Decentralized state

9 Implications for Reporting Where are the records? What court(s) handle those case types? What information is in those records? What format (physicial, electronic)? What is the records retention law/policy? What capacity does the court have to identify relevant records and retrieve the information?

10 Reporting Layers Local courts to local justice system partners Local courts to AOC AOC to state Executive & Legislative branches State to Federal

11 Reporting Technologies Local level: Manual counts, standardized reports Paper, electronic State level: Manual aggregation Data warehouse

12 Educating Courts About Reporting The role of state and local organizations Judicial Councils/Supreme Courts Administrative Offices of the Courts State criminal justice coordination Local criminal justice coordination

13 Educating Courts About Reporting The role of national organizations Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) Consortium of Court Information Technology Officers (CITOC) National Association Court Management (NACM) National Center for State Courts (NCSC)

14 For more information State court structure charts:

15 Warrant & Disposition Management Define specific reporting problems in up to ten states Provide funding and technical support to solve problems as proposed by states Document and disseminate effective practices for reporting, IT, governance, policy Funding $3.5M from Bureau of Justice Assistance NCSC & SEARCH teams for each state

16 Warrant & Disposition Management Current lineup Warrants Alabama Connecticut Georgia. Missouri Pennsylvania Dispositions California Connecticut Georgia Kentucky Missouri Tennessee

17 Warrant & Disposition Management Example: Pennsylvania Warrant Reporting Goals Reduce NCIC rejection Improve warrant clearing process Enable courts to modify warrants Enable courts to receive modifications

18 Pennsylvania Multiple Courts On Multiple Tiers

19 Warrant & Disposition Management Example: Tennessee Disposition Reporting Goals Reduce delay due to paper-based reporting Expand implementation of court CMS for electronic disposition reporting, smaller/rural counties Implement electronic reporting in the one large metro county not currently doing it Reduce costs to sheriff, courts, TBI

20 Tennessee Multiple Courts On Multiple Tiers

21 Warrant & Disposition Management Example: Georgia Disposition Reporting Goals Reinstate suspense file (capability lost) Reengineer business processes to exploit new statewide court sentencing report format newly integrated charge codes at state and local prosecutor levels Implement reporting performance measures to demonstrate outcomes

22 Georgia Multiple Limited Jurisdiction Trial Courts

23 For more information National Center for State Courts Court Statistics Project: Richard Schauffler, NCSC Warrants & Disposition Management Project: Jim Harris, NCSC NICS: Devon Adams, BJS