By G.F. Guercio
As courts utilize technology to improve functionality, they focus on the process of adopting or integrating a case management system (CMS). Whether it is installing technology for the first time to tread the road of resistance and implementation, or restarting a wider unified approach for those jurisdictions where different courts adopted different technologies, they face the same challenge of ridding courts of fractured processes and incompatible solutions.
Courts are challenged to implement a unified CMS that includes improvements in collection of fines and fees, overcoming inconsistencies in code standardization—and probably most importantly—providing increased access to justice.
“A common catalyst for considering a new case management system is a desire by the court to move to the next level of efficiency and effectiveness,” says Michael Kleiman, director of marketing for Tyler Technologies, Inc., Courts & Justice Division. “We find courts begin to think about making a change if its existing system is just getting the job done but not streamlining processes, leveraging the latest technologies—mobile, touch, web—or providing a path to eliminate paper.”
Creating workflows that support the business processes of the court and of each individual user is critical to driving court efficiencies, he continues. “Tyler’s court products, Odyssey and Incode, have been enhanced over the past several years with new workflow and task management capabilities that allow users to customize the way Tyler’s software works to fit the way the end-user operates.”
Working alongside courts for 25 years as they evaluate and implement new case management solutions, Sue Humphreys, CourtView Justice Solutions (CJS)’ director of Industry Solutions, says new technology will always inspire new CMS capabilities since courts are now looking closer at how case management systems add value. “Courts expect a CMS to have all the components and widgets they need to move their cases from beginning to end. Things like eFiling, data sharing, flexible calendaring, ad hoc reporting—these are all considered standard CMS capabilities now. So the courts have challenged suppliers to really differentiate through more thoughtful, intuitive, configurable design that automates process.”
CJS’ new JWorks is powered by intelligent business rules and a dynamic caseflow management (DCM) engine, says Humphreys. JWorks provides an ‘if, then, else’ logic that automates the step, task, decision point, and deadline of clerk and court operations, she iterates.
When courts focus on improvements inherent with CMS implementation, it redirects the focus of cost constraints, according to Robert Wilson, president of Syscon, Inc. “Currently the primary obstacle to courts implementing a case management system are the financial challenges faced by many cities and counties. However, if one considers the staff time saved by a system, the improvement in collections of fines and fees due to automation, and better—and fairer—decisions by the court due to more accurate and timely information, oftentimes a system can be justified in spite of budget constraints.”
Case management options offered by Syscon include the Enterprise version of Court Clerk and Court Clerk Lite, an entry-level version. Court Clerk provides numerous case management features to streamline court operations including flexible interfaces to outside agencies, biometric user authentication, automated calls, integrated online payments and customized processing.
Other than financial, the chaos of change forms another roadblock and the hesitation towards automation goes a step further when complexity is perceived. “Many courts are afraid of solutions that are flexible,” observes Scott Bade, president, ImageSoft, Inc. “They view these solutions as risky or overly complex. The key is to have a configurable solution that does not require custom programming.”
ImageSoft offers a configurable CMS that is a module within the OnBase Enterprise Content Management (ECM) product. “With OnBase you start with a clean slate, and quickly build the data model and user screens to meet the specific needs of the court. The OnBase ECM system provides configurable workflow technology that provides a mechanism to automate processes and routing without custom programming.” Says Bade, “Configur-able workflow improves a CMS by offering a mechanism to provide flexibility that is difficult to build into a CMS.”
Court mechanisms are one reason courts are hesitant to purchase and/or update CMS, acknowledges Jackie Black, marketer, Courts, State and Local, Thomson Reuters. “Courts for many years have operated in a closed fashion without much collaboration across the nation. Change is never an easy task, and when it comes to how people operate in a closed environment, it can be even more difficult,” she says.
For their way of dealing with these obstacles, Black says Thomson Reuters forms partnerships where current customers demonstrate the capabilities of C-Track and alleviate new customer concerns and reluctance for change. “We have been able to show our client how a modern CMS system will not only improve case processing times by bringing about efficiencies in the court’s operations, but also decrease costs in others areas.” And, Thomson Reuters continuously upgrades customers’ installed environments on a regular basis under maintenance and support agreements to prevent “stagnant technology and eliminate the need for complete system overhaul every few years.”
Complete system coverage is New Dawn Technologies’ approach as it and related companies serve courts, prosecutors, defenders, probation and pretrial and diversion entities in the U.S. and internationally. Explains Jacoba Poppleton, marketing and communications specialist: “As a part of the Daily Journal portfolio, sister companies Sustain Technologies and ISD Corporation join forces with New Dawn Technologies to build on our combined successes as case management software solutions innovators.”
All three companies offer integrated case management software solutions, including cloud-based data storage, document automation, report generation, online payments, public access solutions, and more. New Dawn’s JustWare | Court is configurable to meet the needs of all roles within the court, including judges, court clerks, and cashiers. Its configurability, security rules, scalability, and extensive functionality make it a solution for all case types in a single court, or for all case types in all courts in an entire state, according to Poppleton.
Multiple case types and changing needs require adaptability. “We all know that each court has different business processes, and many times those processes are in a state of constant change,” says Keith Robinson, product manager, Parking & Justice Solutions, Xerox Government Systems, LLC. To help fluctuating constituent requirements and changing legislation Xerox introduced AgileCourt, a business-rule driven system that takes automatic action based upon data conditions. For example, AgileCourt can be configured to create documents automatically as data is entered into the system. To this end, Xerox works closely with justice partners to design systems that simplify court processes.
Noting that funding for any project or new system can be challenging for courts today, Robinson says Xerox can mitigate the funding problems by offering flexible procurement options including subscription or per-seat based licensing with the solution deployed in the court’s environment or in a hosted environment.
A functionality-rich, person-centric environment is integral to AMCAD’s CMS solution, says Gary L. Egner, chief marketing officer. AMCAD’s integrated Case Management System (AiCMS) solution includes case and judicial management modules and a financial module that support the process of the courts. The solution is integrated with AMCAD’s Enterprise Content Management system to provide seamless access to documents and full integration with e-commerce, e-filing and e-citation systems reducing the staff need to re-enter data.
AiCMS can be tailored to meet unique needs with Added Value Tables (AVT), a configurable environment that allows new codes to meet the needs of the office without custom programming changes. Duplicate data entry is virtually eliminated by the person management function that is a core part of the AiCMS system. The system maintains extensive person identification data in the form of biometric identifiers and traditional person descriptors. This corrects data entry errors and cleans up converted records looking for multiple entries.
All the CMS options available point to the attributes that highlight future specification expectations. Courts are looking to the Internet to bring more self-service options to defendants, says Kleiman of Tyler Tech. In addition to basic citation payment, they are looking to add functionality such as image and document uploads, partial payment options and payment plan functionality. “Arlington Municipal Court, an Incode user, has implemented these features and today half of all transactions are happening online, dramatically reducing foot traffic in their courtroom. Courts are also turning to technology such as automated defendant notification to increase collection rates.” He continues, “Another Incode user, Grand Prairie Municipal Court, is collecting 32 percent of previously unpaid citations after employing a series of phone calls automatically generated by the Incode software.”
Courts across the nation are moving toward an increase in electronic filing capabilities, which essentially create a paperless courtroom, agrees Black of Thomson Reuters. “Court systems have to be more adaptable to changing workflows and processes, and need the ability to share information with external judicial partners as well as the public.” Transactions involving the court, such as fines and fee payments, are moving to online services, “and there is an increase in Pro Se litigants, and the courts are going to have to figure out better and more efficient ways to handle those cases.”
Rounding up the court CMS future view, CJS’s Humphreys says, “They’re looking beyond the standard features checklist for systems that actually help solve their challenges rather than simply automating them, and they’re looking for solutions that will still be strong another decade or two from now.”
#1 State of Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts: AMCAD Case Study
The Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was facing the challenges of disparate court case management technologies, rapidly growing caseloads, and lack of code table and business process standardization across multiple jurisdictions. Insufficient standardization made it difficult to aggregate accurate filing and disposition statistics and hindered data exchanges with external agencies. Moreover, in many instances, Arizona courts turned to various extraneous applications to mitigate shortcomings of their legacy system, leading to inefficiencies caused by redundant work and additional data entry. Arizona AOC installed the AMCAD integrated Case Management System (AiCMS) utilizing Microsoft .Net technology.
In order to maximize the acceptance and participation of the Superior Court management and staff a project of assimilation was led by Carla Tack, Arizona AOC project manager for the CMS. “The AOC, based on past experience of new software deployments, knew how critical it was for buy-in by the user courts,” says Renny Rapier, the Arizona AOC program manager. “Carla Tack detailed a plan for assimilation for the pilot courts that has been relevant to all of the courts implemented thus far…successfully implementing the AiCMS system into courts entrenched in the legacy application.”
#2 Wyoming State Courts: LT Court Tech/Thomson Reuters Case Study
Wyoming implemented a statewide unified court CMS through LT Court Tech, a business of Thomson Reuters. At the outset, six courts used one system, two used completely other systems, and the remaining 15 counties used a CMS provided by the Wyoming Supreme Court. The disparate systems and limited functionality created inconveniences across the entire court system.
Initially, just the Supreme Court contracted with LT Court Tech for its C-Track system, according to Ann Lavery, clerk of District Court, Uinta County, Wy., and senior business analyst for LT Court Tech. She says C-Track was implemented because it was configurable to the specific needs of the court, allowed unlimited integrations, and staff could be involved with the design process. As the implementation neared completion, the need for a unified system with e-filing functionality became obvious when the District Courts were unable to forward digital records for appealed cases.
Thus the District Court CMS contract was awarded to LT Court Tech, based on the success of the Supreme Court’s C-Track CMS implementation. “In Wyoming, there have been a multitude of benefits, many more than had been originally envisioned,” says Lavery. Most of the benefits fall into one of two categories she says: increased access to justice and increased efficiency for the court.
#3 College Park Municipal Court: Syscon Case Study
“When I came to College Park, they were doing 2,000 tickets a month with a manual system,” said Chief Judge Monica Ewing. “They had a skeletal staff. I immediately recognized that, to improve court efficiency, we had to switch to an electronic system.”
As Ewing evaluated various court systems, the number of tickets escalated, reaching 2,800 to 3,000 a month. She had seen Syscon in action in Union City, Ga., knew how it worked, and knew it would better meet the clerks’ needs. “Syscon had the system that was far better equipped to manage the volume—and College Park was doing close to double the number of tickets in Union City,” said Ewing.
“Syscon was extraordinary in this conversion, because it was complex and it was high volume and the clerks were fighting against it,” she notes. “They probably spent four to six weeks with us, which was extraordinary. Now, when we leave court, we’re done.”
#4 City of Suwanee Municipal Court: Syscon Case Study
When the City of Suwanee Municipal Court in Gwinnett County, considered expanding its document scanning service, the Court Services Administrator challenged the Georgia court to think larger and greener, resulting in a CMS solution that better serves the court, as well as helps preserve the environment. “The City had originally planned to include money in its budget for scanning more paper for the court. However, that would bring me another software; one that wouldn’t integrate with my court software,” said Mariza Abdeljawad, court services administrator.
Recognizing the benefits of using one solution to meet all its needs, the Municipal Court installed Syscon Court Clerk software. The court also purchased courtroom access stations, electronic signature pads, biometric fingerprint scanners, and document scanners from Syscon. Instead of carrying files into the court, the judge, clerks, and attorneys view the information on-screen, and the judge enters his findings directly into the system. “There’s no more post-ticket processing by my clerk,” said Chief Judge Mark Lewis. “Previously, after I processed a case, it still had to be entered into the computer. Now a case is completely processed immediately.” That speed is increasingly important since the court’s volume has grown. Today, without the system, the court would face the cost of printing and managing about 80,000 sheets of paper annually.
For more info on CMS providers: ImageSoft, Inc, www.imagesoftinc.com, 888.315.3901;
Thomas Reuters,www.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com, 877.923.7800;
Tyler Technologies, Inc., www.tyler-tech.com, 800.646.2633;
CourtView Justice Solutions, www.courtview.com, 800.406.4333;
Syscon, Inc., www.syscononline.com, 205.758.7000;
New Dawn Technologies, www.newdawn.com, 877.587.8927;
As courts utilize technology to improve functionality, they focus on the process of adopting or integrating a case management system (CMS). Whether it is installing technology for the first time to tread the road of resistance and implementation, or restarting a wider unified approach for those jurisdictions where different courts adopted different technologies, they face the same challenge of ridding courts of fractured processes and incompatible solutions.
Courts are challenged to implement a unified CMS that includes improvements in collection of fines and fees, overcoming inconsistencies in code standardization—and probably most importantly—providing increased access to justice.
“A common catalyst for considering a new case management system is a desire by the court to move to the next level of efficiency and effectiveness,” says Michael Kleiman, director of marketing for Tyler Technologies, Inc., Courts & Justice Division. “We find courts begin to think about making a change if its existing system is just getting the job done but not streamlining processes, leveraging the latest technologies—mobile, touch, web—or providing a path to eliminate paper.”
Creating workflows that support the business processes of the court and of each individual user is critical to driving court efficiencies, he continues. “Tyler’s court products, Odyssey and Incode, have been enhanced over the past several years with new workflow and task management capabilities that allow users to customize the way Tyler’s software works to fit the way the end-user operates.”
Working alongside courts for 25 years as they evaluate and implement new case management solutions, Sue Humphreys, CourtView Justice Solutions (CJS)’ director of Industry Solutions, says new technology will always inspire new CMS capabilities since courts are now looking closer at how case management systems add value. “Courts expect a CMS to have all the components and widgets they need to move their cases from beginning to end. Things like eFiling, data sharing, flexible calendaring, ad hoc reporting—these are all considered standard CMS capabilities now. So the courts have challenged suppliers to really differentiate through more thoughtful, intuitive, configurable design that automates process.”
CJS’ new JWorks is powered by intelligent business rules and a dynamic caseflow management (DCM) engine, says Humphreys. JWorks provides an ‘if, then, else’ logic that automates the step, task, decision point, and deadline of clerk and court operations, she iterates.
When courts focus on improvements inherent with CMS implementation, it redirects the focus of cost constraints, according to Robert Wilson, president of Syscon, Inc. “Currently the primary obstacle to courts implementing a case management system are the financial challenges faced by many cities and counties. However, if one considers the staff time saved by a system, the improvement in collections of fines and fees due to automation, and better—and fairer—decisions by the court due to more accurate and timely information, oftentimes a system can be justified in spite of budget constraints.”
Case management options offered by Syscon include the Enterprise version of Court Clerk and Court Clerk Lite, an entry-level version. Court Clerk provides numerous case management features to streamline court operations including flexible interfaces to outside agencies, biometric user authentication, automated calls, integrated online payments and customized processing.
Other than financial, the chaos of change forms another roadblock and the hesitation towards automation goes a step further when complexity is perceived. “Many courts are afraid of solutions that are flexible,” observes Scott Bade, president, ImageSoft, Inc. “They view these solutions as risky or overly complex. The key is to have a configurable solution that does not require custom programming.”
ImageSoft offers a configurable CMS that is a module within the OnBase Enterprise Content Management (ECM) product. “With OnBase you start with a clean slate, and quickly build the data model and user screens to meet the specific needs of the court. The OnBase ECM system provides configurable workflow technology that provides a mechanism to automate processes and routing without custom programming.” Says Bade, “Configur-able workflow improves a CMS by offering a mechanism to provide flexibility that is difficult to build into a CMS.”
Court mechanisms are one reason courts are hesitant to purchase and/or update CMS, acknowledges Jackie Black, marketer, Courts, State and Local, Thomson Reuters. “Courts for many years have operated in a closed fashion without much collaboration across the nation. Change is never an easy task, and when it comes to how people operate in a closed environment, it can be even more difficult,” she says.
For their way of dealing with these obstacles, Black says Thomson Reuters forms partnerships where current customers demonstrate the capabilities of C-Track and alleviate new customer concerns and reluctance for change. “We have been able to show our client how a modern CMS system will not only improve case processing times by bringing about efficiencies in the court’s operations, but also decrease costs in others areas.” And, Thomson Reuters continuously upgrades customers’ installed environments on a regular basis under maintenance and support agreements to prevent “stagnant technology and eliminate the need for complete system overhaul every few years.”
Complete system coverage is New Dawn Technologies’ approach as it and related companies serve courts, prosecutors, defenders, probation and pretrial and diversion entities in the U.S. and internationally. Explains Jacoba Poppleton, marketing and communications specialist: “As a part of the Daily Journal portfolio, sister companies Sustain Technologies and ISD Corporation join forces with New Dawn Technologies to build on our combined successes as case management software solutions innovators.”
All three companies offer integrated case management software solutions, including cloud-based data storage, document automation, report generation, online payments, public access solutions, and more. New Dawn’s JustWare | Court is configurable to meet the needs of all roles within the court, including judges, court clerks, and cashiers. Its configurability, security rules, scalability, and extensive functionality make it a solution for all case types in a single court, or for all case types in all courts in an entire state, according to Poppleton.
Multiple case types and changing needs require adaptability. “We all know that each court has different business processes, and many times those processes are in a state of constant change,” says Keith Robinson, product manager, Parking & Justice Solutions, Xerox Government Systems, LLC. To help fluctuating constituent requirements and changing legislation Xerox introduced AgileCourt, a business-rule driven system that takes automatic action based upon data conditions. For example, AgileCourt can be configured to create documents automatically as data is entered into the system. To this end, Xerox works closely with justice partners to design systems that simplify court processes.
Noting that funding for any project or new system can be challenging for courts today, Robinson says Xerox can mitigate the funding problems by offering flexible procurement options including subscription or per-seat based licensing with the solution deployed in the court’s environment or in a hosted environment.
A functionality-rich, person-centric environment is integral to AMCAD’s CMS solution, says Gary L. Egner, chief marketing officer. AMCAD’s integrated Case Management System (AiCMS) solution includes case and judicial management modules and a financial module that support the process of the courts. The solution is integrated with AMCAD’s Enterprise Content Management system to provide seamless access to documents and full integration with e-commerce, e-filing and e-citation systems reducing the staff need to re-enter data.
AiCMS can be tailored to meet unique needs with Added Value Tables (AVT), a configurable environment that allows new codes to meet the needs of the office without custom programming changes. Duplicate data entry is virtually eliminated by the person management function that is a core part of the AiCMS system. The system maintains extensive person identification data in the form of biometric identifiers and traditional person descriptors. This corrects data entry errors and cleans up converted records looking for multiple entries.
All the CMS options available point to the attributes that highlight future specification expectations. Courts are looking to the Internet to bring more self-service options to defendants, says Kleiman of Tyler Tech. In addition to basic citation payment, they are looking to add functionality such as image and document uploads, partial payment options and payment plan functionality. “Arlington Municipal Court, an Incode user, has implemented these features and today half of all transactions are happening online, dramatically reducing foot traffic in their courtroom. Courts are also turning to technology such as automated defendant notification to increase collection rates.” He continues, “Another Incode user, Grand Prairie Municipal Court, is collecting 32 percent of previously unpaid citations after employing a series of phone calls automatically generated by the Incode software.”
Courts across the nation are moving toward an increase in electronic filing capabilities, which essentially create a paperless courtroom, agrees Black of Thomson Reuters. “Court systems have to be more adaptable to changing workflows and processes, and need the ability to share information with external judicial partners as well as the public.” Transactions involving the court, such as fines and fee payments, are moving to online services, “and there is an increase in Pro Se litigants, and the courts are going to have to figure out better and more efficient ways to handle those cases.”
Rounding up the court CMS future view, CJS’s Humphreys says, “They’re looking beyond the standard features checklist for systems that actually help solve their challenges rather than simply automating them, and they’re looking for solutions that will still be strong another decade or two from now.”
In Practice: 4 Case Studies
#1 State of Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts: AMCAD Case Study
The Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was facing the challenges of disparate court case management technologies, rapidly growing caseloads, and lack of code table and business process standardization across multiple jurisdictions. Insufficient standardization made it difficult to aggregate accurate filing and disposition statistics and hindered data exchanges with external agencies. Moreover, in many instances, Arizona courts turned to various extraneous applications to mitigate shortcomings of their legacy system, leading to inefficiencies caused by redundant work and additional data entry. Arizona AOC installed the AMCAD integrated Case Management System (AiCMS) utilizing Microsoft .Net technology.
In order to maximize the acceptance and participation of the Superior Court management and staff a project of assimilation was led by Carla Tack, Arizona AOC project manager for the CMS. “The AOC, based on past experience of new software deployments, knew how critical it was for buy-in by the user courts,” says Renny Rapier, the Arizona AOC program manager. “Carla Tack detailed a plan for assimilation for the pilot courts that has been relevant to all of the courts implemented thus far…successfully implementing the AiCMS system into courts entrenched in the legacy application.”
#2 Wyoming State Courts: LT Court Tech/Thomson Reuters Case Study
Wyoming implemented a statewide unified court CMS through LT Court Tech, a business of Thomson Reuters. At the outset, six courts used one system, two used completely other systems, and the remaining 15 counties used a CMS provided by the Wyoming Supreme Court. The disparate systems and limited functionality created inconveniences across the entire court system.
Initially, just the Supreme Court contracted with LT Court Tech for its C-Track system, according to Ann Lavery, clerk of District Court, Uinta County, Wy., and senior business analyst for LT Court Tech. She says C-Track was implemented because it was configurable to the specific needs of the court, allowed unlimited integrations, and staff could be involved with the design process. As the implementation neared completion, the need for a unified system with e-filing functionality became obvious when the District Courts were unable to forward digital records for appealed cases.
Thus the District Court CMS contract was awarded to LT Court Tech, based on the success of the Supreme Court’s C-Track CMS implementation. “In Wyoming, there have been a multitude of benefits, many more than had been originally envisioned,” says Lavery. Most of the benefits fall into one of two categories she says: increased access to justice and increased efficiency for the court.
#3 College Park Municipal Court: Syscon Case Study
“When I came to College Park, they were doing 2,000 tickets a month with a manual system,” said Chief Judge Monica Ewing. “They had a skeletal staff. I immediately recognized that, to improve court efficiency, we had to switch to an electronic system.”
As Ewing evaluated various court systems, the number of tickets escalated, reaching 2,800 to 3,000 a month. She had seen Syscon in action in Union City, Ga., knew how it worked, and knew it would better meet the clerks’ needs. “Syscon had the system that was far better equipped to manage the volume—and College Park was doing close to double the number of tickets in Union City,” said Ewing.
“Syscon was extraordinary in this conversion, because it was complex and it was high volume and the clerks were fighting against it,” she notes. “They probably spent four to six weeks with us, which was extraordinary. Now, when we leave court, we’re done.”
#4 City of Suwanee Municipal Court: Syscon Case Study
When the City of Suwanee Municipal Court in Gwinnett County, considered expanding its document scanning service, the Court Services Administrator challenged the Georgia court to think larger and greener, resulting in a CMS solution that better serves the court, as well as helps preserve the environment. “The City had originally planned to include money in its budget for scanning more paper for the court. However, that would bring me another software; one that wouldn’t integrate with my court software,” said Mariza Abdeljawad, court services administrator.
Recognizing the benefits of using one solution to meet all its needs, the Municipal Court installed Syscon Court Clerk software. The court also purchased courtroom access stations, electronic signature pads, biometric fingerprint scanners, and document scanners from Syscon. Instead of carrying files into the court, the judge, clerks, and attorneys view the information on-screen, and the judge enters his findings directly into the system. “There’s no more post-ticket processing by my clerk,” said Chief Judge Mark Lewis. “Previously, after I processed a case, it still had to be entered into the computer. Now a case is completely processed immediately.” That speed is increasingly important since the court’s volume has grown. Today, without the system, the court would face the cost of printing and managing about 80,000 sheets of paper annually.
For more info on CMS providers: ImageSoft, Inc, www.imagesoftinc.com, 888.315.3901;
Thomas Reuters,www.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com, 877.923.7800;
Tyler Technologies, Inc., www.tyler-tech.com, 800.646.2633;
CourtView Justice Solutions, www.courtview.com, 800.406.4333;
Syscon, Inc., www.syscononline.com, 205.758.7000;
New Dawn Technologies, www.newdawn.com, 877.587.8927;
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter