donutsdocshare01.docshare.tips/files/24414/244140779.pdf · 2016-12-19 · franklin county justice...

Franklin County Justice System Business Process Analysis

The Justice Management Institute July 16, 2014

1400 N. 14th Street, 12th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 Phone: 703-414-5477 Fax: 703-842-8665 www.jmijustice.org


Executive Summary Franklin County is one of six growing counties in Pennsylvania, located on the south central border with Maryland. Franklin is a fourth class1 county with approximately 150,0002 residents, 7 boroughs, 15 townships and numerous villages. The Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Court, commissioned the Justice Management Institute in September 2013 to provide a business process analysis of justice system case processing. The justice system is geographically focused around the courthouse and courthouse annex at the center of Chambersburg, the county seat. Other key justice facilities include seven Magisterial District Courts, located in one-judge courthouses around the county, adult probation and the jail located north, and the Day Reporting Center, west of Chambersburg. Franklin County is seeking solutions to “streamline and improve processes and utilizing data to maximize efficiency, effectiveness and resources” associated with the “County’s judicial functions for criminal court [and family casetypes].” Franklin County goals to be addressed by the analysis will directly impact criminal justice stakeholders, including “departments, offices and operations inside and outside…the county organization:”

Goal 1: Streamline and improve automated systems and processes Goal 2: Identify and improve data for effective decision-making Goal 3: Streamline and improve manual systems and processes Goal 4: Improve efficiency and functionality to make a major, positive impact on service delivery

The justice system includes criminal, family, juvenile and civil matters. The Franklin County Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB), which is co-chaired by the Chairman of the County Commissioners and the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, is responsible for review and advice over criminal and juvenile delinquency matters. The CJAB includes membership from all criminal justice stakeholders. Policy governance over civil, family and juvenile dependency matters rests almost entirely with the President Judge and the judges of the Court of Common Pleas, with collaboration from the local Bar Association. The study primarily focuses on criminal, family and juvenile matters.

1 A fourth class county has a population of 145,000 to 209,999 residents. 2 2010 U.S. Census Bureau = 149,618 residents. 2013 estimate = 152,085, a 1.6% increase (.5% per year) since 2010.

The Justice Management Institute 2


Franklin County Innovation and Accomplishments The Franklin County justice system is strong. Key examples of creative innovation and accomplishments in the recent past include the following: Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB). The formation of the CJAB in 1999 was key to

establishing active collaboration among justice system stakeholders, the residual effects of which transcend criminal and juvenile delinquency matters. County leadership, the courts, and all justice agencies are skilled at communicating and working together.

Early Accountability Program (EAP). Central court was established more than ten years ago, but

since September 2013, the Court of Common Pleas has been scheduling plea hearings immediately after Central Court to expedite early disposition of cases where the District Attorney and defendants and the Public Defender or defense counsel negotiate a plea agreement. The program has raised challenges regarding early discovery and fact-finding, but these should be addressed following evaluation and review.

Alternatives to Incarceration. The County has established a number of effective diversion and

alternatives to incarceration programs, including the Day Reporting Center to assist with early reentry of incarcerated defendants, jail diversion, and intermediate punishment, among others.

Juvenile Justice. Franklin County is a Pennsylvania leader in juvenile justice, including participation as a study county in a 2009 Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) evaluation project. Innovative programs include juvenile accountability programs and the provision of high quality legal defense. See the PCCD report3 for Franklin County, which illustrates improvements in most performance measures over the last three years.

Criminal and Summary Clearance Rates. The justice system is generally keeping up with

criminal case filings. The clearance rate for the Court of Common Pleas in 2012 was 101%.4 The clearance rate for the Magisterial District Courts (MDC) in 2012 was 93%.5 While not as positive for the MDC, it is highly likely that results are due to data entry anomalies.6 See Table E1 and Chart E1 for a summary of the data across all casetypes.

3 http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx#.U6nKLrFBlFU 4 2012 Court of Common Pleas criminal casetypes: 2,552 dispositions/2,531 filings = 101%. Clearance rate is a standard measure of keeping up with filings. The goal is 100% clearance rate. Note that 2013 data are not yet available for the Court of Common Pleas. 5 2103 Magisterial District Courts criminal casetypes = 2,457 dispositions/2,641 filings = 93%. 6 All criminal cases are disposed or bound over from the Magisterial District Courts to the Court of Common Pleas in a very short time span. A 93% clearance rate is more indicative of data entry or recording delays on dispositions.


http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFU

http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx%23.U6nKLrFBlFU


Table E1 Franklin County Magisterial District Courts 2013 and Court of Common Pleas 2012 Filings, Dispositions, and Clearance Rates7

Magisterial District Courts 2013

Filings 2013

Dispositions Clearance

Rate

Criminal 2,641 2,457 93%

Summary Cases 22,974 22,312 97%

Private Criminal Complaints 707 639 90%

Traffic 17,928 17,799 99%

Non-Traffic 4,339 3,874 89%

Civil 1,336 1,231 92%

Landlord Tenant 1,036 999 96%

Total 27,987 26,999 96%

Court of Common Pleas 2012

Filings 2012

Dispositions Clearance

Rate

Criminal 2,531 2,552 101%

Civil 1,274 476 37%

Family 3,754 3,820 102%

Divorce 542 534 99%

Adoptions 49 48 98%

Relinquishments 58 55 95%

Appointment of Guardians 19 16 84%

Custody/Visitation 296 304 103%

Spousal and Child Support 3,218 3,303 103%

Protection from Abuse 114 94 82%

Juvenile Delinquency 321 316 98%

Juvenile Dependency 165 149 90%

Active Dependent 94 93 99%

Adjudicated Dependent 71 56 79%

Total 8,587 7,847 91%

7 Source: Caseload Statistics, Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. Note that 2013 data were not yet available for the Court of Common Pleas.



Chart E2 Franklin County Justice System 2013 (MDC) and 2012 (CCP) Clearance Rates8

8 Note that the de facto national and international standard for clearance rates = 100% is rooted in the principal that resolving fewer cases than are filed over a period of time (month or year) will begin to accumulate a backlog and adversely affect the ability for judges to devote sufficient time to adjudication. The greatest collateral impact is often case delay. Most justice systems effectively fluctuate between 97% and 103% clearance.

93% 97% 92% 96% 101%

37%

98% 90%

102%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

MDC

Crim

inal

MDC

Sum

mon

sCa

ses

MDC

Civ

il

MDC

Lan

dlor

dTe

nant

CCP

Crim

inal

CCP

Civi

l

CCP

Juve

nile

Delin

quen

cy

CCP

Juve

nile

Depe

nden

cy

CCP

Fam

ily

Goal = 100% Clearance Rate



Franklin County Challenges The justice system in Franklin County, while organizationally strong, is negatively impacted by systemic and structural bottlenecks and problems. Inefficient processes have evolved over many years. The benefits of more and better data to help decision-makers have not been fully realized. Examples of improving data for effective decision-making include recidivism studies of DRC participants.9 In large part, the challenges are deeply rooted in our governmental structure, which fragments power and is inefficient by design. Criminal casetypes Lack of effective system-wide data on criminal cases. Assessment of system dynamics on

individual cases and for each casetype from crime, arrest by law enforcement, to bail and probable cause hearings, to mandatory arraignment and adjudication, through supervision requires analysis of data from multiple systems. System-wide data will be much more accessible through the new Unified Case Management System (UCMS) 10 modules. The goal will be to build easy-to-use analytical tools to understand the linkages and outcomes.

Time to disposition due to continuances on criminal cases. For criminal cases in the Court of Common Pleas, 16% (116) of active pending cases on January 1, 2013 were older than 360 days. Pennsylvania’s time standard for jailed defendants is 180 days and for bail defendants is 360 days. Elapsed time is not counted for continuances requested by the defendant or waivers of prompt trial by the defendant (see Rule 600)

Representation at Central Court. The Early Accountability Program is a key innovation to criminal justice case processing events. System-wide improvements in providing arrest reports and other discovery by law enforcement earlier in the process will enable defendants and defense counsel to reasonably negotiate pleas with the prosecutor.

Inadequate pretrial screening and supervision alternatives. Currently, no pretrial risk screening

is utilized to help inform Magisterial District Judges about pretrial bail or detention decisions. District judges may also be more inclined to consider bail and/or release decisions that include supervision alternatives that increase the likelihood of compliance. Supervision alternatives include pretrial case management contact, court date reminders, drug testing, electronic monitoring (GPS supervision), day reporting, work release, and/or treatment referrals. While each of these alternatives involve cost, they are a fraction of the cost of pretrial detention.

Criminal, family, juvenile and civil casetypes

9 These types of studies, though, are not normative. They are not built into the data collection and reporting process for all types of outcomes. 10 Designed, built and owned by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP).



Fragmented technology. The report documents 19 different core mission applications

supporting numerous justice system operations in Franklin County. Other than the case management systems that support the Court of Common Pleas (CPCMS) and the Magisterial District Courts (MDJS), which are fully integrated, almost no other system shares data or is integrated. This problem is being addressed to a large degree through the implementation by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania of a new Unified Case Management System (UCMS) that will provide an integrated case management platform for Adult Probation, the District Attorney, and the Jail. A module of UCMS is also planned for the Public Defender in 2015/16. As important, UCMS is planned to provide disposition and calendar information from the two state-owned11 court systems, CPCMS and MDJS. Critical to the future success of the new UCMS system will be effective planning for adoption and use of the systems, staff training, and understanding how to leverage the systems to reduce paper-driven processes.

Overwhelming paper-driven processes. Almost all business transactions in the justice system continue to be paper-driven, in addition to requiring electronic data entry and record keeping. This is due in large part to historical reliance on hardcopy forms and ink signatures, especially for legal documents, filings, and court orders. Inefficiencies are exacerbated by the following shortfalls:

1. Little to no use of electronic document management for transactional purposes. Most electronic documents are primarily for archival purposes. The only core system in place with electronic document management is Infocon for civil and family case management, used primarily for archival purposes. In the Magisterial District Court, recent rules changes permit the use of electronic (imaged) documents for archiving until retention. The state case management systems, CPCMS and MDJS, do not include a document management module. The new UCMS includes document management, but it is not a robust document management system. No provisions have been made for integration with county-wide imaging or document management resources. Justice system stakeholders repeatedly cited the lack of electronic motions and orders and close to real time transactional use as key drivers of business process delay.

2. Repeated data entry into multiple systems. Because of the historical fragmentation of

technology, the same information is entered into different systems multiple times. The new UCMS will reduce the amount of repeated data entry, but only if effectively implemented. The best example of this problem is the following:

The complaint and affidavit of probable cause from law enforcement include most case initiation information about an arrest or summons, the defendant(s), charges and potential evidence. The same information is separately entered into the

11 Owned by the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC).



following systems: law enforcement field reporting and arrest reporting systems; jail management system; Magisterial District Judges System; prosecutor management; public defender case management; and adult probation case management.

3. No electronic filing is in place for criminal and family cases. Electronic filing has been

implemented for traffic citations from the Pennsylvania State Police, and by the Register of Wills and Recorder for deeds. Electronic filing is rooted in the principle that the information, forms, and documents needed to initiate a case and to provide a mechanism for the filing of motions and the notification of parties regarding court dates and orders starts with the litigants and attorneys who bring a dispute or charges to court. In criminal cases, it starts with law enforcement complaints and citations. Currently, only traffic citations are filed electronically by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP). All other opportunities to electronically initiate or manage cases in civil, criminal, family, and juvenile cases are missed. The AOPC is implementing e-filing for family cases through the Unified Judicial System (UJS). Because CPCMS is not a civil or family case management system, e-filing through the AOPC will be standalone. The vast majority of justice systems in the United States are considering and exploring ways of implementing e-filing through the Internet.

Civil Casetypes

Clearance rate. While not studied as part of the report, collateral effects from prioritized focus

in the justice system on criminal, family, and juvenile matters cannot be ignored. See Table E1 and Chart E2 above. Civil pending caseloads are rapidly increasing. Historically, times to disposition for civil cases have been very good. Pending cases are all within 30 months of time to disposition, but positive results will rapidly deteriorate with increases in the caseload. Community impacts will include increasing frustration by the business and commercial community, as well as individual litigants with dispute resolution and delay in the justice system.

Court of Common Pleas Jan 1, 2012

Pending 2012

Filings 2012

Dispositions Dec 31, 2012

Pending Clearance

Rate Pending Cases 25-30 Months

Civil 1,737 1,274 476 2,535 37% 134 10%



Business Process Recommendations The Justice Management Institute recommends a three-year implementation of the following major initiatives to address the challenges faced by the justice system in Franklin County. The three initiatives were the highest ranked of six initiatives, aggregated from issues and problems identified through interviews and feedback from justice system stakeholders.

1.0 County-Wide Communication and Decision-Making Develop county-wide process for involvement of stakeholders in decisions. Create mechanisms and processes to involve all key players in the decision-making process. First-year recommendations include: Create a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) and full-time staff person, who will

report to the County Commissioners and Judges. The CJCC will be chaired by a CJAB designee and will include one full or part-time staff person who will provide information to the CJAB chair and to the committee once per month. The CJCC will include staff from all criminal justice courts and agencies.

Create a cross-agency integrated data repository to include juvenile and adult case data from law enforcement, MDJS, CPCMS, Adult and Juvenile Probation and Jail system; in order to provide justice system decision-makers with information about outcomes related to pretrial diversion, pretrial release, program evaluation, early accountability, recidivism, and reduction in jail population.

Initiate a recidivism study that expands on prior studies to address diversion and other programs, beginning with results from Accelerated Rehabilitative Dispositions (ARDs) and the EAP program.

Begin a review of the Early Accountability Program (EAP). Initial analysis should focus on outcomes of the EAP as compared to Central Court prior to September 2013 and means and methods to improve discovery processes to better inform early plea negotiations.

2.0 Justice Reinvestment Initiate a justice reinvestment initiative as a primary focus of the Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB) and CJCC coordinator. Justice reinvestment will be focused on pretrial and post-adjudication alternatives to incarceration using evidence-based pretrial and sentencing outcomes. First-year and ongoing recommendations include the following: Expand probation supervision resources to include technologies such as electronic

monitoring and web-based check-in; and additional resources to increase pretrial and post-adjudication supervision programs.



Evaluate and implement pretrial risk screening tools to provide better information to Magisterial District Judges for bail and release alternatives. Recommendations include the use of risk screening instruments that do not require defendant interviews and that can be conducted by law enforcement or at the jail.

3.0 Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan Few systemic issues can be addressed without good cross-agency data that are timely, integrated, and provide clear direction at every stage of a case lifecycle. Each key component of the technology strategy will be on a different planning and development timeline or cycle. Year Two projects should be well into or completed the planning phase by the end of Year One. All of the technology recommendations should be included in the county-wide strategic plan, but first-year focus must be on active and planned IT projects to include: IT Strategic Plan Civil e-Filing Criminal e-Filing Data Integration (evaluation) UCMS Evaluation and Support Cross-Agency Technology Training Jury Management Software

High Priority Recommendations. As part of the initial three-year implementation and ongoing, JMI recommends that Franklin County also undertake high-priority recommendations identified by stakeholders from the three additional initiatives:

4.0 Comprehensive Jury Management Project Create a county/court committee to improve the jury management process. The committee and implementation recommendations should include an evaluation and streamlining of jury management staff and the requirements and specifications for new jury management software.

5.0 Civil Communication and Case Management – Self Represented Litigants Create a Civil Justice Committee to address issues that affect all civil and family related justice issues. Expand the use of plain English forms for self-represented litigants, both in hardcopy and online. In addition, JMI recommends that the county and courts expand self-represented litigant programs to include self-help websites and volunteers at the courthouse to assist with process issues.

6.0 Facilities and Security Study Initiate a facilities and security study to assess systemic problems, some of which overlap with technology recommendations. The impact of facilities and security on business processes and effectiveness is most pronounced at peak public hours in the morning and at Central Court. Both of these events highlight the inadequacy of security and queuing space, the conflicts from moving prisoners through secure staff and judge spaces, and accessibility for the disabled.



Franklin Justice System Implementation Plan JMI recommends the following county-wide business process implementation strategies. The recommendations are iterative. They are intended to be revised as the implementation planning phase evolves and is completed.

Implementation Strategy 1 – Goals and Outcomes Each initiative is written as an objective with an implied goal or outcome. JMI recommends that the county and all justice stakeholders craft a goal or expected outcome for each initiative. This process will be conducted in three steps: 1. Draft initiative goals and submit them to the project management steering committee. 2. The steering committee will review and edit. 3. A collaborative session of CJAB and family casetype stakeholders will help to discuss and refine

the initiatives. Consensus will be reached by majority vote.

Implementation Strategy 2 – Three Year Cycles Organize the initiatives and recommendations into three year cycles at the conclusion of the implementation planning process: Year One Current projects, capacity building and high priority recommendations with low risk Year Two Current and new targeted projects, combined with building structural foundations Year Three System-wide projects that are based on good data and improved technology and

that target specific outcomes.

Implementation Strategy 3 – Year One JMI strongly recommends that the county and justice stakeholders focus on initiatives and recommendations in Year One that are current projects, capacity building and high priority initiatives and recommendations.



Business Process Improvement Costs and Benefits The following estimates are preliminary. Detailed breakdowns may be found in Chapter 8 Costs and Benefits.

Costs COMMUNICATION AND JUSTICE REINVESTMENT In-House Low High

1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinator

Total Cost $0 $1,700 $2,000 Total Annual Costs $0 $81,000 $101,250

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository

Phases One and Two Subtotal $0 $60,000 $90,000 1.3 Recidivism Study

CJCC Coordinator work $0 1.4 Early Accountability

CJCC Coordinator work $0 1.5 Early Discovery

CJCC Coordinator work $0 2.1 Pretrial Risk Screening

Subtotal $0 $10,000 $15,000 2.2 Pretrial Eligibility Determination

CJCC Coordinator work $0 2.3 Pretrial Diversion

CJCC Coordinator work $0 2.4 DRC Alternatives to Commitment In-House

CJCC Coordinator work $0 2.5 Jail Population Reduction Strategies In-House

CJCC Coordinator work $0 2.6 Probation Supervision Resources In-House Low High

CJCC Coordinator analysis and cost estimates $0 $0 $0 Increase GPS monitoring (low-50%; high 100%) $0 $0 $0 Add pretrial staff (low-2; high-4) Subtotal Annual Costs $128,625 $257,125

IT STRATEGIC PLAN In-House Contracted Low Cost

Contracted High Cost

3.1 Justice Technology Strategic Plan $0 $60,000 $120,000 3.2 Civil e-Filing

Subtotal $0 $34,500 $218,500 Annual maintenance $0 $0 $10,000



3.3 Criminal e-Filing

Subtotal $0 $230,000 $310,500 Annual maintenance $0 $15,000 $30,000

3.4 Data Integration

Subtotal $0 $110,000 $130,000 3.5 Document Management

Subtotal $0 $45,000 $90,000 3.6 UCMS

Function analysis $0 $0 $0 Gap analysis $0 $0 $0

3.7 Cross-Agency Technology Training

Training documents $0 $1,000 $3,000 3.8 Jury Management Software

Subtotal $500 $62,000 $125,000 Annual maintenance $2,000 $2,000 $5,000

RECOMMENDATIONS In-House Low High

5.0 Civil Casetypes – Self-Represented Litigants

Hardcopy & online forms and assistance $0 $2,000 $5,000 Self-help website $0 $5,000 $8,000 Self-help center (1 staff + volunteers) Subtotal Annual Costs $0 $45,325 $60,425

6.0 Facilities Expansion and Renovation

Subtotal $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000 Annual maintenance (energy/environment) (TBD) (TBD)

6.1 Facilities Security

Study $0 $10,000 $15,000

COST SUMMARY In-House Low High

Total Investment Costs $1,500 $648,200 $1,164,000 Total Facility Costs $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000

Total Annual Costs $2,000 $271,950 $463,800 Total Annual Costs x 3 years $6,000 $815,850 $1,391,400 Total Annual Costs x 10 years $20,000 $2,719,500 $4,638,000



Benefits A Jail Reduction Strategies In-House Low High

Reduce time to disposition for 116 defendants NA $678,600 $1,017,900 Reduce pretrial population by 10% and 15% NA $581,263 $871,894 Subtotal Annual NA $1,259,863 $1,889,794

B Productivity Efficiency Strategies 3.2 Civil e-Filing 50% 100%

7,400 cases x 2 filings/case * 15 mins * $.06/min $6,660 $13,320

Reduction in hearings x 1 per case due to e-filing notifications $80,048 $160,096

Subtotal Annual $86,708 $173,416

3.3 Criminal e-Filing 50% 100% 19,146 cases x 2 filings/case * 15 mins * $.06/min $17,231 $34,463

Reduction in hearings x 1 per case due to e-filing notifications $80,048 $160,096

Reduction in continuances x 1 per case (CCP only) $27,379 $54,757 Subtotal Annual $124,658 $249,316 Annual Savings NA $1,471,229 $2,312,526 Three-Year Savings NA $4,413,686 $6,937,578 Ten-Year Savings NA $14,712,287 $23,125,261



Table of Contents Chapter 1 Felony & Misdemeanor Casetypes ............................................................................................ 17

Level I Criminal Case Overview ............................................................................................................... 17

Business Process Analysis ................................................................................................................... 17

Significant Event Narrative.................................................................................................................. 25

Arrest, complaint and summons ......................................................................................................... 26

Workflow Diagrams ................................................................................................................................ 41

Chapter 2 Summary Casetypes .................................................................................................................. 53

Level I Traffic Case Overview .................................................................................................................. 53



Chapter 3 Juvenile Delinquency ................................................................................................................. 62

Juvenile Delinquency Casetype Overview .............................................................................................. 62



Chapter 4 Juvenile Dependency and Family Casetypes ............................................................................. 77

4.1 Juvenile Dependency Cases ........................................................................................................ 77

4.2 Divorce ........................................................................................................................................ 79

4.3 Custody ....................................................................................................................................... 79

4.4 Domestic Relations & Child Support ........................................................................................... 81

4.5 Adoption – Orphan’s Court ......................................................................................................... 83

4.6 Protection from Abuse ................................................................................................................ 84


Chapter 5 Information Technology ............................................................................................................. 94

UCMS....................................................................................................................................................... 94

CPCMS, MDJS and Infocom ..................................................................................................................... 95

Main Integrations .................................................................................................................................... 96

Chapter 6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 108

Integration Touchpoints ....................................................................................................................... 117

Chapter 7 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................ 120

Implementation Strategy 1 – Goals and Outcomes .......................................................................... 120



Implementation Strategy 2 – Three Year Cycles ............................................................................... 120

Implementation Strategy 3 – Year One ............................................................................................ 120

Years One and Two Implementation – Communication and System-Wide Decision Making .............. 123

Years One and Two Implementation – Justice Reinvestment .............................................................. 125

Years One and Two Implementation – Information Technology Strategic Plan................................... 126

Years One and Two Implementation – High Priority Standalone Recommendations .......................... 131

Chapter 8 Costs and Benefits .................................................................................................................... 132

Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 139

Initiatives and Recommendations Survey Results ................................................................................ 139

Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 144

Teams and Participants ......................................................................................................................... 144

Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 147

Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission (CJCC) Coordinator Sample Job Description ..................... 147



Chapter 1 Felony & Misdemeanor Casetypes The foundation for an integrated business process analysis of criminal casetypes in Franklin County is to map and assess what happens to a case from arrest and the filing of a complaint through to disposition and post-adjudication for defendants that are found guilty of a crime and sanctioned by a judge. A case is defined by Pennsylvania rules and by national convention as a single defendant, for a single or multiple incidents and crimes, with one or more charges brought against them. The litigants on a criminal case are the defendant and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by the District Attorney (the prosecutor). A defendant may be represented by an attorney from the Public Defender or by private counsel; or they may be self-represented. The courts and adjudication are at the center of criminal case processing. Once brought by complaint, only the court can resolve or dispose of a case, although the prosecutor may choose to withdraw charges, a form of disposition. The Magisterial District courts may dismiss a criminal case, but only the Court of Common Pleas may adjudicate a criminal case, after charges have filed by the District Attorney as Information at the Court.12 Other stakeholders in criminal case processing include law enforcement, the Sheriff, adult probation, the jail and the day reporting center. Adjudication decisions made by judges on pleas are strongly informed by plea negotiations between the prosecutor and defense or defense counsel. Adult probation also provides recommendations to judges in the form of draft orders for many cases, especially probation and parole violations that may or may not involve new charges.

Level I Criminal Case Overview Key significant and secondary events define the criminal process for every case. The significant events at the core of the process are on the critical path, defined by Pennsylvania (PA) rules of procedure as sequential. Please see Table 2.1 on the following page for an illustration of the full process under the PA Code of Criminal Procedure.

Business Process Analysis A large majority of criminal cases13 in Franklin County originate from summons and arrests made by Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and local (borough/township) law enforcement. Criminal cases may also be initiated by private complaint. If an arrest occurs outside of business hours and the individual is taken

12 For the purposes of the report, felony and misdemeanor casetypes are defined as criminal cases. 13 A criminal case generally refers to misdemeanor and felony casetypes that can only be adjudicated at the Court of Common Pleas.



Table 2.1 Felony and Misdemeanor Casetypes – PA Criminal Code Rules Analysis

District AttorneyMagisterial District CourtJailPolice Court of Common Pleas

CrimeReport

Pa.R.Crim.P. 430 – Issuance of

Warrant

Pa.R.Crim.P. 440 – Arrest Without

Warrant

Pa.R.Crim.P. 441 – Procedure

Following Arrest Without Warrant

Pa.R.Crim.P. 517 – Procedure in Court

Cases Where Warrant of Arrest

is Executed

39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-210 – Arrest

Warrants

Pa.R.Crim.P. 520 – Bail may be set at any time before

verdict

Pa.R.Crim.P. 521 – Bail may be set after verdict and

before sentencing

Pa.R.Crim.P. 541 - Defendant may waive preliminary hearing

Pa.R.Crim.P. 565 – Court may allow case without preliminary hearing in exceptional cases

39th Jud. Dist. R. Crim. P. 39-300(A)(B) – Preliminary call two weeks prior to each criminal term

39th Jud. Dist. R. Crim. P. 39-311 – Pretrial conferences to determine if cases are likely to go to trial

Pa.R.Crim.P. 577 – Procedures regarding motion practice

Pa.R.Crim.P. 579 – Omnibus motions to be filed/served within 30 days after arraignment

Pa.R.Crim.P.540 Preliminary arraignments

Pa.R.Crim.P. 571 – Arraignment

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 – Pre-trial discovery

Pa.R.Crim.P. 310 – Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition

Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 – Pleas and plea agreements

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A) – Trial must begin within 365 days after complaint is filed

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(B) – Defendant must be released after 180 days pre-trial incarceration

If released, charging in 5 days

Custody 14 days or lessOut of custody21 days or less

1Arrest

2Booked at

Jail

3Preliminary

Arraignment

6DA Review

7Information

Filed

4Preliminary

Hearing

5Plea?

8Arraignment

10Discovery

11Pretrial

Conference(s)

12Trial

9Call of the

List

13Verdict

14Sentence

15Appeals/post-

conviction relief

6AGrand Jury

1ASummons

7AIndictment

Filed

Trial within 365 days of filing of complaint

Arraignment 10 days after

information filed

4,814 arrests

1,863 pretrial

bookings

2012100%

2,674 criminal cases filed

3,453 complaints filed (incl private

complaints)56% of arrests

90% remain

Dispositions159 guilty pleas (5%)173 withdrawals (6%)

22 dismissals (1%)

3,442 scheduled2,086 waivers (60%)

766 continuances (22%)223 Held for court (6%)

Other (4%)

19% remain

Dispositions17% disposed

1,374 scheduled*47% continue

15% pretrial conf.4% FTA

4% remain

Dispositions15% disposed

301 scheduled*58% continue

27% trial3% FTA

0% remain

Dispositions3% verdict/trial

1% plea

90 scheduled*13% continue

90% remain

2,405 filed

36% remain

Dispositions36% disposed (GP, DM)

18% ARD

2,762 scheduled*14% cont, no action30% call of the list

4% FTA

*The percentage of cases that remain at the end of each event is the ratio of the number (2,674) of cases filed. Scheduled cases always exceed the number of cases filed, due to continuances and re-scheduling of the same cases.



County Jail, the Jail (1.0) will hold the person in custody until the person may post bail bond or the case is disposed. Once a criminal case is initiated, it proceeds to the Magisterial District Courts (3.0) where it may be disposed or continue to the Court of Common Pleas (5.0). When a case proceeds from the Magisterial District Court to the Court of Common Pleas, the case is processed by the District Attorney (4.0) and a Public Defender (2.0) may be selected or ordered by the court. Cases may be disposed if the Court (3.0, 5.0) dismisses the case, the Commonwealth withdraws the case (4.0), or the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial in Court (3.0, 5.0). Cases that have reached disposition may receive a sentence from the Court (3.0, 5.0) that can include assignment to Jail (1.0), Probation (6.0), Day Reporting (8.0), or State Prison. Normative standards for analysis of case processing include assessment of filings and dispositions for a fixed period of time.14 Table 2.2 illustrates a summary of criminal cases filed and disposed in Franklin County.

Table 2.2 Criminal case filings, dispositions and clearance rate in Franklin County15

Year Criminal (MDJ)* Criminal (CCP)**

Filings Dispositions Clearance Rate

Filings + Reopened Dispositions Clearance

Rate

2013 2,641 2,457 93% NA NA NA

2012 2,674 2,545 95% 2,531 2,552 101%

2011 2,644 2,464 93% 2,421 2,370 98%

2010 2,775 2,827 102% 2,434 2,306 95%

2009 2,877 2,777 97% 2,307 2,331 101%

Source is www.pacourts.us *MDJ = Magisterial District Judges **CCP = Court of Common Pleas

The Pennsylvania (PA) courts evaluate key performance measures for case processing, including clearance rate (see Table 2.2 above) and age of active pending caseload. Age of active pending cases measures in Franklin County illustrate that, at the end of 2012, 116 (15.8%) active Common Pleas

14 While selected data are available for 2013, for the wide range of integrated data needed for the report, only 2012 data were sufficiently complete to enable analysis. 15 The international and PA standard for clearance rate is 100%, with typical ranges from 97% to 103%. It is a measure of keeping up with the caseload and is calculated by dividing dispositions/filings (+reopened). Courts carry inventory all the time, and the active pending inventory carried over from year to year is what increases or decreases depending on the clearance rate.


http://www.pacourts.us/


criminal cases, and 107 (24.6%) of active Magisterial District Court criminal cases are over the PA standard for detention cases of 360 days.16 Performance measures were enacted in PA in response to historic, nationwide problems with delay and public perceptions of access and fairness. In criminal cases, especially, constitutional rights to a speedy trial resulted in statutory provisions for elapsed time to reach key events and ultimately trial and disposition on every case. In addition to the right to have an accusation brought by the Commonwealth against a citizen resolved in a fixed period of time, a significant number of defendants are held in custody awaiting trial. Pretrial detentions are primarily the result of a determination by the court that the defendant may pose a risk to the community, may commit another crime, or may not appear for a hearing or trial. Other factors may include the inability to post a bond or money bail that has been ordered by a judge to ensure appearance at the next court event; or occasionally to evaluate mental health.17 Case processing delay has other pervasive impacts on the criminal justice system that include the use of resources to adjudicate, prosecute and defend cases, transport and incarcerate custody defendants from jail, and provide various types of pretrial supervision. Given the axiom that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, the justice system must be constantly tuned only to use the time necessary to reach a fair outcome or verdict. Case Fallout by Disposition Table 2.3 below illustrates the 2012 dispositions and fallout by significant event as defined in the rules map above and the PA rules of procedure. The dynamics of what type of disposition and how and why they occur is the very core definition of caseflow management and is impacted by the local legal culture, all the justice system stakeholders, as well as the defendant and defense counsel. Case processing events and measures that work and are highly successful A number of key significant events in Franklin County criminal case processing are highly successful by both state and national standards. These include the following:

Call of the List and Trial Calendar The Franklin County courts are following best practices with highly commendable results in the approach to narrowing the cases ready for trial and ensuring that only those cases with a high likelihood of going to trial will encumber the trial calendar. This is reflected in both the 1% plea and 13% continuance rate at trial; both of which indicate a commitment to trial date certainty, in

16 Source is http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425ec. 1717 In general, lengthy delays in a limited jurisdiction court, not responsible ultimately for the final disposition of cases, are a result of data entry anomalies, including not adequately closing out a case. It is recommended that the courts conduct a backlog analysis of aged active pending criminal cases to determine if these cases are indeed active.


http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425ec


addition to an almost 1.5 to 1 ratio of trials scheduled and trials held.18 The most important use of judicial attention is at trial, and the key to timely resolution is certainty on the part of the litigants and attorneys that the trial will take place. In addition, this helps ensure efficient use of jurors.

Table 2.3 Case Fallout by Disposition

Sources include http://www.pacourts.us, MDJS, CPCM, jail management system, and CCAP data i. Note that dispositions at trial include 3% by trial and verdict and 1% by plea (see Table 2.1). ii. Note that dispositions, including withdrawals of prosecution by the District Attorney and dismissals

by a judge, may occur at preliminary arraignment, but no data is available.

In the focused attempt to ensure trial certainty, though, the court is granting a high ratio of continuances. This is resulting in procedural delays that consume justice system resources. Promoting earlier settlements, especially for cases that inevitably reach a plea negotiation is better justice.

18 Precise data on scheduled and held trials are not available, but are inferred by the continuance rates. It is not clear how many cases are disposed by plea in the few weeks and days leading up to trial, although the continuance rate (58%) at pretrial conferences infers that a significant number of pleas are being taken at hearings between the pretrial conference and the trial.

100%

0% 10%

54%

17% 15% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Com

plai

nts F

iled

Prel

imin

ary

Arra

ignm

ent

Prel

imin

ary

Hear

ing

Arra

ignm

ent/

Plea

Call

of th

e Li

st

Pret

rial

Conf

eren

ce/P

leas

Tria

l

Dispositions by Event




Central Court and Early Accountability The MDJs have been scheduling preliminary hearings at a central location at the main courthouse in Franklin County for approximately ten years. This measure is consistent with many PA counties and helps increase efficiency, in part because of the rule that the affiant may be called to testify in the hearing. Affiants are often law enforcement officers and the demands for coordination of appearances have been highly simplified. Since September 2013, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas has been assigning a trial judge to a plea hearing calendar immediately following preliminary hearings in central court. Defendants who wish to make a guilty plea and waive their preliminary hearing are able directly to appear in front of a Common Pleas judge for disposition. In effect, this is accelerating the arraignment in the Court of Common Pleas, which historically has had the highest number of dispositions by plea of any other event. The acceleration of a plea hearing is worth from two to four weeks in case disposition time.

Case processing events and measures that have challenges or may need improvement A number of key significant events in Franklin County criminal case processing have challenges by both state and national standards and may need attention. These include the following:

Pretrial Jail Population Over 70% of the county jail population is being held for trial or awaiting an order or adjudication by a judge for new charges following probation or parole violations. This exceeds the national average of 61%, but more importantly, the causes and effects of pretrial jail population increases are directly related to case processing and factors impacted by all justice system stakeholders. The national average is not a standard, but it is a normative benchmark to help assess why Franklin County’s pretrial jail population is higher. 1. The most important factor impacting pretrial jail population is the length of time that a custody

defendant is being held awaiting trial, primarily for defendants who have the greatest likelihood of going to trial and not pleading. Judicial decisions to hold a defendant pending trial are not to be questioned. Certainty and better data about outcomes and likelihood to appear or commit another crime are critical to enabling a judge to choose other supervision approaches or to release a defendant on their own recognizance. Jail data are not currently sufficient to identify the defendants that are being held pre or post-trial, although a recent Jail Population Study cross-matched this data [1.2C]19. CPCMS data identify defendants that are in custody and those that are not, but these data are not aggregated for reporting purposes.

2. The second most important factor impacting pretrial jail population is related to money bail and the time it takes a defendant to post bail. In some cases, especially with high bail, the defendant is never released, even if the high bail is an indication that the judge has determined that the defendant does not pose a risk to the community. Jail and CPCMS data do not currently

19 1.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial



identify the number of pretrial defendants that are being held pending posting money bail [1.2C] 20.

Hearings and Continuances The number of continuances at key hearings contributes to case delay and also impacts the pretrial jail population. While no national standards exist for the number of continuances at any significant event, any event with the number of cases that might get a continuance approaching half of those scheduled reduces the pressure on defendants and attorneys to prepare for those events. The actual cumulative amount of time that a prosecuting attorney spends on all felony casetypes, according to national averages, is 7.1-10.1 hours.21 The urgent cases crowd out the important cases.

Table 2.4 Number of 2012 continuances as a percentage of cases scheduled at each event Magisterial District Courts and Court of Common Pleas criminal cases

Continuances place a burden on the court, justice system stakeholders and the defense, in large part by increasing the average number of hearings per disposition. In Franklin County, not including motions and sentencing hearings, one disposition requires on average approximately four

20 1.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial 21 How Many Cases Should a Prosecutor Handle, Results of the National Workload Assessment Project, 2002, American Prosecutors Research Institute, with a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

0%

22%

14%

47%

58%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Prel

imin

ary

Arra

ignm

ent

Prel

imin

ary

Hear

ing

Arra

ignm

ent/

Plea

Call

of th

e Li

st

Pret

rial

Conf

eren

ce/P

leas

Tria

l



hearings. 22 See Table 2.5 below. National data on the number of hearings needed for misdemeanor and felony cases are quite diverse, but high performing justice systems confront this issue and work hard to mitigate events that are scheduled but do not take place. The cases that reach close to trial before pleading have the greatest impact on both the number of hearings, judicial time and other stakeholders. Many continuances (see Table 2.9 below) are requested by the defendant or defense counsel. This may be the result of inadequate resources or for other reasons. The causes and remedies of continuances should be studied and improved.

Table 2.5 2012 Dispositions and Hearings

Significant Event Percent Dispositions Hearings

Preliminary Arraignment 0% 0 1,863

Preliminary Hearing 10% 269 3,442

Arraignment/Plea 54% 1,444 2,762

Call of the List 17% 455 1,374

Pretrial Conference/Pleas 15% 401 635

Trial 4% 105 105

Total 2,674 10,181

22 10,181 hearings/2,674 dispositions in 2012 = AVG 3.8 hearings per disposition, not including motions or omnibus hearings.



Graph 2.6 2012 Dispositions and Hearings

Significant Event Narrative The following narrative is indexed to the business process analysis diagrams at the conclusion of the chapter. Recommendations relevant to the three primary initiatives and high priority recommendations are footnotes to the text, with blue-highlighted recommendations representing those that were selected for the first year of implementation. A summary is provided at the end of the chapter and aggregated into separate implementation plans for each of the three initiatives:

A. Communications and System-Wide Decision Making B. Justice Reinvestment E. Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan

0 269

1,444 455 401 105

2,674 1,863

3,442 2,762

1,374 635 105

10,181

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Prel

imin

ary

Arra

ignm

ent

Prel

imin

ary

Hear

ing

Arra

ignm

ent/

Plea

Call

of th

e Li

st

Pret

rial C

onfe

renc

e/Pl

eas

Tria

l

Tota

l

2012 Dispositions and Hearings

Dispositions

Hearings



Criminal Case Initiation

Arrest, complaint and summons 39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-130 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 440, 441, 502, 503, 509, 510, 515, 516, 517, 519 Law enforcement, private complainants, District Attorney, jail, Adult Probation (for cases under probation supervision) Criminal proceedings in court cases are initiated with the filing of a written complaint (and the subsequent issuance of a summons or warrant for arrest) or by warrantless arrest (and the subsequent filing of a complaint) [3.2A].23 In cases where an arrest is made and the defendant is in custody, the defendant will have a preliminary arraignment by a Magisterial District Judge, typically within 24 hours. If the defendant is not arrested, a complaint must be filed in the Magisterial District Court within 5 days. Summons casetypes include second degree misdemeanors and first degree misdemeanors ‘in cases arising under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802 (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance), except as set forth in paragraph (2)” of Rule 509. Table 2.1 illustrates the number of misdemeanor and felony arrests and summons made in Franklin County during 2012 by law enforcement and by private criminal complaint; and the number that were filed as court cases. The difference (2,140) represents a decision not to file charges, a consolidation of charges, or a determination that a person was not responsible for a crime following an arrest.

Table 2.7 Arrests, Booking and Cases

Franklin County 2012

Criminal Arrests* 4,814 Jail Bookings** 1,863 Criminal Complaints*** 3,453 MDJ Cases Filed 2,674 * PA crime data ** jail management system *** includes private criminal complaints

Following arrest, a defendant is taken to central booking at the Franklin County Jail. Key responsibilities of the jail include booking, inmate supervision and release [1.2C].24

23 Recommendation 3.2A - Efiling from law enforcement 24 Recommendation 1.2C - Track jail population by pre/post trial



Jail – Central Booking Central Booking is responsible for the processing of pre-adjudication arrestees [2.3B],25 and post-adjudication commitments. After arrest, the transporting or arresting officer delivers the arrestees to the central booking area. Upon receipt of an arrestee, the central booking officer enters information into the jail management system [3.3A, 3.4A, 3.4D],26 conducts an inventory of their property, completes a suicide risk assessment questionnaire, conducts LiveScan processing to capture photos and fingerprints, performs a Commonwealth Photo Imaging Network (CPIN) and NCIC criminal history check and completes risk assessment, family and social information intake questionnaires [2.2A, 2.3A, 2.4A, 2.7A].27 Jail – Booking The booking process is for those arrestees who are committed to the jail. Booking staff enter information in the Inmate Population Tracking Sheet. Inmates are showered and changed to jail uniforms. Following the initial intake information, medical staff conduct intake assessments. Booking staff assign the inmate a security classification and then assign a housing unit. Public Defender – Intake and Defendant Qualification Detained defendants are presumed qualified for a public defender, as long as they remain in pretrial detention and do not post bail/bond. Since defendants are not able to work and earn income while detained, the Public Defender Office will assume responsibility immediately. However, for those who receive a summons or are released or post bail/bond (even if previously appointed counsel while in pretrial detention), they must affirmatively make an appointment for intake at the Public Defender Office. This process typically happens after the arrest, booking in jail, and the preliminary arraignment at the Magisterial District Court [3.3B].28

25 Recommendation 2.3B – Consider bail recommendations as a result of risk screening 26 Recommendation 3.3A – Data Integration: Jail Recommendation 3.4A – Document Management: Complaint, warrants and affidavits Recommendation 3.4D – Document Management: Embed DMS into UCMS 27 Recommendation 2.2A – Risk Assessment: PSA-Court Risk Assessment Instrument

Recommendation 2.3A; 2.7A – Expand probation resources to conduct screening Recommendation 2.4A – Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

28 Recommendation 3.3B – Primary complaint document integration with Public Defender



The Public Defender office regularly reviews a list of new pretrial commitments to jail who have preliminary hearings the following week, so that they can be assigned counsel immediately and counsel can arrange visits. For those who are not detained, qualified defendants may meet with counsel that day or set up an appointment soon after intake [3.2C].29 The intake process involves determining whether the defendant is indigent and conducting a check for possible conflicts. Indigency is based on percent of the federal poverty guidelines, as reviewed by an intake coordinator at the Public Defender Office using custom software built for this purpose. Conflicts are checked by the intake coordinator prior to the intake appointment based on the named individuals on the complaint and police report, as available. Once a public defender is assigned, adjudication of the defendant proceeds through the normal court caseflow through to disposition and sentencing, if convicted. Public defenders, upon request by the defendant, may continue representation post-sentencing in cases of appeals. Public defenders may also represent offenders during probation revocation hearings. In court cases in which a magisterial district judge exercises jurisdiction, a defendant may plead guilty any time up to the completion of the preliminary hearing. The defendant’s court case may be transferred to another judicial district or charges may be withdrawn. Before information is filed, the District Attorney may withdraw one or more of the charges.

Preliminary Arraignment 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 130, 131, 516, 517, 519, 540, 541 Magisterial District Court, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel Arrest In cases where an arrest is made and the defendant is in custody, the defendant will have a preliminary arraignment by a judge at one of seven Magisterial District Courts, typically within 24 hours. Warrants on new charges face the same time limits. At preliminary arraignment, the court provides the defendant with a copy of the complaint, and any warrant(s) and supporting affidavit(s) [3.4D].30 The judge is required to provide the defendant with a copy of the warrant and affidavits, or to determine probable cause if the defendant was arrested without a warrant. If probable cause is not established, the defendant cannot be detained. The judge is not permitted to question the defendant about the complaint. The Court sets the date and time for a preliminary hearing. Defendants represented by counsel may waive the preliminary hearing following preliminary arraignment. During weekday working hours, law enforcement officers generally bring the defendant to the district court with jurisdiction.

29 Recommendation 3.2C - Efiling from Public Defender 30 Recommendation 3.4D – Document Management: Embed DMS into MDJS



After-hours and on weekends, the preliminary arraignment is conducted by video conferencing from the jail to the district court. At preliminary arraignment, if the defendant is detained and the offense is eligible for bail, the district judge will determine release on bond and any pretrial supervision conditions [2.3B, 2.4A].31 If the defendant is released on bail bond, the monetary and nonmonetary conditions of bail are determined by the District Court. A defendant may remain in custody without bail or until conditions can be met. If a defendant fails to comply with of the conditions of the bail bond or conditions of release, the defendant’s bail may be modified or revoked by the Court. If a judge sets bail at the arraignment and the defendant posts bail or is released on their own recognizance, the booking officer at the jail retrieves and returns property items to the arrestee. In the event that the Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) orders an arrestee to be committed or the arrestee cannot post bail, the booking staff processes a formal commitment of the arrestee. Summons If the defendant is not arrested, they are given a summons by a law enforcement officer and a complaint must be filed in the Magisterial District Court within 5 days. The summons instructs the defendant to appear at a preliminary hearing and includes a copy of the complaint and an order to submit to fingerprinting. The summons provides notice to the defendant to secure counsel and of the consequences of failure to appear. If the defendant is in custody, a preliminary hearing will be scheduled within 14 days. If the defendant is not in custody, the preliminary hearing is set within 21 days. The summons will be sent to the defendant via first class and registered mail. If mail is returned, the District Court will make additional attempts to deliver the summons before issuing an arrest warrant. If the defendant fails to answer the complaint or fails to appear at preliminary arraignment a bench warrant is issued by the Court. The warrant is served by law enforcement and local constables. When a defendant has been arrested with a warrant in a court case, a preliminary arraignment is scheduled by the Court in the warrant’s local jurisdiction. Office of the District Attorney Following the preliminary arraignment, an attorney for the Commonwealth may determine whether sufficient evidence exists to justify formal charging of defendants. At this stage, defendants may—at the discretion of the prosecutor—be offered an early disposition plea offer [1.4A]. 32 Adult Probation Pretrial Supervision

31 Recommendation 2.3B – Consider early screening, bail recommendations by Probation Recommendation 2.4A – Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives 32 Recommendation 1.4A - Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD/EAP



At preliminary arraignment, the court will make release or custody determinations for arrested and held defendants. District judges have a number of options before them based on type and amount of bail and unconditional or conditional release which may include pretrial supervision. Often, judges will offer defendants the option to accept a reduced bail on the condition that they submit to and comply with pretrial supervision. Even if judges do not release defendants, Adult Probation staff may review cases [2.2A, 2.4B]33 in the jail after the preliminary arraignment and file recommended orders to the Magisterial District Court. These are filed with some regularity and are considered in cases when Adult Probation has determined that the defendant would not pose a flight risk or public safety hazard if placed under their supervision. Generally, judges respond favorably to probation recommendations. Once defendants enter pretrial supervision, Adult Probation staff use screening and assessment tools to help classify the level of supervision and to identify any mandated services. Adult probation uses the LSI-R SV as an initial screening instrument and the full LSI-R assessment only in cases of moderate to high risk defendants. Risk measured by these tools refers to risk to commit a new crime. Probation officers build individualized case plans for each defendant, which are used by a probation officer to monitor defendants and evaluate compliance and progress. If conditions of supervision are violated, Adult Probation staff will generally handle those matters internally first, making adjustments to the intensity of supervision and treatment. In more extreme cases, such as due to persistent violations and always for new crimes, cases will be referred back to the court of jurisdiction, which may be the Magisterial District Court or the Court of Common Pleas. Pretrial supervision defendants are discharged after the disposition of their cases, and, if convicted and sentenced to probation, transferred to post-conviction supervision. Table2.8 Criminal cases filed in Franklin County Magisterial District Courts*

Year

New

case filed

Cases disposed

Bound to court

Waiver of

Prelim.

Hearing

Guilty Plea

Dismissal

Prosecution w

ithdrawn

Summ

ary docket

Other

Cases Pending

Inactive

2012 2,674 2,545 259 2,089 2 22 173 * 0 435 322 2011 2,644 2,464 218 1,997 2 63 176 4 4 469 325 2010 2,775 2,827 227 2,112 12 55 220 164 37 577 560 2009 2,877 2,777 203 1,998 14 55 273 189 45 601 300

*Source: www.pacourts.us

33 Recommendation 2.2A – Risk Assessment: PSA-Court Risk Assessment Instrument Recommendation 2.4B – Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives




Preliminary Hearing 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 541, 542, 543, 546, 565 Magisterial District Court, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation (for new charges while under probation supervision) The preliminary hearing in Franklin County is referred to as Central Court and is held at the Court of Common Pleas in the county seat. The primary purpose of the preliminary hearing is for a judge to determine if the Commonwealth (prosecution) has established a prima facie case against the defendant. The judge may imprison a defendant (hold for court) or release a defendant on bail. The defendant must be present at the preliminary hearing, unless they have waived their appearance. The defendant or their counsel are permitted to cross-examine witnesses and inspect physical evidence offered against them; submit evidence; testify; call witnesses; or make written or electronic records of the proceedings. An attorney for the prosecution may appear and may recommend that the defendant be discharged (dismissal) or bound over to court. At Central Court, one assigned Magisterial District Judge will conduct the preliminary hearings for cases originating from all Districts in the County. Magisterial District judges follow a rotating assignment to Central Court. Typically, the Central Court calendar is scheduled for 9 AM every Tuesday and requires the use of the jury assembly room and separate space for witnesses, victims, defendants, and law enforcement. Defendants who are in custody may be transported to Central Court for their hearing. In September 2013, an early accountability program was initiated to expedite mandatory arraignment for defendants that agree to make a plea. If a defendant chooses to plea during discussions with their attorney or directly with the prosecuting attorney prior to the preliminary hearing, the Magisterial District judge signs a waiver of the preliminary hearing and the case is immediately bound over to the Court of Common Pleas for arraignment and a plea hearing [1.4A, 1.4B, 1.4E].34 In order to accommodate early accountability, an additional courtroom is reserved for Tuesday mornings and a CCP judge is assigned to take pleas. If the defendant waives the preliminary hearing and the case is bound over to the Court of Common Pleas, court staff electronically transfer the case from the Magisterial District Judge system (MDJS) into the Court of Common Pleas case management system (CPCMS).35 The defendant is then instructed to attend a plea hearing in the Court of Common Pleas, in lieu of setting the case for a mandatory arraignment. On days when Central Court is conducted, the Franklin County courthouse annex is bustling with activity. Defendants arrive early and line up outside the annex entrance. Once defendants have cleared security, court staff circulate separate sign-in sheets for defendants, victims and witnesses. If defendants have

34 Recommendation 1.4A – Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD Recommendation 1.4B – Order/provide status attorney (PD) at Central Court, per criminal rule 35 Recommendation 1.4E – Additional Central Court computer



not been fingerprinted, Court Staff instruct them to be fingerprinted on the first floor of the old courthouse. Attorneys may confer with their clients and discuss the case with the Commonwealth, usually in the back of the Jury Assembly Room. Bench warrants 39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-150 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 150, 516, 517, 559 A bench warrant may be issued by a judge instructing law enforcement to detain the defendant and arrange for a bench warrant hearing. If the defendant has been arrested outside of the County a bench warrant hearing is arranged once the defendant is in local jail custody. Bench warrant hearings may be conducted via advanced communication technology. Once a bench warrant hearing has been conducted, the warrant expires and the case continues. A defendant may remain in custody following the bench warrant hearing.

Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 300, 302, 310-20, 550, 551, 561 District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation, Court of Common Pleas Following the initiation of criminal proceedings in a court case, but prior to filing an information, the District Attorney may move that the defendant’s case be considered for Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) [1.4A]. 36 A hearing is conducted, in lieu of a plea hearing, to determine acceptance of the defendant into the ARD program. Following the defendant’s successful completion of the ARD program the defendant may move for an order dismissing the charges in the case. If a judge determines the defendant has committed a violation of the ARD program, the judge may order that the program be terminated and the case shall proceed on original criminal charges. During 2012, 429 cases, or approximately 17% of cases were disposed by accelerated rehabilitative disposition. Most ARD dispositions were made following waiver of the preliminary hearing, on the same day as Central Court. It is anticipated that the results for 2013 will be substantially higher due to the early accountability program.

36 Recommendation 1.4A - Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD/EAP



Table 2.9 Early Accountability Dispositions – Sep 2013 to April 201437

Disposition/Outcome Sep-Dec 2013

Jan-Apr 2014 Total %

Guilty Plea 68 65 133 6.06% Held for court after a hearing was held in absentia 51 42 93 4.23%

Held for court after a preliminary hearing was held 38 24 62 2.82%

Waiver to mandatory arraignment 204 240 444 20.22% Plea at Court of Common Pleas 38 432 362 794 36.16% Continuance due to defendant39 160 151 311 14.16% Continuance due to Attorney 50 51 101 4.60% Continuance due to Commonwealth (DA) 41 25 66 3.01% Continued due to weather 0 40 40 1.82% Continued by judge 2 4 6 0.27% Continued after a request from the affiant 1 1 2 0.09% Withdrawal 47 30 77 3.51% Dismissal 8 7 15 0.68% Failure to appear with bench warrant/continuance 7 7 14 0.64%

Incarcerated on other charges 0 7 7 0.32% Bond 0 5 5 0.23% Stayed 0 2 2 0.09% Case sent back to MDJ 3 3 6 0.27% Paid in Full 2 2 4 0.18% Moved to a non-traffic offense 0 2 2 0.09% Charge changed 1 4 5 0.23% Settled (in office) 3 1 4 0.18% Remanded back to Central Court 1 0 1 0.05% Other (error/admin closure) 2 0 2 0.09% Totals 1,121 1,075 2,196 100%

37 Data provided by Court Administration 38 Recommendation 1.4D – Reduce affiants appearances by 60-80% 39 Recommendation 1.4C – Reduce continuances.



Information 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 560, 561, 562, 565, 570, 572 District Attorney, Court of Common Pleas Following the preliminary hearing the District Attorney prepares what is called “an information” and files it with the Court of Common Pleas. The information identifies the defendant(s) and the alleged offense(s). In certain circumstances, information may be presented without a preliminary hearing. After information has been filed, the court may order parties in the case to appear in court. Pennsylvania law allows the District Attorney to use an investigatory grand jury in place of the preliminary hearing, but all Pennsylvania county courts have abolished the use of a grand jury to return an indictment. Currently, grand juries are not used in Franklin County. The District Attorney has expressed a desire to begin the use of grand juries at an unspecified time in the future.

Mandatory Arraignment 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 571 Court of Common Pleas, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation (for new charges while under probation supervision) Once a case has been filed in CPCMS [3.4D],40 a mandatory arraignment is scheduled in the Court of Common Pleas. Arraignments are typically scheduled in the Court of Common Pleas within 10 days of the filing of the case. If the defendant is in custody, arraignment may be conducted via advanced communication technology. The purpose of the mandatory arraignment is to ensure the defendant identifies counsel, is advised of and understands the charges, rights to file motions, and consequences of failing to appear. At the mandatory arraignment, the Judge, the Commonwealth, the defendant and their counsel, if any, confer regarding the case. Once the mandatory arraignment is complete, if the case has not been disposed, the period for pretrial discovery and motions commences. Approximately 52% of defendants have their charges disposed at Mandatory Arraignment, primarily by plea agreement and verdict. Approximately 30% of cases are not disposed and proceed to the call of the list. An additional 12% are continued to another arraignment date. A small ratio of cases (4%) has bench warrants issued for failure to appear. The Franklin County court typically calendars afternoons on Monday and Thursday for custody hearings for persons detained with a bench warrant. These hearings are conducted via video conference using technology in the jail court room and the Court. Once the Judge has made a finding the order is signed

40 Recommendation 3.4D – Document Management: Embed DMS into CPCMS



by the Judge and filed with the Clerk of Courts. Within the next business day, the defendant must appear at the Clerk of Court’s office and sign release documents. Based on Jan-Sep 2013 data, the following are aggregate outcomes of the mandatory arraignment in Franklin County:

Table 2.10 Mandatory Arraignment Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*

# outcomes % total

Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 1,224 52%

Waived to Call of the List 722 30%

Continued [2.6C]41 274 12%

Bench Warrant 105 4%

No Action Taken 49 2%

Total outcomes 2,374

*Source: Court Administration reports

Pretrial Discovery and Motions 39th Jud. Dist.Rule 39-300(A), 39-300 (B), 39-311 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 114, 573, 575, 577, 579, 580, 586 Attorneys for the defendant and the Commonwealth may file motions with the Court of Common Pleas for pretrial discovery and relief. A judge may order a party to answer a pretrial motion or may order a written answer or oral response. A judge may schedule a hearing to argue or dispose of the motion. All motions, answers and documents that require filing in the case record are submitted to the Clerk of Courts. Upon the completion of pretrial motions and discovery, if a case is not disposed, the case may proceed to the call of the criminal list.

Call of the (Criminal) List In Franklin County, the call of the criminal List is conducted by the Court of Common Pleas two times each trial term (2 months) to identify cases ready to proceed to trial. Attorneys for the defense and the Commonwealth confer, review cases pending disposition, make motions for continuance, or set a date for pretrial conference. Once a date for trial has been set at the pretrial conference, if the defendant has requested a jury trial, court administration will conduct jury selection. Based on Jan-Sep 2013 data, the following are aggregate outcomes of the mandatory arraignment in Franklin County:

41 Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings.



Table 2.11 Call of the List Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*

# outcomes % total

Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 468 34%

Continued [2.6C]42 642 47%

Waived to pretrial conference 203 15%

Bench warrant 61 4%

Total outcomes 1,374


Pretrial Conference Franklin County Local Court Rule 39-311 Criminal Pretrial Conferences The purpose of the pretrial conference is to determine which cases have a significant potential for trial by jury, to attempt to settle the case by plea agreement and to prepare for trial. Once the case is scheduled for trial, no plea agreement will be accepted except in extraordinary circumstances. In Franklin County, pretrial conferences are scheduled for the Thursday prior to the date for jury selection once each term (two month period).

Table 2.12 Pretrial Conference Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013* # outcomes % total

Continued [2.6C]43 175 58%

Jury Trial Scheduled 70 23%

Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 35 12%

Trial Scheduled (w/o Jury) 13 4%

Bench Warrant 8 3%

Total outcomes 301


42 Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings. 43 Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at CCP hearings.



Trial, Verdict and Sentencing 39th Jud. Dist. R. Crim. P. 39-703(d) 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, 620, 622, 630, 631, 640, 648, 700-5, 721 Trials in a court case are required within 356 days from the date the complaint is filed with the Magisterial District Court. If the defendant is in custody, the trial must commence 180 days from the date the complaint is filed. The defendant and the District Attorney may waive a jury trial with the approval of the judge and a verdict is returned within 7 days of the non-jury trial. Before a jury trial is conducted, a panel of 12 qualified jurors + 2 alternates is typically selected and sworn to hear the case. Court administration typically conducts Jury selection several times a trial term on Mondays. If the defendant is found guilty by jury, the Judge will impose a sentence. The Judge may order a pre-sentence investigation report from Probation, a psychiatric or a psychological examination. Where a conviction occurs, a sentencing hearing follows. Depending upon the particulars of the sentence judgment, post-sentence proceedings such as probation hearings may occur. At the conclusion of the case, the case file is closed and archived. In Franklin County, trials are scheduled for once each term (two month period), although judges schedule their own dockets and my add trial dockets to their calendar.

Table 2.13 Trial Outcomes 2012*

# outcomes % total

Jury trial verdict 60 33%

Non-jury trial verdict 21 11%

Inactive 58 32%

Other 45 24%

Total outcomes 184 100%

*Source: CPCMS Case Management Statistics

Recent data from CPCMS suggest that Franklin County has made progress in managing case flow and clearance and is beginning to reduce backlogs of pending cases. In late 2012, case clearance rates varied greatly from month to month while numbers of cases carried over increased. In recent months, clearance rate has stabilized and numbers of cases carried over have declined.



Table 2.14 Case clearance and cases carried over*

As case clearance rates have trended up, volume of pending cases has declined from local highs in mid-2012. The percentage of pending cases that are over 60 days has increased, specifically in the 61-180 day range. About 20% of pending cases are over 300 days.

Table 2.15 Composition of pending cases by age*

Since the end of 2012, there has been a decline in the number of active cases in the Court of Common Pleas. Some of this decline can be attributed to reductions in cases that are awaiting sentencing.

Feb-

12

Mar

-12

Apr-

12

May

-12

Jun-

12

Jul-1

2

Aug-

12

Sep-

12

Oct

-12

Nov

-12

Dec-

12

Jan-

13

Feb-

13

Mar

-13

Apr-

13

May

-13

Jun-

13

Jul-1

3

Aug-

13

Sep-

13

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%

175%

200%

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Cases Carried Over (#) Clearance Rate (%)Source: www.pacourts.gov

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jan-

12

Feb-

12

Mar

-12

Apr-

12

May

-12

Jun-

12

Jul-1

2

Aug-

12

Sep-

12

Oct

-12

Nov

-12

Dec-

12

Jan-

13

Feb-

13

Mar

-13

Apr-

13

May

-13

Jun-

13

Jul-1

3

Aug-

13

Sep-

13

0 to 60 days 61 to 120 days 121 to 180 days181 to 240 days 241 to 300 days Over 300 days

Source: www.pacourts.gov



Further, it is evident in the chart below how volume of active cases can be impacted by cases awaiting sentence.

Table 2.15 Count of active cases by type*

By combining the information above with event level data provided by the Court of Common Pleas, it appears that the growth in volumes of aged cases can be attributed to continuances, particularly at the Call of the List and Pretrial Conference. Table 2.16 Fallout by event type – Jan 2013 - Sep 2013*

Mandatory Arraignment

Call of the List Pretrial Conference

# event % total # event % total # event % total Disposed 1224 52% 468 34% 35 12% Waived to COL 722 30% 0 0% 0 0% Bench Warrant 105 4% 61 4% 8 3% Continued 274 12% 642 47% 175 58% No Action Taken 49 2% 0 0% 0 0% Waived to PTC 0 0% 203 15% 0 0% Jury Trial Scheduled 0 0% 0 0% 70 23% Trial Scheduled (w/o Jury) 0 0% 0 0% 13 4% Total 2374 1374 301 *Source: Court Administration reports

0

100

200

300

400

500Ja

n-12

Feb-

12

Mar

-12

Apr-

12

May

-12

Jun-

12

Jul-1

2

Aug-

12

Sep-

12

Oct

-12

Nov

-12

Dec-

12

Jan-

13

Feb-

13

Mar

-13

Apr-

13

May

-13

Jun-

13

Jul-1

3

Aug-

13

Sep-

13

Awaiting Sentencing New Case Other ReopenedSource: www.pacourts.gov



Appeal, Sentence Review, and Modifications – Court of Common Pleas 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 708, 720, 721, 901-8, 910 The defendant in a court case shall have the right to make a post-sentence motion. Following the filing of the post-sentence motion, a judge will determine whether a hearing or argument on the motion is required. Typically, post-sentence motions must be filed no later than 10 days after imposition of the sentence. The District Attorney may file post-sentence motions to modify or appeal a sentence. Petitions for post-conviction collateral relief may be filed within one year of the disposition date. A Judge may grant, dispose or order an answer to the petition. A hearing may be set to consider the petition, or the judge may dispose of the petition without a hearing. If the court finds the defendant has violated a condition of probation, parole, or intermediate punishment, the court shall sentence the defendant for all the plead offenses. Cases may be reopened post disposition if the conditions of the sentence are modified or violated. Typically, post sentencing motions are filed with the Clerk of Courts within 7 days of the sentence date. 44If a judge finds the offender has violated the conditions of the sentence, the Judge may add conditions (such as Probation, Day Reporting or Jail), or extend existing conditions.

Post-Conviction Probation Supervision Adult Probation is also responsible for the supervision of offenders convicted and sentenced to probation. Offenders may come from either the Magisterial District Court or the Court of Common Pleas through a guilty plea or conviction at trial. The process of screening, assessment, case plan development, and supervision is then very similar as in the case of pretrial supervision. However, offenders are re-evaluated using the assessment tools (e.g., LSI-R and the Wisconsin Model, and Static-99 for Sexual Offender population) every six months and case plans are adjusted accordingly. Furthermore, case plans may be re-evaluated if conditions of probation are unmet, which will again trigger an internal hearing process. Extreme cases will be referred to court for formal violation hearings. Levels of treatment of supervision are determined by a number of factors including risk level (supervision levels include nominal, moderate, intensive, and enhanced) and type of charge (e.g., DUI and sex offenses have specialized units). Some of the programs for sentenced probationers are:

• Electronic Monitoring (includes EM anklets and SCRAM monitoring for alcohol consumption monitoring)

• Day Reporting Center (please see section of Day Reporting Center) • Community Service • Pre-Release (Work Release) • Specialized Mental Health Supervision Program

44 Statutory time limit.



• Specialized Sexual Offender Supervision Program • Mental Health/ Jail Diversion Program • Drug & Alcohol Probation Partnership Program (DAPP) • Alcohol Highway Safety School, Multiple Offender Program, and Group Intervention Program

classes for DUI offenders In addition to these formal programs, Adult Probation may mandate treatment programs, educational programs, and employment or workforce development programming.

Workflow Diagrams The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all criminal justice stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire criminal process:

Level 1 Criminal Process 1.0 Franklin County Jail 2.0 Public Defender 3.0 Magisterial District Court 4.0 District Attorney 5.0 Court of Common Pleas 6.0 Adult Probation 7.0 Sheriff 8.0 Day Reporting Center

Many of the automation and business process recommendations are illustrated in pink and indexed to the workflow diagrams. All of the recommendations are identified in Chapter Six, Recommendations. The primary business processes are also presented in the narrative above, focusing on key significant events, starting from case initiation, through the pretrial, adjudication and post-disposition process.



Level 1 – Felony and Misdemeanor Workflow

1.0Jail -

Central Booking

2.0Public

Defender

4.0District

Attorney

Summons

5.0Court of Common

Pleas

5.0Level I or IIHigh Level

Process

WorkflowDirection

ProcessInitiation

5.0Level I

Process

5.0Separate

Document

Legend

Decision?

3.2.6Level III Process

Integration Touchpoint

GPS Maps

Email

SMS

3.2.7DDocument

3.1.8C

Calendar/ Table

Mail

eSignature

ePrint

Shared Service

Camera

8.0Day

Reporting Center

Arrest

PT_6.0Probation/

Pretrial Svcs

3.0Magisterial

District Court

6.0Adult

Probation

1.0Jail

DOC_01State

Corrections

7.0BSheriff’s Prisoner

Transport

7.0DSheriff’s Warrant Service

CONST_01Bench

Warrants

Felony and Misdemeanor Casetypes – Level 1



1.0 Jail Workflow Processes

CB_1.1Central Booking

1.1Booking

1.2Intake &

Classification

1.4Program

Management

1.5Medical

Screening

1.6Records

Management

1.7Release and

Close

1.3Video

Arraignment

1.8 Archive

5.0Court Order

LE_01Arrest

CPCMS_03Orders

MDJS_02Hearing List

CPCMS_02Hearing List

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt



2.0 Public Defender Workflow Processes

Email

2.5Discovery

eFile_03Motions

5.9Trial

5.7Pre-trial

conference

5.5Mandatory

arraignment

5.6Call of the

list

2.4Correspon-

dence

Guilty Plea

SMS

Guilty?

End

Yes

Yes

No

No

CPCMS_01Assignment

3.3Preliminary

Hearing (MDJ)


2.7Plea

negotiations

Yes

No

2.8Post-Dispo

Review

2.10Case

Closed

2.11Archive

PD_01Assignment

2.6Motion Practice

ARD?

5.11ARD/

Probation

CPCMS_04Verdict

Prob_01Recommenda

-tions

CPCMS_05Disposition

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

DA_03Plea

Negotiations

MDJS_01Complaint Affidavit

MDJS_01Hearing List

CPCMS_03Orders

CL_01Conflict

Assignment

Prob_01Recommenda

-tions

5.10Sentencing

DA_02Discovery Drop Box

DA_01Bill of

Information

2.2Assignment

2.3Initial

Defendant Review

2.1Intake Review

Shared Processes

Public Defender

Application

1.0 Jail

JAIL_01Jail Referral

Indigent? Conflict?EndYes

CL_01Conflict Lawyer

Yes

No No

2.9Mods/

Appeals



3.0 Magisterial District Courts Criminal Workflow Processes

5.6 Consolidated Court Calendar5.5 Document Management System1.2 Cross-Agency Data Repository

3.2Manage Case

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

7.0Sheriff 3.4

Preliminary Arraignment

3.3Discovery/

Motions

3.5Prelim Hrg

Central Court

3.1Create Case

3.6Case Close

3.7Archive

4.0District

Attorney

eFile_01Summons

eFile_04Crim

Motions

1.0Jail - Central

Booking

Law EnfHC

Summons

Summons? Waive Prelim?

5.0Court of Common

Pleas

No

Yes

No

Yes



4.0 District Attorney Criminal Workflow Processes

Email

3.2Initial

Appearance (MDJ)

4.4Pretrial prep

eFile_03Motions

5.9Trial

5.7Pre-trial

conference

5.5Mandatory

arraignment

5.6Call of the

list

4.3Correspon-

dence

Guilty Plea

SMS

Guilty?

End

Yes

Yes

No

No

CPCMS_01Assignment

4.1Grand jury

3.3Preliminary

Hearing (MDJ)

4.2Charging

instrument


4.6Plea

negotiations

Yes

No

4.7Post-

Sentence Review

4.8Case

Closed

4.9Archive

PD_01Assignment

Complaint

4.5Motion Practice

ARD?

5.11ARD/

Probation

CPCMS_04Verdict

Prob_01Recommenda

-tions

CPCMS_05Disposition

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

PD_02Counter-

offersMDJS_01Complaint Affidavit

MDJS_01Hearing List

CPCMS_03Orders

CL_01Conflict

Assignment

Prob_01Recommenda

-tions

5.10Sentencing



5.0 Court of Common Pleas Criminal Workflow Processes


3.2 Jury Management System

5.3, 5.5VerdictSentencing Order

5.8Jury Selection

5.5Mandatory

Arraignment

5.2Manage Case

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

4.0District

Attorney

5.6Call of the list

5.9Trial

5.3Discovery/

Motions

5.7Pretrial

Conference

5.10 Sentencing

5.1Create Case + Assignment

5.4Omnibus Hearings

5.13Case Close

5.14Archive

Guilty Plea?

8.0Day

Reporting Center

6.0 Adult

Probation

1.0Jail

DOC_01State

Corrections

Other Outcome

5.12Mods/

Appeals

DA_01Information

MDJS_01Compl Affid

DA_04Plea

Negotiation

eFile_03Crim

Motions

Prob_01Recommenda-

tions

Guilty?

End

Yes

NoYes

Yes

No

No

DA_02Assignment

PD_02Assignment

CL_01Conflict Lawyer

MDJS_03Orders

5.11 ARD/

Probation

ARD?



PT_6.0 Pretrial Services – Adult Probation Criminal Workflow Processes

PT_6.5Draft Court

Order

5.5 Mandatory Arraignment

PT_6.1Case

Initiation

PT_6.2Screening & Assignment

PT_6.3Supervision/

Services

PT_6.7Case Close

PT_6.4Case Updates

PT_6.8Archive10.0

Document Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

PT_6.6Status

Change

No

Yes

3.4Preliminary

Arraignment

Violation?

SVC_01Svc

Providers

Prob_02Draft Order

CPCMS_03Court Order

5.4Omnibus Hearing

Jail?1.0

Jail - Central Booking

Yes

No

CPCMS_05Sentence

State Prison?

PT_6.9Transfer to Probation



6.0 Adult Probation Criminal Workflow Processes

Adult Probation Payment Division

6.9Draft Court

Order

5.9Trial

5.10 Sentencing

Guilty Plea?

Guilty?

End

Yes

No

Yes

No

6.1Case

Initiation

6.2Screening & Assignment

6.3Assessment & Case Plan

6.4Supervision/

Services

6.10Case Close

6.5Reassess/

Modify Case Plan

6.7Case Updates

6.11Archive

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

F_6.1Court Order- Cost, Fines,

Rest

F_6.2Payment

Plan

F_6.3Collections

6.6Discharge

F_6.5Probation Discharge

CPCMS_03Court Order

SVC_01Svc

Providers

FIN_01Transac-

tions

CPCMS_03Court Order

FIN_02Discharge

5.5Mandatory

Arraignment

F_6.4Reassess/

Modify Payment Plan

DRC?Yes

No

6.8Violation of Conditions

CPCMS_05Sentence

Transfer from Other

County

Paid In Full?

Yes

No

8.0DRC

Refer to Court?

Yes

No

5.4Omnibus Hearing

PROB_02Draft Order

Yes New Charges?



7.0B Sheriff Prisoner Transport

7.1BIntake

7.2BPrisoner

Transport5.0Court of Common

Pleas

Court_01Transfer Orders

Central Court

Jail_01Transfer

Information

State_01Transfer

Information

7.3BEnd of

Transport



7.0D Sheriff Warrant Service

7.1DIntake

7.2DService attempt

7.3DTransport to

Jail

7.4DReturn

Clerk of Courts

CPCMS_03Warrant Orders

Successful?

No

Yes

eFile_01Warrant served



8.0 Day Reporting Center

8.9Draft Court

Order

5.9Trial

5.10 Sentencing

Guilty Plea?

Guilty?

End

Yes

No

Yes

No

8.1Case

Initiation

8.2Screening & Assignment

8.3Assessment & Case Plan

8.4Supervision/

Services

Violation?

5.4Omnibus Hearing

8.10Case Close

8.8Probation Hearing

8.5Reassess/

Modify Case Plan

8.7Case Updates

Refer to Court?

8.11Archive

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

8.6Discharge

Yes

No

No

Yes

PROB_03Discharge

PROB_02Draft Order

Yes

5.5Mandatory

Arraignment

New Charges?

1.0Jail

JAIL_01Jail Referral

CPCMS_04Court Order

Adult Probation Payment Division

F_6.1Court Order- Cost, Fines,

Rest

F_6.2Payment

Plan

F_6.3Collections

F_6.5Probation Discharge

FIN_01Transac-

tions

CPCMS_03Court Order

FIN_02Discharge

F_6.4Reassess/

Modify Payment Plan

Paid In Full?

Yes

No



Chapter 2 Summary Casetypes Summary offenses are low level crimes or traffic violations that are normally handled before a Magisterial District Judge. Franklin County includes seven Magisterial District Courts: Chambersburg District Court 39-2-01 Waynesboro District Court 39-3-02 Pleasant Hall District Court 39-3-03 Scotland District Court 39-3-04 Greencastle District Court 39-3-05 Mercersburg 39-3-06 Chambersburg East District Court 39-3-07

Summary cases are initiated by the issuance of a citation by law enforcement to the defendant or the filing of a complaint with the District Judge. The citation or complaint is filed with the local District Court within 5 days of issuance. Some law enforcement agencies, such as the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), electronically file most traffic citations into the Magisterial District Judge System (MDJS case management system). Summary casetypes include: Traffic summary citations Non-traffic summary citations Private criminal complaints Traffic arrest warrants Non-traffic arrest warrants

Level I Traffic Case Overview Following the filing of the citation, the District Court issues a summons for the defendant to answer the complaint within 10 days of the issuance of the summons. Summons are mailed to the defendant by the Magisterial District Court via first class and registered mail. If the defendant pleads not guilty, a trial is scheduled in the local District Court and the Magisterial Judge will decide the case. At summary trial the defendant must appear as well as the officer issuing the citation, any witnesses, or victims. At any time before the disposition of the case, a defendant may plead guilty or accept an accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD). If the defendant enters into ARD, they are sent to Probation for intake. Once the defendant has completed the ARD program, the charges are dismissed and the case disposed. If the defendant’s sentence includes payment of fines and fees, the Magisterial Court will collect payments and set up payment plans. The Magisterial District Judge may order a bench warrant for the defendant if the defendant fails to answer the summons or violates the conditions of ARD or the payment plan.



Key significant and secondary events define the criminal process for every case. The significant events at the core of the process are on the critical path, defined by Pennsylvania (PA) rules of procedure as sequential. Please see Table 2.1 on the following page for an illustration of the full process under the PA Code of Criminal Procedure. Table 2.1 Summary case filings and dispositions in Franklin County 2012

Filings Disposi-tions

Active Pending

Cases

Inactive Cases

Private Criminal Complaints 780 804 798 600 Traffic 17,857 18,076 1,680 1,335 Non-Traffic 3,422 3,666 2,665 943

TOTAL 22,059 22,546 5,143 2,878

Issued Served Canceled

Traffic Arrest Warrants 4,029 2,930 733

Non-Traffic Arrest Warrants 1,438 1,132 200

TOTAL 5,467 4,062 933

Source: www.pacourts.gov Considerable discussion with the Magisterial District Courts has revolved around records (case file) retention policies. Currently, summary offense cases are kept for seven years for auditing purposes. JMI recommends an interpretation by the AOPC governing the retention or archiving of electronic records for state auditing purposes. JMI’s opinion regarding the AOPC “Record Retention & Disposition Schedule with Guidelines,”45 January 2014, is that electronic records are permissible to be kept in lieu of paper records, provided the court follows the rules and guidelines for electronic records [3.4A].46

45 http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-850/file-173.pdf?cb=36cae5 46 Recommendation 3.4A – Scan and index all Magisterial District Court records.


http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-850/file-173.pdf?cb=36cae5




Table 2.2 Summary Offense Casetypes – PA Criminal Code Rules Analysis

Magisterial District CourtPoliceCourt of Common

Pleas

Pa.Code.Rule. 400 – Means of Instituting

Proceedings In Summary Cases

Pa.Code.Rule. 402 – Persons Who Shall

Use Citations

Pa.Code.Rule. 405 – Issuance of Citation

Pa.Code.Rule. 421 – Procedure Following Filing of Complaint—Issuance of Summons

SUMMARY OFFENSE CASEFLOWSignificant events, time and fallout analysisDATE: October 25th 2013

Events

Time

Rules

5 days

1Citation/Summons

3Answer

4Trial / Hearing

2Case Issued

5Appeal

10 days 30 days

4.1Payment

Conference

Pa.Code.Rule. 407, 409, 422 Pleas in

Response to Citation, Summons

Pa.Code.Rule. 408, 413, 423

Not Guilty Pleas, Notice of Trial

Pa.Code.Rule. 409, 414, Guilty Pleas

Pa.Code.Rule. 430 Issuance of Warrant

Pa.Code.Rule. 431 Procedure When

Defendant Arrested With Warrant

Pa.Code.Rule. 470 Procedures Related

to License Suspension After

Failure to Respond to Citation or

Summons or Failure to Pay Fine and Costs

Pa.Code.Rule. 406 – Issuance of Citation

Pa.Code.Rule. 411 – Procedures Following

Filing of Citation—Issuance of Summons

Pa.Code.Rule. 451 – Service

Pa.Code.Rule. 460 – Notice of Appeal

Pa.Code.Rule. 462 – Trial De Novo



Case Fallout by Disposition Type Table 2.3 below illustrates the 2012 dispositions and fallout by disposition type. The dynamics of what type of disposition and how and why they occur is the very core definition of caseflow management and is impacted by the local legal culture, all the justice system stakeholders, as well as the defendant and defense counsel. Table 2.3 Dispositions by type in Franklin County 2012

Trial Guilty

Trial Not Guilty

Guilty Plea ARD Dismis-

sal

Withdraw Prosecu-

tion Other Disposi-

tions

Private Criminal Complaints 202 165 241 0 105 39 52 804

Traffic 857 105 16,366 0 379 369 0 18,076

Non-Traffic 419 117 2,303 7 655 165 0 3,666

TOTAL 1,478 387 18,910 7 1,139 573 52 22,546

Source: www.pacourts.gov Graph 2.4 Dispositions by type in Franklin County 2012

Hearings and Continuances A clear majority of dispositions for summary offenses are by guilty plea, of which most are by written answer or fine payment by the defendant. As a result, the burden of continuances and managing numerous hearings is not as great. Nonetheless, magisterial district judges are trying over 250 cases

6.6% 1.7%

83.9%

0.0% 5.1% 2.5% 0.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Tria

l Gui

lty

Tria

l Not

Gui

lty

Guilt

y Pl

ea

ARD

Dism

issal

With

draw

Pros

ecut

ion

Oth

er



each per year, which is quite significant. It would be beneficial to track the number of events, hearings and trials for summary cases.

The data from active pending and inactive cases and the age of active pending cases enable some inferences to be drawn. Table 2.5 Inactive and Inactive Summary Cases in Franklin County 2012

Casetypes Active

Pending Cases

Inactive Cases

Private Criminal Complaints 798 600

Traffic 1,680 1,335

Non-Traffic 2,665 943

TOTAL 5,143 2,878

Source: www.pacourts.gov

Based on the number of filings, and a target of 60 days from filing to disposition, the active pending caseload should be approximately 1,800 cases47. It is likely that many are inactive or unpaid fines that have not been pursued. JMI recommends that the District Courts conduct a review of active pending cases [1.2D].48 Inactive cases are primarily due to arrest warrants (failures to appear or to pay) and bankruptcies and are not relevant to the analysis.


C. Communications and System-Wide Decision Making D. Justice Reinvestment F. Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan

47 22,059 filings/12 = 1,838 cases. A time to disposition goal of 60 days infers a pending caseload of approximately half the filings for a 60 day period, which would be 1/6 x 1/2 = 1/12. 48 Recommendation 1.2D – Review MDJS active pending caseload



Case Initiation – Citation and Warrants 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 400, 402, 405, 406, 410, 411, 430, 431, 440, 441, 451, 470 Proceedings in summary cases shall be instituted by arrest without a warrant, the issuance of a citation to the defendant, or the filing a complaint or citation. Law enforcement shall institute summary proceedings by citation, with or without issuing it to the defendant. In some instances, the citation may be filed via advanced communication technology [3.2A].49 Within five days after a citation is issued to the defendant, the citation shall be filed with the proper issuing authority. Upon the filing of the citation, a summons is issued directing the defendant to respond within 10 days of receipt of the summons [3.5A].50 The judge may order a bench warrant if the defendant fails to respond to the summons. For certain cases involving Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinances, the defendant’s driver’s license may be suspended [3.4A, 3.4C].51

Pleas 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 407, 408, 409, 412, 413, 414 The defendant shall notify the issuing authority of their plea within 10 days of the issuance of the citation. If the defendant enters a plea of not guilty a date is fixed for trial [3.3C].52 A defendant may enter a guilty plea in writing or at a hearing. In pleas that involve payment of fines and costs, a payment plan may be established. The judge may issue a bench warrant if the defendant fails to pay fines and costs or complete intermediate punishment.

Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 300, 301 The primary purpose of the ARD program is the “rehabilitation of the offender; secondarily, the purpose is the prompt disposition of charges, eliminating the need for costly and time-consuming trials or other court proceedings.” If the defendant is eligible for entry into the ARD program, the magisterial judge may enter the defendant into an ARD program. If the defendant does not enter, or fails to complete ARD, the case proceeds to summary trial. Only seven summary cases were disposed by ARD in 2012. This is in large part due to the nature of sanctions in summary cases, which are generally the payment of

49 Recommendation 3.2A – Expand e-filing from law enforcement. Traffic citations are e-filed from PSP. 50 Recommendation 3.5A – Calendars and notices from MDJS to UCMS and offender portal. 51 Recommendation 3.4A – Scanning and indexing of complaint and affidavit of probable cause. Recommendation 3.4C – Embed Document Management System in MDJS 52 Recommendation 3.3C – Magisterial District Court data integration.



a fine and/or restitution. An ARD disposition would not remove these sanctions, and a summary offense generally has little impact on a person’s long term record.

Trial and Sentencing 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 454, 455, 456, 457, 458 At any time before the summary trial or a guilty plea, the charges may be withdrawn or dismissed upon satisfaction or agreement. Once a trial is conducted and a verdict has been reached, the sentence, if any, may be imposed [3.3C].53 If the defendant fails to appear for trial in a summary case, the trial may be conducted in the defendant’s absence or a bench warrant may be issued. If the defendant defaults on payment of fine or costs, a judge may order an arrest warrant and subsequently conduct a hearing of the defendant’s ability to pay.

Appeal and Expungement 39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-86 234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 460, 462, 490

In certain instances, convictions on summary cases may appeal. A notice of appeal may be filed within 30 days of the conviction or entry of guilty plea [3.2C, 3.2D].54 When a defendant appeals after the entry of a guilty plea or a conviction in a summary proceeding the case shall be heard de novo by a judge of the court of common pleas without a jury. For certain appeals involving Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinances, the law enforcement officer who observed the alleged offense must appear and testify.

Workflow Diagrams The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all criminal justice stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire traffic process:

Level 1 Traffic Process 9.0 Magisterial District Court


53 Recommendation 3.3C – Magisterial District Court data integration. 54 Recommendation 3.2C – E-filing from Public Defender. Recommendation 3.2D – E-filing from private attorneys.



Summary Cases Workflow Level 1 – Summary Casetypes

1.0Jail -

Central Booking

Citation


Process

WorkflowDirection

ProcessInitiation

5.0Diagrammed

Level I Process

5.0Separate

Document

Legend

Decision?



3.2.7DDocument

PT_6.0Probation/

Pretrial Svcs

3.0Magisterial

District Court

MDJS_03Orders

F_6.0Probation

Fines Collection

6.0 Adult

Probation

1.0Jail

MDJS_03Suspend License

MDJS_03Orders

Department of Motor Vehicles



Summary Cases Workflow


5.3, 5.5VerdictSentencing Order

Traffic and Non-Traffic Citations – Level 23.0 Magisterial District Courts

T_3.2Manage Case

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

7.0Sheriff

T_3.4Trial/

Disposition

T_3.3Payment Plan

T_3.1Create Case

T_3.6Case Close

T_3.7Archive

F_6.0Probation

Fines Collection

1.0Jail

DMV_01Suspend License

T_3.5Mods/

Appeals

eFile_01Citation

eFile_03Criminal Motions

End

Not Guilty Plea?

Fine Paid?

ePay_01Fine

Yes

No

Yes

No

Law EnfHC

Citation



Chapter 3 Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings in a juvenile case in the Court of Common Pleas begin with the filing of a petition by Juvenile Probation or the Commonwealth. Once a petition has been filed, the court schedules an adjudicatory hearing and a summons is issued instructing the juvenile to appear for an adjudicatory hearing. At any time after the filing of a petition and before the first adjudicatory hearing the youth may make an admission or court may move to transfer the case to criminal court or to divert the juvenile’s case via consent decree. Following the filing of the petition, the period for pre-adjudicatory discovery and inspection begins and attorneys for the defense and Commonwealth may file motions with the court. Once pre-adjudicatory motions and inspection are complete, the adjudicatory hearing is conducted in the Court of Common Pleas and the judge makes a determination in the juvenile’s case. If a juvenile is detained, the adjudicatory hearing is held within 10 days of the filing of the petition. Within seven days of the adjudicatory hearing or admission the Court shall enter a ruling on the offenses, if any, were committed by the juvenile. Adjudicatory hearings may be conducted via advanced communication technology.

Juvenile Delinquency Casetype Overview Since 2006, overall numbers of allegations associated with disposed juvenile delinquency cases have declined by over 20 percent. Much of this decline can be associated with a decline in property offenses, particularly theft. Decline in person offenses can be attributed, in part, to declines in burglary charges. Disorderly conduct/criminal mischief was the only category experiencing an overall increase over the analysis period. Magisterial District Judge referrals can relate to violations in summary cases, contempt, or failure to pay fines and fees. Typically, most referrals from the Magisterial District Courts come from the Chambersburg District. Recently, juvenile referrals from this district have increased substantially from recent lows in 2010 and 2011. Table 4.1 Charges associated with allegations by type*

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

DUI 25 40 27 13 16

Weapons 32 17 21 17 20

Disorderly conduct/criminal mischief 42 63 82 25 61

MDJ 132 137 114 102 113

Other 216 94 93 96 114

Drugs 127 144 149 150 126

Summary 180 139 106 121 129



Person 205 145 147 87 140

Property 326 262 197 212 232

Total charges 1285 1041 936 823 951

Total allegations 633 563 498 452 472

*Source : Franklin County Juvenile Probation 2012 Annual Report

Between 2008 and 2012, there has been a decline in allegations originating from borough and township law enforcement, although these still make up about 50% of petitions filed. Pennsylvania State Police typically account for 25% of allegations filed. The remaining 25% of allegations typically originate from the Magisterial District Courts themselves. Recently, the Chambersburg school district added a police force contributing to growth in the ‘Other’ category.

Table 4.2 Allegations filed by Juvenile Probation*

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

State Police 156 136 134 101 125 117

Borough/Township 292 344 275 259 200 170

Other 2 6 4 2 2 47

Private / Transfer 15 16 32 32 24 29

Magisterial District Courts 140 131 118 104 101 109

Total allegations 605 633 563 498 452 472


Chart 4.3 Allegations filed

605 633 563

498 452 472

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Chart 4.4 Percentage allegations filed in 2012

The use of secure detention following the allegation has varied substantially over recent years in Franklin County. Further, subsequent detention hearings may impact case flow and extend time to disposition in a case. While the number of juveniles detained has been greatly reduced, the rate of detention with respect to total dispositions remains near recent highs. Table 4.5 Secure detention by year of disposition*

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Detained 60 7 13 29 48 16 32

Not Detained 547 598 581 503 416 381 453

Total 607 605 594 532 464 397 485

% Detained 10% 1% 2% 5% 10% 4% 7%

*Source: Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool

The decision to proceed with a case on a formal track can have a significant impact upon case flow and associated business of the court. Of the 20% decline in case volume since 2006, two thirds of this decline has occurred in formal track cases. Of cases disposed in 2012, about 5% fewer are being handled on the formal track than in 2006.

25%

36% 10%

6%

23% State Police

Borough/Township

Other

Private / Transfer

Magisterial District Courts



Chart 4.6 Manner of handling by year of disposition

Clearance Rate In addition to new cases filed, the volume of pending cases is an important measure for managing case flow. The case clearance rate is a way to determine if the Court is disposing more cases than are filed. A clearance rate over 100% can indicate a Court is clearing old cases and reducing the volume of pending cases. Franklin County Juvenile Probation data suggest a recent increase in the rate of case clearance. At the end of 2012, there were approximately 100 cases pending disposition in Juvenile court. Table 4.7 Complaints, dispositions and clearance rate*

Complaints Dispositions Clearance (%)

2008 633 561 89%

2009 563 553 98%

2010 498 459 92%

2011 452 450 100%

2012 472 491 104%


47% 41% 38% 38% 47% 39% 42%

53% 59% 62% 62% 53% 61% 58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Formal Informal*Source:Pennsylvania Juvenile

Deliquency Data Tool



Chart 4.8 Juvenile Delinquency clearance rate 2008-12*

*Source: Franklin County Juvenile Probation 2012 Annual Report Caseflow Rules Map Key significant and secondary events define the case process for juvenile delinquency cases. The significant events at the core of the process are on the critical path, defined by Pennsylvania (PA) rules of procedure as sequential. Please see Table 4.9 on the following page for an illustration of the full process under the PA Code.

89%

98%

92%

100%

104%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Table 4.9 Juvenile Delinquency Casetype – PA Criminal Code Rules Analysis

Juvenile Probation Superior CourtJuvenile

ProbationDetentionPolice Court of Common Pleas

Allegation

Pa Code Rule 200 – Commencing Proceedings

Pa Code Rule 210 – Arrest Warrants

Pa Code Rule 220 – Procedure in Cases

Commenced by Arrest Without

Warrant

Pa Code Rule 231 – Written Allegation

39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-210 – Arrest

Warrants

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CASEFLOWSignificant events, time and fallout analysisDATE

Pa Code Rule240 Detention of

Juvenile

Pa Code Rule 242 – Detention Hearing

Pa Code Rule 311 - Intake Conference

Pa Code Rule 312 - Informal

Adjustment

Pa Code Rule 313 – Detention from

Intake

Pa Code Rule 330 – Petition: Filing,

Contents, Function

Pa Code Rule 331 – Service of Petition

Pa Code Rule 334 – Amendment of

Petition

Pa Code Rule 335 – Withdrawal of

Petition

Pa Code Rule 337 – Filing of Petition

after Case has been Transferred from

Criminal Proceedings

Pa Code Rule 370 –Consent Decree

Pa Code Rule 390 – Notice of Request

for Transfer to Criminal

Proceedings

Pa Code Rule 394 – Transfer Hearing

Events

Time

Rules

If detained: hearing in 72 hours

1Arrest

2Detention

3Detention

Hearing

6Intake

Conference

8Petition

10Discovery

11Finding of Fact

12Adjudication

9Transfer to Adult Court

13Disposition

14Post

Dispositional Motions

15Appeals

1ADelinquency

Petition

If not detained: Summons issued 14 days prior to Adjudicatory hearing

If detained: Summons issued 7 days prior to Adjudicatory hearing

Pa Code Rule221

Temporary Detention in

Police Lock-Up

Pa Code Rule240

Detention of Juvenile

Pa Code Rule 404 – Prompt

Adjudicatory Hearing

Pa Code Rule 406 – Adjudicatory

Hearing

Pa Code Rule 407 – Admissions

Pa Code Rule 408 – Ruling on Offenses

Pa Code Rule 409 – Adjudication of

Delinquency

11.AConsent Decree

7Informal

Adjustment

Pa Code Rule 340 –Pre-Adjudicatory

Discovery and Inspection

Pa Code Rule 360 –Summons and

Notice

If detained: Adjudicatory hearing within 10 days

Pa Code Rule 500 – Summons and Notice of the Dispositional

Hearing

Pa Code Rule 510 – Prompt

Dispositional Hearing

Pa Code Rule 512 – Dispositional

Hearing

Pa Code Rule 515 – Dispositional Order

If detained: Dispositional

hearing within 20 days

If not detained: Dispositional

hearing within 60 days

Pa Code Rule 600 – Summons and Notice of the Commitment

Review, Dispositional Review, and

Probation Revocation Hearing

Pa Code Rule 610 – Dispositional and

Commitment Review

Pa Code Rule 612 – Modification or Revocation of

Probation

Pa Code Rule 620 – Dispositional

Motions

Pa Code Rule 622 – Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Relief

Pa Code Rule 631 – Termination of

Court Supervision

Pa Code Rule 632 – Early Termination

of Court Supervision by

Motion

Post-dispositional motions within 10

days

Notice of appeal within 30 days of disposition or order deciding

motion

District Attorney

4DA Review

5Information

Filed




1.0 Communications and System-Wide Decision Making 2.0 Justice Reinvestment 3.0 Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan

Allegation, Arrest and Commencement of Proceedings 237 Pa. Code Rule 122, 124, 128-32, 200, 210, 211, 213, 220, 231(A) (B), 232 Proceedings in juvenile court cases are initiated with the filing of a written allegation, an arrest without a warrant, warrant arrest, or arrest for probable cause. When a juvenile is not under arrest, a written allegation shall be submitted to the juvenile probation office. The allegation identifies the juvenile and provides a summary of the alleged offense(s). If the juvenile is in detention, the written allegation shall be submitted to the court detention facility and then to juvenile probation.

Warrants and Pre-Adjudicatory Detention 237 Pa. Code Rule 140, 141, 187, 210-13, 220, 240, 242, 404 If a juvenile is detained following arrest the allegation is examined and an intake conference can occur to determine the juvenile’s release. If the juvenile is not released, a detention hearing must occur within 72 hours following the juvenile’s admission to detention. At the detention hearing, the court determines whether there is probable cause in the case and that detention of the juvenile is warranted. If the youth remains in detention following the detention hearing, a petition is filed within 24 hours or the next business day. Detention hearings may be conducted via advanced communication technology. If the juvenile remains in detention an adjudicatory hearing is held within ten days from filing of the petition.

Intake Conference 237 Pa. Code Rule 187, 190, 191, 192, 310, 311, 312, 313 Following the filing of the allegation, if a juvenile is not detained, juvenile probation will determine jurisdiction in the case and whether to schedule an intake conference. The intake conference is conducted by the juvenile probation officer and serves to determine what action, if any, should be taken in the case. If the juvenile fails to appear for the intake conference, it may be rescheduled or a bench



warrant may be issued by the court. At the intake conference, the juvenile probation officer may determine the juvenile be detained and a detention hearing be conducted. At any time prior to the filing of a petition, the juvenile probation officer may informally adjust the allegation. If the juvenile successfully completes informal adjustment, the case is dismissed. If the juvenile does not successfully complete the informal adjustment, a petition is filed.

Petition, Pre-Adjudicatory Discovery and Inspection 237 Pa. Code Rule 330, 335, 340, 344, 360, 370, 390, 394 Court proceedings in a juvenile case in the Court of Common Pleas begin with the filing of a petition by Juvenile Probation or the Commonwealth. Once a petition has been filed, the Court schedules an adjudicatory hearing and a summons is issued instructing the juvenile to appear for an adjudicatory hearing. At any time after the filing of a petition and before the first adjudicatory hearing the youth may make an admission or court may move to transfer the case to criminal court or to divert the juvenile’s case via consent decree. The petition is filed in the Court of Common Pleas and serves to commence delinquency proceedings in the juvenile’s case. The petition identifies the juvenile, the alleged offense(s) and serves to establish the charges from the allegation, and the period of pre-adjudicatory discovery and inspection begins. Once a case is initiated, hearings may be conducted by the juvenile master or a judge. In recent years, the percentage of total hearings that are conducted by a Judge has declined from over 30% in 2008 to about 23% in 2012. It is important to note that this statistic includes placement and disposition review hearings in addition to those associated with new cases. Chart 4.10 Hearings conducted by Juvenile Probation*

424 412 445 391 462

196 162 207

118

144

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Master Hearing Judge Hearing*Juvenile Probation 2012 Annual Report



Admission, Adjudication and Ruling on Offenses 237 Pa. Code Rule 404, 406, 407, 408, 409 Once pre-adjudicatory motions and inspection are complete, the adjudicatory hearing is conducted in the Court of Common Pleas and the Judge makes a determination in the juvenile’s case. If a juvenile is detained, the adjudicatory hearing is held within 10 days of the filing of the petition. Within seven days of the adjudicatory hearing or admission the court shall enter a ruling on the offenses, if any, were committed by the juvenile. Adjudicatory hearings may be conducted via advanced communication technology. If the Judge finds the juvenile has committed the acts alleged in the petition, the court schedules a hearing to determine if the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. If the juvenile is in detention and the court finds the juvenile in need, a dispositional hearing is set within 20 days of the ruling. If the court finds the juvenile in need and the juvenile is not in detention, a dispositional hearing is set within 60 days of the ruling.

Dispositional Hearing and Post-Dispositional Procedures 237 Pa. Code Rule 500, 510, 512, 513, 515, 600, 605, 610, 612, 620 Once a dispositional hearing has been set, the Court of Common Pleas issues a summons to parties in the case to notify of the date time and location of the hearing. The Judge may order social study, examinations, and victim-impact statements to aid decision in the case. At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the Judge issues a dispositional order. If the disposition of the case includes supervision, the case goes to Juvenile Probation for supervision. If the youth violates conditions of consent decree or probation a hearing may be conducted in the Court of Common Pleas. In most cases, the Judge will conduct dispositional review hearings every six months. Juvenile Probation notifies the court once the youth has completed supervision. The Court will conduct dispositional review hearings for all supervised cases at least every six months. In all cases, the juvenile shall appear in person. The court may schedule a review hearing at any time. A juvenile may be detained for a modification of the dispositional order or a violation of probation by the filing of a motion. If the juvenile is detained the hearing on the motion shall be held within 10 days of the detention hearing. The juvenile probation officer shall notify the court when the conditions of probation have been satisfied and the court shall decide if supervision should be terminated.

The point at which the case is disposed has significant impact upon case flow and the related business of the court. The longer a case stays active, the more pre-adjudicatory hearings and work is required. Since 2006, Franklin County has experienced a substantial increase in the percent of cases disposed via a



consent decree hearing. Similarly, the number of cases resolved at the dispositional hearing also experienced a dramatic increase since 2006. Table 4.11 Type of hearing by year of disposition*

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Transfer to adult criminal 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 Disposition only 21 48 95 146 150 95 126 Adjudicatory 249 203 169 142 128 96 135 No type identified 318 345 230 98 95 101 108 Consent decree 16 6 97 143 90 104 116 Total 607 605 594 532 464 397 485 *Source: Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool

Dispositions reached without a formal hearing occurring declined substantially between 2006 and 2013. In 2013, dispositions reached without a hearing represented about 25% of dispositions, a substantial drop from over 50% of dispositions in 2006. This statistic suggests that while volume of new cases may be declining, more of these cases are requiring one or more hearings prior to disposition. Chart 4.12 Type of hearing by year of disposition*

The type of disposition for a case can also impact case flow. Dispositions that include supervision, services or placement can impact case flow, in part, due to post-adjudicatory hearings and violations. Overall, about 50% of dispositions involve probation or consent decree. While the percentage of dispositions involving consent decree has remained around 25%, the percentage of dispositions involving probation has declined 4%. Dispositions by stipulation on a citation represented about 10% of

318 345 230

98 95 101 108

16 6 97

143 90 104

116

249 203 169

142 128

96 135

21 48 95 146 150 95 126

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012None Consent decreeTransfer to criminal proceedings AdjudicatoryDisposition only

*Pensylvania Juvenile Deliquency Data Tool



dispositions in 2012, down about 4% since 2008. Approximately 10% of dispositions in 2012 involved community service or alternative program, an increase of about 3% since 2008. This trend is of note since it may align with recent increases in cases initiated for failure to comply/contempt charges. Table 4.13 Dispositions by type*

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Transfer to criminal proceedings 3 3 1 1 0

Disposition transferred 36 25 20 21 20

Informal adjustment 23 18 17 21 21

Community Service / Program 38 36 40 40 43

Withdrawn/Dismissed 49 55 60 52 44

Other / Referred 8 17 7 21 46

Placement 52 47 52 42 47

Citation 76 60 43 37 50

Probation 135 141 122 111 101

Consent decree 141 151 90 104 119

Total 561 553 452 450 491 *Source: Franklin County Juvenile Probation 2012 Annual Report

Workflow Diagrams The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all juvenile justice stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire juvenile delinquency process:

Level 1 Traffic Process 4.0 District Attorney 5.0 Court of Common Pleas 9.0 Juvenile Probation




Juvenile Delinquency Workflow Level 1

JDJuvenile

Defender

J_4.0District

Attorney

J_5.0Court of Common

Pleas


Process

WorkflowDirection

ProcessInitiation

5.0Diagrammed

Level I Process

5.0Separate

Document

Legend

Decision?



3.2.7DDocument

Allegations9.0

Juvenile Probation

9.0Juvenile

Supervision/Placement



Juvenile Delinquency Workflow J_4.0 District Attorney

J_5.4Finding of

Fact Hearing

J_5.6Dispositional

Hearing

Consent Decree?

Finding?

End

Yes

No

Yes

No

J_4.2Correspon-

dence

J_4.4Consent Decree

Negotiations

J_4.5Petition

4.0DA Felony &

Misdemeanor

eFile_01Allegations

Law Enforc Hardcopy

Allegations

9.1Juvenile

Probation

Adult Court?

NoJ_4.1Case

Initiation

J_4.6Post-

Disposition Review

J_4.7Case

Closed

J_4.8Archive

J_4.3Discovery

Yes

Direct File?

J_5.5Transfer Hearing

Yes

No

DA_02Discovery Drop Box

J_5.5Adjudicatory

Hearing

J_5.3Dispositional

Review Hearings



Juvenile Delinquency Workflow J_5.0 Court of Common Pleas

Enh_01 Consolidated Court CalendarInit_4.3 Document Management SystemInit_01 Cross-Agency Data Repositoty

Enh_05Order/ Disposition

J_5.11Post-

Disposition Review Hrgs

J_5.4Finding of

Fact Hearing

J_5.3Manage Case

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

4.0DA Petition

J_5.5Adjudicatory

Hearing

J_5.7Dispositional

Hearing

J_5.1Create Case + Assignment

9.0 Juvenile

Supervision

9.0Juvenile

Placement

DA_01Allegation

HHS_01Petition

DA_02Consent Decree

eFile_04Motions

JProb_01Draft Order

Finding of Facts?

EndJ_5.13

Case CloseJ_5.15

Archive

J_5.12Mods/

Appeals

Yes

No

Yes

No

Placement Providers

J_5.2Detention/

Shelter Care (Re)Hearings

J_5.14Expunge

Detention/Shelter Care

Hold?

Yes

J_5.10Dispositional

Review Hearing

J_5.9Permanency

Review Hearings

No

Need of Treatment/

Superv?

J_5.6Expungement

JProb_02Recommenda-

tions

J_5.8Order

Terminating Jurisdiction

Yes

No

Motion to Expunge?

Yes

Admission?



Juvenile Delinquency Workflow 9.0 Juvenile Probation

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

9.3Manage Case

J_5.10Dispositional

Review

eFile_01Allegations

Law Enforc Hardcopy

Allegations

9.1Intake

Juv Detained?

9.2Intake

Conference/Screening

9.4Assignment

9.5Assessment

and Case Plan

9.6Supervision

Services

9.8Reassess/

Modify Case Plan

Refer to Court?

9.11Case Close

9.12Archive

9.10Discharge

New Allegations?

J_5.7Disposition

Yes

No

YesYes No

No

9.7Violation of Conditions

SVC_01Svc

Providers

PROB_01Draft Order

Probation Payment Division

F_6.1Cost, Fines,

Rest File

F_6.2Payment

Plan

F_6.3Collections

FIN_01Transac-

tions

CPCMS_04Court Order

F_6.4Reassess/

Modify Payment Plan

4.0District

Attorney Review

9.9After Care

Plan

9.13Expunge

CPCMS_04Court Order

J_5.2Detention/

Shelter Care (Re)Hearings

Informal Adjustment/

Petition?

Paid in Full?

End

Yes

No

Yes

No



Chapter 4 Juvenile Dependency and Family Casetypes The following casetypes are included by narration and illustration below:

4.1 Juvenile Dependency 4.2 Divorce 4.3 Custody 4.4 Domestic Relations/Child Support 4.5 Adoption 4.6 Protection from Abuse

4.1 Juvenile Dependency Cases Juvenile Dependency cases relate to the protection and care of children that are the subject of abuse or neglect. All matters related to juvenile dependency cases are filed with the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas. Juvenile dependency case flow is comprised of up to eight significant events: 1. Emergency custody 2. Shelter care hearing 3. Petition filed 4. Adjudication hearing 5. Disposition hearing 6. Permanency hearing 7. Permanency review and placement 8. Case Closure/Permanency

Emergency Custody – Shelter Care Hearing Children may enter juvenile care through three primary means.

1) In instances where there are exigent circumstances, law enforcement or Children and Youth Services may remove a child from parental custody upon application for an emergency order from the Juvenile Master (see flowchart event number 1) who is on call 24x7. In those instances, parents are notified that a shelter care hearing will be heard within 72 hours and that they may appear to contest the removal. The shelter care hearing is conducted to allow the court to make a determination whether or not a child should be placed in the care of the agency for their protection. At the shelter care hearing, the court may appoint counsel for parents that cannot afford counsel to represent them in future court hearings.



2) The agency may apply for an emergency shelter care hearing without the prior removal of the children (see flowchart event number 2). If the court grants emergency shelter care and the child is in agency custody, the Adjudication Hearing is held within 11 days.

3) The agency can file a standard dependency petition with the Clerk of the Court and request that

the case be scheduled for an adjudication hearing (see flow chart event 3).

Adjudication Hearing An adjudication hearing (see flow chart event 3) is held within 10 days if a child is in agency custody or within 45 days if the child is still in the home. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not the child comes within the statutory definition of a child in need of care. The child may be appointed an attorney Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to represent their best interests. The Court of Common Pleas has a contract with an attorney to act as GAL. The attorney is compensated on a per case basis.

Disposition Hearing If a child is adjudicated in need of care and supervision the court is required to hold a disposition hearing (see flowchart event 4) within 20 days of the adjudication hearing. In some cases, and in the interest of expediency and efficiency, the adjudication and disposition hearing may be held concurrently. The disposition hearing determines the party to have custody of the child and what conditions the parents of the child follow to protect the child from neglect or abuse. In Franklin County the adjudication and disposition hearings are held sequentially on the same date. The order that the court makes sets in place a plan for the reunification of the child if the parents comply with the conditions set forth in the order.

Permanency Review Hearing The court is mandated by statute to hold permanency review hearings every six months (see flowchart event 5). Franklin County holds review hearings more frequently, every three months. Permanency hearings are an important part of the juvenile dependency process as they are a time to reassess, confirm or alter plans for reunification.

Permanent Placement The purpose of the permanent placement hearing is to determine the most appropriate permanent placement to meet the needs of the child in a safe and nurturing environment. The Pennsylvania Juvenile Act has adopted the federally mandated order of preference for the placement of children as follows:

1. Return the child to the parent, whenever this course is “best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child.”

2. Place the child for adoption (with the county agency being required to petition for a termination of parental rights) where reunification is not best suited to the child’s safety and welfare.



3. Place the child with a permanent legal custodian, where adoption is not best suited to the child’s safety and welfare.

4. Place the child permanently with a fit and willing relative, where legal custodianship is not best suited to the child’s safety and welfare.

5. Place the child in some other court-approved and permanent living arrangement, in instances where the agency has shown a “compelling reason” for ruling out all of the above four options.

Termination of Parental Rights The Adoption and Safe Families Act requires state agencies (Children and Youth Services) to file a petition to terminate parental rights (TPR) if a child has been in foster care for 15 out of the most recent 22 months unless there is compelling reason demonstrated to continue working toward reunification. A permanent placement or termination of parental hearing will be held and the court will make a

determination as to whether or not parents lose all rights to the child. The court continues to maintain oversight of the dependency case and will continue holding permanency reviews until a child ages out of the system, is adopted, or for another reason becomes emancipated.

4.2 Divorce Key events in Uncontested/Consent Divorce include:

1. Complaint filed 2. Service 3. Consent filed 4. Judicial review 5. Decree entered

Uncontested and consent divorces follow a very straightforward path with complaint filed with the Prothonotary. If no answer contesting the divorce complaint, and after 90 days, the complaint goes before a judge for judicial review and final decree entered. If children are involved, separate actions determining custody and support (see DR section narrative and workflow) are filed and follow different judicial processes.

4.3 Custody The Prothonotary’s office accepts, stores and provides access to all civil case related documents except for child support and adoption. They are also responsible for the collection of filing fees and establishment of civil trust accounts. The office has a total of eight staff members, including an elected Prothonotary and Chief Assistant, who are cross-trained and can work in any civil area.



The civil technology application is Infocon. Some judges and/or law clerks have limited access, but there is no formal training program and standardization of practice. Court administration and attorneys may subscribe to the system although they are unable to view documents, only docket entries. Documents can be viewed at public terminals available in the Prothonotary’s office. Infocon’s data backup, storage and security are all managed out of Evensburg, PA. The Sheriff’s Department also uses Infocon. Key events in Complaints and Petitions for Custody – Conciliation Agreement include the following:

1. Complaint filed 2. Presentation and assignment 3. Temporary order 4. Service 5. Conciliation conference 6. Report and proposed order 7. Court review 8. Order

Key events in Complaints and Petitions for Custody – No Agreement after Conciliation Hearing include:

1. Conciliation conference 2. Report and proposed order 3. No agreement – report only 4. Pre-trial conference 5. Order

A complaint or petition is filed along with proposed order if requesting temporary order of custody. The court administrator makes a judicial assignment. A temporary order is issued after presentation to the court. Currently the court holds custody hearings on Thursday mornings. The court administrator then makes an assignment to a conciliator for a conciliation conference. The conciliator must be a member of the PA bar and shall not regularly practice in family law. A service of Order for Conciliation and hearing date are issued for processing. A conciliation conference is held and the conciliator issues a report and proposed order. If agreed by both parties, the Conciliator’s proposed order and report are reviewed by a judicial officer. If no agreement is reached between the parties, Conciliator issues a report only and parties move for a pre-trial conference. In a case where parties do not agree with the conciliator’s report and proposed order, parties may file for a pretrial conference before a judge. A pre-trial conference is held and, if agreement, an order is issued. If no agreement, a second adjudicatory hearing is scheduled and held and final order entered.



It should be noted that in family matters there is a support master who deals with issues of support (see Domestic Relations section) and a divorce master. The divorce master is appointed in cases where there is a request for equitable distribution. The divorce master controls and sets his/her own schedule.

4.4 Domestic Relations & Child Support The Domestic Relations Section is part of the 39th Judicial District Circuit of Franklin County, PA and is responsible for all matters of support involving spouses and/or children. Domestic Relations (DR) section consists of 28 staff with three units that include:

• Client services/ reception • Intake/Establishment and Enforcement • Supervision

In addition to the three units, the office has one full time staff attorney. The DR Section’s director has been with the agency for 28 years with 23 of those as director. The judges appoint the director, and personnel are employees of the court. It should be noted first and foremost that Pennsylvania’s Child Support Program has ranked consistently as one of the nation’s best and has received three program or performance awards in the past 12 years. Franklin County’s Domestic Relations agency has consistently exceeded the five federal performance metrics, and, according to the agency’s director, PA is the only state that regularly meets or exceeds 80% on these same five federal categories. PACSES is the primary system used by DR staff. It is the PA Child Support Enforcement System. The support master has limited access to PACSES. Most attorneys use an automated system called support calculator. Domestic Relations Cases include ten key events:

1. Complaint Filed 2. Conference Officer Assignment 3. Paternity Established 4. Office Conference 5. Appeal 6. Support Master Hearing 7. Exceptions Filed 8. Enforcement Remedies/Case management 9. Contempt Conference 10. Sentencing Court



Initial Case Filing All domestic relations complaints can be started online (this is a new initiative and used very seldom by the clients) but still require an office visit. After a complaint is filed, a conference is scheduled which is set about 21 to 30 days into the future. Service is provided by registered mail first, certified mail, service by the sheriff, and a bench warrant (limited use for establishment cases only). The latter methods are completed after the scheduled conference.

Initial Hearings Domestic Relations Officers who are employees of the DRS hear all initial conferences at the DR agency. A failure to appear will be handled as described above. If paternity is contested, the conference will be postponed pending genetic testing. Genetic testing can be done on site through buccal swab testing. Any petitions for modification/termination/suspension or remittance filed follow the same process as the initial complaint. Domestic Relations Officer holds conferences and issues an order for support. If an exception is filed, the case is set for hearing before the support master. It should be noted that the support master is a relatively new judicial oversight step that has significantly reduced the type and number of cases to go before a judge. The support master is a contracted attorney who works out of the Second Street Hearing Annex that is a court facility. The support master will hear the appeal hearing as a de novo hearing. If a party is dissatisfied with the result of the Support Master’s recommendation, exceptions can be filed. The court will review the written findings and transcripts of the recorded appeal hearing in order to make a final determination: the Judge may request additional information.

Contempt Domestic Relations Officers hold contempt conferences after other enforcement remedies have been taken. At the contempt conference, a sentencing date is set before the judge. Sentencing court is held all day, once a month in front of the court. Average number of cases scheduled for the sentencing court is 70 although only an average of 30 cases are in front of the Judge. A defendant is represented by the Public Defender’s office upon their request. If a party fails to appear, a bench warrant is issued. Once an order is issued from sentencing court it goes back to the DR section for monitoring and enforcement.

Placement Cases Placement cases are initiated from Children and Youth or Juvenile Probation and are cases where a child/ren are in or out of home placement. Intake staff at the DR Section enters cases into PACSES (PA’s statewide child support enforcement system). When a child is placed, a conference is held to issue an order or if the child is released, a release order is received from the agency and the DRO generates a termination order. Judges currently do not order child support at placement hearings.



UIFSA (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act) When an absent parent is out of state, a UIFSA will need to be filed to the state they are residing. However, if long-arm criteria are met, the complaint can be filed locally. Once an order is entered in Franklin County, the defendant is out of state and there are enforcement issues, the Franklin County order can be registered for enforcement in the defendant’s state. As long as one of the parties resides in PA, Franklin County still has control of the case and can modify it. If both parties are no longer in PA, the modification will need to be filed in the state of the person requesting the modification. If there is another state’s order and the defendant is residing in Franklin County, the state can request that the agency register their order for enforcement. At that point, Franklin County is responsible for enforcement only and modification of the order cannot be done if the plaintiff is still residing in that state.

4.5 Adoption – Orphan’s Court The Orphan’s Court is a section of the Court of Common Pleas and its records are received, stored, and disseminated by Clerk of the Court. Case types of the Orphan’s Court include Probate and Adoption. The Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas is elected. The current Clerk has served in that role for the past 22 years. His office has eight full time employees and one casual position, currently filled by his retired former deputy. One of the Clerk of Court employees is dedicated to handling adoption cases since they are a relatively small number of annual case filings (ca. 55) and have unique case processes. Just over two years ago, the Clerk of Court acquired its current computerized information system – Land Record Information and Imaging Management System (Landex). Previously, all clerk of court minute and docket entries were typewritten. Landex is an application that was originally developed to support land record management but has been modified to support the Register of Wills and nominally support a court case management system. Information Management System (IMR) a company that focuses on imaging integration was the vendor for the Landex system in collaboration with Optical Storage Solutions, Inc., based in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, who provides programming for the Landex application. The Register of Wills also uses Landex, although the two offices rarely interact and there is no integration or common service or maintenance agreement. The Landex system contains the electronic register of actions and all scanned documents. In addition to the Landex system, the clerk of court office continues to maintain the official paper file. For the purposes of this project, adoptions are the only case type reviewed. Key Case Flow Events in Adoption cases include:

1. Petition (case initiation) 2. Hearing 3. Termination of Parental Rights Hearing and Order



4. Adoption Hearing 5. Decree

Adoption cases can arise through a variety of channels. For example, they can be initiated through private adoption agencies, through Child and Youth services as a result of a juvenile dependency case, through step parent’s wanting to adopt step children or adoption by other family members. In cases where the state has taken custody of a child through the foster care system, a case is initiated through a notice of intent to adopt (see case flow map 1 and 1a). This is the precursor to the filing a petition for adoption. It puts biological parents on notice that there will be a petition for adoption filed. Prior to any adoption, the court must first confirm or establish that the parental rights of the biological parents have been terminated, awarding them the full protection of due process including representation. These proceedings are separate causes of action and present themselves to the court in three ways. 1) If the biological parents consent to the adoption voluntarily, a Petition for Voluntary Relinquishment is filed by the attorney for the party seeking the adoption (see workflow map 2a); 2) If the biological parents are not available and cannot be located, or fail to respond to notice that their child is subject to adoption, a Petition for Confirmation of Consent is filed by the attorney for the party seeking the adoption (see work flow map 2b); or 3) If the biological parents want to contest the issue of adoption, the attorney for the party seeking the adoption files a Petition for Involuntary Relinquishment. In each of these scenarios, the court administrator is notified of the filing of the petition and his designee assigns the case to a judge. After the assignment, the case is scheduled before the assigned judge for either a contested or uncontested hearing, as the circumstances of the individual case require (see workflow map 3). Once the determination of the adoptability of the child is determined through the TPR process, adoption cases proceed expeditiously from filing of the petition for adoption (see work flow map 4) to hearing (see workflow map 5). Adoption and Relinquishment/Termination cases represent a small percentage of cases filed in the Orphan’s Court division of the clerk of court office. According to statistics from the AOPC website, in 2011 59 new Relinquishment/Termination cases were filed. Only 53 cases were disposed of. Forty-five of the cases (84.9%) were uncontested and the remainder were either contested (9.4%) or disposed via another means (5.7%). Pending Relinquishment/Termination cases at the end of 2011 were 19. In 2011 there were 55 new Adoption Cases filed. During the same year, 55 Adoption cases were disposed of with 98% of them being uncontested.

4.6 Protection from Abuse Key events in Protection from Abuse (PFA) include:



1. Abuse Incident – L.E. arrest and/or referral to Women In Need (WIN) 2. Petition Filed 3. Court administration judge assignment & hearing date 4. Ex-Parte hearing 5. Service 6. Temporary Order – denied or issued 7. Hearing 8. Final Order

Abuse Incident – 23 PA CSA 6101 Where an incident of abuse occurs, law enforcement or Women in Need (WIN) is contacted and if appropriate, law enforcement will make an arrest. Victims are referred to Women In Need, a non-profit organization that provides 24-hour assistance and shelter to victims of domestic violence. Magisterial district judges also are on call weekends and after work hours. On the next business day, WIN staff meet with the alleged victim (petitioner) to complete court paperwork. Generally WIN staff accompanies the petitioner to file the petition with the Prothonotary office. Private attorneys and pro se litigants also can initiate a petition. Court administration makes judicial assignment and provides a hearing date. An ex-parte hearing is held. If temporary order is granted, order is filed with Prothonotary and order is served on defendant. A hearing is held and final order issued. 23 Pa CSA 6105(e)(2)

Workflow Diagrams The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all dependency and family stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire process: Many of the automation and business process recommendations are illustrated in pink and indexed to the workflow diagrams. All of the recommendations are identified in Chapter Six, Recommendations. The primary business processes are also presented in the narrative above, focusing on key significant events, starting from case initiation, through the pretrial, adjudication and post-disposition process.



Juvenile Dependency Workflow

Children and Youth Services

Court of Common Pleas

Dependency Petition Filed

Permanency Review

Shelter Care Hearing

Permanency Hearing

Disposition Hearing

Permanent Placement

Emergency Custody

Shelter Care

Adjudication Hearing



Divorce, Custody and Child Support Workflow Level 1

CD_5.0Contested

Divorce

UD_5.0Uncontested

Divorce

CU_5.0Custody

CS_5.0Child SupportComplaint

Filed

Consent Filed?

Answer Filed?

App for Child

Support

Motion to Modify for

APL

No

Yes

No

Yes

eFile_01Civil

Complaint eFile_01Civil

Complaint


Process

WorkflowDirection

ProcessInitiation

5.0Level I

Process

5.0Separate

Document

Legend

Decision?



3.2.7DDocument



Divorce, Custody and Child Support Workflow UD_5.0 Consent and Uncontested Divorce

No

Yes

No

Yes

CD_5.0Contested

Divorce

UD_5.4Disposition

Hearing

CU_5.0Custody

Complaint Filed

Consent Filed?

Answer Filed?

UD_5.5Judicial Review

UD_5.6Decree Entered

UD_5.7Case Closed

UD_5.8Archive

UD_5.3Praecipe

Filed

UD_5.1Create Case

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

eFile_01Civil

Complaint

eFile_03Civil Motions

UD_5.2Manage Case



Divorce, Custody and Child Support Workflow CD_5.0 Contested Divorce

Complaint Filed NoConsent

Filed?Answer Filed?

CD_5.2Judge

Assigned

CD_5.4Pretrial

Conference

CD_5.5Settlement Conference

CD_5.7Report &

Recommendation

CD_5.8File & Served

Prothonotary Exception

Filed?

CD_5.11Judicial Review

CD_5.12Final Order

CD_5.9Briefing

Schedule

CD_5.10Oral

Argument

UD_5.0Uncontested

Divorce

NoYes

Yes

CD_5.13Case Closed

CD_5.14Archive

No

Yes

CD_5.1Create Case

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

eFile_01Civil

Complaint


CD_5.1AManage Case

CD_5.3Master

Appointed

CD_5.6Hearing



Divorce, Custody and Child Support Workflow CU_5.0 Custody

Complaint Filed

CU_5.1Create Case

CU_5.2Judge &

Conciliator Assignment

CU_5.3Service by

Court

CU_5.4Conciliation Conference

CU_5.5Report and Proposed

Order

CU_5.6Motion for

Pretrial Conference

Agreed?

CU_5.7Pretrial

Conference

CU_5.9Order

Entered

CU_5.8Order

EnteredAgreed?

CS_5.10Case Closed

CS_5.11Archive

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

No

Yes

No

Yes



Divorce, Custody and Child Support Workflow CS_5.0 Child Support

Domestic Relations Section

CS_5.2Office

Conference Hearing

App for Child

Support

Motion to Modify for

APL

Paternity Tested?

CS_5.4Office

Conference Hearing

Appeal Filed?

CS_5.5Support Master Hearing

Exception Filed?

CS_5.6Judicial Review

CS_5.7Support Order

Entered

CS_5.3Genetic Testing

Ordered

Paternity Established?

Dismiss

CS_5.8Case Closed

CS_5.9Archive

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

CS_5.1Create Case

10.0Document

Management

11.0Calendar

12.0Financials

13.0Service/ Notice

Shared Processes

Integ_04Court

Calendar

Integ_06Escrow

Accounting

Integ_05County

Financials

Integ_16Dispatch &

GIS

Integ_01Document

Mgmt

eFile_01Civil

Complaint


CS_5.1AManage Case



Adoption Workflow AD_5.0 Adoption



Protection from Abuse Workflow PFA_5.0 Protection from Abuse

Court of Common Pleas

Prothonotary

Domestic Abuse

Incident

Ex Parte HearingL.E. Referral Judicial

AssignmentPetition Filed

Order Granted

Referral to Women in

Need

Temporary Order Granted?

Yes

No

Order Served

Filed with Prothonotary

Petition Denied

Filed with Prothonotary

Hearing Temporary Order Granted?

Final Order Issued

Order Served on Registry

No

Yes



Chapter 5 Information Technology The implementation recommendations and plan in Sections 6 and 7 below include objectives to identify the functions of core case management systems. Included in these are sub-functions that can be classified by the following categories. JMI recommends that the county document the functions that are provided by each system in order to understand and plan for the functional gaps for replacement systems. These include the following:

UCMS Adult Probation Case Management Module. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the list below.

Intake/Case Creation

Screening, Classification and Assignment

Assessment and Case Plans

Calendar and Event Management

Field Reporting (mobile tools)

Forms/Report Tools

Aggregate Reports

Management Information

Document Management

Workflow Configuration

Users and User Access Controls

Administration of Data and Tables Jail Management Module. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the list below.


Screening, Classification and Assignment

Prisoner Inventory

Visitation and Calendar Management

Program Management

Prisoner Telephone

Commissary and Inventory

Forms/Report Tools



Aggregate Reports


Document Management

Workflow Configuration Users and User Access Controls Administration of Data and Tables

District Attorney Case Management Module. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the list below.


Investigation

Assignment

Event and Calendar Management

Evidence Management

Plea Negotiation

Forms/Report Tools

Aggregate Reports


Document Management



Administration of Data and Tables

CPCMS, MDJS and Infocom Court Case Management Systems. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the list below. The new juvenile delinquency system in development by the state should also be evaluated using the same functional categories.


Case Updates

Assignment

Event and Calendar Management

Trial Management



Orders and Judgments

Case Close and Archive

Forms/Report Tools

Aggregate Reports


Document Management



Administration of Data and Tables

Main Integrations The following integrations are rooted in the need to create an integrated criminal justice system. UCMS is rapidly moving counties towards that goal. Historically, systems have been fragmented and standalone. Integrating systems leads to efficiencies, time savings and more timely justice. Felony and Misdemeanor Caseflow

Not many of the systems are currently integrated with each other. In the blue lines, we can see the two major integrations:

1) MDJ and CPCMS 2) JNet and CNet



Systems by Integration Groups

However there are no connection between the two groups, and there is also a number of other systems that have no integration at all (represented with different colors). Ideal Integration

Ideally, we would aim to have all the systems integrated with each other. That would mean that there would never be manual data re-entry which would avoid many issues of data quality and process delays.



The UCMS Effect

UCMS will integrate with CNet (JNet) and with MDJS and CPCMS, which creates a situation where most primary systems now become integrated. Shared Services

Beside the systems that are mapped to the workflow, we have shared systems, which are called on multiple occasions.



Document Management

As an example, Document Management System might receive documents in different moments and be accessed from several systems to retrieve these documents. Juvenile Delinquency Systems

The tables on the following pages illustrate the ownership of the multiple systems that support criminal and civil case processing in Franklin County.



Vendor Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Systems name Jail Management Solutions Imaging System Call IQ Probation & Parole Management

System

What system does Records Management System for new, current and past inmates of the Jail

Keeps pictures of inmates that go through the Jail system

Transcribes phone call voice into text. Records Management System for new, current and past clients that report to the Adult Probation Department

Who created it Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL

Where is it located Jail Jail Jail Adult Probation

Who maintains the system Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL

Any system documents Built in to the system Built in to the system Built in to the system Built in to the system

Any system diagrams Oracle Client/Server Based Oracle Client/Server Based Oracle Client/Server Based Oracle Client/Server Based

Any disaster recovery County Responsibility County Responsibility County Responsibility County Responsibility

Is the system integrated with any other systems

No No No No

Do we have a copy of the contract?



Vendor Digital Solutions INC/GTL DataWorks Plus PA Dept. of Welfare Infocon Systems name Inmate Phone System cNET PACSES JACS

What system does Keeps track of phone calls made by inmates that are recorded

Web based RMS system accessible through the JNet Portal

Records Management System for new, current and past clients.

Judicial scheduling software application

Who created it Digital Solutions INC/GTL DataWorks Plus PA Dept. of Welfare Infocom

Where is it located Jail Sheriff's Office Domestic Relations Court Administration

Who maintains the system Digital Solutions INC/GTL DataWorks Plus PA Dept. of Welfare Infocom

Any system documents Built in to the system

Any system diagrams Oracle Client/Server Based

Any disaster recovery County Responsibility CPIN (Commonwealth Photo Imaging Network) System is consolidated to a Primary server at PSP and copied in real time to an onsite backup server, and then the data is cloned to three off site redundant Disaster Recovery databases.

PA Dept. of Welfare is responsible for disaster recovery.

County Responsibility


No JNET No No

Do we have a copy of the contract? https://drive.google.com/a/franklincountypa.gov/?tab=mo#folders/0B2pC7ZyEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk

https://drive.google.com/a/franklincountypa.gov/?tab=mo#folders/0B2pC7ZyEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk



Vendor Stenograph Infocon Jury Systems CDI Systems name Stenograph Infocon Jury Systems Next Gen Prosecutors Management Systems

What system does Court Reporters dictation Software Records Management System for new, current and past court cases.

Records management to keep track of Jury's

Records Management System for new, current and past cases for District Attorney's.

Who created it Stenograph Infocon Jury Systems CDI

Where is it located Court Reporters Sheriff's, Prothonotary Court Administration District Attorney's

Who maintains the system County Infocon Jury Systems CDI

Any system documents None Per Infocon; The documentation that we have on our systems in intended for our programmers only and is technical in content. We do not provide this to clients since it is a proprietary product.

Jury Systems does not have this documentation

None

Any system diagrams None Same as above Jury Systems does not have this documentation

None

Any disaster recovery County Responsibilty All of our servers are 100% mirrored for active duplicates of all data and software at all times. INFOCON performs off-site backups each business day with the backups being stored off campus.

County Responsibility County Responsibility


No No No No



https://drive.google.com/a/franklincountypa.gov/?tab=mo%23folders/0B2pC7ZyEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk




Vendor LegalEdge AOPC AOPC Juvenile Court Judges' Commission

Systems name LegalEdge CPCMS MDJ Juvenile Case Management System (JCMS)

What system does Records Management System for new, current and past cases for Public Defenders.

Records Management System for new, current and past court cases.

Records Management System for new, current and past court cases.

Records Management System for new, current and past cases for Juvenile Probation.

Who created it LegalEdge AOPC AOPC Juvenile Court Judges' Commission

Where is it located Public Defenders Clerk of Courts, Judges and Staff, Court Administration

MDJ Offices Juvenile Probation

Who maintains the system LegalEdge AOPC AOPC Juvenile Court Judges' Commission

Any system documents None CPCMS is a multi-tiered client-server application that is run and distributed over Citrix Infrastructure to all our end users. The Citrix Infrastructure allows us to essentially run all traffic and processing within our own data center and only communicate from here to user desktops by passing back and forth encrypted screen scrapes.

The Magisterial District Judge System (MDJS) provides case management and accounting functions to all 569 Magisterial District Court office locations and to Pittsburgh Municipal Court. The MDJS is used to processes cases with docket types that include Traffic, Non-Traffic, Private Complaints (Summary and Court Cases), Police Criminal Complaints, Landlord/Tenant, Civil, and Miscellaneous Docket. The MDJS was first deployed to Franklin County in 1990 with a major system rewrite rolled out to Franklin County district courts in the May of 2011. The system software is proprietary to AOPC and the hardware and network infrastructure is owned and maintained by AOPC. In addition, AOPC provides end user support which includes continual training offerings, a 24-hour help desk, and comprehensive online system documentation that is updated weekly.

https://drive.google.com/a/franklincountypa.gov/?tab=mo#folders/0B2pC7ZyEYtXlc1N5NmlCUHN6a2c

Any system diagrams None For security purposes I cannot provide you a lot of information or diagrams

System diagrams and flow charts are available within the end user online documentation.




Any disaster recovery County Responsibility We have a full secondary data center site location that is located more than 200 miles from our primary data center that is located here in Mechanicsburg. Ironic timing with your request as we do perform full testing of all our systems running from this secondary location once a year. CPCMS is in fact running today from Pittsburgh as we failed out to our secondary location a week ago and will be running from there until early November. In the event of any disaster scenario statewide or county, we will work with the counties affected to get them access to CPCMS in a timely manner. We are fully prepared to handle all ranges of such items.

We have a full secondary data center site location that is located more than 200 miles from our primary data center that is located here in Mechanicsburg. We perform full testing of all our systems running from this secondary location every other year. In the event of any disaster scenario statewide or county, the AOPC has a number of plans that we would execute working with the counties affected to get them access to MDJS in a timely manner. We are fully prepared to handle all ranges of such items



No MDJ CPCMS No







Vendor JNET LexisNexis IMR Limited Correctional Counseling, Inc

Systems name JNET LexisNexis Landex/Orphan's Court System Moral Reconation Therapy

What system does Commonwealth's primary public safety and criminal justice information broker.

Research system that provides a collection of online content available for courts and departments within the courts system.

Records Management System for Orphan's Court and Marriage Licenses.

Specialized treatment services for offenders to reduce the cycle of repeated incarceration and is desirous of procuring training for staff in the treatment intervention of Moral Reconation Therapy ( MRT@).

Who created it JNET LexisNexis IMR Limited/Landex Correctional Counseling, Inc

Where is it located Sheriff's, Adult Probation Jail & Judges Clerk of Courts and Reg & Recorders Jail

Who maintains the system JNET LexisNexis IMR Limited/Landex Correctional Counseling, Inc

Any system documents None None The documentation is provided via Help Screens in the software and this information is updated each time a new release or upgrade is provided to the county as part of their software maintenance support.

None

Any system diagrams None None The LANDEX software is running on a hardware configuration agreed upon by both parties and provided by Franklin County

None



Any disaster recovery None LANDEX is providing Franklin County a Hot Site Disaster Recovery system for both the Orphans’ Court and Recorder/Register instances of LANDEX. All index and image data is backed up nightly at the Optical Storage Solutions office located in Lebanon Pa.

None


cNET No No No






Vendor Compass Group Prime Care Medical KeyTrak Appriss Systems name Commissary CorEMR Key Keeper Savin

What system does Commissary needs for the Jail's inmates and food services.

To provide medical services to inmates.

Computerized key control system. Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification

Who created it Compass Group Prime Care Medical KeyTrak Appriss

Where is it located Jail Jail Jail Jail & District Attorney's

Who maintains the system Compass Group Prime Care Medical KeyTrak Appriss

Any system documents None None None None

Any system diagrams None None None None

Any disaster recovery None


No No No No







Chapter 6 Recommendations The following recommendations are ambitious. Many, especially for technology, are initiatives or recommendations that are in progress or scheduled by statewide agencies to happen in the next year.

1.0 Communications and System-Wide Decision Making Develop county-wide process for involvement of stakeholders in decisions. All the key players have not been involved in the decision-making process (e.g., major systems decisions are sometimes made without stakeholder involvement).

1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) Create a criminal justice coordinating committee (CJCC) to report to the Board of Commissioners

and Judges. The CJCC will report progress as required to CJAB. The CJCC will be a working committee with at least one full or part-time staff person with defined duties that support the objectives of justice reinvestment. Designated justice system stakeholders from each court and agency will work with CJCC staff to coordinate research, data sharing, and reporting.

This should be the highest priority of the county in order to determine what are the most

effective policies and procedures to increase public safety, reduce recidivism and manage or reduce costs. For five key Pennsylvania policy and practice changes recommended by PA’s Justice Reinvestment Strategy, go to http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PA_2-page_report.pdf. For an example of a court (Contra Costa County, CA) that has achieved significant progress in this area, go to: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf. Recommendations within the Communication initiative are closely related to Initiative 2.0 Justice Reinvestment and 6.0 Justice Technology. They include the following which should be initiated the first year of implementation:

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository Create a cross-agency integrated data repository to include juvenile and adult case data from

law enforcement, MDJS, CPCMS, Adult and Juvenile Probation and Jail system; in order to provide justice system decision-makers with information about outcomes related to pretrial diversion, pretrial release, program evaluation, early accountability, recidivism, and reduction in jail population.

1.2A Criminal justice data standards. Establish National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) data

standards across county for criminal justice information; core defendant and charge information (UCMS); plus casetype and disposition information. UCMS is built on NIEM standards and requires data cleansing by each of the agency users, but exchange standards for e-filing and data integration are critical to the implementation of shared services.


http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PA_2-page_report.pdf


http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf



1.2B Standardize disposition types/nomenclature. Standard casetype and disposition information; especially for aggregate and reporting purposes; align use and meaning of alternate phrasing, correlate to MDJS and CPCMS reporting standards already in place.

1.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial. Track the number of summonsed defendants; arrested

defendants who are arraigned; the number of arrested defendants who are arraigned and make bail; the number of arrested defendants who are arraigned and are bailed out, but cannot make bail; the average and range of time a bailed defendant is held before making bail; and the number of defendants who are held without bail.

1.2D Review MDJS active pending caseload. It is likely that many are inactive or unpaid fines that

have not been pursued. JMI recommends that the District Courts conduct a review of active pending cases.

1.3 Recidivism Study Recidivism study for alternative programs (mental health, day release program, work release). Appropriate recidivism study data would provide direction to the county on the structure and existence of inmate programs.

1.3A Track new charges after release on own recognizance (ROR)/bail 1.3B Track new charges after ROR/pretrial conditions 1.3C Track failures to appear on ROR/other pretrial conditions by highest charge 1.3D Track compliance with probation conditions for charge categories by highest charge

1.4 Early Accountability Review Early Accountability in light of the Pennsylvania judicial code and the issues raised by the PA Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys.

1.4A Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD. Study ways to enable defendants, summonsed to appear at the preliminary hearing, to discuss a plea negotiation with a prosecuting attorney, prior to the preliminary hearing.

1.4B Consider additional representation at plea negotiation. Review and consider representation of

self-represented litgants at Central Court per Rule 122(A)(3) of the PA Code. “Counsel shall be appointed: in all cases, by the court, on its own motion, when the interests of justice require it.”

1.4C Reduce continuances. Unnecessary continuances undermine public trust and confidence in the

justice system and delay justice. Affiants are scheduled to appear at the Preliminary Hearing,



many of which do not occur due to continuances. A delay at the Preliminary Hearing adds a minimum of one, and often, two weeks to the time an incarcerated pretrial defendant will spend in jail.

1.4D Reduce affiants appearance by 60-80%. Note that more than 80% of dispositions/outcomes do

not result in a Preliminary Hearing. 1.4E Additional Central Court computer. Provide additional computer at Central Court, if number of

scheduled/waived preliminary hearings remains high.

1.5 Early Discovery Expedite release of information to public defender prior to first appearance in court to allow for more preparation of the defense case.

1.5A Primary complaint document integration

1.6 Treatment Provider Management Refine communication protocols between treatment providers and Adult Probation and incorporate them into subcontracts.

1.6A Online case management reporting tool 1.6B Database of treatment providers and tracking

2.0 Justice Reinvestment Initiate a justice reinvestment initiative as a primary focus of the CJCC (see above). Justice reinvestment will be focused on alternatives to incarceration using evidence-based pretrial and sentencing outcomes.

2.1 Probation Supervision Resources Additional probation supervision resources are needed to provide effective diversion and improve public safety. Resources include services and materials, such as electronic monitoring and better web-based communication tools; and personnel to expand pretrial and probation supervision. Resources need to be quantified and balanced by benefits, which include both reduced costs and better outcomes.

2.2 Pretrial Risk Screening Screen defendants at booking for flight risk and risk to public safety as a way to inform judges about the appropriateness of pretrial supervision (instead of bail or high bail).



2.2A Consider use of PSA-Court risk assessment. Consider new Public Safety Assessment (PSA-Court)

risk assessment instrument at the jail, or even by law enforcement, at central booking for better pretrial release information. May be completed without an interview and measures three variables: likelihood to commit a new act of violence, commit a crime, and fail to appear for a court hearing.

2.2B Evaluate use of money bail and alternatives. Consider new approaches to hold/release

decisions pretrial; evaluate outcomes in other jurisdictions and outcomes data from Pretrial Justice Institute report.

2.3 Pretrial Eligibility Determination Allow eligibility determinations to be made by the pre-release team for defined scope of cases.

2.3A Expand probation resources to conduct screening. Evaluate public safety impacts and better outcomes as a result of providing resources to conduct pretrial screening at central booking by law enforcement, corrections officers, or the Probation department.

2.3B Consider bail recommendations by probation.

Pilot a program in which the number of defendants who are screened for a) non-violence; b) likely to appear; and c) unlikely to re-commit a crime, but cannot make bail, are tracked for number of jail bed days utilized.

2.4 Pretrial Diversion Encourage judges to divert more defendants directly to pretrial supervision with or without bond.

2.4A Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

2.5 DRC Alternative to Commitment YEAR TWO Encourage judges to sentence more offenders directly to the DRC.

2.5A Expand DRC to repeat probation violators 2.5B Study use of DRC for screened M1 and F3 categories 2.6 Jail Population Reduction Strategies YEARS ONE AND TWO

Explore ways to reduce length of pretrial incarceration – majority of jail population held for trial.

2.6A Reduce average pending caseload



2.6B Consider time standards shorter than rule. 2.6C Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings . Unnecessary continuances undermine public trust and

confidence in the justice system and delay justice. A delay at the mandatory arraignment potentially adds a minimum of usually two weeks; at the call of the list eight weeks; and at the pretrial conference another eight weeks to the time a defendant, incarcerated pretrial may spend in jail. See Chapter 1, Felonies and Misdemeanors for a detailed analysis.

3.0 Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan Direct CJAB Technology Committee to conduct a strategic planning process for justice system technology in coordination with a broader Franklin County Strategic Plan for Technology. An objective of this work would be to build awareness and consensus among justice partners for integrating new case management systems being developed at the State level with local business requirements. Develop a broad set of requirements for integrating eFiling and electronic document management systems in all local justice agencies. 3.1 Civil eFiling YEARS ONE AND TWO

A proof of concept study has been completed for civil e-filing. In addition, the PA Administrative Office of the Courts is rolling out a new e-filing system in 2014 for family cases under the new Unified Judicial System. It is an optimum time for Franklin County to proceed with implementation of e-filing to be integrated with Infocon, the civil case management system and with a new integrated document management system using Laserfiche.

3.2 Criminal eFiling YEARS ONE AND TWO

UCMS and the AOPC have been working together to build efiling data integration. Currently, the PA State Police and a few townships have implemented an efiling solution with MDJS for traffic citations. This initiative must build on that achievement and on the promise of full data integration in criminal cases.

3.2A Efiling from Law Enforcement. Provide efiling from law enforcement for all complaints, summons and citations.

3.2B Efiling from District Attorney. Provide efiling from District Attorney, UCMS to CPCMS for plea

negotiation, information and motions and orders. 3.2C Efiling from Public Defender. Provide efiling from Public Defender for calendar notices, motions

and orders. 3.2D Efiling from private attorneys. Provide efiling from private attorneys for calendar notices,

motions and orders. 3.3 Data Integration YEARS ONE TO THREE



The efiling and data needs across the front end of the criminal justice system start with law enforcement and must include the Sheriff, jail, District Attorney, Public Defender, Adult and Juvenile Probation, in addition to the courts. Franklin County can be a partner and leader in that effort. Court, in collaboration with the Clerk of Court, should develop a system (at the time of sentencing) for identifying of defendants sentenced to incarceration who have a current support obligation. On the Civil side, Orphans Court is a standalone system.

3.3A Jail Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.3B Public Defender Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.3C Magisterial District Court Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.3D District Attorney Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.3E Court of Common Pleas Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.3F Adult Probation Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.3G Sheriff Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.3H DRC Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints. 3.4 Document Management YEAR ONE

The Franklin County IT strategic plan must address the disparate, fragmented and non-integrated document management tools in place across the justice system. Franklin County has initiated a county-wide document management platform, but the structure and functional requirements for justice system document management are not yet being met, for the following reasons. Document management currently is not integrated or utilized in CPCMS or MDJS. A new efiling initiative contemplates a solution that is heavily dependent on a third-party document management solution, which would duplicate the document management solution in the civil case management system, Infocon. UCMS allows for third party Document Management Systems to be integrated with the application.

3.4A Scanning and Indexing. First steps to implement data integration are to provide a document indexing structure in Laserfiche, independent of system integration. Justice system stakeholders can begin to scan, index and retrieve documents.

Scan and index all Magisterial District Court records. Note that this recommendation is two-

phased: 1) Seek official interpretation of AOPC record retention schedule; and 2) implement scanning and indexing.



3.4B Embed DMS into CPCMS. Embed Laserfiche document management system into CPCMS, similar

to a number of other counties. First phase is to simply launch scanning and retrieval from inside CPCMS without leaving the application. Second step is to provide document index information from Laserfiche back to CPCMS for retrieval.

3.4C Embed DMS into MDJS. Embed Laserfiche document management system into MDJS, similar to

a number of other counties. First phase is to simply launch scanning and retrieval from inside MDJS without leaving the application. Second step is to provide document index information from Laserfiche back to MDJS for retrieval.

3.4D Embed DMS into UCMS. Embed Laserfiche document management system into UCMS, similar

to a number of other counties. First phase is to simply launch scanning and retrieval from inside UCMS without leaving the application. Second step is to provide document index information from Laserfiche back to UCMS for retrieval.

3.4E Document Integration into UCMS 3.5 Integrated Calendars YEARS ONE AND TWO

Integrate information systems so that calendared juvenile case events are accessible to the District Attorney, Juvenile Probation, the Public Defender, and the primary provider of juvenile defense services. Provide DR access to Prothonotary's case management and imaging system (Infocon). Domestic Relations has no way to track or view court calendars.

3.5A Calendars from MDJS to UCMS 3.5B Calendars from CPCMS to UCMS 3.6 ePay YEARS ONE AND TWO

Enhance the ePay system to allow for recurring payments and bank debits. Adult Probation handles all payments for the county, including court fees (civil, too?), restitution, and fines. Currently the ePay system allows for payment via credit card but not through bank debits (e.g., ACH) and it does not allow for setting up recurring payments from a given source. Expand payment options through e-pay web portal. Provide read only access for Juvenile Probation to the Adult Probation Payment System.

3.7 eSignatures YEAR THREE Incorporate electronic signatures into the document management system that enables clients to sign electronically (with an automated time stamp) through a signature pad. Adjust workflow for front desk to log time entries themselves upon checking client identification.



3.8 Jail Management System Strategy YEAR ONE UCMS has significant noted shortcomings for use at FCJ. Demonstrate the appropriateness of the UCMS functionality, address adoption cycle, or develop plans for alternative Jail Management software. Provide an electronic option for inmate tracking, perhaps utilizing tablets. Computer assistance for inmate tracking does not exist. Jailers must manually conduct inmate observations and track those observations on hard-copy records.

3.8A UCMS Rollout 3.8B UCMS Future Enhancements 3.9 Network Infrastructure YEAR ONE

Build landline internet connectivity infrastructure with redundancy and sufficient bandwidth to accommodate maximum staff capacity at the Jail.

3.10 Cross-Agency Technology Training YEAR ONE Initiate cross-agency technology training focused on building core competencies in CPCMS, MDJS, UCMS (after rollout), Infocon or other civil systems, and Google Calendar. This initiative should include a component dedicated to best practices in electronic document management. Finalize implementation and staff training for document management system (e.g., Laserfiche).

3.11 UCMS YEARS ONE AND TWO JMI recommends that the adoption of UCMS be escalated to a system-wide effort to implement and integrate UCMS into the criminal justice system.

4-6 High Priority Standalone Recommendations The following recommendations were based on consensus views for the need to address key issues beyond the three primary initiatives. The following are recommended to be addressed or started in the first year of implementation. 4.0 Jury Management

Clarification and streamlining of jury management staffing, resources and tools available, jury pool data sources, calendaring and jury attendance, efficiency, and automation tools for juror summons, intake, training and reimbursement.


The AOPC has identified self-represented litigants as a high-priority for Pennsylvania. 6.0 Facilities and Security Study



Facility and security issues affect all justice stakeholders. Facilities planning is long-term. Changes are costly. A facilities study is recommended that is limited in scope to existing county facilities, constrained by early, achievable budget targets and recognizes the need to leverage technology and improved business processes to mitigate the need for additional program space. The implementation plan will outline methods to reach these goals. A facilities study should be planned and designed with a primary goal in mind – to improve business processes and functions. A facilities study conducted over 6 months should include: needs analysis and projections, space program, engineering study (unless a study has been recently completed), accessibility, security and segregated uses and access, three design and planning options, and three cost estimates for renovation and modification. Study recommendations should also include at minimum:

6.1 ADA Accessibility 6.2 Building Security 6.3 Security Staffing 6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training and Compensation



Integration Touchpoints

ID Entity Agency/Court Touch Point Functionality Source System Target System

1 1.0 Jail LE_01 Arrest CNet JMS 2 eFile_01 Complaint and Affidavit eFiling JMS 3 MDJS_02 Hearing List (Calendar) MDJS JMS 4 CPCMS_02 Hearing List (Calendar) CPCMS JMS 5 CPCMS_03 Orders (Commitments) CPCMS JMS 6 2.0 Public Defender MDJS_01 Complaint and Affidavit MDJS Legal Edge 7 MDJS_02 Calendar MDJS Legal Edge 8 MDJS_03 Orders (includes bail) MDJS Legal Edge 9 CL_01 Conflict Lawyer Assignment ? Legal Edge

10 eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling Legal Edge 11 CPCMS_01 Assignment CPCMS Legal Edge 12 CPCMS_02 Trial List (Calendar) CPCMS Legal Edge 13 CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS Legal Edge 14 CPCMS_04 Verdict CPCMS Legal Edge 15 CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS Legal Edge 16 DA_01 Bill of Information Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge 17 DA_02 Assignment Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge 18 DA_03 Discovery (Drop Box) Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge 19 DA_04 Plea Offers Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge 20 PROB_01 Recommendations JNet Legal Edge 21 3.0 Magisterial District Court eFile_01 Complaint and Affidavit eFiling MDJS 22 eFile_02 Citations eFiling MDJS 23 eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling MDJS




24 4.0 District Attorney MDJS_01 Complaint and Affidavit MDJS UCMS 25 MDJS_02 Trial List (Calendar) MDJS UCMS 26 CL_01 Conflict Lawyer Assignment ? UCMS 27 eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling UCMS 28 CPCMS_01 Assignment CPCMS UCMS 29 CPCMS_02 Hearing List (Calendar) CPCMS UCMS 30 CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS UCMS 31 CPCMS_04 Verdict CPCMS UCMS 32 CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS UCMS 33 PD_01 Assignment Legal Edge UCMS 34 PD_02 Plea Counteroffers Legal Edge UCMS 35 PROB_01 Recommendations UCMS UCMS 36 PROB_03 Discharge UCMS UCMS 37 5.0 Court of Common Pleas MDJS_01 Complaint and Affidavit MDJS CPCMS 38 MDJS_03 Orders (includes bail) MDJS CPCMS 39 PD_01 Assignment Legal Edge CPCMS 40 CL_01 Conflict Lawyer Assignment ? CPCMS 41 DA_01 Bill of Information UCMS CPCMS 42 DA_02 Assignment UCMS CPCMS 43 DA_04 Plea Negotiation UCMS CPCMS 44 eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling CPCMS 45 6.0 Adult Probation CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS UCMS 46 CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS UCMS 47 SVC_01 Service Providers ? UCMS




48 7.0 Sheriff CPCMS_03 Warrant Orders CPCMS CNet 49 DOC_01 Prisoner Transfers UCMS CNet 50 JAIL_01 Prisoner Transfers UCMS CNet 51 COURT_01 Transfer Orders UCMS CNet 52 8.0 Day Reporting Center CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS MRT 53 CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS MRT 54 SVC_01 Service Providers ? MRT



Chapter 7 Implementation Plan The implementation plan on the following pages is based on JMI recommendations for prioritization of first year business process changes on a three-year cycle. The recommendations incorporate significant efforts in information technology. The supplementary facilities recommendations are not indexed to any of the workflow processes, but reflect a consensus that security and access to existing courthouse facilities are high priorities. JMI recommends the following county-wide business process implementation strategies. The recommendations are iterative. They are intended to be revised as the implementation planning phase evolves and is sustained. The recommendations only include the initiatives and recommendations recommended for implementation in the first year, continuing into the second year. Not all initiatives and recommendations are included in the Implementation Plan.

Implementation Strategy 1 – Goals and Outcomes Each initiative is written as an objective with an implied goal or outcome. JMI recommends that the county and all justice stakeholders craft a goal or expected outcome for each initiative. This process will be conducted in three steps:

1. Draft initiative goals and submit them to the project management steering committee. 2. The steering committee will review and edit. 3. A collaborative session of CJAB and family casetype stakeholders will help to discuss and refine

the initiatives. Consensus will be reached by majority vote.

Implementation Strategy 2 – Three Year Cycles Organize the initiatives and recommendations into three year cycles at the conclusion of the implementation planning process:

Year One Current projects, capacity building and high priority recommendations with low risk Year Two Current and new targeted projects, combined with building structural foundations Year Three System-wide projects that are based on good data and improved technology and

that target specific outcomes.

Implementation Strategy 3 – Year One JMI strongly recommends that the county and justice stakeholders focus on the following initiatives and recommendations in Year One. They are proposed because they are current projects, capacity building and high priority initiatives and recommendations. Major costs, except for staffing for 1.1 and 1.3 below, should not be incurred until Year Two.



1.0 County-Wide Communication and Decision-Making 1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC). Create a Criminal Justice Coordinating

Committee (CJCC) and full-time staff person, who will report to the County Commissioners and Judges. The CJCC will be chaired by a CJAB designee and will include one full or part-time staff person who will provide information to the CJAB chair and to the committee once per month. The CJCC will include staff from all criminal justice courts and agencies. Designated justice system stakeholders from each court and agency will work with CJCC staff to coordinate research, data sharing, and reporting. This should be the highest priority of the county in order to determine what are the most effective policies and procedures to increase public safety, reduce recidivism and manage or reduce costs. For five key Pennsylvania policy and practice changes recommended by PA’s Justice Reinvestment Strategy, go to http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PA_2-page_report.pdf. For an example of a court (Contra Costa County, CA) that has achieved significant progress in this area, go to: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf. Recommendations within the Communication initiative are closely related to Initiative 2.0 Justice Reinvestment and 6.0 Justice Technology. They include the following which should be initiated the first year of implementation:

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository. Close work with IT to map needed data. 1.3 Recidivism Study. Alignment of recidivism data with current jail population study. 1.4 Early Accountability Review. Review of early accountability outcomes after more data has

accumulated. 2.0 Justice Reinvestment 2.1 Probation Supervision Resources. 2.2 Pretrial Risk Screening. Evaluation of available tools and implementation of a risk screening tool

in collaboration with Adult Probation and justice stakeholders. 3.0 Justice Technology Strategic Plan Few systemic issues can be addressed without good cross-agency data that are timely and integrated and provide clear direction at every stage of a case lifecycle. Each key component of the technology strategy will be on a different planning and development timeline or cycle. Year Two projects should be well into or completed the planning phase by the end of Year One. All of the technology recommendations should be included in the county-wide strategic plan, but focus must be on active and planned IT projects, to include at minimum:







3.1 Civil eFiling (POC completed) 3.2 Criminal eFiling (planned integration between UCMS and CPCMS) 3.3 Data Integration (planned integration between UCMS and CPCMS) 3.4 Document Management (infrastructure is in place) 3.9 Jail Management System Strategy (UCMS project in progress) 3.11 Cross Agency Technology Training (critical need) 3.12 UCMS (project in progress, requires functional gap analysis) 4-6 High-Priority Recommendations 4.0 Jury Management. Clarification and streamlining of jury management staffing, resources and

tools available, jury pool data sources, calendaring and jury attendance, efficiency, and automation tools for juror summons, intake, training and reimbursement.

5.0 Civil Casetypes – Self Represented Litigants. This is a low-risk, low-cost, high reward

recommendation. First year objectives should include, at minimum, online and hardcopy information and brochures about the justice system, how file cases, submit motions and manage the litigation process. In addition, the PA Courts and administrative office is calling for an initiative to assist self-represented litigants in county courts. The impact on public perceptions will be significant.

6.0 Facilities and Security Study. Facility and security issues affect all justice stakeholders. Facilities

planning is long-term. Changes are costly. A facilities study is recommended that is limited in scope to existing county facilities, constrained by early, achievable budget targets and recognizes the need to leverage technology and improved business processes to mitigate the need for additional program space. The implementation plan will outline methods to reach these goals. A facilities study should be planned and designed with a primary goal in mind – to improve business processes and functions. A facilities study conducted over 6 months should include: needs analysis and projections, space program, engineering study (unless a study has been recently completed), accessibility, security and segregated uses and access, three design and planning options, and three cost estimates for renovation and modification. Study recommendations should also include at minimum:

4.3A ADA Accessibility 4.3B Building Security 4.3C Security Staffing 4.3D Staffing Recruitment, Training and Compensation



Years One and Two Implementation – Communication and System-Wide Decision Making September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015

Steps Initiatives and Action Steps CJAB Committee Key Participants Start Date End Date Status

1 Communication and System-Wide Decision Making 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 1.0.1 Goals and objectives All stakeholders Board chairs 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 1.0.2 Stakeholders commitment All stakeholders Elected officials, managers 9/1/2014 10/31/2014

1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) 9/1/2014 11/30/2014

1.1.1 Re-configure CJAB to incorporate CJCC, chair and membership Evaluation and Caseflow Chairs, C Gray, M Singer 9/1/2014 9/30/2014 1.1.2 CJCC charter and funding County, Eval and

Caseflow County, Chairs 9/1/2014 9/30/2014

1.1.3 CJCC Coordinator job description County, Eval and Caseflow

Shalom, C Gray, M Singer 9/1/2014 9/30/2014

1.1.4 CJCC Coordinator advertisement County, Eval and Caseflow

Shalom, C Gray 10/1/2014 10/31/2014

1.1.5 CJCC Coordinator interviews and selection County, Chairs and Caseflow

Shalom, Chairs, 11/1/2014 11/20/2014

1.1.6 CJCC Coordinator hiring and orientation County County 11/20/2014 11/30/2014

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository 12/1/2014 2/28/2015 1.2.1 Establish primary data sets for tracking events and outcomes CJCC* CJCC Coordinator 12/1/2014 1/31/2015 1.2.2 Determine source an ownership of data CJCC CJCC Coordinator 1/1/2015 2/28/2015 1.2.3 Conduct gap analysis of systems’ data CJCC CJCC Coordinator 1/1/2015 2/28/2015 1.2.4 Identify and implement best approach for supplementing missing

data CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015

1.2.5 Configure monthly data extracts for available data CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015 1.2.6 All reports (other tasks) should be keyed/indexed to data sets CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015 1.2.7 Maintain data indexes for reports CJCC CJCC Coordinator 3/1/2015 8/31/2015



1.3 Recidivism Study 1.3.1 Establish research guidelines and human subject safeguards CJCC CJCC Coordinator 12/1/2014 1/31/2015 1.3.2 Determine sampling and control groups CJCC CJCC Coordinator 1/1/2015 2/28/2015 1.3.3 Data gap analysis – use of historical (e.g. ARD) or day-forward (e.g.

EAP) samples CJCC CJCC Coordinator 1/1/2015 2/28/2015

1.3.4 Add data elements to UCMS or capture data manually CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015 1.3.5 Begin study using monthly data on all immediate past or future

dispositions CJCC CJCC Coordinator 3/1/2015 2/29/2016

1.3.6 For day-forward evaluate results after one year CJCC CJCC Coordinator 3/1/2016 3/31/2016

1.4 Early Accountability Review 1.4.1 Assemble and configure pre-Sep 2013 outcome data tables CJCC CJCC Coordinator, A Everetts 12/1/2014 1/31/2015 1.4.2 Assemble and configure ongoing data tables for post-2013

outcomes CJCC CJCC Coordinator, A Everetts 12/1/2014 1/31/2015

1.4.3 Ensure outcome tracking for both preliminary (MDJ) and plea hearings (CCP)

CJCC CJCC Coordinator, A Everetts 2/1/2015 2/28/2015

1.4.4 Identify and ensure time markers for procedural changes at Central Court


1.4.5 Draft monthly reports for outcome – feedback and approval from stakeholders


1.4.6 Feed key data to Recidivism Study CJCC CJCC Coordinator, A Everetts 12/1/2014 8/31/2015 *Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee



Years One and Two Implementation – Justice Reinvestment September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015


2 Justice Reinvestment 2.0.1 Goals and objectives All stakeholders Board chairs 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 2.0.2 Stakeholders commitment All stakeholders Elected officials, managers 9/1/2014 10/31/2014

2.1 Probation Supervision Resources

2.1.1 Project and quantify material resources needed for supervision (e.g. EMUs)

CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, Dan Hoover 12/1/2014 12/31/2014

2.1.2 Project and quantify personnel resources for pretrial supervision CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DH 12/1/2014 2/28/2015 2.1.3 Project and quantify personnel resources for probation supervision CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DH 12/1/2014 2/28/2015 2.1.4 Calculate costs for material and personnel resources CJCC CJCC Coordinator, County, DH 3/1/2015 3/31/2015

2.1.5 Index pretrial and probation supervision to reduced jail population costs

CJCC CJCC Coordinator, County 3/1/2015 3/31/2015

2.1.6 Establish two-year phased implementation CJCC, CJAB County, DH 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 2.1.7 Implement first-year plan for material and diversion resources CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DH, County 5/1/2015 8/31/2015

2.2 Pretrial Risk Screening

2.2.1 Evaluate pretrial risk screening tools accuracy (report) (e.g. KPRA-S /PSA-Court)

CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, Dane Anthony 12/1/2014 1/31/2015

2.2.2 Select risk screening instrument CJCC, CJAB MDJs, CJCC Coordinator, DA 1/31/2015 2/28/2015 2.2.3 Identify costs for implementation and training CJCC CJCC Coordinator, County 1/31/2015 3/31/2015 2.2.4 Identify personnel and methodology (law enforcement or jail) CJCC CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police Chiefs 1/31/2015 3/31/2015 2.2.5 Get buy-in CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police Chiefs 12/1/2014 4/30/2015 2.2.6 Adopt risk screening instrument CJAB County, CJCC Coordinator 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 2.2.7 Training CJCC CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police 4/30/2015 5/31/2015 2.2.8 Go Live CJAB MDJs, CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police 6/1/2015



Years One and Two Implementation – Information Technology Strategic Plan September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015


3 Information Technology Strategic Plan 3.0.1 Goals and objectives All stakeholders Board chairs 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 3.0.2 Stakeholders commitment All stakeholders Elected officials, managers 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 3.0.1 Draft WAN and LAN (each building) diagrams Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014 3.0.2 Update inventory of all County-funded hardware and software

(network/user) Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014

3.0.3 Document existing high-level functions of primary case management systems

Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014

3.0.4 Gap analysis of existing and needed functional requirements for core CMSs


3.0.5 Document functional requirements for civil e-filing (5.2) Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 2/28/2015 3.0.6 Document functional requirements for criminal e-filing (5.3) Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 12/31/2014 3.0.7 Document functional requirements for data integration (5.4) Technology County CIO, IT staff 3/1/2015 3/31/2015 3.0.8 Document functional requirements for document management

(5.5) Technology County CIO, IT staff 3/1/2015 3/31/2015

3.0.9 Document functional requirements for fee transactions (civil) Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 4/30/2015 3.0.10 Phased cost analysis Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 3.0.11 Draft Strategic Plan report for review by stakeholders Technology County CIO, IT staff 6/1/2015 6/30/2015 3.0.12 Final IT Strategic Plan report Technology County CIO, IT staff 7/1/2015 7/31/2015

3.1 Civil eFiling (POC completed)

3.1.1 DR and Family – Evaluate and incorporate Family eFiling from AOPC

Technology County CIO, IT staff, civil power users

9/1/2014 10/31/2014

3.1.2 DR and Family – Gap analysis of document integration into Infocon or Laserfiche

Technology County CIO, IT staff, civil power users

10/1/2014 10/31/2014

3.1.3 DR and Family – High level functional requirements needed Technology County CIO, IT staff, civil power users

11/1/2014 22/28/2015



Steps Initiatives and Action Steps CJAB Committee Key Participants Start Date End Date Status 3.1.4 DR and Family – Submit requirements to AOPC Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 2/1/2015 2/28/2015 3.1.5 Civil –High level functional requirements for civil e-filing Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 11/1/2014 2/28/2015 3.1.6 Civil – System requirements Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 11/1/2014 2/28/2015 3.1.7 Civil –Draft procurement document Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 3/1/2015 4/30/2015 3.1.8 Civil –RFP and submission process Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 5/1/2015 6/30/2015 3.1.9 Civil –Evaluation and contracting Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 7/1/2015 8/31/2015

3.1.10 Civil –Implementation Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 9/1/2015 12/31/2015 3.1.11 Civil –Testing Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 12/15/2015 1/15/2016 3.1.12 Civil –Training Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 1/15/2016 1/31/2016 3.1.13 Civil –Go Live Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 2/1/2016

3.2 Criminal eFiling (planned D.A. integration between UCMS and

CPCMS)

3.2.1 Criminal – Document criminal e-filing functions from law enforcement to MDJS

Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal power users

9/1/2014 9/30/2014

3.2.2 Criminal – Document criminal e-filing functions from D.A. to CPCMS


10/1/2014 10/31/2014

3.2.3 Criminal – Document criminal e-filing functions from Adult Probation to CPCMS


11/1/2014 11/30/2014

3.2.4 Criminal – Document criminal e-filing functions from attorneys to CPCMS


12/1/2014 12/31/2014

3.2.5 Gap analysis of e-filing functions from UCMS (D.A. and A.P.) to CPCMS


1/1/2015 1/31/2015

3.2.6 Document high level system requirements for criminal e-filing Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal power users

2/1/2015 2/28/2015

3.2.7 Submit requirements to CCAP and AOPC Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal power users

3/1/2015



Steps Initiatives and Action Steps CJAB Committee Key Participants Start Date End Date Status 3.3 Data Integration (planned integration between UCMS and

CPCMS)

3.3.1 Document calendaring integration functions to be provided Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal power users

3/1/2015 3/31/2015

3.3.2 Document filing and disposition integration functions to be provided


3/1/2015 3/31/2015

3.3.3 Gap analysis of calendaring integration into UCMS from CPCMS Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal power users

4/1/2015 4/30/2015

3.3.4 Gap analysis of filing and disposition integration into UCMS from CPCMS


4/1/2015 4/30/2015

3.3.5 Document system requirements for integration Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal power users

5/1/2015 5/31/2015

3.4.6 Submit requirements to CCAP and AOPC Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal power users

6/1/2015

3.4 Document Management (infrastructure is in place)

3.4.1 Evaluation and documentation of key DM functions (categories for all types)


3.4.2 Map three targeted DM functional requirements (e.g. complaints, motions, orders)


3.4.3 System requirements for document management Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 3.4.4 Issue task order to host system developers/submit requirements

to CCAP & AOPC Technology County CIO, IT staff 6/1/2015 6/30/2015

3.4.5 Negotiate and execute contracts for county developers Technology County CIO, IT staff 7/1/2015 7/31/2015 3.4.6 Vendor implementation Technology County CIO, IT staff 8/1/2015 10/31/2015 3.4.7 IT Implementation of Laserfiche data indexing structure Technology County CIO, IT staff 8/1/2015 10/31/2015 3.4.8 Testing Technology County CIO, IT staff 11/1/2015 11/15/2015 3.4.9 Training Technology County CIO, IT staff 11/16/2015 11/30/2015

3.4.10 Go Live Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/1/2015



Steps Initiatives and Action Steps CJAB Committee Key Participants Start Date End Date Status 3.5 UCMS – Unified Case Management System

3.5.1 Document functions of offender portal Technology County CIO, IT staff 3/1/2015 3/31/2015 3.5.2 Document functions of new Adult Probation module Technology County CIO, IT staff 3/1/2015 3/31/2015 3.5.3 Document functions of new District Attorney module Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 4/30/2015 3.5.4 Document functions of new Jail Management module Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 4/30/2015 3.5.5 Conduct gap analysis Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 3.5.6 Evaluation of Year 2 and Year 3 requirements Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 3.5.7 Submit requirements to CCAP Technology County CIO, IT staff 6/1/2015

3.6 Cross Agency Technology Training (critical need)

3.6.1 Draft user manuals for county shared services (email, office automation, SMS)

Technology, Evaluation County CIO, IT staff, super users 9/1/2014 10/31/2014

3.6.2 Draft user manuals for document management (Laserfiche standalone)

Technology County CIO, IT staff, super users 9/1/2014 10/31/2014

3.6.3 Draft user manuals for enterprise systems (HR, finance, procurement)


3.6.4 Evaluate agency and user interest – survey instrument – target county systems


3.6.5 Schedule training sessions Technology County CIO, IT staff, super users 11/1/2014 11/30/2014 3.6.6 Conduct first year training sessions Technology County CIO, IT staff, super users 12/1/2014 8/31/2015

3.6.7 Assemble user manuals for UCMS from CCAP Technology, Justice Network

County CIO, IT staff, super users 9/1/2014 2/28/2015

3.6.8 Assemble user manuals for CPCMS and MDJS from AOPC Technology, Caseflow Mgmt


3.6.9 Assemble user manuals for Infocon Technology, Caseflow Mgmt


3.6.9 Incorporate state and vendor systems into county training Technology, Caseflow Mgmt




Steps Initiatives and Action Steps CJAB Committee Key Participants Start Date End Date Status 3.7 Jury Management Software (requires a POC and best practices

analysis)

3.7.1 Functional requirements Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014 3.7.2 System requirements and data integration Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014 3.7.3 Proof of concept evaluations of jury management software Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/1/2014 1/31/2015 3.7.4 Draft procurement document Technology County CIO, IT staff 2/1/2015 3/31/2015 3.7.5 RFP and submission process Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 5/31/2015 3.7.6 Evaluation and contracting Technology County CIO, IT staff 6/1/2015 7/31/2015 3.7.7 Implementation Technology County CIO, IT staff 8/1/2015 11/30/2015 3.7.8 Testing Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/1/2015 12/15/2015 3.7.9 Training Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/15/2015 12/31/2015

3.7.10 Go Live Technology County CIO, IT staff 1/1/2016



Years One and Two Implementation – High Priority Standalone Recommendations September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015


4-6 High-Priority Standalone Recommendations 4.0.1 Goals and objectives All stakeholders Board chairs 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 4.0.2 Stakeholders commitment All stakeholders Elected officials, managers 9/1/2014 10/31/2014

4.0 Jury Management (for software, see 3.7)

4.1.1 Workflow process analysis Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 4.1.2 Reorganization proposal Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 11/1/2014 11/30/2014 4.1.3 Re-classification of staff and assignments Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 12/1/2014 2/28/2015 4.1.4 Alignment with jury management software project Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 3/1/2015 3/31/2015 4.1.5 Implementation of new jury management staffing structure Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 3/1/2015 4/30/2015


5.1.1 Hardcopy forms and guidance materials Caseflow Court Administration, Judges 9/1/2014 1/31/2015 5.1.2 Online county-based resources IT IT, Judges 9/1/2014 1/31/2015 5.1.3 Self-help center study and analysis Caseflow Court Administration, Judges 1/1/2015 3/31/2015

6.0 Facilities and Security Study

6.1.1 RFP for facilities master plan update Facilities County Administration, Judges 9/1/2014 10/31/2014 6.1.2 Facilities master plan update and engineering study Facilities County Administration, Judges 11/1/2014 2/28/2015 6.1.3 Financing Facilities County Administration, Judges 1/1/2015 3/31/2015 6.1.4 RFP for architects/engineers Facilities County Administration, Judges 4/1/2015 7/31/2015 6.1.5 Renovation and expansion project Facilities County Administration, Judges 2015 2016



Chapter 8 Costs and Benefits The following estimated costs and benefits are primarily monetary, and also based on derived efficiencies. They range across all recommendations over a multi-year implementation. For each initiative, a detailed cost estimate must be completed and measured against the outcomes. Qualitative benefits are described in the narrative body of the report.

COSTS 1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinator In-House Low High Notes

Advertising $200 $500 Computer and Equipment $1,500 $1,500 Office Space (no incremental cost) $0 $0 Total Cost $0 $1,700 $2,000 CJCC coordinator annual salary $60,000 $75,000 Annual Benefits (35%) $21,000 $26,250 Total Annual Costs $0 $81,000 $101,250

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository Phase One In-House Manual data collection $0 Staffing work by CJCC coordinator $0 Total Cost $0

Phase Two In-House Contracted Low Cost


Phase two data repository software OS $0 $0 Repository configuration and setup $0 $20,000 $40,000 Data integration configuration and setup $0 $40,000 $60,000 Subtotal $0 $60,000 $100,000

1.3 Recidivism Study In-House



CJCC Coordinator work $0

1.4 Early Accountability In-House CJCC Coordinator work $0

1.5 Early Discovery In-House CJCC Coordinator work $0

2.1 Pretrial Risk Screening In-House Low High CJCC Coordinator work $0 Training $0 $10,000 $15,000 Subtotal $0 $10,000 $15,000

2.2 Pretrial Eligibility Determination In-House CJCC Coordinator work $0

2.3 Pretrial Diversion In-House CJCC Coordinator work $0

2.4 DRC Alternatives to Commitment In-House CJCC Coordinator work $0

2.5 Jail Population Reduction Strategies In-House CJCC Coordinator work $0

2.6 Probation Supervision Resources In-House Low High CJCC Coordinator analysis and cost estimates $0 $0 $0 Increase GPS monitoring (low-50%; high 100%) $0 $0 $0 Add pretrial staff (low-2; high-4) Advertising $125 $125



PO annual salary x2; x4 $90,000 $180,000 Annual Benefits (35%) $31,500 $63,000 Computer and Equipment $3,000 $6,000 Office space leased (200 sf ea) $4,000 $8,000 Subtotal Annual Costs $128,625 $257,125

IT STRATEGIC PLAN In-House Contracted Low Cost

Contracted High Cost Notes

3.1 Justice Technology Strategic Plan $0 $60,000 $120,000

3.2 Civil e-Filing In-House Contracted Low Cost


Software NA $0 $120,000 Low cost is freeware + atty subscriptions Data integration with Infocon NA $20,000 $50,000 Document integration with Infocon NA $10,000 $20,000 Contingency (15%) NA $4,500 $28,500 Subtotal $0 $34,500 $218,500 Annual maintenance $0 $0 $10,000

3.3 Criminal e-Filing In-House Contracted Low Cost


UCMS and CPCMS D.A. e-filing NA $0 $0 Law enforcement e-filing from field tech NA $120,000 $160,000 Modules provided by county Attorney e-filing (piggyback on civil) NA $0 $10,000 Piggyback on civil e-filing Data integration with CPCMS/MDJS NA $60,000 $80,000 Use of web services Document integration with Laserfiche NA $20,000 $20,000 Use of web services Contingency (15%) NA $30,000 $40,500 Subtotal $0 $230,000 $310,500 Annual maintenance $0 $15,000 $30,000 Piggyback on civil e-filing



3.4 Data Integration In-House Contracted Low Cost

Contracted High Cost Only if standalone from e-filing

See data integration in e-filing above NA $0 $0 Data integration with CPCMS/MDJS NA $60,000 $80,000 Primarily e-filing Data integration with Infocon NA $50,000 $50,000 Primarily e-filing UCMS and CPCMS data integration NA $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $110,000 $130,000

3.5 Document Management In-House Contracted Low Cost


Three targeted Laserfiche functions $0 NA NA Full document integration with Infocon $0 $15,000 $30,000 Costs from Infocon DMS embed in CPCMS/MDJS $0 $15,000 $30,000 Costs from AOPC DMS embed/integration in UCMS $0 $15,000 $30,000 Costs from CCAP Subtotal $0 $45,000 $90,000

3.6 UCMS In-House Low High Function analysis $0 $10,000 $20,000 Gap analysis $0 $5,000 $10,000

3.7 Cross-Agency Technology Training In-House Low High Training documents $0 $3,000 $5,000

3.8 Jury Management Software In-House Contracted Low Cost


Requirements $0 $15,000 $30,000 Bidding/Procurement/Project Management $500 $15,000 $30,000 Development and Licenses NA $30,000 $60,000 Training NA $2,000 $5,000 Subtotal $500 $62,000 $125,000 Annual maintenance $2,000 $2,000 $5,000



4.0 Jury Management In-House Low High

No Costs $0 $0 $0

5.0 Civil Casetypes – Self-Represented Litigants In-House Low High Hardcopy & online forms and assistance $0 $2,000 $5,000 Self-help website $0 $5,000 $8,000 Self-help center (1 staff + volunteers) Advertising $125 $125 Staff annual salary $30,000 $40,000 Annual Benefits (35%) $10,500 $14,000 Computer and Equipment $1,500 $1,500 Office space leased (400 sf ea) $0 $3,200 $4,800 Subtotal Annual Costs $0 $45,325 $60,425

6.0 Facilities Expansion and Renovation In-House Contracted Low Cost


Master plan program update $80,000 $120,000 Engineering study $60,000 $100,000 Design and documentation $787,500 $810,000 Bidding $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 Construction costs $13,500,000 $16,200,000 (90,000 sf x $150-180/sf) Technology $500,000 $750,000 Fitout $400,000 $800,000 Subtotal $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000 Annual maintenance (energy/environment) (TBD) (TBD)

6.1 Facilities Security In-House Low High Study $0 $10,000 $15,000 Staffing salaries TBD TBD TBD



In-House Low High

Total Investment Costs $1,500 $648,200 $1,164,000

Total Facility Costs $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000 Total Annual Costs $2,000 $271,950 $463,800 Total Annual Costs x 3 years $6,000 $815,850 $1,391,400 Total Annual Costs x 10 years $20,000 $2,719,500 $4,638,000

BENEFITS A Jail Reduction Strategies In-House Low High Notes

Reduce time to disposition for 116 defendants NA $678,600 $1,017,900 Low = 50% of 116; high = 75% of 116 Reduce pretrial population by 10% and 15% NA $581,263 $871,894 Currently at approx. 70% of 350 beds Subtotal Annual NA $1,259,863 $1,889,794

B Productivity Efficiency Strategies 3.2 Civil e-Filing 50% 100%

7,400 cases x 2 filings/case * 15 mins * $.06/min $6,660 $13,320

Reduction in hearings x 1 per case due to e-filing notifications $80,048 $160,096 Assumes 15 minutes/hearing x 3 staff

Subtotal Annual $86,708 $173,416

3.3 Criminal e-Filing 50% 100% 19,146 cases x 2 filings/case * 15 mins * $.06/min $17,231 $34,463

Reduction in hearings x 1 per case due to e-filing notifications $80,048 $160,096 Assumes 15 minutes/hearing x 3 staff

Reduction in continuances x 1 per case (CCP only) $27,379 $54,757 Assumes 15 minutes/hearing x 3 staff Subtotal Annual $124,658 $249,316 Annual Savings NA $1,471,229 $2,312,526



Three-Year Savings NA $4,413,686 $6,937,578 Ten-Year Savings NA $14,712,287 $23,125,261



Appendix 1 Initiatives and Recommendations Survey Results

Initiatives The following chart illustrates the results of ranking 6 initiatives across Franklin County, both weighted by agency and using the raw scores from the surveys. The weighted average balances the results evenly across 17 county courts, agencies and departments.

Initiatives Weighted AVG

Raw AVG

1.0 Communications and System-Wide Decision Making 4.29 4.29

2.0 Justice Reinvestment 4.09 4.06

5.0 Justice System Technology Strategic Plan 3.69 4.03

3.0 Comprehensive Jury Management Project 3.45 3.12

4.0 Civil Communication & Case Management 2.94 2.89

6.0 Facilities and Security Study 2.86 2.88

Recommendations

4.29 4.09

3.69 3.45

2.94 2.86

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 6.0

Weighted Average



The following chart illustrates the top 12 recommendations as scored by 16 courts and agencies, for two measurements: 1) Beneficial to Franklin County; and 2) Feasible to implement.

No. Beneficial to Franklin County (10 = highest score) Weighted AVG

Raw AVG

2.6 Probation Supervision Resources * 9.14 9.23

5.3 Data Integration 8.78 8.62

6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study * 8.72 8.43

6.2 Building Security * 8.70 8.50

5.13 Cross-Agency Technology Training* 8.47 8.68

5.2 Criminal eFiling 8.44 8.88

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository 8.17 8.67

6.3 Security Staffing 8.11 8.27

6.1 ADA Accessibility* 8.11 7.94

5.9 Jail Management System Strategy 8.08 8.00

5.5 Document Management 8.07 8.33

4.4 Self-Represented Litigants* 8.03 8.30

No. Feasible to Implement (10 = highest score) Weighted AVG

Raw AVG

6.2 Building Security* 8.35 8.56

4.3 Rules of Court Updates 8.10 8.32

3.1 Jury Management Staffing 7.96 8.22

2.6 Probation Supervision Resources* 7.89 8.86

5.12 Network Infrastructure 7.82 7.26

4.6 Document Management Workflow 7.76 8.29

6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study* 7.75 7.66

4.2 Appellate Decision Dissemination 7.48 8.30

3.2 Jury Management Software 7.44 7.89

4.4 Self-Represented Litigants* 7.44 8.46

5.13 Cross-Agency Technology Training* 7.43 7.52

6.1 ADA Accessibility* 7.40 7.29 *Top 12 on both beneficial and feasible.



The following six charts illustrate the recommendation scores within each initiative according to the two measurements (beneficial and feasible) by weighted average. The recommendations have been sorted by Beneficial Score (highest to lowest).

Initiative 1(highest ranked initiative) Communications and System-Wide Decision Making

Recommendation Beneficial Feasible

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository 8.17 6.72 1.7 Probation and DR Integration 7.74 7.00 1.4b Expedite info release for Early Accountability 7.52 6.34 1.3 Recidivism Study 7.41 7.17 1.8 Accounts Payable 6.86 5.71 1.5 Treatment Provider Management 6.61 6.63 1.4a Review Early Accountability 6.58 6.97 1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) 6.49 6.80 1.6 Juvenile Defense Provider Contract 6.25 5.88

Initiative 2 (second highest ranked initiative) Justice Reinvestment


2.6 Probation Supervision Resources 9.14 7.89 2.1 Pretrial Risk Screening 7.31 6.81 2.2 Pretrial Eligibility Determination 7.11 6.56 2.3 Pretrial Diversion 6.93 5.76 2.4 DRC Alternative to Commitment 6.93 6.62 2.5 Post-Incarceration DRC Eligibility 6.49 5.75

Initiative 5 (third highest ranked initiative) Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan


5.3 Data Integration 8.78 7.15 5.13 Cross-Agency Technology Training 8.47 7.43 5.2 Criminal eFiling 8.44 6.69 5.9 Jail Management System Strategy 8.08 6.99 5.5 Document Management 8.07 5.75 5.15 UCMS 7.96 7.14



5.4 Juvenile Case Integration 7.94 6.40 5.1 Civil eFiling 7.84 6.92 5.10 Probation Treatment Provider Management System 7.52 6.64 5.11 Juvenile Probation Summons 7.28 6.78 5.6 Integrated Calendars 7.22 6.78 5.7 ePay 7.00 6.97 5.8 eSignatures 6.97 6.97 5.14 DR Access to Infocon 6.81 6.29 5.12 Network Infrastructure 6.41 7.82

Initiative 3 Comprehensive Jury Management Project


3.2 Jury Management Software 7.29 7.44 3.1 Jury Management Staffing 6.79 7.96

Initiative 4 Civil Communication & Case Management


4.4 Self-Represented Litigants 8.03 7.44 4.3 Rules of Court Updates 7.94 8.10 4.6 Workflow 7.72 7.76 4.2 Appellate Decision Dissemination 6.89 7.48 4.5 Judge Reports 6.79 6.53 4.1 Alimony Pendente Lite (APL) 6.75 6.93

Initiative 6 Facilities and Security Study


6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study 8.72 7.75 6.2 Building Security 8.70 8.35 6.1 ADA Accessibility 8.11 7.40 6.3 Security Staffing 8.11 7.25 6.5 Parking 7.82 6.54



Notes

1. The highest ranked initiative, Communication, has only one recommendation, Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository that scores among the top-twelve beneficial or feasible recommendations.

2. The second highest ranked initiative, Justice Reinvestment, also has only one recommendation, Probation Supervision Resources that scores among the top twelve beneficial or feasible recommendations.

3. The lowest ranked initiative, Facilities and Security Study, has four recommendations that score among the top twelve beneficial or feasible recommendations; three in both categories: Building Security Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study Security Staffing ADA Accessibility

These three results are remarkable. They are due to at least two speculative and observable causes: 1) the methodology for the ranking and the scoring and the stated approach to focusing on key recommendations outside the high-ranked initiatives shifted the thinking of the participants to focus on key recommendations, distinct from the initiatives; and 2) the use of a 10-scale scoring resulted in a large number of high scores, with few participants choosing low scores55. The weighted averages across courts/agencies has the tendency to push scores down and smooth out the high extremes from the raw averages.

4. The lowest beneficial weighted recommendation, Juvenile Defense Provider Contract, receives a

score of 6.3 and a raw score of 6.9. 5. The lowest feasible weighted recommendation, Accounts Payable, receives a weighted score of 5.7

and raw score of 7.6. Notably, the lowest feasible recommendation based on raw scores is Document Management with a score of 5.5.

6. Five technology recommendations are viewed by the participants as highly beneficial, but only two

are scored as feasible.

55 Over 50% of the beneficial recommendations and 30% of the feasible recommendations had a median score of 9 or higher.



Appendix 2 Teams and Participants Franklin County Board of Commissioners David S. Keller, Chairman, Board of Commissioners Robert L. Thomas, Commissioner Robert G. Ziobrowski, Commissioner Franklin County Administration John Hart, County Administrator Carrie Gray, Assistant County Administrator Sean Crager, Chief Information Officer Court of Common Pleas President Judge Douglas Herman Honorable Carol VanHorn Honorable Angela Krom Honorable Shawn Meyers Honorable Jeremiah Zook Mark Singer, Court Administrator Andy Everetts, Deputy Court Administrator Gale Kendall, Deputy Court Administrator Domestic Relations Teresa Anthony, Director, Domestic Relations Jodi Foose, Supervisor Jennifer Newman, Staff Attorney Sherrie Stroble, Supervisor Julie Washabaugh, Supervisor Tammy Baldner, Intake Jenny Muzzio, Conference Officer Adult Probation Daniel Hoover, Chief Judy Shoemaker, Payment Division Supervisor Kevin Zook, DUI Unit Supervisor Joe Maclaughlin, Adult Unit Supervisor Barbara Burns, Pre-Release Unit



Day Reporting Center Kim Eaton, Director Juvenile Probation Kati McGrath, Chief Jim Hepler, Supervisor Kerri Washabaugh, Administrative Assistant Ruby Hawbaker, Department Clerk Linda Gadberry, Department Clerk Brandon Goshorn, Juvenile Probation Eric Hewitt, Juvenile Probation Erin Kramer, Probation Officer Dora Housekeeper, Juvenile Probation Tara Whitsel, Juvenile Probation Autumn Cessna, Specialized Intensive Services Officer John DeSalis, Probation Officer Rick Ackerman, Probation Officer Clerk of Court William Vandrew, Clerk of Court Amy Hall, staff, Clerk of Court Prothonotary Linda Beard, Prothonotary Deanna Hartman, First Deputy, Prothonotary Magisterial District Courts Magisterial District Chief Judge Larry G Pentz Magisterial District Judge Duane Cunningham Magisterial District Judge Glenn K Manns Magisterial District Judge Kelly Rock Magisterial District Judge Jody C Eyer Magisterial District Judge Todd R Williams Magisterial District Judge David Plum Becky Denham, Secretary, MDJ Mann District Attorney Matt Fogal, District Attorney Krystal Nei, Office Manager Lauren Sulcove, First Assistant District Attorney Public Defender



Mike Toms, Chief Public Defender Ian Brink, First Assistant Public Defender Shannon Barnett, Assistant Public Defender (juvenile cases) Kelly High, Paralegal and Intake Alex Ash, Legal Secretary Nancy Mackley, Legal Secretary Steph Mellott, Caseworker Terry Sanders, Investigator Juvenile Defender Kristen Hamilton, Juvenile Defender Sheriff’s Office Dane Anthony, Sheriff Randy Stroble, Chief Deputy Sheriff Michael Powell, Public Information Specialist Franklin County Jail Dan Keen, Warden Jay Sullen, Captain Lionel Pierre, Central Booking Administrator Melyssa Flud, Director of Specialized Services Michelle Weller, Deputy Warden Russ Rouzer, Deputy Warden Children and Youth Services Doug Amsley, Director, Children and Youth Services Police Department Representatives Lt. Hall Lt. Johnson, Pennsylvania State Police John Phillippy, Greencastle Chief CJAB Staff Shalom Black, Director Elizabeth Grant, Grants Associate



Appendix 3 Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission (CJCC) Coordinator Sample Job Description

Clinton County, Iowa Job Description

Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission

Job Title: Coordinator Job Code: N/A

Department: Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission Pay Grade: N/A

Reports to: Board of Supervisors FLSA: Exempt

Salary Range

SUMMARY

The Coordinator is under the guidance of the Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission, which is responsible for planning, developing, coordinating and evaluating programs that serve adult and juvenile offenders in order to promote a range of productive and rehabilitative options for use by the criminal justice system. This position is responsible for identifying, researching, implementing, coordinating and monitoring the goals and activities of the Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission and the programs it supervises. Essential Job Duties and Responsibilities: • Works with the Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission and its subcommittees to develop and

implement policies, procedures, and programs that support the Commissions program goals and objectives.

• Prepares and administers annual budget in consultation with the Commission and presents the budget to the Clinton County Board of Supervisors for approval.

• Facilitates Commission meetings by organizing, planning, coordinating, directing and providing a structured process for addressing issues. This would include creating and publishing meeting agendas; addressing conflicts that might arise while observing the group dynamics; and keeping accurate records and documentation of proceedings.

• Assumes, when necessary, an educational role when presenting new concepts or information. This would include training justice system personnel in data collection and program evaluation methods and present new concepts or information in a simplified and easily understood format using tables, graphs, or other visual aids and explains theoretical concepts in simplified terms.



• Conduct research and analysis in addition to maintaining current information on federal and state initiatives regarding justice system alternative programs (juvenile and adult), and on programs initiated and operated in other counties, and evaluate their feasibility and appropriateness for Clinton County.

• Monitor new programs, policies and procedures initiated by the Commission. Then further evaluate and forecast the impact these have had in Clinton County.

• Seeks and prepares grant applications to obtain outside funding where appropriate.

Minimum Qualifications Requirements - (Education and Experience): Bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, public administration, or a closely related field, such as social work, human services or counseling and a minimum of three years of increasingly responsible experience in the criminal justice system, social work experience working with jail inmate population or mental health services.

Minimum Qualifications – (Knowledge, Skills and Abilities)

Office Skills • Demonstrated ability to be aware of the purpose, structure, and funding sources of government agencies

at the municipal, county, and state levels. • Knowledge of case processing of defendants, offenders, victims, and clients in the criminal and juvenile

justice systems. • Experience in interfacing with governmental and service agencies both within and outside of the justice

system (e.g., social services or education system). • Knowledge of local criminal and juvenile statutes. • Ability to use strategies and techniques for legal research, analysis, and writing. • Ability to reference theories of criminology and history, assumptions, and processes of the criminal and

juvenile justice systems. • Understanding of evidence-based practices in adult corrections, prevention and treatment of violence,

criminal behavior, mental health and substance abuse. • Knowledge of the history, models and principles of public administration and policy. • Ability to organize, direct, and facilitate group activities and meetings.

Skills • Ability to collect and synthesize existing and relevant research literature. • Ability to apply principles of the scientific method to research and analytic activities. • Ability to analyze data using statistical procedures and tests. • Ability to clearly and concisely communicate complex ideas orally and in writing. • Skill and proficiency with word processing, spreadsheet, database, presentation, e-mail, and

Internet software applications. • Experience with monitoring budgets, preparing and presenting budget proposals and financial

reports. • Excellent organization and record keeping skills. • Ability to consistently meet deadlines. • Demonstrated ability to convey a sense of professionalism, neutrality, and technical expertise. • Ability to combine new information and data with existing information and data to inform

recommendations for future action.



• Ability to apply individual and group problem-solving and decision-making processers to novel situations.

• Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships as necessitated by work assignments.

Reasoning Ability: • Ability to think independently, rationally, analytically, and critically. • Ability to relate effectively to a variety of professionals and other individuals in a variety of contexts

exercising considerable tact and courtesy. • Ability to motivate self and others to pursue and accept change to the status quo, when appropriate. • Ability to tactfully manage the concerns of policymakers who sometimes have competing priorities. • Ability to empathically listen to others. • Ability to maintain a systemic perspective of the justice system.

Work Environment: Work for this position is performed primarily in a typical climate controlled office environment, where there is protection from weather conditions but not necessarily temperature changes. There is occasional travel outside of the office to attend meetings and training. Also this position has engagement with a variety of persons, including some with emotionally stressful situations. Physical Demands:

• Sitting - Approximately greater than 2/3 of on-the-job-time. • Standing/Walking – Approximately less than 1/3 of the time. • Weight Lifted/Forced Exerted – Occasionally requires lifting objects up to 30 pounds. Including

occasionally transporting and object, usually holding it in the hands or arms. • Stooping, kneeling, crouching or crawling – Approximately less than 1/3 of on-the-job-time. • Use of hands to finger, handle or feel – Approximately greater than 2/3 of on-the-job time. • Talking or hearing – Approximately greater than 2/3 of on-the-job time. • Vision - Close vision (clear vision at 20 inches or less).

Certificates, Licenses, Registrations: Must possess and maintain a valid motor vehicle operator’s license and an acceptable driving record. Supplemental Information: Appointments will be conditional upon successful completion of pre-employment background checks. Attends national or local justice association conferences and national professional conferences. NOTE: This job description is not intended to be all-inclusive. Employee may perform other related duties as negotiated to meet the ongoing needs of the organization.
