facing the challenges of an electronic court environment: the arizona experience

Facing the Challenges of an Electronic Court Environment: The Arizona

Experience

National Association for Court ManagementAnnual Conference

July 17, 2014Scottsdale, Arizona

Guiding PrinciplesOne-stop access to court services

24 x 7 on-line records and court services, “anywhere anytime”

Improved efficiency in staffing and customer service

Fully integrated systems: CMS, e-records and financials

Self-sustaining business model through user fees and subscription services

ChallengesNumber of Disparate Systems

Case Management Systems

Document Storage Systems

Financial Systems

Multiple Vendors

Geographically Distributed SystemsIncreasing Bandwidth Demands

Integration Needs (Data warehouse, CCI, CDR)

Workflow changes required to fully leverage digital records

Paper based policies limited applicability in digital world

Electronic Records Management Policy

Retention Periods

Public Access

Destruction:• Mandatory• Permissive

Electronic Records Management Policy

• Assessment

• Policy Formulation

• Project Initiatives

Retention Periods

Public Access

Destruction:• Mandatory• Permissive

EVALUATION

eCourt Services Program:An Integrated Project Approach

eAccesseFiling

eBench

Digital Court User Groups

eAccesseFiling

eBench

Integrated eCourt System

eFile CMS

eBench

eAccessInput

Request Rece

ive

Output

Arizona Committee Charge – (A.O. 2013-33)

1. Should the length of time case documents and data are made available to the public online be consistent across court levels and within the same court level?

2. Given that it is easier to systematically destroy electronic records, are the current records retention time periods adequate?

Arizona Committee Charge – (A.O. 2013-33)

3. When the minimum retention period has been met, is destruction of electronic case documents and data mandatory or permissive?

4. Once the retention deadline is reached, should documents or data be retained for purposes of government research, and, if so, should those records continue to be publicly available or released only pursuant to court order?

Scope of Committee ResearchNational Center for State Courts

COSCA White Paper, “To Protect and Preserve”

Arizona State Library & Archives

Private investigators who use court records for employment screenings and background checks

Policies of federal courts and other state courts

National Archives and Records Administration

Technology resources required for long term electronic records storage

Unintended Consequences of Infinite Electronic Record Storage

Inconsistent court record retention practices across the state

Potential harm to individuals whose case data remains on the public access websites, e.g., housing, employment, licensing and certification

Staffing and resources required to respond to requests for public records

High cost of retaining and managing electronic case records – storage, maintenance, system upgrades

Future Cycles of Storage Technology

Current Capacity 2X Capacity Increase 2X Capacity

Cycle Length Estimate = 5 Years

Re-Architecture Project


Future Cycles of Storage Technology

Current Capacity 2X Capacity Increase 2X Capacity

Cycle Length Estimate = 5 Years



Foundational items include security, servers, operating systems, database mgt system, EDMS application, SAN support personnel, management, documentation, vendor support/maintenance contracts, backup software, testing resources

IT Support: Factors Related to Records Storage

Backup Procedures and Increased Time

Hardware Costs & Maintenance

Required for Nightly Updates

Recovery Time

Access Speed

Testing

Locating the “Sweet Spot” for Retention

Too Little TimeInsufficient for Justice Processes

Too Much TimeCostly, Perceived Harm

Like

lihoo

d of

Nee

d

Committee RecommendationsEstablish consistent statewide, policies for the length of time electronic records are on-line

Establish policies for mandatory destruction of electronic records, pursuant to revised retention schedules

Modify Record Retention Schedules For LJ courts, establish separate retention periods for paper records, online public access and CMS & EDMS

Technical amendments

LJ Retention Schedule for Paper Records, Public Access Websites, Case & Document Systems

Record Type Paper Records Retention Public Access Websites CMS and EDMS

A. Civil case records

- Civil other than traffic 1 yr. after final adjudication and satisfaction of judgment

1 yr. after final adjudication and satisfaction of judgment

5 yrs. after final adjudication and satisfaction of judgment

- Civil other than traffic – small claims

5 yrs. after final judgment 5 yrs. after final judgment 5 yrs. after final judgment

- Parking violations (statute only)

6 mos. after satisfaction of sanctions

6 mos. after satisfaction of sanctions

1 yr. after satisfaction of sanctions

- Civil traffic 1 yr. after final adjudication and satisfaction of sanctions

1 yr. after final adjudication and satisfaction of sanctions

5 yrs. after final adjudication and satisfaction of sanctions

B. Criminal case records (applies to both adult and juvenile cases)

- Misdemeanors and criminal traffic

5 yrs. after final adjudication and completion of sentence



- DUI, OUI & Domestic Violence offenses




- Petty offenses 1 yr. after final adjudication and completion of sentence

1 yr. after final adjudication and completion of sentence

1 yr. after final adjudication and completion of sentence

- Local ordinance violations 1 year after final adjudication and satisfaction of sanctions

Not available on Supreme Court website: May be available on local court website

5 yrs. After final adjudication and satisfaction of sanctions

Committee Recommendations (cont’d)Given the revised retention schedules, no special provision required for research data

Develop a process to request that particular case records be permanently retained, akin to the historical records provisions (ACJA § 3-402(F) )

Implementation Issues:24 month preparation period required for computer support

Applicable to case records reaching retention periods after implementation of new policy

Develop plans for destruction of case records that met retention periods prior to implementation of the new policy

Establish a process for courts to request more time for implementation based upon IT resources and funding constraints

Remove electronic records from the Supreme Court and local court public access websites, pursuant to the adopted retention schedules

Cost Considerations -- LJ eDocs on AOC Shared System

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 20260

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

LJ EDMS Disk Growth

Infinite (GB)ITD Plan (GB)ERR & D Plan (GB)

Year

Disk

Usa

ge in

GB

QUESTIONS:

Karl Heckart, Director, Information Technology DepartmentAdministrative Office the Courts

Arizona Supreme [email protected]

Marcus Reinkensmeyer, Director, Court Services DivisionAdministrative Office of the Courts

Arizona Supreme [email protected]

facing the challenges of an electronic court environment: the arizona experience

Documents