CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE -...

CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE�...promoting the transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes throughout the world.�

CASE TRACKING ANDMANAGEMENT GUIDE

September 2001

Technical Publication Series

Center for Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC 20523-3100

TO ORDER THIS DOCUMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE:

· Please reference the document title (Case Tracking and Management Guide) and document identifica-tion number (PN-ACM-001).

· USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas mayorder documents at no charge.

· Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countriesmay order up to five titles at no charge.

· All other institutions and individuals may purchase documents. Do not send payment. When applicable,reproduction and postage costs will be billed.

Fax orders to (703) 351-4039 Attn: USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)E-mail orders to [email protected]

ABOUT THE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION SERIESThe USAID Center for Democracy and Governance Technical Publication Series was launched in March1998. The series includes publications intended principally for USAID personnel; however, all personsinterested in the sector may benefit from the series. Authors of individual publications may be USAIDofficials and/or other individuals from the public and private sector. The Center for Democracy and Governancereserves the right to review and edit all publications for content and format and all are subject to a broadUSAID review process. The series is intended in part to indicate best practices, lessons learned, and guidelinesfor practitioner consideration. The series also includes publications that are intended to stimulate debate anddiscussion.

A list of other relevant publications and ordering information are included at the back of this document.

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATIONThis manual provides practical guidance on successful case tracking and management (CTM) improvementprojects. Using this manual, rule of law officers can make better-informed decisions about CTM systemimprovement interventions, oversee the design of programs that achieve results, and ensure and plan�tothe extent possible�for long-term sustainability that would enable these programs to enhance the rule oflaw.

Comments regarding this publication and inquiries regarding case tracking and management should bedirected to

Gail Lecce, Team LeaderRule of LawTel: (202) 712-5102Fax: (202) [email protected]

Center for Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and ResearchU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC 20523-3100

More information, including electronic versions of the Center�s Technical Publication Series, is availablefrom the Center�s Intranet site at http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/ and USAID�s democracy Internet site athttp://www.usaid.gov/democracy/

ABOUT THE CENTERThe Center for Democracy and Governance is the U.S. Agency for International Development�s focal pointfor democracy and governance programming. The Center�s role is to provide USAID and other developmentpractitioners with the technical and intellectual expertise needed to support democratic development. Itprovides this expertise in the following areas:

C Rule of LawC Elections and Political ProcessesC Civil SocietyC Governance

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

National Center for State CourtsFounded in 1971 by U.S. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) isa non-profit organization that promotes justice through leadership and service to the state courts. Throughnumerous programs and divisions, the NCSC is committed to improving the administration of justice inthe United States and abroad.

NCSC�s International Programs division works to improve the administration of justice and the rule oflaw worldwide. Staff provide technical assistance and consulting services to courts outside the UnitedStates and coordinate educational programs as well as an international visitors program.

Many people contributed to the development and preparation of the Case Tracking and ManagementGuide. All deserve and have the thanks of Richard Van Duizend, executive director of the InternationalPrograms division, Madeleine Loontjens Crohn, and NCSC; these include Carlos G. Gregorio and StevenH. Urist, who conducted the careful and thorough initial research and helped structure the conceptualframework of lessons learned; and Eve E. Epstein, who applied her superb editing skills to transform therough drafts into a polished product.

Madeleine Loontjens Crohn, principal project director at NCSC, has overseen the development of thisguide from its inception. Madeleine has led numerous international rule of law projects, worldwide, overthe past 8 years at the NCSC. A graduate of the University of Paris, she holds a degree in comparative lawand has headed justice reforms organizations in the United States over the past 30 years.

The Center for Democracy and Governance would like to pay special recognition to Rule of Law TeamLeader Gail Lecce and Michael Miklaucic, who patiently saw this effort through and provided theirexpertise and experience in shaping it to meet the needs of the field.

CASE TRACKING AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3

A. The Purpose of the Manual ................................................................................................ 3B. Why and How the Manual Was Developed ....................................................................... 3C. Scope of the Manual ........................................................................................................... 4D. Organization of the Manual ................................................................................................ 4

II. THE IMPORTANCE OF COURT INFORMATION SYSTEMSIN A DEMOCRATIC ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 5

III. FUNCTIONS OF CTM SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 9

A. Controlling Forms .............................................................................................................. 9B. Establishing Record Control ............................................................................................ 10C. Case Processing and Record Updating ............................................................................. 11D. Scheduling Case Events ................................................................................................... 13E. Controlling and Storing Final Records ............................................................................. 15F. Reporting Management Information ................................................................................ 15

IV. ANALYZING AND EVALUATING REQUESTS FOR CTM ASSISTANCE ..................... 19

A. Determining the Merits and Relevance of a Request for Upgrading a CTM System ...... 19B. Assessing the Current CTM System and the Context ...................................................... 20C. Understanding the Costs of CTM System Improvement Projects ................................... 23

V. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING CTM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS .... 25

A. Building a Consensus Work Plan ..................................................................................... 25B. Upgrading a Manual CTM System .................................................................................. 26C. Planning and Implementing an Automated CTM System ................................................ 27

VI. KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL AUTOMATED CTMSYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ................................................................................ 31

A. Assessing Commitment, Management, and Leadership................................................... 31B. Setting the Stage ............................................................................................................... 31

GLOSSARY OF COMMON COURT MANAGEMENT TERMS

Case Tracking and Management Guide 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Case tracking and management (CTM) systems are critical to the effectiveness and efficiency ofjudiciaries. They bring transparency to a court�s operations, reducing the opportunities for corruption andensuring accountability. The challenge for USAID democracy officers and local stakeholders is to designand implement an intervention that is responsive to well-defined local needs and priorities, feasible,affordable initially, and sustainable. This manual provides guidance in meeting that challenge. It draws ona growing body of experience in CTM system improvement initiatives that has generated importantinformation about how to do the job well¾and what pitfalls to avoid.

Successful CTM improvement projects depend upon the following:

� An accurate assessment of how, and how well, the existing system performs basic CTM functions

� An adequate up-front investment in defining the status quo and identifying priority problems andopportunities

� A clear, logical relationship between the desired objectives and the proposed improvements

� A judicious and cost effective use of expert consultants from initial assessment through design,implementation, and follow-up

� An understanding that automation, while often an appropriate response to improve high-volumeoperations, does not in and of itself fix fundamental system deficiencies

� Extensive consultation with judicial system leaders, as well as system implementers, ensuringconsensus on what the desired changes are and how they will occur

� An accurate determination of all system improvement costs, both initial and recurrent, and areasonable assurance that sufficient funding and other resources will be available

This manual provides practical guidance in all these areas and contains basic technical information. Theguide also encourages the use of experts for tasks that require more in-depth technical knowledge andskills, and it assists democracy officers in managing this assistance by outlining the scope of these tasks.In addition, it points out when automation may be appropriate and when it may not be. The manualprovides a structure for communicating with judicial system officials and for making decisions withpartners�first at the assessment and planning stages and then throughout implementation. Finally, ithighlights the environmental factors, outside the system itself, that affect the impact of CTMimprovements. Using this manual, rule of law officers can make better-informed decisions about CTMsystem improvement interventions, oversee the design of programs that achieve results, and ensure andplan�to the extent possible�for long-term sustainability that would enable these programs to enhancethe rule of law.


I. INTRODUCTION

A. The Purpose of the Manual

The purpose of this manual is to guide USAIDrule of law (ROL) officers in designing andimplementing initiatives that support thedevelopment or improvement of courtmanagement information systems. Theseinitiatives can be critical components of ROLstrategies to promote democracy. Withoutreliable data, courts cannot deliver timelyjustice, control or monitor their own operations,or explain their operations to citizens. The lackof information on court operations makescitizens suspicious about the fairness,transparency, and integrity of the rule of law.Closed, secretive justice systems create theperception¾and often the reality¾offavoritism, malfeasance, and denial of basicrights. Thus, the introduction of high-qualitycourt management information systems affectsnot only efficiency, but also effectiveness. It canhave a significant impact on central ROL issues,such as human rights, access to justice,transparency, and development of democraticinstitutions and society.

There are many assistance interventions that canimprove the rule of law. The nature of the localenvironment and its unique complex ofchallenges and opportunities, the developmentstatus of national and local justice institutions,the size and nature of the constituency forreform, and the elements of the mission�sdemocracy and governance (DG) portfolio areamong the many issues that influence USAID�sdecisions about where to invest. This manualdoes not provide a structure for making thesedeterminations. Rather, it assumes that apreliminary commitment has been made toconsider or focus on court managementinformation systems. It offers insight towardsfinalizing the decision, and suggests whatquestions to ask and how to prepare to

implement a court management systemimprovement project.

Within this context, the manual providesguidance on the following:

� How important a fair, transparent, andeffective court administration is to theestablishment of democratic institutionsand a strong judicial system

� How courts operate and benefit from agood management information system(MIS)

� How to decide what kind of projectmakes the most sense

� How to make maximum use of courtMIS consultant services so that theymeet the needs of the host country andthe USAID ROL program

B. Why and How the Manual WasDeveloped

Recognizing the fundamental importance ofcourt MISs to improving the rule of law, USAIDand other donors have provided financial andtechnical assistance to support the developmentor improvement of these systems. For over 15years, beginning in the Latin America/Caribbean(LAC) region, USAID has fostered improvedMISs in courts and other justice institutions. Todetermine how these experiences can informfuture assistance programs, USAID tasked theNational Center for State Courts (NCSC) toconduct a comparative review of the results ofthese investments. NCSC staff and consultants,drawing on their own experience in building andimproving court management informationsystems in the United States, conducted sitevisits to Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and ElSalvador and also reviewed similar projects inEgypt, Tanzania, and countries in Eastern andCentral Europe.

Case Tracking and Management Guide4

C. Scope of the Manual

Court MISs have three principal components.The following table shows the types ofinformation and the purposes of eachcomponent. While all three components areimportant, the case tracking and management(CTM) component has the highest relevance tothe public and to the rule of law. Therefore, wehave chosen to focus this manual only on CTMsystems.

D. Organization of the Manual

Section II explains why court MISs areimportant to a democratic environment. Itdescribes the strengths that such systems add tojustice and the rule of law as well as thenegative consequences of the failure to havecourt information systems in place. It will assistROL officers in explaining to host-countryofficials the inherent relationship betweenimproving court administration and the rule oflaw in general.

Section III describes the six functions of a CTMsystem in the context of how courts operate,

pointing out how the establishment of thesefunctions improves the administration of justice.Section IV provides guidance on how to analyzeand evaluate local requests for CTM assistance,with considerable attention to the question ofwhether or not automation is an appropriateresponse. It also highlights the need tounderstand the initial and recurrent costsassociated with CTM system improvements.

Section V provides guidance on how to plan andimplement CTM system improvement projects.Since such projects generally require contractorassistance, it also defines the key elements thatshould comprise the contractor�s scope of work.

Section VI identifies key factors in the successof automation projects, highlighting andsuggesting strategies and approaches to ensurethat such projects are successful.

Component

Case Tracking andManagement System

Legal Research

Administrative Support

Types of Information

Data on individual cases, andvarious steps in case progress

Statutory codes, judicialopinions, scholarly treatises

- Appropriations and budget- Expenditures, accounting, and

accounts payable- Revenue accounting and

accounts receivable- Payroll- Personnel information

Purposes

To provide judges with a complete record of a caseand assist their decision-making and case control. Tospin off statistical and management information andto generate calendars of events, forms and notices,lists of court judgments, and other outputs from cases.To provide judges and legal assistants access bypersonal computer or by printed volume to legalinformation relevant to judicial decisions and toimprove quality and consistency in decisionsTo assist courts in managing their internaladministration, if they have this authority. Manycourts are headed in the direction of administrativeself-sufficiency as an aspect of judicial independencebut are a long way from achieving this goal. However,almost all courts collect some money, such as filingfees, and need a cash accounting system.


II. IMPORTANCE OFCOURT INFORMATIONSYSTEMS IN ADEMOCRATICENVIRONMENT

There are differences among the world�s legalsystems, but most share some fundamentalvalues. These include a respect for the rule oflaw, the necessity of judicial independence, theprotection of judicial system integrity, the accessto and transparency of justice systems, a fairnessin protecting procedural and substantive rights,and an equality before the law. In any system,the judiciary is¾or should be¾the ultimateguardian of legal values and human rightsagainst arbitrary power. In a democraticenvironment, the judiciary is ultimatelyaccountable to the people for the integrity,fairness, and openness of the courts and for theefficient use of public resources.

Without accurate and open information on courtoperations and decisions, there is no way toascertain if the courts have fulfilled theirdemocratic responsibilities. Information permitsa court system to apply the rule of law andassess its progress towards goals of justice andpublic service. Information permits the public tosee the strengths and weaknesses of the courts.Without it, the public has no confidence injudicial institutions or representatives, and thereis little chance for democratic reform.

Therefore, viewed in the broad context of ademocratic judicial system, a CTM systemconstitutes a bedrock of justice. It is not simplya mechanistic process that stands alone. It isessential to the effective administration ofjustice, the protection of human rights, theopenness required of democratic institutions,and the integrity of the court system. Thefollowing are examples of how a well-functioning CTM system contributes to

improving the administration of justice and therule of law:

Preserving a comprehensive case record. ACTM system ensures initial control of a case andcontinues to document every action and decisionassociated with the case, resulting in acomprehensive case record. The Trial CourtPerformance Standards1, widely accepted inU.S. courts, illustrates the close connectionbetween CTM systems and records managementand how both affect fairness, transparency, andaccountability in court systems.

Locating case records. Because records mayaffect the rights and duties of individuals forgenerations, their preservation over time arevital. Record systems must ensure that thelocation of court records is always known,whether the case is active and in frequentcirculation, or in archive status. Inaccuracy,obscurity, loss of court records, or untimelyavailability of such records seriouslycompromises the court�s integrity and subvertsthe judicial process.

Preventing subversion of the judicial processby destroying or hiding a record. This problemis endemic in corrupt judicial systems. Incountries that cling to antiquated methods ofcreating and storing case records, accountabilityis non-existent, compromising the whole justicesystem. With a good CTM system, it isextremely hard to cover up missing records or todisguise responsibility for their absence. Eachcase record is uniquely identified, assigned a filelocation, tracked in a register, and periodicallyscheduled as an aspect of case management.

1 Issued in 1990, the standards were prepared by NCSCunder the direction of a commission of prominent judges,administrators, and scholars. The project was financiallysupported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S.Department of Justice.


When case records are identified as missing,some official is held accountable. If the numberand nature of missing records suggest deliberateloss, there is a trail that assists in identifying theculprit.

Eliminating discrimination against the poor.In some countries, monetary bribes are routinelypaid to move a case from one step in the judicialprocess to the next. The result is that casesbrought by poor people are likely to languish inthe system. This type of discrimination goesundetected, or at least undocumented, without agood CTM system. A CTM system generates theorderly movement of cases through the judicialprocess and seeks explanations for case delay.

Establishing jurisdiction. A case can bedelayed or simply blocked by failure to serveprocess, notifying the person being charged orserved. This failure is particularly damaging atthe outset of a case because it prevents the courtfrom establishing its jurisdiction over theparties.2 In countries where the bribing ofprocess servers is common, the incidence ofnon-service may be unusually high, effectivelypreventing action on the case and doing a greatinjustice. A good CTM system can identify caseswhere the defendants have not been served, thenumber and types of cases where the notice hasbeen returned because of inability to locate theparty to be served, and, where abuses exist, theprobable culprits.

Preserving legal rights. The need for completeand accurate records persists through the

progress of a case. Events and filings must betracked and documents entered into the case file.Loss, misfiling, or alteration of a document canhave an adverse effect on important legal rights.For example, as a result of a lost file in acriminal case, a defendant may remain in jail forlong periods or avoid, at least for some time,judgment and imposition of a penal sanction. Ina civil case, a lost file may seriously jeopardizea basic right such as land ownership. A failure todetect case papers that call for immediate orshort-term judicial action may leave vulnerablepersons unprotected, such as children in anabusive environment. A judge cannot protectrights of which he or she is unaware. A goodCTM system tracks events and filingscumulatively, recognizes their interrelationships,and prevents cases from languishing at theexpense of individuals seeking justice.

Facilitating appellate review. The essentialrole of a judge is to render fair decisions thatcomply with the law. The case record enables adetermination of whether a judge has met thisresponsibility. This record is the basis forappellate review and correction of error.Information that is unclear, incomplete, orinaccurate defeats corrective justice. A goodCTM system provides the complete,comprehensive record required for appellatereview.

Facilitating enforcement. Legal proceedingstypically end with an order or judgment by ajudge. This is the beginning of an enforcementprocess. A major weakness of some courts istheir reluctance or inability to enforce theirjudgments. Sometimes, enforcement is beyondtheir power, but often it is not. Whenenforcement is within the court�s authority, agood CTM system can track whether anenforcement action has been filed, a judgment orfine paid, or a penal sanction imposed.

Increasing openness and accountability. Agood CTM system permits chief judges and

2 To bring parties before it, a court must have jurisdiction(authority) over the subject matter of a newly filed case aswell as over the parties. The initiator of a case explicitlyaccepts the court�s jurisdiction over his or her person ororganization. Other parties must be brought under courtjurisdiction by serving them with a document that compelstheir participation and provides notice that describes thecomplaint or charge.


outside observers to see patterns of action. Forexample, it can help identify which judges areunconscionably slow, perhaps suggesting theneed for new resources or systemic change. Itcan also help examine the decisions of judges inthe same court for inexplicable disparities thatmight indicate unfairness to certain individualsor groups. Such activities can help eradicatepublic suspicion, often justified, that thejudiciary heeds to needs of a particular stratumof society rather than adhering to the rule of lawfor all. While many courts are unaccustomed topublic scrutiny, a self-aware court usesinformation to assess itself and to seek solutionsand public support.

Clearly, a good CTM system can have asubstantial impact on the rule of law, wellbeyond the narrow¾thoughimportant¾confines of court management itself.With this understanding, ROL officers canengage local justice system officials inevaluating programming options and settingmeaningful goals and objectives for courtmanagement system improvements as part oflarger ROL programs.


III. FUNCTIONS OF CTMSYSTEMS

The core of a CTM system is comprised ofrecords pertaining to the movement of casesthrough the court system. Courts vary in termsof the nature of their legal system, level ofsophistication, size and volume, and number ofsubsystems, but their CTM systems have similarneeds and purposes and can be assessed usingcommon indicators.

This section describes six functions of a CTMsystem: controlling forms; establishing recordcontrol; case processing and record updating;scheduling case events; controlling and storingfinal records; and reporting managementinformation. These functions transcenddistinctions between civil and criminal cases andbetween civil law and common law systems.When in place, either manually or throughautomation, they can spotlight, and in manyinstances, help correct common systemproblems including

� Poor quality of the existing database

� Absence of uniform procedures,consistent forms, and clear definitionsof data to be collected

� Lack of control of case records andsecurity

� Obsolete, redundant codes orregulations on how to process cases

� Inability to generate useful statisticsregarding the operation of the court orthe inaccuracy of existing statistics

A. Controlling Forms

CTM systems and each step in the court processare driven by paper documents, whether

generated manually or automatically. Forexample, a case is initiated by a paper chargingsomeone with a crime or calling for some formof civil relief. The case ends with a writtendisposition or judgment, and there is generally aflow of paper filings between case initiation andcase end. Some documents are generatedinternally by the court, such as notices to parties,schedules of court events, and judgments.Others originate outside the court, normallydrafted by attorneys. All documents, regardlessof source, enter the CTM system.

The purpose of the forms control function is toensure adequacy and uniformity of data. Forexample, if a document submitted by an attorneyis not on a standard form or prepared accordingto some common methodology, it may omitcritical information or clerks may have toanalyze the document to determine how itshould be processed. This often leads to errorand delay.

Forms are often prescribed by the court andspecified in rules of procedure. They may be ingeneral use by all courts in a region, province, orcountry, or may vary from court to court.

Indicators of a Good Forms Control System

� Data categories and elements are clearlydefined.

� Data categories and elements are coherentand consistent throughout the courtdatabase.

� Data elements are compatible with relatedinformation systems, such as those of police,prosecution, and corrections agencies.

� The system controls the quality,completeness, and format of forms cominginto the court and generated by the court.


Usually, rules of procedure in a country orregion are similar enough so that the content ofthe forms is fairly common, even if formats aredifferent. The problem in many poorlyadministered court systems is that there is nocontrol of form design within an individual courtor within the courts of a province or country.The resulting lack of common data elements andformats undermines the cohesion of the courtinformation base. This situation not only limitsthe integrity and utility of a manual system butalso defeats computerization.

B. Establishing Record Control

Record control has five components: (1) caseidentification; (2) case registration; (3) caseindexing; (4) file folder creation; and (5) filefolder location.

1. Case Identification

The way the court handles the initiation of thecase filing process establishes the framework forrecord control. Each case is assigned a uniquenumerical identifier at the time of case initiation.A court may have separate numbering systemsfor criminal, civil, and juvenile cases, assigningnumbers consecutively within each case type.Case numbers often start with a letteredidentifier of case type, followed by casenumbers sequentially within year. For example,�Crim-98-201� would indicate the 201st criminalcase initiated in 1998. In a system where eachcourt in a region wants its cases to have uniquenumerical identifiers, a numerical courtidentifier can be added. Without such anidentifier, transfers of cases between courts canresult in loss of records and impede thedevelopment of comparative information oncourts.3

2. Case Registration

The case register, also called the docket book,provides a chronological record of all caseactions and filings. Following caseidentification, a deputy clerk or deputy registrarrecords new cases by number, the date of filing,and the names of all parties. There may beseparate docket books for civil and criminalcases. These books remain with the court. Asshown in Sub-section C below, keeping theregister accurate and up to date as the casemoves forward is critical to efficient caseprocessing.

3. Case Indexing

Cases must be indexed alphabetically by thename of the parties (including all parties). Manyinquiries about cases are by name of party, sothe chronological index provided by the registeralone does not suffice. The case index isalphabetical and provides cross-referencesbetween the parties� names and the case number.In systems where files are referred to specificclerks, the index may also contain the clerk�sname. Unlike the register, the index does notdocument a chronological record of case events.It requires updating only when parties are addedto or dropped from cases.

4. File Folder Creation

At the time of case identification andregistration, a file folder is created to contain allthe current and future documents pertaining to acase. It bears the identifiers assigned at indexingas well as the names of the parties. It may becolor-coded to help clerks quickly identifycertain types of files, such as civil and criminal.Within the folder, the papers are generallyarranged by the date they were filed. Becausethe folder contains the papers that a judge musthave, its completeness and preservation arecrucial to the integrity of the case process.Certain bulky items, such as evidence exhibits,

3 Both case identification and indexing are complicatedwhere there are companion or related cases and manyparties. Case identification may require cross-referencingseparate cases arising from a common incident.


may be stored separately but should be cross-referenced to the case number and file folder.Some courts microfilm all incoming papers sothat a case record can be reconstructed if a filefolder is lost. Even courts with electronicrecords cannot reproduce the full text ofdocuments. In the future, imaging technology,which captures the full text, may eliminate thisproblem. However, no automated system canrectify internal weaknesses in the file controlfunction.

5. File Folder Location

When the file folder is created and filled withthe initial case papers, it is transferred to theactive files and typically located on open shelvesor in cabinets, arranged by case number withinyear. Files are also divided by type of case, suchas civil, criminal, and juvenile. In some systems,the file folders are assigned to individual clerks

rather than a central repository. There must be aprocedure to keep track of folders which areremoved from this location by a judge, attorney,or clerk. This may be a sign-out sheet indicatingthe temporary location of the case folder, andmany courts insert a temporary folder in theassigned location to receive new paper filingswhile the original case folder is at the temporarylocation. Otherwise, new filings can pile up andget lost.

File folder location is critical, because theabsence of a file folder makes it impossible forthe judge to proceed with the case or for anyparty or member of the public to see if justice isbeing done.4 In poorly maintained recordsystems, folders may be strewn about the storagearea or taken to the offices of judges andlawyers with no record that they are out of theirassigned location. Without shelves or cabinetsfor storage, the files may simply be piled insome rough order on tables or the floor. Evenwhen shelves or cabinets are available, casesmay be missing or filed out of order. If recordsare properly numbered and indexed, it is easierto locate out-of-place records and return them totheir proper location. Some clerks run routinerecord checks to ensure that records are in place.

C. Case Processing and Record Updating

Courts often lose control of cases as they movethrough the system. The key to judicial controlover cases is the existence of an accuratemechanism for up-to-date tracking of the statusand progress of individual cases. Although mostcourts record most of the information necessaryfor this kind of tracking, they do not do so in a

Indicators of a Good Record Control System

� Each case has a unique numerical identifier.

� Cases are numbered within year, notconsecutively over a multi-year period.

� The index provides cross-references to thenames of all parties.

� Cases are housed in folders or otheradequate containers and stored in an orderlymanner.

� New cases papers are placed timely andaccurately in the folder.

� There is a system for tracking folders thatare temporarily out of place.

� The rate of record loss or misplacement islow.

4 Case files of some juvenile or family records aresometimes closed to the public, but other records shouldnormally be open to inspection upon request, subject tosome type of security.


FIGURE 1: REGISTER

Case Title: Jones v Smith

Case Number: Civ-98-666

Plaintiffs (s) Address/Phone Number________________ ________________________

________________________________________________

Defendant(s) Address/Phone Number________________ ________________________

_________________________________________________

Attorneys:Plaintiff Defendants ________________ ___________________

Case Actions

Date Action___ Initial filing___ Return of Service___ Responsive Pleading

Judicial Actions

Judgments and Orders Judge Date_____________________________________ ___________ _________________________________________ ___________ ____

way that facilitates strong case managementbecause the information is too scattered. What isneeded is an easily accessible, chronologicalrecord of all actions and paper filings in a givencase. This record is the case register, initiatedwhen the first case event occurs (e.g., filing of acivil suit or criminal complaint). It is essential inbringing cases to a just and expeditiousresolution not only because it reveals the statusand progress of each case, but also because itcontains information that helps detect delay.

Courts organize their registers in different ways.In some courts, the register is a very widespreadsheet-type ledger that has one line percase. Basic case identifying information appearsat the far left. A deputy clerk or deputy registrarthen records actions and filings in the registerchronologically for each case. For example,when a motion is filed, the clerk records an entryfor the motion in the register and subsequentlyrecords any order resulting from the motion onthe same line. This kind of register provides thefull history of a case all in one place.


Other courts have a register with a page for eachday, recording all actions for all cases thatoccurred on that day. This kind of systemrequires the clerk to re-enter the case numberand other indices (such as names of the partiesand judges assigned) each time there is a newentry for the case. This makes it very difficult todetermine the history of an individual case,requiring the examination of the register page bypage to find the entries pertaining to that case.

Still other courts organize their register with aseparate page for each case that has been filed,with the clerk recording the actions and filingsfor the case on that page in the order in whichthey occurred. Figure 1 is a simplifiedillustration of such a register for a civil case.Many registers capture more data. For example,criminal registers may contain more personaldata on the defendant, including jail status, andmay use different terminology.

This kind of system provides a readychronological overview, so long as the entries fiton one page. However, for security reasons,registers are bound rather than looseleafvolumes. Thus, once the page for a case is filledup, the clerk must start a new page later in thesame book or in another book. Althoughpreferable to the procedure of providing a pagefor each day, this method still makes review ofthe status of the case quite cumbersome.Sometimes, the clerk assigned to the case has tobe consulted because only he or she can locatethe relevant docket books.

One way to increase the availability of caseinformation is to record filing and actioninformation in the case file itself, usually on asheet attached to the inside cover or on a formprinted on the file jacket. This provides a readyoverview of what has occurred, together with themotions, briefs, memoranda, and orders thatpermit the judge to verify any questionableentries and understand the substance of the case.Joining such a docket with the case file workswell as long as the file can be located readily, isup to date, and is promptly returned by thejudge.

Regardless of method, timeliness and accuracyof the data are critical. Whether the system ismanual or automated, delay in entering eventsand filings, or missing or inaccurate entries, canlead to an erroneous action by a judge, attorney,or clerk. Generally, entries should be postedwithin 24 hours.

D. Scheduling Case Events

Courts need a good scheduling or calendarsystem to manage the flow of cases through thesystem. The scheduling of court events is acentral aspect of case management. In somejustice systems, the tradition has been to leavethe timing of case events to the lawyers, withjudges intervening only if asked. As part of mostjudicial reform programs, this tradition changes,with judges and court managers assumingresponsibility for moving cases through thesystem. Cases have varying levels of complexityand move through the system at various paces.Some courts distinguish among complex,average, and simple cases and manage each typeof case differently. In the United States, this isknown as �differentiated case management� andis an indication that a court is trying to makeeffective use of its resources.

Regardless of system sophistication, all courtsystems must schedule events and generateinformation about those events, most of which

Indicators of a Good Case Process/RecordUpdating System

� There is an accessible register of all eventsand filings for each case.

� The register is accurate and up to date.


are some form of court hearing. Civil lawsystems tend to have fewer hearings than Anglo-American systems because they rely more onwritten documentation and less on oral evidenceand arguments, but they still need a schedulingsystem. Under-scheduling leads to poorutilization of court resources and results indelays. Over-scheduling leads to re-schedulingand other inefficiencies. Scheduling problemscombine with other types of problems (e.g., lackof control over the lawyers, missing records,failures of persons to appear, and faultynotification) to leave cases churning within thesystem for considerable periods of time withoutclosure.

In the United States, the schedule of courthearings (Figure 2) is generally called acalendar. The daily calendar is filed and retainedfor a short period of time as a record of courtactivity. Occasionally, judges use the calendar torecord their orders pertaining to the listed cases,making the calendar a source of input to the caseregister. More typically, the courts� orders arerecorded on a separate document and placed in

the file folder after being entered in the caseregister.

In addition to announcing court events, thecalendar defines judicial assignments andallocation of courtrooms. The judicialassignment process can be a major issue inassuring a fair justice system. The process needsto be random, so that parties do not shop aroundfor judges. �Judge shopping� can be particularlyfatal to public trust in a court system wherebribery is rife. In Anglo-American systems,assignment of a judge to a case may not occuruntil the legal dispute officially exists (e.g., theindividual charged or being sued responds).Moreover, some U.S. courts assign differentjudges to handle the case at different points inits progress. This has been found to hinder casemanagement. In civil law systems, judges aremore likely to be assigned at the time of caseinitiation for the duration of the case.

FIGURE 2: SCHEDULE OF COURT HEARINGS

Civil CalendarDate: May 3

Courtroom: 5 Judge: CraneTime: Morning session (9-12)

Case Time Proceeding LawyersCiv-98-10 9:00 a.m. Motion to Dismiss BrownAmes v Doe Carr

Civ 98-201 9:30 a.m. Motion to Compel CorradoGarcia v Diaz Discovery Flores

Civ 99-14 9:45 a.m. Motion for Summary DempseyKowski v Dolan Judgment Herman


E. Controlling and Storing Final Records

The conclusion of a case is a unique and finalprocess. It has implications for timely justice aswell as for statistics, case management, andrecords management. When case dispositionoccurs, it is recorded in the register and remainsthere as a data element for inclusion in casemanagement reports. It may also be entered intoa special book for recording judgments. Titlesearchers and financial institutions use suchrecords. Criminal judgments may be transmittedto a criminal justice record system. Even if acase is closed, there may be continuingenforcement actions to ensure respect for courtjudgments.

The final entry in the case register indicateswhere the file folder is stored in an area forclosed cases, often retaining the original caseidentifier assigned at intake. Thus, if the case isreopened, it returns to active status without re-indexing or renumbering.

Most systems have a final step, the archiving ofclosed cases after a period of several years.Archiving can be done by microfilming and thendestroying the paper record, or by storing thefile folder in a central storage area for historical

records. The latter method is less expensive butrequires more space.

Because case closures are labor-intensive anddetract from concentration on the active cases,closing routines are often of low priority. Theremay be some legitimate delays, such as waitingto see if an appeal is filed within the legal timelimit. However, failure to separate the closedcases and process them out of the system leadsto confusion with the active cases, statisticalaberrations, and the failure to record judgmentinformation essential to criminal justiceagencies, businesses, and other parties.

F. Reporting Management Information

Good court management requires a capacity tounderstand and act upon managementinformation. The problem in many courts is thatthey see statistics as a burden rather than amanagement tool. Statistics tend to be collectedat some central point in a region or country andused to produce reports that have littlemanagement significance and are usually out ofdate by the time they appear. Statistics are not anautomatic byproduct of most systems, but theresult of a separate process based on forms sentout to courts by some planning or statistical unitin the highest court of a region or country. Thecategories of information may meet someplanning need at the regional or national levelbut have little utility to the courts that are

Indicators of a Good Scheduling System

� It enables the court to move caseseffectively to disposition according to timestandards and procedures developed inconsultation with attorneys.

� It avoids re-scheduling of the same event.

� It is joined with a timely and effectivenotification system.

� It stimulates efficient use of time by judges,attorneys, and the parties.

Indicators of a Good Case Closure System

� There is a comprehensive, timely caseclosing routine.

� There is a system for storing and archivingrecords.

� The system makes court judgmentsavailable and enforceable.


reporting case statistics. The absence of usefulmanagement information leaves individualcourts with no data on which to assess theiroperations, much less to set measurable goalsand objectives. Even worse, the public is leftwithout any knowledge of court operations orhas no reason for faith in the courts.

Although a case tracking system is the basicbuilding block of an effective CTM system, itdoes not suffice.

Judges and the public must know not only ifjustice is done in individual cases, but alsowhether the judicial system as a whole functionsin the interest of justice. Some CTM systems areweak in generating information that providesindicators of performance and the aggregate datanecessary for a court to manage its caseloadeffectively. The better CTM systems produce

reports that extract information from individualcase files to present a picture of how the courtoperates as an organization. Manualsystems¾even those that are relativelygood¾require laborious extraction from recordsand generally make it very difficult to aggregateinformation for management reports.Reporting is one area where automation is atremendous asset, provided the data within thesystem are accurate, reliable, and up to date.

There are several basic management reports thatmost CTM systems generate. The first is thecaseload report (Figure 3) that tells managers ifthey are staying abreast of their work or fallingbehind. Any court should have some version ofthis report, with accurate and timelyinformation. Courts may report more detail, suchas the nature of dispositions (e.g., dismissal,settlement, acceptance of guilt, and trial) ormore detailed class types.

At the very least, the number of dispositionsshould match the number of filings. If not, abacklog accrues, and case delay increases.

The second basic management report (Figure 4)informs managers about the size of the pendingworkload and helps them identify cases that arelanguishing in the system.

More sophisticated versions of this reportprovide information by case type or identify thecategories of cases that are accumulating.

Indicators of a Good Management ReportingSystem

� Reports facilitate the management of casemovement.

� Reports facilitate the identification of patternsthat need to be changed.

� Reports encourage and affect justice systemreforms.

FIGURE 3: CASELOAD REPORT

Criminal Civil Family TotalCases pending at beginning of periodCases filed during periodCases disposed during periodCases pending at end of periodClearance Ratio (cases disposed, % of filings)


FIGURE 4: PENDING CASELOAD REPORT

Case Age Number of Cases % of Pending CasesLess that 7 months7-12 months13-18 months19-24 monthsMore than 2 years

List of cases more than 2 years old

Case number Case Title Assigned Judge_________ ____________________________ ______________________ ____________________________ ______________________ ____________________________ _____________

The third report, essential to caseflowmanagement, documents the average and mediantimes from filing to disposition.

This kind of report generally requires anautomated system because of the logisticaldifficulties in extracting such informationmanually.


IV. ANALYZING ANDEVALUATINGREQUESTS FOR CTMASSISTANCE

Section III described the functions of a goodCTM system and the indicators of effectivesystem components. Worldwide, including in theUnited States, few courts can match the model.The advent of information technology has notchanged the need for a sound underlying CTMsystem structure. A good manual system is thefoundation for effective improvement.Automation cannot compensate for the absenceof such a foundation. Indeed, automatingwithout such a foundation has proven to be avery poor investment.

This section guides ROL officers in screeninginitial CTM assistance requests, conducting pre-implementation assessment, and definingfinancial investment requirements. These threesteps enable the ROL officer to make aninformed decision on whether to support a CTMassistance project.

A. Determining the Merits and Relevance ofa Request for Upgrading a CTM System

Requests for funds to upgrade a CTM system,whether manual or automated, must make a casefor support. There are a number of thresholdissues that determine whether a request warrantsfurther consideration. The ROL officer�s initialrole is to screen the request in terms of theseissues.

1. Documentation of the Need for theImprovement Project

Whether generated by local justice systemofficials or donors, assistance requests may bestated in general terms without a clear definitionof the problem being addressed. Typically, the

request will cite some generic problems found inmost poorly designed manual systems, such ascase backlog, and it will state a general need forupgrading. This provides no basis on which toact. What is needed is clarification of theperceived problem and its relationship to theproposed project. For example, is the backlogdue primarily to the inability to track cases or tothe legal procedures required by the country�scivil code? Typically, outside expert assistancemay prove to be a good investment, as expertscan help the stakeholders articulate the need forthe project.

2. Relevance to the Objectives of the ROLProgram

A request may be clear but irrelevant to thereform objectives of the ROL program. It mayfail to establish the connection between thedesired CTM system improvements and theprotection of individual rights, transparency,fairness and integrity of the justice system, andother reform objectives. An example is a requestfor personal computers for judges withoutarticulating exactly how the provision of thesecomputers will contribute to achieving theobjectives.

3. Authority to Make the Request

Those interested in upgrading a CTM systemmay not have the authority to speak for thecourts. Knowledge of the authority structure ofthe local court system is essential. Evaluatingthe request requires determining who has theauthority to speak for the courts, whetherleadership for reform exists in the courts or inanother justice system institution5, and whetherthe highest authorities within the court system

5 In many countries, improvements to case tracking andstatistics began in the prosecutor�s office because thatinstitution had more power than the judiciary. Courts thenemulated the improvements made by the prosecutor.


still need the permission of officials outside thejudiciary in order to proceed.

4. Appropriateness of the Scope

The request may be too broad¾so sweeping thatit is impractical on its face¾or too narrow¾solimited and atypical that the proposed projecthas no significance. For example, it may pertainto every subject matter of a court or only to oneissue, such as criminal cases. It may pertain to aspecific court or to the court system for a regionor country. Case volume can serve as a roughmeasure of how many people will benefit fromthe proposed improvements. It can alsodetermine the need for electronic dataprocessing, with higher volume meritingautomation.

B. Assessing the Current CTM System andthe Context

For requests that pass the initial screening, acomprehensive assessment should precede anyinvestment in system improvement. Theassessment has two related purposes. The first isan objective analysis of the context in which thenew CTM system will be introduced. Thesecond is to determine whether the CTM systemrequires major improvements and, if so, thenature of these improvements. If the request isfor upgrading a manual system withoutcomputerization, the analysis is not terriblycomplex. If the request is for computerization,the analysis must consider two special issues.The first is whether the defects in the existingsystem are so fundamental that the existingmanual system needs upgrading prior toautomation. Computerizing a defective manualsystem simply freezes the defects, increases thecost of system operation, and creates an aura ofundeserved credibility. The second is whethercomputerization will address the real problemswithin the system.

Typically, an expert contractor performs theassessment. Because creating a good CTM

system requires that the system win widesupport by responding to the needs of justicesystem leaders, lower rank officials moreinvolved in implementation, personnel withadministrative responsibilities, and citizens, thescope of work should require consultationsbetween the consultant and the stakeholders. Itshould include at least three basic tasks:

1. Task 1

Gather all existing statutes, rules, manuals,forms, data-gathering instruments, reports, andrelevant information on staff capacity andorganization. The contractor should go beyondstrictly judicial functions and gather manuals,forms, and procedures for related functions suchas personnel and accounting. This task providesa broad picture of the environmentalopportunities and barriers in terms of humanresources, organizational characteristics andrelationships, legislation and procedures, andfunctional maturity.

2. Task 2

Observe actual operating procedures andinterview judges and staff at all levels to identifyproblems, needs, and interest in change.

3. Task 3

Analyze all information gathered to assess notonly the conditions of the judicial system, butalso the stage of development of the judicialorganization because the level of maturity iscritical to the organization�s ability to absorbchange. In some contexts, developing orstrengthening some of the internalorganizational structures must precedemanagerial and technological judicial changes.The analysis can be time-consuming, oftentaking several months in large, complex systemsor where key information is hard to find, but inother systems it may be completed relativelyquickly. In any case, it is essential, as a


haphazard analysis will only result in flaweddecisions about whether to invest and how toinvest.

The contractor should be responsible fordetermining the following:

a. Whether data input to the court isstandardized, well formatted, legallysufficient, and responsive to the needs ofdata users

The contractor�s job is to determine the extent towhich the forms control system reflects theindicators described in Section III. Thecontractor should also determine whether theforms are legally sufficient and whether they areresponsive to users� needs. If the users feel theyare not, there is a need to review the scope andcontent of the database.

b. The nature of court outputs and whethertheir content and dissemination reflect theneeds of internal and external users

Court outputs include reports on courtoperations (e.g., caseload inventory and age,filing and disposition statistics, and sometimesaverage elapsed time from filing to disposition)and on the daily business of the court (e.g.,notices to parties and attorneys, warrants issuedfrom the bench, court calendars, and orders andjudgments). The contractor should assessoutputs in terms of their usefulness, accuracy,completeness, and responsiveness to user needs,and also determine if some necessary outputs aremissing. Implicit in the contractor�s job isidentifying internal and external user groups andassessing the flow of information within thecourt and externally. Internal users generallyinclude persons handling court operations at thepoint of public contact and those withmanagerial and administrative responsibilitiesfor operations. External users include criminaljustice agencies, other courts within thejudiciary, and others. Orders and judgments

require particular attention. The contractorshould assess and document the process forrecording them as well as their availability. Thisincludes determining whether judges� notes andwritten opinions are part of the record and, if so,how they are entered into the case record. Thelegal requirements for a judge�s signature alsowill affect automation. The assessment alsoincludes determining if the court reportsjudgments to agencies which rely on them andthe extent to which the judgment enforcementprocess is reflected in the CTM system.

c. Whether individual case information isaggregated and recorded so as to provide acase history for tracking purposes

Section III described the indicators of goodrecord control and case tracking. These should bethe focus of the contractor�s assessment. It isparticularly important to determine whetherinformation is so scattered among various booksand documents that conversion to electronic formwill be difficult.

d. The court�s control of records and whetherthe records are complete and readilyavailable

Section III described the indicators of goodrecord control, case processing and recordupdating, and closure routines. The contractorshould assess current operations in terms of theseindicators.

e. Resources available to the court for creationand maintenance of an improved informationsystem

A court�s ability to upgrade a CTM systemsuccessfully depends on its existing resources interms of staff expertise, equipment, facilities, andmoney. These factors should be the subject of thecontractor�s assessment. Resource issuescommon to both manual and computerized CTMsystem improvement projects include the


following: (1) funding to sustain theimprovement effort, especially for competentsupport personnel and for adequate space andequipment; (2) facility condition and/orlocation; (3) the court�s management system andits ability to manage change; and (4) the currentuse of technology other than computers, such asfax and microfilming.

f. Resource constraints related to automatedCTM system improvement

Automation projects require careful analysis ofthree special factors that, alone or incombination, often challenge the success ofthese projects: (1) experience with computers ortelecommunications within the system or incompanies or public agencies readily availableto the court facility; (2) technological expertiseof the staff or available through othergovernment agencies; and (3) electrical power inthe facility and other relevant infrastructureissues. Many projects have suffered seriouslyfrom failure to identify these kinds of problemsin advance.

g. Other constraints

Some crippling constraints will inhibit the use ofautomation and even the improvement of amanual system. The contractor needs to identifythese early to determine if they can be removed,ameliorated, or circumvented. Examples include

� Limits and obstacles caused by statutesand rules of procedure (such as ahistorical prohibition on fax filing orrequirements for maintaining recordsthat have no modern significance)

� Cultural barriers that make anyimprovement difficult but particularlytransition from a traditional papermedium to an electronic medium (withserious implications for training)

� Organizational barriers that defeatcoherent case management andinformation exchange, such as amultiplicity of quasi-autonomous unitsin the same court

� Obsolete, inefficient, or redundantprocedures that cause delay but arefirmly entrenched in the system

� Any limitations on the court�s authorityto make changes and the attitude of thelegislature toward reform

h. Revenue collection processes

Courts often collect fines, restitution, filing fees,child support, and money paid into trustaccounts managed by the court. Most of thesepayments are made to comply with a court orderor judgment and have to be reflected inindividual case records. The contractor shouldassess the procedures and the informationsystem for collecting and disseminating court-collected money and the link, if any, betweenthis system and individual case records.

i. Whether automation is an appropriateimmediate response

In general, automation is suitable to high-volume functions and can result in significantgains in efficiency. The contractor should advisethe ROL officer as to whether automation isfeasible, given the depth and scope of problemsin the CTM system, or whether there should be anon-automated project to reform the existingsystem first. The contractor should state thereasons for his or her conclusion and alsooutline a preliminary work plan for either typeof intervention. For automated projects, thecontractor should spell out implementationoptions, with different costs and different levelsof services. In describing the options, thecontractor should relate each option to thepriority issues arising from the analysis and


suggest the relative costs and benefits. Typicaloptions include the following:

� Mainframe versus personal computers

� Different ways of funding the system

� Purchase versus lease of equipment

� Phasing options to reduce cost andcomplexity

The work plan will provide the basis for theconsensus planning process and the systemimprovement projects described in Section V.

C. Understanding the Costs of CTM SystemImprovement Projects

The cost of the project¾and of maintainingsystem improvements in the long run¾is acentral consideration in deciding to approve arequest. In the past, many projects, especiallythose involving automation, have suffered froma failure to understand the nature and size of thecosts. Total costs far exceeded estimatedbudgets, and justice systems ended up withsystems that they could not afford to maintain. Areport on U.S. government and businesssoftware projects6 documented expenditures of$81 billion on cancelled projects and $59 billionon cost overruns. Only one-sixth of the projectswere completed on time. One-third werecancelled outright, and over half werecharacterized as �challenged.� Of the latter twogroups, the average project ran 189 percent overbudget, was 221 percent behind schedule, andcontained only 61 percent of the originallyspecified features. Inadequate cost estimationwas a major factor in these failures.

Therefore, before proceeding with CTM systemimprovement projects, it is critical that bothROL officers and local justice systemcounterparts understand the initial and ongoinginvestment requirements. However, theseindividuals rarely have the skills, knowledge,and experience to identify and estimate thesekinds of costs accurately. Thus, the ROL officershould contract for qualified expert assistance.The consultant should work on site and in closecollaboration with the stakeholders to developthe cost estimate as well as explore itsimplications for continuing justice systemfinancing. This will provide both USAID andthe local stakeholders with advance warning ofthe cost magnitude and facilitate more informeddecisions about whether and how to proceed.

Basic initial costs include organizational andsystem analysis, system planning and design,software development or procurement andhardware procurement (for automated systems),facility preparation and equipment installation(for automated systems), hiring new staff withnew skills, training people to manage thesystem, training people to use the system, andtraining people to maintain the system (forautomated systems). There may also be relatedcosts associated with revising procedures orregulations to enable the establishment of newCTM system functions. With careful thinkingand expert assistance, it is relativelystraightforward to estimate initial costs.

However, it is easy to under-estimate softwaredevelopment costs. If objectives are unclear orthe initial analysis does not document theexisting system fully and accurately, thesoftware development process can be both longand complicated, resulting in ballooning costs.Recurrent costs in CTM system improvementprojects are substantial, particularly those thatinvolve automation. In collaboration with theexpert consultant, the ROL officer can play amajor role in exploring these costs with localjustice system officials, helping them understand6 The Standish Group, �Chaos,� 1995.


the financial commitment and deciding whetheror not they have sufficient resources to make thecommitment. Recurrent costs are not limited tomaintenance and periodic equipmentreplacement, though these are substantial inthemselves. They also include such items asreplacing technology staff often lured to morelucrative private sector positions, trainingadditional or replacement staff, revising andupgrading the entire system itself as informationneeds change, refining software and forms, andretraining all staff in response to systemrevisions and upgrades. This is an ongoingprocess with continuous financial impact. Noinformation system is static. The inadequacy offunding, or the unwillingness of justice systemsto allocate funds for these purposes, has been amajor cause of failure in past projects. Theimportance of attending to recurrent costs beforethe project begins is a major lesson learned.


V. PLANNING ANDIMPLEMENTING CTMSYSTEMIMPROVEMENTPROJECTS

Based on the contractor�s recommendationsresulting from the analysis, the ROL officer maydecide to upgrade a manual CTM system as aprelude to automation or as an end in itself, or togo straight to automation. This section providesguidance in planning and implementing bothkinds of projects and in engaging contractorassistance following completion of the threesteps described in Section IV. It focusesprimarily on the scopes of work and proceduralelements of CTM system improvement projects.Section VI introduces other important strategies,approaches, and components that must be part ofimplementation to maximize the chances forsuccess.

A. Building a Consensus Work Plan

Rarely can a court make all the changes itdesires; this makes priority setting an importantleadership role. Court leaders should state whatthey expect to achieve from automation. TheROL officer should ensure that project planningreflects the leadership�s goals and objectives andthat leaders participate in the planning process.

At the same time, the support of justice systemofficials at all levels¾before the projectbegins¾is critical to the success of any CTMsystem improvement initiative, whether manualor automated. Therefore, they must be involvedin work planning, and part of the contractor�sjob should be to collaborate with them in theplanning process. This will avoid top-downdesigns that give precedence to the informationneeds of high level officials and policy makersand neglect the information needs of court

personnel and judges at the local level. Mostcourt systems are autocratic, not democratic.The prevailing attitude often is that whatever thesupreme court or judicial council or ministry ofjustice dictates is what will be done. However,implementing significant organizational changerequires the cooperation of those who performthe work, not just their bosses.

The contractor�s scope of work should containfour tasks leading to a consensus work plan.These tasks provide an opportunity to validatethe earlier analysis and refine it in consultationwith court officials, particularly those involvedin implementing the court�s daily operations.

1. Task 1

Conduct a series of workshops with high levelorganizational officials to discuss in detail thefindings from the analysis and develop aconsensus on the scope of the suggestedchanges. These changes should be grounded in aframework of clear and simple objectives suchas the following:

� Enabling the court to track a case fromstart to end

� Enabling the court to exercise control ofinterim events and to identify points ofdelay

� Enabling the court to maintain control offiles

� Enabling the court to obtainmanagement reports that accuratelydepict the court�s control of its caseloadand case handling, identify cases thatrequire action, and assist the court inallocating resources

� Improving user satisfaction with thequality and usefulness of informationand the ease of input and retrieval


� Providing the data elements needed bythe supreme court, judicial council, orministry of justice

This leads to defining the desired operationalbenefits associated with these objectives.Among the benefits the leadership might seekare the following:

� Reduction of repetitive tasks

� Improvement in the quality of data

� Increased information accessibility

� Increased organizational integration

� Improved statistics and operationsmonitoring

� Increased effectiveness by performingtasks and functions impossible in amanual system

Typically, these benefits are greater whenassociated with automating high-volumeactivities.

During the workshops, the contractor shouldsecure permission to consult with lower levelofficials (Task 2). It is important to respect thechain of command.

2. Task 2

Meet with the operational staff who will assistwith any procedural changes. Since they will bedoing the work, their cooperation andinvolvement in planning and design are essentialto project success.

3. Task 3

Consolidate the results of all consultations into adocument that the host country can adopt as itsofficial work plan outline. This outline then

becomes the official guide for systemdevelopment.

4. Task 4

Following adoption of the work plan outline,develop the detailed work plan in closeconsultation with the appropriate middle and topmanagement of each affected organization. Thework plan should include a requirementsanalysis that sets forth the specifications forsoftware and hardware. Pilot specificationsshould anticipate that the system may bereplicated nationwide. At the very least, thisshould entail consideration of data commonalityand forms design. Depending on the country�slevel of technological sophistication, it mightalso entail consideration of hardware andsoftware compatibility and the use of local areaand wide area networks.

Deliberations during Tasks 1 and 2 may suggestthe need to collect additional information on aspecific activity, such as case initiation or caseclosing. The contractor should work closely withstakeholders in analyzing this information andensure that the analysis is reflected in theproducts of Tasks 3 and 4.

B. Upgrading a Manual CTM System

Generally, USAID engages a contractor toimprove the manual CTM system. Reflecting theconsensus work plan, the scope of work shouldspecify the operational objectives (e.g., enablingthe court to track a case from start to end) aswell as the contractor�s tasks. These tasks arespecific to the target improvement objective butgenerally include some aspects of in-depthfunctional analysis, procedural design, training,ongoing consultation and technical assistance,and monitoring change after initiation.

The contractor should be mindful that manualimprovements might lay the groundwork forfuture automation. Therefore, the ROL officer


should structure the scope of work not only toaddress the defects documented in the initialassessment, but also to provide guidance at anappropriate point on whether automation isfeasible after some improvements and, if so,how to achieve it. If the system is not ready, thecontractor should state the reasons why. Animproved manual system is a worthyachievement in itself and may be the best thatcan be done under the circumstances.

A contractor who believes that the system isready for automation should propose a strategyto achieve it. Sub-section C below describes thebasic elements of an automation work plan, butthe contractor working on manual systemimprovement can provide additional detail onthe following in order to inform the strategy:

� Whether the reality of the manualsystem reflects official regulations andprocedures

� The key user groups and their dataneeds and desired outputs

� The quality of the database and optionsfor converting it to electronic form

� The quality of forms and other inputs

� What portions of the manual systemshould be considered as priorities forautomation

� Options for management of theimplementation effort by the court

C. Planning and Implementing anAutomated CTM System

This section guides the ROL officer indeveloping a scope of work and monitoringcontractor performance. The ROL officer doesnot have to master technology to do this well.Failure of automation projects results more

often from non-technical causes than fromhardware and software problems. As illustratedbelow, the reasons for failure are not complex:

� A common major mistake is the belief,belied by experience, that computers arethe solution for poor operations andmanagement. Automation alone will notsolve problems such as court delay orthe difficulty in finding case files orrecords.

� Projects have been launched withoutadequate preliminary analysis.Computerizing an inadequate manualCTM system will only result in aninadequate automated system.

� Overly ambitious projects havegenerally floundered because there wasno preliminary pilot testing of individualmodules or of a comprehensive packageat one location.

� Fascination with expensive, impractical,and fancy technological innovations hasincreased costs and sacrificedpracticality for marginally usefulgimmicks.

� The time frames have not allowed forthe vagaries of implementation and havebeen too condensed. Project eventsrarely proceed as expected becauseautomation occurs in the real worldwhere conditions are never ideal. Userspecifications may prove vague andimperfect, and political and financialconsiderations may temporarilyoverwhelm technology.

� Project directors fail to appreciate thedifficulties of implementing a system ina busy court. Implementation occurs inthe midst of a court with ongoing dailyobligations that take precedence over


the new system, so that the system mustbe developed as a parallel activity. Theconversion of existing records of activecases to electronic form must take placewithout disrupting ongoing courtbusiness.

� Projects can fall apart for lack of localtechnical support for maintenance.

The activities described in Section IV, combinedwith the consensus work planning processdescribed above, help prevent the occurrence ofthese problems.

The scope of work can be organized around thesix stages of the project: (1) acquisition ofhardware and acquisition and modification ofsoftware; (2) project management; (3) facilitypreparation and installation; (4) training; (5)transition from manual operations toautomation; and (6) operation, performancemonitoring, and maintenance. These stages arenot always entirely sequential. For example,training in some topics may occur before facilitypreparation and installation of equipment.Experts can assist in providing the appropriatetechnical language.

In addition to the tasks associated with eachstage, the scope of work should employ pilottests within a long-term regional or nationwidereplication strategy. Small demonstrationprojects have a better chance for success thanoverly ambitious, system-wide efforts. However,all too often, the project stops at the pilots, withlittle impact on the judicial system as a whole.To promote expansion, the pilots need to ensureconsistency and continuity. For example, if casespass through several courts (e.g., if the initialproceedings in a criminal case are before alimited jurisdiction court, but the trial portion isbefore a higher court), or if several types ofcases are involved, it will be difficult to assessthe results. These difficulties may arise fromprocedural variations among levels of the court

system or types of cases, such as juvenile andadult. If the reform applies to only one phase ofthe case, such as the court of first jurisdiction,problems will surface when the case istransferred to another court that does notcompile information in the same way.

The scopes should also require tracking of casesthrough the first appellate level. In civil lawsystems, this is where the more seriouslycontested cases reach final disposition. In manycountries, there is no managerial connectionbetween the first-instance court and theappellate court. Thus, unless the process istreated as a whole for tracking purposes, it willnot be possible to determine when cases end.

It is also important each component of thesystem be developed in conjunction with host-country nationals and review the design withpersons affected by it.

� Test the system and make adjustmentsas necessary. Discuss them with the staffand determine them in cooperation withthose charged with implementation.

� Develop a procedures manual anddocument the automated systemthoroughly.

� Evaluate the system and review findingswith staff.

1. Stage 1: Acquisition of Hardware andAcquisition and Modification ofSoftware

The scope of work for this stage should specifythe type of help that the contractor must providein acquisitions. This assistance might take theform of translating the functional requirementsinto specifications for a request for bids,evaluating responses, and assisting incontracting with the supplier. If the contractor isoffering a proprietary software package, its role


in acquisition diminishes. However, somemodification will inevitably be needed to tailorthe software to the language, terms, and processbeing used by the courts. Thus, the contractormust explain how the needed modifications willbe defined, who will make the changes, how themodified software will be tested, and how theaccompanying manuals will be updated toreflect the change. In addition, the ROL officershould ensure that whatever hardware orsoftware is acquired can be maintained locallyand is compatible with any systems with whichit must interact.

2. Stage 2: Project Management

Project management begins in the planning stagebut starts in earnest when the hardware andsoftware acquisition is scheduled and equipmentinstallation is imminent. The scope of workshould require the contractor to prepare adetailed implementation plan that includes (1)facility preparation; (2) training for the newsystem; (3) the proposed scheme of conversion;(4) the start-up procedures for systeminauguration; (5) the contractor�s role in theoperation of the new system; (6) developing theoverall system policies and procedures; and (7)system security.

3. Stage 3: Facility Preparation andInstallation

The scope of work cannot assume an adequatefacility and, therefore, should require readyingthe facility for an electronic system. Minimally,this includes adequate electric power, heating,ventilation, and air-conditioning systems;cabling for peripheral devices (often problematicin old buildings or under outdated buildingcodes); telephone and telecommunications;lighting; and flooring. Other issues that mayrequire attention are reduction of radiofrequency interference or fire hazards. Becauseinstalling equipment and testing software oftenreveal weaknesses that have to be resolved, the

scope of work should fix responsibility not onlyfor initial installation, but also for correctingmalfunctions.

4. Stage 4: Training

Training has been a weak spot inimplementation. It is critical to buildingconfidence and overcoming the inevitableresistance to change from reliance on paperprocessing.

The scope of work needs to fix responsibility fortraining and address four key issues. The first iswho receives training and what kind of trainingthey need. For example, supervisors must knowthe whole system and serve as in-house expertsand trainers. Line staff, on the other hand, mayneed to know only the part of the system onwhich they work. For high-level users, such asjudges, training can be at a less detailed level.The second issue is who provides the training.The contractor is usually involved, but it may bebeneficial to have other training providers, localinstitutions, or other vendors familiar with somepart of the system. This will help assure thefuture availability of local system support. Thethird issue is documentation of the system andthe production of training guides. These areimportant training devices that will facilitateongoing training as well as cross-training.Finally, training should precede implementation,and contractor representatives should remainavailable to system staff in the first stages ofimplementation.

5. Stage 5: Transition from ManualOperations to Automation

The day of actual transition to the new system isthe most vigorous test of the planning effort. Thesuccess of the transition depends on extensivepreparation activities to input and convert data.The detailed work plan will spell out theseactivities in detail. The scope of work shouldspecify the contractor�s responsibilities for the


pre-launch period and provide for some sort ofpre-testing to avoid embarrassing breakdowns.It should also require the contractor to specifythe method for converting existing files.Basically, there are three conversion options:(1) convert only cases filed after start-up; (2)convert all pending and newly filed cases; and(3) convert different parts of the systemsequentially (e.g., first criminal, then civil).

6. Stage 6: Operation, PerformanceMonitoring, and Maintenance

The contractor�s job does not stop withinstallation and start-up. The scope of workshould require the contractor�s on-site presencefor a few months to solve problems, establishmonitoring procedures, and check systemsecurity. It should also require the contractor topropose a maintenance plan that will go intoeffect after the contractor leaves. This plan mayinclude periodic contractor inputs. Finally, thescope of work should provide for a smoothtransition and turnover of responsibility tojustice system staff.


VI. KEY FACTORS INSUCCESSFULAUTOMATED CTMSYSTEMIMPROVEMENTPROJECTS

Technical soundness of the preliminary systemanalysis and the scope of work forimplementation do not alone guarantee thesuccess of an automation initiative. The ROLofficer needs to attend to several other issues aswell. This section describes strategies andapproaches that will increase the potential forsuccess.

A. Assessing Commitment, Management,and Leadership

The ROL officer has to ascertain whether thecourt has the necessary commitment,management, and leadership to execute theproject and to collaborate successfully with thecontractor. Ideal conditions include thefollowing:

� Support of the authority structure.The highest authority in the courtsystem as well as the leadership in thepilot court support the project and havecommunicated this support throughoutthe system

� Delegation. Those in authority haveformally designated the person(s)responsible for dealing with thecontractor and managing theimplementation.

� Consensus. Court leaders have set theproject goals and objectives. There issubstantial agreement within the systemon the scope of the project and what it issupposed to achieve.

� Court control. Court officials willretain control over the system asopposed to turning it over totechnicians. There is a committee thatcan make policy decisions on behalf ofthe court during the course of the projectand can monitor project progress.

� Input of user groups. User groups havemet and set specifications for theproject.

� Formation of a technical group. Courtpersonnel at the project working levelare designated to work with thecontractor on the technological aspects.

B. Setting the Stage

It takes time and work to build a goodfoundation for CTM system improvementprojects. The ROL officer can play an importantrole in establishing this foundation. The successof the consensus work planning process and theultimate implementation plan depend to a largeextent on sufficient preliminary attention to anumber of issues that set the stage for success.These issues include the following:

1. Addressing Fears

There should be preliminary discussionsregarding which groups, both internal andexternal, will support the planned changes andwhich will not. There is always resistance tochange, often based on fear, and strategies tocombat this resistance are essential. In CTMsystem improvement projects, the fears aregenerally associated with loss of power,meaning that clerks will be the most threatenedgroup. Information is power, and in mostsystems clerks control that information single-handedly. System changes will require them toshare that power. Judges and clerks must beconvinced that the new system is a benefit thatwill help them do their work, rather than a


burden and a threat. There should be a frank andparticipatory dialogue about likely changes inrelationships and responsibilities, potential fearsrelated to perceived inadequacies, and the levelof work associated with implementing thechanges.

2. Addressing Procedural Flaws Prior toImplementation

Procedural flaws become institutionalized in thenew system unless they are identified andaddressed prior to implementation. People in thesystem are generally aware of its flaws andshould participate in the analysis. Ideally,procedural reforms should be initiated, if notcompleted, prior to project implementation.

3. Addressing Management Weaknesses

Few countries outside of North America arefamiliar with or have adopted the concept ofbringing professional managers (courtadministrators) into courts. Tracking cases,developing new systems and more efficientprocedures, and analyzing data¾criticalcomponents of CTM system improvements¾arenew functions that go beyond traditional clericalactivities and are often unfamiliar to judicialofficers. This potential gap between neededexpertise and available human resources canhinder the success of improvement projects. It isimportant to fix management responsibilitiesclearly, without causing backlash among judges.

4. Developing Consensus on RealisticExpectations

Key to this consensus is an assessment of theinformation, equipment, personnel, and spaceneeded to carry out the changes. This assessmentmay reveal that the scope of the envisionedreform is too extensive, that expectations are toohigh, or that future resources will be insufficientto sustain the reform. If the scope must be scaledback, this must happen before work planning

and implementation begin. This underlines theimportance of the cost estimation processdescribed in Section IV.

GLOSSARY OF COMMON COURT MANAGEMENT TERMS

Archived cases Records of completed cases that have been held for the required retention periodand can be transferred into a repository for dead records or microfilmed anddestroyed

Backlog The accumulation of cases when filings exceed dispositions over a long period

Calendar Schedule of court hearings that indicates the judge and court room. If newly filedcases are immediately assigned to one judge for case duration, the process isreferred to as an individual calendar system. If different judges handle the casesat different points in a case and may be assigned for trial to any one of a group ofjudges, the process is referred to as a master calendar system. There are hybridversions.

Case delay Failure of a case to reach the point of disposition or some interim point withinestablished time standards

Caseflow Proactive court monitoring and scheduling of cases to expedite case dispositionmanagement within specified time periods

Case file A container, often a folder, for holding papers pertaining to a particular case

Case tracking Easily following in one court book the progress of a case as it moves from filingto disposition. The court record is usually called a register of actions or a docket.

Clearance rates The ratio of dispositions to filings with any ratio below 1.0 indicating anaccumulation of cases

Closed cases Cases that are no longer active in the system because they have been brought tocompletion by a disposition; normally placed in an area for closed files

Disposition The action by which a case is officially closed�most commonly by voluntary orinvoluntary dismissal or by entry of a court order or judgment

Filing Can be the act of submitting a case paper or can refer to any paper officiallyreceived for inclusion in the case file; most often used to describe initial casepapers

Records management Control of case files: specifically storage, storage space, record security,condition of records, and successful retrieval of case files

Register (docket) A book that chronologically records court actions and receipt of case a paperspertaining to one case

Time standards Normative time frames for moving each type of case to disposition

OTHER TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS FROMTHE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE

PN-ACB-895Alternative Dispute Resolution Practitioners Guide

PN-ACC-887Civil-military Relations: USAID�s Role

PN-ACH-305Conducting a DG Assessment: A Framework for Strategy Development

PN-ACH-300Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

PN-ACD-395Democracy and Governance: A Conceptual Framework

PN-ACC-390Handbook of Democracy and Governance Program Indicators

PN-ACE-070A Handbook on Fighting Corruption

PN-ACF-631Managing Assistance in Support of Political and Electoral Processes

PN-ACE-630The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach

PN-ACF-632USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening

PN-ACE-500USAID Political Party Development Assistance

TO ORDER FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE:

· Please reference the document title and document identification number (listed above the document titles on thispage and on the cover of this publication).

· USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas may orderdocuments at no charge.

· Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countries may orderup to five titles at no charge.

· All other institutions and individuals may purchase documents. Do not send payment. When applicable, reproduc-tion and postage costs will be billed.

Fax orders to (703) 351-4039 Attn: USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)E-mail orders to [email protected]

PN-ACM-001

Center for Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, D.C. 20523-3100

Tel: (202) 712-1892Fax: (202) 216-3231

Internet: http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/Intranet: http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/

Date post:	17-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangphuc
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE -...

Documents