---

Contents

---

Preface

The growth of digital tools, especially the Internet, offers state and local governments many opportunities to serve their constituents better. Many of these opportunities are available to the public judicial system in rural areas. To maximize the benefits of adopting information technology for the courts, it is important to understand the communication patterns, technology infrastructure, and expertise of actors in the judicial system. This understanding results from looking, in a systematic and practice-based way, at their tasks and goals as well as their information behaviors.

The study reported here took such a holistic look at judges, attorneys, clerks, and others in two rural judicial districts in Texas. The Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA) and Judicial Committee on Information Technology (JCIT) sponsored the study under a grant to the University of Texas at Austin and to the Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

We owe thanks to many people. First and foremost, we would like to thank our informants in the 143^rd and 31^st districts, especially District Judges Bob Parks and Kent Sims for their encouragement and hospitality. The authors would also like to thank OCA, particularly Doug Rybacki, Bill Carlson, Bill Chambers, Josepha Rood, Jim Bethke, and Gareth Knowles. The Judicial Committee on Information Technology, especially the members of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, was also very helpful.

Dr. Glynn Harmon, Interim Dean, and the office staff at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) were indispensable to the success of the study. We owe special gratitude to Melba Claymon, the Dean’s Executive Assistant, and to Eric Johnson.

Several people at GSLIS contributed to the study in a substantial way, especially Dr. Mary Lynn Rice-Lively, GSLIS Assistant Dean and Coordinator of Information Technology, and Dr. David B. Gracy II, GSLIS Governor Bill Daniel Professor in Archival Enterprise. Additionally, the researchers benefited greatly from the energetic support of graduate students Sibyl Shearin, Leigh Cody, Hilary Frazier, Helene Jaillet, Michael Pasqualoni, and Christie Robbins. Thanks to them all.

All views expressed in this report are either attributed to our participants or are strictly our own. Any errors, naturally, are also our own.

Sanda Erdelez and Philip Doty, GSLIS, Austin, TX, September 9, 1998

---

About the Authors

Dr. Philip Doty is an Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Texas at Austin. His primary research and teaching interests center on governmental information policy and computer networks. He has done research sponsored by NASA, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and other governmental and private entities. He is an Associate Director of the Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute at the University and the Program Coordinator of a joint masters degree program of the LBJ School of Public Affairs and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science. He received his PhD from Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies in 1995. He can be reached at (512) 471-3746, pdoty@uts.cc.utexas.edu, or http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm.

Dr. Sanda Erdelez is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Texas at Austin. Her educational background is in law and information science (Bachelor of Laws, 1982, and Master of Laws, 1986, both from the University of Osijek, Croatia; Ph.D. 1995, Information Transfer, Syracuse University.) She taught Comparative Constitutional Law, Information Law, and Legal Informatics at the University of Osijek Law School in Croatia. In 1987 she was awarded a Fulbright scholarship for doctoral studies in the U.S. Her areas of scholarly interest involve behavior of information users, legal knowledge management, and business intelligence. She publishes in the areas of computer law, information policy, and business intelligence. At GSLIS Dr. Erdelez is a coordinator of the Legal Informatics Program. Her most recent publication is a chapter on Legal Informatics published in the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 32. She can be reached at (512) 471-6432, serdelez@uts.cc.utexas.edu, or http://porsche.gslis.utexas.edu/sanda/sevita.html.

Executive Summary

There are many obstacles to the effective administration of justice in rural Texas courts such as complex geography and multiple jurisdictions. Information technology (IT) can help alleviate some of the problems. There is little knowledge, however, of the information technology needs and practices in rural courts. A major objective of this study, sponsored by the Texas Office of Court Administration and the Judicial Committee on Information Technology, was to understand the communication, information management, and information technology use of the major actors in the rural courts.

The focus of the study was two low-population, rural districts in Texas: District 31 (district seat Wheeler) and District 143 (Monahans). Each of the districts is comprised of multiple counties. District 31 includes Wheeler, Gray, Hemphill, Lipscomb, and Roberts counties, while District 143 includes Ward, Reeves, and Loving counties. The study focused on the responsibilities and behaviors of major judicial players in district, county, municipal, and justice courts.

Information was gathered through (1) individual and group interviews, (2) a census of computing and telecommunication infrastructure taken during visits to county courthouses, and (3) examination of written documents such as court rules, policies, bench books, statistical summaries of court activities, and statutory and regulatory material.

The main product of the study is a report Computing and Telecommunication Needs in Texas Rural Courts. The report is organized into several major sections. The introductory section discusses the objectives of the study, study questions, and research activities.  The next section  is the summary of the key study findings. The study participants were eager to use information technologies in their work and have made substantial progress in doing so. Other highlights of the findings include:

Among the recommendations from the study are the following:

The final section of the report considers recommendations for the roles that OCA and JCIT must play if information technology is to be successfully used in the Texas courts. OCA and JCIT must:

1. Set technical and functional standards for IT in the courts
2. Negotiate Internet connectivity rates, telecommunication and telephone rates, rates for access to legal research tools in CD-ROM and online, and IT procurement prices with vendors
3. Be providers of pro-active support to the study jurisdictions and their sister districts and counties.
4. Consider alternatives for OCA’s case management software. The research team recommends that OCA limit its development and support to a Windows-based product.

The report concludes with a summary of major themes essential to the use of IT for the successful administration of justice in the study jurisdictions, in Texas courts more generally, and in other jurisdictions. Among these themes are the importance of public service to court staff, the security of judicial information systems, the work habits and professional values of users, professional associations, requirements for continuing legal education, the growing number of options for Internet connectivity even in rural areas, and the need for long-term, stable financial support.

Introduction

The administration of justice is one of the most important responsibilities of government. Texas has a complex geography that presents significant challenges to the provision of judicial services to all its citizens, particularly those in rural areas in the western and southern parts of the state. These challenges are particularly acute in the district, county, municipal, and justice court systems, the overwhelming majority of which serve rural counties. A further geographical burden is the fact that rural judicial districts often have one judge to cover multiple counties; such districts are often 2,000 square miles or more.

The sophisticated information technologies (IT) currently available, especially the Internet and the World Wide Web, can help alleviate some of the problems faced by rural courts in Texas. Simply imposing technologies on these courts and relying on IT experiences in urban courts, however, will not solve the problems that rural judges and others in the judicial system face. For example, rural districts often must overcome serious deficiencies in the telecommunications infrastructure and technological expertise in their regions. In order to address the specific IT needs of the rural courts, we need to understand more about them, the technology available to them now, how that technology is used, and what technologies they might adopt.

Taking this context into account, the major goal of this project was to understand the information behavior of major actors in the rural courts in two low-population, rural districts in Texas: District #143 (Monahans is its district seat) in the Pecos River Valley and District #31 (its district seat is Wheeler) in the far northeastern Texas Panhandle.

The project examined the information processes and information technology use in rural district, county, municipal, and justice courts. The study focused on the responsibilities and behaviors of district judges (DJs), county judges (CJs), court coordinators and administrators (CTCs), district and county attorneys (DA/CAs), district and county clerks (DC/CCs), court reporters (CR), municipal judges and justices of the peace (MJ/JPs), and others. See Appendix A for identification of respondents by district, county, and court function.

Based on the major goal of the study, the project team was contracted to develop recommendations for the use of computing and telecommunications in the rural courts and to help the Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA) develop a methodological model for investigating similar topics elsewhere.

The study team investigated the following research questions:

1. How do judges, clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in district courts, county courts at law, county courts, justice courts, and municipal courts communicate?
2. What information technologies do these courts and actors currently use and/or have access to, including hardware, software, connectivity, training, and technical support?
3. How can information technologies, specifically computing and telecommunications (especially the Internet and Web), make these courts and actors more effective and efficient?

Research Activities

At the suggestion of the Office of Court Administration, the study focused on the 143^rd and 31^st judicial districts. The 143^rd district includes Ward, Reeves, and Loving counties. The 31^st district includes Wheeler, Gray, Hemphill, Lipscomb, and Roberts counties. These sites were chosen because:

Table 1 is a chronology of the research activities in the study. These activities were complemented by several other interviews with key OCA personnel, research on the legal bases of the various judicial functions included in the study, and examination of written documents, such as court rules, policies, bench books, statistical summaries of court activities, procedure manuals, and statutory and regulatory material. See Appendix B for an indication of the specific research activities undertaken with specific respondents and Appendix C for the data collection instruments used in the study.

Table 1: Chronology of Major Research Activities

June 22	District and county clerk focus group interview in Abilene, at the annual meeting of the County and District Clerks Association of Texas
June 24 - 26	Site visit to the143rd Judicial District: District Court (June 24 and 25), Ward County (June 25), Reeves County (June 26)
	143rd District - municipal judges and justices of the peace group interview (Monahans, June 24)
July 2	Office of Court Administration interview in Austin
July 6 - 9	Site visit to the 31st Judicial District: District Court (July 6 and 7), Gray County (July 6 and 9), Wheeler, Lipscomb and Hemphill counties (July 7), Roberts County (July 8)
	Site visit to the 223rd District Court (Pampa, July 9)
	31st District - district and county attorneys group interview (Wheeler, July 7)
	31st District - municipal judges and justices of the peace focus group interview (Pampa, July 9)
July 16	Attendance at the annual meeting of the National Association for Court Management
July - August	Follow-up telephone interviews

Summary of Key Findings

The study findings summarized here seek to answer the research questions that drove the study:

1. How do judges, clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in district courts, county courts at law, county courts, justice courts, and municipal courts communicate?
2. What information technologies do these courts and actors currently use and/or have access to, including hardware, software, connectivity, training, and technical support?
3. How can information technologies, specifically computing and telecommunications (especially the Internet and Web), make these courts and actors more effective and efficient?

The ten jurisdictions in the study are ripe for change – they are already utilizing IT in imaginative ways, are anxious to increase their use of IT, and are experiencing turnover in important judicial functions. These internal circumstances are reinforced by pull from outside entities encouraging the rural courts to use more and more powerful digital tools, e.g., OCA and JCIT, lawyers petitioning for electronic filing and telephone conferencing, and local school districts and libraries initiating major IT programs, including community outreach.

Equipment

Of the study’s 49 individual respondents, 41 (84%) have access to computers at work including all DJs, DA/CAs, and DC/CCs. Five of the 8 respondents who do not have access are among the 10 MJ/JPs in both districts included in the study. The study team examined about 30 machines and discussed several dozen others with the participants – the overwhelming majority of all these computers are stand-alone machines running Windows 95. Seven of these machines run Windows 3.1, and about the same number are dumb terminals or run DOS. These numbers are only illustrative of the situation in the field, but they demonstrate that the rural districts are migrating to Windows (see Table 2 on Equipment Myths and Realities). Word processing is the most commonly used application at work (35 respondents, 71%), followed by database applications (15, 31%) and spreadsheets (15, 31%). Twenty-one participants (43%) have computer access at home. DC/CCs, MJ/JPs, and CJs are the least likely to have computer access at home.

Table 2: Equipment Myths and Realities

MYTHS	REALITIES
Jurisdictions are most interested in hardware and software.	The most common complaints were about the lack of reliable support and adequate training.
Rural districts are running DOS-based applications.	Rural districts are running Windows-based applications.
Rural districts are dependent on hand-me-down computers.	Rural districts buy machines off the shelf and often have them customized.
Judicial players in rural districts are not aware of current trends in IT.	Judicial players in rural districts are knowledgeable about IT and often anxious to participate in IT change.
Rural districts are waiting to make significant investments in IT.	Rural districts are changing their facilities, their work processes, and their budgets for IT.

Case Management

Seven of 49 respondents reported using OCA case management software, 3 DC/CCs and 4 others (1 CTC, DA/CA, DJ, and MJ/JP). See Table 3 for descriptions of the case management software packages in use in the ten participating jurisdictions. Case management applications in use in the study districts, other than OCA’s, include Apollo, Government Service Automation, and Software Group products. The case management modules of these products are parts of more comprehensive and integrated office management suites for local government. Users of these for-profit vendor products for case management, e.g., various district and county clerks, were very enthusiastic about them, especially their on-site and personalized support. At the same time, however, one respondent emphasized three major problems with "big systems" which led to her choosing custom programming from a local firm for her office software: (1) cost, (2) the demand for long-term contracts beyond term of office, and (3) assertion of company "ownership" of public records that their systems process.

Many respondents identified significant problems in the current OCA case management software "program." First, there are multiple versions in use, thereby confusing users and complicating support, interoperability, and migration to new generations of software and hardware. Second, many users have noted hit-or-miss contact from OCA – it responds to requests for help but does little to initiate individual, customized contact with its software users. Third, users do not feel that they can influence the development of the OCA software and complain about ignorance of OCA’s plans for the software’s evolution. Some respondents were influential in getting others in the public judicial system to adopt the OCA package but were put in awkward positions with their colleagues when the OCA software did not develop as they had been led to believe it would. Specifically, the financial management module does not meet the needs of either district or county clerks. See Table 4 on Weaknesses of OCA Software Identified by Study Respondents.

Table 3: Case Management Software Use among the Study Respondents

	USERS	VENDORS
143rd District	DJ, CTC, DC's in Ward and Reeves County	OCA
Ward Co.	CJ's Asst., CA, CC, JP Monahans MJ Monahans	Apollo OCA
Reeves Co.	CC JP Toyah	Software Group Apollo
Loving Co.	No case management software in use
31st District	CTC, DC in Wheeler County	In-house database
Wheeler Co.	CC	Courthouse Assistant
Gray Co.	CC	CourTech
Hemphill Co.	No case management software in use
Lipscomb Co.	DC/CC CJ	OCA In-house database
Roberts Co.	DC/CC	In-house spreadsheet

Table 4: Examples of Weaknesses of OCA Software Identified by Study Respondents

Electronic Access to Documents

Electronic access to documents seems particularly important at the district level but means different things to different types of respondents. For example, by "electronic access to documents," DJs mean remote access to all case materials electronically; DCs mean scanning for electronic storage and in-house access. At the same time, however, many respondents have a general understanding of the potential of electronic access for fulfilling their responsibilities. This idea is not foreign to them, e.g., some respondents already use the Internet for exchanging OCA software files.

Ironically, the municipal judges and justices of the peace in the 31^st district, who have no access to information technology, provided an example of a problem that may be easily addressed using IT. They expressed a need for documents explaining to individuals who appear in their courts how to file cases and behave in the courtroom. This problem presents an opportunity for OCA to mount such documents on its Web server and distribute them to the public and judicial actors, who can either print them out or mount them on their own servers.

The most integrated approach to electronic storage of documents is in the Gray County DC’s office.   This system is an extension of a long-standing commitment to a vendor, which provides all of the computing machines in the office. The electronic document scanning and storage system is built upon the existing case management and computing system. The study team has identified some concerns with electronic access listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Study Team’s Major Concerns with Electronic Access to Documents

Networks (including Internet)

All but one of the study jurisdictions have telephone networks in place in their county ourthouses. Most of these networks are owned by the counties, while some telephone networks (including the telephones) are leased from local telephone service providers including GTE and Southwestern Bell.

Five of the county courthouses have Internet connectivity: Roberts, Wheeler, Gray, Ward, and Reeves. Both the 143^rd and 31^st DJs have Internet access; one uses the Internet remotely. Most of the study respondents are only beginning to use net-based applications such as email, discussion groups, and Web-accessible state documents. Even non-Internet users, however, have high awareness of its importance for their functions and are preparing for Internet connectivity in the next year or so. For example, Hemphill County is configuring its telephone network and budget for Internet use, while Roberts County is discussing the use of the A&M Extension Office Internet connection more widely in the courthouse.

Several respondents, especially judges and clerks, expressed deep concern about absolute security in networked case materials, although none had yet had any serious negative experience in that regard. See Table 6 on specific networking problems mentioned by the study participants.

Table 6: Respondents’ Problems with Networks including Internet

Professional Responsibilities and Tasks

All the judicial functions involved in the study carry additional responsibilities beyond their judicial ones, and the introduction of significant computing and telecommunications capabilities must recognize this fact explicitly. While such an assertion seems obviously true for clerks, it holds for attorneys and judges as well.

The study team was able to identify two communication "rings" or professional networks which are essential to the success of the Texas judicial system: (1) the connections among the district judge, district court coordinator, district attorney, and district clerk, and (2) the connections among the county judge, county judge’s assistant, county attorney, and county clerk. At both district and county levels, the judges’ assistants are integral players in setting the docket; therefore, they are integral players in judicial communication. In addition, seeing the CJ and the CJ’s assistant as a unit is important because county judges often rely on their assistants to assume all responsibility for dealing with information management including computing. CJs will not accept computing or adapt their work practices without the active involvement of their assistants.

While appeals from MJ and JP courts are heard in the county-level courts, it is revealing that the municipal judges and justices of the peace in the study made little reference to other judicial actors in the county and district. Other than their peer MJs and JPs, they regularly mentioned only county attorneys, to whom they turn for legal advice and who represent the state in jury trials in their courts. In small, especially rural, communities there are certainly personal connections among judicial actors, but the MJs and JPs in the study did not put much emphasis on contact with them.

Training and Support

There is no systematic training related to IT available to the respondents in the ten jurisdictions in the study. Required training includes general computer training, training related to general tools (e.g., Web searching), and training related to specialized tools (e.g., legal research). It is clear that the respondents need and asked for on-site training, customized to their job responsibilities and tasks.

There is also no systematic support available to the overwhelming majority of participants. They limp along relying on family members, friends, manuals and technical documentation, and haphazard support from local and remote hardware and software vendors. An important source of support and troubleshooting is other judicial actors who, in turn, find this task very demanding and often in conflict with their other professional responsibilities.

At the same time, the study respondents have made remarkable progress in integrating IT into their existing tasks and modifying their work practices to take advantage of IT functionalities. In addition to local technology champions, professional associations, Continuing Legal Education (CLE), and peer networks of all kinds are of special importance in this regard.

Financial Constraints

While support for some district expenditures, e.g., the salaries of district judges, are assumed by the state, the counties in the district pay the salaries of other district personnel, i.e., the district court coordinator and court reporter. Similarly, IT expenditures on the district level are supported by the counties, as are IT expenditures at the county level. The Commissioners Courts hold the county purse strings, and Commissioners throughout Texas, with some notable exceptions, have not been very pro-active in investing in information technologies. Without direct state support, including both carrots (money, expertise, and grants) and sticks (IT standards and reporting schedules), the counties, and therefore, the districts, will not successfully adopt the information technologies that will best suit their needs.

The findings summarized here led the study team to the recommendations described in the next section of the report and the conclusions that follow.

Recommendations

So what can OCA and JCIT do now to help the two study districts and eight study counties? Answering the question means keeping an eye on short-term needs and understanding long-term goals and the "big picture." The study team will provide specific recommendations here for achieving both.

Many competing information technologies are in place in state courts today. Solutions currently in use range from locally developed applications to applications provided by both small and large commercial vendors. An emerging trend is migration to Internet and Web-based applications that are attractive because of their standard data exchange protocols and intuitive graphical user interfaces.

The long-term goal of OCA and JCIT should be to prepare users and their systems for evolution to the newer environment centered on the Internet. For example, electronic filing, public access, and case management will increasingly merge, facilitated by Web-based interfaces. As the big picture of court information technology is evolving, there are some immediate needs of the rural courts in this study that should be addressed by OCA and JCIT. The recommendations below will deliver immediate benefits and help prepare Texas rural courts for the Internet-centered technology that will best suit their needs.

There are a number of factors crucial to the success of any IT implementation in the Texas rural courts (see Table 7). These factors mirror those in other IT implementations and have emerged from the literature and from the study team’s empirical observations in this and other studies. OCA clearly recognizes the values of these factors in the implementation of information technologies in the courts. One of the study team’s contract officers said that "until we know what they do, we won’t know what they need." The "what they do" was not simply what IT they use or do not use; it was put into the context of needing to understand what users’ professional tasks are.

Table 7: Critical Success Factors in IT Implementation

Equipment for the Ten Jurisdictions

The study team has the following recommendations for computing and other equipment for OCA and JCIT.

Hardware and Software

Two types of computer systems are recommended for judicial actors in the 143^rd and the 31^st districts: (1) high-end machines and (2) medium-range machines. Some of high-end computers can act as file and application servers where case management and other productivity applications may reside. These computers are easily upgradable to significantly higher levels of performance, so they will not need replacement in less than 2 years. Medium-range machines will be primarily for the desktops of CJ’s and other judicial actors who tend to delegate their computing and information management responsibilities. They will also be used for public access. Table 8 lists the features of high-end (server and power user) and medium-range (light user and public access) machines recommended by the researchers.

Table 8: Computer Specifications

High-end/server

Medium-range/light use, public access

Pentium-based - Single processor, but with space for dual processor Network-ready USB (Universal Serial Bus) Processor speed of 333 MHz 128M of RAM 9G of storage as servers; 4G of storage as personal machines Internal Zip drive CD-ROM player = 512 KB cache memory Enlarged (21") monitors, Web browser, telnet client, FTP, email application Installed suite of Windows-based office applications from any vendor

Pentium-based - Single processor Network-ready USB (Universal Serial Bus) Processor speed of 300 MHz 64M of RAM 4G of storage Internal Zip drive CD-ROM player = 512 KB cache memory Standard-sized (17") monitor Web browser, telnet client, FTP, email application Installed suite of Windows-based office applications from any vendor

The following distribution of computing equipment among the judicial actors is recommended:

1. District judges should have high-end machines described above on their desktops, plus high-end laptops for travel.
2. Every county judge should have a medium-range desktop computer.
3. Justices of the peace and municipal judges who already use computers should have their machines upgraded to the medium-range machines described here. Those justices of the peace and municipal judges who do not currently use computers should receive medium-range machines.
4. District and country clerks’ offices should have (a) at least one high-end computer to serve as an application server for case management software and (b) at least one medium-range computer to serve as a public access machine.
5. Each county courthouse with a law library should have a medium-range machine with access to electronic legal research tools.
6. District judges, district attorneys, interested county judges, and interested municipal judges and justices of the peace and should be provided with Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) to help with scheduling, note taking in the field, and other purposes.

Some CJs may need persuasion and a great deal or support and training before they accept computers as their daily tools. These computers must be discussed and implemented in a way that makes it clear that they are multi-functional machines, useful for administrative as well as judicial tasks. Finally, for computers that already exist on desktops it must be ensured that they adhere to the specifications prescribed above.

JPs and MJs who do not currently use computers need to be convinced of the value of computing and Internet connectivity for their work. Before they receive computers, they must see how their peers use IT for general paperwork and case management, fee collection, and other tasks.

Networking

Each of the eight county courthouses in the study should be wired with Fast Ethernet (100 Mb/sec), using Category 5 wire. Ethernet drops should be in the DJs’, CTCs’, CCs’, DCs’, MJs’, JPs’, and DAs’ offices – all judicial actors in the courthouses should be connected as a matter of course. Hubs, routers, licensing agreements for served software, and other appropriate technology should also be purchased and installed. It is absolutely essential that provisions for local support and maintenance should be explicitly included in the package.

Electronic Access to District Case Documents: DECaL

Electronic access to documents is a pressing need for the district judges in the 143^rd and the 31^st districts. Some DA/CAs and DC/CCs also expressed interest in converting paper case files to electronic formats. Important concerns in such electronic conversion projects are:

Current experiences with electronic filing and access projects in Federal and state courts demonstrate that there is no consensus yet about answers to these questions. A further difficulty is that technologies and equipment applied in comprehensive electronic scanning projects are complex and expensive, and their implementation is time consuming.

In order to provide remote electronic access to case documents for the district judges and other district officers, the jurisdictions, OCA, and JCIT may follow one of these alternatives:

1. Select a large-scale, integrated system from a commercial vendor such as Government Services Automation
2. Develop a large-scale, ubiquitous integrated system themselves
3. Develop a "small-scale" solution using existing, general application tools.

The study team recommends the adoption of the last alternative. Given the instability in the field of court technology and limited resources available to rural district courts, the research team believes that it is imprudent for the 143^rd and 31^st districts to adopt alternative 1 by committing to a comprehensive electronic transfer project whether with a private vendor or developing such applications themselves. Additionally, many of these systems fundamentally rely on older technologies that do not make the best use of very recent technologies, especially Internet networking. Alternative 2 is not feasible given the limitations of the jurisdictions’, OCA’s, and JCIT’s resources and the long lead time required for benefits to emerge.

The study team recommends, as an immediate solution, the adoption of alternative 3 by creating a small-scale District Electronic Case Library (DECaL). This option could address the DJs’ and other district officers’ need for electronic access to case documents without requiring major changes in the usual work processes in DJs’ and DCs’ offices, and without commitment of major resources.

On the production side, the major processes and technologies involved in DECaL would include:

1. Scanning of case document images in Portable Document Format (PDF)
2. Quality control (checking the legibility of scanned files)
3. Assigning key words by DCs, e.g., case number, document title, and litigants; this is a natural extension of DCs’ existing responsibilities.
4. Uploading files into a sequential file or into a database located on a dedicated Web server in the district seat.
5. These processes will be performed in each district clerk’s office for all active cases. The images of the case documents will be accessible to the district judges through a standard Web browser in a secure, password-protected environment. Table 9 provides a listing of resources important for DECaL.

Table 9: Features of DECaL

HARDWARE	High-end computer for a scanning station in each DC’s office High-end computer for a Web server in each district seat Flatbed scanner in each DC’s office CD-ROM creator for archival storage
TOOLS	Web server Adobe Acrobat Software for creating PDF documents Adobe Acrobat Reader for document reading Web browser Database application
IT CONSULTING	System selection and installation DECaL Web site design for input and viewing Security Work flow Retrospective conversion
TRAINING NEEDED	Document scanning Quality control Document indexing Document uploading

From a design and development perspective, the benefit of DECaL is that it relies on common software tools and standards. The benefits of such a system to users are ease of electronic document creation, ease of remote document access, development of expertise with Internet-based tools, and off-site electronic storage of case documents. While DECaL is proposed as a short-term solution, it can be adapted to higher-end integrated systems as technologies and needs of the districts evolve, e.g., the stored images can be "re-used" as more advanced technologies are added. Because DECaL requires relatively low initial investment and uses proven technologies, it has high likelihood of success. The intent of DECaL is not archival at this initial stage. If properly developed, however, its initial and evolving characteristics will be compatible with existing digital archives of district case documents.

Implementation Guidelines

The research team suggests the following guidelines to OCA and JCIT for implementation of the recommended IT changes in the districts:

It is essential to keep in mind the ten key success factors in IT implementation described in Table 7 above.

Conclusions

The preceding sections of this report have indicated that the 2 judicial districts and the 8 counties in the study face considerable challenges to the successful adoption and implementation of computing and telecommunication technologies. At the same time, it is clear that the jurisdictions studied have already made considerable progress in identifying IT applications that have made their administration of justice more effective and efficient. Many of the remaining challenges can be met by the appropriate combination of actions by the judicial staff in the study sites and by others, especially OCA and JCIT. The final section of the report discusses overarching considerations of what OCA and JCIT might do to facilitate the proliferation of appropriate technologies throughout the Texas judicial system. The report concludes with a final consideration of important issues and concerns in adopting IT in the 2 exemplar districts and 8 exemplar counties.

Roles of OCA and JCIT

The respondents in this study led the study team to the following consideration of what OCA and JCIT might become. The roles described below reinforce much of what OCA and JCIT are doing already, but new roles and new kinds of activities are also discussed.

OCA and JCIT should be standards setters to determine certain minimum standards for IT for courts across the state, including functionalities and external standards that must be adhered to. These Texas-based standards must address hardware, software, connectivity, training, and support. OCA and JCIT’s assuming such a responsibility helps achieve the major benefits of IT standardization: interoperability, economies of scale, predictability of product development, and other advantages.

Without guidance from OCA and JCIT, Texas courts and related entities, especially those in the rural parts of the state, are at a serious disadvantage in planning, implementing, and evaluating IT initiatives. This disadvantage includes an inability to address two of the major obstacles to IT success: (1) migration from one generation of IT to another and (2) negotiation with vendors.

Action items:

OCA and JCIT should negotiate with vendors to maximize the adoption and benefits of IT by:

1. Negotiating Internet connectivity rates with local Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
2. Helping districts and counties to get the most advantageous rates for telecommunication and telephone services. Long-distance rates are especially important in rural counties with large distances to travel and low population density. Many judicial actors (DJs, CTCs, CRs, CJs, and others) made this point. OCA and JCIT should help the counties and districts secure local rates for calls from county seat to county seat within and across district lines.
3. Providing aggregated (therefore, cheaper) access to privately owned legal information services and products. These include legal reference sources, either in CD-ROM or online form.
4. Becoming involved in the districts’ and counties’ IT procurement. The overwhelming majority of computers and peripherals bought by participants in the study were purchased off the shelf, with little or no discount. Governmental purchase agreements, especially based on volume discounts, can make the IT dollar in rural Texas go much further.

OCA and JCIT must aggregate the demand for information technology service and products diffused across multiple judicial jurisdictions and ensure customer satisfaction in these jurisdictions by acting as a liaison between providers and consumers.

Action items:

Initiate contact and begin negotiations with ISPs as well as telecommunications and electronic legal research tool providers

Consult with the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) and other appropriate public entities

Initiate research into other states’ and the Federal government’s efforts to accomplish similar tasks

OCA and JCIT should be IT support organizations to provide on-going advice about the processes of IT planning, implementation, and evaluation. There is no other public agency ready to take on this responsibility for the courts – to help them with the process of strategic planning to answer the question: how can IT help us achieve our mission and better serve the people of Texas? The marketing of IT and the design and implementation of IT tools must be SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY tied to the functional responsibilities of court actors, not discussed as general benefits from the perspective of OCA and JCIT. In addition, for-profit providers of information systems more aggressively court small counties and municipalities and their courts as larger markets reach saturation. OCA and JCIT must help these jurisdictions make sense of the advantages and disadvantages of various vendors’ products and services.

Action items:

The provision of case management software by OCA is at a critical juncture. OCA can follow one of three paths.

The study team recommends the last option which includes the responsibility to enhance the financial component of the software to address the pressing needs of many of OCA’s constituents. OCA must overcome its "lowest common denominator" approach to its case management software; it must raise the bar for itself and for for-profit vendors. OCA must allow for standardization and localized customization of its software.

Action items:

Final Thoughts

OCA and JCIT should aim for a complex and deeper relationship with the 2 "exemplar" districts and the 8 "exemplar" counties in the study, both to satisfy their immediate needs and to engage in the long-term process of strategic adoption of information technologies. These jurisdictions can serve as models of how to plan for, implement, and evaluate IT in the context of multiple and complex judicial roles. Just as importantly, on-going engagement with these 10 jurisdictions will demonstrate to other jurisdictions that OCA and JCIT are concerned with their success.

An important study theme was the respondents’ concerns with public service. OCA, JCIT, and others can market IT products and services to actors in the judicial system by appealing to their concern for public service. Among the study respondents, such concern included constant reiteration from the clerks that the provision of public access to their records is among their primary responsibilities. There was also a suggestion from municipal judges and justices of the peace that OCA or another state actor should design and distribute information in various formats to give people advice on how to behave and what to expect in different kinds of courts. Similarly, prosecutors in all jurisdictions mentioned their concern with restitution and victims’ rights. All of these elements of public service, as well as others, must be reinforced by any IT used by judicial actors. In addition, these concerns for public service are means by which OCA, JCIT, and others can market IT products and services to the other actors in the judicial system. Helping judicial actors satisfy public needs, naturally, also helps achieve the important goal of enhancing the public perceptions of the courts.

The reduction of travel time for district staff, especially the district judge, and the reduction of other travel costs are often cited as prime reasons for providing remote access to case documents. DECaL (the system described in the recommendations section of this report), the other more specific recommendations, and electronic filing would help achieve these savings. More importantly, they would allow judicial personnel to allocate their time more efficiently and to be more often available to their constituents.

While such benefits are commonly recognized, it is equally obvious that it is too simplistic to label less-than-enthusiastic adopters of IT in the judicial system as Luddites. Similarly, it is too easy to brand respondents’ concerns with public access, security, legal autonomy of offices, and "unfunded information mandates" (especially reporting and format prescriptions) as anti-information technology. Such dismissive attitudes seriously underestimate the complexity of the jobs that the study respondents do, the sophistication of their information management, and the seriousness of their public responsibility. It is clear that, among some judicial actors across Texas, there is a perception that there has been an emphasis on OCA’s reasons for adopting IT, e.g., reporting requirements and ease of consulting, rather than on the complexity of the jobs that judicial actors perform. While such a perception is often unfounded, it must be met with patience, sensitivity, and a clear understanding that IT must always be sold in terms that the customer wants to hear.

The study also re-emphasized that all IT planners need to develop a more integrated and complex picture of the process of information management and IT adoption. This process involves at least four important, mutually interacting elements:

There are several important state-wide circumstances that frame the study team’s recommendations and that are already playing important roles in the adoption of IT in the courts. The first is the complex web of professional associations for judicial actors. These are sources of training, peer teaching, and sharing of experience. It is a commonplace in IT training that everyone prefers to be taught by a peer who understands one’s circumstances and job demands – OCA and JCIT must take advantage of this resource.

The second set of circumstances is the state-wide requirements for continuing professional education. These annual requirements are obvious candidates for IT training and planning for all the judicial actors included in the study and beyond. Continuing education and professional associations have already demonstrated considerable leadership in this regard, and they should be explicitly encouraged to do even more by OCA and JCIT. Many respondents, especially county attorneys and justices of the peace, emphasized the importance and value of the consulting services available to them from the state Attorney General’s office. OCA and JCIT should also explore this venue for IT implementation and training.

The final state-wide circumstance that the researchers would like to underscore is the existence of multiple sources of Internet connectivity for judicial actors across the state. It is important to consider all of these options, and more, for getting connectivity to the 10 jurisdictions in this study and others in Texas. OCA and JCIT need to explore the utility of using the Panhandle Information Network, the Texas A&M Extension Service network, and others to provide Internet connectivity to courts across the state and to exchange judicial information. While the Department of Public Safety network is seen as a secure network and has proliferated, there are other connectivity options as well. Security can be maintained in these various other environments, but it must be a clear focus of whatever system(s) are used by the courts, must be explicitly planned for, and must include sensitization of users to the importance of confidentiality and security. Study participants themselves emphasized the absolute need for court records in digital form to be kept confidential and safe from inappropriate change.

While the study team has made a number of recommendations, including some for the establishment of DECaL for remote access to digital versions of district case documents, the respondents in this study are already pro-active, creative users of information technologies. They, and their jurisdictions, are doing remarkably well, especially given the lack of financial and consulting resources that they face.

This point leads to a fundamental obstacle to the successful implementation of IT in the courts – financial constraints. While this is far from surprising news, the district and other courts in the study face especially complex funding problems. County, district, and justice of the peace courts rely on the largesse of the county Commissioners Court. Similarly, municipal courts rely on individual city councils for their financial support. County Commissioners have been reluctant to invest major resources in information technologies, especially in the districts where the benefits are shared among multiple counties. In the short term, only state funding will facilitate the local adoption of IT in the courts. In the long term, however, OCA, JCIT, and other policy makers must address this fundamental problem. Only then can information technologies at the district, county, and lower levels act as a catalyst for judicial reform and the most effective administration of justice.

APPENDICES

Data Collection Activities

function	data collection activity
	group interview	personal interview	telephone interview	office visit
district and county judges
DJ 143rd		x		x
CJ Ward Co.		x		x
CJ Reeves Co.		x		x
CJ Loving Co.			x
DJ 31st		x		x
CJ Wheeler Co.		x
CJ Gray Co.		x		x
CJ Hemphill Co.		x		x
CJ Lipscomb Co.		x		x
CJ Roberts Co.		x		x
DJ 223rd		x		x
district and county attorneys
DA 143rd		x
CA Ward Co.			x
*CA Reeves Co.
Assist. DA 31st	x
CA Gray Co.	x
CA Hemphill Co.	x
CA Lipscomb Co.		x
CA Roberts Co.			x
court coordinators
143rd		x		x
31st		x		x
223rd		x		x
court reporters
143rd		x		x
31st		x		x
223rd		x		x
Reeves Co.		x		x
district and county clerks
143rd
DC Ward Co.		x		x
CC Ward Co.			x
DC Reeves Co.			x	x
*CC Reeves Co.
DC/CC Loving Co.			x
31st
DC Wheeler Co.	x			x
CC Wheeler Co.	x	x		x
DC Gray Co.	x	x		x
CC Gray Co.	x
DC/CC Hemphill Co.		x		x
DC/CC Lipscomb Co.		x		x
Dpty. DC/CC Roberts Co.		x		x
84th DC/CC	x
municipal judges and justices of the peace
143rd
MJ Monahans (Ward)			x
JP Monahans (Ward)	x
MJ Pecos (Reeves)	x
JP Toyah (Reeves)	x
*JP Mentone (Loving)
31st
JP Shamrock (Wheeler)			x
JP I Pampa (Gray)	x
JP II Pampa (Gray)	x
JP McLean (Gray)	x
JP Canadian (Hemphill)	x
JP Miami (Roberts)	x

Note: The researchers contacted all members of the judiciary in the two districts, but not all were able to participate. An asterisk (*) indicates that the research team made several unsuccessful attempts to contact a possible respondent.

Data Collection Instruments – Individual Survey, Interview Schedule, IT Census General Information Sheet, and IT Census Individual Machine Sheet

TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOURSELF…

Your title in the public judicial system

The court or county with which you are affiliated

Your age (please circle one)

21-30   31-40    41-50   51-60   61-70   70+

Years in this position (please circle one)

<1   1-5    6-10   11-15   16-20   21-25   25+

Type of appointment (please check one)

[ ]Part-time: less than 10 hrs/week [ ]Part-time: 11-20 hrs/week [ ]Part-time: more than 20 hrs/week [ ]Full-time

Highest level of education (please check one)

[ ]Less than high school [ ]High school [ ]2-year college [ ]4-year college

[ ]Masters degree [ ]JD [ ]Other, please specify:

Do you have a secretary or someone else to manage your calendar? (please check one)

No Yes – part-time Yes – full-time

Do you have access to computers? (please check all that apply)

[ ]No [ ]At work for the public judicial system [ ]At home [ ]Elsewhere

If you use computers for work or other purposes, which of these applications do you use? (check all that apply)

At public judicial work

At home

Elsewhere

Word processing

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

Spreadsheets

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

Databases

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

OCA case mgmt software

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

Electronic scheduling

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

Email

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

Electronic mailing lists

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

Do you conduct legal research for your public judicial job? In this context legal research includes checking case citations, determining legal precedents, and finding statutes and regulations.

[ ]Yes [ ]No

If you conduct legal research for your public job, which research resources do you use? (check all that apply)

LEXIS/NEXIS WESTLAW CD-ROMs Print resources Internet (WWW)

At work [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Elsewhere [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

How do you keep current with developments in your public judicial job? (check all that apply)

[ ]Conferences [ ]Professional associations [ ]Publications [ ]Training provided by the state [ ]Personal relationships with colleagues [ ]Other, please specify:

---

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

1. What are the main functions of your job?
   • - Relationship between judicial and administrative aspects of the job
   • - Relationship between public and private responsibilities
2. With whom do you communicate and how?
   • - Role of professional organizations
   • - Contacts with state institutions
   • - Regional contacts with peers
   • - Continuing education
3. What types of information technology tools do you use and how?
   • - Hardware and software
   • - Case management
   • - Internet applications
   • - Legal research

NOTE: These questions were asked in a semi-structured way with examples and sub-questions as appropriate for any particular respondent.

---

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENSUS – GENERAL INFORMATION

Location:

Judicial district

Court/county

City

Number of machines:

Placement in buildings and distribution:

Owner of wiring/communication network(s):

---

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENSUS – INDIVIDUAL MACHINE

Location:

Judicial district

Court/county

City

Operating system:

Owner of computer:

Use(s) of the computer:

Limitations on the computer’s use:

How the computer was acquired:

 Off the shelf

Custom-built

Pre-owned (by whom?)

---

To view or print PDF files you must have the Adobe Acrobat® reader. This software may be obtained without charge from Adobe. Download the reader from the Adobe Web site.