I. Needs Analysis
To determine the most appropriate method to serve the courts of Texas, JCIT and OCA conducted five types of needs analysis:
A. Census of the Texas Court Environment
The decentralized structure of the Texas court system provides JCIT with some unique challenges. Each of Texas' 3,000 judges in 2,800 courts (see Court Structure of Texas, page 17) operates autonomously, as do the state's approximately 430 district and county clerks and approximately 325 district and county attorneys, all of whom are independently elected. Roughly 11 million new cases and appeals are filed in Texas courts each year. There are over 20,000 court and prosecutor officials and staff (see Texas Court Officials and Staff, page 16) spread over an estimated 1,750 locations across the state. Each of the state's 254 counties has at least four courts (district, constitutional county, justice of the peace, and municipal) operating in each county seat and in most cases one or two other courts in each of the state's 850 incorporated municipalities. Most of the courts' funding comes from these counties and municipalities.
The courts' workload and the constituency that they serve continue to grow (as evidenced by the graphs on page 6) with fairly static resources. With the implementation of an integrated justice information system, the courts will be in a better position to serve Texas. Another concern is with the rapid growth of cases per judge with no projected growth in the number of judges to handle the cases.
A recent public trust and confidence survey of 1,215 Texas conducted by the Supreme Court of Texas, OCA, and the State Bar of Texas in 1998 found that:
84% felt that an important role of the courts is to protect society from criminals
Although courts are autonomous, they do have a common mission - the administration of justice, and a common function - public service. The courts are the final arbiter of processes that are initiated in the executive branch of government, such as criminal justice, juvenile justice, child support, mental health, regulatory, and licensing cases. Justice of the peace and municipal courts, for example, perform state functions when they process Department of Public Safety traffic citations and collect revenues in the form of court costs submitted to the state. Moreover, the lower courts are responsible for magistration of persons charged with criminal offenses (i.e., informing the criminally accused of his or her constitutional rights and setting bail on behalf of the state). The courts have been grappling with administering justice to a much more mobile and less sedentary Texas citizenry. This mobility creates challenges of ensuring public safety and protecting citizens' rights because people are now moving faster than the information about them.
JCIT and OCA must clearly understand court officials' day-to-day work needs and deliver information technology solutions which serve those needs. To this end, JCIT and OCA have involved judges, clerks, court administrators, prosecutors, and court reporters from all levels of the judiciary, as well as government agencies and the public in its planning process.
By creating technology standards, JCIT, as agent for the state, ensures integration of data among courts, integration of data between courts and public safety agencies and other government entities, and provide the public with access to judicial information via a central search location.
The number of courts and the degree of autonomy make systematic statewide automation challenging. Because of the life cycles of current technology and the need for ongoing support, reliable streams of funding must be identified and secured.
While no state is as complex as Texas, many similarities exist between Texas and other large states like California and Florida. There are four basic approaches to statewide court automation in the U.S.:
(1) some states are doing nothing;
(2) some states are setting standards and do not provide any assistance with implementation;
(3) some states (including Texas) are setting standards and providing implementation assistance; and
(4) some states have a de facto standard because they have one statewide court information system.
JCIT has adopted the most appropriate approach to statewide automation based on the
primary factors identified in the table below. With the creation of JCIT, Texas was
positioned to move from a do-nothing approach to a fairly aggressive approach. JCIT, the
Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Texas Judicial Council have enough
specific authority to put standards and policies in place to move the courts to a standard
data and communications approach to statewide court automation.
B. Subcommittees
JCIT organized subcommittees to focus on user needs and to focus on specific issues. The subcommittees which have been established are: Appellate Court; District and County Courts; Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts; Internet and Websites; Local Governments; Americans with Disabilities Act (focusing on courtroom accessibility through the use of technology); Training; Electronic Filing; and Telecommunications. The various subcommittees met or teleconferenced sixteen times since September 1997.
Subcommittee findings are summarized in the table beginning on page 23.
C. Study: Computing and Telecommunication Needs in Texas Rural Courts
JCIT and OCA commissioned a study of the computing and telecommunications needs of Texas rural courts. Two University of Texas, Graduate School of Library and Information Science professors, Dr. Sanda Erdelez and Dr. Philip Doty, conducted this study in eight counties (Gray, Hemphill, Lipscomb, Loving, Reeves, Roberts, Ward, and Wheeler) comprising two judicial districts (the 31st and 143rd). They analyzed the needs of the judges, clerks, prosecutors, court coordinators, and court reporters for municipal, justice of the peace, county-level, and district courts.
The study was geared to assist JCIT and OCA in determining the most appropriate method to assist courts across the state. These two districts were chosen because :
(1) the district judges, Judge Kent Sims, 31st District Court, and Judge Bob Parks, 143rd District Court, are technology advocates;
(2) these districts are multi-count rural districts and therefore few jurisdictional overlap complexities exist; and
(3) a variety of case management software is in use in the various levels of courts.
The following research questions drove the study:
As a result of this study, and specifically the finding that courts need technical assistance, on-going support, training, and local area network and internet connectivity more than they need new computers, JCIT and OCA have decided to direct more of its resources to filling these needs.
Study findings are summarized in the table beginning on page 23.
D. Systems Analysis of Court Data Flow in Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties
OCA worked with Dr. Ronald Wyllys, a professor at the University of Texas Graduate School of Library and Information Science, and his systems analysis class in the fall semester of 1998 to analyze the data needs and data flow in the municipal, justice of the peace, county-level, and district courts in Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties to better understand how a data standard might be established and how a comprehensive plan for integration could be achieved.
A report on this analysis was not complete at the time of the printing of this report.
Return to
JCIT's Annual Report
Table of Contents