d C oroners O ffice C ourts P olice C row n C orrections Fire Marshall Transform ing P ublic Safety an d Justice for the good ofall O n tarians Implement Iterate Integrate Ontario’s IJP Project Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman Derek R. Freeman
53
Embed
Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman
Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman. World Events. Bali, 2002 911, 2001 Innocent civilians victimized for purposes of war. A Snapshot of “Why” we need IJP and “How” IJP works at a Provincial (State) criminal level. One reason “Why” we started the IJP. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
“2001: SUSPECT IN BEDROOM RAPE HEADS TO COURT IN POLICE VAN” – “Bedroom Rapist” case
JUST IN: October, 2002 conviction of Christopher Watts– Police Constable Belinda Rose of Guelph Ontario, being honoured in
Canberra Police Conference, October, 2002 – Integrated teamwork and new computer software– “Computer gets credit for arrest/conviction” (PowerCase and Watson)
Patterns and profiling of data from many sources Software was able to connect vague tips Production of major disclosure documents (57 bankers boxes) and Crown Brief
– DNA testing in 24 hours, not 3 months as in Bernardo
In Detail: Why, How and What Happened In Detail: Why, How and What Happened in Ontario’s Integrated Justice Projectin Ontario’s Integrated Justice Project
“The largest and most complex project of its kind “The largest and most complex project of its kind ever initiated … this is not fine-tuning or changing a ever initiated … this is not fine-tuning or changing a
process here; it is foundational and huge”process here; it is foundational and huge” Deputy Solicitor General, Virginia West, February 27, 2002.Deputy Solicitor General, Virginia West, February 27, 2002.
Ontario Justice at a glance:Ontario Justice at a glance:
Canada is a confederation of 10 Provinces, Inuvit and one territory
Federally and Provincially appointed Judges Federal Justices in the Provinces have inherent jurisdiction Canada pays High Court Justices Ontario pays for its Judges, Magistrates, etc. and all the
infrastructure, including for the High Court Justices A “Commonwealth” type system, with trial courts, Appellate
Courts and some final appeals (most with leave) to the Supreme Court of Canada
What does a typical year look like?What does a typical year look like?
1997/98 justice statistics:– 400,000 criminal code charges received by Ontario courts
– 1.5 million provincial charges laid, many under Highway Traffic Act
– 12,000 civil matters added to the trial list
– 190,000 civil and family proceedings commenced
all managed in separate, paper-based systems
1997: The Three Silos1997: The Three Silos
POLICE
Solicitor General
OPP and overall
Guidance for Police forces
COURTS
Attorney General
Running the Courts and responsible for Crown Attornies, etc.
CORRECTIONS
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correc-tions
Why the IJP was initiatedWhy the IJP was initiated
The justice system in Ontario was a labour intensive, paper driven and fragmented into separate information silos. It is characterized by:
- duplication- delays in information transmittal- information that is difficult to access- scheduling and case management bottlenecks
A number of recent judicial inquests recommended that better information sharing among justice sectors could save lives
“Civil Justice Review” reports of 1995/96 made 124 recommendations to streamline and improve the civil justice system
Growing public pressure for improved services
IJP’s Planned Scope – integrating ALL services and systems:IJP’s Planned Scope – integrating ALL services and systems:
all courts administered by MAG courtrooms and court offices the private bar the judiciary
OPTIC police services OPP municipal police services in OPTIC
integration with other municipal police services all Crown Attorney offices and services (includes Victim/Witness
Assistance Program) Correctional Services
institutions probation and parole Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board
22,000 employees in the Ministries at 825 different locations across Ontario, as well as municipal police forces, judges, private lawyers, and the general public.
convert manual systems to electronic systems to reduce multiple entries, speed processes, improve information quality, and reduce long-term costs
replace existing electronic systems with new technology provide electronic information exchanges across justice data
systems provide the public and the legal community with faster, easier and
secure access to electronic court processes provide authorized justice personnel with “e-query” function to
improve information sharing across justice community respond to public demand for safer communities improve support to victims and witnesses
What was Integrated Justice to do?What was Integrated Justice to do?
Vision Statement for Courts Project (as of 1998)Vision Statement for Courts Project (as of 1998)
To enhance the administration of justice and service to the public by providing more accessible, efficient and affordable, effective and secure court administration and courtroom support services through:
the introduction of integrated solutions for all aspects of the justice system
the effective management of cases through all stages of court
the introduction of creative business solutions for all aspects of courts
the capability for anytime, anywhere, access to authorized information
the provision of an environment that fully supports electronic case files and case flow management
the recording and production of, and access to the court record in digital form
the creation of a court environment which supports the efficient filing, distribution and use of information
the optimization of all stakeholders’ resources
Guiding Principles of the Courts Vision Guiding Principles of the Courts Vision Accessible use and cost of technology cannot
be a barrier to access to justice business solutions should have a
‘common look and feel’ multiple means and methods of
access must be available chosen technology and applications
must be supportable to agreed upon service levels
Efficient and affordable a high degree of integration among
all justice agencies is a critical factor information already in electronic form
will be re-used for court purposes wherever possible
Effective technology must be used to enhance
but not limit the independence of the administration of justice
chosen solutions should anticipate but not define the future, recognizing that the law and the courts are dynamic environments
development of business processes and technology solutions must be driven by the principles of justice
plans must include meeting the needs of the public, people and organizations affected by change
Secure security and confidentiality, either
perceived or real, cannot be compromised
The “How” of itThe “How” of it
It was 1996 and 1997; “.COM” had begun A newly elected “Privatization” minded Government, led by Premier Mike
Harris: The Common Sense Revolution A new concept introduced: “CPP” – Common Purpose Procurement –
the Government partnered with private companies which would bring in technology and project management skills the Government did not have
Government and private-sector partners jointly to provide necessary human and financial resources and share in resulting risks and rewards
75-25% risk sharing, with the Private Partners taking the 75% Benefit to Investment Ratio must exceed 1.1 to 1 March 1998, total project costs were estimated to be $180 million, which
were to be recovered through estimated benefits of $326 million. The Agreement required that the new systems be completed by
September, 2002.
Benefits RealizationBenefits Realization
Two principal means:
– Savings
– New fees
Savings through “disintermediation” and new efficiencies
New Fees through increase (February, 1999) and usage (e-filing)
– E-Filing seen as a big ”cash tap”
Some details:Some details:
A Project Management Office was established in 1997 to co-ordinate the work of the Project. It was to be responsible for preparing and updating the business case and accounting for the investment and benefits pools.
Two directors—one chosen jointly by the Ministries and the second from EDS—headed the Office.
A joint operations team, made up of a mix of staff from the consortium and the Ministries, handled most of the work of the Project; about 130 initially, then 200 persons through 2000-2002.
IJP accountable to a deputy ministers committee, made up of the Corporate Chief Information Officer, representing the Management Board of Cabinet, and representatives from the Ministries.
In addition, an Executive Steering Committee, with representatives from the Ontario justice system and key stakeholders, created to provide advice on the Project.
““Who” on the consortium sideWho” on the consortium side
Full justice sector reviews Focus groups Multi-sector business process re-engineering “As Is” and “To Be” Methods Planned common interfaces Regular communication sessions and many multi-stakeholder
committees ETC. ETC. There was no lack of commitment!
Courts “As Is” ProcessesCourts “As Is” Processes
Document Intake& Filing
Document Processing
Receivingand Updating of Documents in Court andRecording ofProceedings
Production andDelivery of Documents for Release/Enforcement
Archiving
Production of Transcripts
Doc
umen
t M
anag
emen
tS
ched
ulin
gM
anag
emen
t In
form
atio
n S
yste
ms
Data CollectionCompile Data for Various Regions / Time Periods
Reports placed in Repository and Distribute Automatically / On Need Basis
Data Used for Planning / Budgeting /Statistics
Selecting a Jury Panel
Fin
anci
al
Man
agem
ent
Assemblingand
OrganizingDocumentsfor Court
Provincial Division Scheduling
Criminal Courts Financial Management
Civil & Small Claims Courts Financial Management
Admin Services Financial Management
General Division Scheduling
CT1 CT2
CT3
CT4 CT5
CT6 CT7
CT8
CT11
CT13
CT14CT15
CT16 CT17
CT9
CT10
CT12
MultipleCase
InitiationPoints
e.g. Info Center,Kiosk,
InternetElectronic Case Flow ManagementSystem with integrated scheduling
and financial management processes
ElectronicDocument orDisbursement
Electronic courtroom supportincluding document view and
production capabilities and digital recording of record
Potential Future “To Be”Potential Future “To Be”
Our ProgressOur Progress
ministries began planning
RFP for private-sector partner
contract signed documented current
and developed new business processes
released RFPs for electronic systems
1996/1998Plan Project and
Define requirements
1999 - 2002Development and Design
phased implementation process began in late 2000 and continues
2000 / Phased
Implementation select technology customize software policy issues test and develop
new systems organization design
We are here
Key initiativesKey initiatives Courts
electronic filing (e-file) digital audio court recording electronic case management and scheduling
Crown electronic Crown Brief exchange Crown case management
Police computer-aided dispatch electronic records management system
Corrections institutions case management probation and parole case management
Common Query System Common information services management (CISM)
Integration – Common Query SystemIntegration – Common Query System
foundation for integration between police, Crowns, courts, and corrections
improved facility to identify a person ability to link a person to all involvements access to involvement details from all integrated applications supporting security
Technical architectureTechnical architecture
use of industry standard and open system products; e.g., Java, C++
portability across programs; e.g., Unix, NT standards developed for both process exchanges and
information exchanges extensive code developed in-house and provided to vendors
for their use in product development standardized tools and test products provided to vendors to
support compatibility integration layer allows integration sharing in a secure
environment
ApplicationsApplications
Non-OPTICPolice
CISM*• Web Portal• E-filing• Message handling• Security• Document rendering
Management tools SMS; Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM); BMC Patrol; HP Openview; Remedy; PSSP; IBM StoreWatch
Internet/Intranet/Extranet Microsoft Internet Information Server; Apache; ActiveX; HTML; PKI+Entrust/Direct; XML; Internet Explorer
Other WordPerfect; Microsoft Office 95/97/2000; ICL X.500/LDAP
Privacy and securityPrivacy and security
ensure systems allow connectivity but remain separate
access to information is restricted to those who are authorized, sign-on screens providing access on a need-to-know / right-to-know basis
security and blocking features in place to deny access where there is a legislative requirement to do so; e.g., if a record or file is ordered sealed by a judge, the system will ensure it remains sealed
[Separate slides on final CD]
Police ProjectPolice Project
Aims Records Management System (RMS) organizes the recording and
management of details regarding criminal occurrences. Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) assists in the management of police
emergency calls, using digital maps to display the location of calls. Better information is captured to aid investigations. Systems provide improved, more efficient ways of sharing information
across police services and the justice system.
Current Status Implementation of CAD and RMS began in September 2000 – full
integration October 18, 2002. The new, integrated CAD and RMS have been deployed across the
Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). CAD and RMS have been installed in eighteen Ontario Police
Technology and Information Co-operative (OPTIC) municipal police services, with the remaining 21 scheduled for implementation.
Corrections ProjectCorrections Project
Aims More effective management of cases and programs Provide corrections staff with a single, comprehensive file following
offenders from their entry into an institution or start of probation or parole until the conclusion of their sentence or period of supervision.
Electronic sharing of information with other justice partners, e.g. courts, police
Current Status On August 10, 2001, the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS)
went live across the province, and is being used on a 7x24 basis by staff in 45 institutions, 40 area offices and 94 satellite offices
Over 2,600 end users trained 60 million records integrated in 2001
Courts Project - AimsCourts Project - Aims
Focused on the court-related elements of the IJ initiative Will include courtroom support, criminal, civil and family case
management Will allow courts, courts administration and lawyers to get the greatest
use and value from electronic information
Three principal components: Electronic filing of court documents (E-file) Digital Audio Recording of court proceedings (DAR) Electronic court case management, including full scheduling and
eventual remote access
Courts Project - StatusCourts Project - Status
Digital Audio Recording (DAR): Testing system extensively, making modifications as required Field-testing of DAR is set to occur in a simulated court environment,
recording mock proceedings in an Ontario courthouse Planning is underway to implementation DAR in the Ontario Court of Appeal
Electronic Filing of court documents (E-File) Currently being field-tested by users in selected locations in both French and
English Once the application has proven itself, we will gradually phase E-File in
across the province.
Court Case Management System (CCMS): Currently engaged in an evaluation of alternatives to expedite the
development and implementation of this crucial system.
Crown ProjectCrown Project
Aims Will streamline Crown processes and create an electronic system for:
– scheduling resources– recording information– exchanging information with the police and courts – reduces time and effort spent capturing information.
Current status Rigorous testing of the application is being done in London and Toronto Training and implementation strategies are being completed Progress is being made with police representatives towards the
exchange of an electronic Crown brief between police and the Crown.
OOPS…OOPS… March 1998 cost estimate to complete the Project was $180
million, March 2001 estimate had risen to $359 million. Over the same period, expected benefits were reduced from
$326 million to $238 million. The benefit to investment ratio has dropped to about 0.76:1 In addition, not all systems are expected to be fully implemented
by the contractual deadline of September 8, 2002 [extended to October 8, 2002].
Provincial Auditor’s Report, as at March 31, 2001, released October, 2001: http://www.gov.on.ca/opa/english/r01t.htm
Breaking NewsBreaking News
“Ontario plan to modernize justice system scrapped”– Toronto Star, October 9, 2002
“It’s time to go our separate ways”, says the Attorney General at the end of the partnership of private consortium members and the three Ontario Justice sector Ministries (“IJP”)
So ends “the largest and most complex project of its kind ever initiated”
What happened along the wayWhat happened along the way
Examples:– Communications
Last Executive Steering Committee, May, 2000
– Software purchases The Sustain Saga
– Command and Control This works!
– Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers everywhere The e-filing fiasco
– Financial projections and the realities (as above)
– Courts = classic “frustration at law”, in Freeman’s opinion
What happened along the way: The Sustain Saga;What happened along the way: The Sustain Saga;the blow-up of Ontario’s CCMSthe blow-up of Ontario’s CCMS
e-Court 1999-2000 2000-2001
March, 1999 But the RFP said …
= Goodbye Unisys
August Version 19.2.0 Version 21.0.0
December to March of the next year
Unacceptable; then
quite good, really
Promises
May, the next year Switch! Termination of Interlink
The E-Filing FiascoThe E-Filing Fiasco
Designed to be a huge cash tap
First iteration in late 2000 caused a revolt by the Bar
2001: Second try, better but limited
Not until August, 2002 was a good front end implemented BUT the system runs today in three test sites, for free
What’s the trouble with the What’s the trouble with the technology?technology?
It’s It’s not not about technology as such; about technology as such; it’s about people and managementit’s about people and management
ABILITY TO USE IT
TECHNOLOGY
Lessons learned?Lessons learned?
From CTC-7 in Baltimore, August 2001:
1 Top management/Judicial Commitment
2 Adequate user involvement
3 Experienced project management
4 Clear business objectives
5 Minimized scope
Lessons, CTC-7 continuedLessons, CTC-7 continued
6 Standardized software infrastructure
7 Firm basic requirements
8 Formal methodology
9 Reliable estimates
10 Other criteria (small milestones, proper planning, competent staff, and project “ownership”)
Practical ObservationsPractical Observations
Unless full buy-in, and very large scale investment,
(e.g. Singapore)
– Keep it simple and small: “dolphins not whales”
Australia’s Federal Family Court• One ccms for one court, that works!
Very large project?
– Mostly, get a very large, “scalable” vendor
Practical Observations continuedPractical Observations continued
At present there is no single ccms product that has universal application
Each jurisdiction is wrestling with its own needs
No jurisdiction has yet made the full leap of faith to change the process, doing away with paper concepts
Technology DOES drive the process; develop policies and rules in tandem with it; maintain flexibility
Practical Observations continuedPractical Observations continued
Beware the simplicity of “Thin client”
– Pipeline issues
– Intended Traffic (!)
Or did you really intend a mainframe all along?
– ICON in Ontario
– Existing ccms in Canada’s Federal IRB
Practical Observations continuedPractical Observations continued
Define the scope with adequate input and with continual monitoring
LISTEN TO USERS, or proceed at your peril Lawyers are the single largest group of users of the Court system, for
example Wise to hire a lawyer consultant, or three!
Having defined the scope, stick to it, with proper staging
Practical Observations continued …Practical Observations continued …
Be patient and focused
– Eurofighter ten years out
Economist, September 14-20, 2002
– Ontario “E-Reg” Real Property system
Many serious challenges Helped to be a monopoly!
Practical Observations continued … ...Practical Observations continued … ...
Before you start, look to other disciplines
– Medicine, recording and transcription of notes
– Payroll call centres’ “Personalization”
Look to the winners
– NOW, we can look to Singapore
– FUTURE look to Tyler’s Odyssey in Minnesota
One Last ThoughtOne Last Thought
COMMUNICATION!
– Look at Minnesota’s Monthly and Weekly communications on their web-page!
Involve your users early and continuously
– Look at Singapore’s Subordinate Court’s Judicial Scorecard!
Enter the 21st century, striving to relate and be relevant
What the Future may holdWhat the Future may hold
From a rather well known computer company
A brief look at E-Filing.Net – [on the CD if time limits]
finis, finis, Q.E.D.Q.E.D.
Questions and, possibly, some meaningful Questions and, possibly, some meaningful answers!answers!