Justice Management Institute Report

Franklin County Justice System
Business Process Analysis

The Justice Management Institute
July 16, 2014

1400 N. 14
th
Street, 12
th
Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-414-5477
Fax: 703-842-8665
www.jmijustice.org
Franklin County Justice System Business Process Analysis
Executive Summary

Franklin County is one of six growing counties in Pennsylvania, located on the south central border with
Maryland. Franklin is a fourth class
1
county with approximately 150,000
2
residents, 7 boroughs, 15
townships and numerous villages. The Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County,
Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Court, commissioned the Justice Management Institute in
September 2013 to provide a business process analysis of justice system case processing. The justice
system is geographically focused around the courthouse and courthouse annex at the center of
Chambersburg, the county seat. Other key justice facilities include seven Magisterial District Courts,
located in one-judge courthouses around the county, adult probation and the jail located north, and the
Day Reporting Center, west of Chambersburg.

Franklin County is seeking solutions to streamline and improve processes and utilizing data to maximize
efficiency, effectiveness and resources associated with the Countys judicial functions for criminal
court [and family casetypes]. Franklin County goals to be addressed by the analysis will directly impact
criminal justice stakeholders, including departments, offices and operations inside and outsidethe
county organization:

Goal 1: Streamline and improve automated systems and processes
Goal 2: Identify and improve data for effective decision-making
Goal 3: Streamline and improve manual systems and processes
Goal 4: Improve efficiency and functionality to make a major, positive impact on service delivery

The justice system includes criminal, family, juvenile and civil matters. The Franklin County Criminal
Justice Advisory Board (CJAB), which is co-chaired by the Chairman of the County Commissioners and
the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, is responsible for review and advice over criminal
and juvenile delinquency matters. The CJAB includes membership from all criminal justice stakeholders.
Policy governance over civil, family and juvenile dependency matters rests almost entirely with the
President Judge and the judges of the Court of Common Pleas, with collaboration from the local Bar
Association. The study primarily focuses on criminal, family and juvenile matters.

1
A fourth class county has a population of 145,000 to 209,999 residents.
2
2010 U.S. Census Bureau = 149,618 residents. 2013 estimate = 152,085, a 1.6% increase (.5% per year) since
2010.
The Justice Management Institute 2

Franklin County Innovation and Accomplishments
The Franklin County justice system is strong. Key examples of creative innovation and accomplishments
in the recent past include the following:

Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB). The formation of the CJAB in 1999 was key to
establishing active collaboration among justice system stakeholders, the residual effects of
which transcend criminal and juvenile delinquency matters. County leadership, the courts, and
all justice agencies are skilled at communicating and working together.

Early Accountability Program (EAP). Central court was established more than ten years ago, but
since September 2013, the Court of Common Pleas has been scheduling plea hearings
immediately after Central Court to expedite early disposition of cases where the District
Attorney and defendants and the Public Defender or defense counsel negotiate a plea
agreement. The program has raised challenges regarding early discovery and fact-finding, but
these should be addressed following evaluation and review.

Alternatives to Incarceration. The County has established a number of effective diversion and
alternatives to incarceration programs, including the Day Reporting Center to assist with early
reentry of incarcerated defendants, jail diversion, and intermediate punishment, among others.

Juvenile Justice. Franklin County is a Pennsylvania leader in juvenile justice, including
participation as a study county in a 2009 Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
(PCCD) evaluation project. Innovative programs include juvenile accountability programs and
the provision of high quality legal defense. See the PCCD report
3
for Franklin County, which
illustrates improvements in most performance measures over the last three years.

Criminal and Summary Clearance Rates. The justice system is generally keeping up with
criminal case filings. The clearance rate for the Court of Common Pleas in 2012 was 101%.
4
The
clearance rate for the Magisterial District Courts (MDC) in 2012 was 93%.
5
While not as positive
for the MDC, it is highly likely that results are due to data entry anomalies.
6
See Table E1 and
Chart E1 for a summary of the data across all casetypes.

3
http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Pages/PAYS-for-2013---County-Reports-.aspx#.U6nKLrFBlFU
4
2012 Court of Common Pleas criminal casetypes: 2,552 dispositions/2,531 filings = 101%. Clearance rate is a
standard measure of keeping up with filings. The goal is 100% clearance rate. Note that 2013 data are not yet
available for the Court of Common Pleas.
5
2103 Magisterial District Courts criminal casetypes = 2,457 dispositions/2,641 filings = 93%.
6
All criminal cases are disposed or bound over from the Magisterial District Courts to the Court of Common Pleas
in a very short time span. A 93% clearance rate is more indicative of data entry or recording delays on dispositions.

Table E1
Franklin County Magisterial District Courts 2013 and
Court of Common Pleas 2012 Filings, Dispositions, and Clearance Rates
7

Magisterial District Courts
2013
Filings
2013
Dispositions
Clearance
Rate
Criminal 2,641 2,457 93%
Summary Cases 22,974 22,312 97%
Private Criminal Complaints 707 639 90%
Traffic 17,928 17,799 99%
Non-Traffic 4,339 3,874 89%
Civil 1,336 1,231 92%
Landlord Tenant 1,036 999 96%
Total 27,987 26,999 96%

Court of Common Pleas
2012
Filings
2012
Dispositions
Clearance
Rate
Criminal 2,531 2,552 101%
Civil 1,274 476 37%
Family 3,754 3,820 102%
Divorce 542 534 99%
Adoptions 49 48 98%
Relinquishments 58 55 95%
Appointment of Guardians 19 16 84%
Custody/Visitation 296 304 103%
Spousal and Child Support 3,218 3,303 103%
Protection from Abuse 114 94 82%
Juvenile Delinquency 321 316 98%
Juvenile Dependency 165 149 90%
Active Dependent 94 93 99%
Adjudicated Dependent 71 56 79%
Total 8,587 7,847 91%

7
Source: Caseload Statistics, Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. Note that 2013 data were not yet available
for the Court of Common Pleas.

Chart E2
Franklin County Justice System 2013 (MDC) and 2012 (CCP) Clearance Rates
8

8
Note that the de facto national and international standard for clearance rates = 100% is rooted in the principal
that resolving fewer cases than are filed over a period of time (month or year) will begin to accumulate a backlog
and adversely affect the ability for judges to devote sufficient time to adjudication. The greatest collateral impact
is often case delay. Most justice systems effectively fluctuate between 97% and 103% clearance.
93% 97% 92%
96%
101%
37%
98%
90%
102%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
M
D
C

C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
M
D
C

S
u
m
m
o
n
s
C
a
s
e
s
M
D
C

C
i
v
i
l
M
D
C

L
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
T
e
n
a
n
t
C
C
P

C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
C
C
P

C
i
v
i
l
C
C
P

J
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
D
e
l
i
n
q
u
e
n
c
y
C
C
P

J
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
y
C
C
P

F
a
m
i
l
y
Goal = 100%
Clearance Rate

Franklin County Challenges
The justice system in Franklin County, while organizationally strong, is negatively impacted by systemic
and structural bottlenecks and problems. Inefficient processes have evolved over many years. The
benefits of more and better data to help decision-makers have not been fully realized. Examples of
improving data for effective decision-making include recidivism studies of DRC participants.
9
In large
part, the challenges are deeply rooted in our governmental structure, which fragments power and is
inefficient by design.

Criminal casetypes

Lack of effective system-wide data on criminal cases. Assessment of system dynamics on
individual cases and for each casetype from crime, arrest by law enforcement, to bail and
probable cause hearings, to mandatory arraignment and adjudication, through supervision
requires analysis of data from multiple systems. System-wide data will be much more accessible
through the new Unified Case Management System (UCMS)
10
modules. The goal will be to
build easy-to-use analytical tools to understand the linkages and outcomes.

Time to disposition due to continuances on criminal cases. For criminal cases in the Court of
Common Pleas, 16% (116) of active pending cases on January 1, 2013 were older than 360 days.
Pennsylvanias time standard for jailed defendants is 180 days and for bail defendants is 360
days. Elapsed time is not counted for continuances requested by the defendant or waivers of
prompt trial by the defendant (see Rule 600)

Representation at Central Court. The Early Accountability Program is a key innovation to
criminal justice case processing events. System-wide improvements in providing arrest reports
and other discovery by law enforcement earlier in the process will enable defendants and
defense counsel to reasonably negotiate pleas with the prosecutor.

Inadequate pretrial screening and supervision alternatives. Currently, no pretrial risk screening
is utilized to help inform Magisterial District Judges about pretrial bail or detention decisions.
District judges may also be more inclined to consider bail and/or release decisions that include
supervision alternatives that increase the likelihood of compliance. Supervision alternatives
include pretrial case management contact, court date reminders, drug testing, electronic
monitoring (GPS supervision), day reporting, work release, and/or treatment referrals. While
each of these alternatives involve cost, they are a fraction of the cost of pretrial detention.

Criminal, family, juvenile and civil casetypes
9
These types of studies, though, are not normative. They are not built into the data collection and reporting
process for all types of outcomes.
10
Designed, built and owned by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP).


Fragmented technology. The report documents 19 different core mission applications
supporting numerous justice system operations in Franklin County. Other than the case
management systems that support the Court of Common Pleas (CPCMS) and the Magisterial
District Courts (MDJS), which are fully integrated, almost no other system shares data or is
integrated. This problem is being addressed to a large degree through the implementation by
the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania of a new Unified Case Management
System (UCMS) that will provide an integrated case management platform for Adult Probation,
the District Attorney, and the Jail. A module of UCMS is also planned for the Public Defender in
2015/16. As important, UCMS is planned to provide disposition and calendar information from
the two state-owned
11
court systems, CPCMS and MDJS. Critical to the future success of the
new UCMS system will be effective planning for adoption and use of the systems, staff training,
and understanding how to leverage the systems to reduce paper-driven processes.

Overwhelming paper-driven processes. Almost all business transactions in the justice system
continue to be paper-driven, in addition to requiring electronic data entry and record keeping.
This is due in large part to historical reliance on hardcopy forms and ink signatures, especially for
legal documents, filings, and court orders. Inefficiencies are exacerbated by the following
shortfalls:

1. Little to no use of electronic document management for transactional purposes. Most
electronic documents are primarily for archival purposes. The only core system in place
with electronic document management is Infocon for civil and family case management,
used primarily for archival purposes. In the Magisterial District Court, recent rules
changes permit the use of electronic (imaged) documents for archiving until retention.
The state case management systems, CPCMS and MDJS, do not include a document
management module. The new UCMS includes document management, but it is not a
robust document management system. No provisions have been made for integration
with county-wide imaging or document management resources. Justice system
stakeholders repeatedly cited the lack of electronic motions and orders and close to real
time transactional use as key drivers of business process delay.

2. Repeated data entry into multiple systems. Because of the historical fragmentation of
technology, the same information is entered into different systems multiple times. The
new UCMS will reduce the amount of repeated data entry, but only if effectively
implemented. The best example of this problem is the following:

The complaint and affidavit of probable cause from law enforcement include most
case initiation information about an arrest or summons, the defendant(s), charges
and potential evidence. The same information is separately entered into the
11
Owned by the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC).

following systems: law enforcement field reporting and arrest reporting systems; jail
management system; Magisterial District Judges System; prosecutor management;
public defender case management; and adult probation case management.

3. No electronic filing is in place for criminal and family cases. Electronic filing has been
implemented for traffic citations from the Pennsylvania State Police, and by the Register
of Wills and Recorder for deeds. Electronic filing is rooted in the principle that the
information, forms, and documents needed to initiate a case and to provide a
mechanism for the filing of motions and the notification of parties regarding court dates
and orders starts with the litigants and attorneys who bring a dispute or charges to
court. In criminal cases, it starts with law enforcement complaints and citations.
Currently, only traffic citations are filed electronically by the Pennsylvania State Police
(PSP). All other opportunities to electronically initiate or manage cases in civil, criminal,
family, and juvenile cases are missed. The AOPC is implementing e-filing for family cases
through the Unified Judicial System (UJS). Because CPCMS is not a civil or family case
management system, e-filing through the AOPC will be standalone. The vast majority of
justice systems in the United States are considering and exploring ways of implementing
e-filing through the Internet.

Civil Casetypes

Clearance rate. While not studied as part of the report, collateral effects from prioritized focus
in the justice system on criminal, family, and juvenile matters cannot be ignored. See Table E1
and Chart E2 above. Civil pending caseloads are rapidly increasing. Historically, times to
disposition for civil cases have been very good. Pending cases are all within 30 months of time
to disposition, but positive results will rapidly deteriorate with increases in the caseload.
Community impacts will include increasing frustration by the business and commercial
community, as well as individual litigants with dispute resolution and delay in the justice system.

Jan 1, 2012
Pending
2012
Filings
2012
Dispositions
Dec 31, 2012
Pending
Clearance
Rate
Pending Cases
25-30 Months
Civil 1,737 1,274 476 2,535 37% 134 10%

Business Process Recommendations
The Justice Management Institute recommends a three-year implementation of the following major
initiatives to address the challenges faced by the justice system in Franklin County. The three initiatives
were the highest ranked of six initiatives, aggregated from issues and problems identified through
interviews and feedback from justice system stakeholders.

1.0 County-Wide Communication and Decision-Making
Develop county-wide process for involvement of stakeholders in decisions. Create mechanisms and
processes to involve all key players in the decision-making process. First-year recommendations
include:

Create a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) and full-time staff person, who will
report to the County Commissioners and Judges. The CJCC will be chaired by a CJAB
designee and will include one full or part-time staff person who will provide information to
the CJAB chair and to the committee once per month. The CJCC will include staff from all
criminal justice courts and agencies.

Create a cross-agency integrated data repository to include juvenile and adult case data
from law enforcement, MDJS, CPCMS, Adult and Juvenile Probation and Jail system; in order
to provide justice system decision-makers with information about outcomes related to
pretrial diversion, pretrial release, program evaluation, early accountability, recidivism, and
reduction in jail population.

Initiate a recidivism study that expands on prior studies to address diversion and other
programs, beginning with results from Accelerated Rehabilitative Dispositions (ARDs) and
the EAP program.

Begin a review of the Early Accountability Program (EAP). Initial analysis should focus on
outcomes of the EAP as compared to Central Court prior to September 2013 and means and
methods to improve discovery processes to better inform early plea negotiations.

2.0 Justice Reinvestment
Initiate a justice reinvestment initiative as a primary focus of the Criminal Justice Advisory Board
(CJAB) and CJCC coordinator. Justice reinvestment will be focused on pretrial and post-adjudication
alternatives to incarceration using evidence-based pretrial and sentencing outcomes. First-year and
ongoing recommendations include the following:

Expand probation supervision resources to include technologies such as electronic
monitoring and web-based check-in; and additional resources to increase pretrial and post-
adjudication supervision programs.

Evaluate and implement pretrial risk screening tools to provide better information to
Magisterial District Judges for bail and release alternatives. Recommendations include the
use of risk screening instruments that do not require defendant interviews and that can be
conducted by law enforcement or at the jail.

3.0 Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan
Few systemic issues can be addressed without good cross-agency data that are timely, integrated,
and provide clear direction at every stage of a case lifecycle. Each key component of the technology
strategy will be on a different planning and development timeline or cycle. Year Two projects
should be well into or completed the planning phase by the end of Year One. All of the technology
recommendations should be included in the county-wide strategic plan, but first-year focus must be
on active and planned IT projects to include:
IT Strategic Plan
Civil e-Filing
Criminal e-Filing
Data Integration (evaluation)
UCMS Evaluation and Support
Cross-Agency Technology Training
Jury Management Software

High Priority Recommendations. As part of the initial three-year implementation and ongoing, JMI
recommends that Franklin County also undertake high-priority recommendations identified by
stakeholders from the three additional initiatives:

4.0 Comprehensive Jury Management Project
Create a county/court committee to improve the jury management process. The committee and
implementation recommendations should include an evaluation and streamlining of jury
management staff and the requirements and specifications for new jury management software.

5.0 Civil Communication and Case Management Self Represented Litigants
Create a Civil Justice Committee to address issues that affect all civil and family related justice issues.
Expand the use of plain English forms for self-represented litigants, both in hardcopy and online. In
addition, JMI recommends that the county and courts expand self-represented litigant programs to
include self-help websites and volunteers at the courthouse to assist with process issues.

6.0 Facilities and Security Study
Initiate a facilities and security study to assess systemic problems, some of which overlap with
technology recommendations. The impact of facilities and security on business processes and
effectiveness is most pronounced at peak public hours in the morning and at Central Court. Both of
these events highlight the inadequacy of security and queuing space, the conflicts from moving
prisoners through secure staff and judge spaces, and accessibility for the disabled.
Franklin Justice System Implementation Plan
JMI recommends the following county-wide business process implementation strategies. The
recommendations are iterative. They are intended to be revised as the implementation planning phase
evolves and is completed.

Implementation Strategy 1 Goals and Outcomes
Each initiative is written as an objective with an implied goal or outcome. JMI recommends that the
county and all justice stakeholders craft a goal or expected outcome for each initiative. This process
will be conducted in three steps:
1. Draft initiative goals and submit them to the project management steering committee.
2. The steering committee will review and edit.
3. A collaborative session of CJAB and family casetype stakeholders will help to discuss and refine
the initiatives. Consensus will be reached by majority vote.

Implementation Strategy 2 Three Year Cycles
Organize the initiatives and recommendations into three year cycles at the conclusion of the
implementation planning process:
Year One Current projects, capacity building and high priority recommendations with low risk
Year Two Current and new targeted projects, combined with building structural foundations
Year Three System-wide projects that are based on good data and improved technology and
that target specific outcomes.

Implementation Strategy 3 Year One
JMI strongly recommends that the county and justice stakeholders focus on initiatives and
recommendations in Year One that are current projects, capacity building and high priority
initiatives and recommendations.

Business Process Improvement Costs and Benefits
The following estimates are preliminary. Detailed breakdowns may be found in Chapter 8 Costs and
Benefits.

Costs
COMMUNICATION AND JUSTICE REINVESTMENT In-House Low High
1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinator
Total Cost $0 $1,700 $2,000
Total Annual Costs $0 $81,000 $101,250
1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository
Phases One and Two Subtotal $0 $60,000 $90,000
1.3 Recidivism Study
CJCC Coordinator work $0
1.4 Early Accountability
1.5 Early Discovery
2.1 Pretrial Risk Screening
Subtotal $0 $10,000 $15,000
2.2 Pretrial Eligibility Determination
2.3 Pretrial Diversion
2.4 DRC Alternatives to Commitment In-House
2.5 Jail Population Reduction Strategies In-House
2.6 Probation Supervision Resources In-House Low High
CJCC Coordinator analysis and cost estimates $0 $0 $0
Increase GPS monitoring (low-50%; high 100%) $0 $0 $0
Add pretrial staff (low-2; high-4)
Subtotal Annual Costs $128,625 $257,125

IT STRATEGIC PLAN In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted
High Cost
3.1 Justice Technology Strategic Plan $0 $60,000 $120,000
3.2 Civil e-Filing
Subtotal $0 $34,500 $218,500
Annual maintenance $0 $0 $10,000
3.3 Criminal e-Filing
Subtotal $0 $230,000 $310,500
Annual maintenance $0 $15,000 $30,000
3.4 Data Integration
Subtotal $0 $110,000 $130,000
3.5 Document Management
Subtotal $0 $45,000 $90,000
3.6 UCMS
Function analysis $0 $0 $0
Gap analysis $0 $0 $0
3.7 Cross-Agency Technology Training
Training documents $0 $1,000 $3,000
3.8 Jury Management Software
Subtotal $500 $62,000 $125,000
Annual maintenance $2,000 $2,000 $5,000

RECOMMENDATIONS In-House Low High
5.0 Civil Casetypes Self-Represented Litigants
Hardcopy & online forms and assistance $0 $2,000 $5,000
Self-help website $0 $5,000 $8,000
Self-help center (1 staff + volunteers)
Subtotal Annual Costs $0 $45,325 $60,425
6.0 Facilities Expansion and Renovation
Subtotal $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000
Annual maintenance (energy/environment) (TBD) (TBD)
6.1 Facilities Security
Study $0 $10,000 $15,000

COST SUMMARY In-House Low High
Total Investment Costs $1,500 $648,200 $1,164,000
Total Facility Costs $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000

Total Annual Costs $2,000 $271,950 $463,800
Total Annual Costs x 3 years $6,000 $815,850 $1,391,400
Total Annual Costs x 10 years $20,000 $2,719,500 $4,638,000

Benefits
A Jail Reduction Strategies
In-House Low High
Reduce time to disposition for 116 defendants NA $678,600 $1,017,900
Reduce pretrial population by 10% and 15% NA $581,263 $871,894
Subtotal Annual NA $1,259,863 $1,889,794

B Productivity Efficiency Strategies

3.2 Civil e-Filing 50% 100%
7,400 cases x 2 filings/case * 15 mins * $.06/min $6,660 $13,320

Reduction in hearings x 1 per case due to e-filing
notifications $80,048 $160,096
Subtotal Annual $86,708 $173,416

3.3 Criminal e-Filing 50% 100%

notifications $80,048 $160,096
Reduction in continuances x 1 per case (CCP only) $27,379 $54,757

Annual Savings NA $1,471,229 $2,312,526
Three-Year Savings NA $4,413,686 $6,937,578
Ten-Year Savings NA $14,712,287 $23,125,261

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Felony & Misdemeanor Casetypes ............................................................................................ 17
Level I Criminal Case Overview ............................................................................................................... 17
Business Process Analysis ................................................................................................................... 17
Significant Event Narrative.................................................................................................................. 25
Arrest, complaint and summons ......................................................................................................... 26
Workflow Diagrams ................................................................................................................................ 41
Chapter 2 Summary Casetypes .................................................................................................................. 53
Level I Traffic Case Overview .................................................................................................................. 53
Chapter 3 Juvenile Delinquency ................................................................................................................. 62
Juvenile Delinquency Casetype Overview .............................................................................................. 62
Chapter 4 Juvenile Dependency and Family Casetypes ............................................................................. 77
4.1 Juvenile Dependency Cases ........................................................................................................ 77
4.2 Divorce ........................................................................................................................................ 79
4.3 Custody ....................................................................................................................................... 79
4.4 Domestic Relations & Child Support ........................................................................................... 81
4.5 Adoption Orphans Court ......................................................................................................... 83
4.6 Protection from Abuse ................................................................................................................ 84
Chapter 5 Information Technology ............................................................................................................. 94
UCMS....................................................................................................................................................... 94
CPCMS, MDJS and Infocom ..................................................................................................................... 95
Main Integrations .................................................................................................................................... 96
Chapter 6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 108
Integration Touchpoints ....................................................................................................................... 117
Chapter 7 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................ 120
Implementation Strategy 1 Goals and Outcomes .......................................................................... 120
Implementation Strategy 2 Three Year Cycles ............................................................................... 120
Implementation Strategy 3 Year One ............................................................................................ 120
Years One and Two Implementation Communication and System-Wide Decision Making .............. 123
Years One and Two Implementation Justice Reinvestment .............................................................. 125
Years One and Two Implementation Information Technology Strategic Plan................................... 126
Years One and Two Implementation High Priority Standalone Recommendations .......................... 131
Chapter 8 Costs and Benefits .................................................................................................................... 132
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 139
Initiatives and Recommendations Survey Results ................................................................................ 139
Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 144
Teams and Participants ......................................................................................................................... 144
Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 147
Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission (CJCC) Coordinator Sample Job Description ..................... 147

Chapter 1 Felony & Misdemeanor Casetypes
The foundation for an integrated business process analysis of criminal casetypes in Franklin County is to
map and assess what happens to a case from arrest and the filing of a complaint through to disposition
and post-adjudication for defendants that are found guilty of a crime and sanctioned by a judge. A case
is defined by Pennsylvania rules and by national convention as a single defendant, for a single or
multiple incidents and crimes, with one or more charges brought against them. The litigants on a
criminal case are the defendant and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by the District
Attorney (the prosecutor). A defendant may be represented by an attorney from the Public Defender or
by private counsel; or they may be self-represented. The courts and adjudication are at the center of
criminal case processing. Once brought by complaint, only the court can resolve or dispose of a case,
although the prosecutor may choose to withdraw charges, a form of disposition. The Magisterial District
courts may dismiss a criminal case, but only the Court of Common Pleas may adjudicate a criminal case,
after charges have filed by the District Attorney as Information at the Court.
12

Other stakeholders in criminal case processing include law enforcement, the Sheriff, adult probation,
the jail and the day reporting center. Adjudication decisions made by judges on pleas are strongly
informed by plea negotiations between the prosecutor and defense or defense counsel. Adult
probation also provides recommendations to judges in the form of draft orders for many cases,
especially probation and parole violations that may or may not involve new charges.

Level I Criminal Case Overview
Key significant and secondary events define the criminal process for every case. The significant events
at the core of the process are on the critical path, defined by Pennsylvania (PA) rules of procedure as
sequential. Please see Table 2.1 on the following page for an illustration of the full process under the PA
Code of Criminal Procedure.

Business Process Analysis
A large majority of criminal cases
13
in Franklin County originate from summons and arrests made by
Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and local (borough/township) law enforcement. Criminal cases may also
be initiated by private complaint. If an arrest occurs outside of business hours and the individual is taken

12
For the purposes of the report, felony and misdemeanor casetypes are defined as criminal cases.
13
A criminal case generally refers to misdemeanor and felony casetypes that can only be adjudicated at the Court
of Common Pleas.

Table 2.1
Felony and Misdemeanor Casetypes PA Criminal Code Rules Analysis

District Attorney Magisterial District Court Jail Police Court of Common Pleas
Crime
Report
Pa.R.Crim.P. 430
Issuance of
Warrant
Pa.R.Crim.P. 440
Arrest Without
Warrant
Pa.R.Crim.P. 441
Procedure
Following Arrest
Without Warrant
Pa.R.Crim.P. 517
Procedure in Court
Cases Where
Warrant of Arrest
is Executed
39th Jud. Dist. Rule
39-210 Arrest
Warrants
Pa.R.Crim.P.
520 Bail may
be set at any
time before
verdict
Pa.R.Crim.P. 521
Bail may be set
after verdict and
before
sentencing
Pa.R.Crim.P. 541 -
Defendant may
waive preliminary
hearing
Pa.R.Crim.P. 565
Court may allow
case without
preliminary hearing
in exceptional
cases
39th Jud. Dist. R.
Crim. P. 39-
300(A)(B)
Preliminary call
two weeks prior to
each criminal term
39th Jud. Dist. R.
Crim. P. 39-311
Pretrial
conferences to
determine if cases
are likely to go to
trial
Pa.R.Crim.P. 577
Procedures
regarding motion
practice
Pa.R.Crim.P. 579
Omnibus motions
to be filed/served
within 30 days
after arraignment
Pa.R.Crim.P.540
Preliminary
arraignments
Pa.R.Crim.P. 571
Arraignment
Pa.R.Crim.P. 573
Pre-trial discovery
Pa.R.Crim.P. 310
Accelerated
Rehabilitative
Disposition
Pa.R.Crim.P.
590 Pleas and
plea agreements
Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(A) Trial must
begin within 365
days after
complaint is filed
Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(B) Defendant
must be released
after 180 days pre-
trial incarceration
If released,
charging in 5 days
Custody
14 days or less
Out of custody
21 days or less
1
Arrest
2
Booked at
Jail
3
Preliminary
Arraignment
6
DA Review
7
Information
Filed
4
Preliminary
Hearing
5
Plea?
8
Arraignment
10
Discovery
11
Pretrial
Conference(s)
12
Trial
9
Call of the
List
13
Verdict
14
Sentence
15
Appeals/post-
conviction
relief
6A
Grand Jury
1A
Summons
7A
Indictment
Filed
Trial within 365 days of filing of complaint
Arraignment 10
days after
information filed
4,814
arrests
1,863
pretrial
bookings
2012
100%
2,674 criminal
cases filed
3,453 complaints
filed (incl private
complaints)
56% of arrests
90% remain
Dispositions
159 guilty pleas (5%)
173 withdrawals (6%)
22 dismissals (1%)
3,442 scheduled
2,086 waivers (60%)
766 continuances (22%)
223 Held for court (6%)
Other (4%)
19% remain
Dispositions
17% disposed
1,374 scheduled*
47% continue
15% pretrial conf.
4% FTA
4% remain
Dispositions
15% disposed
301 scheduled*
58% continue
27% trial
3% FTA
0% remain
Dispositions
3% verdict/trial
1% plea
90 scheduled*
13% continue
90% remain
2,405 filed
36% remain
Dispositions
36% disposed (GP, DM)
18% ARD
2,762 scheduled*
14% cont, no action
30% call of the list
4% FTA
*The percentage of cases that remain at the end of each event is the ratio of the number (2,674) of cases filed. Scheduled cases always exceed the number of
cases filed, due to continuances and re-scheduling of the same cases.
County Jail, the Jail (1.0) will hold the person in custody until the person may post bail bond or the case
is disposed.

Once a criminal case is initiated, it proceeds to the Magisterial District Courts (3.0) where it may be
disposed or continue to the Court of Common Pleas (5.0). When a case proceeds from the Magisterial
District Court to the Court of Common Pleas, the case is processed by the District Attorney (4.0) and a
Public Defender (2.0) may be selected or ordered by the court. Cases may be disposed if the Court (3.0,
5.0) dismisses the case, the Commonwealth withdraws the case (4.0), or the defendant pleads guilty or
is found guilty at trial in Court (3.0, 5.0). Cases that have reached disposition may receive a sentence
from the Court (3.0, 5.0) that can include assignment to Jail (1.0), Probation (6.0), Day Reporting (8.0), or
State Prison.

Normative standards for analysis of case processing include assessment of filings and dispositions for a
fixed period of time.
14
Table 2.2 illustrates a summary of criminal cases filed and disposed in Franklin
County.

Table 2.2
Criminal case filings, dispositions and clearance rate in Franklin County
15

Year Criminal (MDJ)* Criminal (CCP)**
Filings Dispositions
Clearance
Rate
Filings +
Reopened
Dispositions
Clearance
Rate
2013 2,641 2,457 93% NA NA NA
2012 2,674 2,545 95% 2,531 2,552 101%
2011 2,644 2,464 93% 2,421 2,370 98%
2010 2,775 2,827 102% 2,434 2,306 95%
2009 2,877 2,777 97% 2,307 2,331 101%
Source is www.pacourts.us
*MDJ = Magisterial District Judges
**CCP = Court of Common Pleas

The Pennsylvania (PA) courts evaluate key performance measures for case processing, including
clearance rate (see Table 2.2 above) and age of active pending caseload. Age of active pending cases
measures in Franklin County illustrate that, at the end of 2012, 116 (15.8%) active Common Pleas
14
While selected data are available for 2013, for the wide range of integrated data needed for the report, only
2012 data were sufficiently complete to enable analysis.
15
The international and PA standard for clearance rate is 100%, with typical ranges from 97% to 103%. It is a
measure of keeping up with the caseload and is calculated by dividing dispositions/filings (+reopened). Courts
carry inventory all the time, and the active pending inventory carried over from year to year is what increases or
decreases depending on the clearance rate.

criminal cases, and 107 (24.6%) of active Magisterial District Court criminal cases are over the PA
standard for detention cases of 360 days.
16

Performance measures were enacted in PA in response to historic, nationwide problems with delay and
public perceptions of access and fairness. In criminal cases, especially, constitutional rights to a speedy
trial resulted in statutory provisions for elapsed time to reach key events and ultimately trial and
disposition on every case. In addition to the right to have an accusation brought by the Commonwealth
against a citizen resolved in a fixed period of time, a significant number of defendants are held in
custody awaiting trial. Pretrial detentions are primarily the result of a determination by the court that
the defendant may pose a risk to the community, may commit another crime, or may not appear for a
hearing or trial. Other factors may include the inability to post a bond or money bail that has been
ordered by a judge to ensure appearance at the next court event; or occasionally to evaluate mental
health.
17

Case processing delay has other pervasive impacts on the criminal justice system that include the use of
resources to adjudicate, prosecute and defend cases, transport and incarcerate custody defendants
from jail, and provide various types of pretrial supervision. Given the axiom that a defendant is innocent
until proven guilty, the justice system must be constantly tuned only to use the time necessary to reach
a fair outcome or verdict.

Case Fallout by Disposition
Table 2.3 below illustrates the 2012 dispositions and fallout by significant event as defined in the rules
map above and the PA rules of procedure. The dynamics of what type of disposition and how and why
they occur is the very core definition of caseflow management and is impacted by the local legal culture,
all the justice system stakeholders, as well as the defendant and defense counsel.

Case processing events and measures that work and are highly successful
A number of key significant events in Franklin County criminal case processing are highly successful by
both state and national standards. These include the following:

Call of the List and Trial Calendar
The Franklin County courts are following best practices with highly commendable results in the
approach to narrowing the cases ready for trial and ensuring that only those cases with a high
likelihood of going to trial will encumber the trial calendar. This is reflected in both the 1% plea and
13% continuance rate at trial; both of which indicate a commitment to trial date certainty, in
16
Source is http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-768/file-2598.pdf?cb=a425ec.
1717
In general, lengthy delays in a limited jurisdiction court, not responsible ultimately for the final disposition of
cases, are a result of data entry anomalies, including not adequately closing out a case. It is recommended that
the courts conduct a backlog analysis of aged active pending criminal cases to determine if these cases are indeed
active.

addition to an almost 1.5 to 1 ratio of trials scheduled and trials held.
18
The most important use of
judicial attention is at trial, and the key to timely resolution is certainty on the part of the litigants
and attorneys that the trial will take place. In addition, this helps ensure efficient use of jurors.

Table 2.3
Case Fallout by Disposition

Sources include http://www.pacourts.us, MDJS, CPCM, jail management system, and CCAP data
i. Note that dispositions at trial include 3% by trial and verdict and 1% by plea (see Table 2.1).
ii. Note that dispositions, including withdrawals of prosecution by the District Attorney and dismissals
by a judge, may occur at preliminary arraignment, but no data is available.

In the focused attempt to ensure trial certainty, though, the court is granting a high ratio of
continuances. This is resulting in procedural delays that consume justice system resources.
Promoting earlier settlements, especially for cases that inevitably reach a plea negotiation is better
justice.

18
Precise data on scheduled and held trials are not available, but are inferred by the continuance rates. It is not
clear how many cases are disposed by plea in the few weeks and days leading up to trial, although the continuance
rate (58%) at pretrial conferences infers that a significant number of pleas are being taken at hearings between the
pretrial conference and the trial.
100%
0%
10%
54%
17%
15%
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s

F
i
l
e
d
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

A
r
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

H
e
a
r
i
n
g
A
r
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
/
P
l
e
a
C
a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

L
i
s
t
P
r
e
t
r
i
a
l
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
/
P
l
e
a
s
T
r
i
a
l
Dispositions by Event

Central Court and Early Accountability
The MDJs have been scheduling preliminary hearings at a central location at the main courthouse in
Franklin County for approximately ten years. This measure is consistent with many PA counties and
helps increase efficiency, in part because of the rule that the affiant may be called to testify in the
hearing. Affiants are often law enforcement officers and the demands for coordination of
appearances have been highly simplified. Since September 2013, the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas has been assigning a trial judge to a plea hearing calendar immediately following
preliminary hearings in central court. Defendants who wish to make a guilty plea and waive their
preliminary hearing are able directly to appear in front of a Common Pleas judge for disposition. In
effect, this is accelerating the arraignment in the Court of Common Pleas, which historically has had
the highest number of dispositions by plea of any other event. The acceleration of a plea hearing is
worth from two to four weeks in case disposition time.

Case processing events and measures that have challenges or may need improvement
A number of key significant events in Franklin County criminal case processing have challenges by both
state and national standards and may need attention. These include the following:

Pretrial Jail Population
Over 70% of the county jail population is being held for trial or awaiting an order or adjudication by
a judge for new charges following probation or parole violations. This exceeds the national average
of 61%, but more importantly, the causes and effects of pretrial jail population increases are directly
related to case processing and factors impacted by all justice system stakeholders. The national
average is not a standard, but it is a normative benchmark to help assess why Franklin Countys
pretrial jail population is higher.

1. The most important factor impacting pretrial jail population is the length of time that a custody
defendant is being held awaiting trial, primarily for defendants who have the greatest likelihood
of going to trial and not pleading. Judicial decisions to hold a defendant pending trial are not to
be questioned. Certainty and better data about outcomes and likelihood to appear or commit
another crime are critical to enabling a judge to choose other supervision approaches or to
release a defendant on their own recognizance. Jail data are not currently sufficient to identify
the defendants that are being held pre or post-trial, although a recent Jail Population Study
cross-matched this data [1.2C]
19
. CPCMS data identify defendants that are in custody and those
that are not, but these data are not aggregated for reporting purposes.

2. The second most important factor impacting pretrial jail population is related to money bail and
the time it takes a defendant to post bail. In some cases, especially with high bail, the
defendant is never released, even if the high bail is an indication that the judge has determined
that the defendant does not pose a risk to the community. Jail and CPCMS data do not currently
19
1.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial


identify the number of pretrial defendants that are being held pending posting money bail
[1.2C]
20
.

Hearings and Continuances
The number of continuances at key hearings contributes to case delay and also impacts the pretrial
jail population. While no national standards exist for the number of continuances at any significant
event, any event with the number of cases that might get a continuance approaching half of those
scheduled reduces the pressure on defendants and attorneys to prepare for those events. The
actual cumulative amount of time that a prosecuting attorney spends on all felony casetypes,
according to national averages, is 7.1-10.1 hours.
21
The urgent cases crowd out the important cases.

Table 2.4
Number of 2012 continuances as a percentage of cases scheduled at each event
Magisterial District Courts and Court of Common Pleas criminal cases

Continuances place a burden on the court, justice system stakeholders and the defense, in large part
by increasing the average number of hearings per disposition. In Franklin County, not including
motions and sentencing hearings, one disposition requires on average approximately four
20
1.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial
21
How Many Cases Should a Prosecutor Handle, Results of the National Workload Assessment Project, 2002,
American Prosecutors Research Institute, with a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
0%
22%
14%
47%
58%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

A
r
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

H
e
a
r
i
n
g
A
r
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
/
P
l
e
a
C
a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

L
i
s
t
P
r
e
t
r
i
a
l
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
/
P
l
e
a
s
T
r
i
a
l

hearings.
22
See Table 2.5 below. National data on the number of hearings needed for misdemeanor
and felony cases are quite diverse, but high performing justice systems confront this issue and work
hard to mitigate events that are scheduled but do not take place. The cases that reach close to trial
before pleading have the greatest impact on both the number of hearings, judicial time and other
stakeholders. Many continuances (see Table 2.9 below) are requested by the defendant or defense
counsel. This may be the result of inadequate resources or for other reasons. The causes and
remedies of continuances should be studied and improved.

Table 2.5
2012 Dispositions and Hearings

Significant Event Percent Dispositions Hearings
Preliminary Arraignment 0% 0 1,863
Preliminary Hearing 10% 269 3,442
Arraignment/Plea 54% 1,444 2,762
Call of the List 17% 455 1,374
Pretrial Conference/Pleas 15% 401 635
Trial 4% 105 105
Total 2,674 10,181

22
10,181 hearings/2,674 dispositions in 2012 = AVG 3.8 hearings per disposition, not including motions or omnibus
hearings.

Graph 2.6

Significant Event Narrative
The following narrative is indexed to the business process analysis diagrams at the conclusion of the
chapter. Recommendations relevant to the three primary initiatives and high priority recommendations
are footnotes to the text, with blue-highlighted recommendations representing those that were
selected for the first year of implementation. A summary is provided at the end of the chapter and
aggregated into separate implementation plans for each of the three initiatives:

A. Communications and System-Wide Decision Making
B. Justice Reinvestment
E. Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan

0
269
1,444
455 401
105
2,674
1,863
3,442
2,762
1,374
635
105
10,181
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

A
r
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

H
e
a
r
i
n
g
A
r
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
/
P
l
e
a
C
a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

L
i
s
t
P
r
e
t
r
i
a
l

C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
/
P
l
e
a
s
T
r
i
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
Dispositions
Hearings
Criminal Case Initiation
Arrest, complaint and summons
39th Jud. Dist. Rule 39-130
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 440, 441, 502, 503, 509, 510, 515, 516, 517, 519
Law enforcement, private complainants, District Attorney, jail, Adult Probation (for cases under
probation supervision)

Criminal proceedings in court cases are initiated with the filing of a written complaint (and the
subsequent issuance of a summons or warrant for arrest) or by warrantless arrest (and the subsequent
filing of a complaint) [3.2A].
23
In cases where an arrest is made and the defendant is in custody, the
defendant will have a preliminary arraignment by a Magisterial District Judge, typically within 24 hours.
If the defendant is not arrested, a complaint must be filed in the Magisterial District Court within 5 days.
Summons casetypes include second degree misdemeanors and first degree misdemeanors in cases
arising under 75 Pa.C.S. 3802 (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance), except
as set forth in paragraph (2) of Rule 509.

Table 2.1 illustrates the number of misdemeanor and felony arrests and summons made in Franklin
County during 2012 by law enforcement and by private criminal complaint; and the number that were
filed as court cases. The difference (2,140) represents a decision not to file charges, a consolidation of
charges, or a determination that a person was not responsible for a crime following an arrest.

Table 2.7
Arrests, Booking and Cases

Franklin County 2012
Criminal Arrests* 4,814
Jail Bookings** 1,863
Criminal Complaints*** 3,453
MDJ Cases Filed 2,674
* PA crime data
** jail management system
*** includes private criminal complaints

Following arrest, a defendant is taken to central booking at the Franklin County Jail. Key responsibilities
of the jail include booking, inmate supervision and release [1.2C].
24

23
Recommendation 3.2A - Efiling from law enforcement

24
Recommendation 1.2C - Track jail population by pre/post trial


Jail Central Booking
Central Booking is responsible for the processing of pre-adjudication arrestees [2.3B],
25
and post-
adjudication commitments. After arrest, the transporting or arresting officer delivers the arrestees to
the central booking area.

Upon receipt of an arrestee, the central booking officer enters information into the jail management
system [3.3A, 3.4A, 3.4D],
26
conducts an inventory of their property, completes a suicide risk assessment
questionnaire, conducts LiveScan processing to capture photos and fingerprints, performs a
Commonwealth Photo Imaging Network (CPIN) and NCIC criminal history check and completes risk
assessment, family and social information intake questionnaires [2.2A, 2.3A, 2.4A, 2.7A].
27

Jail Booking
The booking process is for those arrestees who are committed to the jail. Booking staff enter
information in the Inmate Population Tracking Sheet. Inmates are showered and changed to jail
uniforms. Following the initial intake information, medical staff conduct intake assessments. Booking
staff assign the inmate a security classification and then assign a housing unit.

Public Defender Intake and Defendant Qualification
Detained defendants are presumed qualified for a public defender, as long as they remain in pretrial
detention and do not post bail/bond. Since defendants are not able to work and earn income while
detained, the Public Defender Office will assume responsibility immediately. However, for those who
receive a summons or are released or post bail/bond (even if previously appointed counsel while in
pretrial detention), they must affirmatively make an appointment for intake at the Public Defender
Office. This process typically happens after the arrest, booking in jail, and the preliminary arraignment
at the Magisterial District Court [3.3B].
28

25
Recommendation 2.3B Consider bail recommendations as a result of risk screening

26
Recommendation 3.3A Data Integration: Jail

Recommendation 3.4A Document Management: Complaint, warrants and affidavits

Recommendation 3.4D Document Management: Embed DMS into UCMS

27
Recommendation 2.2A Risk Assessment: PSA-Court Risk Assessment Instrument

Recommendation 2.3A; 2.7A Expand probation resources to conduct screening

Recommendation 2.4A Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

28
Recommendation 3.3B Primary complaint document integration with Public Defender


The Public Defender office regularly reviews a list of new pretrial commitments to jail who have
preliminary hearings the following week, so that they can be assigned counsel immediately and counsel
can arrange visits. For those who are not detained, qualified defendants may meet with counsel that
day or set up an appointment soon after intake [3.2C].
29

The intake process involves determining whether the defendant is indigent and conducting a check for
possible conflicts. Indigency is based on percent of the federal poverty guidelines, as reviewed by an
intake coordinator at the Public Defender Office using custom software built for this purpose. Conflicts
are checked by the intake coordinator prior to the intake appointment based on the named individuals
on the complaint and police report, as available.

Once a public defender is assigned, adjudication of the defendant proceeds through the normal court
caseflow through to disposition and sentencing, if convicted. Public defenders, upon request by the
defendant, may continue representation post-sentencing in cases of appeals. Public defenders may also
represent offenders during probation revocation hearings.

In court cases in which a magisterial district judge exercises jurisdiction, a defendant may plead guilty
any time up to the completion of the preliminary hearing. The defendants court case may be
transferred to another judicial district or charges may be withdrawn. Before information is filed, the
District Attorney may withdraw one or more of the charges.

Preliminary Arraignment
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 130, 131, 516, 517, 519, 540, 541
Magisterial District Court, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel

Arrest
In cases where an arrest is made and the defendant is in custody, the defendant will have a preliminary
arraignment by a judge at one of seven Magisterial District Courts, typically within 24 hours. Warrants
on new charges face the same time limits. At preliminary arraignment, the court provides the
defendant with a copy of the complaint, and any warrant(s) and supporting affidavit(s) [3.4D].
30
The
judge is required to provide the defendant with a copy of the warrant and affidavits, or to determine
probable cause if the defendant was arrested without a warrant. If probable cause is not established,
the defendant cannot be detained. The judge is not permitted to question the defendant about the
complaint. The Court sets the date and time for a preliminary hearing. Defendants represented by
counsel may waive the preliminary hearing following preliminary arraignment. During weekday working
hours, law enforcement officers generally bring the defendant to the district court with jurisdiction.
29
Recommendation 3.2C - Efiling from Public Defender

30
Recommendation 3.4D Document Management: Embed DMS into MDJS


After-hours and on weekends, the preliminary arraignment is conducted by video conferencing from the
jail to the district court.

At preliminary arraignment, if the defendant is detained and the offense is eligible for bail, the district
judge will determine release on bond and any pretrial supervision conditions [2.3B, 2.4A].
31
If the
defendant is released on bail bond, the monetary and nonmonetary conditions of bail are determined
by the District Court. A defendant may remain in custody without bail or until conditions can be met. If
a defendant fails to comply with of the conditions of the bail bond or conditions of release, the
defendants bail may be modified or revoked by the Court.

If a judge sets bail at the arraignment and the defendant posts bail or is released on their own
recognizance, the booking officer at the jail retrieves and returns property items to the arrestee. In the
event that the Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) orders an arrestee to be committed or the arrestee
cannot post bail, the booking staff processes a formal commitment of the arrestee.

Summons
If the defendant is not arrested, they are given a summons by a law enforcement officer and a complaint
must be filed in the Magisterial District Court within 5 days. The summons instructs the defendant to
appear at a preliminary hearing and includes a copy of the complaint and an order to submit to
fingerprinting. The summons provides notice to the defendant to secure counsel and of the
consequences of failure to appear. If the defendant is in custody, a preliminary hearing will be scheduled
within 14 days. If the defendant is not in custody, the preliminary hearing is set within 21 days. The
summons will be sent to the defendant via first class and registered mail. If mail is returned, the District
Court will make additional attempts to deliver the summons before issuing an arrest warrant.

If the defendant fails to answer the complaint or fails to appear at preliminary arraignment a bench
warrant is issued by the Court. The warrant is served by law enforcement and local constables. When a
defendant has been arrested with a warrant in a court case, a preliminary arraignment is scheduled by
the Court in the warrants local jurisdiction.

Office of the District Attorney
Following the preliminary arraignment, an attorney for the Commonwealth may determine whether
sufficient evidence exists to justify formal charging of defendants. At this stage, defendants mayat the
discretion of the prosecutorbe offered an early disposition plea offer [1.4A].
32

Adult Probation Pretrial Supervision
31
Recommendation 2.3B Consider early screening, bail recommendations by Probation

Recommendation 2.4A Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

32
Recommendation 1.4A - Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD/EAP


At preliminary arraignment, the court will make release or custody determinations for arrested and held
defendants. District judges have a number of options before them based on type and amount of bail
and unconditional or conditional release which may include pretrial supervision. Often, judges will offer
defendants the option to accept a reduced bail on the condition that they submit to and comply with
pretrial supervision.

Even if judges do not release defendants, Adult Probation staff may review cases [2.2A, 2.4B]
33
in the jail
after the preliminary arraignment and file recommended orders to the Magisterial District Court. These
are filed with some regularity and are considered in cases when Adult Probation has determined that
the defendant would not pose a flight risk or public safety hazard if placed under their supervision.
Generally, judges respond favorably to probation recommendations.

Once defendants enter pretrial supervision, Adult Probation staff use screening and assessment tools to
help classify the level of supervision and to identify any mandated services. Adult probation uses the
LSI-R SV as an initial screening instrument and the full LSI-R assessment only in cases of moderate to
high risk defendants. Risk measured by these tools refers to risk to commit a new crime. Probation
officers build individualized case plans for each defendant, which are used by a probation officer to
monitor defendants and evaluate compliance and progress. If conditions of supervision are violated,
Adult Probation staff will generally handle those matters internally first, making adjustments to the
intensity of supervision and treatment. In more extreme cases, such as due to persistent violations and
always for new crimes, cases will be referred back to the court of jurisdiction, which may be the
Magisterial District Court or the Court of Common Pleas. Pretrial supervision defendants are discharged
after the disposition of their cases, and, if convicted and sentenced to probation, transferred to post-
conviction supervision.

Table2.8
Criminal cases filed in Franklin County Magisterial District Courts*
Year
N
e
w

c
a
s
e

f
i
l
e
d

C
a
s
e
s

d
i
s
p
o
s
e
d

B
o
u
n
d

t
o

c
o
u
r
t

W
a
i
v
e
r

o
f

P
r
e
l
i
m
.

H
e
a
r
i
n
g

G
u
i
l
t
y

P
l
e
a

D
i
s
m
i
s
s
a
l

P
r
o
s
e
c
u
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
n

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

d
o
c
k
e
t

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

P
e
n
d
i
n
g

I
n
a
c
t
i
v
e

2012 2,674 2,545 259 2,089 2 22 173 * 0 435 322
2011 2,644 2,464 218 1,997 2 63 176 4 4 469 325
2010 2,775 2,827 227 2,112 12 55 220 164 37 577 560
2009 2,877 2,777 203 1,998 14 55 273 189 45 601 300
*Source: www.pacourts.us

33
Recommendation 2.2A Risk Assessment: PSA-Court Risk Assessment Instrument

Recommendation 2.4B Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

Preliminary Hearing
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 541, 542, 543, 546, 565
Magisterial District Court, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation (for new
charges while under probation supervision)

The preliminary hearing in Franklin County is referred to as Central Court and is held at the Court of
Common Pleas in the county seat. The primary purpose of the preliminary hearing is for a judge to
determine if the Commonwealth (prosecution) has established a prima facie case against the defendant.
The judge may imprison a defendant (hold for court) or release a defendant on bail. The defendant
must be present at the preliminary hearing, unless they have waived their appearance. The defendant
or their counsel are permitted to cross-examine witnesses and inspect physical evidence offered against
them; submit evidence; testify; call witnesses; or make written or electronic records of the proceedings.
An attorney for the prosecution may appear and may recommend that the defendant be discharged
(dismissal) or bound over to court.

At Central Court, one assigned Magisterial District Judge will conduct the preliminary hearings for cases
originating from all Districts in the County. Magisterial District judges follow a rotating assignment to
Central Court. Typically, the Central Court calendar is scheduled for 9 AM every Tuesday and requires
the use of the jury assembly room and separate space for witnesses, victims, defendants, and law
enforcement. Defendants who are in custody may be transported to Central Court for their hearing.

In September 2013, an early accountability program was initiated to expedite mandatory arraignment
for defendants that agree to make a plea. If a defendant chooses to plea during discussions with their
attorney or directly with the prosecuting attorney prior to the preliminary hearing, the Magisterial
District judge signs a waiver of the preliminary hearing and the case is immediately bound over to the
Court of Common Pleas for arraignment and a plea hearing [1.4A, 1.4B, 1.4E].
34
In order to
accommodate early accountability, an additional courtroom is reserved for Tuesday mornings and a CCP
judge is assigned to take pleas. If the defendant waives the preliminary hearing and the case is bound
over to the Court of Common Pleas, court staff electronically transfer the case from the Magisterial
District Judge system (MDJS) into the Court of Common Pleas case management system (CPCMS).
35
The
defendant is then instructed to attend a plea hearing in the Court of Common Pleas, in lieu of setting the
case for a mandatory arraignment.

On days when Central Court is conducted, the Franklin County courthouse annex is bustling with activity.
Defendants arrive early and line up outside the annex entrance. Once defendants have cleared security,
court staff circulate separate sign-in sheets for defendants, victims and witnesses. If defendants have
34
Recommendation 1.4A Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD

Recommendation 1.4B Order/provide status attorney (PD) at Central Court, per criminal rule

35
Recommendation 1.4E Additional Central Court computer

not been fingerprinted, Court Staff instruct them to be fingerprinted on the first floor of the old
courthouse. Attorneys may confer with their clients and discuss the case with the Commonwealth,
usually in the back of the Jury Assembly Room.

Bench warrants
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 150, 516, 517, 559
A bench warrant may be issued by a judge instructing law enforcement to detain the defendant and
arrange for a bench warrant hearing. If the defendant has been arrested outside of the County a bench
warrant hearing is arranged once the defendant is in local jail custody. Bench warrant hearings may be
conducted via advanced communication technology. Once a bench warrant hearing has been
conducted, the warrant expires and the case continues. A defendant may remain in custody following
the bench warrant hearing.

Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD)
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 300, 302, 310-20, 550, 551, 561
District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation, Court of Common Pleas

Following the initiation of criminal proceedings in a court case, but prior to filing an information, the
District Attorney may move that the defendants case be considered for Accelerated Rehabilitative
Disposition (ARD) [1.4A].
36
A hearing is conducted, in lieu of a plea hearing, to determine acceptance of
the defendant into the ARD program. Following the defendants successful completion of the ARD
program the defendant may move for an order dismissing the charges in the case. If a judge determines
the defendant has committed a violation of the ARD program, the judge may order that the program be
terminated and the case shall proceed on original criminal charges.

During 2012, 429 cases, or approximately 17% of cases were disposed by accelerated rehabilitative
disposition. Most ARD dispositions were made following waiver of the preliminary hearing, on the same
day as Central Court. It is anticipated that the results for 2013 will be substantially higher due to the
early accountability program.

36
Recommendation 1.4A - Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD/EAP


Table 2.9
Early Accountability Dispositions Sep 2013 to April 2014
37

Disposition/Outcome
Sep-Dec
2013
Jan-Apr
2014
Total %
Guilty Plea 68 65 133 6.06%
Held for court after a hearing was held in
absentia
51 42 93 4.23%
Held for court after a preliminary hearing was
held
38 24 62 2.82%
Waiver to mandatory arraignment 204 240 444 20.22%
Plea at Court of Common Pleas
38
432 362 794 36.16%
Continuance due to defendant
39
160 151 311 14.16%
Continuance due to Attorney 50 51 101 4.60%
Continuance due to Commonwealth (DA) 41 25 66 3.01%
Continued due to weather 0 40 40 1.82%
Continued by judge 2 4 6 0.27%
Continued after a request from the affiant 1 1 2 0.09%
Withdrawal 47 30 77 3.51%
Dismissal 8 7 15 0.68%
Failure to appear with bench
warrant/continuance
7 7 14 0.64%
Incarcerated on other charges 0 7 7 0.32%
Bond 0 5 5 0.23%
Stayed 0 2 2 0.09%
Case sent back to MDJ 3 3 6 0.27%
Paid in Full 2 2 4 0.18%
Moved to a non-traffic offense 0 2 2 0.09%
Charge changed 1 4 5 0.23%
Settled (in office) 3 1 4 0.18%
Remanded back to Central Court 1 0 1 0.05%
Other (error/admin closure) 2 0 2 0.09%
Totals 1,121 1,075 2,196 100%

37
Data provided by Court Administration
38
Recommendation 1.4D Reduce affiants appearances by 60-80%

39
Recommendation 1.4C Reduce continuances.

Information
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 560, 561, 562, 565, 570, 572
District Attorney, Court of Common Pleas

Following the preliminary hearing the District Attorney prepares what is called an information and
files it with the Court of Common Pleas. The information identifies the defendant(s) and the alleged
offense(s). In certain circumstances, information may be presented without a preliminary hearing. After
information has been filed, the court may order parties in the case to appear in court.

Pennsylvania law allows the District Attorney to use an investigatory grand jury in place of the
preliminary hearing, but all Pennsylvania county courts have abolished the use of a grand jury to return
an indictment. Currently, grand juries are not used in Franklin County. The District Attorney has
expressed a desire to begin the use of grand juries at an unspecified time in the future.

Mandatory Arraignment
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 571
Court of Common Pleas, District Attorney, defendant, defense counsel, Adult Probation (for new charges
while under probation supervision)

Once a case has been filed in CPCMS [3.4D],
40
a mandatory arraignment is scheduled in the Court of
Common Pleas. Arraignments are typically scheduled in the Court of Common Pleas within 10 days of
the filing of the case. If the defendant is in custody, arraignment may be conducted via advanced
communication technology.

The purpose of the mandatory arraignment is to ensure the defendant identifies counsel, is advised of
and understands the charges, rights to file motions, and consequences of failing to appear. At the
mandatory arraignment, the Judge, the Commonwealth, the defendant and their counsel, if any, confer
regarding the case. Once the mandatory arraignment is complete, if the case has not been disposed,
the period for pretrial discovery and motions commences.

Approximately 52% of defendants have their charges disposed at Mandatory Arraignment, primarily by
plea agreement and verdict. Approximately 30% of cases are not disposed and proceed to the call of the
list. An additional 12% are continued to another arraignment date. A small ratio of cases (4%) has
bench warrants issued for failure to appear.

The Franklin County court typically calendars afternoons on Monday and Thursday for custody hearings
for persons detained with a bench warrant. These hearings are conducted via video conference using
technology in the jail court room and the Court. Once the Judge has made a finding the order is signed
40
Recommendation 3.4D Document Management: Embed DMS into CPCMS


by the Judge and filed with the Clerk of Courts. Within the next business day, the defendant must
appear at the Clerk of Courts office and sign release documents.

Based on Jan-Sep 2013 data, the following are aggregate outcomes of the mandatory arraignment in
Franklin County:

Table 2.10
Mandatory Arraignment Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*
# outcomes % total
Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 1,224 52%
Waived to Call of the List 722 30%
Continued [2.6C]
41
274 12%
Bench Warrant 105 4%
No Action Taken 49 2%
Total outcomes 2,374
*Source: Court Administration reports

Pretrial Discovery and Motions
39th Jud. Dist.Rule 39-300(A), 39-300 (B), 39-311
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 114, 573, 575, 577, 579, 580, 586

Attorneys for the defendant and the Commonwealth may file motions with the Court of Common Pleas
for pretrial discovery and relief. A judge may order a party to answer a pretrial motion or may order a
written answer or oral response. A judge may schedule a hearing to argue or dispose of the motion. All
motions, answers and documents that require filing in the case record are submitted to the Clerk of
Courts. Upon the completion of pretrial motions and discovery, if a case is not disposed, the case may
proceed to the call of the criminal list.

Call of the (Criminal) List
In Franklin County, the call of the criminal List is conducted by the Court of Common Pleas two times
each trial term (2 months) to identify cases ready to proceed to trial. Attorneys for the defense and the
Commonwealth confer, review cases pending disposition, make motions for continuance, or set a date
for pretrial conference. Once a date for trial has been set at the pretrial conference, if the defendant has
requested a jury trial, court administration will conduct jury selection.

Based on Jan-Sep 2013 data, the following are aggregate outcomes of the mandatory arraignment in
Franklin County:
41
Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings.


Table 2.11
Call of the List Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*
# outcomes % total
Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 468 34%
Continued [2.6C]
42
642 47%
Waived to pretrial conference 203 15%
Bench warrant 61 4%
Total outcomes 1,374

Pretrial Conference
Franklin County Local Court Rule 39-311 Criminal Pretrial Conferences

The purpose of the pretrial conference is to determine which cases have a significant potential for trial
by jury, to attempt to settle the case by plea agreement and to prepare for trial. Once the case is
scheduled for trial, no plea agreement will be accepted except in extraordinary circumstances.

In Franklin County, pretrial conferences are scheduled for the Thursday prior to the date for jury
selection once each term (two month period).

Table 2.12
Pretrial Conference Outcomes Jan-Sep 2013*
# outcomes % total
Continued [2.6C]
43
175 58%
Jury Trial Scheduled 70 23%
Dispositions (guilty plea, dismissal, withdrawal) 35 12%
Trial Scheduled (w/o Jury) 13 4%
Bench Warrant 8 3%
Total outcomes 301

42
Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings.

43
Recommendation 2.6C - Reduce continuances at CCP hearings.

Trial, Verdict and Sentencing
39th Jud. Dist. R. Crim. P. 39-703(d)
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, 620, 622, 630, 631, 640, 648, 700-5, 721

Trials in a court case are required within 356 days from the date the complaint is filed with the
Magisterial District Court. If the defendant is in custody, the trial must commence 180 days from the
date the complaint is filed. The defendant and the District Attorney may waive a jury trial with the
approval of the judge and a verdict is returned within 7 days of the non-jury trial.

Before a jury trial is conducted, a panel of 12 qualified jurors + 2 alternates is typically selected and
sworn to hear the case. Court administration typically conducts Jury selection several times a trial term
on Mondays. If the defendant is found guilty by jury, the Judge will impose a sentence. The Judge may
order a pre-sentence investigation report from Probation, a psychiatric or a psychological examination.
Where a conviction occurs, a sentencing hearing follows. Depending upon the particulars of the
sentence judgment, post-sentence proceedings such as probation hearings may occur. At the
conclusion of the case, the case file is closed and archived. In Franklin County, trials are scheduled for
once each term (two month period), although judges schedule their own dockets and my add trial
dockets to their calendar.

Table 2.13
Trial Outcomes 2012*
# outcomes % total
Jury trial verdict 60 33%
Non-jury trial verdict 21 11%
Inactive 58 32%
Other 45 24%
Total outcomes 184 100%
*Source: CPCMS Case Management Statistics

Recent data from CPCMS suggest that Franklin County has made progress in managing case flow and
clearance and is beginning to reduce backlogs of pending cases. In late 2012, case clearance rates varied
greatly from month to month while numbers of cases carried over increased. In recent months,
clearance rate has stabilized and numbers of cases carried over have declined.

Table 2.14
Case clearance and cases carried over*

As case clearance rates have trended up, volume of pending cases has declined from local highs in mid-
2012. The percentage of pending cases that are over 60 days has increased, specifically in the 61-180
day range. About 20% of pending cases are over 300 days.

Table 2.15
Composition of pending cases by age*

Since the end of 2012, there has been a decline in the number of active cases in the Court of Common
Pleas. Some of this decline can be attributed to reductions in cases that are awaiting sentencing.
F
e
b
-
1
2
M
a
r
-
1
2
A
p
r
-
1
2
M
a
y
-
1
2
J
u
n
-
1
2
J
u
l
-
1
2
A
u
g
-
1
2
S
e
p
-
1
2
O
c
t
-
1
2
N
o
v
-
1
2
D
e
c
-
1
2
J
a
n
-
1
3
F
e
b
-
1
3
M
a
r
-
1
3
A
p
r
-
1
3
M
a
y
-
1
3
J
u
n
-
1
3
J
u
l
-
1
3
A
u
g
-
1
3
S
e
p
-
1
3
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Cases Carried Over (#) Clearance Rate (%)
Source: www.pacourts.gov
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
J
a
n
-
1
2
F
e
b
-
1
2
M
a
r
-
1
2
A
p
r
-
1
2
M
a
y
-
1
2
J
u
n
-
1
2
J
u
l
-
1
2
A
u
g
-
1
2
S
e
p
-
1
2
O
c
t
-
1
2
N
o
v
-
1
2
D
e
c
-
1
2
J
a
n
-
1
3
F
e
b
-
1
3
M
a
r
-
1
3
A
p
r
-
1
3
M
a
y
-
1
3
J
u
n
-
1
3
J
u
l
-
1
3
A
u
g
-
1
3
S
e
p
-
1
3
0 to 60 days 61 to 120 days 121 to 180 days
181 to 240 days 241 to 300 days Over 300 days
Further, it is evident in the chart below how volume of active cases can be impacted by cases awaiting
sentence.

Table 2.15
Count of active cases by type*

By combining the information above with event level data provided by the Court of Common Pleas, it
appears that the growth in volumes of aged cases can be attributed to continuances, particularly at the
Call of the List and Pretrial Conference.

Table 2.16
Fallout by event type Jan 2013 - Sep 2013*

Mandatory
Arraignment
Call of the List Pretrial Conference
# event % total # event % total # event % total
Disposed 1224 52% 468 34% 35 12%
Waived to COL 722 30% 0 0% 0 0%
Bench Warrant 105 4% 61 4% 8 3%
Continued 274 12% 642 47% 175 58%
No Action Taken 49 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Waived to PTC 0 0% 203 15% 0 0%
Jury Trial Scheduled 0 0% 0 0% 70 23%
Trial Scheduled (w/o Jury) 0 0% 0 0% 13 4%
Total 2374 1374 301

0
100
200
300
400
500
J
a
n
-
1
2
F
e
b
-
1
2
M
a
r
-
1
2
A
p
r
-
1
2
M
a
y
-
1
2
J
u
n
-
1
2
J
u
l
-
1
2
A
u
g
-
1
2
S
e
p
-
1
2
O
c
t
-
1
2
N
o
v
-
1
2
D
e
c
-
1
2
J
a
n
-
1
3
F
e
b
-
1
3
M
a
r
-
1
3
A
p
r
-
1
3
M
a
y
-
1
3
J
u
n
-
1
3
J
u
l
-
1
3
A
u
g
-
1
3
S
e
p
-
1
3
Awaiting Sentencing New Case Other Reopened
Appeal, Sentence Review, and Modifications Court of Common Pleas
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 708, 720, 721, 901-8, 910
The defendant in a court case shall have the right to make a post-sentence motion. Following the filing
of the post-sentence motion, a judge will determine whether a hearing or argument on the motion is
required. Typically, post-sentence motions must be filed no later than 10 days after imposition of the
sentence. The District Attorney may file post-sentence motions to modify or appeal a sentence.

Petitions for post-conviction collateral relief may be filed within one year of the disposition date. A
Judge may grant, dispose or order an answer to the petition. A hearing may be set to consider the
petition, or the judge may dispose of the petition without a hearing.

If the court finds the defendant has violated a condition of probation, parole, or intermediate
punishment, the court shall sentence the defendant for all the plead offenses.

Cases may be reopened post disposition if the conditions of the sentence are modified or violated.
Typically, post sentencing motions are filed with the Clerk of Courts within 7 days of the sentence
date.
44
If a judge finds the offender has violated the conditions of the sentence, the Judge may add
conditions (such as Probation, Day Reporting or Jail), or extend existing conditions.

Post-Conviction Probation Supervision
Adult Probation is also responsible for the supervision of offenders convicted and sentenced to
probation. Offenders may come from either the Magisterial District Court or the Court of Common
Pleas through a guilty plea or conviction at trial. The process of screening, assessment, case plan
development, and supervision is then very similar as in the case of pretrial supervision.

However, offenders are re-evaluated using the assessment tools (e.g., LSI-R and the Wisconsin Model,
and Static-99 for Sexual Offender population) every six months and case plans are adjusted accordingly.
Furthermore, case plans may be re-evaluated if conditions of probation are unmet, which will again
trigger an internal hearing process. Extreme cases will be referred to court for formal violation hearings.

Levels of treatment of supervision are determined by a number of factors including risk level
(supervision levels include nominal, moderate, intensive, and enhanced) and type of charge (e.g., DUI
and sex offenses have specialized units). Some of the programs for sentenced probationers are:
Electronic Monitoring (includes EM anklets and SCRAM monitoring for alcohol consumption
monitoring)
Day Reporting Center (please see section of Day Reporting Center)
Community Service
Pre-Release (Work Release)
Specialized Mental Health Supervision Program
44
Statutory time limit.

Specialized Sexual Offender Supervision Program
Mental Health/ Jail Diversion Program
Drug & Alcohol Probation Partnership Program (DAPP)
Alcohol Highway Safety School, Multiple Offender Program, and Group Intervention Program
classes for DUI offenders

In addition to these formal programs, Adult Probation may mandate treatment programs, educational
programs, and employment or workforce development programming.

Workflow Diagrams
The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all criminal justice
stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire criminal process:

Level 1 Criminal Process
1.0 Franklin County Jail
2.0 Public Defender
3.0 Magisterial District Court
4.0 District Attorney
5.0 Court of Common Pleas
6.0 Adult Probation
7.0 Sheriff
8.0 Day Reporting Center

Many of the automation and business process recommendations are illustrated in pink and indexed to
the workflow diagrams. All of the recommendations are identified in Chapter Six, Recommendations.
The primary business processes are also presented in the narrative above, focusing on key significant
events, starting from case initiation, through the pretrial, adjudication and post-disposition process.


Level 1 Felony and Misdemeanor Workflow
1.0
Jail -
Central
Booking
2.0
Public
Defender
4.0
District
Attorney
Summons
5.0
Court of
Common
Pleas
5.0
Level I or II
High Level
Process
Workflow
Direction
Process
Initiation
5.0
Level I
Process
5.0
Separate
Document
Legend
Decision?
3.2.6
Level III
Process
Integration
Touchpoint
GPS Maps
Email
SMS
3.2.7D
Document
3.1.8C
Calendar/
Table
Mail
eSignature
ePrint
Shared
Service
Camera
8.0
Day
Reporting
Center
Arrest
PT_6.0
Probation/
Pretrial Svcs
3.0
Magisterial
District Court
6.0
Adult
Probation
1.0
Jail
DOC_01
State
Corrections
7.0B
Sheriffs
Prisoner
Transport
7.0D
Sheriffs
Warrant
Service
CONST_01
Bench
Warrants
Felony and Misdemeanor Casetypes Level 1



1.0 Jail Workflow Processes
CB_1.1
Central
Booking
1.1
Booking
1.2
Intake &
Classification
1.4
Program
Management
1.5
Medical
Screening
1.6
Records
Management
1.7
Release and
Close
1.3
Video
Arraignment
1.8
Archive
5.0
Court Order
LE_01
Arrest
CPCMS_03
Orders
MDJS_02
Hearing List
CPCMS_02
Hearing List
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt



2.0 Public Defender Workflow Processes
Email
2.5
Discovery
eFile_03
Motions
5.9
Trial
5.7
Pre-trial
conference
5.5
Mandatory
arraignment
5.6
Call of the
list
2.4
Correspon-
dence
Guilty Plea
SMS
Guilty?
End
Yes
Yes
No
No
CPCMS_01
Assignment
3.3
Preliminary
Hearing
(MDJ)
CPCMS_02
Hearing List
2.7
Plea
negotiations
Yes
No
2.8
Post-Dispo
Review
2.10
Case
Closed
2.11
Archive
PD_01
Assignment
2.6
Motion
Practice
ARD?
5.11
ARD/
Probation
CPCMS_04
Verdict
Prob_01
Recommenda
-tions
CPCMS_05
Disposition
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
DA_03
Plea
Negotiations
MDJS_01
Complaint
Affidavit
MDJS_01
Hearing List
CPCMS_03
Orders
CL_01
Conflict
Assignment
Prob_01
Recommenda
-tions
5.10
Sentencing
DA_02
Discovery
Drop Box
DA_01
Bill of
Information
2.2
Assignment
2.3
Initial
Defendant
Review
2.1
Intake
Review
Shared Processes
Public
Defender
Application
1.0
Jail
JAIL_01
Jail Referral
Indigent? Conflict? End
Yes
CL_01
Conflict
Lawyer
Yes
No No
2.9
Mods/
Appeals



3.0 Magisterial District Courts Criminal Workflow Processes

5.6 Consolidated Court Calendar
5.5 Document Management System
1.2 Cross-Agency Data Repository
3.2
Manage Case
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
7.0
Sheriff
3.4
Preliminary
Arraignment
3.3
Discovery/
Motions
3.5
Prelim Hrg
Central Court
3.1
Create Case
3.6
Case Close
3.7
Archive
4.0
District
Attorney
eFile_01
Summons
eFile_04
Crim
Motions
1.0
Jail - Central
Booking
Law Enf
HC
Summons
Summons?
Waive
Prelim?
5.0
Court of
Common
Pleas
No
Yes
No
Yes



4.0 District Attorney Criminal Workflow Processes
Email
3.2
Initial
Appearance
(MDJ)
4.4
Pretrial prep
eFile_03
Motions
5.9
Trial
5.7
Pre-trial
conference
5.5
Mandatory
arraignment
5.6
Call of the
list
4.3
Correspon-
dence
Guilty Plea
SMS
Guilty?
End
Yes
Yes
No
No
CPCMS_01
Assignment
4.1
Grand jury
3.3
Preliminary
Hearing
(MDJ)
4.2
Charging
instrument
CPCMS_02
Hearing List
4.6
Plea
negotiations
Yes
No
4.7
Post-
Sentence
Review
4.8
Case
Closed
4.9
Archive
PD_01
Assignment
Complaint
4.5
Motion
Practice
ARD?
5.11
ARD/
Probation
CPCMS_04
Verdict
Prob_01
Recommenda
-tions
CPCMS_05
Disposition
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
PD_02
Counter-
offers MDJS_01
Complaint
Affidavit
MDJS_01
Hearing List
CPCMS_03
Orders
CL_01
Conflict
Assignment
Prob_01
Recommenda
-tions
5.10
Sentencing



5.0 Court of Common Pleas Criminal Workflow Processes

3.2
Jury Management
System
5.3, 5.5
Verdict
Sentencing Order
5.8
Jury Selection
5.5
Mandatory
Arraignment
5.2
Manage Case
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
4.0
District
Attorney
5.6
Call of the list
5.9
Trial
5.3
Discovery/
Motions
5.7
Pretrial
Conference
5.10
Sentencing
5.1
Create Case +
Assignment
5.4
Omnibus
Hearings
5.13
Case Close
5.14
Archive
Guilty Plea?
8.0
Day
Reporting
Center
6.0
Adult
Probation
1.0
Jail
DOC_01
State
Corrections
Other
Outcome
5.12
Mods/
Appeals
DA_01
Information
MDJS_01
Compl Affid
DA_04
Plea
Negotiation
eFile_03
Crim
Motions
Prob_01
Recommenda-
tions
Guilty?
End
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
DA_02
Assignment
PD_02
Assignment
CL_01
Conflict
Lawyer
MDJS_03
Orders
5.11
ARD/
Probation
ARD?



PT_6.0 Pretrial Services Adult Probation Criminal Workflow Processes
PT_6.5
Draft Court
Order
5.5
Mandatory
Arraignment
PT_6.1
Case
Initiation
PT_6.2
Screening &
Assignment
PT_6.3
Supervision/
Services
PT_6.7
Case Close
PT_6.4
Case Updates
PT_6.8
Archive 10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
PT_6.6
Status
Change
No
Yes
3.4
Preliminary
Arraignment
Violation?
SVC_01
Svc
Providers
Prob_02
Draft Order
CPCMS_03
Court Order
5.4
Omnibus
Hearing
Jail?
1.0
Jail - Central
Booking
Yes
No
CPCMS_05
Sentence
State
Prison?
PT_6.9
Transfer to
Probation



6.0 Adult Probation Criminal Workflow Processes

Adult Probation Payment Division
6.9
Draft Court
Order
5.9
Trial
5.10
Sentencing
Guilty Plea?
Guilty?
End
Yes
No
Yes
No
6.1
Case
Initiation
6.2
Screening &
Assignment
6.3
Assessment
& Case Plan
6.4
Supervision/
Services
6.10
Case Close
6.5
Reassess/
Modify Case
Plan
6.7
Case Updates
6.11
Archive
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
F_6.1
Court Order-
Cost, Fines,
Rest
F_6.2
Payment
Plan
F_6.3
Collections
6.6
Discharge
F_6.5
Probation
Discharge
CPCMS_03
Court Order
SVC_01
Svc
Providers
FIN_01
Transac-
tions
CPCMS_03
Court Order
FIN_02
Discharge
5.5
Mandatory
Arraignment
F_6.4
Reassess/
Modify
Payment Plan
DRC?
Yes
No
6.8
Violation of
Conditions
CPCMS_05
Sentence
Transfer
from Other
County
Paid In Full?
Yes
No
8.0
DRC
Refer to
Court?
Yes
No
5.4
Omnibus
Hearing
PROB_02
Draft Order
Yes
New
Charges?



7.0B Sheriff Prisoner Transport

7.1B
Intake
7.2B
Prisoner
Transport
5.0
Court of
Common
Pleas
Court_01
Transfer
Orders
Central Court
Jail_01
Transfer
Information
State_01
Transfer
Information
7.3B
End of
Transport



7.0D Sheriff Warrant Service

7.1D
Intake
7.2D
Service
attempt
7.3D
Transport to
Jail
7.4D
Return
Clerk of
Courts
CPCMS_03
Warrant
Orders
Successful?
No
Yes
eFile_01
Warrant
served



8.0 Day Reporting Center

8.9
Draft Court
Order
5.9
Trial
5.10
Sentencing
Guilty Plea?
Guilty?
End
Yes
No
Yes
No
8.1
Case
Initiation
8.2
Screening &
Assignment
8.3
Assessment
& Case Plan
8.4
Supervision/
Services
Violation?
5.4
Omnibus
Hearing
8.10
Case Close
8.8
Probation
Hearing
8.5
Reassess/
Modify Case
Plan
8.7
Case Updates
Refer to
Court?
8.11
Archive
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
8.6
Discharge
Yes
No
No
Yes
PROB_03
Discharge
PROB_02
Draft Order
Yes
5.5
Mandatory
Arraignment
New
Charges?
1.0
Jail
JAIL_01
Jail Referral
CPCMS_04
Court Order
Adult Probation Payment Division
F_6.1
Court Order-
Cost, Fines,
Rest
F_6.2
Payment
Plan
F_6.3
Collections
F_6.5
Probation
Discharge
FIN_01
Transac-
tions
CPCMS_03
Court Order
FIN_02
Discharge
F_6.4
Reassess/
Modify
Payment Plan
Paid In Full?
Yes
No


Chapter 2 Summary Casetypes
Summary offenses are low level crimes or traffic violations that are normally handled before a
Magisterial District Judge. Franklin County includes seven Magisterial District Courts:

Chambersburg District Court 39-2-01
Waynesboro District Court 39-3-02
Pleasant Hall District Court 39-3-03
Scotland District Court 39-3-04
Greencastle District Court 39-3-05
Mercersburg 39-3-06
Chambersburg East District Court 39-3-07

Summary cases are initiated by the issuance of a citation by law enforcement to the defendant or the
filing of a complaint with the District Judge. The citation or complaint is filed with the local District Court
within 5 days of issuance. Some law enforcement agencies, such as the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP),
electronically file most traffic citations into the Magisterial District Judge System (MDJS case
management system). Summary casetypes include:

Traffic summary citations
Non-traffic summary citations
Private criminal complaints
Traffic arrest warrants
Non-traffic arrest warrants

Level I Traffic Case Overview
Following the filing of the citation, the District Court issues a summons for the defendant to answer the
complaint within 10 days of the issuance of the summons. Summons are mailed to the defendant by the
Magisterial District Court via first class and registered mail. If the defendant pleads not guilty, a trial is
scheduled in the local District Court and the Magisterial Judge will decide the case. At summary trial the
defendant must appear as well as the officer issuing the citation, any witnesses, or victims.

At any time before the disposition of the case, a defendant may plead guilty or accept an accelerated
rehabilitative disposition (ARD). If the defendant enters into ARD, they are sent to Probation for intake.
Once the defendant has completed the ARD program, the charges are dismissed and the case disposed.
If the defendants sentence includes payment of fines and fees, the Magisterial Court will collect
payments and set up payment plans. The Magisterial District Judge may order a bench warrant for the
defendant if the defendant fails to answer the summons or violates the conditions of ARD or the
payment plan.

Key significant and secondary events define the criminal process for every case. The significant events
at the core of the process are on the critical path, defined by Pennsylvania (PA) rules of procedure as
sequential. Please see Table 2.1 on the following page for an illustration of the full process under the PA
Code of Criminal Procedure.

Table 2.1
Summary case filings and dispositions in Franklin County 2012

Filings
Disposi-
tions
Active
Pending
Cases
Inactive
Cases
Private Criminal Complaints 780 804 798 600
Traffic 17,857 18,076 1,680 1,335
Non-Traffic 3,422 3,666 2,665 943
TOTAL 22,059 22,546 5,143 2,878

Issued Served Canceled
Traffic Arrest Warrants 4,029 2,930 733
Non-Traffic Arrest Warrants 1,438 1,132 200
TOTAL 5,467 4,062 933

Considerable discussion with the Magisterial District Courts has revolved around records (case file)
retention policies. Currently, summary offense cases are kept for seven years for auditing purposes.
JMI recommends an interpretation by the AOPC governing the retention or archiving of electronic
records for state auditing purposes. JMIs opinion regarding the AOPC Record Retention & Disposition
Schedule with Guidelines,
45
January 2014, is that electronic records are permissible to be kept in lieu of
paper records, provided the court follows the rules and guidelines for electronic records [3.4A].
46

45
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-850/file-173.pdf?cb=36cae5

46
Recommendation 3.4A Scan and index all Magisterial District Court records.

Table 2.2
Summary Offense Casetypes PA Criminal Code Rules Analysis

Magisterial District Court Police
Court of Common
Pleas
Pa.Code.Rule. 400
Means of Instituting
Proceedings In
Summary Cases
Pa.Code.Rule. 402
Persons Who Shall
Use Citations
Pa.Code.Rule. 405
Issuance of Citation
Pa.Code.Rule. 421
Procedure Following
Filing of Complaint
Issuance of Summons
SUMMARY OFFENSE CASEFLOW
Significant events, time and fallout analysis
DATE: October 25
th
2013
Events
Time
Rules
5 days
1
Citation/
Summons
3
Answer
4
Trial / Hearing
2
Case Issued
5
Appeal
10 days 30 days
4.1
Payment
Conference
Pa.Code.Rule. 407,
409, 422 Pleas in
Response to Citation,
Summons
Pa.Code.Rule. 408,
413, 423
Not Guilty Pleas,
Notice of Trial
Pa.Code.Rule. 409,
414, Guilty Pleas
Pa.Code.Rule. 430
Issuance of Warrant
Pa.Code.Rule. 431
Procedure When
Defendant Arrested
With Warrant
Pa.Code.Rule. 470
Procedures Related
to License
Suspension After
Failure to Respond
to Citation or
Summons or Failure
to Pay Fine and Costs
Pa.Code.Rule. 406
Issuance of Citation
Pa.Code.Rule. 411
Procedures Following
Filing of Citation
Issuance of Summons
Pa.Code.Rule. 451
Service
Pa.Code.Rule. 460
Notice of Appeal
Pa.Code.Rule. 462
Trial De Novo
Case Fallout by Disposition Type
Table 2.3 below illustrates the 2012 dispositions and fallout by disposition type. The dynamics of what
type of disposition and how and why they occur is the very core definition of caseflow management and
is impacted by the local legal culture, all the justice system stakeholders, as well as the defendant and
defense counsel.

Table 2.3
Dispositions by type in Franklin County 2012

Trial
Guilty
Trial Not
Guilty
Guilty
Plea
ARD
Dismis-
sal
Withdraw
Prosecu-
tion
Other
Disposi-
tions
Private Criminal Complaints 202 165 241 0 105 39 52 804
Traffic 857 105 16,366 0 379 369 0 18,076
Non-Traffic 419 117 2,303 7 655 165 0 3,666
TOTAL 1,478 387 18,910 7 1,139 573 52 22,546

Graph 2.4
Dispositions by type in Franklin County 2012

Hearings and Continuances
A clear majority of dispositions for summary offenses are by guilty plea, of which most are by written
answer or fine payment by the defendant. As a result, the burden of continuances and managing
numerous hearings is not as great. Nonetheless, magisterial district judges are trying over 250 cases
6.6%
1.7%
83.9%
0.0%
5.1%
2.5%
0.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
T
r
i
a
l

G
u
i
l
t
y
T
r
i
a
l

N
o
t

G
u
i
l
t
y
G
u
i
l
t
y

P
l
e
a
A
R
D
D
i
s
m
i
s
s
a
l
W
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
P
r
o
s
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
O
t
h
e
r
each per year, which is quite significant. It would be beneficial to track the number of events, hearings
and trials for summary cases.

The data from active pending and inactive cases and the age of active pending cases enable some
inferences to be drawn.

Table 2.5
Inactive and Inactive Summary Cases in Franklin County 2012
Casetypes
Active
Pending
Cases
Inactive
Cases
Private Criminal Complaints 798 600
Traffic 1,680 1,335
Non-Traffic 2,665 943
TOTAL 5,143 2,878

Based on the number of filings, and a target of 60 days from filing to disposition, the active pending
caseload should be approximately 1,800 cases
47
. It is likely that many are inactive or unpaid fines that
have not been pursued. JMI recommends that the District Courts conduct a review of active pending
cases [1.2D].
48
Inactive cases are primarily due to arrest warrants (failures to appear or to pay) and
bankruptcies and are not relevant to the analysis.


C. Communications and System-Wide Decision Making
D. Justice Reinvestment
F. Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan

47
22,059 filings/12 = 1,838 cases. A time to disposition goal of 60 days infers a pending caseload of approximately
half the filings for a 60 day period, which would be 1/6 x 1/2 = 1/12.

48
Recommendation 1.2D Review MDJS active pending caseload

Case Initiation Citation and Warrants
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 117, 400, 402, 405, 406, 410, 411, 430, 431, 440, 441, 451, 470
Proceedings in summary cases shall be instituted by arrest without a warrant, the issuance of a citation
to the defendant, or the filing a complaint or citation. Law enforcement shall institute summary
proceedings by citation, with or without issuing it to the defendant. In some instances, the citation may
be filed via advanced communication technology [3.2A].
49
Within five days after a citation is issued to
the defendant, the citation shall be filed with the proper issuing authority. Upon the filing of the
citation, a summons is issued directing the defendant to respond within 10 days of receipt of the
summons [3.5A].
50
The judge may order a bench warrant if the defendant fails to respond to the
summons. For certain cases involving Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinances, the defendants drivers
license may be suspended [3.4A, 3.4C].
51

Pleas
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 407, 408, 409, 412, 413, 414

The defendant shall notify the issuing authority of their plea within 10 days of the issuance of the
citation. If the defendant enters a plea of not guilty a date is fixed for trial [3.3C].
52
A defendant may
enter a guilty plea in writing or at a hearing. In pleas that involve payment of fines and costs, a payment
plan may be established. The judge may issue a bench warrant if the defendant fails to pay fines and
costs or complete intermediate punishment.

Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD)
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 300, 301

The primary purpose of the ARD program is the rehabilitation of the offender; secondarily, the purpose
is the prompt disposition of charges, eliminating the need for costly and time-consuming trials or other
court proceedings. If the defendant is eligible for entry into the ARD program, the magisterial judge
may enter the defendant into an ARD program. If the defendant does not enter, or fails to complete
ARD, the case proceeds to summary trial. Only seven summary cases were disposed by ARD in 2012.
This is in large part due to the nature of sanctions in summary cases, which are generally the payment of
49
Recommendation 3.2A Expand e-filing from law enforcement. Traffic citations are e-filed from PSP.

50
Recommendation 3.5A Calendars and notices from MDJS to UCMS and offender portal.

51
Recommendation 3.4A Scanning and indexing of complaint and affidavit of probable cause.

Recommendation 3.4C Embed Document Management System in MDJS

52
Recommendation 3.3C Magisterial District Court data integration.


a fine and/or restitution. An ARD disposition would not remove these sanctions, and a summary offense
generally has little impact on a persons long term record.

Trial and Sentencing
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

At any time before the summary trial or a guilty plea, the charges may be withdrawn or dismissed upon
satisfaction or agreement. Once a trial is conducted and a verdict has been reached, the sentence, if
any, may be imposed [3.3C].
53
If the defendant fails to appear for trial in a summary case, the trial may
be conducted in the defendants absence or a bench warrant may be issued. If the defendant defaults
on payment of fine or costs, a judge may order an arrest warrant and subsequently conduct a hearing of
the defendants ability to pay.

Appeal and Expungement
234 Pa.R.Crim.P. 460, 462, 490

In certain instances, convictions on summary cases may appeal. A notice of appeal may be filed within
30 days of the conviction or entry of guilty plea [3.2C, 3.2D].
54
When a defendant appeals after the
entry of a guilty plea or a conviction in a summary proceeding the case shall be heard de novo by a judge
of the court of common pleas without a jury. For certain appeals involving Vehicle Code or local traffic
ordinances, the law enforcement officer who observed the alleged offense must appear and testify.

Workflow Diagrams
The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all criminal justice
stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire traffic process:

Level 1 Traffic Process
9.0 Magisterial District Court

53
Recommendation 3.3C Magisterial District Court data integration.

54
Recommendation 3.2C E-filing from Public Defender.

Recommendation 3.2D E-filing from private attorneys.

Summary Cases Workflow
Level 1 Summary Casetypes
1.0
Jail -
Central
Booking
Citation
5.0
Level I or II
High Level
Process
Workflow
Direction
Process
Initiation
5.0
Diagrammed
Level I
Process
5.0
Separate
Document
Legend
Decision?
3.2.6
Level III
Process
Integration
Touchpoint
3.2.7D
Document
PT_6.0
Probation/
Pretrial Svcs
3.0
Magisterial
District Court
MDJS_03
Orders
F_6.0
Probation
Fines
Collection
6.0
Adult
Probation
1.0
Jail
MDJS_03
Suspend
License
MDJS_03
Orders
Department
of Motor
Vehicles

Summary Cases Workflow
5.3, 5.5
Verdict
Sentencing Order
Traffic and Non-Traffic Citations Level 2
3.0 Magisterial District Courts
T_3.2
Manage Case
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
7.0
Sheriff
T_3.4
Trial/
Disposition
T_3.3
Payment Plan
T_3.1
Create Case
T_3.6
Case Close
T_3.7
Archive
F_6.0
Probation
Fines
Collection
1.0
Jail
DMV_01
Suspend
License
T_3.5
Mods/
Appeals
eFile_01
Citation
eFile_03
Criminal
Motions
End
Not Guilty
Plea?
Fine Paid?
ePay_01
Fine
Yes
No
Yes
No
Law Enf
HC
Citation

Chapter 3 Juvenile Delinquency
Proceedings in a juvenile case in the Court of Common Pleas begin with the filing of a petition by
Juvenile Probation or the Commonwealth. Once a petition has been filed, the court schedules an
adjudicatory hearing and a summons is issued instructing the juvenile to appear for an adjudicatory
hearing. At any time after the filing of a petition and before the first adjudicatory hearing the youth may
make an admission or court may move to transfer the case to criminal court or to divert the juveniles
case via consent decree. Following the filing of the petition, the period for pre-adjudicatory discovery
and inspection begins and attorneys for the defense and Commonwealth may file motions with the
court.

Once pre-adjudicatory motions and inspection are complete, the adjudicatory hearing is conducted in
the Court of Common Pleas and the judge makes a determination in the juveniles case. If a juvenile is
detained, the adjudicatory hearing is held within 10 days of the filing of the petition. Within seven days
of the adjudicatory hearing or admission the Court shall enter a ruling on the offenses, if any, were
committed by the juvenile. Adjudicatory hearings may be conducted via advanced communication
technology.

Juvenile Delinquency Casetype Overview
Since 2006, overall numbers of allegations associated with disposed juvenile delinquency cases have
declined by over 20 percent. Much of this decline can be associated with a decline in property offenses,
particularly theft. Decline in person offenses can be attributed, in part, to declines in burglary charges.
Disorderly conduct/criminal mischief was the only category experiencing an overall increase over the
analysis period. Magisterial District Judge referrals can relate to violations in summary cases, contempt,
or failure to pay fines and fees. Typically, most referrals from the Magisterial District Courts come from
the Chambersburg District. Recently, juvenile referrals from this district have increased substantially
from recent lows in 2010 and 2011.

Table 4.1
Charges associated with allegations by type*

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
DUI 25 40 27 13 16
Weapons 32 17 21 17 20
Disorderly conduct/criminal mischief 42 63 82 25 61
MDJ 132 137 114 102 113
Other 216 94 93 96 114
Drugs 127 144 149 150 126
Summary 180 139 106 121 129
Person 205 145 147 87 140
Property 326 262 197 212 232
Total charges 1285 1041 936 823 951
Total allegations 633 563 498 452 472
*Source : Franklin County Juvenile Probation 2012 Annual Report

Between 2008 and 2012, there has been a decline in allegations originating from borough and township
law enforcement, although these still make up about 50% of petitions filed. Pennsylvania State Police
typically account for 25% of allegations filed. The remaining 25% of allegations typically originate from
the Magisterial District Courts themselves. Recently, the Chambersburg school district added a police
force contributing to growth in the Other category.

Table 4.2
Allegations filed by Juvenile Probation*

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
State Police 156 136 134 101 125 117
Borough/Township 292 344 275 259 200 170
Other 2 6 4 2 2 47
Private / Transfer 15 16 32 32 24 29
Magisterial District Courts 140 131 118 104 101 109
Total allegations 605 633 563 498 452 472

Chart 4.3
Allegations filed

605
633
563
498
452
472
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Chart 4.4
Percentage allegations filed in 2012

The use of secure detention following the allegation has varied substantially over recent years in
Franklin County. Further, subsequent detention hearings may impact case flow and extend time to
disposition in a case. While the number of juveniles detained has been greatly reduced, the rate of
detention with respect to total dispositions remains near recent highs.

Table 4.5
Secure detention by year of disposition*

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Detained 60 7 13 29 48 16 32
Not Detained 547 598 581 503 416 381 453
Total 607 605 594 532 464 397 485
% Detained 10% 1% 2% 5% 10% 4% 7%
*Source: Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool

The decision to proceed with a case on a formal track can have a significant impact upon case flow and
associated business of the court. Of the 20% decline in case volume since 2006, two thirds of this
decline has occurred in formal track cases. Of cases disposed in 2012, about 5% fewer are being handled
on the formal track than in 2006.

25%
36%
10%
6%
23%
State Police
Borough/Township
Other
Private / Transfer
Chart 4.6
Manner of handling by year of disposition

Clearance Rate
In addition to new cases filed, the volume of pending cases is an important measure for managing case
flow. The case clearance rate is a way to determine if the Court is disposing more cases than are filed. A
clearance rate over 100% can indicate a Court is clearing old cases and reducing the volume of pending
cases. Franklin County Juvenile Probation data suggest a recent increase in the rate of case clearance.
At the end of 2012, there were approximately 100 cases pending disposition in Juvenile court.

Table 4.7
Complaints, dispositions and clearance rate*
Complaints Dispositions Clearance (%)
2008 633 561 89%
2009 563 553 98%
2010 498 459 92%
2011 452 450 100%
2012 472 491 104%

47%
41%
38% 38%
47%
39%
42%
53%
59%
62% 62%
53%
61%
58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Formal Informal
*Source:Pennsylvania Juvenile
Deliquency Data Tool
Chart 4.8
Juvenile Delinquency clearance rate 2008-12*

*Source: Franklin County Juvenile Probation 2012 Annual Report

Caseflow Rules Map
Key significant and secondary events define the case process for juvenile delinquency cases. The
significant events at the core of the process are on the critical path, defined by Pennsylvania (PA) rules
of procedure as sequential. Please see Table 4.9 on the following page for an illustration of the full
process under the PA Code.

89%
98%
92%
100%
104%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Table 4.9
Juvenile Delinquency Casetype PA Criminal Code Rules Analysis

Juvenile Probation Superior Court
Juvenile
Probation Detention Police Court of Common Pleas
Allegation
Pa Code Rule 200
Commencing
Proceedings
Pa Code Rule 210
Arrest Warrants
Pa Code Rule 220
Procedure in Cases
Commenced by
Arrest Without
Warrant
Pa Code Rule 231
Written Allegation
39th Jud. Dist. Rule
39-210 Arrest
Warrants
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CASEFLOW
Significant events, time and fallout analysis
DATE
Pa Code Rule240
Detention of
Juvenile
Pa Code Rule 242
Detention Hearing
Pa Code Rule 311 -
Intake Conference
Pa Code Rule 312 -
Informal
Adjustment
Pa Code Rule 313
Detention from
Intake
Pa Code Rule 330
Petition: Filing,
Contents, Function
Pa Code Rule 331
Service of Petition
Pa Code Rule 334
Amendment of
Petition
Pa Code Rule 335
Withdrawal of
Petition
Pa Code Rule 337
Filing of Petition
after Case has been
Transferred from
Criminal
Proceedings
Pa Code Rule 370
Consent Decree
Pa Code Rule 390
Notice of Request
for Transfer to
Criminal
Proceedings
Pa Code Rule 394
Transfer Hearing
Events
Time
Rules
If detained: hearing
in 72 hours
1
Arrest
2
Detention
3
Detention
Hearing
6
Intake
Conference
8
Petition
10
Discovery
11
Finding of Fact
12
Adjudication
9
Transfer to
Adult Court
13
Disposition
14
Post
Dispositional
Motions
15
Appeals
1A
Delinquency
Petition
If not detained: Summons issued 14 days prior to
Adjudicatory hearing
If detained: Summons issued 7 days prior to
Adjudicatory hearing
Pa Code
Rule221
Temporary
Detention in
Police Lock-Up
Pa Code
Rule240
Detention of
Juvenile
Pa Code Rule 404
Prompt
Adjudicatory
Hearing
Pa Code Rule 406
Adjudicatory
Hearing
Pa Code Rule 407
Admissions
Pa Code Rule 408
Ruling on Offenses
Pa Code Rule 409
Adjudication of
Delinquency
11.A
Consent Decree
7
Informal
Adjustment
Pa Code Rule 340
Pre-Adjudicatory
Discovery and
Inspection
Pa Code Rule 360
Summons and
Notice
If detained: Adjudicatory hearing within 10 days
Pa Code Rule 500
Summons and
Notice of the
Dispositional
Hearing
Pa Code Rule 510
Prompt
Dispositional
Hearing
Pa Code Rule 512
Dispositional
Hearing
Pa Code Rule 515
Dispositional Order
If detained:
Dispositional
hearing within 20
days
If not detained:
Dispositional
hearing within 60
days
Pa Code Rule 600
Summons and
Notice of the
Commitment
Review,
Dispositional
Review, and
Probation
Revocation Hearing
Pa Code Rule 610
Dispositional and
Commitment
Review
Pa Code Rule 612
Modification or
Revocation of
Probation
Pa Code Rule 620
Dispositional
Motions
Pa Code Rule 622
Motion for Nunc
Pro Tunc Relief
Pa Code Rule 631
Termination of
Court Supervision
Pa Code Rule 632
Early Termination
of Court
Supervision by
Motion
Post-dispositional
motions within 10
days
Notice of appeal within 30 days of
disposition or order deciding
motion
District Attorney
4
DA Review
5
Information
Filed


1.0 Communications and System-Wide Decision Making

Allegation, Arrest and Commencement of Proceedings
237 Pa. Code Rule 122, 124, 128-32, 200,
210, 211, 213, 220, 231(A) (B), 232

Proceedings in juvenile court cases are initiated with the filing of a written allegation, an arrest without
a warrant, warrant arrest, or arrest for probable cause. When a juvenile is not under arrest, a written
allegation shall be submitted to the juvenile probation office. The allegation identifies the juvenile and
provides a summary of the alleged offense(s). If the juvenile is in detention, the written allegation shall
be submitted to the court detention facility and then to juvenile probation.

Warrants and Pre-Adjudicatory Detention
237 Pa. Code Rule 140, 141, 187, 210-13, 220, 240, 242, 404

If a juvenile is detained following arrest the allegation is examined and an intake conference can occur
to determine the juveniles release. If the juvenile is not released, a detention hearing must occur
within 72 hours following the juveniles admission to detention. At the detention hearing, the court
determines whether there is probable cause in the case and that detention of the juvenile is warranted.
If the youth remains in detention following the detention hearing, a petition is filed within 24 hours or
the next business day. Detention hearings may be conducted via advanced communication technology.
If the juvenile remains in detention an adjudicatory hearing is held within ten days from filing of the
petition.

Intake Conference
237 Pa. Code Rule 187, 190, 191, 192, 310, 311, 312, 313

Following the filing of the allegation, if a juvenile is not detained, juvenile probation will determine
jurisdiction in the case and whether to schedule an intake conference. The intake conference is
conducted by the juvenile probation officer and serves to determine what action, if any, should be taken
in the case. If the juvenile fails to appear for the intake conference, it may be rescheduled or a bench
warrant may be issued by the court. At the intake conference, the juvenile probation officer may
determine the juvenile be detained and a detention hearing be conducted.

At any time prior to the filing of a petition, the juvenile probation officer may informally adjust the
allegation. If the juvenile successfully completes informal adjustment, the case is dismissed. If the
juvenile does not successfully complete the informal adjustment, a petition is filed.

Petition, Pre-Adjudicatory Discovery and Inspection
237 Pa. Code Rule 330, 335, 340, 344, 360, 370, 390, 394

Court proceedings in a juvenile case in the Court of Common Pleas begin with the filing of a petition by
Juvenile Probation or the Commonwealth. Once a petition has been filed, the Court schedules an
adjudicatory hearing and a summons is issued instructing the juvenile to appear for an adjudicatory
hearing. At any time after the filing of a petition and before the first adjudicatory hearing the youth may
make an admission or court may move to transfer the case to criminal court or to divert the juveniles
case via consent decree.

The petition is filed in the Court of Common Pleas and serves to commence delinquency proceedings in
the juveniles case. The petition identifies the juvenile, the alleged offense(s) and serves to establish the
charges from the allegation, and the period of pre-adjudicatory discovery and inspection begins.

Once a case is initiated, hearings may be conducted by the juvenile master or a judge. In recent years,
the percentage of total hearings that are conducted by a Judge has declined from over 30% in 2008 to
about 23% in 2012. It is important to note that this statistic includes placement and disposition review
hearings in addition to those associated with new cases.

Chart 4.10
Hearings conducted by Juvenile Probation*

424
412
445
391
462
196
162
207
118
144
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Master Hearing Judge Hearing
*Juvenile Probation
2012 Annual Report
Admission, Adjudication and Ruling on Offenses
237 Pa. Code Rule 404, 406, 407, 408, 409

Once pre-adjudicatory motions and inspection are complete, the adjudicatory hearing is conducted in
the Court of Common Pleas and the Judge makes a determination in the juveniles case. If a juvenile is
detained, the adjudicatory hearing is held within 10 days of the filing of the petition. Within seven days
of the adjudicatory hearing or admission the court shall enter a ruling on the offenses, if any, were
committed by the juvenile. Adjudicatory hearings may be conducted via advanced communication
technology.

If the Judge finds the juvenile has committed the acts alleged in the petition, the court schedules a
hearing to determine if the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. If the juvenile
is in detention and the court finds the juvenile in need, a dispositional hearing is set within 20 days of
the ruling. If the court finds the juvenile in need and the juvenile is not in detention, a dispositional
hearing is set within 60 days of the ruling.

Dispositional Hearing and Post-Dispositional Procedures
237 Pa. Code Rule 500, 510, 512, 513, 515, 600, 605, 610, 612, 620

Once a dispositional hearing has been set, the Court of Common Pleas issues a summons to parties in
the case to notify of the date time and location of the hearing. The Judge may order social study,
examinations, and victim-impact statements to aid decision in the case. At the conclusion of the
dispositional hearing, the Judge issues a dispositional order. If the disposition of the case includes
supervision, the case goes to Juvenile Probation for supervision. If the youth violates conditions of
consent decree or probation a hearing may be conducted in the Court of Common Pleas. In most cases,
the Judge will conduct dispositional review hearings every six months. Juvenile Probation notifies the
court once the youth has completed supervision.

The Court will conduct dispositional review hearings for all supervised cases at least every six months. In
all cases, the juvenile shall appear in person. The court may schedule a review hearing at any time. A
juvenile may be detained for a modification of the dispositional order or a violation of probation by the
filing of a motion. If the juvenile is detained the hearing on the motion shall be held within 10 days of
the detention hearing.

The juvenile probation officer shall notify the court when the conditions of probation have been
satisfied and the court shall decide if supervision should be terminated.

The point at which the case is disposed has significant impact upon case flow and the related business of
the court. The longer a case stays active, the more pre-adjudicatory hearings and work is required.
Since 2006, Franklin County has experienced a substantial increase in the percent of cases disposed via a
consent decree hearing. Similarly, the number of cases resolved at the dispositional hearing also
experienced a dramatic increase since 2006.

Table 4.11
Type of hearing by year of disposition*

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Transfer to adult criminal 3 3 3 3 1 1 0
Disposition only 21 48 95 146 150 95 126
Adjudicatory 249 203 169 142 128 96 135
No type identified 318 345 230 98 95 101 108
Consent decree 16 6 97 143 90 104 116
Total 607 605 594 532 464 397 485
*Source: Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Data Analysis Tool

Dispositions reached without a formal hearing occurring declined substantially between 2006 and 2013.
In 2013, dispositions reached without a hearing represented about 25% of dispositions, a substantial
drop from over 50% of dispositions in 2006. This statistic suggests that while volume of new cases may
be declining, more of these cases are requiring one or more hearings prior to disposition.

Chart 4.12
Type of hearing by year of disposition*

The type of disposition for a case can also impact case flow. Dispositions that include supervision,
services or placement can impact case flow, in part, due to post-adjudicatory hearings and violations.
Overall, about 50% of dispositions involve probation or consent decree. While the percentage of
dispositions involving consent decree has remained around 25%, the percentage of dispositions
involving probation has declined 4%. Dispositions by stipulation on a citation represented about 10% of
318
345
230
98
95
101
108
16
6
97
143
90
104
116
249
203
169
142
128
96
135
21
48
95
146
150
95
126
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
None Consent decree
Transfer to criminal proceedings Adjudicatory
Disposition only
*Pensylvania
Juvenile Deliquency
Data Tool
dispositions in 2012, down about 4% since 2008. Approximately 10% of dispositions in 2012 involved
community service or alternative program, an increase of about 3% since 2008. This trend is of note
since it may align with recent increases in cases initiated for failure to comply/contempt charges.

Table 4.13
Dispositions by type*

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Transfer to criminal proceedings 3 3 1 1 0
Disposition transferred 36 25 20 21 20
Informal adjustment 23 18 17 21 21
Community Service / Program 38 36 40 40 43
Withdrawn/Dismissed 49 55 60 52 44
Other / Referred 8 17 7 21 46
Placement 52 47 52 42 47
Citation 76 60 43 37 50
Probation 135 141 122 111 101
Consent decree 141 151 90 104 119
Total 561 553 452 450 491
*Source: Franklin County Juvenile Probation 2012 Annual Report

Workflow Diagrams
The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all juvenile justice
stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire juvenile delinquency process:

Level 1 Traffic Process
4.0 District Attorney
5.0 Court of Common Pleas
9.0 Juvenile Probation

Juvenile Delinquency Workflow Level 1
JD
Juvenile
Defender
J_4.0
District
Attorney
J_5.0
Court of
Common
Pleas
5.0
Level I or II
High Level
Process
Workflow
Direction
Process
Initiation
5.0
Diagrammed
Level I
Process
5.0
Separate
Document
Legend
Decision?
3.2.6
Level III
Process
Integration
Touchpoint
3.2.7D
Document
Allegations
9.0
Juvenile
Probation
9.0
Juvenile
Supervision/
Placement

Juvenile Delinquency Workflow
J_4.0 District Attorney

J_5.4
Finding of
Fact Hearing
J_5.6
Dispositional
Hearing
Consent
Decree?
Finding?
End
Yes
No
Yes
No
J_4.2
Correspon-
dence
J_4.4
Consent
Decree
Negotiations
J_4.5
Petition
4.0
DA Felony &
Misdemeanor
eFile_01
Allegations
Law Enforc
Hardcopy
Allegations
9.1
Juvenile
Probation
Adult
Court?
No
J_4.1
Case
Initiation
J_4.6
Post-
Disposition
Review
J_4.7
Case
Closed
J_4.8
Archive
J_4.3
Discovery
Yes
Direct File?
J_5.5
Transfer
Hearing
Yes
No
DA_02
Discovery
Drop Box
J_5.5
Adjudicatory
Hearing
J_5.3
Dispositional
Review
Hearings

J_5.0 Court of Common Pleas
Enh_01 Consolidated Court Calendar
Init_4.3 Document Management System
Init_01 Cross-Agency Data Repositoty
Enh_05
Order/ Disposition
J_5.11
Post-
Disposition
Review Hrgs
J_5.4
Finding of
Fact Hearing
J_5.3
Manage Case
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
4.0
DA Petition
J_5.5
Adjudicatory
Hearing
J_5.7
Dispositional
Hearing
J_5.1
Create Case +
Assignment
9.0
Juvenile
Supervision
9.0
Juvenile
Placement
DA_01
Allegation
HHS_01
Petition
DA_02
Consent
Decree
eFile_04
Motions
JProb_01
Draft Order
Finding of
Facts?
End
J_5.13
Case Close
J_5.15
Archive
J_5.12
Mods/
Appeals
Yes
No
Yes
No
Placement
Providers
J_5.2
Detention/
Shelter Care
(Re)Hearings
J_5.14
Expunge
Detention/
Shelter Care
Hold?
Yes
J_5.10
Dispositional
Review
Hearing
J_5.9
Permanency
Review
Hearings
No
Need of
Treatment/
Superv?
J_5.6
Expungement
JProb_02
Recommenda-
tions
J_5.8
Order
Terminating
Jurisdiction
Yes
No
Motion to
Expunge?
Yes
Admission?

9.0 Juvenile Probation
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
9.3
Manage Case
J_5.10
Dispositional
Review
eFile_01
Allegations
Law Enforc
Hardcopy
Allegations
9.1
Intake
Juv
Detained?
9.2
Intake
Conference/
Screening
9.4
Assignment
9.5
Assessment
and Case Plan
9.6
Supervision
Services
9.8
Reassess/
Modify Case
Plan
Refer to
Court?
9.11
Case Close
9.12
Archive
9.10
Discharge
New
Allegations?
J_5.7
Disposition
Yes
No
Yes Yes No
No
9.7
Violation of
Conditions
SVC_01
Svc
Providers
PROB_01
Draft Order
Probation Payment Division
F_6.1
Cost, Fines,
Rest File
F_6.2
Payment
Plan
F_6.3
Collections
FIN_01
Transac-
tions
CPCMS_04
Court Order
F_6.4
Reassess/
Modify
Payment Plan
4.0
District
Attorney
Review
9.9
After Care
Plan
9.13
Expunge
CPCMS_04
Court Order
J_5.2
Detention/
Shelter Care
(Re)Hearings
Informal
Adjustment/
Petition?
Paid in Full?
End
Yes
No
Yes
No

Chapter 4 Juvenile Dependency and Family
Casetypes

The following casetypes are included by narration and illustration below:

4.1 Juvenile Dependency
4.2 Divorce
4.3 Custody
4.4 Domestic Relations/Child Support
4.5 Adoption
4.6 Protection from Abuse

4.1 Juvenile Dependency Cases
Juvenile Dependency cases relate to the protection and care of children that are the subject of abuse or
neglect. All matters related to juvenile dependency cases are filed with the Clerk of the Court of
Common Pleas. Juvenile dependency case flow is comprised of up to eight significant events:

1. Emergency custody
2. Shelter care hearing
3. Petition filed
4. Adjudication hearing
5. Disposition hearing
6. Permanency hearing
7. Permanency review and placement
8. Case Closure/Permanency

Emergency Custody Shelter Care Hearing
Children may enter juvenile care through three primary means.

1) In instances where there are exigent circumstances, law enforcement or Children and Youth
Services may remove a child from parental custody upon application for an emergency order
from the Juvenile Master (see flowchart event number 1) who is on call 24x7. In those
instances, parents are notified that a shelter care hearing will be heard within 72 hours and that
they may appear to contest the removal. The shelter care hearing is conducted to allow the
court to make a determination whether or not a child should be placed in the care of the
agency for their protection. At the shelter care hearing, the court may appoint counsel for
parents that cannot afford counsel to represent them in future court hearings.

2) The agency may apply for an emergency shelter care hearing without the prior removal of the
children (see flowchart event number 2). If the court grants emergency shelter care and the
child is in agency custody, the Adjudication Hearing is held within 11 days.

3) The agency can file a standard dependency petition with the Clerk of the Court and request that
the case be scheduled for an adjudication hearing (see flow chart event 3).

Adjudication Hearing
An adjudication hearing (see flow chart event 3) is held within 10 days if a child is in agency custody or
within 45 days if the child is still in the home. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not
the child comes within the statutory definition of a child in need of care. The child may be appointed an
attorney Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to represent their best interests. The Court of Common Pleas has a
contract with an attorney to act as GAL. The attorney is compensated on a per case basis.

Disposition Hearing
If a child is adjudicated in need of care and supervision the court is required to hold a disposition hearing
(see flowchart event 4) within 20 days of the adjudication hearing. In some cases, and in the interest of
expediency and efficiency, the adjudication and disposition hearing may be held concurrently. The
disposition hearing determines the party to have custody of the child and what conditions the parents of
the child follow to protect the child from neglect or abuse. In Franklin County the adjudication and
disposition hearings are held sequentially on the same date. The order that the court makes sets in
place a plan for the reunification of the child if the parents comply with the conditions set forth in the
order.

Permanency Review Hearing
The court is mandated by statute to hold permanency review hearings every six months (see flowchart
event 5). Franklin County holds review hearings more frequently, every three months. Permanency
hearings are an important part of the juvenile dependency process as they are a time to reassess,
confirm or alter plans for reunification.

Permanent Placement
The purpose of the permanent placement hearing is to determine the most appropriate permanent
placement to meet the needs of the child in a safe and nurturing environment. The Pennsylvania
Juvenile Act has adopted the federally mandated order of preference for the placement of children as
follows:

1. Return the child to the parent, whenever this course is best suited to the safety, protection and
physical, mental and moral welfare of the child.
2. Place the child for adoption (with the county agency being required to petition for a termination
of parental rights) where reunification is not best suited to the childs safety and welfare.
3. Place the child with a permanent legal custodian, where adoption is not best suited to the
childs safety and welfare.
4. Place the child permanently with a fit and willing relative, where legal custodianship is not best
suited to the childs safety and welfare.
5. Place the child in some other court-approved and permanent living arrangement, in instances
where the agency has shown a compelling reason for ruling out all of the above four options.

Termination of Parental Rights
The Adoption and Safe Families Act requires state agencies (Children and Youth Services) to file a
petition to terminate parental rights (TPR) if a child has been in foster care for 15 out of the most recent
22 months unless there is compelling reason demonstrated to continue working toward reunification.

A permanent placement or termination of parental hearing will be held and the court will make a
determination as to whether or not parents lose all rights to the child. The court continues to maintain
oversight of the dependency case and will continue holding permanency reviews until a child ages out of
the system, is adopted, or for another reason becomes emancipated.

4.2 Divorce
Key events in Uncontested/Consent Divorce include:

1. Complaint filed
2. Service
3. Consent filed
4. Judicial review
5. Decree entered

Uncontested and consent divorces follow a very straightforward path with complaint filed with the
Prothonotary. If no answer contesting the divorce complaint, and after 90 days, the complaint goes
before a judge for judicial review and final decree entered.

If children are involved, separate actions determining custody and support (see DR section narrative and
workflow) are filed and follow different judicial processes.

4.3 Custody
The Prothonotarys office accepts, stores and provides access to all civil case related documents except
for child support and adoption. They are also responsible for the collection of filing fees and
establishment of civil trust accounts. The office has a total of eight staff members, including an elected
Prothonotary and Chief Assistant, who are cross-trained and can work in any civil area.

The civil technology application is Infocon. Some judges and/or law clerks have limited access, but there
is no formal training program and standardization of practice. Court administration and attorneys may
subscribe to the system although they are unable to view documents, only docket entries. Documents
can be viewed at public terminals available in the Prothonotarys office. Infocons data backup, storage
and security are all managed out of Evensburg, PA. The Sheriffs Department also uses Infocon.

Key events in Complaints and Petitions for Custody Conciliation Agreement include the following:

1. Complaint filed
2. Presentation and assignment
3. Temporary order
4. Service
5. Conciliation conference
6. Report and proposed order
7. Court review
8. Order

Key events in Complaints and Petitions for Custody No Agreement after Conciliation Hearing include:

1. Conciliation conference
2. Report and proposed order
3. No agreement report only
4. Pre-trial conference
5. Order

A complaint or petition is filed along with proposed order if requesting temporary order of custody. The
court administrator makes a judicial assignment.

A temporary order is issued after presentation to the court. Currently the court holds custody hearings
on Thursday mornings. The court administrator then makes an assignment to a conciliator for a
conciliation conference. The conciliator must be a member of the PA bar and shall not regularly practice
in family law.

A service of Order for Conciliation and hearing date are issued for processing. A conciliation conference
is held and the conciliator issues a report and proposed order. If agreed by both parties, the
Conciliators proposed order and report are reviewed by a judicial officer. If no agreement is reached
between the parties, Conciliator issues a report only and parties move for a pre-trial conference.

In a case where parties do not agree with the conciliators report and proposed order, parties may file
for a pretrial conference before a judge. A pre-trial conference is held and, if agreement, an order is
issued. If no agreement, a second adjudicatory hearing is scheduled and held and final order entered.

It should be noted that in family matters there is a support master who deals with issues of support (see
Domestic Relations section) and a divorce master. The divorce master is appointed in cases where there
is a request for equitable distribution. The divorce master controls and sets his/her own schedule.

4.4 Domestic Relations & Child Support
The Domestic Relations Section is part of the 39
th
Judicial District Circuit of Franklin County, PA and is
responsible for all matters of support involving spouses and/or children. Domestic Relations (DR)
section consists of 28 staff with three units that include:

Client services/ reception
Intake/Establishment and Enforcement
Supervision

In addition to the three units, the office has one full time staff attorney. The DR Sections director has
been with the agency for 28 years with 23 of those as director. The judges appoint the director, and
personnel are employees of the court.

It should be noted first and foremost that Pennsylvanias Child Support Program has ranked consistently
as one of the nations best and has received three program or performance awards in the past 12 years.
Franklin Countys Domestic Relations agency has consistently exceeded the five federal performance
metrics, and, according to the agencys director, PA is the only state that regularly meets or exceeds 80%
on these same five federal categories.

PACSES is the primary system used by DR staff. It is the PA Child Support Enforcement System. The
support master has limited access to PACSES. Most attorneys use an automated system called support
calculator.

Domestic Relations Cases include ten key events:

1. Complaint Filed
2. Conference Officer Assignment
3. Paternity Established
4. Office Conference
5. Appeal
6. Support Master Hearing
7. Exceptions Filed
8. Enforcement Remedies/Case management
9. Contempt Conference
10. Sentencing Court

Initial Case Filing
All domestic relations complaints can be started online (this is a new initiative and used very seldom by
the clients) but still require an office visit. After a complaint is filed, a conference is scheduled which is
set about 21 to 30 days into the future. Service is provided by registered mail first, certified mail, service
by the sheriff, and a bench warrant (limited use for establishment cases only). The latter methods are
completed after the scheduled conference.

Initial Hearings
Domestic Relations Officers who are employees of the DRS hear all initial conferences at the DR agency.
A failure to appear will be handled as described above. If paternity is contested, the conference will be
postponed pending genetic testing. Genetic testing can be done on site through buccal swab testing.
Any petitions for modification/termination/suspension or remittance filed follow the same process as
the initial complaint.

Domestic Relations Officer holds conferences and issues an order for support. If an exception is filed, the
case is set for hearing before the support master. It should be noted that the support master is a
relatively new judicial oversight step that has significantly reduced the type and number of cases to go
before a judge. The support master is a contracted attorney who works out of the Second Street Hearing
Annex that is a court facility. The support master will hear the appeal hearing as a de novo hearing.

If a party is dissatisfied with the result of the Support Masters recommendation, exceptions can be
filed. The court will review the written findings and transcripts of the recorded appeal hearing in order
to make a final determination: the Judge may request additional information.

Contempt
Domestic Relations Officers hold contempt conferences after other enforcement remedies have been
taken. At the contempt conference, a sentencing date is set before the judge. Sentencing court is held
all day, once a month in front of the court. Average number of cases scheduled for the sentencing court
is 70 although only an average of 30 cases are in front of the Judge. A defendant is represented by the

Public Defenders office upon their request. If a party fails to appear, a bench warrant is issued. Once an
order is issued from sentencing court it goes back to the DR section for monitoring and enforcement.

Placement Cases
Placement cases are initiated from Children and Youth or Juvenile Probation and are cases where a
child/ren are in or out of home placement. Intake staff at the DR Section enters cases into PACSES (PAs
statewide child support enforcement system). When a child is placed, a conference is held to issue an
order or if the child is released, a release order is received from the agency and the DRO generates a
termination order. Judges currently do not order child support at placement hearings.

UIFSA (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act)
When an absent parent is out of state, a UIFSA will need to be filed to the state they are residing.
However, if long-arm criteria are met, the complaint can be filed locally. Once an order is entered in
Franklin County, the defendant is out of state and there are enforcement issues, the Franklin County
order can be registered for enforcement in the defendants state. As long as one of the parties resides in
PA, Franklin County still has control of the case and can modify it. If both parties are no longer in PA, the
modification will need to be filed in the state of the person requesting the modification. If there is
another states order and the defendant is residing in Franklin County, the state can request that the
agency register their order for enforcement. At that point, Franklin County is responsible for
enforcement only and modification of the order cannot be done if the plaintiff is still residing in that
state.

4.5 Adoption Orphans Court
The Orphans Court is a section of the Court of Common Pleas and its records are received, stored, and
disseminated by Clerk of the Court. Case types of the Orphans Court include Probate and Adoption.
The Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas is elected. The current Clerk has served in that role for the past
22 years. His office has eight full time employees and one casual position, currently filled by his retired
former deputy. One of the Clerk of Court employees is dedicated to handling adoption cases since they
are a relatively small number of annual case filings (ca. 55) and have unique case processes.

Just over two years ago, the Clerk of Court acquired its current computerized information system Land
Record Information and Imaging Management System (Landex). Previously, all clerk of court minute and
docket entries were typewritten. Landex is an application that was originally developed to support land
record management but has been modified to support the Register of Wills and nominally support a
court case management system.

Information Management System (IMR) a company that focuses on imaging integration was the vendor
for the Landex system in collaboration with Optical Storage Solutions, Inc., based in Lebanon,
Pennsylvania, who provides programming for the Landex application. The Register of Wills also uses
Landex, although the two offices rarely interact and there is no integration or common service or
maintenance agreement. The Landex system contains the electronic register of actions and all scanned
documents. In addition to the Landex system, the clerk of court office continues to maintain the official
paper file.

For the purposes of this project, adoptions are the only case type reviewed. Key Case Flow Events in
Adoption cases include:

1. Petition (case initiation)
2. Hearing
3. Termination of Parental Rights Hearing and Order
4. Adoption Hearing
5. Decree

Adoption cases can arise through a variety of channels. For example, they can be initiated through
private adoption agencies, through Child and Youth services as a result of a juvenile dependency case,
through step parents wanting to adopt step children or adoption by other family members.

In cases where the state has taken custody of a child through the foster care system, a case is initiated
through a notice of intent to adopt (see case flow map 1 and 1a). This is the precursor to the filing a
petition for adoption. It puts biological parents on notice that there will be a petition for adoption filed.

Prior to any adoption, the court must first confirm or establish that the parental rights of the biological
parents have been terminated, awarding them the full protection of due process including
representation. These proceedings are separate causes of action and present themselves to the court in
three ways. 1) If the biological parents consent to the adoption voluntarily, a Petition for Voluntary
Relinquishment is filed by the attorney for the party seeking the adoption (see workflow map 2a); 2) If
the biological parents are not available and cannot be located, or fail to respond to notice that their
child is subject to adoption, a Petition for Confirmation of Consent is filed by the attorney for the party
seeking the adoption (see work flow map 2b); or 3) If the biological parents want to contest the issue of
adoption, the attorney for the party seeking the adoption files a Petition for Involuntary Relinquishment.
In each of these scenarios, the court administrator is notified of the filing of the petition and his
designee assigns the case to a judge. After the assignment, the case is scheduled before the assigned
judge for either a contested or uncontested hearing, as the circumstances of the individual case require
(see workflow map 3).

Once the determination of the adoptability of the child is determined through the TPR process, adoption
cases proceed expeditiously from filing of the petition for adoption (see work flow map 4) to hearing
(see workflow map 5).

Adoption and Relinquishment/Termination cases represent a small percentage of cases filed in the
Orphans Court division of the clerk of court office. According to statistics from the AOPC website, in
2011 59 new Relinquishment/Termination cases were filed. Only 53 cases were disposed of. Forty-five
of the cases (84.9%) were uncontested and the remainder were either contested (9.4%) or disposed via
another means (5.7%). Pending Relinquishment/Termination cases at the end of 2011 were 19.

In 2011 there were 55 new Adoption Cases filed. During the same year, 55 Adoption cases were
disposed of with 98% of them being uncontested.

4.6 Protection from Abuse
Key events in Protection from Abuse (PFA) include:

1. Abuse Incident L.E. arrest and/or referral to Women In Need (WIN)
2. Petition Filed
3. Court administration judge assignment & hearing date
4. Ex-Parte hearing
5. Service
6. Temporary Order denied or issued
7. Hearing
8. Final Order

Abuse Incident 23 PA CSA 6101
Where an incident of abuse occurs, law enforcement or Women in Need (WIN) is contacted and if
appropriate, law enforcement will make an arrest. Victims are referred to Women In Need, a non-profit
organization that provides 24-hour assistance and shelter to victims of domestic violence. Magisterial
district judges also are on call weekends and after work hours.

On the next business day, WIN staff meet with the alleged victim (petitioner) to complete court
paperwork. Generally WIN staff accompanies the petitioner to file the petition with the Prothonotary
office. Private attorneys and pro se litigants also can initiate a petition.

Court administration makes judicial assignment and provides a hearing date. An ex-parte hearing is
held. If temporary order is granted, order is filed with Prothonotary and order is served on defendant. A
hearing is held and final order issued. 23 Pa CSA 6105(e)(2)

Workflow Diagrams
The workflow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the business processes for all dependency and
family stakeholders preceded by a high-level 1 analysis for the entire process:

Juvenile Dependency Workflow

Children and
Youth Services
Dependency
Petition Filed
Permanency
Review
Shelter Care
Hearing
Permanency
Hearing
Disposition
Hearing
Permanent
Placement
Emergency
Custody
Shelter Care
Adjudication
Hearing

Divorce, Custody and Child Support Workflow Level 1

CD_5.0
Contested
Divorce
UD_5.0
Uncontested
Divorce
CU_5.0
Custody
CS_5.0
Child Support
Complaint
Filed
Consent
Filed?
Answer
Filed?
App for
Child
Support
Motion to
Modify for
APL
No
Yes
No
Yes
eFile_01
Civil
Complaint eFile_01
Civil
Complaint
5.0
Level I or II
High Level
Process
Workflow
Direction
Process
Initiation
5.0
Level I
Process
5.0
Separate
Document
Legend
Decision?
3.2.6
Level III
Process
Integration
Touchpoint
3.2.7D
Document

Divorce, Custody and Child Support Workflow
UD_5.0 Consent and Uncontested Divorce
No
Yes
No
Yes
CD_5.0
Contested
Divorce
UD_5.4
Disposition
Hearing
CU_5.0
Custody
Complaint
Filed
Consent
Filed?
Answer
Filed?
UD_5.5
Judicial
Review
UD_5.6
Decree
Entered
UD_5.7
Case Closed
UD_5.8
Archive
UD_5.3
Praecipe
Filed
UD_5.1
Create Case
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
eFile_01
Civil
Complaint
eFile_03
Civil Motions
UD_5.2
Manage Case

CD_5.0 Contested Divorce

Complaint
Filed
No
Consent
Filed?
Answer
Filed?
CD_5.2
Judge
Assigned
CD_5.4
Pretrial
Conference
CD_5.5
Settlement
Conference
CD_5.7
Report &
Recommend
ation
CD_5.8
File & Served
Prothonotary
Exception
Filed?
CD_5.11
Judicial
Review
CD_5.12
Final Order
CD_5.9
Briefing
Schedule
CD_5.10
Oral
Argument
UD_5.0
Uncontested
Divorce
No Yes
Yes
CD_5.13
Case Closed
CD_5.14
Archive
No
Yes
CD_5.1
Create Case
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
eFile_01
Civil
Complaint
eFile_03
Civil Motions
CD_5.1A
Manage Case
CD_5.3
Master
Appointed
CD_5.6
Hearing

CU_5.0 Custody

Complaint
Filed
CU_5.1
Create Case
CU_5.2
Judge &
Conciliator
Assignment
CU_5.3
Service by
Court
CU_5.4
Conciliation
Conference
CU_5.5
Report and
Proposed
Order
CU_5.6
Motion for
Pretrial
Conference
Agreed?
CU_5.7
Pretrial
Conference
CU_5.9
Order
Entered
CU_5.8
Order
Entered
Agreed?
CS_5.10
Case Closed
CS_5.11
Archive
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
No
Yes
No
Yes

CS_5.0 Child Support
Domestic Relations Section
CS_5.2
Office
Conference
Hearing
App for
Child
Support
Motion to
Modify for
APL
Paternity
Tested?
CS_5.4
Office
Conference
Hearing
Appeal
Filed?
CS_5.5
Support
Master
Hearing
Exception
Filed?
CS_5.6
Judicial
Review
CS_5.7
Support
Order
Entered
CS_5.3
Genetic
Testing
Ordered
Paternity
Established?
Dismiss
CS_5.8
Case Closed
CS_5.9
Archive
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
CS_5.1
Create Case
10.0
Document
Management
11.0
Calendar
12.0
Financials
13.0
Service/
Notice
Shared Processes
Integ_04
Court
Calendar
Integ_06
Escrow
Accounting
Integ_05
County
Financials
Integ_16
Dispatch &
GIS
Integ_01
Document
Mgmt
eFile_01
Civil
Complaint
eFile_03
Civil Motions
CS_5.1A
Manage Case

Adoption Workflow
AD_5.0 Adoption

Protection from Abuse Workflow
PFA_5.0 Protection from Abuse

Prothonotary
Domestic
Abuse
Incident
Ex Parte
Hearing
L.E. Referral
Judicial
Assignment
Petition Filed
Order
Granted
Referral to
Women in
Need
Temporary
Order Granted?
Yes
No
Order Served
Filed with
Prothonotary
Petition
Denied
Filed with
Prothonotary
Hearing
Temporary
Order Granted?
Final Order
Issued
Order Served
on Registry
No
Yes

Chapter 5 Information Technology
The implementation recommendations and plan in Sections 6 and 7 below include objectives to identify
the functions of core case management systems. Included in these are sub-functions that can be
classified by the following categories. JMI recommends that the county document the functions that are
provided by each system in order to understand and plan for the functional gaps for replacement
systems. These include the following:

UCMS

Adult Probation Case Management Module. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the
list below.

Intake/Case Creation
Screening, Classification and Assignment
Assessment and Case Plans
Calendar and Event Management
Field Reporting (mobile tools)
Forms/Report Tools
Aggregate Reports
Management Information
Document Management
Workflow Configuration
Users and User Access Controls
Administration of Data and Tables

Jail Management Module. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the list below.

Screening, Classification and Assignment
Prisoner Inventory
Visitation and Calendar Management
Program Management
Prisoner Telephone
Commissary and Inventory
Forms/Report Tools
Aggregate Reports
Document Management

District Attorney Case Management Module. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the
list below.

Investigation
Assignment
Event and Calendar Management
Evidence Management
Plea Negotiation
Forms/Report Tools
Aggregate Reports
Document Management

CPCMS, MDJS and Infocom

Court Case Management Systems. Identify the functionalities built into the system from the list below.
The new juvenile delinquency system in development by the state should also be evaluated using the
same functional categories.

Case Updates
Assignment
Event and Calendar Management
Trial Management
Orders and Judgments
Case Close and Archive
Forms/Report Tools
Aggregate Reports
Document Management

Main Integrations
The following integrations are rooted in the need to create an integrated criminal justice system. UCMS
is rapidly moving counties towards that goal. Historically, systems have been fragmented and
standalone. Integrating systems leads to efficiencies, time savings and more timely justice.

Felony and Misdemeanor Caseflow

Not many of the systems are currently integrated with each other. In the blue lines, we can see the two
major integrations:
1) MDJ and CPCMS
2) JNet and CNet

Systems by Integration Groups

However there are no connection between the two groups, and there is also a number of other systems
that have no integration at all (represented with different colors).

Ideal Integration

Ideally, we would aim to have all the systems integrated with each other. That would mean that there
would never be manual data re-entry which would avoid many issues of data quality and process delays.

The UCMS Effect

UCMS will integrate with CNet (JNet) and with MDJS and CPCMS, which creates a situation where most
primary systems now become integrated.

Shared Services

Beside the systems that are mapped to the workflow, we have shared systems, which are called on
multiple occasions.

Document Management

As an example, Document Management System might receive documents in different moments and be
accessed from several systems to retrieve these documents.

Juvenile Delinquency Systems

The tables on the following pages illustrate the ownership of the multiple systems that support criminal
and civil case processing in Franklin County.
Vendor
Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL
Digital Solutions INC/GTL
Systems name Jail Management Solutions Imaging System Call IQ Probation & Parole Management
System
What system does Records Management System for new,
current and past inmates of the Jail
Keeps pictures of inmates that go
through the Jail system
Transcribes phone call voice into text. Records Management System for new,
current and past clients that report to
the Adult Probation Department
Who created it Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL
Where is it located Jail Jail Jail Adult Probation
Who maintains the system Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL Digital Solutions INC/GTL
Any system documents Built in to the system Built in to the system Built in to the system Built in to the system
Any system diagrams Oracle Client/Server Based Oracle Client/Server Based Oracle Client/Server Based Oracle Client/Server Based
Any disaster recovery County Responsibility County Responsibility County Responsibility County Responsibility
Is the system integrated with any
other systems
No No No No
Do we have a copy of the contract?

Vendor Digital Solutions INC/GTL DataWorks Plus PA Dept. of Welfare Infocon
Systems name Inmate Phone System cNET PACSES JACS
What system does Keeps track of phone calls made by
inmates that are recorded
Web based RMS system accessible
through the JNet Portal
Records Management System for new,
current and past clients.
Judicial scheduling software
application
Who created it Digital Solutions INC/GTL DataWorks Plus PA Dept. of Welfare Infocom
Where is it located Jail Sheriff's Office Domestic Relations Court Administration
Who maintains the system Digital Solutions INC/GTL DataWorks Plus PA Dept. of Welfare Infocom
Any system documents Built in to the system
Any system diagrams Oracle Client/Server Based
Any disaster recovery County Responsibility CPIN (Commonwealth Photo Imaging
Network) System is consolidated to a
Primary server at PSP and copied in
real time to an onsite backup server,
and then the data is cloned to three
off site redundant Disaster Recovery
databases.
PA Dept. of Welfare is responsible for
disaster recovery.
County Responsibility
other systems
No JNET No No
Do we have a copy of the contract? https://drive.google.com/a/franklinco
untypa.gov/?tab=mo#folders/0B2pC7
ZyEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk
https://drive.google.com/a/franklinco

Vendor Stenograph Infocon Jury Systems CDI
Systems name Stenograph Infocon Jury Systems Next Gen Prosecutors Management Systems
What system does Court Reporters dictation Software Records Management System for new,
current and past court cases.
Records management to keep track of
Jury's
current and past cases for District
Attorney's.
Who created it Stenograph Infocon Jury Systems CDI
Where is it located Court Reporters Sheriff's, Prothonotary Court Administration District Attorney's
Who maintains the system County Infocon Jury Systems CDI
Any system documents None Per Infocon; The documentation that
we have on our systems in intended
for our programmers only and is
technical in content. We do not
provide this to clients since it is a
proprietary product.
Jury Systems does not have this
documentation
None
Any system diagrams None Same as above Jury Systems does not have this
documentation
None
Any disaster recovery County Responsibilty All of our servers are 100% mirrored
for active duplicates of all data and
software at all times. INFOCON
performs off-site backups each
business day with the backups being
stored off campus.
County Responsibility County Responsibility
other systems
No No No No
Do we have a copy of the contract? https://drive.google.com/a/frankli
ncountypa.gov/?tab=mo#folders/0
B2pC7ZyEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk

Vendor LegalEdge AOPC AOPC Juvenile Court Judges'
Commission
Systems name LegalEdge CPCMS MDJ Juvenile Case Management System
(JCMS)
What system does Records Management System for new,
current and past cases for Public
Defenders.
current and past cases for Juvenile
Probation.
Who created it LegalEdge AOPC AOPC Juvenile Court Judges' Commission
Where is it located Public Defenders Clerk of Courts, Judges and Staff, Court
Administration
MDJ Offices Juvenile Probation
Who maintains the system LegalEdge AOPC AOPC Juvenile Court Judges' Commission
Any system documents None CPCMS is a multi-tiered client-server
application that is run and distributed
over Citrix Infrastructure to all our end
users. The Citrix Infrastructure allows
us to essentially run all traffic and
processing within our own data center
and only communicate from here to
user desktops by passing back and
forth encrypted screen scrapes.
The Magisterial District Judge System (MDJS)
provides case management and accounting
functions to all 569 Magisterial District Court
office locations and to Pittsburgh Municipal
Court. The MDJS is used to processes cases with
docket types that include Traffic, Non-Traffic,
Private Complaints (Summary and Court Cases),
Police Criminal Complaints, Landlord/Tenant,
Civil, and Miscellaneous Docket. The MDJS was
first deployed to Franklin County in 1990 with a
major system rewrite rolled out to Franklin
County district courts in the May of 2011. The
system software is proprietary to AOPC and the
hardware and network infrastructure is owned
and maintained by AOPC. In addition, AOPC
provides end user support which includes
continual training offerings, a 24-hour help desk,
and comprehensive online system
documentation that is updated weekly.
untypa.gov/?tab=mo#folders/0B2pC7Z
yEYtXlc1N5NmlCUHN6a2c
Any system diagrams None For security purposes I cannot provide
you a lot of information or diagrams
System diagrams and flow charts are
available within the end user online
documentation.
Any disaster recovery County Responsibility
We have a full secondary data center site
location that is located more than 200 miles
from our primary data center that is located
here in Mechanicsburg. Ironic timing with your
request as we do perform full testing of all our
systems running from this secondary location
once a year. CPCMS is in fact running today from
Pittsburgh as we failed out to our secondary
location a week ago and will be running from
there until early November. In the event of any
disaster scenario statewide or county, we will
work with the counties affected to get them
access to CPCMS in a timely manner. We are
fully prepared to handle all ranges of such items.
We have a full secondary data center site
location that is located more than 200 miles
from our primary data center that is located
here in Mechanicsburg. We perform full testing
of all our systems running from this secondary
location every other year. In the event of any
disaster scenario statewide or county, the AOPC
has a number of plans that we would execute
working with the counties affected to get them
access to MDJS in a timely manner. We are fully
prepared to handle all ranges of such items
other systems
No MDJ CPCMS No
Do we have a copy of the contract? https://drive.google.com/a/frankli
ncountypa.gov/?tab=mo#folders/0
B2pC7ZyEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk


Vendor JNET LexisNexis IMR Limited Correctional Counseling,
Inc
Systems name JNET LexisNexis Landex/Orphan's Court System Moral Reconation Therapy
What system does Commonwealth's primary public
safety and criminal justice information
broker.
Research system that provides a
collection of online content available
for courts and departments within the
courts system.
Records Management System for
Orphan's Court and Marriage Licenses.
Specialized treatment services for
offenders to reduce the cycle of
repeated incarceration and is desirous
of procuring training for staff in the
treatment intervention of Moral
Reconation Therapy ( MRT@).
Who created it JNET LexisNexis IMR Limited/Landex Correctional Counseling, Inc
Where is it located Sheriff's, Adult Probation Jail & Judges Clerk of Courts and Reg & Recorders Jail
Who maintains the system JNET LexisNexis IMR Limited/Landex Correctional Counseling, Inc
Any system documents None None The documentation is provided via
Help Screens in the software and this
information is updated each time a
new release or upgrade is provided to
the county as part of their software
maintenance support.
None
Any system diagrams None None The LANDEX software is running on a
hardware configuration agreed upon
by both parties and provided by
Franklin County
None
Any disaster recovery None LANDEX is providing Franklin County a
Hot Site Disaster Recovery system for
both the Orphans Court and
Recorder/Register instances of
LANDEX. All index and image data is
backed up nightly at the Optical
Storage Solutions office located in
Lebanon Pa.
None
other systems
cNET No No No
yEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk


Vendor Compass Group Prime Care Medical KeyTrak Appriss
Systems name Commissary CorEMR Key Keeper Savin
What system does Commissary needs for the Jail's
inmates and food services.
To provide medical services to
inmates.
Computerized key control system. Statewide Automated Victim
Information and Notification
Who created it Compass Group Prime Care Medical KeyTrak Appriss
Where is it located Jail Jail Jail Jail & District Attorney's
Who maintains the system Compass Group Prime Care Medical KeyTrak Appriss
Any system documents None None None None
Any system diagrams None None None None
Any disaster recovery None
other systems
No No No No
yEYtXlajlkUlpaaUNuRUk

Chapter 6 Recommendations
The following recommendations are ambitious. Many, especially for technology, are initiatives or
recommendations that are in progress or scheduled by statewide agencies to happen in the next year.

1.0 Communications and System-Wide Decision Making
Develop county-wide process for involvement of stakeholders in decisions. All the key players have not
been involved in the decision-making process (e.g., major systems decisions are sometimes made
without stakeholder involvement).

1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC)
Create a criminal justice coordinating committee (CJCC) to report to the Board of Commissioners
and Judges. The CJCC will report progress as required to CJAB. The CJCC will be a working
committee with at least one full or part-time staff person with defined duties that support the
objectives of justice reinvestment. Designated justice system stakeholders from each court
and agency will work with CJCC staff to coordinate research, data sharing, and reporting.

This should be the highest priority of the county in order to determine what are the most
effective policies and procedures to increase public safety, reduce recidivism and manage or
reduce costs. For five key Pennsylvania policy and practice changes recommended by PAs
Justice Reinvestment Strategy, go to http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/PA_2-page_report.pdf. For an example of a court (Contra Costa
County, CA) that has achieved significant progress in this area, go to: http://www.jfa-
associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf. Recommendations within the Communication
initiative are closely related to Initiative 2.0 Justice Reinvestment and 6.0 Justice Technology.
They include the following which should be initiated the first year of implementation:

Create a cross-agency integrated data repository to include juvenile and adult case data from
law enforcement, MDJS, CPCMS, Adult and Juvenile Probation and Jail system; in order to
provide justice system decision-makers with information about outcomes related to pretrial
diversion, pretrial release, program evaluation, early accountability, recidivism, and reduction in
jail population.

1.2A Criminal justice data standards. Establish National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) data
standards across county for criminal justice information; core defendant and charge information
(UCMS); plus casetype and disposition information. UCMS is built on NIEM standards and
requires data cleansing by each of the agency users, but exchange standards for e-filing and data
integration are critical to the implementation of shared services.

1.2B Standardize disposition types/nomenclature. Standard casetype and disposition information;
especially for aggregate and reporting purposes; align use and meaning of alternate phrasing,
correlate to MDJS and CPCMS reporting standards already in place.

1.2C Track jail population by pre/post trial. Track the number of summonsed defendants; arrested
defendants who are arraigned; the number of arrested defendants who are arraigned and make
bail; the number of arrested defendants who are arraigned and are bailed out, but cannot make
bail; the average and range of time a bailed defendant is held before making bail; and the
number of defendants who are held without bail.

1.2D Review MDJS active pending caseload. It is likely that many are inactive or unpaid fines that
have not been pursued. JMI recommends that the District Courts conduct a review of active
pending cases.

Recidivism study for alternative programs (mental health, day release program, work release).
Appropriate recidivism study data would provide direction to the county on the structure and
existence of inmate programs.

1.3A Track new charges after release on own recognizance (ROR)/bail

1.3B Track new charges after ROR/pretrial conditions

1.3C Track failures to appear on ROR/other pretrial conditions by highest charge

1.3D Track compliance with probation conditions for charge categories by highest charge

1.4 Early Accountability
Review Early Accountability in light of the Pennsylvania judicial code and the issues raised by the
PA Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys.

1.4A Evaluate early screening/waivers/ARD. Study ways to enable defendants, summonsed to appear
at the preliminary hearing, to discuss a plea negotiation with a prosecuting attorney, prior to the
preliminary hearing.

1.4B Consider additional representation at plea negotiation. Review and consider representation of
self-represented litgants at Central Court per Rule 122(A)(3) of the PA Code. Counsel shall be
appointed: in all cases, by the court, on its own motion, when the interests of justice require it.

1.4C Reduce continuances. Unnecessary continuances undermine public trust and confidence in the
justice system and delay justice. Affiants are scheduled to appear at the Preliminary Hearing,
many of which do not occur due to continuances. A delay at the Preliminary Hearing adds a
minimum of one, and often, two weeks to the time an incarcerated pretrial defendant will
spend in jail.

1.4D Reduce affiants appearance by 60-80%. Note that more than 80% of dispositions/outcomes do
not result in a Preliminary Hearing.

1.4E Additional Central Court computer. Provide additional computer at Central Court, if number of
scheduled/waived preliminary hearings remains high.

1.5 Early Discovery
Expedite release of information to public defender prior to first appearance in court to allow for
more preparation of the defense case.

1.5A Primary complaint document integration

1.6 Treatment Provider Management
Refine communication protocols between treatment providers and Adult Probation and
incorporate them into subcontracts.

1.6A Online case management reporting tool

1.6B Database of treatment providers and tracking

Initiate a justice reinvestment initiative as a primary focus of the CJCC (see above). Justice
reinvestment will be focused on alternatives to incarceration using evidence-based pretrial and
sentencing outcomes.

2.1 Probation Supervision Resources
Additional probation supervision resources are needed to provide effective diversion and
improve public safety. Resources include services and materials, such as electronic monitoring
and better web-based communication tools; and personnel to expand pretrial and probation
supervision. Resources need to be quantified and balanced by benefits, which include both
reduced costs and better outcomes.

Screen defendants at booking for flight risk and risk to public safety as a way to inform judges
about the appropriateness of pretrial supervision (instead of bail or high bail).

2.2A Consider use of PSA-Court risk assessment. Consider new Public Safety Assessment (PSA-Court)
risk assessment instrument at the jail, or even by law enforcement, at central booking for better
pretrial release information. May be completed without an interview and measures three
variables: likelihood to commit a new act of violence, commit a crime, and fail to appear for a
court hearing.

2.2B Evaluate use of money bail and alternatives. Consider new approaches to hold/release
decisions pretrial; evaluate outcomes in other jurisdictions and outcomes data from Pretrial
Justice Institute report.

2.3 Pretrial Eligibility Determination
Allow eligibility determinations to be made by the pre-release team for defined scope of cases.

2.3A Expand probation resources to conduct screening. Evaluate public safety impacts and better
outcomes as a result of providing resources to conduct pretrial screening at central booking by
law enforcement, corrections officers, or the Probation department.

2.3B Consider bail recommendations by probation.
Pilot a program in which the number of defendants who are screened for a) non-violence; b)
likely to appear; and c) unlikely to re-commit a crime, but cannot make bail, are tracked for
number of jail bed days utilized.

2.4 Pretrial Diversion
Encourage judges to divert more defendants directly to pretrial supervision with or without
bond.

2.4A Evaluate pretrial diversion alternatives

2.5 DRC Alternative to Commitment YEAR TWO
Encourage judges to sentence more offenders directly to the DRC.

2.5A Expand DRC to repeat probation violators

2.5B Study use of DRC for screened M1 and F3 categories

2.6 Jail Population Reduction Strategies YEARS ONE AND TWO
Explore ways to reduce length of pretrial incarceration majority of jail population held for trial.

2.6A Reduce average pending caseload

2.6B Consider time standards shorter than rule.

2.6C Reduce continuances at all CCP hearings . Unnecessary continuances undermine public trust and
confidence in the justice system and delay justice. A delay at the mandatory arraignment
potentially adds a minimum of usually two weeks; at the call of the list eight weeks; and at the
pretrial conference another eight weeks to the time a defendant, incarcerated pretrial may
spend in jail. See Chapter 1, Felonies and Misdemeanors for a detailed analysis.

Direct CJAB Technology Committee to conduct a strategic planning process for justice system technology
in coordination with a broader Franklin County Strategic Plan for Technology. An objective of this work
would be to build awareness and consensus among justice partners for integrating new case
management systems being developed at the State level with local business requirements. Develop a
broad set of requirements for integrating eFiling and electronic document management systems in all
local justice agencies.
3.1 Civil eFiling YEARS ONE AND TWO
A proof of concept study has been completed for civil e-filing. In addition, the PA Administrative
Office of the Courts is rolling out a new e-filing system in 2014 for family cases under the new
Unified Judicial System. It is an optimum time for Franklin County to proceed with
implementation of e-filing to be integrated with Infocon, the civil case management system and
with a new integrated document management system using Laserfiche.

3.2 Criminal eFiling YEARS ONE AND TWO
UCMS and the AOPC have been working together to build efiling data integration. Currently, the
PA State Police and a few townships have implemented an efiling solution with MDJS for traffic
citations. This initiative must build on that achievement and on the promise of full data
integration in criminal cases.

3.2A Efiling from Law Enforcement. Provide efiling from law enforcement for all complaints,
summons and citations.

3.2B Efiling from District Attorney. Provide efiling from District Attorney, UCMS to CPCMS for plea
negotiation, information and motions and orders.

3.2C Efiling from Public Defender. Provide efiling from Public Defender for calendar notices, motions
and orders.

3.2D Efiling from private attorneys. Provide efiling from private attorneys for calendar notices,
motions and orders.

3.3 Data Integration YEARS ONE TO THREE
The efiling and data needs across the front end of the criminal justice system start with law
enforcement and must include the Sheriff, jail, District Attorney, Public Defender, Adult and
Juvenile Probation, in addition to the courts. Franklin County can be a partner and leader in that
effort. Court, in collaboration with the Clerk of Court, should develop a system (at the time of
sentencing) for identifying of defendants sentenced to incarceration who have a current support
obligation. On the Civil side, Orphans Court is a standalone system.

3.3A Jail Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.3B Public Defender Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.3C Magisterial District Court Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.3D District Attorney Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.3E Court of Common Pleas Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.3F Adult Probation Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.3G Sheriff Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.3H DRC Data. See attached schedule of data integration touchpoints.

3.4 Document Management YEAR ONE
The Franklin County IT strategic plan must address the disparate, fragmented and non-
integrated document management tools in place across the justice system. Franklin County has
initiated a county-wide document management platform, but the structure and functional
requirements for justice system document management are not yet being met, for the following
reasons. Document management currently is not integrated or utilized in CPCMS or MDJS. A
new efiling initiative contemplates a solution that is heavily dependent on a third-party
document management solution, which would duplicate the document management solution in
the civil case management system, Infocon. UCMS allows for third party Document
Management Systems to be integrated with the application.

3.4A Scanning and Indexing. First steps to implement data integration are to provide a document
indexing structure in Laserfiche, independent of system integration. Justice system stakeholders
can begin to scan, index and retrieve documents.

Scan and index all Magisterial District Court records. Note that this recommendation is two-
phased: 1) Seek official interpretation of AOPC record retention schedule; and 2) implement
scanning and indexing.

3.4B Embed DMS into CPCMS. Embed Laserfiche document management system into CPCMS, similar
to a number of other counties. First phase is to simply launch scanning and retrieval from inside
CPCMS without leaving the application. Second step is to provide document index information
from Laserfiche back to CPCMS for retrieval.

3.4C Embed DMS into MDJS. Embed Laserfiche document management system into MDJS, similar to
a number of other counties. First phase is to simply launch scanning and retrieval from inside
MDJS without leaving the application. Second step is to provide document index information
from Laserfiche back to MDJS for retrieval.

3.4D Embed DMS into UCMS. Embed Laserfiche document management system into UCMS, similar
to a number of other counties. First phase is to simply launch scanning and retrieval from inside
UCMS without leaving the application. Second step is to provide document index information
from Laserfiche back to UCMS for retrieval.

3.4E Document Integration into UCMS

3.5 Integrated Calendars YEARS ONE AND TWO
Integrate information systems so that calendared juvenile case events are accessible to the
District Attorney, Juvenile Probation, the Public Defender, and the primary provider of juvenile
defense services. Provide DR access to Prothonotary's case management and imaging system
(Infocon). Domestic Relations has no way to track or view court calendars.

3.5A Calendars from MDJS to UCMS

3.5B Calendars from CPCMS to UCMS

3.6 ePay YEARS ONE AND TWO
Enhance the ePay system to allow for recurring payments and bank debits. Adult Probation
handles all payments for the county, including court fees (civil, too?), restitution, and fines.
Currently the ePay system allows for payment via credit card but not through bank debits (e.g.,
ACH) and it does not allow for setting up recurring payments from a given source. Expand
payment options through e-pay web portal. Provide read only access for Juvenile Probation to
the Adult Probation Payment System.

3.7 eSignatures YEAR THREE
Incorporate electronic signatures into the document management system that enables clients to
sign electronically (with an automated time stamp) through a signature pad. Adjust workflow
for front desk to log time entries themselves upon checking client identification.

3.8 Jail Management System Strategy YEAR ONE
UCMS has significant noted shortcomings for use at FCJ. Demonstrate the appropriateness of
the UCMS functionality, address adoption cycle, or develop plans for alternative Jail
Management software. Provide an electronic option for inmate tracking, perhaps utilizing
tablets. Computer assistance for inmate tracking does not exist. Jailers must manually conduct
inmate observations and track those observations on hard-copy records.

3.8A UCMS Rollout

3.8B UCMS Future Enhancements

3.9 Network Infrastructure YEAR ONE
Build landline internet connectivity infrastructure with redundancy and sufficient bandwidth to
accommodate maximum staff capacity at the Jail.

3.10 Cross-Agency Technology Training YEAR ONE
Initiate cross-agency technology training focused on building core competencies in CPCMS,
MDJS, UCMS (after rollout), Infocon or other civil systems, and Google Calendar. This initiative
should include a component dedicated to best practices in electronic document management.
Finalize implementation and staff training for document management system (e.g., Laserfiche).

3.11 UCMS YEARS ONE AND TWO
JMI recommends that the adoption of UCMS be escalated to a system-wide effort to implement
and integrate UCMS into the criminal justice system.

4-6 High Priority Standalone Recommendations
The following recommendations were based on consensus views for the need to address key issues
beyond the three primary initiatives. The following are recommended to be addressed or started in the
first year of implementation.

4.0 Jury Management
Clarification and streamlining of jury management staffing, resources and tools available, jury
pool data sources, calendaring and jury attendance, efficiency, and automation tools for juror
summons, intake, training and reimbursement.

The AOPC has identified self-represented litigants as a high-priority for Pennsylvania.

Facility and security issues affect all justice stakeholders. Facilities planning is long-term.
Changes are costly. A facilities study is recommended that is limited in scope to existing county
facilities, constrained by early, achievable budget targets and recognizes the need to leverage
technology and improved business processes to mitigate the need for additional program space.
The implementation plan will outline methods to reach these goals. A facilities study should be
planned and designed with a primary goal in mind to improve business processes and
functions. A facilities study conducted over 6 months should include: needs analysis and
projections, space program, engineering study (unless a study has been recently completed),
accessibility, security and segregated uses and access, three design and planning options, and
three cost estimates for renovation and modification. Study recommendations should also
include at minimum:

6.1 ADA Accessibility
6.2 Building Security
6.3 Security Staffing
6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training and Compensation

Integration Touchpoints

ID Entity Agency/Court Touch Point Functionality Source System Target System
1 1.0 Jail LE_01 Arrest CNet JMS
2

eFile_01 Complaint and Affidavit eFiling JMS
3

MDJS_02 Hearing List (Calendar) MDJS JMS
4

CPCMS_02 Hearing List (Calendar) CPCMS JMS
5 CPCMS_03 Orders (Commitments) CPCMS JMS
6 2.0 Public Defender MDJS_01 Complaint and Affidavit MDJS Legal Edge
7

MDJS_02 Calendar MDJS Legal Edge
8

MDJS_03 Orders (includes bail) MDJS Legal Edge
9

CL_01 Conflict Lawyer Assignment ? Legal Edge
10

eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling Legal Edge
11

CPCMS_01 Assignment CPCMS Legal Edge
12

CPCMS_02 Trial List (Calendar) CPCMS Legal Edge
13

CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS Legal Edge
14

CPCMS_04 Verdict CPCMS Legal Edge
15

CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS Legal Edge
16

DA_01 Bill of Information Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge
17

DA_02 Assignment Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge
18

DA_03 Discovery (Drop Box) Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge
19

DA_04 Plea Offers Prosecutors Mgmt Sys Legal Edge
20 PROB_01 Recommendations JNet Legal Edge
21 3.0 Magisterial District Court eFile_01 Complaint and Affidavit eFiling MDJS
22

eFile_02 Citations eFiling MDJS
23 eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling MDJS

24 4.0 District Attorney MDJS_01 Complaint and Affidavit MDJS UCMS
25

MDJS_02 Trial List (Calendar) MDJS UCMS
26

CL_01 Conflict Lawyer Assignment ? UCMS
27

eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling UCMS
28

CPCMS_01 Assignment CPCMS UCMS
29

CPCMS_02 Hearing List (Calendar) CPCMS UCMS
30

CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS UCMS
31

CPCMS_04 Verdict CPCMS UCMS
32

CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS UCMS
33

PD_01 Assignment Legal Edge UCMS
34

PD_02 Plea Counteroffers Legal Edge UCMS
35

PROB_01 Recommendations UCMS UCMS
36 PROB_03 Discharge UCMS UCMS
37 5.0 Court of Common Pleas MDJS_01 Complaint and Affidavit MDJS CPCMS
38

MDJS_03 Orders (includes bail) MDJS CPCMS
39

PD_01 Assignment Legal Edge CPCMS
40

CL_01 Conflict Lawyer Assignment ? CPCMS
41

DA_01 Bill of Information UCMS CPCMS
42

DA_02 Assignment UCMS CPCMS
43

DA_04 Plea Negotiation UCMS CPCMS
44 eFile_03 Criminal Motions eFiling CPCMS
45 6.0 Adult Probation CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS UCMS
46

CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS UCMS
47 SVC_01 Service Providers ? UCMS

48 7.0 Sheriff CPCMS_03 Warrant Orders CPCMS CNet
49

DOC_01 Prisoner Transfers UCMS CNet
50

JAIL_01 Prisoner Transfers UCMS CNet
51 COURT_01 Transfer Orders UCMS CNet
52 8.0 Day Reporting Center CPCMS_03 Orders CPCMS MRT
53

CPCMS_05 Sentence CPCMS MRT
54 SVC_01 Service Providers ? MRT

Chapter 7 Implementation Plan
The implementation plan on the following pages is based on JMI recommendations for prioritization of
first year business process changes on a three-year cycle. The recommendations incorporate significant
efforts in information technology. The supplementary facilities recommendations are not indexed to
any of the workflow processes, but reflect a consensus that security and access to existing courthouse
facilities are high priorities.

JMI recommends the following county-wide business process implementation strategies. The
recommendations are iterative. They are intended to be revised as the implementation planning phase
evolves and is sustained. The recommendations only include the initiatives and recommendations
recommended for implementation in the first year, continuing into the second year. Not all initiatives
and recommendations are included in the Implementation Plan.

Implementation Strategy 1 Goals and Outcomes
Each initiative is written as an objective with an implied goal or outcome. JMI recommends that the
county and all justice stakeholders craft a goal or expected outcome for each initiative. This process will
be conducted in three steps:
1. Draft initiative goals and submit them to the project management steering committee.
2. The steering committee will review and edit.
3. A collaborative session of CJAB and family casetype stakeholders will help to discuss and refine
the initiatives. Consensus will be reached by majority vote.

Implementation Strategy 2 Three Year Cycles
Organize the initiatives and recommendations into three year cycles at the conclusion of the
implementation planning process:
Year One Current projects, capacity building and high priority recommendations with low risk
Year Two Current and new targeted projects, combined with building structural foundations
Year Three System-wide projects that are based on good data and improved technology and
that target specific outcomes.

Implementation Strategy 3 Year One
JMI strongly recommends that the county and justice stakeholders focus on the following initiatives and
recommendations in Year One. They are proposed because they are current projects, capacity building
and high priority initiatives and recommendations. Major costs, except for staffing for 1.1 and 1.3
below, should not be incurred until Year Two.

1.0 County-Wide Communication and Decision-Making

1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC). Create a Criminal Justice Coordinating
Committee (CJCC) and full-time staff person, who will report to the County Commissioners and
Judges. The CJCC will be chaired by a CJAB designee and will include one full or part-time staff
person who will provide information to the CJAB chair and to the committee once per month.
The CJCC will include staff from all criminal justice courts and agencies. Designated justice
system stakeholders from each court and agency will work with CJCC staff to coordinate
research, data sharing, and reporting.

This should be the highest priority of the county in order to determine what are the most
effective policies and procedures to increase public safety, reduce recidivism and manage or
reduce costs. For five key Pennsylvania policy and practice changes recommended by PAs
Justice Reinvestment Strategy, go to http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/PA_2-page_report.pdf. For an example of a court (Contra Costa
County, CA) that has achieved significant progress in this area, go to: http://www.jfa-
associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf. Recommendations within the Communication
initiative are closely related to Initiative 2.0 Justice Reinvestment and 6.0 Justice Technology.
They include the following which should be initiated the first year of implementation:

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository. Close work with IT to map needed data.

1.3 Recidivism Study. Alignment of recidivism data with current jail population study.

1.4 Early Accountability Review. Review of early accountability outcomes after more data has
accumulated.


2.1 Probation Supervision Resources.

2.2 Pretrial Risk Screening. Evaluation of available tools and implementation of a risk screening tool
in collaboration with Adult Probation and justice stakeholders.

3.0 Justice Technology Strategic Plan
Few systemic issues can be addressed without good cross-agency data that are timely and integrated
and provide clear direction at every stage of a case lifecycle. Each key component of the technology
strategy will be on a different planning and development timeline or cycle. Year Two projects should be
well into or completed the planning phase by the end of Year One. All of the technology
recommendations should be included in the county-wide strategic plan, but focus must be on active and
planned IT projects, to include at minimum:

3.1 Civil eFiling (POC completed)
3.2 Criminal eFiling (planned integration between UCMS and CPCMS)
3.3 Data Integration (planned integration between UCMS and CPCMS)
3.4 Document Management (infrastructure is in place)
3.9 Jail Management System Strategy (UCMS project in progress)
3.11 Cross Agency Technology Training (critical need)
3.12 UCMS (project in progress, requires functional gap analysis)

4-6 High-Priority Recommendations

4.0 Jury Management. Clarification and streamlining of jury management staffing, resources and
tools available, jury pool data sources, calendaring and jury attendance, efficiency, and
automation tools for juror summons, intake, training and reimbursement.

5.0 Civil Casetypes Self Represented Litigants. This is a low-risk, low-cost, high reward
recommendation. First year objectives should include, at minimum, online and hardcopy
information and brochures about the justice system, how file cases, submit motions and
manage the litigation process. In addition, the PA Courts and administrative office is calling for
an initiative to assist self-represented litigants in county courts. The impact on public
perceptions will be significant.

6.0 Facilities and Security Study. Facility and security issues affect all justice stakeholders. Facilities
planning is long-term. Changes are costly. A facilities study is recommended that is limited in
scope to existing county facilities, constrained by early, achievable budget targets and
recognizes the need to leverage technology and improved business processes to mitigate the
need for additional program space. The implementation plan will outline methods to reach
these goals. A facilities study should be planned and designed with a primary goal in mind to
improve business processes and functions. A facilities study conducted over 6 months should
include: needs analysis and projections, space program, engineering study (unless a study has
been recently completed), accessibility, security and segregated uses and access, three design
and planning options, and three cost estimates for renovation and modification. Study
recommendations should also include at minimum:

4.3A ADA Accessibility
4.3B Building Security
4.3C Security Staffing
4.3D Staffing Recruitment, Training and Compensation

Years One and Two Implementation Communication and System-Wide Decision Making
September 1, 2014 August 31, 2015
Steps Initiatives and Action Steps CJAB Committee Key Participants Start Date End Date Status
1 Communication and System-Wide Decision Making 9/1/2014 10/31/2014
1.0.1 Goals and objectives All stakeholders Board chairs 9/1/2014 10/31/2014
1.0.2 Stakeholders commitment All stakeholders Elected officials, managers 9/1/2014 10/31/2014

1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) 9/1/2014 11/30/2014
1.1.1 Re-configure CJAB to incorporate CJCC, chair and membership Evaluation and Caseflow Chairs, C Gray, M Singer 9/1/2014 9/30/2014
1.1.2 CJCC charter and funding County, Eval and
Caseflow
County, Chairs 9/1/2014 9/30/2014
1.1.3 CJCC Coordinator job description County, Eval and
Caseflow
Shalom, C Gray, M Singer 9/1/2014 9/30/2014
1.1.4 CJCC Coordinator advertisement County, Eval and
Caseflow
Shalom, C Gray 10/1/2014 10/31/2014
1.1.5 CJCC Coordinator interviews and selection County, Chairs and
Caseflow
Shalom, Chairs, 11/1/2014 11/20/2014
1.1.6 CJCC Coordinator hiring and orientation County County 11/20/2014 11/30/2014

1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository 12/1/2014 2/28/2015
1.2.1 Establish primary data sets for tracking events and outcomes CJCC* CJCC Coordinator 12/1/2014 1/31/2015
1.2.2 Determine source an ownership of data CJCC CJCC Coordinator 1/1/2015 2/28/2015
1.2.3 Conduct gap analysis of systems data CJCC CJCC Coordinator 1/1/2015 2/28/2015
1.2.4 Identify and implement best approach for supplementing missing
data
CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015
1.2.5 Configure monthly data extracts for available data CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015
1.2.6 All reports (other tasks) should be keyed/indexed to data sets CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015
1.2.7 Maintain data indexes for reports CJCC CJCC Coordinator 3/1/2015 8/31/2015

1.3.1 Establish research guidelines and human subject safeguards CJCC CJCC Coordinator 12/1/2014 1/31/2015
1.3.2 Determine sampling and control groups CJCC CJCC Coordinator 1/1/2015 2/28/2015
1.3.3 Data gap analysis use of historical (e.g. ARD) or day-forward (e.g.
EAP) samples
1.3.4 Add data elements to UCMS or capture data manually CJCC CJCC Coordinator 2/1/2015 2/28/2015
1.3.5 Begin study using monthly data on all immediate past or future
dispositions
1.3.6 For day-forward evaluate results after one year CJCC CJCC Coordinator 3/1/2016 3/31/2016

1.4 Early Accountability Review
1.4.1 Assemble and configure pre-Sep 2013 outcome data tables CJCC CJCC Coordinator, A Everetts 12/1/2014 1/31/2015
1.4.2 Assemble and configure ongoing data tables for post-2013
outcomes
CJCC CJCC Coordinator, A Everetts 12/1/2014 1/31/2015
1.4.3 Ensure outcome tracking for both preliminary (MDJ) and plea
hearings (CCP)
1.4.4 Identify and ensure time markers for procedural changes at Central
Court
1.4.5 Draft monthly reports for outcome feedback and approval from
stakeholders
1.4.6 Feed key data to Recidivism Study CJCC CJCC Coordinator, A Everetts 12/1/2014 8/31/2015
*Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Years One and Two Implementation Justice Reinvestment
2 Justice Reinvestment

2.1 Probation Supervision Resources
2.1.1
Project and quantify material resources needed for supervision
(e.g. EMUs)
CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, Dan Hoover 12/1/2014 12/31/2014
2.1.2 Project and quantify personnel resources for pretrial supervision CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DH 12/1/2014 2/28/2015
2.1.3 Project and quantify personnel resources for probation supervision CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DH 12/1/2014 2/28/2015
2.1.4 Calculate costs for material and personnel resources CJCC CJCC Coordinator, County, DH 3/1/2015 3/31/2015
2.1.5
Index pretrial and probation supervision to reduced jail population
costs
CJCC CJCC Coordinator, County 3/1/2015 3/31/2015
2.1.6 Establish two-year phased implementation CJCC, CJAB County, DH 3/31/2015 4/30/2015
2.1.7 Implement first-year plan for material and diversion resources CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DH, County 5/1/2015 8/31/2015

2.2.1
Evaluate pretrial risk screening tools accuracy (report) (e.g. KPRA-S
/PSA-Court)
CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, Dane Anthony 12/1/2014 1/31/2015
2.2.2 Select risk screening instrument CJCC, CJAB MDJs, CJCC Coordinator, DA 1/31/2015 2/28/2015
2.2.3 Identify costs for implementation and training CJCC CJCC Coordinator, County 1/31/2015 3/31/2015
2.2.4 Identify personnel and methodology (law enforcement or jail) CJCC CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police Chiefs 1/31/2015 3/31/2015
2.2.5 Get buy-in CJCC, CJAB CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police Chiefs 12/1/2014 4/30/2015
2.2.6 Adopt risk screening instrument CJAB County, CJCC Coordinator 3/31/2015 4/30/2015
2.2.7 Training CJCC CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police 4/30/2015 5/31/2015
2.2.8 Go Live CJAB MDJs, CJCC Coordinator, DA, Police 6/1/2015

Years One and Two Implementation Information Technology Strategic Plan
3 Information Technology Strategic Plan
3.0.1 Draft WAN and LAN (each building) diagrams Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014
3.0.2 Update inventory of all County-funded hardware and software
(network/user)
Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014
3.0.3 Document existing high-level functions of primary case
management systems
3.0.4 Gap analysis of existing and needed functional requirements for
core CMSs
3.0.5 Document functional requirements for civil e-filing (5.2) Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 2/28/2015
3.0.6 Document functional requirements for criminal e-filing (5.3) Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 12/31/2014
3.0.7 Document functional requirements for data integration (5.4) Technology County CIO, IT staff 3/1/2015 3/31/2015
3.0.8 Document functional requirements for document management
(5.5)
3.0.9 Document functional requirements for fee transactions (civil) Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 4/30/2015
3.0.10 Phased cost analysis Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015
3.0.11 Draft Strategic Plan report for review by stakeholders Technology County CIO, IT staff 6/1/2015 6/30/2015
3.0.12 Final IT Strategic Plan report Technology County CIO, IT staff 7/1/2015 7/31/2015

3.1 Civil eFiling (POC completed)
3.1.1 DR and Family Evaluate and incorporate Family eFiling from
AOPC
Technology County CIO, IT staff, civil power
users
9/1/2014 10/31/2014
3.1.2 DR and Family Gap analysis of document integration into
Infocon or Laserfiche
Technology County CIO, IT staff, civil power
users
10/1/2014 10/31/2014
3.1.3 DR and Family High level functional requirements needed Technology County CIO, IT staff, civil power
users
11/1/2014 22/28/2015
3.1.4 DR and Family Submit requirements to AOPC Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 2/1/2015 2/28/2015
3.1.5 Civil High level functional requirements for civil e-filing Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 11/1/2014 2/28/2015
3.1.6 Civil System requirements Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 11/1/2014 2/28/2015
3.1.7 Civil Draft procurement document Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 3/1/2015 4/30/2015
3.1.8 Civil RFP and submission process Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 5/1/2015 6/30/2015
3.1.9 Civil Evaluation and contracting Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 7/1/2015 8/31/2015
3.1.10 Civil Implementation Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 9/1/2015 12/31/2015
3.1.11 Civil Testing Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 12/15/2015 1/15/2016
3.1.12 Civil Training Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 1/15/2016 1/31/2016
3.1.13 Civil Go Live Technology County CIO, IT staff, power users 2/1/2016

3.2 Criminal eFiling (planned D.A. integration between UCMS and
CPCMS)

3.2.1 Criminal Document criminal e-filing functions from law
enforcement to MDJS
Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal
power users
9/1/2014 9/30/2014
3.2.2 Criminal Document criminal e-filing functions from D.A. to
CPCMS
power users
10/1/2014 10/31/2014
3.2.3 Criminal Document criminal e-filing functions from Adult
Probation to CPCMS
power users
11/1/2014 11/30/2014
3.2.4 Criminal Document criminal e-filing functions from attorneys to
CPCMS
power users
12/1/2014 12/31/2014
3.2.5 Gap analysis of e-filing functions from UCMS (D.A. and A.P.) to
CPCMS
power users
1/1/2015 1/31/2015
3.2.6 Document high level system requirements for criminal e-filing Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal
power users
2/1/2015 2/28/2015
3.2.7 Submit requirements to CCAP and AOPC Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal
power users
3/1/2015

3.3 Data Integration (planned integration between UCMS and
CPCMS)

3.3.1 Document calendaring integration functions to be provided Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal
power users
3/1/2015 3/31/2015
3.3.2 Document filing and disposition integration functions to be
provided
power users
3/1/2015 3/31/2015
3.3.3 Gap analysis of calendaring integration into UCMS from CPCMS Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal
power users
4/1/2015 4/30/2015
3.3.4 Gap analysis of filing and disposition integration into UCMS from
CPCMS
power users
4/1/2015 4/30/2015
3.3.5 Document system requirements for integration Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal
power users
5/1/2015 5/31/2015
3.4.6 Submit requirements to CCAP and AOPC Technology County CIO, IT staff, criminal
power users
6/1/2015

3.4 Document Management (infrastructure is in place)
3.4.1 Evaluation and documentation of key DM functions (categories
for all types)
3.4.2 Map three targeted DM functional requirements (e.g. complaints,
motions, orders)
3.4.3 System requirements for document management Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015
3.4.4 Issue task order to host system developers/submit requirements
to CCAP & AOPC
3.4.5 Negotiate and execute contracts for county developers Technology County CIO, IT staff 7/1/2015 7/31/2015
3.4.6 Vendor implementation Technology County CIO, IT staff 8/1/2015 10/31/2015
3.4.7 IT Implementation of Laserfiche data indexing structure Technology County CIO, IT staff 8/1/2015 10/31/2015
3.4.8 Testing Technology County CIO, IT staff 11/1/2015 11/15/2015
3.4.9 Training Technology County CIO, IT staff 11/16/2015 11/30/2015
3.4.10 Go Live Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/1/2015

3.5 UCMS Unified Case Management System
3.5.1 Document functions of offender portal Technology County CIO, IT staff 3/1/2015 3/31/2015
3.5.2 Document functions of new Adult Probation module Technology County CIO, IT staff 3/1/2015 3/31/2015
3.5.3 Document functions of new District Attorney module Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 4/30/2015
3.5.4 Document functions of new Jail Management module Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 4/30/2015
3.5.5 Conduct gap analysis Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015
3.5.6 Evaluation of Year 2 and Year 3 requirements Technology County CIO, IT staff 5/1/2015 5/31/2015
3.5.7 Submit requirements to CCAP Technology County CIO, IT staff 6/1/2015

3.6 Cross Agency Technology Training (critical need)
3.6.1
Draft user manuals for county shared services (email, office
automation, SMS)
Technology, Evaluation County CIO, IT staff, super users 9/1/2014 10/31/2014
3.6.2
Draft user manuals for document management (Laserfiche
standalone)
Technology County CIO, IT staff, super users 9/1/2014 10/31/2014
3.6.3
Draft user manuals for enterprise systems (HR, finance,
procurement)
3.6.4
Evaluate agency and user interest survey instrument target
county systems
3.6.5 Schedule training sessions Technology County CIO, IT staff, super users 11/1/2014 11/30/2014
3.6.6 Conduct first year training sessions Technology County CIO, IT staff, super users 12/1/2014 8/31/2015
3.6.7 Assemble user manuals for UCMS from CCAP
Technology, Justice
Network
County CIO, IT staff, super users 9/1/2014 2/28/2015
3.6.8 Assemble user manuals for CPCMS and MDJS from AOPC
Technology, Caseflow
Mgmt
3.6.9 Assemble user manuals for Infocon
Mgmt
3.6.9 Incorporate state and vendor systems into county training
Mgmt

3.7 Jury Management Software (requires a POC and best practices
analysis)

3.7.1 Functional requirements Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014
3.7.2 System requirements and data integration Technology County CIO, IT staff 9/1/2014 11/30/2014
3.7.3 Proof of concept evaluations of jury management software Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/1/2014 1/31/2015
3.7.4 Draft procurement document Technology County CIO, IT staff 2/1/2015 3/31/2015
3.7.5 RFP and submission process Technology County CIO, IT staff 4/1/2015 5/31/2015
3.7.6 Evaluation and contracting Technology County CIO, IT staff 6/1/2015 7/31/2015
3.7.7 Implementation Technology County CIO, IT staff 8/1/2015 11/30/2015
3.7.8 Testing Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/1/2015 12/15/2015
3.7.9 Training Technology County CIO, IT staff 12/15/2015 12/31/2015
3.7.10 Go Live Technology County CIO, IT staff 1/1/2016

Years One and Two Implementation High Priority Standalone Recommendations

4-6 High-Priority Standalone Recommendations

4.0 Jury Management (for software, see 3.7)
4.1.1 Workflow process analysis Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 9/1/2014 10/31/2014
4.1.2 Reorganization proposal Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 11/1/2014 11/30/2014
4.1.3 Re-classification of staff and assignments Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 12/1/2014 2/28/2015
4.1.4 Alignment with jury management software project Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 3/1/2015 3/31/2015
4.1.5 Implementation of new jury management staffing structure Caseflow Court Admin, Judges, Clerks 3/1/2015 4/30/2015

5.1.1 Hardcopy forms and guidance materials Caseflow Court Administration, Judges 9/1/2014 1/31/2015
5.1.2 Online county-based resources IT IT, Judges 9/1/2014 1/31/2015
5.1.3 Self-help center study and analysis Caseflow Court Administration, Judges 1/1/2015 3/31/2015

6.1.1 RFP for facilities master plan update Facilities County Administration, Judges 9/1/2014 10/31/2014
6.1.2 Facilities master plan update and engineering study Facilities County Administration, Judges 11/1/2014 2/28/2015
6.1.3 Financing Facilities County Administration, Judges 1/1/2015 3/31/2015
6.1.4 RFP for architects/engineers Facilities County Administration, Judges 4/1/2015 7/31/2015
6.1.5 Renovation and expansion project Facilities County Administration, Judges 2015 2016

Chapter 8 Costs and Benefits
The following estimated costs and benefits are primarily monetary, and also based on derived efficiencies. They range across all recommendations over a multi-year implementation. For each
initiative, a detailed cost estimate must be completed and measured against the outcomes. Qualitative benefits are described in the narrative body of the report.

COSTS
1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinator In-House Low High Notes
Advertising $200 $500
Computer and Equipment $1,500 $1,500
Office Space (no incremental cost) $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $1,700 $2,000
CJCC coordinator annual salary $60,000 $75,000
Annual Benefits (35%) $21,000 $26,250
Total Annual Costs $0 $81,000 $101,250

Phase One In-House
Manual data collection $0
Staffing work by CJCC coordinator $0
Total Cost $0

Phase Two
In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost
Phase two data repository software OS $0 $0
Repository configuration and setup $0 $20,000 $40,000
Data integration configuration and setup $0 $40,000 $60,000
Subtotal $0 $60,000 $100,000

1.3 Recidivism Study In-House

1.4 Early Accountability In-House

1.5 Early Discovery In-House

2.1 Pretrial Risk Screening In-House Low High
Training $0 $10,000 $15,000
Subtotal $0 $10,000 $15,000

2.2 Pretrial Eligibility Determination In-House

2.3 Pretrial Diversion In-House

2.4 DRC Alternatives to Commitment In-House

2.5 Jail Population Reduction Strategies In-House

2.6 Probation Supervision Resources In-House Low High
CJCC Coordinator analysis and cost estimates $0 $0 $0
Increase GPS monitoring (low-50%; high 100%) $0 $0 $0
Add pretrial staff (low-2; high-4)
PO annual salary x2; x4 $90,000 $180,000
Annual Benefits (35%) $31,500 $63,000
Office space leased (200 sf ea) $4,000 $8,000
Subtotal Annual Costs $128,625 $257,125

IT STRATEGIC PLAN In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost
Notes
3.1 Justice Technology Strategic Plan $0 $60,000 $120,000

3.2 Civil e-Filing
In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost
Software NA $0 $120,000 Low cost is freeware + atty subscriptions
Data integration with Infocon NA $20,000 $50,000
Document integration with Infocon NA $10,000 $20,000
Contingency (15%) NA $4,500 $28,500
Subtotal $0 $34,500 $218,500
Annual maintenance $0 $0 $10,000

3.3 Criminal e-Filing
In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost
UCMS and CPCMS D.A. e-filing NA $0 $0
Law enforcement e-filing from field tech NA $120,000 $160,000 Modules provided by county
Attorney e-filing (piggyback on civil) NA $0 $10,000 Piggyback on civil e-filing
Data integration with CPCMS/MDJS NA $60,000 $80,000 Use of web services
Document integration with Laserfiche NA $20,000 $20,000 Use of web services
Contingency (15%) NA $30,000 $40,500
Subtotal $0 $230,000 $310,500
Annual maintenance $0 $15,000 $30,000 Piggyback on civil e-filing

3.4 Data Integration
In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost Only if standalone from e-filing
See data integration in e-filing above NA $0 $0
Data integration with CPCMS/MDJS NA $60,000 $80,000 Primarily e-filing
Data integration with Infocon NA $50,000 $50,000 Primarily e-filing
UCMS and CPCMS data integration NA $0 $0
Subtotal $0 $110,000 $130,000

3.5 Document Management
In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost
Three targeted Laserfiche functions $0 NA NA
Full document integration with Infocon $0 $15,000 $30,000 Costs from Infocon
DMS embed in CPCMS/MDJS $0 $15,000 $30,000 Costs from AOPC
DMS embed/integration in UCMS $0 $15,000 $30,000 Costs from CCAP
Subtotal $0 $45,000 $90,000

3.6 UCMS In-House Low High
Function analysis $0 $10,000 $20,000
Gap analysis $0 $5,000 $10,000

3.7 Cross-Agency Technology Training In-House Low High
Training documents $0 $3,000 $5,000

3.8 Jury Management Software
In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost
Requirements $0 $15,000 $30,000
Bidding/Procurement/Project Management $500 $15,000 $30,000
Development and Licenses NA $30,000 $60,000
Training NA $2,000 $5,000
Subtotal $500 $62,000 $125,000
Annual maintenance $2,000 $2,000 $5,000

4.0 Jury Management In-House Low High
No Costs $0 $0 $0

5.0 Civil Casetypes Self-Represented Litigants In-House Low High
Hardcopy & online forms and assistance $0 $2,000 $5,000
Self-help website $0 $5,000 $8,000
Self-help center (1 staff + volunteers)
Staff annual salary $30,000 $40,000
Annual Benefits (35%) $10,500 $14,000
Office space leased (400 sf ea) $0 $3,200 $4,800
Subtotal Annual Costs $0 $45,325 $60,425

6.0 Facilities Expansion and Renovation In-House
Contracted
Low Cost
Contracted High
Cost
Master plan program update $80,000 $120,000
Engineering study $60,000 $100,000
Design and documentation $787,500 $810,000
Bidding $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Construction costs $13,500,000 $16,200,000 (90,000 sf x $150-180/sf)
Technology $500,000 $750,000
Fitout $400,000 $800,000
Subtotal $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000
Annual maintenance (energy/environment) (TBD) (TBD)

6.1 Facilities Security In-House Low High
Study $0 $10,000 $15,000
Staffing salaries TBD TBD TBD
In-House Low High
Total Investment Costs $1,500 $648,200 $1,164,000
Total Facility Costs $1,000 $15,329,500 $18,783,000

Total Annual Costs $2,000 $271,950 $463,800
Total Annual Costs x 3 years $6,000 $815,850 $1,391,400
Total Annual Costs x 10 years $20,000 $2,719,500 $4,638,000

BENEFITS
A Jail Reduction Strategies
In-House Low High Notes
Reduce time to disposition for 116 defendants NA $678,600 $1,017,900 Low = 50% of 116; high = 75% of 116
Reduce pretrial population by 10% and 15% NA $581,263 $871,894 Currently at approx. 70% of 350 beds
Subtotal Annual NA $1,259,863 $1,889,794

B Productivity Efficiency Strategies
3.2 Civil e-Filing 50% 100%

notifications $80,048 $160,096 Assumes 15 minutes/hearing x 3 staff

3.3 Criminal e-Filing 50% 100%

notifications $80,048 $160,096 Assumes 15 minutes/hearing x 3 staff
Reduction in continuances x 1 per case (CCP only) $27,379 $54,757 Assumes 15 minutes/hearing x 3 staff

Annual Savings NA $1,471,229 $2,312,526
Three-Year Savings NA $4,413,686 $6,937,578
Ten-Year Savings NA $14,712,287 $23,125,261
Appendix 1
Initiatives and Recommendations Survey Results

Initiatives
The following chart illustrates the results of ranking 6 initiatives across Franklin County, both weighted
by agency and using the raw scores from the surveys. The weighted average balances the results evenly
across 17 county courts, agencies and departments.

Initiatives
Weighted
AVG
Raw
AVG
1.0 Communications and System-Wide Decision Making 4.29 4.29
2.0 Justice Reinvestment 4.09 4.06
5.0 Justice System Technology Strategic Plan 3.69 4.03
3.0 Comprehensive Jury Management Project 3.45 3.12
4.0 Civil Communication & Case Management 2.94 2.89
6.0 Facilities and Security Study 2.86 2.88

Recommendations
4.29
4.09
3.69
3.45
2.94
2.86
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 6.0
Weighted Average
The following chart illustrates the top 12 recommendations as scored by 16 courts and agencies, for two
measurements: 1) Beneficial to Franklin County; and 2) Feasible to implement.

No. Beneficial to Franklin County (10 = highest score)
Weighted
AVG
Raw
AVG
2.6 Probation Supervision Resources * 9.14 9.23
5.3 Data Integration 8.78 8.62
6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study * 8.72 8.43
6.2 Building Security * 8.70 8.50
5.13 Cross-Agency Technology Training* 8.47 8.68
5.2 Criminal eFiling 8.44 8.88
1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository 8.17 8.67
6.3 Security Staffing 8.11 8.27
6.1 ADA Accessibility* 8.11 7.94
5.9 Jail Management System Strategy 8.08 8.00
5.5 Document Management 8.07 8.33
4.4 Self-Represented Litigants* 8.03 8.30

No. Feasible to Implement (10 = highest score)
Weighted
AVG
Raw
AVG
6.2 Building Security* 8.35 8.56
4.3 Rules of Court Updates 8.10 8.32
3.1 Jury Management Staffing 7.96 8.22
2.6 Probation Supervision Resources* 7.89 8.86
5.12 Network Infrastructure 7.82 7.26
4.6 Document Management Workflow 7.76 8.29
6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study* 7.75 7.66
4.2 Appellate Decision Dissemination 7.48 8.30
3.2 Jury Management Software 7.44 7.89
4.4 Self-Represented Litigants* 7.44 8.46
5.13 Cross-Agency Technology Training* 7.43 7.52
6.1 ADA Accessibility* 7.40 7.29

*Top 12 on both beneficial and feasible.
The following six charts illustrate the recommendation scores within each initiative according to the two
measurements (beneficial and feasible) by weighted average. The recommendations have been sorted
by Beneficial Score (highest to lowest).

Initiative 1(highest ranked initiative)
Communications and System-Wide Decision Making
Recommendation Beneficial Feasible
1.2 Cross-Agency Integrated Data Repository 8.17 6.72
1.7 Probation and DR Integration 7.74 7.00
1.4b Expedite info release for Early Accountability 7.52 6.34
1.3 Recidivism Study 7.41 7.17
1.8 Accounts Payable 6.86 5.71
1.5 Treatment Provider Management 6.61 6.63
1.4a Review Early Accountability 6.58 6.97
1.1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) 6.49 6.80
1.6 Juvenile Defense Provider Contract 6.25 5.88

Initiative 2 (second highest ranked initiative)
Justice Reinvestment
2.6 Probation Supervision Resources 9.14 7.89
2.1 Pretrial Risk Screening 7.31 6.81
2.2 Pretrial Eligibility Determination 7.11 6.56
2.3 Pretrial Diversion 6.93 5.76
2.4 DRC Alternative to Commitment 6.93 6.62
2.5 Post-Incarceration DRC Eligibility 6.49 5.75

Initiative 5 (third highest ranked initiative)
Franklin County Justice System Technology Strategic Plan
5.3 Data Integration 8.78 7.15
5.13 Cross-Agency Technology Training 8.47 7.43
5.2 Criminal eFiling 8.44 6.69
5.9 Jail Management System Strategy 8.08 6.99
5.5 Document Management 8.07 5.75
5.15 UCMS 7.96 7.14
5.4 Juvenile Case Integration 7.94 6.40
5.1 Civil eFiling 7.84 6.92
5.10 Probation Treatment Provider Management System 7.52 6.64
5.11 Juvenile Probation Summons 7.28 6.78
5.6 Integrated Calendars 7.22 6.78
5.7 ePay 7.00 6.97
5.8 eSignatures 6.97 6.97
5.14 DR Access to Infocon 6.81 6.29
5.12 Network Infrastructure 6.41 7.82

Initiative 3
Comprehensive Jury Management Project
3.2 Jury Management Software 7.29 7.44
3.1 Jury Management Staffing 6.79 7.96

Initiative 4
Civil Communication & Case Management
4.4 Self-Represented Litigants 8.03 7.44
4.3 Rules of Court Updates 7.94 8.10
4.6 Workflow 7.72 7.76
4.2 Appellate Decision Dissemination 6.89 7.48
4.5 Judge Reports 6.79 6.53
4.1 Alimony Pendente Lite (APL) 6.75 6.93

Initiative 6
Facilities and Security Study
6.4 Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study 8.72 7.75
6.2 Building Security 8.70 8.35
6.1 ADA Accessibility 8.11 7.40
6.3 Security Staffing 8.11 7.25
6.5 Parking 7.82 6.54

Notes

1. The highest ranked initiative, Communication, has only one recommendation, Cross-Agency
Integrated Data Repository that scores among the top-twelve beneficial or feasible
recommendations.

2. The second highest ranked initiative, Justice Reinvestment, also has only one recommendation,
Probation Supervision Resources that scores among the top twelve beneficial or feasible
recommendations.

3. The lowest ranked initiative, Facilities and Security Study, has four recommendations that score
among the top twelve beneficial or feasible recommendations; three in both categories:
Building Security
Staffing Recruitment, Training, and Compensation Study
Security Staffing
ADA Accessibility

These three results are remarkable. They are due to at least two speculative and observable causes:
1) the methodology for the ranking and the scoring and the stated approach to focusing on key
recommendations outside the high-ranked initiatives shifted the thinking of the participants to focus
on key recommendations, distinct from the initiatives; and 2) the use of a 10-scale scoring resulted in
a large number of high scores, with few participants choosing low scores
55
.

The weighted averages across courts/agencies has the tendency to push scores down and smooth
out the high extremes from the raw averages.

4. The lowest beneficial weighted recommendation, Juvenile Defense Provider Contract, receives a
score of 6.3 and a raw score of 6.9.

5. The lowest feasible weighted recommendation, Accounts Payable, receives a weighted score of 5.7
and raw score of 7.6. Notably, the lowest feasible recommendation based on raw scores is
Document Management with a score of 5.5.

6. Five technology recommendations are viewed by the participants as highly beneficial, but only two
are scored as feasible.

55
Over 50% of the beneficial recommendations and 30% of the feasible recommendations had a median score of 9
or higher.

Appendix 2
Teams and Participants

Franklin County Board of Commissioners
David S. Keller, Chairman, Board of Commissioners
Robert L. Thomas, Commissioner
Robert G. Ziobrowski, Commissioner

Franklin County Administration
John Hart, County Administrator
Carrie Gray, Assistant County Administrator
Sean Crager, Chief Information Officer

President Judge Douglas Herman
Honorable Carol VanHorn
Honorable Angela Krom
Honorable Shawn Meyers
Honorable Jeremiah Zook
Mark Singer, Court Administrator
Andy Everetts, Deputy Court Administrator
Gale Kendall, Deputy Court Administrator

Domestic Relations
Teresa Anthony, Director, Domestic Relations
Jodi Foose, Supervisor
Jennifer Newman, Staff Attorney
Sherrie Stroble, Supervisor
Julie Washabaugh, Supervisor
Tammy Baldner, Intake
Jenny Muzzio, Conference Officer

Adult Probation
Daniel Hoover, Chief
Judy Shoemaker, Payment Division Supervisor
Kevin Zook, DUI Unit Supervisor
Joe Maclaughlin, Adult Unit Supervisor
Barbara Burns, Pre-Release Unit

Day Reporting Center
Kim Eaton, Director

Juvenile Probation
Kati McGrath, Chief
Jim Hepler, Supervisor
Kerri Washabaugh, Administrative Assistant
Ruby Hawbaker, Department Clerk
Linda Gadberry, Department Clerk
Brandon Goshorn, Juvenile Probation
Eric Hewitt, Juvenile Probation
Erin Kramer, Probation Officer
Dora Housekeeper, Juvenile Probation
Tara Whitsel, Juvenile Probation
Autumn Cessna, Specialized Intensive Services Officer
John DeSalis, Probation Officer
Rick Ackerman, Probation Officer

Clerk of Court
William Vandrew, Clerk of Court
Amy Hall, staff, Clerk of Court

Prothonotary
Linda Beard, Prothonotary
Deanna Hartman, First Deputy, Prothonotary

Magisterial District Chief Judge Larry G Pentz
Magisterial District Judge Duane Cunningham
Magisterial District Judge Glenn K Manns
Magisterial District Judge Kelly Rock
Magisterial District Judge Jody C Eyer
Magisterial District Judge Todd R Williams
Magisterial District Judge David Plum
Becky Denham, Secretary, MDJ Mann

District Attorney
Matt Fogal, District Attorney
Krystal Nei, Office Manager
Lauren Sulcove, First Assistant District Attorney

Public Defender
Mike Toms, Chief Public Defender
Ian Brink, First Assistant Public Defender
Shannon Barnett, Assistant Public Defender (juvenile cases)
Kelly High, Paralegal and Intake
Alex Ash, Legal Secretary
Nancy Mackley, Legal Secretary
Steph Mellott, Caseworker
Terry Sanders, Investigator

Juvenile Defender
Kristen Hamilton, Juvenile Defender

Sheriffs Office
Dane Anthony, Sheriff
Randy Stroble, Chief Deputy Sheriff
Michael Powell, Public Information Specialist

Franklin County Jail
Dan Keen, Warden
Jay Sullen, Captain
Lionel Pierre, Central Booking Administrator
Melyssa Flud, Director of Specialized Services
Michelle Weller, Deputy Warden
Russ Rouzer, Deputy Warden

Children and Youth Services
Doug Amsley, Director, Children and Youth Services

Police Department Representatives
Lt. Hall
Lt. Johnson, Pennsylvania State Police
John Phillippy, Greencastle Chief

CJAB Staff
Shalom Black, Director
Elizabeth Grant, Grants Associate

Appendix 3
Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission (CJCC) Coordinator
Sample Job Description

Clinton County, Iowa
Job Description

Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission

Job Title: Coordinator Job Code: N/A
Department: Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission Pay Grade: N/A
Reports to: Board of Supervisors FLSA: Exempt
Salary Range

SUMMARY
The Coordinator is under the guidance of the Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission, which is responsible for
planning, developing, coordinating and evaluating programs that serve adult and juvenile offenders in order to
promote a range of productive and rehabilitative options for use by the criminal justice system. This position is
responsible for identifying, researching, implementing, coordinating and monitoring the goals and activities of the
Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission and the programs it supervises.

Essential Job Duties and Responsibilities:

Works with the Clinton County Justice Coordinating Commission and its subcommittees to develop and
implement policies, procedures, and programs that support the Commissions program goals and
objectives.
Prepares and administers annual budget in consultation with the Commission and presents the budget to
the Clinton County Board of Supervisors for approval.
Facilitates Commission meetings by organizing, planning, coordinating, directing and providing a
structured process for addressing issues. This would include creating and publishing meeting agendas;
addressing conflicts that might arise while observing the group dynamics; and keeping accurate records
and documentation of proceedings.
Assumes, when necessary, an educational role when presenting new concepts or information. This
would include training justice system personnel in data collection and program evaluation methods and
present new concepts or information in a simplified and easily understood format using tables, graphs, or
other visual aids and explains theoretical concepts in simplified terms.
Conduct research and analysis in addition to maintaining current information on federal and state
initiatives regarding justice system alternative programs (juvenile and adult), and on programs initiated
and operated in other counties, and evaluate their feasibility and appropriateness for Clinton County.
Monitor new programs, policies and procedures initiated by the Commission. Then further evaluate and
forecast the impact these have had in Clinton County.
Seeks and prepares grant applications to obtain outside funding where appropriate.

Minimum Qualifications Requirements - (Education and Experience):

Bachelors degree in criminal justice, public administration, or a closely related field, such as social work,
human services or counseling and a minimum of three years of increasingly responsible experience in the
criminal justice system, social work experience working with jail inmate population or mental health services.

Minimum Qualifications (Knowledge, Skills and Abilities)

Office Skills
Demonstrated ability to be aware of the purpose, structure, and funding sources of government agencies
at the municipal, county, and state levels.
Knowledge of case processing of defendants, offenders, victims, and clients in the criminal and juvenile
justice systems.
Experience in interfacing with governmental and service agencies both within and outside of the justice
system (e.g., social services or education system).
Knowledge of local criminal and juvenile statutes.
Ability to use strategies and techniques for legal research, analysis, and writing.
Ability to reference theories of criminology and history, assumptions, and processes of the criminal and
juvenile justice systems.
Understanding of evidence-based practices in adult corrections, prevention and treatment of violence,
criminal behavior, mental health and substance abuse.
Knowledge of the history, models and principles of public administration and policy.
Ability to organize, direct, and facilitate group activities and meetings.

Skills
Ability to collect and synthesize existing and relevant research literature.
Ability to apply principles of the scientific method to research and analytic activities.
Ability to analyze data using statistical procedures and tests.
Ability to clearly and concisely communicate complex ideas orally and in writing.
Skill and proficiency with word processing, spreadsheet, database, presentation, e-mail, and
Internet software applications.
Experience with monitoring budgets, preparing and presenting budget proposals and financial
reports.
Excellent organization and record keeping skills.
Ability to consistently meet deadlines.
Demonstrated ability to convey a sense of professionalism, neutrality, and technical expertise.
Ability to combine new information and data with existing information and data to inform
recommendations for future action.
Ability to apply individual and group problem-solving and decision-making processers to novel
situations.
Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships as necessitated by work
assignments.

Reasoning Ability:
Ability to think independently, rationally, analytically, and critically.
Ability to relate effectively to a variety of professionals and other individuals in a variety of contexts
exercising considerable tact and courtesy.
Ability to motivate self and others to pursue and accept change to the status quo, when appropriate.
Ability to tactfully manage the concerns of policymakers who sometimes have competing priorities.
Ability to empathically listen to others.
Ability to maintain a systemic perspective of the justice system.

Work Environment:

Work for this position is performed primarily in a typical climate controlled office environment, where there is
protection from weather conditions but not necessarily temperature changes. There is occasional travel outside
of the office to attend meetings and training. Also this position has engagement with a variety of persons,
including some with emotionally stressful situations.

Physical Demands:
Sitting - Approximately greater than 2/3 of on-the-job-time.
Standing/Walking Approximately less than 1/3 of the time.
Weight Lifted/Forced Exerted Occasionally requires lifting objects up to 30 pounds. Including
occasionally transporting and object, usually holding it in the hands or arms.
Stooping, kneeling, crouching or crawling Approximately less than 1/3 of on-the-job-time.
Use of hands to finger, handle or feel Approximately greater than 2/3 of on-the-job time.
Talking or hearing Approximately greater than 2/3 of on-the-job time.
Vision - Close vision (clear vision at 20 inches or less).

Certificates, Licenses, Registrations:
Must possess and maintain a valid motor vehicle operators license and an acceptable driving record.

Supplemental Information:

Appointments will be conditional upon successful completion of pre-employment background checks. Attends
national or local justice association conferences and national professional conferences.

NOTE: This job description is not intended to be all-inclusive. Employee may perform other related duties as
negotiated to meet the ongoing needs of the organization.


Justice Management Institute Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Justice Management Institute Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Franklin County Justice System

Business Process Analysis

Potrebbero piacerti anche