Today a Merrimack County Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the former state Supreme Court Justice on behalf of four plaintiffs who alleged inadequate access to justice.

 There is so much opportunity for irony here.  

First, the state was defending the budget cuts it made to the judiciary.  The suit alleges that because of the budget cuts, the judiciary was unable to provide adequate access to justice (furlough days, closed courthouses, trial delays etc.).  Shouldn’t all judges have recused themselves due to conflict of interest?  Possibly the state should have requested a change of venue - another state?

Further, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, the former state Supreme Court Justice, was responsible for applying the state mandated cuts to the judiciary.  Now that he retired and is a private attorney, he is bringing suit against the actions that he took.

The dismissal was really technical -the suit was brought as a ‘class action’ on behalf of all statewide delays with these four plaintiffs as examples about which the judge had no basis to ascertain.  Read more details here: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/newsstatenewengland/897068-227/suit-seeking-to-reverse-court-cuts-dismissed.html

Of course, this is no laughing matter.  The state has a legitimate right to address revenue shortfalls, and the court has a constitutional requirement to provide access to justice promptly and without delay.

The judge’s lament was that it is “likely impossible’ to decide what constitutes a delay on a statewide level.  A further consideration, although perhaps more political than courtroom related, is the efficiency of the justice delivery.  In other words, if the courts in jurisdiction A can deliver speedy trials at the cost of X dollars per case and the cost/case is at or better than the national average, then the system is efficient.

The National Center for State Courts http://www.ncsc.org/ is addressing these very thorny issues - offering tools (CourTools) and guidance to measure the effectiveness of a court, and case studies on cost.  With today’s current case management technology, the courts should be able measure their effectiveness and efficiency based upon accepted nationwide standards.  With this insight in hand, the attorney for the plaintiff could have shown (if) the courts were operating at peak efficiency & effectiveness and the state level of funding was inadequate to deliver speedy access to justice.

Apparently Ponzi schemes are rife across our country and irresistible to some, both perpetrator and victim.

This story is about the testimony of NH Attorney General Kelly Ayotte regarding a Ponzi scheme recently uncovered (collapsed) in NH.  The now defunct Meredith mortgage brokerage firm (FRM) is accused of operating a Ponzi scheme that bilked more than 150 investors out of as much as $80 million over a nine-year period.  http://tinyurl.com/34jzmxq

 At the heart of this hearing was how the financial regulatory agencies in NH, including the Attorney General, could have missed the warning signs from the five formal FRM complaints brought to the attention of the Attorney General’s Office and referred to the Banking Department?  Beginning in 2001!!

While there is plenty of blame to go around, there is at least a technology solution to this characteristic described in the AG’s own report: “… attorney general’s office not only failing to adequately communicate with outside agencies, but also proving incapable of sharing or recording information within its own department.”

Current case and document management technology with data sharing, if properly deployed and utilized, can solve these problems.  Cost justifying the funding is another matter but doable.

An enduring mantra from those running for office is “I will cut waste and fraud” to reduce the deficit.  Then once elected, finding the waste and fraud to eliminate seems to become elusive.

 So, as a taxpayer, I welcome this report: “The government says it recovered $2.5 billion in overpayments for the Medicare trust fund last year as the Obama administration focused attention on fraud enforcement efforts in the health care industry.”   Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/26du6l2

 A key ingredient is, of course, a top down focus with increased resources and stronger regulations, evidenced by this statement  from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “We’re going to attack fraud at every stage of the process”.

 Under the Affordable Care Act, some examples of the potential increased scrutiny include fingerprinting, site visits and criminal background checks of providers before they begin billing Medicare and Medicaid.

 Naturally, the software systems utilized by the Medicaid Fraud Control Units across the country must be up to the challenge of tracking and enforcing the new procedures plus provide financial capabilities to calculate recoverable investigative costs and report all fraud monies returned to the trust fund as a basis for program effectiveness. 

 The enforcement and tracking is done at both the federal and state level.  For example, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud & Abuse Control division just implemented a new software system to ensure the financial integrity of the Kentucky Medical Assistance Program. 

OK.  Now where else can we cut spending without slashing needed programs?

Access to justice seems to me to be an unarguable precondition for our society to function - a founding principle about which democrats, independents, and republicans ought to be able to easily agree.

And yet, here in my home state of New Hampshire, the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick has had to conduct a rare public information campaign to battle a proposed (further) $4 million in budget cuts for the judicial system.  This on top of prior cuts which necessitated 11 furlough days (courts are closed) for the coming year.  A budget cutting strategy that has been utilized also by the neighboring State of Vermont Judiciary.

What does a $4 million dollar budget cut mean - Chief Justice John Broderick said “… civil jury trials would be suspended and if security costs are cut, family courts would be closed on certain days.”  Read more here http://tinyurl.com/2darc9n

In one of NH’s busiest District Courts, the Court Clerk has had to cut back hours due to reduced staffing.  http://tinyurl.com/23yzkb9

As a software provider of court technology, an easy recommendation from me would be ”implement case management technology to do more with less”.   However, I know that the NH Courts have been in the process of implementing a new case management system (from one of our competitors) for the last three years.  And while I believe that JustWare would have been a better, more cost effective choice, that is not the root issue.  A reliable funding stream for the courts is the root issue.

Our highway infrastructure is funded primarily by taxes on gasoline insuring a constant source of funding to build and repair our roads.  I do not believe that the court system can be subject to the same ‘share the burden’ cost cutting as being applied to other agencies in the state.  The tipping point of no access to justice is getting too close.

And that’s not a good thing!

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson had no right to impose a controversial $5 a day fee on inmates at the county jail for room and board, as well as additional charges for medical care and other services, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday.  http://tinyurl.com/y8grudr

The ruling is expected to result in a court order requiring Hodgson to return about $750,000 to hundreds of current and former prisoners.

I believe that the public has complete responsibility for enforcing the law (police) and administering justice (courts and public defenders).   However, those found guilty, whether in diversion or on probation, ought to be responsible for the cost. 

In this particular case, it was a question of authority.  The Sheriff did not have the right to impose these fees unilaterally and required enabling legislation from the Massachusetts House.  So Massachusetts Legislators get on it and help reduce the growing tax burden for your citizens while instilling a sense of responsibility.

On January 15, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence from an illegal search can be used if a police officer made an innocent mistake.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said “the guilty should not “go free” just because a computer error or a misunderstanding between police officers led to a wrongful arrest or search.  .. good evidence, even if obtained in a bad search, can be used against a suspect unless the police deliberately or recklessly violated his rights.”

A similar principle is at the heart of a dispute in Cuyahoga County.  A new integration project to share information between the prosecutor and the courts has been stalled by allegations of corruption related to a contract assumed by the potential integration vendor.

In a long chain of events, the proposed integration vendor took over a contract from another vendor who is now alleged to have bribed various Cuyahoga County officials to secure county business.  Hence, if the original contract is the fruit of unlawful behavior, should the county still do business with the successor integration vendor? Does the same principle apply - “good technology, even if obtained from a bad contract can be used…”  There have been no allegations against the successor company.

 You can read more here http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/12/court_administrators_say_suspi.html

Government justice agencies, especially the courts, are grappling with the dual challenge of reduced funding and increased demand.

The challenges and the opportunities have been crystallized for the Vermont Judiciary through a commission charged with addressing this realty:

 ”Notwithstanding the constitutional command for a unified judicial system, it is the plain fact that Vermonters can no longer afford the present system. This is not a question of politics, but one of fact. If the Legislature does not take action to reorganize and consolidate to a more efficient and less redundant system, the Judicial Branch cannot function in this economic climate. Backlogs already developing from half-day closures and furloughs will grow exponentially. It is no overstatement to say that the Judicial Branch is at a crucial juncture in its history.

As a state, we cannot make the choice to do nothing.”

Convened in May of 2008, the Vermont Commission on Judicial Operation, composed of members of the three branches of government and the citizens of Vermont, issued their final report to the legislature on November 6, 2009.

The full report is here http://tinyurl.com/yek8s58

The report makes bold recommendations about court restructuring, need for new policies and practices, and use of technology.  All to preserve access to justice while reducing cost.  To implement the recommendations will require cooperation across multiple state and local agencies to change existing practices, adoption of new technologies by litigants and the courts, and a lot of hard work by the courts to continue to adjudicate while restructuring.

In a recent USA Today article, ‘Jobs lost as states close prisons’ (http://tinyurl.com/otd4r2), the conundrum is described as “States trying to fight recession by closing prisons are finding a Catch-22: what saves scarce money costs precious jobs.”

I believe there are other, more significant considerations such as public safety and costs to the community.  “Inmates are getting released that wouldn’t have been released in good budget times,” says Tom Tylutki, president of the corrections officers’ union in Michigan, where eight facilities are scheduled to close. “We believe (public safety) is being compromised.”

 While government is responsible for spending wisely and within means, are all the costs being considered?  What is the cost of a repeat offender who should not have been released, who should have been on probation, who should have received treatment?

Surely these costs to society, increased burdens on law enforcement and the courts, should be part of the calculation.  And more use of scorecards to help maximize return on each dollar spent.

There are government examples on my prior post, plus New Dawn is offering a webinar on performance measurements.  You can register here: http://www.newdawntech.com/webinar/performance_registration.htm

The Pew Center on The States systematically studies state government including how each state performs in comparison to one another. 

These performance measurements have never been more important according to the Pew Center as “The United States is facing the gravest financial crisis in at least a generation. And while all levels of government are affected, the fiscal pain is felt most acutely by states.”

In this year’s report ‘Trade-off Time: How Four States Continue to Deliver’ (summary at http://tinyurl.com/pmqyz2), there is a description of how the Virginia Performs data system closely monitors the progress of each state agency.

“Established by former Governor Mark Warner and expanded upon by Governor Tim Kaine to build on the commonwealth’s tradition of good governance, Virginia Performs has created a culture of evidence-based decision making that allows Virginia’s leaders to systematically tackle the state’s budget crisis and increase agency productivity.

 Virginia was able to use data from the system to make targeted cuts in corrections, which saved money without affecting public safety. Among other reductions, the Virginia Department of Corrections replaced private food service contracts at several prisons when data showed that the services could be provided more cheaply in-house for a total annual savings of $851,000.”

Other cited examples include Utah, Indiana, and Maryland.

New Dawn is working on a ROI scorecard for justice agencies - courts, prosecutor, public defender, probation, and pretrial services.

 Have you seen any other good examples?

At a recent MASCA conference in historic Annapolis http://tinyurl.com/qzck97, one of the keynote speakers was Carol Shapiro, a founding director of Family Justice and La Bodgea de la Familia.

Carol was there to convey why a successful program in New York City that supported the families of drug users under parole or probation supervision was being closed!

 How successful you ask?  How about:

 ”Families participating in La Bodega de la Familia program were about 50 percent less likely to be arrested and convicted of a new offense as comparison group members.”

“Substance use (illegal drugs, methadone, alcohol to intoxication, abuse of amphetamines, sedatives or barbiturates) among participants in La Bodega de la Familia declined by 42 percent over six months, compared with a 7 percent decline among comparison group members over the same time period.”  Read more about the program results here. http://tinyurl.com/m9hl49

So why close the program?  Carol had some very good reasons.  Her view is that the best way to spread the success was provide ‘lessons learned and roadmap” to other organizations across the country who have adopted a similar mission.  And not take the approach of “franchising” La Bodega since it is all about the local insight and particulars, rather than transplanting the New York City version.

So her mission at Family Justice is to create the equivalent of ‘open source’ to spread the success. I wish Carol much success.

For a probation case management vendor perspective, the challenge will be to support the methodologies conveyed through the Family Justice open source, such as the GENOGRAM http://tinyurl.com/n5vgep  The implications are much more than tracking the probation compliance of an offender.  These methodologies offer the opportunity to collect deep insight into the available support structure, especially the offender’s family, as a basis for proactive services to reduce recidivism.