That is until 2011, when the Indiana Supreme Court partnered with several executive branch agencies to pilot a project using Indiana’s tax intercept statute by withholding a resident’s state tax refund until he or she (1) pays the unpaid court costs and fines or (2) uses the tax refund to pay the court costs and fines. It turns out this approach was not only successful at settling outstanding balances, it also proved to be a good customer service tool.

How it started

Indiana has long had in place statutory authority allowing the interception of state tax refunds for a number of reasons, including unpaid court costs and fines (See I.C. 6-8.1-9.5). During his 2010 State of the Judiciary address, then Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard told members of the Indiana General Assembly that Indiana’s trial courts were committed to helping the state‘s bottom line and would make every effort to collect outstanding fines and costs that are due on thousands—if not millions—of court cases.

The following day, the State Budget Director called Lilia Judson, Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration (Division), excited to learn how the courts could collect outstanding fines and court costs and asked if any executive branch agencies could be of assistance. Although the Constitution provides that fines and forfeitures go to the common school fund, court costs are divided among cities, counties and multiple state funds, with the state general fund receiving the greatest percentages.

Though the tax intercept statute had never been utilized to collect outstanding court fees, the Division determined that this law allowed the collection of overdue fines and court costs in criminal and infraction cases. Because fines and costs in criminal cases are often included in the terms or conditions of probation and have a greater chance of being paid, the Division focused on infraction cases. Generally, these cases are related to traffic violations where the driver has failed to appear in court or failed to pay the ticket prior to the court date, resulting in a default judgment against the traffic violator. Such unpaid cases result in a suspension of driving privileges by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

The Division worked with the BMV, the Department of Revenue (DOR), the Budget Agency and the State Board of Accounts (SBA) to craft a plan to collect outstanding fines and costs under the authority of the tax intercept statute. Through a cooperative agreement, the SBA authorized the Division to collect these funds.

How it works

With the assistance of the BMV and DOR and using Odyssey (Indiana’s statewide case management system), the Division extracted a data file of all infraction cases that had a judgment entered, a balance due and a “failure to pay” event entered in the case. The following steps demonstrate the tax intercept process:

An individual files his state tax return.

DOR processes the return and generates a refund data file.

The Division sends a data file from Odyssey to BMV and DOR weekly.

BMV matches the file with the driver record; DOR matches the updated Odyssey file to the DOR refund file.

The Division receives a file from DOR the following week with matches.

The Division sends notice to the taxpayer with information regarding the specific case and the outstanding balance on that case.

DOR holds the tax refund for 60 days so the taxpayer has an opportunity to appeal the intercept.

If the taxpayer pays the outstanding balance to the court, the Division asks DOR to release the refund. But if after 60 days the outstanding balance remains unpaid, DOR officially intercepts the refund and transfers the refund to the Division.

The Division forwards the entire refund to the court where the case was decided.

The clerk applies the refund to the outstanding balance in Odyssey, which is configured to disseminate the receipts to the appropriate state, county and other special funds.

(Note: In Marion County, the refunds are applied to the cases through an automated interface to Odyssey.)

The Department of Revenue retains 15% of all refunds transmitted to the Division as allowed under the tax intercept law. This process runs weekly. Multiple agencies participate in the tax intercept process with DOR, and there are eight entities that have priority over court costs and fines, including the DOR itself, the Department of Child Services, Family and Social Services Administration, and the Department of Workforce Development.

How it’s going

The circuit court clerks in Floyd, Harrison and Monroe counties volunteered to pilot this new program. The pilots ran smoothly during 2011 and 2012, and the Division worked to streamline the process during that time. During the first two years, 340 taxpayers’ state tax refunds were intercepted resulting in a collection of $27,864 in fines and costs paid on 548 cases.

Interestingly, many individuals whose tax refunds were intercepted claimed to have forgotten about their tickets, but more importantly, they indicated that they did not know they were driving on suspended licenses. Several callers were thankful for the notice informing them of the license suspension. Many of these callers paid their tickets in full, resulting in the release of their refunds by DOR and court notifications to BMV to reinstate their driving privileges.

Once the pilot proved successful, it was time to try the program on a larger scale. Marion County has the busiest traffic court in the state—filing more than 140,000 new cases each year—and has been using Odyssey as its case management system since February 2009. With such a high volume of cases, the Division anticipated significant outstanding balances.

After running a test file, it turned out that over $10 million dollars in fines and costs were due on the Marion County unpaid cases.

The results have been outstanding. During 2013, over 10,000 taxpayers’ state tax refunds were intercepted through April 11th. To date, 2,174 cases have been paid in full, totaling $464,077. The Department of Revenue initially intercepted 10,590 taxpayer refunds, of which 2,245 were released, leaving $1,525,666 which has been applied to the outstanding balances on court cases.

Since its inception, the total amount recovered through this tax intercept project as of the middle of April equals $1,989,743. This amount was paid either directly to the pilot trial courts, because of the defendants receiving an intercept notice from the Division, or has been or will be paid to the courts from the intercepted tax refunds. However, this success did not happen without the Division committing a great deal of effort and resources. The Division received and had to respond to over 2,100 telephone calls from individuals inquiring about their court cases. The call volume necessitated expansion of our help desk services and the hiring of temporary staff to handle the call volume.

Although the Division has absorbed the cost of this pilot initiative within its trial court technology (JTAC) funding, the ongoing support of this program needs to be discussed with all participants and sustained funding needs to be secured. However, it is clear that the return on investment will be significant and that the state, the counties and the other recipients of court-generated fees stand to benefit enormously.

The tax intercept program is one of many initiatives that demonstrate the power and potential of the Odyssey case management system because of its single statewide database. Odyssey is made available to courts by the Indiana Supreme Court and is at the choice of the county.

Contact Mary DePrez at mdeprez@jtac.in.gov or 317-232-2542 for more information on this program.

JTAC’s ongoing installation of the Odyssey Case Management System around the state, coupled with the INcite framework for providing online software, has completely transformed court data collection and data sharing in Indiana. In addition, the ability for members of the public to access court information online has improved dramatically.

Today, the public can obtain case information from the many courts using Odyssey, as well as protection orders statewide, on the web at no cost to the user. They can find information online for any traffic ticket issued in the state with JTAC’s e-ticket system, pay a modest fee for a copy of the ticket, and in some courts pay the ticket online. The public can also begin the process of applying for a marriage license over the Internet, saving clerk’s offices data entry and reporting time. And statistics show that the public is increasingly using these services as counties adopt them.

Above: Odyssey caseload. At the end of 2012, it is estimated (based on 2011 filing statistics) that Odyssey is handling nearly 42% of the state’s caseload. 144 courts in 44 of Indiana’s 92 counties are now using the system.

Above: Quarterly page view statistics for mycase.in.gov. The number of page views on the mycase.in.gov website has steadily increased as the number of courts in the system has grown. In the five years the site has been online, it has had more than 60 million page views.

Above: E-Tickets. JTAC now makes available an online ticket payment system for counties that use Odyssey. The system is running in three counties and five city/town courts around the state. Since late-2011, over 16,000 tickets have been paid online—a truly “end-to-end” electronic process. Any ticket in the central repository can be found using the online ticket search, allowing offenders who may have lost their ticket to get a copy for a nominal fee. There have been 193 ticket copies purchased to date.

Above: Marriage Licenses. In April 2007, JTAC launched a Marriage License E-Filing application that allows clerk’s offices to electronically submit marriage license information to the Indiana State Department of Health. As of the end of 2012, over 800 clerk’s office users in all but six Indiana counties have filed 110,500 marriage licenses electronically.

In May 2011, the marriage license application became available to the public, allowing couples to begin the application process online before visiting the clerk’s office to finalize the application and pay their fees. This has eliminated a great deal of data entry for clerks and has shortened visit times for couples. As of the end of 2012, 77 Indiana counties allow the public to start marriage licenses online, and over 15,000 couples have done so.

We analyzed the organization of the probation departments using the McKinsey 7-S Model. The McKinsey 7-S model was developed in the 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman who worked as consultants for McKinsey & Company. The premise of this model is that there are seven key facets of organizations that must work together. These facets are structure, systems, style, staff, skills, strategy, and shared values.

A change to any one of the facets has an impact on the others. For example, a change in probation systems could have an impact on the structure of the organization or the number and skill level of the staff.

• The findings from the study led to several initiatives addressing the facets of the McKinsey 7-S model.
• We created a Vision, Mission and Values Statement for the consolidated department to address the need for shared values.
• We wrote job descriptions for all positions in the department to address skills.
• We developed a new employee policy handbook utilizing templates provided by Brenda Rodeheffer, Director, Office and Employment Law Services, Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration, to address systems and shared values.

Finally, a team of officers across all probation divisions implemented a common set of probation terms to further address systems and shared values.

A significant problem identified during the study was that each of the pre-consolidation probation departments used different case management systems. These different systems did not interface with each other and it was a significant chore to share case information among probation officers or to transfer cases between departments to probation officers who possessed special skill sets. In addition, even the administrative work of routing clients to the correct probation officer was difficult because no administrative personnel had access to all departments’ case files.

In order to address these deficiencies I decided to implement the Indiana Supreme Court’s Odyssey Supervision System. The Clark County court system had been using the state Odyssey case management system (CMS) since June 2010. We contacted Lisa Thompson, Probation Subject Matter Expert with the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC), to discuss how and when Clark County could implement the new supervision system. Lisa Thompson along with JTAC consultant, Mark Harvey of M. Harvey Technology and Consulting, LLC, traveled to Clark County and provided probation leadership staff an introduction to the Odyssey supervision system. Ms. Thompson also provided a business process questionnaire so JTAC could begin configuring the system to meet the specific needs of Clark County.

We began implementation of the system during  the week of May 14. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Harvey provided a week of training to the Clark County probation department. JTAC furnished more than 20 laptop computers for use by Clark County Probation staff during the training. The staff was divided into two groups. Each group received two full days of training that included entering practice cases and the opportunity to enter real cases in the new Odyssey Supervision system. On the fifth day, the staff was trained in the entry of financial data.

JTAC lacked the financial resources for data conversion unlike the implementation of Odyssey for the courts. Probation department staff had to manually enter all cases into the system, which required the temporary closing of the offices. Although the process was tedious, the staff had the opportunity to work out issues and answer questions prior to going live. JTAC personnel provided ongoing support and answered questions during the beginning of the data entry process, and showed exceptional product knowledge and patience as staff members worked through issues and became more proficient with the system.

The Odyssey Supervision system has now been fully implemented and more than 3,000 cases have been entered. JTAC personnel have addressed in a timely manner the few problems that have occurred. Probation officers and administrative staff continue to become more comfortable and proficient with the system as they enter new cases and contact notes.

Although the implementation has been challenging, the Odyssey Supervision system will provide significant benefits to Clark County. The new system will allow for the elimination of software licensing costs for four separate systems with a potential savings to the county of nearly $50,000 annually. Administrative staff can now quickly identify the probation officer assigned to a specific case without having to either search through different systems or conduct a door-to-door inquiry. Cases can be quickly re-assigned or transferred to other officers with special skill sets without having to re-enter the case data into a new system. Probation officers and/or administrative staff can also move to other areas within probation without having to learn a different system.

The decision for me to implement Odyssey Supervision was an easy one. Clark County Probation and Supervision Department implemented an effective new probation system at no cost with tremendous technical expertise and support from JTAC. I came to the Chief’s job with more than 20 years of previous industrial experience including time as a Vice-President of Human Resources for Commonwealth Industries, Inc. When I served this same company as the Manager of Business Analysis and Planning I worked with investment bankers in mergers and acquisitions. I also previously led a manufacturing department of 125 people at the company’s largest aluminum rolling mill. I worked with a number of talented people in a variety of jobs; yet, I must say that Lisa Thompson and Mark Harvey would be among the most talented and easy to work with people I have ever known.

Clark County Probation and Supervision’s vision is to be the “model of excellence for probation and community corrections in the State of Indiana.” Our Mission is to “improve the protection of the community, safety of staff, and the accountability of offenders.” The Odyssey Supervision system will help us meet this vision and mission by providing real time data across all probation divisions to track our efforts.

Learn about Indiana’s electronic Risk Assessment System for juvenile and adult criminal offenders in two new videos on the Indiana Supreme Court’s YouTube channel: An overview of the system and a user testimonial by William Cunningham, Executive Director at Grant County Community Corrections.

youtube.com/incourts

Available as part of the INcite suite of web software, and developed by the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC), the Risk Assessment System is in use by probation and corrections offices across Indiana.

Other states interested in learning about Indiana’s system and JTAC’s experience developing the software may contact Mary DePrez at (317) 234-2604 or mdeprez@jtac.in.gov.

During 2011, the Indiana Judicial Center and the Judicial Conference Probation Officer Advisory Committee revised the existing PSI report to incorporate additional information (see chart) including information from the Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) for adults. (See prior articles on risk assessment in March/April 2011 and September/October 2011 issues of Indiana Court Times.) These risk assessment tools are used at key stages in the criminal justice process to assess the offender’s risk to reoffend and to determine the level of supervision and resources appropriate for addressing the particular risks. The risk assessment tools were automated in 2011 enabling courts and law enforcement unprecedented ways to share information. They are part of the Indiana Supreme Court’s secure website known as INcite (Indiana Court Information Technology Extranet) which thousands of people use to collect and exchange information with each other and with others who need and use court information.

On November 7, 2011, the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) staff of the Division of State Court Administration deployed the PSI application during a pilot phase to five Indiana probation departments in the following counties: Marion, Tippecanoe, Monroe, Dearborn, and Blackford. On January 3, 2012, the PSI application was launched statewide to over 930 probation officials. By the end of February, 2012 probation officers had completed 2,300 PSI reports in INcite. The Judicial Conference Board of Directors requires that all probation departments utilize the new INcite PSI application.

The defendant's overall risk assessment level and the level for each domain section is included in the PSI Report.

Probation officers across the state can view completed PSI reports and, when dealing with repeat offenders, officers have the ability to create a new PSI report using information stored within INcite from previous reports. The ability to collect, store and share information that is needed repeatedly becomes invaluable when compiling the legal history of an offender. Prior to the automated PSI application, probation officers were completing PSI reports independently and not sharing completed reports with other departments throughout the state.

After using the PSI application for the first time, Cathy Knight, a Probation Officer with the Miami County Probation Department, declared “Just did my first PSI on the new system…and I love it!”

In January 2012, a group of stakeholders joined efforts with the Division’s JTAC staff and began work on the next phase of this project—a standard, electronic version of the Abstract of Judgment. Information from the PSI report will be pulled into the Abstract of Judgment, creating a legible document, avoiding duplicate data entry, and ensuring the accuracy of the information. The trial court will be able to attach the Judgment of Conviction and the Sentencing Order to the Abstract. By statute, the PSI report, the Abstract of Judgment and the Sentencing Order must be submitted to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) whenever a convicted person is sentenced to a DOC facility. Using INcite, DOC staff will be able to retrieve the PSI report, Abstract and Sentencing Order directly from the INcite Application. This will result in cost savings, more efficient communication between courts and DOC, and fewer resources expended to track down missing paperwork. And, when the Abstract of Judgment application is used by all courts on a statewide basis, comprehensive conviction and sentencing information will be readily available to prosecutors, judges, legislators, policy makers and the general public.

On March 19, 2012, House Enrolled Act 1200 was signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels. This law adds section 31 to Indiana Code 35-38-1 and states in part that “if a court imposes on a person convicted of a felony a sentence that involves a commitment to the department of correction, the court shall complete an abstract of judgment in an electronic format approved by the department of correction and the division of state court administration.” Using JTAC’s INcite Abstract of Judgment application, courts will be able to comply with the new law. JTAC will make this application available on or before July 1, 2012, the effective date of the new electronic reporting provisions.

The Judicial Conference of Indiana is charged with the development of a standard Presentence Investigation Report to be used by all courts in Indiana. [IC 11-13-1-8(b)(4)] The purpose of developing a standard PSI is to provide the judge with complete and consistent information about the case, enhancing the court’s ability to hand down an appropriate sentence. Once the sentence has been entered, the PSI becomes the cornerstone of a correctional plan. Information from the PSI, along with the risk assessment instrument provides some of the fundamental information used to identify criminogenic needs and developing individualized case plans for offenders sentenced to institutional or community supervision.

The implementation of the new PSI/Abstract of Judgment INcite application will solve three specific problem areas.

Problem One

Probation officers do not have access to completed PSI reports on a statewide basis. They work independently from county to county when they prepare each PSI. Thus, one probation officer does not know if another probation department has already prepared a PSI for the same defendant or is in the process of preparing a new PSI for that defendant for a different criminal case. Although some officers do share PSI reports between departments or between counties, many do not. A great deal of research goes into each PSI report and often this research is done multiple times by multiple officers.

Problem Two

Frequently, the Department of Correction does not receive the information about an inmate in a timely manner from the courts. This information required by DOC includes the PSI, Sentencing Order and Abstract of Judgment following the sentencing hearing or a hearing on a revocation where the court has ordered a commitment of the defendant to the DOC. This delay prevents DOC from processing the defendant at intake, necessitating that DOC staff contact the courts and probation departments to track down the paperwork.

Problem Three

At times, the DOC has to seek additional information from the court because the Sentencing Order or the Abstract of Judgment is ambiguous or does not contain information required by DOC.

Automating the standard PSI form and making it available to all who need to work with it would solve each of the three problems described above. Thanks to the work of the Probation Officer Advisory Board and the Judicial Conference Board of Directors, a new PSI report has been approved and it will be incorporated into INcite. JTAC conducted testing of the first release containing the PSI functionality in October and anticipates the application will be ready for statewide deployment in November of 2011. The Judicial Conference Board of Directors will require all probation departments to utilize the new INcite PSI application when available.

Copywriter Monica Freeman and her fiancé Preston Holb, a Financial Analyst, used JTAC's new online marriage license application in late May. After using the new system, Monica used Twitter to spread the word.

On Friday, May 27, Monica Freeman and her fiancé Preston Holb walked into the Allen County Clerk’s Office to apply for a marriage license. But it wasn’t business as usual, because the Clerk’s staff didn’t ask for their dates of birth, where they were born, or even their mothers’ maiden names.

Have Indiana’s requirements to obtain a marriage license changed? No, the couple used a new Online Marriage License Application developed by the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC).

The day before visiting the Clerk’s Office, Monica and Preston entered most of the required information for the license application into the new online system that was piloted by four Indiana counties. This reduced the amount of time they had to spend at the courthouse, and they were on their way, marriage license in hand, in just minutes.

“I think this is a great service to have online,” Freeman said, “especially as more and more people of our age group—who are so comfortable using computers—are starting to get married.”

According to Allen County Clerk Lisbeth (Lisa) Borgmann, “The staff was very excited and said the process worked great!” Allen County was the first county to use the new pilot application on the same day they began issuing licenses electronically.

For four years, the Supreme Court’s INcite web portal, developed by JTAC, has allowed clerks to create and store marriage licenses electronically. The new public marriage license application has essentially put the data entry responsibilities into the hands of applicants, like Freeman and Holb, reducing both the time clerks spend processing applications and the time applicants have to spend in the Clerk’s Office. INcite also allows clerks to submit data electronically to the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) for all completed marriage licenses, which greatly reduces paperwork and mailing costs in clerks’ offices and data entry at ISDH. Before adopting INcite and the Online Marriage License Application, Allen County processed marriage licenses entirely on paper.

The pilot program also included Hancock, Tippecanoe and Vanderburgh Counties. Couples living in any of the pilot counties (or out-of-state couples planning to marry in one of the pilot counties) could begin a marriage license application online beginning May 1. On June 10, the pilot ended and the online application became available to all Indiana counties that use INcite to process marriage licenses. As of August 1, 2011, 60 counties offer the online application to couples planning to marry.

The Holbs were married in June and celebrated their wedding reception at the historic Allen County courthouse.

How It Works

The Online Marriage License Application allows couples to enter most of the information they would otherwise have to provide in person at the Clerk’s office. For example, applicants can enter their names, addresses, dates of birth, information about previous marriages and their parents’ information. This information is required by statute and collected on the application for genealogical purposes.

“I was a little intimidated by the process at first, but it was incredibly easy…”

“I was a little intimidated by the process at first, but it was incredibly easy and simple,” Freeman said. “We weren’t expecting much, since it was a government system, but it looked really nice, and it was smooth and easy to use.”

The program allows the applicants to enter the information at their own pace at home or using any computer with Internet access. Once they begin an application, they can save and return to it using a secure “license key” (a unique, numeric code). This process provides applicants the flexibility and time to gather information for some of the application questions which are not necessarily intuitive, such as the state where each parent was born or the ZIP code on parents’ addresses.

JTAC developers took special precautions with the security aspect of this application because people can use shared or public computers to submit their applications. Once information is saved on the first page, each subsequent page shows the secure license key the couple may use to return to their application, as well as a five-minute countdown timer that shows when the page will expire. If they need more time, applicants may click a button to add time in two-minute increments. If the page expires before they add time or save their work, the couple will not be able to retrieve their application, and they must begin again. This minor inconvenience is balanced by the critical importance of securing the personal information being entered and removing any opportunity for others to access the information.

Applicants still need to complete the marriage license transaction in person at the Clerk’s office. There, they must provide their social security numbers [required by IC 31–11–4–4(d)] and valid identifications to prove their identities and dates of birth, and they must answer a series of questions that the clerk is required by law to ask.

The public Online Marriage License Application can be found at courts.IN.gov/marriage.

The implementation of new risk/needs assessment systems for Indiana’s juvenile and criminal justice systems marked an important milestone during 2010-2011. These tools are designed to provide Indiana’s courts with information about an offender’s potential risks and needs, allowing trial courts to provide appropriate sentences, supervision and treatment services. The risk assessment tools enhance efforts to rehabilitate offenders, reduce recidivism, and increase public safety. Many stakeholders were involved in developing these tools for use in Indiana. This article will answer these questions: What are risk/needs assessment tools? Who was involved in their adoption for use in Indiana? Who will use these tools? How will they work?

In Indiana, as well as nationally, there has been a growing acceptance and use of evidence-based practices in sentencing adult and juvenile offenders. The foundation for implementing these practices requires the use of validated, actuarial risk assessment instruments. The term evidence-based practices refers to the use of empirical data derived through scientific research from juvenile and criminal justice systems which identify factors about an offender that provide an empirical assessment of the offender’s likelihood to reoffend and techniques and programs that have been proven effective in reducing such risks. Risk assessment instruments that focus on both risk and need factors can assist in creating proper supervision plans and appropriate service referrals by the supervising agency, including probation, parole, community corrections, problem-solving courts, Court Alcohol & Drug programs, and the Indiana Department of Correction.

Risk Assessment Task Force

Supervising agencies in Indiana have used a variety of risk assessment tools for several years. In 2006, key stakeholders formed the Risk Assessment Task Force, staffed by the Indiana Judicial Center, to promote a uniform and consistent risk assessment process across the relevant supervising agencies as a part of the continuing effort to implement evidence-based practices in Indiana. This task force includes representatives from the supervising agencies, a member of the judiciary, and staff of the Judicial Automation and Technology Committee (JTAC) with the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration. It continues to exercise oversight for this project.

Indiana adopts IYAS and IRAS

In 2008, the task force recommended that Indiana adopt two systems developed by the University of Cincinnati: the Indiana Youth Assessment System (IYAS) for juveniles and the Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) for adults. These systems are designed to be used at key stages in the criminal justice process to help guide decisions, ascertain the appropriate allocation of resources and programs, measure changes in an offender’s risk and need factors during supervision, and improve public safety.

Following the recommendation to adopt the IYAS and IRAS, the task force began developing implementation policies for the assessment instruments. A key policy is that individuals who administer the assessments must be certified, which requires the completion of two-day training and a certification test. Also, there are minimum requirements for the administration of the assessments and the completion of case plans.

The Center for Criminal Justice Research at the University of Cincinnati has been integral in the development of a core group of individuals who conduct the certification training as well as development of the materials used in the training. Beginning in 2010 to the present, 740 juvenile system staff have attended 34 juvenile trainings, and 1708 adult system staff have attended 59 adult trainings conducted across the state. Supervising agencies began using the IYAS on October 1, 2010, and the IRAS on January 1, 2011.

The Risk Assessment Process

The assessment process includes: (1) a semi-structured interview with the offender, (2) a file review, and (3) the gathering of necessary collateral information. It is not just one item or factor that makes someone more or less likely to re-offend, but it is the combination of multiple factors in multiple areas. Factors in the assessment—referred to as domains—are the offender’s:

history with the justice system,

employment and education,

family and social support,

substance abuse and mental health,

peers, and

attitudes and behavioral patterns.

The assessment results provide an overall risk level and a risk level for each domain. Evidence-based practices research indicates that the most effective use of limited resources is to target individuals with high or moderate risk and need factors for more intensive supervision and services. These results assist the supervising agency in identifying the appropriate types of service or interventions needed to help reduce the individual’s risk for re-offense. This identification forms the basis of an individualized case plan outlining the goals and objectives for each need area and the interventions required to address those needs.

Indiana Supreme Court Decision Affirms Use of Risk Assessment Tools

In addition to being one of the first states to implement a system-wide risk assessment instrument, Indiana has also produced an important Supreme Court decision analyzing and affirming the use of such instruments. In June 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court decided Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564, which focuses on the proper use of evidence-based assessment results. In writing the unanimous decision for the Court, Justice Brent Dickson confirmed that when sentencing individuals, judges could consider results of assessments conducted by the county probation department, Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI). The Court provided the framework necessary to assist trial courts in appropriately using the results of risk and need assessment instruments:

It is clear that neither LSI-R nor the SASSI are intended nor recommended to substitute for the judicial function of determining the length of sentence appropriate for each offender. But such evidence-based assessment instruments can be significant sources of valuable information for judicial consideration in deciding whether to suspend all or part of a sentence, how to design a probation program for the offender, whether to assign an offender to alternative treatment facilities or programs, and other such corollary sentencing matters. Id. at 573.

The Court stated that these instruments provide information based on extensive research and assist courts in crafting individualized sentencing schemes with a maximum potential for reformation consistent with Article I, Section 18 of the Indiana Constitution, which emphasizes the foundational importance of reformation as a goal of our penal code. The Court held that the assessment results are not intended to serve as aggravating or mitigating circumstances nor determine the gross length of a sentence, but can be used in formulating the manner in which a sentence is to be served. By using instruments such as the IRAS and IYAS, the sentencing judge has the ability to formulate and enforce an acceptable individualized case plan, which can assist in the offender’s rehabilitation.

JTAC, INcite, and Risk Assessment Tools

Creating an automated process for completing these assessments was another phase of the project implementation. Representatives from probation, community corrections, the Indiana Department of Correction, and the Indiana Judicial Center provided guidance to the JTAC staff in the development of electronic means for scoring and storing the results to the risk assessment tools. The automation of the risk assessment instrument was funded through a federal grant. The main objectives behind the development of the automated Risk Assessment Application were: (1) improve communication between criminal justice agencies, (2) contribute to continuity of services for offenders, and (3) store statewide aggregate data needed for revalidation of the tools. The Risk Assessment Application is part of the Indiana Supreme Court INcite framework which provides the pathway for numerous other automated applications used by the courts and state agencies.

EXAMPLE FROM INCITE. JTAC's Risk Assessment tool includes departmental summary charts like the one above, which aggregates data for one risk tool performed on many offenders by one agency over a specified time period. The chart highlights the areas that most contribute to recidivism for the agency's overall offender population and can assist a director or chief probation officer to determine programming needs and allocation of departmental resources.

After an individual user is certified, JTAC staff provides a password which will grant the user access to the INcite Risk Assessment Application. When an interview with an offender has been completed, the user will sign into the INcite application and answer the risk assessment questions based on information gathered. The offender information, risk assessment answers, specific domain scores, and overall assessment scores are stored in the system for future reference. Once that offender progresses to the next stage of the juvenile or criminal justice system, and another risk assessment is warranted, another user will be able to utilize the existing offender information and refer back to the previously completed risk assessment.

Users of the Risk Assessment Application receive a number of benefits:

The system and its maintenance are free to all agencies.

Criminal justice agencies using the risk assessment tools now have a single electronic means for scoring.

Important offender information is easily shared among users, resulting in improved communication.

Each entity using the application can build on existing information to gain the knowledge needed for appropriate offender supervision, rather than completing a new assessment at each phase of the system.

There is a reduction in duplication of work because system interfaces allow the transfer of risk assessment details from the Risk Assessment Application to an agency’s local case management system.

Supervisors or administrators of the Risk Assessment Application have the ability to analyze aggregate data for their agency and examine program effectiveness on reducing recidivism.

Since all offender data throughout the state is stored in one location, the data collection process necessary for periodic review and revalidation of the tools will be greatly simplified.

Users have immediate access to the most recent versions, documents, and instructions if any part of the IYAS or IRAS is modified after a revalidation period.

Indiana now has the most current risk assessment tools because of the work of the Risk Assessment Task Force in conjunction with the Probation Officers Advisory Board, the Judicial Conference’s Probation Committee, the Judicial Conference Board of Directors, the Indiana Judicial Center, the Department of Correction, State Court Administration’s JTAC staff, and our trainers.

Summit on Evidence-Based Practices scheduled for May 19, 2011 in Indianapolis

Judges, prosecutors, public defenders, chief probation officers, and community correction directors are invited to participate in a Summit on Evidence-Based Practices and Risk Assessment on May 19th in Indianapolis to learn more about how these principles and tools can improve youth and offender management in your community.

For more information about IYAS and IRAS, contact Michelle Goodman at mgoodman@courts.state.in.us or (317) 232-1313. For more information about JTAC’s Risk Assessment tool available on INcite, contact Lisa Thompson at lthompson@jtac.in.gov or (317) 234-6586.

In 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) initiated a project that would enable courts to submit electronically commercial driver violations to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). Like other states, Indiana was at risk of losing millions in federal funding for highways unless our courts could reduce the time between conviction and reporting to the BMV. We called the project INcite—the Indiana Courts Information Technology Extranet.

Though INcite’s original purpose was focused on commercial drivers, it very quickly became clear that courts and related offices had significant need for similar systems to handle transfer of local data to the state and federal levels—or vice versa—in many areas of their work. Indeed by 2007, INcite included an additional four applications, and today the site houses eleven applications for use by trial courts, clerks, probation officers, law enforcement, and victim advocates.

Late last year, the Council of State Governments (CSG) presented Indiana with an Innovations Award for INcite. CSG has been selecting Innovations Award winners since 1986 in an effort to promote successful state projects that have the potential to be replicated or modeled by other states.

The Council of State Governments presents JTAC with their Innovations Award. Left to right: State Rep. Bob Godfrey (Connecticut), 2011 Chairman of the Council of State Governments; Jill Russell, Senior Field Support Specialist, JTAC; State Rep. Steve Buehrer (Ohio), 2010 Midwestern Legislative Chairman, Council of State Governments. (Photo. Stew Milne, Council of State Governments.)

What exactly is INcite?

After the initial success of the first application for commercial driver convictions, JTAC identified similar potential web applications to serve courts and clerks. Often, these project ideas were the result of requests for help from local courts or requirements in newly effective legislation. As the need for those additional applications became apparent, so did the need for a standardized method for building, securing, and managing them. A more refined approach to development was need for these new applications. That led to the creation of the INcite Framework.

Users of INcite know it as a secure website that allows them to exchange data, whether reporting statistics or convictions, tracking a probationer’s progress, or downloading a jury list. Developers of INcite know it as a framework—both a blueprint that dictates the technical specifications of any application or interface developed for the site, and a foundation for new applications, which includes user account management, security, and shared data.

In the beginning of INcite, applications sprang up like houses in a city neighborhood—different architectural styles, different builders, and no rules about how high the fence can be. The INcite Framework is more like a planned, gated community with rules about things like paint color, building materials, and mailbox height. Rules like these may take a bit of the charm out of a neighborhood, but they create only benefits when it comes to developing a website.

Single Sign-on and Password Recovery. One of the basic components of the framework is the ability to create an account for an individual user and then assign that user access to applications that correspond with the user’s job function. The user then logs in to INcite once and can access all of her available applications. If she forgets her password, instead of calling the helpdesk, she can use the automated system for password retrieval or reset the password.

Security. For INcite developers, the fact that security is built into the framework has a huge impact on development time and complexity. Without the framework, each application would have to include its own security model; because of the framework, developers needn’t worry about security and can focus on functionality.

Shared Data. Another time saver for developers is the availability of shared data in the framework. For example, if two different INcite applications both need to have a field for an attorney name, both applications can pull attorney names from the same source of data—in this case, the Roll of Attorneys. As attorney records are updated, the attorney information in those applications is updated, so not only does this feature simplify development, but it also increases the accuracy of data.

Event Logs. Tracking events—especially errors—on the INcite server helps developers and administrators keep the site up and running efficiently.

What has INcite helped Indiana accomplish?

The various applications now available to courts and clerks through INcite have saved state and local government offices both time and money, and in many cases, they’ve improved public safety or enhanced Hoosiers’ access to justice. Here are some examples:

$34 million in federal highway funds secured

With the development of the first INcite application—funded by a federal grant—Indiana met the federal requirements and brought the time period between commercial driver conviction and reporting to the BMV from an average of more than 53 days to less than 8 days. This accomplishment helped secure $34 million in annual highway funds.

Law Enforcement man-hours reduced

According to Lt. Col. John Clawson of the Indiana State Police, since they implemented the Electronic Citation and Warning System (eCWS), over 20 full-time data entry positions have been eliminated. Further, it is estimated that over 22 thousand man-hours to date have been saved because law enforcement personnel no longer have to complete data entry on protection orders thanks to the Protection Order Registry.

Clerks’ offices save money

Without INcite’s Tax Warrant application available free to Clerks around the state, local governments would collectively spend over $150,000 each year for annual maintenance on a replacement system. Many Clerks would still be processing tax warrants manually, but because INcite is available, they not only don’t have an annual fee, they’re receiving filing fees from the Department of Revenue in a more timely way.

Victims are better served and protected

Indiana’s Protection Order Registry (POR)—developed with federal grant money and made mandatory statewide by the Indiana General Assembly in 2009—has drastically improved the transfer of data from local to state to federal law enforcement. As a result, access to data about active protection orders empowers police to enforce the orders effectively. Today, a victim can apply for a protection order in the comfort and privacy of a victim advocate’s office instead of exposing her private life in a busy Clerk’s office. Soon, victims will receive email and text message alerts about the status of their protection orders, and the public will be able to search non-confidential protection order information online.

For more information…

If you would like to learn more about Indiana’s INcite project or how your court or office can begin using one of its applications, contact Mary DePrez at mdeprez@jtac.in.gov or (317) 234-2604.

The NHTSA initiated their Incentive Grant Program to Prohibit Racial Profiling in 2006. JTAC partnered with the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) to apply for the grant in 2010; Indiana is among five states that were awarded funding, and will receive $885,460. This grant will fund the installation of Odyssey in five counties, equipment to law enforcement agencies in those five counties and other counties already using E-Tickets, and a collaborative effort between all three branches of state government to study the race and ethnicity data collected at traffic stops and stored in eCWS and Odyssey.

The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute has provided additional grant funds in 2010 totaling over $200,000 for the E-Tickets project. These grants will fund deployment of the system to additional law enforcement agencies and enhancements to the software, such as the addition of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping.

The Year in Review

JTAC made significant strides in 2010 both with regard to deployment of eCWS and improvements to the software and its interfaces. As of the end of the year, 200 of the 522 law enforcement agencies in Indiana are using the system to issue 65% of tickets written statewide. Over 2.7 million traffic tickets and warnings have been stored in the eCWS central repository to date, and nearly a quarter of a million tickets have been electronically filed to 23 Odyssey courts. Over 6300 officers and staff are using the eCWS system, and nearly 25 additional agencies are in the queue for training.

All components of the eCWS system, including the desktop and mobile applications and the central repository, have been upgraded from version 1.5 to version 2.1. All users of the system are currently on the latest version. One major improvement to the software during 2010 was the creation of a night mode for officers working after sunset. The original software was designed with primarily dark text over a light background, but officers running the software at night found their computer screens were so bright that when turning away from the screen, their eyes had difficulty adjusting to the darkness outside their vehicles. The new night mode, available as a user preference in the software, is designed to display light text over a dark background. This feature improves safety and reduces eye strain for officers on the night shift.

As of 2010, eCWS interfaces with ProsLink, a system used by many Indiana prosecuting attorneys; CourtView and Keystone, two case management systems used by some Indiana courts; and, of course, JTAC’s Odyssey Case Management System. In addition, eCWS interfaces with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department’s (IMPD’s) Z-Client E-Ticket system. As a result of these interfaces, JTAC has electronically delivered over 6300 tickets to ProsLink in nine counties; nearly 56,000 tickets to CourtView in Lake County; over 41,000 tickets to Keystone in 11 city and town courts; and nearly 15,000 tickets from Z-Client to Odyssey in Marion County.

Since the E-Ticket project was first launched in 2007, JTAC has distributed over $1.9 million in grants for equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies. So far, three state agencies (State Police, Department of Natural Resources, and Excise Police) and 183 local law enforcement agencies in 65 counties have received equipment through grants made by JTAC or ICJI. JTAC has an additional $250,000 to allocate to agencies in the queue for deployment, for equipment including laptops, barcode scanners, and in-car printers.

Handheld scanners like the one pictured above are just one type of equipment provided to law enforcement agencies by JTAC through the support of state and federal grants.

The Year Ahead

With feedback from law enforcement officers using the system and grant funding from state and federal sources, JTAC will be able to make several major enhancements to the eCWS software in 2011. One planned upgrade, funded by a $100,000 U.S. Department of Transportation grant, is improved GIS mapping. GIS allows officers to capture the specific location (latitude and longitude) where an offense occurred, giving law enforcement agencies the means to analyze ticket data by location. This makes it possible for agencies to, for example, compare location and offense information and identify problem areas in their respective jurisdictions.

JTAC development staff will meet with users of the system to hold a design meeting and outline specific changes. Based on feedback received so far, we expect changes to include improved functionality for searches of intersections, mile marker references, and other locations; layout changes to the map screen; and migration to the new map data standard that improves the accuracy of map data.

JTAC will add functionality to the eCWS Prosecutor Screen, giving prosecutors the ability to not only file infraction cases to Odyssey, but criminal cases as well. We also plan the incorporation of the Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Affidavit for Probable Cause into the eCWS desktop application. The majority of the information for the Affidavit will auto-fill from the ticket, saving the officer a tremendous amount of time spent completing paperwork.

To learn more about JTAC’s E-Ticket system, including how it works and who to contact about bringing the system to your local law enforcement agency, visit courts.in.gov/jtac/programs/ecws.html.