Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman

1. Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman

2. World Events • Bali, 2002 • 911, 2001 • Innocent civilians victimized for purposes of war

3. A Snapshot of “Why” we need IJP and “How” IJP works at a Provincial (State) criminal level

4. One reason “Why” we started the IJP • Bernardo May, 1987-December, 1992 • Grim details of sadists “at play”, raping and killing • “The different police forces might as well have been operating in different countries” • “[An] unique challenge to the systemic investigative capacity of local law enforcement agencies…” - Justice Archie G. Campbell, 1996 • Like Australia’s R v. X, X1 et al. as reported in August, 2002 and, of legend, like England’s Sutcliffe (the “Yorkshire Ripper”)

5. “HOW” Integrated Justice works • “2001: SUSPECT IN BEDROOM RAPE HEADS TO COURT IN POLICE VAN” – “Bedroom Rapist” case • JUST IN: October, 2002 conviction of Christopher Watts • Police Constable Belinda Rose of Guelph Ontario, being honoured in Canberra Police Conference, October, 2002 • Integrated teamwork and new computer software • “Computer gets credit for arrest/conviction” (PowerCase and Watson) • Patterns and profiling of data from many sources • Software was able to connect vague tips • Production of major disclosure documents (57 bankers boxes) and Crown Brief • DNA testing in 24 hours, not 3 months as in Bernardo

6. In Detail: Why, How and What Happened in Ontario’s Integrated Justice Project“The largest and most complex project of its kind ever initiated … this is not fine-tuning or changing a process here; it is foundational and huge”Deputy Solicitor General, Virginia West, February 27, 2002.

7. Ontario Justice at a glance: • Canada is a confederation of 10 Provinces, Inuvit and one territory • Federally and Provincially appointed Judges • Federal Justices in the Provinces have inherent jurisdiction • Canada pays High Court Justices • Ontario pays for its Judges, Magistrates, etc. and all the infrastructure, including for the High Court Justices • A “Commonwealth” type system, with trial courts, Appellate Courts and some final appeals (most with leave) to the Supreme Court of Canada

8. What does a typical year look like? • 1997/98 justice statistics: • 400,000 criminal code charges received by Ontario courts • 1.5 million provincial charges laid, many under Highway Traffic Act • 12,000 civil matters added to the trial list • 190,000 civil and family proceedings commenced • all managed in separate, paper-based systems

9. 1997: The Three Silos

10. Why the IJP was initiated • The justice system in Ontario was a labour intensive, paper driven and fragmented into separate information silos. It is characterized by: • duplication • delays in information transmittal • information that is difficult to access • scheduling and case management bottlenecks • A number of recent judicial inquests recommended that better information sharing among justice sectors could save lives • “Civil Justice Review” reports of 1995/96 made 124 recommendations to streamline and improve the civil justice system • Growing public pressure for improved services

11. IJP’s Planned Scope – integrating ALL services and systems: • all courts administered by MAG • courtrooms and court offices • the private bar • the judiciary • OPTIC police services • OPP • municipal police services in OPTIC • integration with other municipal police services • all Crown Attorney offices and services (includes Victim/Witness Assistance Program) • Correctional Services • institutions • probation and parole • Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board • 22,000 employees in the Ministries at 825 different locations across Ontario, as well as municipal police forces, judges, private lawyers, and the general public.

12. What was Integrated Justice to do? • convert manual systems to electronic systems to reduce multiple entries, speed processes, improve information quality, and reduce long-term costs • replace existing electronic systems with new technology • provide electronic information exchanges across justice data systems • provide the public and the legal community with faster, easier and secure access to electronic court processes • provide authorized justice personnel with “e-query” function to improve information sharing across justice community • respond to public demand for safer communities • improve support to victims and witnesses

13. the introduction of integrated solutions for all aspects of the justice system the effective management of cases through all stages of court the introduction of creative business solutions for all aspects of courts the capability for anytime, anywhere, access to authorized information the provision of an environment that fully supports electronic case files and case flow management the recording and production of, and access to the court record in digital form the creation of a court environment which supports the efficient filing, distribution and use of information the optimization of all stakeholders’ resources Vision Statement for Courts Project (as of 1998)To enhance the administration of justice and service to the public by providing more accessible, efficient and affordable, effective and secure court administration and courtroom support services through:

14. Accessible use and cost of technology cannot be a barrier to access to justice business solutions should have a ‘common look and feel’ multiple means and methods of access must be available chosen technology and applications must be supportable to agreed upon service levels Efficient and affordable a high degree of integration among all justice agencies is a critical factor information already in electronic form will be re-used for court purposes wherever possible Effective technology must be used to enhance but not limit the independence of the administration of justice chosen solutions should anticipate but not define the future, recognizing that the law and the courts are dynamic environments development of business processes and technology solutions must be driven by the principles of justice plans must include meeting the needs of the public, people and organizations affected by change Secure security and confidentiality, either perceived or real, cannot be compromised Guiding Principles of the Courts Vision

15. The “How” of it • It was 1996 and 1997; “.COM” had begun • A newly elected “Privatization” minded Government, led by Premier Mike Harris: The Common Sense Revolution • A new concept introduced: “CPP” – Common Purpose Procurement – the Government partnered with private companies which would bring in technology and project management skills the Government did not have • Government and private-sector partners jointly to provide necessary human and financial resources and share in resulting risks and rewards • 75-25% risk sharing, with the Private Partners taking the 75% • Benefit to Investment Ratio must exceed 1.1 to 1 • March 1998, total project costs were estimated to be $180 million, which were to be recovered through estimated benefits of $326 million. • The Agreement required that the new systems be completed by September, 2002.

16. Benefits Realization • Two principal means: • Savings • New fees • Savings through “disintermediation” and new efficiencies • New Fees through increase (February, 1999) and usage (e-filing) • E-Filing seen as a big ”cash tap”

17. Some details: • A Project Management Office was established in 1997 to co-ordinate the work of the Project. It was to be responsible for preparing and updating the business case and accounting for the investment and benefits pools. • Two directors—one chosen jointly by the Ministries and the second from EDS—headed the Office. • A joint operations team, made up of a mix of staff from the consortium and the Ministries, handled most of the work of the Project; about 130 initially, then 200 persons through 2000-2002. • IJP accountable to a deputy ministers committee, made up of the Corporate Chief Information Officer, representing the Management Board of Cabinet, and representatives from the Ministries. • In addition, an Executive Steering Committee, with representatives from the Ontario justice system and key stakeholders, created to provide advice on the Project.

18. “Who” on the consortium side

19. 6. Rapid Return Actions & Early Wins 4. Project Management, Integration & Architecture Planning 2. Communication and Change Management We are here Business Process Review (BPR) [1999] Phase I Planning Phase II BPR & Integrated Business Case Phase III RFP Process & Vendor Selection Phase IV Detailed Design Phase V Implementation Management Checkpoint Management Checkpoint Management Checkpoint M M • Management • Checkpoint • and • Approval to • Proceed M M 13. Master Implementation Plan 7. Organization Redesign 10. RFP Process 12. Detailed Systems and Process Design and On-site Testing 1. Strategic Development 3. Target & Focus 5. Business Process Redesign 9. Integration & Gap Analysis 14. Implementation and Roll-out 11. Vendor Selection & Negotiation 8. Technology Redesign 15. Continuous Improvement

20. Planning, planning, planning • Full justice sector reviews • Focus groups • Multi-sector business process re-engineering • “As Is” and “To Be” Methods • Planned common interfaces • Regular communication sessions and many multi-stakeholder committees • ETC. • ETC. • There was no lack of commitment!

21. CT4 CT5 CT3 Assembling and Organizing Documents for Court Receiving and Updating of Documents in Court and Recording of Proceedings Production of Transcripts CT1 CT2 Document Management Document Intake & Filing Document Processing Production and Delivery of Documents for Release/Enforcement Archiving CT7 CT6 CT8 Criminal Courts Financial Management Financial Management CT9 Civil & Small Claims Courts Financial Management Admin Services Financial Management CT10 Provincial Division Scheduling CT11 General Division Scheduling Scheduling CT12 Selecting a Jury Panel CT13 CT15 Management Information Systems CT17 CT14 CT16 Data Collection Compile Data for Various Regions / Time Periods Reports placed in Repository and Distribute Automatically / On Need Basis Data Used for Planning / Budgeting / Statistics Courts “As Is” Processes

22. Potential Future “To Be” Multiple Case Initiation Points e.g. Info Center, Kiosk, Internet Electronic courtroom support including document view and production capabilities and digital recording of record Electronic Document or Disbursement Electronic Case Flow Management System with integrated scheduling and financial management processes

23. Our Progress 1996/1998 Plan Project and Define requirements 1999 - 2002 Development and Design 2000 /  Phased Implementation • ministries began planning • RFP for private-sector partner • contract signed • documented current and developed new business processes • released RFPs for electronic systems • select technology • customize software • policy issues • test and develop new systems • organization design • phased implementation process began in late 2000 and continues We are here

24. Key initiatives • Courts • electronic filing (e-file) • digital audio court recording • electronic case management and scheduling • Crown • electronic Crown Brief exchange • Crown case management • Police • computer-aided dispatch • electronic records management system • Corrections • institutions case management • probation and parole case management • Common Query System • Common information services management (CISM)

25. Integration – Common Query System • foundation for integration between police, Crowns, courts, and corrections • improved facility to identify a person • ability to link a person to all involvements • access to involvement details from all integrated applications • supporting security

26. Technical architecture • use of industry standard and open system products; e.g., Java, C++ • portability across programs; e.g., Unix, NT • standards developed for both process exchanges and information exchanges • extensive code developed in-house and provided to vendors for their use in product development • standardized tools and test products provided to vendors to support compatibility • integration layer allows integration sharing in a secure environment

27. Custom Software Third-Party Software Non-OPTIC Police OPTIC Police Records Management System (RMS) OPTIC Police Computer Aided Dispatching (CAD) Non-OPTIC Police CISM* • Web Portal • E-filing • Message handling • Security • Document rendering *Common Infrastructure Systems Management Crown Case Management External Agencies (RCMP, MTO, etc.) Courts Case Management Digital Audio Recording Lawyers [Practice Management Software] Corrections Case Management (OTIS) XML Data Exchanges Common Inquiry System Direct Data Transfer Applications

28. Software Applications, September, 2002

29. Software Applications, September, 2002, continued

30. Privacy and security • ensure systems allow connectivity but remain separate • access to information is restricted to those who are authorized, sign-on screens providing access on a need-to-know / right-to-know basis • security and blocking features in place to deny access where there is a legislative requirement to do so; e.g., if a record or file is ordered sealed by a judge, the system will ensure it remains sealed [Separate slides on final CD]

31. Police Project Aims • Records Management System (RMS) organizes the recording and management of details regarding criminal occurrences. • Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) assists in the management of police emergency calls, using digital maps to display the location of calls. • Better information is captured to aid investigations. • Systems provide improved, more efficient ways of sharing information across police services and the justice system. Current Status • Implementation of CAD and RMS began in September 2000 – full integration October 18, 2002. • The new, integrated CAD and RMS have been deployed across the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). • CAD and RMS have been installed in eighteen Ontario Police Technology and Information Co-operative (OPTIC) municipal police services, with the remaining 21 scheduled for implementation.

32. Corrections Project Aims • More effective management of cases and programs • Provide corrections staff with a single, comprehensive file following offenders from their entry into an institution or start of probation or parole until the conclusion of their sentence or period of supervision. • Electronic sharing of information with other justice partners, e.g. courts, police Current Status • On August 10, 2001, the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) went live across the province, and is being used on a 7x24 basis by staff in 45 institutions, 40 area offices and 94 satellite offices • Over 2,600 end users trained • 60 million records integrated in 2001

33. Courts Project - Aims • Focused on the court-related elements of the IJ initiative • Will include courtroom support, criminal, civil and family case management • Will allow courts, courts administration and lawyers to get the greatest use and value from electronic information Three principal components: • Electronic filing of court documents (E-file) • Digital Audio Recording of court proceedings (DAR) • Electronic court case management, including full scheduling and eventual remote access

34. Courts Project - Status Digital Audio Recording (DAR): • Testing system extensively, making modifications as required • Field-testing of DAR is set to occur in a simulated court environment, recording mock proceedings in an Ontario courthouse • Planning is underway to implementation DAR in the Ontario Court of Appeal Electronic Filing of court documents (E-File) • Currently being field-tested by users in selected locations in both French and English • Once the application has proven itself, we will gradually phase E-File in across the province. Court Case Management System (CCMS): • Currently engaged in an evaluation of alternatives to expedite the development and implementation of this crucial system.

35. Crown Project Aims • Will streamline Crown processes and create an electronic system for: • scheduling resources • recording information • exchanging information with the police and courts • reduces time and effort spent capturing information. Current status • Rigorous testing of the application is being done in London and Toronto • Training and implementation strategies are being completed • Progress is being made with police representatives towards the exchange of an electronic Crown brief between police and the Crown.

36. OOPS… • March 1998 cost estimate to complete the Project was $180 million, March 2001 estimate had risen to $359 million. • Over the same period, expected benefits were reduced from $326 million to $238 million. • The benefit to investment ratio has dropped to about 0.76:1 • In addition, not all systems are expected to be fully implemented by the contractual deadline of September 8, 2002 [extended to October 8, 2002]. Provincial Auditor’s Report, as at March 31, 2001, released October, 2001: http://www.gov.on.ca/opa/english/r01t.htm

37. Breaking News • “Ontario plan to modernize justice system scrapped” • Toronto Star, October 9, 2002 • “It’s time to go our separate ways”, says the Attorney General at the end of the partnership of private consortium members and the three Ontario Justice sector Ministries (“IJP”) • So ends “the largest and most complex project of its kind ever initiated”

38. What happened along the way • Examples: • Communications • Last Executive Steering Committee, May, 2000 • Software purchases • The Sustain Saga • Command and Control • This works! • Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers everywhere • The e-filing fiasco • Financial projections and the realities (as above) • Courts = classic “frustration at law”, in Freeman’s opinion

39. What happened along the way: The Sustain Saga;the blow-up of Ontario’s CCMS

40. The E-Filing Fiasco • Designed to be a huge cash tap • First iteration in late 2000 caused a revolt by the Bar • 2001: Second try, better but limited • Not until August, 2002 was a good front end implemented BUT the system runs today in three test sites, for free

41. What’s the trouble with the technology?It’s not about technology as such; it’s about people and management

43. Lessons learned? From CTC-7 in Baltimore, August 2001: 1 Top management/Judicial Commitment 2 Adequate user involvement 3 Experienced project management 4 Clear business objectives 5 Minimized scope

44. Lessons, CTC-7 continued 6 Standardized software infrastructure 7 Firm basic requirements 8 Formal methodology 9 Reliable estimates 10 Other criteria (small milestones, proper planning, competent staff, and project “ownership”) 

45. Practical Observations • Unless full buy-in, and very large scale investment, • (e.g. Singapore) • Keep it simple and small: “dolphins not whales” • Australia’s Federal Family Court • One ccms for one court, that works! • Verylargeproject? • Mostly, get a very large, “scalable” vendor

46. Practical Observations continued • At present there is no single ccms product that has universal application • Each jurisdiction is wrestling with its own needs • No jurisdiction has yet made the full leap of faith to change the process, doing away with paper concepts • Technology DOES drive the process; develop policies and rules in tandem with it; maintain flexibility

47. Practical Observations continued • Beware the simplicity of “Thin client” • Pipeline issues • Intended Traffic (!) • Or did you really intend a mainframe all along? • ICON in Ontario • Existing ccms in Canada’s Federal IRB

48. Practical Observations continued • Define the scope with adequate input and with continual monitoring • LISTEN TO USERS, or proceed at your peril • Lawyers are the single largest group of users of the Court system, for example • Wise to hire a lawyer consultant, or three! • Having defined the scope, stick to it, with proper staging

49. Practical Observations continued … • Be patient and focused • Eurofighter ten years out • Economist, September 14-20, 2002 • Ontario “E-Reg” Real Property system • Many serious challenges • Helped to be a monopoly!

50. Practical Observations continued … ... • Before you start, look to other disciplines • Medicine, recording and transcription of notes • Payroll call centres’ “Personalization” • Look to the winners • NOW, we can look to Singapore • FUTURE look to Tyler’s Odyssey in Minnesota