Technology Services

Please note that these materials are provided for historical purposes only. The information presented is out of date and may be neither accurate nor useful. External hyperlinks may no longer be valid. For current court technology information, please see the new Court Technology Bulletin.

March/April 1996 Volume 8 Number 2

The Long and Winding Road

In 1964 President Judge Henry Ellenbogen of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, invited urban court leaders to visit his court and see how data processing equipment could be used to improve the operation of a busy civil court. Compared to today's court technologies, the Pittsburgh’s card-based "electronic accounting machine" system was an extremely insignificant and rudimentary attempt at the use of modern technology. On the other hand, this pioneer effort was the impetus for high-volume urban courts in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., to undertake the earliest automation projects utilizing computers.

By the early 1970s, many major urban courts had embarked, often unwisely, on the precarious pursuit of a court information system. There was little systems analysis and planning, and many systems, which invariably were designed and programmed by people who knew little or nothing about courts, never showed results that justified their high cost. User acceptance and support was not sought and, as a result, very infrequently earned.

The emergence of federal grant funding and the founding of the National Center for State Courts provided a significant impetus for the effective court use of developing technology. In 1977, with federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funding, the fledgling National Center published a series of "Guides for Court Managers," among which was one entitled "Data Processing and the Courts." This piece described how technology could help solve court problems and what equipment and programming were needed to implement court information systems. Another milestone was a 1978 publication of the American University's Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project (also funded by LEAA) entitled "Computer Use in the Courts: Planning, Procurement and Implementation Considerations." Other mid- to late 1970s LEAA-funded projects like the "State Judicial Information System" (SJIS) and "Gavel - A National Model Trial Court Information System Project" generated significant court interest in the use of computer technology. Fueled by federal block grant funding, courts of varying sizes undertook computer projects throughout the country. A late 1970s review by the National Center indicated that approximately 500 courts were using data processing to some extent and that about 100 courts were actively participating in local criminal justice information systems (CJIS).

In the 1980s, tremendous progress was made in the development, implementation, and promotion of court-related technology products. The State Justice Institute emerged as a major funding source for innovations in state and local courts, encouraging experimentation in replicable projects that improved the justice system and citizen services. Beginning in 1984, the National Center's Court Technology Conferences provided the opportunity for thousands of court professionals to see, touch, and evaluate successful court technology projects presented by the courts that implemented them. The Forum on Advancement of Court Technology (FACT) was formed in 1989 to facilitate dialogue between vendors and court managers regarding applications of technology in court operations. At the same time, continuing budget crises forced courts, along with other governmental units, to search for ways to "do more with less" and contain, reduce, and avoid costs.

Today there is virtually no court, no matter how small, that has not embarked on some technological project in the hope of improving service and reducing cost. Courts throughout the nation have implemented automated case management systems and installed personal computers, and the more advanced courts have implemented or are implementing high-tech e-mail, imaging, audio, video, voice response, and kiosk systems. Many have implemented remote inquiry capabilities, and most are exploring the possibilities of remote filing. In short, our courts, which are often accused of still operating in the 19th century, will actually enter the 21st century high on the high-tech wave. On reflection, the long and winding technology road of yesterday is leading courts to the information highway of today.

Larry P. Polansky is the former court administrator of the District of Columbia courts. His previous employment includes 12 years as deputy court administrator for the Philadelphia common pleas courts and deputy Pennsylvania state court administrator. He now provides consulting services to courts and court-related agencies. You can reach Mr. Polansky by calling (717) 722-9288.