disaster planning in louisiana's district courts [PDF]

BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project: TA Report No. 4-146

Status of COOP/Disaster Planning In Louisiana’s District Courts: Accomplishments to Date and Technical Assistance and Training Needs

STAFF: Caroline S. Cooper

CONSULTANT: Richard B. Hoffman November 2010

This report was prepared under the auspices of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at American University, Washington, D.C. This project was supported by Grant No.2009-DC-BXK019 awarded to American University by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

CONTENTS Page Executive Summary

1

I.

Introduction: Project Scope and Focus

4

II.

Methodology

5

III.

Audit Process

7

IV.

Findings

8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L.

V.

Background Information Key Plan Elements Plan Implementation Issues Issues Related to Problem Solving Courts Facilities and Equipment Issues Information Technology and Records Management Issues Issues Relating to Preserving Evidence Communications Issues Human Resource Issues Issues Relating to Pandemics/Public Health Emergencies Interagency Coordination Plan Testing and Training

Observations and Opportunities for Improvement A. B. C. D.

Need for Increased Communication Need for Suitable Alternate Facilities Need to Expand the Scope and Focus of COOP Planning Need to Promote Records Management and Information Technology Best Practices E. Need to Institutionalize Staff Training and Plan Testing F. Need to Enhance and Formalize Interagency Collaboration

VI.

Conclusion

13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15

Exhibits 1. 2. 3. 4.

Background Information. Does your jurisdiction have a COOP? Background Information. When was your COOP adopted? Background Information. When was your COOP last updated? Background Information. Do you consider your plan to be in final form and ready for implementation? 5. Background Information. Who maintains your court’s COOP? 6. Background Information. Have you ever had to put your COOP into effect? 7. General Information. Has your jurisdiction ever experienced an interruption in services?

i

8. Background Information. How many times in the last five years have operations been interrupted in your jurisdiction? 9. Background Information. How many times in the last five years have operations been interrupted for the following? 10. Background Information. What was the longest period of service interruption due to a Weather Incident? 11. Background Information. What was the longest period of service interruption due to Fire? 12. Background Information. What was the longest period of service interruption due to a Public Health Concern? 13. Background Information. What was the longest period of service interruption due to Non Weather Related Power Outage? 14. Background Information. What was the longest period of service interruption due to a Terrorist Event? 15. Key Plan Elements. Are the following threats addressed in your COOP? 16. Key Plan Elements. Does your COOP contain provisions regarding the steps that will be taken to communicate an emergency situation to the following individuals/entities? 17. Key Plan Elements. Was your COOP coordinated with the following partners? 18. Key Plan Elements. Was the development of your COOP coordinated with local and/or state emergency preparedness office(s)? 19. Plan Implementation Issues. Does your COOP … 20. Problem Solving Courts. If your jurisdiction has a problem solving court (n=27), does your jurisdiction’s COOP contain provisions relating to how problem solving court processes will be maintained in the event of an emergency or disruption in services? (Pie chart) 21. Problem Solving Courts. If your jurisdiction has a problem solving court (n=27), does your jurisdiction’s COOP contain provisions relating to how problem solving court processes will be maintained in the event of an emergency or disruption in services? (Column chart) 22. Facilities and Equipment. Has an alternate site been indentified where court proceedings can be held during periods in which your courthouse may be unavailable or inaccessible? 23. Facilities and Equipment. If an alternate site has been identified (n=34), please indicate whether … 24. Information Technology & Records Management Issues. Does your COOP: 25. Communications Issues. Does your COOP contain contact information for all those affected by it, including……. 26. Communications Issues. Does your COOP contain provisions for back-up communications in the event conventional modes of communicating are compromised or unavailable? 27. Human Resources. Does your COOP: 28. Pandemic/Public Health Issues. Does your COOP address/include: 29. Interagency Coordination. 30. COOP Plan Testing and Training. 31. COOP Assistance. Would you like assistance with the following? 32. COOP Training and Technical Assistance: Map. Map of Judicial Districts Requesting COOP Relating Training and/or Technical Assistance and Judicial Districts Not Requesting COOP Relating Training and/or Technical Assistance

Appendices A. Template for Assessing Status and Adequacy of COOP Planning by District Courts in Louisiana. BJA Criminal Courts technical Assistance Project. American University, May 2010. B. District Court Survey Instrument ii

Performance Audit for the Louisiana Supreme Court: Status of COOP/Disaster Planning In Louisiana’s District Courts: Accomplishments to Date and Technical Assistance and Training Needs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY * * * INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SCOPE This performance audit was designed to generate information regarding the readiness of Louisiana’s district courts to sustain critical operations in the event of an emergency. The preliminary results of this audit have been prepared by the staff of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at the American University School of Public Affairs at the request of the Louisiana Supreme Court, to assist the Supreme Court in assessing the quality of continuity of operations planning in Louisiana’s district courts. As a first step in designing the audit, American University staff developed a set of trial court “best practice” continuity of operations planning criteria. With assistance from the staff at the Judicial Administrator’s Office, these criteria were worked into an online survey. The survey was sent by the Supreme Court Judicial Administrator’s Office to, and responses were received from, chief judges or their designees in all 48 district courts in the state. Survey questions related to the following areas:

• • • • • • • • • • •

Key Plan Elements Plan Implementation Issues Issues Related to Problem Solving Courts Facilities and Equipment Issues Information Technology and Records Management Issues Issues Relating to Preserving Evidence Communications Issues Human Resource Issues Issues Relating to Pandemics/Public Health Emergencies Interagency Coordination Plan Testing and Training

Page 1

KEY FINDINGS •

•

•

• •

•

• • • • •

• •

While 43 of the state’s 48 courts indicate they have a COOP/Disaster Recovery plan, no courts report that their plan addresses the full range of possible emergencies that may arise; 38 courts indicate that services in their courts have been interrupted at least once in the last five years. Weather related events are reported to be the main reason for disruption in services. Many courts report that their plan contains protocols for communicating with judges and court staff in the event of an emergency. Provisions regarding communicating with other key contacts exist at a lower rate. Plans vary in terms of whether they were developed in coordination with key justice system partners. Many courts report that their plan contains key implementation provisions such as those relating to the individual(s) with the authority to activate the plan and the conditions under which the plan will be activated. Plans vary, however, in terms of whether they contain provisions relating to the succession of authority for discharging the plan. 34 courts indicate that an alternate site has been identified where court proceedings can be held during periods in which the courthouse might be unavailable, though not all of these courts report that the space that has been identified is ideally suited to accommodate court needs and functions. 26 courts report that their plan contains provisions regarding the safeguarding of electronically stored records. Few courts report that their plans include provisions for back-up communications in the event conventional modes of communicating are unavailable. Few courts report that their plan contains provisions for “mission critical” administrative functions in the event of an emergency. Few courts report that their plan contains provisions relating to the potential implications of a public health emergency. While many courts indicate that they have taken the needs and resources of other justice system agencies into account when developing their plans, there appears an overall lack of communication and coordination with key justice system partners regarding continuity of trial court operations. Most courts do not distribute their plans to staff or train staff on them. Eighteen of the state’s 48 district courts indicate that they would like assistance with some aspect of COOP planning or implementation.

RECOMMENDATIONS While 43 of the state’s 48 district courts report that they have a COOP, survey results indicate the degree to which plans are ready to be implemented and likely to be helpful in the event of an emergency vary widely and leave the district court community less than optimally prepared.

Page 2

This performance audit reveals the following: • • • • • •

There is a need for each district court’s COOP to contain up to date and broad reaching communication protocols. There is a need for all district courts to identify suitable sites where key trial court operations can be located in the event such space is needed. There is a need for all district courts to develop protocols to support the full range of operations associated with a prolonged displacement from their courthouse. There is a need for all district courts to ensure that all records are safeguarded and that remote access is available to them. There is a need for district courts to ensure that all those affected by receive a copy of the plan, are routinely trained on its provisions and included in the testing of it. There is a need to ensure that district court plans are informed by and shared with the full range of justice system partners.

Consistent with these findings, it is recommended that training be made available to all district courts and their disaster recovery partners to ensure that adequate disaster and continuity of operations planning and testing protocols are being utilized and that adequate continuity and recovery plans are being developed. The Template developed to support this project can be a helpful tool in this work. This process should ideally involve planning both internal to courts, as well as planning involving the activities, expectations and needs of courts’ partner justice system agencies.

Page 3

I. INTRODUCTION: PROJECT SCOPE AND FOCUS This audit was prompted by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s interest in assessing the degree to which disaster recovery and continuity of operations planning was occurring in trial courts throughout the state. Though many of the state’s justice entities were affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there remains a continuing need to ensure that planning is ongoing and that it does not revolve only around weather related events. Questions also exist regarding whether there is agreement as to what constitutes the essential elements of planning for continuity of operations in the context of the judicial branch. The first step in conducting this audit was, therefore, to identify these essential elements and to then develop a framework that could be used for assessing the degree to which they have been incorporated into continuity of operations planning undertaken in each of Louisiana’s 48 district courts. This effort was also designed to assist the Supreme Court in identifying continuity of operations plan (hereinafter “COOP”) related training and technical assistance needs of the district courts. This audit project has been designed to generate information about the readiness of Louisiana’s district courts to continue to operate under emergency situations, and to help identify and promote court practices that ensure that essential court operations can be resumed as promptly and fully as possible after a crisis. The audit process developed to assess district court planning efforts is also intended to promote dialogue among all justice system stakeholders regarding issues of common concern and about the policies necessary to ensure the continuity of the judicial function and the rule of law.

Page 4

II. METHODOLOGY The identification of the essential elements that need to be incorporated into district courts’ COOP planning efforts was accomplished through technical assistance provided free of charge by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project (CCTAP) at American University. CCTAP and American University staff developed a Template for the Supreme Court for use in conducting this performance audit. This Template is attached to this report as Appendix A. The Template covers the essential functions Louisiana’s district courts perform and can be applied to a range of potential emergency or other situations that can disrupt the normal operations of the courts. The Template is essentially a framework for assessing the degree and adequacy of COOP planning in each of Louisiana’s district courts In developing this Template, the CCTAP staff drew on the extensive experience of the following practitioners: •

•

•

•

•

Thomas Dibble, Records Manager and Special Assistant to the Trial Court Administrator, Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex Vicinage, Newark, New Jersey. Mr. Dibble contributed to the overall focus of the document and, in particular, the topics of records management and communication. Richard B. Hoffman, former Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and a specialist in judicial administration. Mr. Hoffman contributed substantially to the descriptive elements for the functional areas as well as to assessment elements. Kazimierz Lobaza, Information Technology Manager, Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex Vicinage, Newark, New Jersey. Mr. Lobaza contributed to the topic of information technology. Judge John Parnham (Ret.), First Judicial Circuit Court in Pensacola, Florida. Judge Parnham provided an overall review of the Template and contributed specifically to the sections dealing with evidence and problem solving courts, drawing on the Circuit’s experiences with Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and subsequent planning efforts. Gordon Park-Li, Chief Executive Officer, San Francisco Superior Court. Mr. Park-Li conducted an overall review of the Template and provided important practical suggestions based on the range of emergency situations the San Francisco Courts have experienced.

What emerged from the collective effort of these practitioners was the articulation of 15 functional areas of court operations deemed essential components for trial court continuity of operations planning. These areas are as follows: 1 1

As the first functional area indicates, while the continuity of operations planning process involves addressing functional areas individually, it also requires a review of the court’s functions in toto, both internally and in relation to other agencies upon which the court depends to function (e.g., sheriff,

Page 5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Overview of the Necessary Elements of a COOP COOP Planning Process Authority for Court to Operate During An Emergency Performance of Essential “Mission Critical” Court Functions Special Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts Facilities and Equipment Information Technology Records Management Safeguarding Evidence Communication Human Resources Special Issues Relating to Pandemic/Public Health/Environmental and Emergency Planning 13. Interagency Coordination 14. Testing and Training 15. Provisions for COOP Plan Implementation and Updating The Template also includes brief commentary regarding the need for and value to trial courts in addressing specific aspects entailed in COOP planning for each of the Functional Areas addressed. This commentary is provided as a separate attachment to this report as Appendix B. In essence, these 15 functional areas—and the detailed operational questions developed pursuant to them—represent “best practices” which can serve as a guide for COOP planning. They are also a set of set of criteria against which the adequacy of COOPs and the COOP planning process can be measured. The Template and this measurement process can also be used as an educational tool in that they highlight the full range of functions and tasks that need to be addressed in a well designed COOP.

prosecutor, public defender, etc.). Although the Template is organized around individual functional areas, they therefore need to be addressed comprehensively, recognizing that each of these areas interrelate and cannot be approached in isolation.

Page 6

III. AUDIT PROCESS As a first step in applying the Template, the staff of the Supreme Court Judicial Administrators Office developed an online survey instrument. This instrument was organized around the key functional areas of the Template and drew heavily from the questions included in it. A copy of the survey instrument is attached to this report as Appendix C. The survey was developed with the expectation that responses would: 1) provide a foundation for determining the extent of COOP planning in district courts; 2) provide a basis for assessing the adequacy of such planning efforts; 3) provide insight into the level of readiness of each jurisdiction to deal with a disruption in services; and 4) assist the Supreme Court in prioritizing and targeting technical assistance and training needs. Recognizing that the elements included in each of the 15 functional areas represent a “gold standard” to which COOP planning should aspire, it is important to note that most of Louisiana’s district courts have addressed key continuity of operations planning issues— though to varying degrees—and appear to have made important efforts during the past five years to develop COOP capabilities to sustain court operations. Categories on the Supreme Court’s survey instrument are as follows:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Background Information Key Plan Elements Plan Implementation Issues Issues Related to Problem Solving Courts Facilities and Equipment Issues Information Technology and Records Management Issues Issues Relating to Preserving Evidence Communications Issues Human Resource Issues Issues Relating to Pandemics/Public Health Emergencies Interagency Coordination Plan Testing and Training

An important secondary objective for conducting the survey was to begin to develop among district judges and administrators a common understanding regarding the scope of functions entailed in COOP planning for the courts. The survey instrument was distributed to all judges and court administrators in each of Louisiana’s 48 district courts. Chief Judges were requested to complete the survey on behalf of their courts. Preliminary analysis of the survey results and technical assistance and training needs are provided in the following sections of this report and were developed collegially by Supreme Court Judicial Administrators Office staff and the BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. Page 7

IV. FINDINGS Responses were received from all 48 district courts. It should be noted, however, that not all districts answered every question on the survey and that some of the responses from individual courts appear to be internally inconsistent. The findings below are presented pursuant to the categories in the Supreme Court’s survey. A.

Background Information

Existence of a Plan: Forty-three of the courts indicate they have a COOP/Disaster Recovery plan, most (29) of which have been adopted since hurricanes Katrina and Rita. While only 14 of the courts report that their plans have been updated within the last year, thirty-six courts indicate that they have a plan in final form that is ready to be implemented if necessary. See Exhibits 1 – 4. Maintenance of COOPs: The majority of plans are maintained by court administrators, though chief judges, judges and others, including local government officials, law clerks, bailiffs, paralegals and IT managers are also reported to maintain plans. See Exhibit 5. Experience with COOP Implementation: Eighteen courts indicate that they have already put their plan into effect. See Exhibit 6. All of these courts report that they found the plan to be helpful and relevant. Those elements of the plans cited as most helpful relate to provisions dealing with the need for and use of alternate facilities, and mechanisms for communicating with court personnel, through the use of contact lists and websites. Incidence and Duration of Disruption of Court Services: Thirty-eight courts indicate that services in their courts have been interrupted at least once for a “weather related incident, fire, public health epidemic, non-weather related power outage or terrorist event.” Seven of these courts report experiencing one disruption while 20 courts indicate they have experienced three or more disruptions. See Exhibits 7 and 8. Weather related events are reported to be the main reason for disruption in services. See Exhibit 9. The length of time during which the court was closed as a result of these emergencies or incidents was generally less than one day, except for weather related emergencies which resulted in court closures for up to one week for 21 courts and over one month for 7 courts. See Exhibits 10 – 14. Implementation Lessons Learned: When asked to summarize the most significant lessons learned as a result of the experience with these disruptions, 21 of the 40 courts that indicated they had experienced disruptions offered comments, which relate generally to the following:

Page 8

•

•

• •

•

B.

the importance of communication, both internal and with the public, including having up to date contact lists for both court staff and staff of other agencies with which the court interfaced; the critical need to have plans in place to ensure coordination with the Clerk’s Office, other justice agencies and other entities upon which the court depended to operate (e.g., local governments operating court facilities, power companies providing essential utilities, etc.); having adequate alternate facilities in which to operate; being able to adequately address issues relating to detained defendants (arranging for jail releases; having accurate information regarding who is in the jail, etc.); and generally having clear plans and procedures to implement when emergencies occurred.

Key Plan Elements

Threat Assessment: None of the 43 courts that reporting that they have a COOP indicate that their plan addresses all of the hazards and threats listed on the Supreme Court’s survey instrument. The most common type of hazard addressed in COOPs are weatherrelated emergencies (37 courts), fire (28 courts), and non weather-related power outages (24 courts). See Exhibit 15. Communication Protocols: In terms of COOP provisions relating to communicating with key parties in the event of an emergency, all courts indicating that they have a COOP report that the plan contains protocols for communicating with judges and court staff. Provisions regarding communicating with other key entities and individuals in the event of an emergency exist at a lower rate. See Exhibit 16. Plan Development Process: Plans vary in terms of whether they were developed in coordination with key justice system partners. While all courts reporting that they have a COOP indicate that the plan has been coordinated with local government representatives , and many report coordination with the Clerk of Court, district attorney’s offices, and local law enforcement, coordination with other entities varies. See Exhibit 17. Thirty-three of the forty-three courts reporting that they have a COOP indicate they coordinated their plans with local and/or state emergency preparedness offices. See Exhibit 18. C.

Plan Implementation Issues

Key Implementation Provisions: Many courts report that their plan contains key implementation provisions such as those relating to the individual(s) with the authority to activate the plan and the conditions under which the plan will be activated. Plans vary, however, in terms of whether they contain provisions relating to other important implementation issues such as the identification of backup staff for the performance of plan

Page 9

provisions and the development of an order of succession relating to discharging the plan. See Exhibit 19. D.

Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts

Twenty-seven courts indicate they have a drug court or other problem solving court operating in their jurisdiction. Maintaining Problem Solving Court Process in the Event of an Emergency or Disruption: Fifteen of the courts reporting that they have a problem solving court in their jurisdiction indicate that their plan contains specific provisions relating to how problem solving court processes will be maintained in the event of an emergency or other disruption in court operations. These 15 courts, however, report varying degrees of readiness to provide or sustain core problem solving court functions in the event of an emergency. See Exhibits 20 and 21. E.

Facilities and Equipment Issues

Alternate Sites: Thirty-four courts indicate that an alternate site has been identified where court proceedings can be held during periods in which the courthouse might be unavailable. Of those courts reporting that an alternate site has been identified, 31 indicate the site could be inhabited on short notice; 25 indicate that all necessary MOU’s and/or other agreements were in place to ensure the prompt use of the space for what might be an indeterminate period; and 21 indicate that the space is suitable for housing all necessary staff, records and equipment to conduct court proceedings. Twenty-seven courts indicate that the alternate site was another court. See Exhibits 22 and 23. F.

Information Technology and Records Management Issues

Record Maintenance, Access, and Rehabilitation: Twenty-six courts report that their plan contains provisions regarding the safeguarding of electronically stored records. See Exhibit 24. Four additional courts report that they depend on the Clerk of Court to develop plans to safeguard records. Twenty of the 26 courts report that provisions have been made to safeguard electronically stored records indicate that their plans also provided for access to these records in the event of an emergency. Nine courts report that their plans contain provisions regarding the repair or replacement of records that might be damaged or lost. Six courts report that all record types (i.e., case files, personnel records, general business records and other records) are covered by these provisions, and four courts report that their plans contain provisions as to which record type(s) would be needed in one day, one week, once a month, etc. or that their plans contain provisions for conducting court business in the absence of records. See Exhibit 24.

Page 10

G.

Issues Relating to Preserving Evidence

Safeguarding Evidence: Eleven courts indicate that their plans provide for the safeguarding of evidence that is in the court’s physical custody. Thirteen additional courts note that responsibility for safeguarding evidence that is in the court’s physical custody is actually the responsibility of the Clerk of Courts Office. H.

Communications Issues

Contact Information: Almost all courts reporting that they have a COOP indicate that their plan contains contact information for judges. Contact information for other key individuals and entities appear in plans at lower rates. See Exhibit 25. Backup Communications: Few courts report that their plans include provisions for back-up communications (e.g., walkie-talkies, etc. ) in the event conventional modes of communicating are compromised or unavailable. See Exhibit 26. I.

Human Resource Issues

Key Administrative Policies and Protocols: Few of the courts reporting that they have a COOP also report that these plans contain provisions for key human resources issues (such as leave and time and attendance reporting in an emergency) and “mission critical” administrative functions (such as payroll) in the event of an emergency or disruption in operations. See Exhibit 27. J.

Issues Relating to Pandemics/Public Health Emergencies

Protecting Staff and the Public: Thirteen courts reporting that they have a COOP report that their plan contains provisions relating to the potential implications of a pandemic/public health or environmental emergency, and an additional three courts reported that their plan includes measures to be taken to protect the health of court personnel and other court users in the event of a public health emergency. See Exhibit 28. Sustaining Operations in the Wake of a Public Health Emergency: Nine courts report that their plans make provisions for addressing how shortages of judges, staff, jurors and others will be addressed in the event of a public health emergency, and nine also report that their plans provide for leave policies for both personal and family care in the event of a public health emergency. See Exhibit 28. K.

Interagency Coordination

Collaborative Planning: While many courts indicate that they have taken the needs, resources and plans of other justice system agencies and entities upon which they depend to function into account when developing their continuity of operations plans, there appears an overall lack of communication and coordination with key justice system partners as it relates to planning for the continuity of operations within the judicial branch. See Exhibit 29. Page 11

L.

Plan Testing and Training

Plan Distribution and Frequency and Scope of Testing and Training: The majority of courts do not distribute or train staff on their COOP. Less than half of the 43 courts reporting that they had developed a COOP provide a copy of the plan to court employees, and only ten courts report that their plan contains provisions for routine staff training. For the few courts that include provisions for training in their COOP, most indicate training occurs once a year. A number of courts also noted that, although their plans provide for periodic training, such training had not occurred. Only one court reported that testing occurred every six months to ensure that “every aspect of court procedures was addressed.” See Exhibit 30. Training and Technical Assistance Needs: Eighteen of the state’s 48 district courts indicate that they would like assistance with some aspect of COOP planning or implementation. COOP elements receiving the highest responses in terms of the need for training were “Developing Key Plan Elements,” “Crisis/Emergency Communications,” and “Plan Testing and Training.” Three courts indicated that they are interested in assistance with “All COOP Issues.” See Exhibits 31 and 32.

Page 12

V. OBSERVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT While 43 of the state’s 48 district courts report that they have a COOP, survey results indicate the degree to which plans are ready to be implemented and likely to be helpful in the event of an emergency vary widely and leave the district court community less than optimally prepared. Survey responses suggest that the following areas warrant the Supreme Court’s priority attention: A.

Need for Increased Communication

There is a need for each district court’s COOP to contain up to date and broad reaching communication protocols. While the 43 courts that report they have developed a plan also report that their plans included provisions for communicating with judges and court staff in the event of an emergency, only 36 of these courts report that their plans include provisions for communicating with partner justice agencies and only 29 report that their plans contain provisions for communicating with litigants. And, of the courts that report provisions for communication, only 14 indicate the plan has had any updates during the past year, if only to address changes in personnel and/or their contact information. B.

Need for Suitable Alternate Facilities

There is a need for all district courts to identify suitable sites where key court operations can be located in the event such space is needed. Only 34 of all 48 courts report that they have identified an alternate facility in which court business can be conducted in the event of an emergency, and only 25 courts indicate that MOU’s or other agreements have been executed to ensure the court’s access to and use of sites. Further, only 21 indicate that the space is suitable for housing all necessary staff, records and equipment. C.

Need to Expand the Scope and Focus of COOP Planning

There is a need for all district courts to develop protocols to support continuity of operations associated with a prolonged displacement from their primary courthouse. It appears that the focus of much of the planning that has taken place relates more to needs likely to be encountered in the immediate aftermath of a disaster than to matters that relate to ensuring the continuity of the court function over an extended period of time. Only four courts, for example, report that their plans provide for conducting business in the absence of court records or safeguarding evidence that is in the court’s physical custody, and only 11 courts report that their plans included provisions relating to human resource and administrative matters (leave policies, payroll etc.). Page 13

D.

Need to Promote Records Management and Information Technology Best Practices

There is a need for all district courts to ensure that all records are safeguarded and that remote access is available to them. The information technology provisions of COOPs should receive special attention, both in terms of their adequacy and with regard to their compliance with accepted practices. While 22 courts indicate that they have some type of back-up system, the potential adequacy of these systems appears to vary significantly. Some courts, for example, simply provided survey responses indicating “online back-up; off-site back-up” or “it is up to the individual offices to secure their records” while others go into greater depth but still raise issues that deserve follow up. For example, one respondent indicated that “the court’s budgetary and salary (paycheck generating capabilities) are duplicated on the Finance Director’s and the Human Resources Director’s respective laptops and go home with them each night….”. This practice suggests that guidance in what constitutes accepted business practices may be needed. E.

Need to Institutionalize Staff Training and Plan Testing

There is a need for district courts to ensure that all those affected by a plan receive a copy of it and are routinely trained on its provisions and included in its regular testing. Most courts do not train employees on their plan’s contents or distribute copies of the plan to staff or, in many cases, to other justice agencies. In few jurisdictions is there any regular testing of the plan. F.

Need to Enhance and Formalize Interagency Collaboration

There is a need to ensure that district court plans are informed by and shared with the full range of justice system partners. There appears to be a lack of coordination between plans the courts have developed and the planning (or lack thereof) by the other agencies upon which the courts depend to function. This lack of coordination reflects a lack of consultation on the part of the court with other agencies as well as lack of knowledge about what other agencies have in their plans. While this lack of coordination and consultation affects, to varying degrees, all of the justice and other agencies with which the court deals, including all problem solving court partners, it presents particular urgency regarding: (1) the Clerk of Court’s office which is responsible for maintaining court data and records, as well as evidence presented; and (2) the Sheriff who is responsible for housing detained defendants whose cases are pending before the court and providing prisoner transport and courtroom security for criminal matters.

Page 14

VI. CONCLUSION As noted earlier, while 43 of the state’s 48 district courts report that they have a COOP, survey responses suggest that, even in jurisdictions that do report that they have a plan, these plans may not be sufficient in scope or prepared in such a way as to be able to support critical trial court functions in the event of an emergency. This performance audit reveals the following: • • • • • •

There is a need for each district court’s COOP to contain up to date and broad reaching communication protocols. There is a need for all district courts to identify suitable sites where key trial court operations can be located in the event such space is needed. There is a need for all district courts to develop protocols to support the full range of operations associated with a prolonged displacement from their courthouse. There is a need for all district courts to ensure that all records are safeguarded and that remote access is available to them. There is a need for district courts to ensure that all those affected by receive a copy of the plan, are routinely trained on its provisions and included in the testing of it. There is a need to ensure that district court plans are informed by and shared with the full range of justice system partners.

Consistent with these findings, it is recommended that training be made available to all district courts and their disaster recovery partners to ensure that adequate disaster and continuity of operations planning and testing protocols are being utilized and that adequate continuity and recovery plans are being developed. The Template developed to support this project can be a helpful tool in this work. This process should ideally involve planning both internal to courts, as well as planning involving the activities, expectations and needs of courts’ partner justice system agencies.

Page 15

EXHIBITS

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Does your jurisdiction have a COOP?

(5)  10% Yes No

(43) 90%

 

  EXHIBIT 1 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION When was your COOP adopted? 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Within the last year

1‐2 yrs. ago

2‐3 yrs. ago

3‐4 yrs. ago

4‐5 yrs. ago

> 5 yrs. ago  

EXHIBIT 2 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION When was your COOP last updated? 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Within the last year

1‐2 yrs. ago

2‐3 yrs. ago

> 5 yrs. ago  

  EXHIBIT 3 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Do you consider your plan to be in final  form and ready for implementation?

Yes

25% No/No  Response/ No Plan

75%  

EXHIBIT 4   

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Who maintains your court's COOP?

Parish President 3% Parish  Government  Official  3%

Other 16%

Court  Administrator 57%

Judge 8% Chief Judge 13%

 

  EXHIBIT 5 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Have you ever had to put your COOP into effect?

Yes

37% No/No  Response/ No Plan

63%

    EXHIBIT 6 

2%

GENERAL INFORMATION Has your jurisdiction ever  experienced an interruption in services?

19% Yes No No response

79%     EXHIBIT 7 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION How many times in the last five years have  operations been interrupted in your jurisdiction? 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

One time

Two times

Three times Four times

EXHIBIT 8   

 

Five times

> Five times

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION How many times in the last five years have  operations been interrupted for the following? 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Weather

Fire

Public health   related

  EXHIBIT 9   

 

Non‐weather  related power  outage

Terrorist event

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service  interruption due to a WEATHER INCIDENT? 25

20

15

10

5

0

< 1 day

< I week

1‐2 weeks

2‐3 weeks

  EXHIBIT 10 

3‐4 weeks 1‐2 months > 2 months

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service interruption due to FIRE? 3

2

1

0

< 1 day

< I week

1‐2 weeks

2‐3 weeks

  EXHIBIT 11 

3‐4 weeks

1‐2 months

> 2 months

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service  interruption due to  a PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN? 4

3

2

1

0

< 1 day

< I week

1‐2 weeks

2‐3 weeks

  EXHIBIT 12   

 

3‐4 weeks

1‐2 months > 2 months

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service interruption  due to a NON WEATHER RELATED POWER OUTAGE? 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

< 1 day

< I week

1‐2 weeks

2‐3 weeks

EXHIBIT 13   

 

3‐4 weeks

1‐2 months > 2 months

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service  interruption due to a TERRORIST EVENT? 5

4

3

2

1

0

< 1 day

< I week

1‐2 weeks

2‐3 weeks

  EXHIBIT 14   

 

3‐4 weeks

1‐2 months > 2 months

KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Are the following threats addressed in your COOP? 48 42 36 30 24

No Response/No Plan

18

No Yes

12 6 0 Weather  related  incidents

Fire

Public health  Non weather  Terrorist event epidemic power outage

  EXHIBIT 15 

KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Does your COOP contain provisions regarding the steps that will be  taken to communicate an emergency situation to the following  individuals/entities? 48 42 36 30 24 18 12 6 0

No Response/No  Plan No Yes

EXHIBIT 16   

 

KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Was your COOP coordinated with the following partners? 48 42 36 30 24

No Response/No Plan

18

No

12

Yes

6 0

 

EXHIBIT 17 

KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Was the development of your COOP coordinated with local and/or  state emergency preparedness office(s)?

10% Yes

21%

No

69%

No plan

 

EXHIBIT 18   

 

  PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES Does your COOP... 48 42 36 30

No Response/No Plan

24

No

18

Yes

12 6 0 Contain  Contain  Identify who  Identify the  Assign  Identify and  Provide for  Provide for  specific  provisions  will activate  conditions  responsibility assign backup succession of  different  authority? levels of  provisions  regarding the  it? under which  to specific  staff to  response for  regarding  presence/use  it will be  staff for  implement its  different  how essential  of "Drive  activated? implementing components? levels of  case events  Away Kits"? its  emergency? will be  components? handled?

EXHIBIT 19 

 

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS If your jurisdiction has a problem solving court (n=27), does your  jurisdiction's COOP contain provisions relating to how problem solving  court processes will be maintained in the event of an emergency or  disruption in services?

Yes

46% 54%

No

 

  EXHIBIT 20     

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS If your jurisdiction has a problem solving court (n=27), does your  jurisdiction's COOP contain provisions relating to how problem solving  court processes will be maintained in the event of an emergency or  disruption in services? 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 Treatment

Judicial oversight

Drug testing

Case management

Is a list of client  contact info.  maintained?  

EXHIBIT 21   

FACILITES AND EQUIPMENT Has an alternate site been identified where court proceedings can be  held during periods in which your courthouse may be unavailable or  inaccessible?

10% 19%

Yes No No plan

71%

 

EXHIBIT 22 

FACILITES AND EQUIPMENT If an alternate site has been identified (n=34),   please indicate whether ...   35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Space can be inhabited on  Agreements enabling  short notice occupancy/use in place

Space is suitable for staff,  records and equipment

Space is another court  

EXHIBIT 23   

  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & RECORDS MANAGEMENT ISSUES Does your COOP: 48 42 36 30 24 No response/N/A

18

No

12

Yes

6 0 Contain provisions  Contain provisions  Contain provisions Are all record types Contain provisions  regarding the  relating to the  regarding the  (i.e.,  for conducting  safeguarding of  access of those  repair and  administrative,  business in the  electronically  records, if  rehabilitation of  case files, etc.)  absence of court  stored records? necessary? paper records? covered by these  records? provisions?

EXHIBIT 24   

 

 

COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES Does your COOP contain contact information for all  those affected by it, including: 48 42 36

No Response/No  Plan

30 24

No

18 12

Yes

6 0

  EXHIBIT 25   

 

COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES Does your COOP contain provisions for back‐up communication in the  event conventional modes of communicating are compromised or  unavailable?

14%

17% Yes No No Response/No Plan

69%  

EXHIBIT 26     

HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES Does your COOP: 48 42 36 30 24 18 No Response/No Plan

12

No

6

Yes

0 Contain specific  Contain specific  Differentiate  Contain provisions  Contain provision  provisions  provisions  between essential  regarding  regarding the  regarding the  regarding  and non‐essential  telecommuting? protocols that will  be followed for  handling of  compensated and  employees in the  context of an  compensating  essential  uncompensated  administrative  leave during an  emergency? employees if  functions such as  emergency or  normal time  payroll, leave and  disruption? reporting is not  available? related time and  attendance? 

EXHIBIT 27   

 

PANDEMIC/PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES Does your COOP address/include: 48 42 36 30 24 No Response/No Plan

18

No 12

Yes

6 0 Implications of a  Leave policies in the  Measures to protect  How shortages of  public health  event of a public  the health of court  judges, staff, jurors  emergency for court  health emergency? personnel and court  and others will be  personnel? users in the event of a addressed in the event  public health  of a public health  emergency? emergency?

EXHIBIT 28     

 

 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION Number of courts  indicating they need this  entity  to operate in an  emergency 

Number of courts  indicating that this entity  has been made aware of  the court’s COOP 

Number of courts indicating  that they have taken this  entity’s COOP into account in  the court’s planning 

Local Government 

41

39 

33

Clerk of Court 

40

37 

24

District Attorney’s Office 

38

34 

19

Public Defender’s Office 

36

26 

13

Probation 

33

19 

8

Law Enforcement 

38

37 

23

State Agencies 

35

19 

10

State and Local Bar Assn’s.  

0

13 

0

Specialized Court Partners  

25

17 

11

  Entity 

 

EXHIBIT  29   

 

COOP PLAN TESTING AND TRAINING 48 42 36 30 24 No Response/No Plan

18

No Yes

12 6 0 Has a copy of your  Does your plan  Does your plan  Does your plan  Does your plan  plan been provided  contain provision  contain provisions  contain provisions  contain provision  to all affected  for routinely  for training  for regular testing? for reviews and  employees? training all affected  individuals with  debriefings after  employees? critical roles? testing?

 

EXHIBIT 30   

COOP ASSISTANCE Would you like assistance with the following? 5 4 3 2 1 0

  EXHIBIT 31 

COOP Training and Technical Assistance Bossier

26

Caddo

Webster

Benton

3

Oak Grove

4

Lincoln

Minden

Ruston

2

Richland

Ouachita

Rayville

Monroe

Shreveport

Madison

5

Bienville Jackson

Arcadia

Tallulah

6

Jonesboro Coushatta

DeSoto

Red River

Mansfield

39

42

Lake Providence

East Carroll

37

Franklin

Winn

Caldwell

Winnsboro

Winnfield

Columbia

Tensas St. Joseph

8

28

ia

7

35

Concord

Colfax

es

Many

Harrisonburg

Jena

Grant

itoch

10

Sabine

Catahoula

LaSalle

h Natc

11

Natchitoches

Alexandria

Vernon Leesville

Avoyelles

9

30

Marksville

12 Allen

DeRidder

Oberlin

Evangeline

36

33

14

Acadia

Jennings

Crowley

Lake Charles

New Roads

15

La

St. Martinville

Abbeville

22 St. Tammany

Amite

Covington

Livingston

19

sion Ascen lle

Plaquemine

St. Martin

Franklinton

Livingston

sonvi

Donald

A

38

Baton Rouge

W ton Ba uge Ro

16

Washington

21

23 New Iberia

St. Helena Greensburg

East Baton Rouge

ille nv n leo tio po p Na ssum

Cameron

Vermilion

llen

Clinton

Iberville

St. Martin

Iberia Cameron

20

tA Por est

18 e ett fay te La fayet

East Feliciana

Pointe Coupee

27 St. Landry Opelousas

Jefferson Davis

31

St. Francisville

oa

Ville Platte

West Feliciana

Tangipah

Beauregard

13

Calcasieu

Judicial Districts not requesting COOP related training and/or technical assistance

Vidalia

Rapides

St. James Convent

ew ns N rlea

24

fo u

Terrebonne Houma

Gre

32

rson Jeffe tna

rch e Thibodaux

17

34 St. Bernard Chalmette

29

La

Franklin

ns

lea

Or

O

St. Charles Hahnville

St. Mary

EXHIBIT 32

40

Edgard

St. John

1

West Carroll

Bastrop

Farmerville

Homer

· 1st JDC · 4th JDC · 9th JDC · 10th JDC · 15th JDC · 16th JDC · 18th JDC · 21st JDC · 24th JDC · 25th JDC · 28th JDC · 33rd JDC · 34th JDC · 35th JDC · 38th JDC · 39th JDC · 42nd JDC · OPJC

Morehouse

Union

Claiborne

Judicial Districts requesting COOP related training and/or technical assistance

25 Pl

aq ue m

in

es Pointe-a-la-Hache

Appendix A

Template for Assessing Status and Adequacy of COOP Planning by District Courts in Louisiana

BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project: TA Report No. 4-134

Template for Assessing Status Of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts

STAFF: Caroline S. Cooper

CONSULTANTS and CONTRIBUTORS Thomas Dibble Richard B. Hoffman Kazimierz Lobaza Judge John Parnham (Ret.) Gordon Park-Li May 2010 This report was prepared under the auspices of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at American University, Washington, D.C. This project was supported by Grant No.2007-DD-BX-K094 awarded to American University by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

CONTENTS

Page I.

II.

Introduction A. How This Template Is Intended to Be Used B. Purpose of COOP Planning C. Functional Areas Addressed D. Methodology for Developing This Template

1 2 3 4

Assessment Template: Functional Areas Entailed in COOP Planning and the COOP Planning Process

5

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. III.

Overview of the Necessary Elements of a COOP Plan COOP Planning Process Authority for Court to Operate During an Emergency Performance of Essential “Mission Critical” Court Functions Special Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts Facilities and Equipment Information Technology (IT) Records Management: Planning, Response, and Recovery Evidence Communication Human Resources Special Issues relating to Pandemic/Public Health/ Environmental Emergency Planning Interagency Coordination Testing and Training Provisions for COOP Plan Implementation and Updating

Summary Findings: Technical Assistance and Training Needs and Priorities

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

5 9 10 11 13 15 17 20 23 24 26 27 29 30 31

34

2

I.

INTRODUCTION

A.

How This Template Is Intended To Be Used

This template has been developed at the request of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Office of the Judicial Administrator by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at American University to provide guidance for assessing the status of COOP Planning in Louisiana’s District Courts. The purpose of the template is to provide: (1) a framework for assessing the degree and adequacy of COOP planning in each of Louisiana’s District Courts at any one time, along with training or technical assistance needs; (2) a point of reference regarding the essential elements for COOP planning in each of the fifteen functional areas addressed; and (3) an indication of areas for training and/or technical assistance which would be useful to enhance COOP planning efforts. The template is intended to cover the essential functions Louisiana’s District Courts perform and to be applied to a range of potential emergency or other situations that can disrupt the normal operations of the court. Each of the fifteen functional areas covered in the template are presented in three sections: (1) an overview of the principal tasks to be covered in the course of COOP planning to ensure the court’s capability to perform the function in the event of an emergency or other disruption in operations; (2) a chart of the principal elements of COOP planning to be addressed with space to note the status of planning for each of these elements and any associated training or technical assistance needs the Court has identified; and (3) an overall assessment of the degree to which COOP planning has been performed for each of the functional areas. With this framework, the template is designed to be used as both a self assessment tool for the Judicial Administrator and/or District Courts to assess the adequacy of their COOP planning efforts as well as an educational tool to highlight the range of functions and tasks that should be addressed in an effective COOP plan. The COOP planning process requires a review of the court’s functions in toto. Although the template is organized around functional areas, they should be addressed comprehensively, recognizing that each of these areas interrelate and cannot be approached in isolation. The audit process is therefore designed to promote review of all elements needed to ensure that minimal disruption occurs in court operations in the event of an emergency and that essential court operations can continue – or be promptly resumed – as fully and effectively as possible. The COOP planning process is also intended to promote the collaborative and cooperative dialogue and relationships necessary to ensure the continuity of the judicial function and the rule of law. Small committees should be established to initiate and monitor COOP plan development and direct follow-up actions. Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

B.

Purpose of COOP Planning

The constitution and implementing legislation in most states require that the court system operate on an ongoing basis. Only recently have a few states authorized the temporary closure of a local court in an emergency; in those instances the closure has been contemplated as temporary and of very brief duration. Most court COOP planning therefore needs to start with the identification of mission-critical functions (i.e., functions that the court is constitutionally and/or statutorily required to perform) and the timeframe for their performance. For example, such planning would include the mission-critical functions, in priority order, that must be performed given a disruption of 1 day, a disruption of more than 1 day but less than 1 week, and a disruption of more than 1 week but less than 1 month. Once these functions can be performed, additional court functions need to be addressed to ensure that the business of the court and the rule of law continues without further interruption. Natural and manmade disasters can interrupt the operation of the court. The scope of the incident can range from a small electrical fire to a major catastrophe such as Katrina. By definition the scope and impact of a disaster cannot be predicted. To cope with the unknown, Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) put into place certain procedures for assessing the potential impact of a disruption in normal court operations and chart procedures, policies, and responsible individuals/ departments for maintaining essential judicial system operations and resuming normalcy as soon as possible, whether “normalcy” entails operating at an alternate location(s), the performance of court functions by individuals who do not normally perform them, and/or developing alternative mechanisms for handling the business of the court. Response to an emergency will differ depending on when the event occurs, the extent of disruption resulting, and how long the disruption lasts. It may happen during normal working hours, on a weekday night or over a weekend or on a holiday. Or it may take hold a little more gradually, such as a public health epidemic. How will notification procedures be handled and which staff should report to work and where should they go? It may be that just key staff will be required to come in to perform critical functions; if so, who will they be? And what functions will they be performing? Although the focus of this Template is upon ensuring the continuity of court operations once an emergency has occurred, the planning process underlying the template should be conducted in conjunction with emergency evacuation plans and other responses that should be in place to address the court’s immediate response to the crisis. If there is an event during normal working hours is the emergency evacuation plan in place and tested? Have provisions been made for persons with disabilities to be evacuated? and for safeguarding trial exhibits? Under normal circumstances courts do not operate in a vacuum. There are many other agencies that interact with the court daily and upon whom the court depends to operate; these include prosecutors, public defenders, the bar, law enforcement and social services organizations. Under emergency conditions there are a host of other entities that must be Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

2

involved with the response and recovery operation to restore the court to full functioning and/or to deal with the special issues that may result. These include fire and medical responders, emergency management agencies, commercial vendors and others. In the event of public health emergencies, state and local departments of health are key agencies which exercise substantial authority over a wide range of issues which can potentially affect both the workload of the court and its personnel. The COOP audit should therefore address the level of advance coordination established with all of the outside agencies the court must deal and the preparedness of the court including judges, managers and staff to deal with them. Once the COOP plan is developed, it is important to conduct a periodic review or audit of the plan to insure that all of the key considerations are covered and that the plans are up to date with names, phone numbers and other information that will inevitably change from time to time. The audit process is meant to be a constructive critique of the plan to identify areas that need to be modified or updated. C.

Functional Areas Addressed

The following functional areas are addressed in this template: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O.

Overview of the Necessary Elements of a COOP Plan COOP Planning Process Authority for Court to Operate During An Emergency Performance of Essential Court Functions Special Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts Facilities and Equipment Information Technology Records Management: Planning. Response and Recovery Safeguarding Evidence Communication Human Resources Special Issues Relating to Pandemic/Public Health/Environmental Emergency Planning Interagency Coordination Testing and Training Provisions for COOP Plan Implementation and Updating

D.

Methodology for Developing This Template

The framework for this template draws on the extensive experience of the BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project in COOP Planning for state and local courts since 2001. Augmenting this expertise has been the perspectives of the following judicial system practitioners whose experiences in dealing with and/or planning for various emergencies and other disruptions in court operations is reflected in the template: Thomas Dibble, Records Manager and Special Assistant to the Trial Court Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

3

Administrator, Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex Vicinage, Newark, New Jersey, who contributed to the overall focus of the document and, in particular, the topics of records management and communication; Richard B. Hoffman, former Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and a specialist in judicial administration, who contributed substantially to the descriptive elements for the functional areas as well as to assessment elements Kazimierz Lobaza, Information Technology Manager, Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex Vicinage, Newark, New Jersey, who contributed to the topic of information technology; Judge John Parnham (Ret.), First Judicial Circuit Court in Pensacola, Florida, who provided overall review of the template and contributed specifically to the sections dealing with evidence and problem solving courts, drawing on the Circuit’s experiences with “Ivan” in 2004 and subsequent planning efforts; Gordon Park-Li, Chief Executive Officer, San Francisco Superior Court, who also provided overall review of the template and provided important practical suggestions based on the range of emergency situations the San Francisco Courts have experienced.

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

4

II.

A.

Assessment Template: Functional Areas Entailed in COOP Planning and the COOP Planning Process

OVERVIEW OF THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A COOP PLAN THE GOAL OF A COOP PLAN IS TO OUTLINE PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW IN ADVANCE IN THE EVENT THE DISTRICT COURT IS MADE PARTIALLY OR FULLY INOPERABLE BY AN EMERGENCY SITUATION THAT RESULTS IN THE PARTIAL OR FULL DISRUPTION OF SERVICES, WHETHER SHORT OR LONGER TERM, AND TO DEFINE THOSE ESSENTIAL SERVICES THAT THE COURT MUST PROVIDE DURING SUCH AN EMERGENCY AND HOW AND BY WHOM THEY WILL BE PERFORMED. THE PLAN SHOULD ALSO PROVIDE FOR COMMUNICATING A UNIFIED MESSAGE BY A DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON.

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS A.

OVERVIEW OF THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A COOP PLAN

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. DOES THE COOP PLAN EXPLAIN: ( a) The goal of the document (see above) (b) The objectives of the plan (e.g.: - Restore mission-critical-systems within an acceptable period of time - Provide effective coordination and protection of court staff, visitors, and court users -Prepare the court for swift, efficient, and safe implementation of an emergency plan should the need arise - Have a plan established before an emergency so that decisions are not made spur-of-the moment -Expedite the restoration of mission-critical functions, including having in place an alternative facility if needed Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

5

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS A.

OVERVIEW OF THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A COOP PLAN

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

(c) Circumstances under which it will be applied (d) Functions and services covered (e) Who has the authority to declare that the plan will be put into effect and when (f) Who will be responsible for communicating that decision to other court staff and agencies, and the public as appropriate (g) Who will be responsible for notifying relevant agencies/people of the revised scheduling of court hearings, etc. (See Essential Functions below) and relocations of court services, if applicable? (h) How the COOP procedures will be communicated to: - judges - court staff - court security personnel - jail staff - prosecutor office staff - public defender office staff - probation and parole staff - jurors - witnesses - visitors - defendants scheduled for court appearance Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

6

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS A.

OVERVIEW OF THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A COOP PLAN

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

- police, Fire Department, Office of Homeland Security, Medical responders, Media and the Public in general. 2. Does the plan provide for a unified message that will be communicated to the media and other parties from a single spokesperson? 3. Does the COOP Plan establish ongoing communication mechanisms with other key justice agencies and provide for the ongoing updating of key contact information?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS:

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

7

COOP PLANNING PROCESS

B.

THE COOP PLANNING PROCESS SHOULD ENTAIL (1) IDENTIFYING THE RANGE OF HAZARDS AND THREATS THAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY DISRUPT COURT OPERATIONS, PARTIALLY OR FULLY, AND DEVELOPING RESPONSES IN COORDINATION WITH OTHER KEY JUSTICE AND OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING THE COURT DEPENDS ON TO OPERATE, SPECIFYING THE CRITICAL RESOURCE NEEDS AND COMMUNICATION MECHANISMS FOR THE PLAN TO FUNCTION. ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

B.

COOP PLANNING PROCESS

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Have hazards and threats (Natural and man-made) to the court been identified and solutions to mitigate them been proposed as part of the planning process, including risk assessment, in cooperation with law enforcement, the weather bureau and other agencies? 2. Has the COOP plan been developed in coordination with other key justice and social service agencies which the court depends on to operate? 3. Has a determination been made as to who will update this information, how frequently it will b up dated, and how the updating will be done? 4. Have critical resources (personnel, equipment, technological, communication, etc.) essential to continuing the court’s operations been identified? 5. Have emergency resources/supplies (water, flashlights, hand sanitizers, etc.) been purchased? 6. Is there an emergency budget or fund under which supplies and services can be purchased?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS: Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

8

C.

AUTHORITY FOR COURT TO OPERATE DURING AN EMERGENCY AN ESSENTIAL FIRST STEP IN DEVELOPING THE COOP PLAN IS TO IDENTIFY AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, INCLUDING ANY SUPREME COURT ORDER(S) THAT HAVE BEEN ENACTED OR MAY BE NEEDED THAT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COURT DURING AN EMERGENCY. ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

C.

AUTHORITY FOR COURT TO OPERATE DURING AN EMERGENCY

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Does the COOP identify: a) The constitutional authority relevant to the court’s functioning during an emergency? b) The statutory authority relevant to the court’s functioning during an emergency? c) Any executive or supreme court orders relevant to the court’s functioning during an emergency? 2. Does the COOP identify any gaps in authority that may be needed in the event of an emergency, including Supreme Court Orders and/or special rules?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS:

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

9

D.

PERFORMANCE OF ESSENTIAL “Mission Critical” COURT FUNCTIONS THE COOP PLAN SHOULD DEFINE WHICH FUNCTIONS MUST BE PERFORMED BY THE COURT UNDER EMERGENCY CONDITIONS, E.G. ARRAIGNMENTS, QUARANTINE ORDERS, JUVENILE EMERGENCY HEARINGS, CRITICAL HEARINGS IN CRIMINAL, CIVIL, AND FAMILY CASES; MANAGING JURIES; PROCESSING PAYMENTS FOR TRAFFIC AND CHILD SUPPORT MATERS; AND PAYROLL OF COURT STAFF ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

D.

PERFORMANCE OF ESSENTIAL “MISSION CRITICAL” COURT FUNCTIONS

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Does the COOP plan identify the essential functions that must be performed within statutory time periods (e.g., 24 hours, 48 hours, and other applicable timeframes, such as: - Conducting arraignments - Issuing protective orders, quarantine orders, and other emergency orders? - Conducting preliminary hearings - Conducting probable cause hearings - Conducting bail/OR hearings - Conducting Emergency hearings on juvenile cases - Other (please specify) 2. Are emergency proceedings prioritized? (e.g., starting with those constitutionally and statutorily required, etc.) 3. Does the COOP plan provide for other emergency proceedings? 4. Does the COOP Plan provide for the potential need for emergency rule-making? Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

10

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS D.

PERFORMANCE OF ESSENTIAL “MISSION CRITICAL” COURT FUNCTIONS

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

5. Does the COOP plan provide for performing other court functions including conducting hearings for: - criminal, civil, juvenile, and family matters - Performing jury management functions - Processing court payroll, traffic citations, small claims filings, and child support payments 6. Does the COOP plan provide for necessary support/administrative activities and requisite payroll functions?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS:

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

11

E.

SPECIAL ISSUES RELATING TO PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS SINCE PROBLEM SOLVING COURT PROGRAMS GENERALLY ENTAIL (1) ONGOING SUPERVISION OF AND SERVICE TO PARTICIPANTS, AND (2) CLOSE COORDINATION WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS AS WELL AS OTHER JUSTICE AGENCIES, SPECIAL EFFORT NEEDS TO BE MADE TO ENSURE THAT THE PARTICIPANTS KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW THE PROGRAM(S) WILL OPERATE IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, THE SERVICES THAT WILL BE PROVIDED, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE. SPECIAL EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO ENSURE THAT TREATMENT AND OTHER SERVICES ARE NOT INTERRUPTED DURING AN EMERGENCY WHICH PRESENT SPECIAL DIFFICULTIES FOR PERSONS ALREADY IN DRUG AND/OR MENTAL HEALTH COURT PROGRAMS WHERE CONTINUITY OF SERVICES IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT. AGREEMENT SHOULD BE REACHED WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES REGARDING THE NATURE OF SERVICES, COORDINATION AND OTHER FUNCTIONS THEY ARE TO PERFORM AND COMMUNICATION MECHANISMS WITH EACH OF THE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS. THESE AGREEMENTS SHOULD ALSO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAM SPEAKS WITH ONE VOICE.

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS E. SPECIAL ISSUES RELATING TO PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Does the plan address how problem solving court dockets (e.g., drug court, mental health court, etc.) will function in the event of an emergency or other disruption in court operations? 2. Is a list maintained of all problem solving court participants with current contact information and updated continuously? 3. Has the court coordinated with service providers and other agencies involved in the operation of each problem solving court docket as to how the program will operate in the event of an emergency or other disruption? 4. Has the court coordinated with service providers and other agencies involved in the operation of each problem solving court docket as to the unified Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

12

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS E. SPECIAL ISSUES RELATING TO PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

message each agency will provide regarding the services and operations of the problem solving court program? 5. Have problem solving court participants been informed of how the problem solving court will operate in the event of an emergency or other disruption in services? 6. Have special efforts been made to ensure that services for problem solving courts suffer minimal, if any, disruption?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS:

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

13

F.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT THE COOP PLAN SHOULD PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE PERFORMANCE OF EACH CATEGORY OF MATTER THE COURT HANDLES BY IDENTIFYING THESE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, INFORMING RELATED AGENCIES REGARDING ANY ALTERNATIVE FACILITY DESIGNATION(S), MAKING PROVISIONS FOR TRANSPORT OF NEEDED RECORDS, ARRANGING FOR PROVISION OF NEEDED FURNISHINGS, SECURITY, COMMUNICATIONS AND RELATED SUPPORT AT EACH OF THESE FACILITIES, AS NECESSARY; AND COMPLETION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO CONFIRM THE ARRANGEMENTS. ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

F.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Have alternate facility(ies) been identified to house criminal, civil, family and juvenile matters as well as any special problem solving court programs operating? 2. Can they provide adequate space and other requirements for required court records? 3. Have other agencies (e.g., law enforcement, prosecution, sheriff, defense, etc.) been informed of the location of these facilities? 4. Has provision been made to ensure necessary equipment (computers, telephones, etc.) will be available at these alternate facilities? 5. Are instructions provided to transport records and other information necessary to perform essential court functions will be transferred to the alternate site and by whom? 6. Do alternate facility(ies) have the necessary security protections, backup system capabilities, and furnishings (furniture, supplies, communications) Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

14

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS F.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

necessary to perform court functions? 7. Is an M.O.U. in place to ensure the court’s use of the alternative facility(ies.)?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

15

G.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) PLANNING TO MAINTAIN THE COURT’S ABILITY TO USE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN AN EMERGENCY REQUIRES SEVERAL PLANNING STEPS TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE BACKUP IS BEING MADE, MISSION-CRITICAL SYSTEMS ARE PROTECTED, ALTERNATIVE (REDUNDANT) SOURCES OF IT SUPPORT ARE IDENTIFIED, AND RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED FOR EACH ROLE. ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

G.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Has a Court Information Security Committee been organized which includes agencies that are part of the court’s information system? 2. Has a system-wide inventory been conducted to: (a) Decide what information and systems that support court functions are essential? (b) Determine who has responsibility for access, data entry, and operation of the system? (c) Determine the format records are in? (d) Determine how these records and systems will be accessed in the event of relocation? 3. Have specific systems been prioritized as being mission-critical? 4. Has a determination been made as to the forms for information retrieval that are required to sustain court functions? 5. Has a determination been made as to whether the court’s record-keeping format is compatible with other agencies with which the court must interface? 6. Have IT Security standards and an IT security policy adopted? If so, has a determination been made as to how these standards and policies will be Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

16

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS G.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

maintained in the event of an emergency or other disruption in operations? 7. Are backups made to a tape? (or other media) (a) If “yes, are the back up tapes sent to an off site facility? (b) If “yes”, are the backup tapes sent frequently and regularly? (e.g. daily? Weekly? Monthly?) © If “yes, are backups stored offsite in a location that would not be affected by the emergency situation ? (d) If “yes”, has a determination been made as to how long will it take to recover information that is stored offsite and is the timeframe adequate to perform essential court functions? (e) Is someone authorized to have special access to a backup in case it is needed immediately? (f) If “yes”, are there individuals designated to act in his/her place if necessary? 8. Are the system logs secured? 9. Is disk protection technology such as RAID being used? 10. Are surge protectors used to protect all computers and other electronic devices? 11. Is/are the computer room (s) equipped with alarm and fire extinguishers to respond to fire? 12. Does the court use UPS and backup generators to keep the servers and systems going in the event of power failure? 13. In the event that the court’s information system Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

17

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS G.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

cannot be accessed for prolonged periods of time, is a temporary manual system or other replacement in place? 14. Does IT staff conduct routine system security monitoring and are systems in place to ensure that security systems such as firewalls intrusion detection, and antivirus and antispyware software will function? 15. Has a determination been made as to whether the court’s record-keeping format is compatible with other agencies with which the court must interface? 16. Does IT staff conduct research of potential threats on regular basis? 17. Are there sufficient resources (phones, Blackberrys, etc) to be able to remain in contact with necessary COOP personnel?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

18

H.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT: PLANNING. RESPONSE AND RECOVERY COURTS ARE HIGHLY RELIANT ON THE MAINTENANCE OF NEEDED RECORDS, BEFORE AND AFTER COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS. THE COOP PLAN MUST IDENTIFY WHAT RECORDS ARE TO BE PROTECTED AND BY WHAT MEDIA, HOW OTHERS MAY BE RECOVERED IF DESTROYED, AND WHAT PROVISIONS ARE NEEDED IN THE EVENT OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT UNAVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN RECORDS. THE STORAGE MEDIA SHOULD ALSO BE IDENTIFIED. GENERALLY, RECORDS WITH BACKUP, SUCH AS MICROFILM, WILL NOT NEED TO BE SALVAGED SINCE A NEW COPY CAN BE OBTAINED. IN FLOOD PRONE AREAS, BASEMENT STORAGE IS SELDOM A GOOD IDEA. RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES SHOULD BE REGULARLY REFERENCED SO THAT RECOVERY EFFORTS FOCUS ONLY ON THOSE RECORDS THAT NEED TO BE MAINTAINED.

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS H.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Has a current records inventory been conducted for active and inactive case files, and administrative records (HR, Finance, etc.)? 2. If “yes”, is a copy of the current inventory a part of the COOP Plan with key or vital records highlighted? 3.Are personnel designated to assist in the systematic identification/review of the court’s records, including those documents in case files that need to be saved or able to be discarded? 4. Does the court have diagrams of records storage areas in the court? 5. Have records retention schedules been implemented and all unneeded records disposed of? 6. Does the court have records storage standards with built in safeguards against the most common disasters, such as fire and water damage? 7. Has there been coordination between IT staff and Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

19

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS H.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

records managers to assess the timeliness and integrity of data entry? 8. Has a multi disciplined records recovery team been established, included in the COOP Planning process, and trained? 9. Does the plan include a list of equipment and supplies to be on hand and stored in a proper location? 10. Are various salvage and recovery methods identified to specify the appropriate technique(s)? 11. Does the plan include a list of consultants or experts to assist in the recovery operation? 12. If “Yes”, does the plan include an archivist to deal with salvageable records and coordinate future conservation needs? 13. If “yes”, does the plan include a list of commercial vendors available to assist with salvaging and drying records? 14. Is there a plan for an initial response to the emergency or disruption in regard to records? 15. Are the steps identified to assess and document damage to affected records outlined? 16. Is there a mechanism to coordinate information relating to the court’s records systems with the overall COOP Plan to assist in prioritizing recovery efforts? 17. If “yes”, is there provision as to which affected record(s) will be needed in one day, one week, one month, etc.? 18. If “yes”, does the plan indicate what happens if certain records are completely destroyed or cannot be Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

20

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS H.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

salvaged? 19. Is there a plan to inspect the records areas for electrical and other safety hazards that could affect recovery operations? 20. Is there an individual designated with authority to direct records recovery operations? 21. Regarding salvage operations: Is the need for listing of damaged records specified? 1 22. Is there a description of what damaged records can be duplicated from another source such as microfilm, duplicate filings in another agency, etc.? 23. Does the plan provide for authorization for emergency destruction of damaged records? 24. Does the plan provide for procedures for packing and labeling damaged records? 2

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS

1

This list should be compared with the records inventory and correlated with the COOP to prioritize recovery operations. These procedures will provide mechanisms to track the identity of damaged records. Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010. 2

21

EVIDENCE

I.

Generally, the court is responsible for safeguarding evidence that has been proffered for admission; prior to the proffer, the agency in possession of the records (e.g., law enforcement, forensic lab, prosecutor, defense counsel, etc.) bears safeguarding responsibility. The COOP planning process should include coordination with other agencies that may be submitting evidence at court proceedings as well as with the Clerk’s Office to ensure that the plan for safeguarding evidence is seamless regardless of when an emergency may occur to disrupt court proceedings for any period of time. The COOP plan should also address how demonstrative evidence (e.g., drugs, weapons, photographs, etc.) and documentary evidence (e.g., bank records, contracts, etc.) will be safeguarded in the event of any emergency that disrupts court operations and/or court proceedings. For documentary evidence, consideration should be given to preparing frequent (daily, for example) backups of documents submitted on discs through scanning which can then be stored, similar to the practices banks use. Where possible, consideration might also be given to requiring parties to submit two certified copies of documents proffered for admission, with one of these copies then stored in a secure location until the proceedings are completed. Reference to existing legal requirements regarding evidence should also be made with recommendations for modifications, if appropriate, in statutes or rules. As with records, basement storage for evidence in flood prone areas is not advisable.

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS I.

EVIDENCE

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Has the court developed a plan for safeguarding demonstrative and documentary evidence proffered for submission at court proceedings in the event of any disruption in the proceedings? 2. If yes, has the plan been developed in coordination with other agencies with custody over records that may be submitted for proffer? 3. Does the plan clearly identify who is responsible for safeguarding evidence at different stages of a proceeding? 4. Does the plan satisfy existing legal requirements for evidence governing preservation of chain of custody, integrity and other evidentiary requirements? 5. If “no”, are statutory, rule or other actions advisable?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

22

J.

COMMUNICATION Planning for adequate communications during an emergency requires (1) a description of communication methodologies that will be used when normal systems are unavailable; (2) preparing reliable lists and means for contacting key personnel, within the court and in other agencies which are updated on a continuing basis, and (3) policies and procedures to ensure that the court speaks with one voice and a consistent message that is shared by all other entities providing information relevant to any emergency or other situation that affects court operations. The COOP plan must include communication strategies to address the court’s need to communicate internally with judges and staff, with other agencies, with litigants, with the media and with the public.

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS J.

COMMUNICATION

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Has a system been established for central logging and tracking of events during the emergency? 2.If “yes”, does the system provide: (a) a Master log of events maintained in a central location which is hand written, typed or audio recorded?. (b) a method to convey critical information to key decision makers, managers and others with a need to know? 3. Are contact lists of judges, court staff and other key officials who may need to be contacted, including all parties, key decision makers, judges, managers, and others, maintained and updated regularly? 4. If “yes”, do the lists provide for each person • Name • Title • Work Phone • Home Phone • Work Cell Phone Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

23

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS J.

COMMUNICATION

• • • •

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

Personal Cell Phone FAX Number Work Email Home Email

(b) Are phone numbers and email addresses listed, verified and updated on a regular basis? including judges, court managers, key staff, other agencies, media outlets? © Are Email and or FAX “groups” established for various types of communications? (e.g., all parties; key decision makers; judges; managers, etc.) 5. Is there a method for assessing the potential adequacy of communications links in the event of different types of emergencies, including: Regular Phones, Cell Phones, E Mail, Blackberry type devices? 6.Are there backup communications systems identified and available, such as Court Walkie Talkie; and Law Enforcement Emergency Communications systems. 7.If electronic communications fail, have messengers been identified to physically transport records and information to alternate operating locations? 8.Is there a need to shuttle Judges and court staff to the alternate facility such as in a case where parking is limited, etc.?

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

24

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS J.

COMMUNICATION

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

25

K.

HUMAN RESOURCES An essential element of the coop plan should include a determination as to who are essential employees who will need to be on call or on hand in an emergency, how they will be compensated if normal processing of payroll is interrupted, and how other employees may be enabled to telecommute, if necessary. Additional policies regarding leave –e.g., what leave employees will be entitled to in the event of an emergency, including leave needed to take care of family matters, and the process for leave requests/approvals should be specified, particularly if compliance with normal procedures is not possible. In the event normal communication mechanisms are not operating, provisions should also be made regarding how employees can report in to indicate their availability and/or their whereabouts.

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS K.

HUMAN RESOURCES

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Have policies been announced regarding compensated and uncompensated leave during an emergency or other disruption in court operations? 2. If “yes”, do these policies address situations in which an employee may need to deal with family matters relating to the emergency that preclude their being able to come to work? 3. Has a designation been made as to “essential” vs. “non essential” staff who must report during an emergency? 4. Are provisions for telecommuting established as applicable? 5. Are arrangements in place to ensure employees will be paid even if normal time reporting is not possible? 6. Have procedures been established as to how employees can report to the court in the event circumstances make it not possible for them to physically appear?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

26

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS K.

L.

HUMAN RESOURCES

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

SPECIAL ISSUES RELATING TO PANDEMIC/PUBLIC HEALTH/ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY PLANNING Planning for a pandemic, other public health or environmental emergency, such as a courthouse areas rendered uninhabitable by asbestos or mold, raises special issues for courts that are not commonly part of preparedness planning for other types of emergencies. In the case of public health emergencies, these include: (1) potential for wider geographic area to be affected, compared with the more localized operational disruptions that occur with hurricanes, earthquake, and fire; (2) potential for greater periods of disruption, since public health emergencies can be generally of longer duration and can come in waves, rising and declining until they are contained; (3) potential disability of a significant proportion of the court’s workforce, as well as litigants, jurors, and others involved in the court process; (4) required interagency planning and coordination among agencies not usually involved with court emergency planning for natural disasters, including local and state public health agencies, county attorneys, and state attorneys general offices; (5) likely need for the court to develop alternative strategies for face-to-face contact by courthouse staff with the public, people under probation supervision, and others involved with the court’s day-to-day operations; (6) likely need for the court to deal with a range of substantive and due-process issues, particularly those relating to quarantine and isolation orders and habeas corpus motions. In the case of environmental emergencies, many of these issues also apply, along with the need to locate alternative facilities during the period of decontamination, if decontamination is possible. In addition, adequate preparation for these types of emergencies will require courts to address a range of human resource issues including determining the court’s obligation to and potential liability for employees who may be exposed to symptomatic people entering the court or environmental hazards; reviewing and modifying sick leave and compensation policies; and providing employee training and support regarding hygienic measures that need to be taken during such emergencies. The COOP plan needs to address all of these issues, focusing upon: (1) preserving the continuity, integrity, and independence of the judicial process (i.e., the rule of law) during a public health or environmental emergency; (2) substantive legal issues that will likely arise; (3) interagency relationships and coordination that will be needed, particularly among the courts and state and local public health agencies; and (4) the court as a workplace. Courts also will likely be called on to address a range of substantive legal issues arising out of a public health or environmental emergency which will require attention to constitutional protections—including those relating to due process and searches and seizure. Courts will also need to review and rule on emergency orders, as well as develop mechanisms to ensure the continuity of vital court operations in a manner that does not jeopardize the health and safety of judicial and other personnel.

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

27

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

L. SPECIAL ISSUES RELATING TO PANDEMIC/PUBLIC HEALTH /ENVIRONMENTAL/EMERGENCY PLANNING

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Does the plan address the potential implications of a pandemic/public health or environmental emergency for court operations and personnel? 2. Does the plan address leave policies for both personal and family care in the event of a public health emergency? 3. Does the plan provide for measures and supplies to protect the health of court personnel and other court users? 4. Does the plan provide for measures to address the potential shortages of court staff? Judges? Jurors? Other agency personnel essential to the conduct of court functions? 5. Has a review been conducted of constitutional provisions and pertinent authority under state law and regulations relating to actions that can be taken in the event of a public health outbreak or environmental emergency and identification of the agencies with legal authority to act? 6. Does the plan address how the potential “surge” workload that may result from a public health emergency will be handled? 7. Does the plan include a communications strategy to ensure the accurate, current information is provided to all who need it?

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

28

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

L. SPECIAL ISSUES RELATING TO PANDEMIC/PUBLIC HEALTH /ENVIRONMENTAL/EMERGENCY PLANNING

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS

M.

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION Ongoing and meaningful coordination with other agencies with which the court relates is a prerequisite to adequate COOP planning to ensure that court functions can continue to be performed during an emergency, that whatever COOP planning the court develops is consistent and compatible with the planning undertaken by other agencies, including the “mission critical functions” these agencies have identified, and that the support the Court may be anticipating from these other agencies can, in fact, be provided. An essential element of this interagency coordination should include: identification of the procedures that will be used to perform court functions involving other agencies, and who will be responsible at each agency to oversee the agency’s functions and serve as a point of contact. ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

M. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Does the COOP plan address the court’s operational relationships with all agencies the court relies upon for funding and operating? 2.Are all agencies with which the court depends on to operate aware of the priorities identified in the court’s COOP plan? 3.Does the court’s plan take into account the relevant elements of the COOP plans of other agencies upon which it depends to operate? (e.g., Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

29

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

M. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

sheriff, prosecutor, public defender, etc.?) 4.Does the court’s plan take into account the resources (e.g., staff, transport, information, etc.) it will rely upon from other agencies? 5. If “yes”, has the court informed these agencies of the resources it will need from them in the event of an emergency? 6. Are written agreements or M.O.U.s that clarify the roles and responsibilities of each agency signed between the court and its assisting agencies

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS N. TESTING AND TRAINING It goes without saying that, regardless of the merits of a COOP plan on paper, unless it is tested regularly and those affected trained in its execution the plan will be useless. An ongoing program of testing and training is needed to ensure that the plan can be applied as envisioned and which also takes into account the frequent turnover in judicial and other personnel who need to be familiarized with their roles and responsibilities to ensure the COOP plan is maintained. Tabletop exercises providing practical illustrations of various types of emergency situations addressed in the Plan should be developed. ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

TESTING AND TRAINING

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

1. Has everyone in the court been made aware of, and reviewed, the plan? 2. Does the plan provide for education and training for all affected and testing of plan procedures? 3.Are training sessions offered within the court Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

30

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS

TESTING AND TRAINING

Yes

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

and with other involved agencies regarding the plan’s assumptions, provisions and related procedures? 4.Has the court developed a regular schedule for training and testing the plan? 5.Are refresher courses offered every few months to ensure people remain in good practice 6.Are new employees given information regarding the Plan? And its impact on them? 7.Do personnel with more critical roles have specific operational trainings? 8.Does the training include different types of testing, such as table-top, single office, and full-scale exercises? 9. Does the training provide for reviews and debriefings conducted after each test, to allow people to evaluate the plan?

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

31

O.

PROVISIONS FOR COOP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND UPDATING

Yes

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS O.

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

PROVISIONS FOR COOP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

1. Does the plan describe: (a) who will have the authority to activate the plan as well as deactivate the plan and under what circumstances these actions will be taken? (b) who will be responsible for carrying out specific tasks once the plan is activated? (c) If “yes” , does it provide for an authorized backup individual who can fulfill the role in case of a personnel shortage/absence? 2. Does the plan provide for an order of succession, with specific instructions regarding delegation of authority, including to whom authority will be delegated, the circumstances for delegation, the time period applicable for the delegation, and transfers of leadership in case of the unavailability of key personnel? 3. Is at least one person and one alternate identified in each department of the court and agency with which the court interfaces as the point of contact? . Does the plan provide for different levels of outages/disruption with different plans for different emergencies? 6.If “yes”, does it provide the criteria that must be met Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

32

Yes

ELEMENT/DEVELOPMENT STATUS O.

No

In Progress

Not Yet Addressed

Additional Training/TA Needed to Prepare Plan

Notes

PROVISIONS FOR COOP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

in order to escalate to different levels of outage? 7.If an alternate site(s) is needed: (a) does the Plan provide how the mission-critical systems and information will be transported to, or accessed at, the alternate site(s)? (b) does the plan provide for the appropriate tasks to be completed in order to initiate operations at the alternate site(s)? 8. Does the plan provide step by step procedures for how to function in order to begin recovery? 9. Are Drive-Away kits prepared for staff prepared who may be relocated which contain needed forms on CDs or flash drives and supplies to establish operations at an alternate site(s) 10. If yes, are the kits updated on a regular basis to ensure they include the most recent forms and appropriate supplies as to type and quantify.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT/COMMENTS

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

33

IV.

SUMMARY FINDINGS:

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

COOP Planning Element

TA/Training Needs

Priorities/Comments

A. COOP Plan Elements

B. COOP Planning Process

C. Authority for Court to Operate During An Emergency

D. Performance of Essential Judicial Functions

E. Special Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts

F. Facilities and Equipment

Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

34

COOP Planning Element

TA/Training Needs

Priorities/Comments

G. Information Technology

H. Records Management

I. Safeguarding Evidence

J. Communication

K. Human Resources

L. Special Issues Relating to Pandemic/Public Health/ Environmental Emergency Planning

M. Interagency Coordination

N. Testing and Training

O. Provisions for COOP Plan Implementation and Updating Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number No. 4-134. May 2010.

35

Appendix B District Court COOP Survey Instrument

INTRODUCTION The survey that follows contains questions regarding your court’s disaster recovery plan and planning process. This survey is not intended to cover all aspects of disaster planning, readiness, and recovery, but it is intended to highlight essential elements of planning for and readiness of response to a range of events that can lead to a disruption in services. Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Once compiled, a copy of survey responses will be provided to the Chief Judge and Court Administrator in each jurisdiction. Thank you for your participation in this survey. Please contact Scott Griffith or Kerry Lentini in my office with any questions or comments about the survey. Mr. Griffith can be reached at (504) 310-2599 or [email protected]. Ms. Lentini can be reached at (504) 310-2629, or [email protected].

YOUR COURT'S PLAN A. General Background Information

1. Judicial District c d e f g

1st JDC

c d e f g

17th JDC

c d e f g

33rd JDC

c d e f g

2nd JDC

c d e f g

18th JDC

c d e f g

34th JDC

c d e f g

3rd JDC

c d e f g

19th JDC

c d e f g

35th JDC

c d e f g

4th JDC

c d e f g

20th JDC

c d e f g

36th JDC

c d e f g

5th JDC

c d e f g

21st JDC

c d e f g

37th JDC

c d e f g

6th JDC

c d e f g

22nd JDC

c d e f g

38th JDC

c d e f g

7th JDC

c d e f g

23rd JDC

c d e f g

39th JDC

c d e f g

8th JDC

c d e f g

24th JDC

c d e f g

40th JDC

c d e f g

9th JDC

c d e f g

25th JDC

c d e f g

42nd JDC

c d e f g

10th JDC

c d e f g

26th JDC

c d e f g

Orleans Parish Civil Court

c d e f g

11th JDC

c d e f g

27th JDC

c d e f g

Orleans Parish Criminal Court

c d e f g

12th JDC

c d e f g

28th JDC

c d e f g

Orleans Parish Juvenile Court

c d e f g

13th JDC

c d e f g

29th JDC

c d e f g

Caddo Parish Juvenile Court

c d e f g

14th JDC

c d e f g

30th JDC

c d e f g

East Baton Rouge Family Court

c d e f g

15th JDC

c d e f g

31st JDC

c d e f g

East Baton Rouge Juvenile Court

c d e f g

16th JDC

c d e f g

32nd JDC

c d e f g

Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court

2. Contact Information for individual completing survey: Name Position Telephone number Email address

3. Has your jurisdiction ever experienced an event that caused court operations to be interrupted for any reason? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

4. Service Interruption Frequency How many times in the last five years have

one

two

three

four

five

more than five

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

court services been interrupted for a weather related incident, fire, public health epidemic, nonweather related power outage, or terrorist event?

5. Below, provide the number of times services have been interrupted during the last five years for each listed event: Number of times of service interruption: Weather related incident Fire Public health epidemic Non-weather related power outage Terrorist event

6. For each category of event that you listed above as having caused an interruption in services in your jurisdiction, what was the longest period of time of service interruption for that type of event? less than 1

1 day to 1

day

week

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

Fire

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

Public health epidemic

c d e f g

c d e f g

Non-weather related

c d e f g c d e f g

Weather Related Incident

power outage Terrorist event

1 to 2

more than 2

months

months

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

c d e f g

1 to 2 weeks 2 to 3 weeks 3 to 4 weeks

7. Briefly summarize the most significant "lesson(s) learned" as a result of the experience of the interruption(s) in service listed above:

8. Has your court ever experienced an interruption in services for a civic or community event? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

9. If yes, list the event(s) that caused the interruption(s)and the duration of the interruption of services for each event listed:

* 10. Does your court have a COOP/disaster recovery plan? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

11. Please answer the questions below regarding your COOP/disaster recovery plan: within the last

1 to 2 years

2 to 3 years

3 to 4 years

4 to 5 years

more than 5

year

ago

ago

ago

ago

years ago

Date adopted:

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

Date last updated:

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

12. What is the name and position of the person responsible for maintaining your plan? 13. Affected staff/employees

Approximately how many staff/employees

one to five

five to ten

ten to twenty

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

twenty to thirty

j k l m n

thirty to forty forty to fifty

j k l m n

more than

j k l m n

are affected by your plan? If more than fifty, how many are affected?

14. Do you consider your court's plan to be in final form and ready for implementation if necessary? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

15. Has your plan ever had to be put in effect? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

fifty

j k l m n

16. Was your plan helpful and relevant? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

17. Which element(s) of your plan were the most helpful?

18. Have you made any change(s) to the plan as a result of its implementation? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

19. What change(s) did you make to your plan?

B. Key Elements of Your Plan

20. Does your plan contain provisions regarding the steps that will be taken to communicate an emergency situation to: (check all that apply) Yes

No

Judges and court staff

j k l m n

j k l m n

Partner justice

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

The general public

j k l m n

j k l m n

The media

j k l m n

j k l m n

Other

j k l m n

j k l m n

agencies Partner state and local general government entities State and local bar associations Litigants/individuals involved in court programs

(please specify "Other")

21. Does the plan contain provisions regarding the regular updating of key individual and agency contact information? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

22. Identify below all of the hazards/threats addressed in your plan: Yes

No

j k l m n

j k l m n

Fire

j k l m n

j k l m n

Public health epidemic

j k l m n

j k l m n

Non-weather related

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

Weather related incident

power outage Terrorist event Other (please specify)

23. Identify below the partners with whom you have coordinated your plan: Yes

No

Local government

j k l m n

j k l m n

Clerk of court

j k l m n

j k l m n

State and local bar

j k l m n

j k l m n

District attorney's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Public defender's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Probation office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Local law enforcement

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

associations

entities Relevant state agencies Specialized court partners (e.g. drug court treatment providers, drug testing companies) Other (please specify "Other")

24. Have your coordinated your plan with your local and/or state emergency preparedness office(s)? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

C. Plan Implementation Issues

25. Does your plan identify the person(s) with authority to activate and deactivate it? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

26. If yes, below list not more than three person(s) and their position(s) in your court who have the authority to activate and de-activate your plan: 1. NAME Position Telephone number Email address 2. NAME Position Telephone number Email address 3. NAME Position Telephone number Email address

27. Does your plan identify the conditions under which it will be activated and de-activated? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

28. Is your plan specific as to who is responsible for implementing its various components? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

29. If yes, does your plan identify backup individual(s) who can fulfill the role(s) of activation, de-activation and implementation in case of a personnel shortage/absence? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

30. Does your plan provide for an order of succession of key people/positions? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

31. Does your plan reference at least one person and one alternate from each department of the court and each agency with which the court interfaces as a point of contact? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

32. Does your plan address the different levels of emergencies and the different types of responses required for those different levels of emergencies? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

33. Does your plan contain specific provisions regarding how cases involving hearings that must be performed within time periods mandated by statute will be handled? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

34. Does your plan contain provisions regarding the need to provide staff with "Drive-Away" kits containing needed documents and forms on CDs or flash drives? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

35. If yes, are the kits updated on a regular basis to ensure they include the most recent documents and forms? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

D. Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts

36. Does your court have a drug court or other problem solving court? c d e f g

Yes

c d e f g

No

37. Does the plan contain specific provisions relating to how problem solving court processes will be maintained in the event of an emergency or other disruption in court operations? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

38. If yes, do these provisions contain specific elements regarding the following? Yes

No

Treatment

j k l m n

j k l m n

Judicial oversight

j k l m n

j k l m n

Drug testing

j k l m n

j k l m n

Community

j k l m n

j k l m n

oversight/case management

39. If yes, is a list maintained of all problem solving court participants with current contact information? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

E. Facilities and Equipment Issues

40. Has an alternate site(s) been identified where court proceedings can be held during periods in which your courthouse may be unavailable or inaccessible? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

41. If an alternate site where court proceedings can be held has been identified, check "yes" for all that apply to this location: The space can be inhabited on short

Yes

No

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

notice All necessary MOU's/contracts, and/or agreements are in place to ensure the prompt use of the space for what may be an indeterminate period The space is suitable for housing all necessary staff, records and equipment

42. Is your alternate site another court? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

43. If yes, identify the alternate court:

F. Information Technology Issues

44. Does your plan contain provisions regarding the safeguarding of electronically stored records? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

j k l m n

Not Applicable (please explain why)

45. Briefly describe the information technology provisions of your plan:

46. Does your plan contain provisions relating to the access of these records in the event of an emergency? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

G. Records Management Issues

47. Does your plan contain provisions regarding the repair, rehabilitation or replacement of records that may be damaged or lost? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

j k l m n

Not Applicable (please explain why)

48. Are all record types (i.e., case files, personnel records, general business records, other records) covered by these provisions? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

49. Does your plan contain provisions as to which record type(s) will be needed in one day, one week, one month, etc.? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

50. Does your plan contain provisions for conducting court business in the absence of records? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

H. Issues Related to Preserving Evidence

51. Does your plan provide for the safeguarding of any evidence that is in your court's physical custody? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

j k l m n

Not Applicable (please explain why)

52. If yes, has the plan been developed in coordination with other agencies, such as the clerk of court, who have primary responsibility for such evidence? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

I. Communications Issues

53. Does your plan contain contact information for all those affected by it, including: (check all that apply) Yes

No

Judges

j k l m n

j k l m n

Administrators

j k l m n

j k l m n

Supervisors

j k l m n

j k l m n

Partner justice system

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

Media outlets

j k l m n

j k l m n

Supreme Court

j k l m n

j k l m n

agency representatives Local government partners State and local bar associations

contacts

54. If yes, does such information include: (check all that apply) c d e f g

Names

c d e f g

Titles

c d e f g

Work/home/cell phones

c d e f g

Fax Numbers

c d e f g

Work/home emails

55. Do these provisions reference a method for conveying critical information to key decision makers, managers and others with a need to know? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

56. Does your plan contain provisions for backup communications (e.g., walkie-talkies), in the event conventional modes of communicating are compromised or unavailable? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

J. Human Resources Issues

57. Does your plan address Human Resources issues? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

j k l m n

Not Applicable (please explain why)

58. Does your plan contain specific provisions or policies regarding the handling of essential administrative functions such as payroll, leave, and related time and attendance functions? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

59. Does your plan contain provisions regarding compensated and uncompensated leave during an emergency or other disruption in court operations? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

60. Do these policies address situations in which an employee may need to deal with family matters relating to the emergency that preclude their being able to come to work? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

61. Does your plan differentiate and contain provisions regarding the roles and responsibilities of "essential" and "non-essential" staff during an emergency? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

62. Does your plan contain provisions for employee telecommuting? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

63. Does your plan contain provisions regarding the protocols that will be followed for compensating employees even if normal time reporting is not possible? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

K. Special Issues Relating to Pandemic/Public Health Emergencies

64. Does your plan address, contain or provide for: (check all that apply) The potential implications of a

Yes

No

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

pandemic/public health or environmental emergency for court operations and personnel? Leave policies for both personal and family care in the event of a public health emergency? Measures to be taken to protect the health of court personnel and other court users in the event of a public health emergency? How shortages of judges, staff, jurors and others will be addressed in the event of a public health emergency?

L. Interagency Coordination

65. Identify all of the agencies below whose resources your court may need in order to operate under emergency conditions: Yes

No

Local government

j k l m n

j k l m n

Local clerk of court

j k l m n

j k l m n

District attorney's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Public defender's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Probation office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Local law enforcement

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

entities Relevant state agencies Specialized court partners (e.g. drug court treatment providers, drug testing companies) Other Other: (please specify)

66. Check off the agencies/entities on which the court depends to perform its critical functions that are aware of your court's COOP plan: Yes

No

Local government

j k l m n

j k l m n

Local clerk of court

j k l m n

j k l m n

District attorney's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Public defender's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Probation office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Local law enforcement

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

entities Relevant state agencies State and local bar associations Specialized court partners (e.g. drug court treatment providers, drug testing companies) Other (please specify "Other")

67. Also regarding other agencies/entities, check off all of the agencies whose own plans, and relevant elements thereof, have been taken into account in your COOP: Yes

No

Local government

j k l m n

j k l m n

Local clerk of court

j k l m n

j k l m n

District attorney's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Public defender's office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Probation office

j k l m n

j k l m n

Local law enforcement

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

entities Relevant state agencies Specialized court partners (e.g. drug court treatment providers, drug testing companies) Other (please specify "Other")

68. Has the court informed the above agencies of the resources it will need from them in the event of an emergency? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

M. Testing and Training

69. Has a copy of your plan been provided to all court employees? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

70. Does your plan contain provisions for routinely training all affected employees on its provisions? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

71. If yes, please indicate how often the training occurs and what it entails.

72. Does your plan contain provisions for the regular testing of your plan? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

73. If yes, please indicate how often the plan is tested and what it entails.

74. Does your plan provide for: (check all that apply) Specific training to be provided to essential

Yes

No

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

j k l m n

personnel and/or those with critical roles? Reviews and debriefings to be conducted after each test, to allow people to evaluate the plan?

75. Do you require any technical and/or training assistance to update your current plan? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

* 76. Why doesn't your court have a COOP?

77. If your court currently does NOT have a complete COOP/disaster recovery plan, do you require technical assistance and/or training to create, amend, update or finalize a plan? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

78. If you need technical assistance or training to create, amend, update or finalize a COOP, check all of the areas below for which you might require assistance: c d e f g

Elements of the plan

c d e f g

Implementation of the plan

c d e f g

Problem solving courts

c d e f g

Facilities and/or equipment

c d e f g

Records management

c d e f g

Communications

c d e f g

Human Resources

c d e f g

Pandemic/public health emergencies

c d e f g

Testing and training

c d e f g

All of the above

c d e f g

Other (please specify)

79. Finally, would you like the Supreme Court Judicial Administrator's Office to facilitate any COOP assistance? j k l m n

Yes

j k l m n

No

80. Thank you for taking this survey. If you would like to make any comments, please do so here.