Criminal Justice Process Audit

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 46 | Comments: 0 | Views: 238
of 17
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Knox County conducted an internal audit into the embattled criminal court clerk's office.

Comments

Content


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Criminal Justice Process Audit










CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AUDIT
August 15, 2014



Final Audit Report
Knox County Internal Audit
File Number 02-2014-01
Knox County Internal Audit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND 1
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 1
IDENTIFIED GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES 2
DEFINED USER ROLES IN THE JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (JIMS) 2
DOCUMENT PREPARATION FOR DAILY COURT PROCEEDINGS 3
FINDINGS 3
QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTROLS IN THE CRIMINAL COURT CLERK AND GENERAL
SESSIONS COURT CLERK OFFICES SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED 3
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURTS SHOULD BE
BETTER PROTECTED 4
INTERNAL PROCESSES SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED 4
JIMS TRAINING PROGRAM AND MATERIALS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED 5
TRAINING PROGRAMS AND MATERIALS IN CRIMINAL COURT CLERK
AND GENERAL SESSIONS COURT CLERK OFFICES SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED 5
OBSERVATIONS 5
IMPROVED SYSTEM INTEGRATION 6
REAL-TIME DATA ENTRY 6
RECOMMENDATIONS 7
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE 7
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – CRIMINAL COURT / GENERAL SESSIONS COURT CLERK MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
APPENDIX B – CRIMINAL COURT MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
APPENDIX C – GENERAL SESSIONS MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
APPENDIX D – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
APPENDIX E – ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

File Number 02-2014-01

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Criminal Justice Process Audit

WHY WE DID THIS AUDIT
The audit was conducted as a result of a request from the Knox County
Commission through Resolution R-14-1-905.

WHAT WE FOUND
We found the criminal justice process could be improved to operate more
efficiently and effectively, with one significant issue identified and four other
areas where improvement is needed. Specifically, we found needed
improvements related to:
• Quality assurance controls in the General Sessions Court Clerk-
Criminal Division (General Session Court Clerk) and Criminal Court
Clerk offices.
• Protection of original documents in General Sessions Court
proceedings.
• Documentation of departmental internal criminal justice processes.
• Training programs and materials for JIMS training.
• Training programs and materials for General Sessions Court Clerk
and Criminal Court Clerk offices.

We also identified two areas we consider good operating practices related to
defined JIMS user roles and daily document preparation. We also observed
two areas for management to consider for improving the process related to
better system integration with JIMS and entering data in real time.

WHAT WE RECOMMEND
We recommend all departments involved in the process (1) implement
stronger document management to better protect original documents in the
General Sessions Courts, (2) document internal criminal justice processes,
and (3) work with Information Technology to develop a better defined system
training program and manual.
We recommend the Criminal Court Clerk and General Sessions Court Clerk
offices (1) identify critical points in their process where quality controls would
improve the accuracy and timeliness of information entered into JIMS, (2)
implement quality assurance controls for the identified areas, and (3) better
define training requirements and programs for all employees.

BACKGROUND
The criminal justice system serves
the approximately 430,000 Knox
County citizens by handling tens of
thousands of criminal cases each
year. Recently, problems in the
criminal justice system have
received increased media
coverage.

The process in Knox County
includes multiple County
departments including the General
Sessions Courts, Criminal Courts,
Attorney General’s Office, General
Sessions Court Clerk – Criminal
Division, and Criminal Court Clerk.
The Information Technology
Department assists the process
through the design and support of
an in-house system, the Justice
Information Management System
(JIMS), to manage criminal justice
information.

The objective of the audit was to
evaluate the efficiency and
effectiveness of the current criminal
justice process. The scope of the
audit was limited to the process in
place at the initiation of the audit
(March 13, 2014) to handle a
defendant’s case from the time the
warrant is officially issued until the
case is completed. The audit
methodology included obtaining
and reviewing applicable
documentation, conducting
interviews with key personnel,
performing process walkthroughs,
and observing court proceedings.

File Number 02-2014-01 Page i

Knox County Internal Audit
BACKGROUND
The criminal justice system serves the approximately 430,000
1
Knox County citizens by handling criminal
cases in seven courts, including four criminal divisions of General Sessions Court and three divisions of
Criminal Court. According to the General Sessions Court Clerk – Criminal Division (General Sessions Court
Clerk) office, in 2013 dispositions were entered for more than 36,000 cases passing through the Knox
County criminal justice system. Due to recent increased media scrutiny regarding potential problems in the
criminal justice system, this audit was conducted at the request of the Knox County Commission through
Resolution R-14-1-905.

The process in Knox County includes multiple County departments including the General Sessions Courts,
Criminal Courts, Attorney General’s Office, General Sessions Court Clerk, and Criminal Court Clerk. The
Information Technology Department assists the process through the design and support of an in-house
system, the Justice Information Management System (JIMS), to manage criminal justice information.

JIMS is the official information management software of the Knox County criminal justice process and
should contain all information decided for each case during court proceedings. The information decided
during court proceedings is recorded on paper warrants for General Sessions Courts and in case files for
Criminal Courts. The information is entered into JIMS by General Sessions Court Clerk or Criminal Court
Clerk employees, depending on in which court the case was heard. The General Sessions Court Clerk and
Criminal Court Clerk offices also have bookkeeping systems to record costs assigned and collected.


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The objective of the audit was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the current criminal justice
process. To achieve our objective, we:

• Obtained and reviewed applicable procedural documents describing the criminal justice process
and other documents as needed.

• Conducted interviews and process walkthroughs with key personnel to establish the current
practices within the criminal justice process.

• Observed various court proceedings to gain an understanding of the environment in which the
criminal justice system operates.

To evaluate the significance of audit findings we used both quantitative and qualitative factors. The
qualitative factors used in evaluating the significance of a finding were whether the identified issue (1)
poses a systematic operational or controls risk in Knox County’s ability to accurately or timely process
defendants within the criminal justice system, (2) exposes Knox County to multiple (more than 10) lawsuits
or class action, or (3) would result in a high level of reputational damage or inquiry from a state or federal
agency. The quantitative factor considered was whether a finding exceeded 3 percent ($369,721) of the
fiscal year (FY) 2014 budgets for the five departments included in the audit. A finding only has to meet one
of the above four factors to be considered significant.
1
Based on the 2010 census data for Knox County as reported on Knox County Government’s website.
File Number 02-2014-01 Page 1


Knox County Internal Audit

The scope of the audit was the criminal justice process in place as of March 13, 2014, limited to the
handling of a defendant’s case from the time the warrant is issued until the case is completed
2
. This
performance audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards
except for requirement 3.96 related to an external peer review of the Internal Audit Department being
conducted every three years. The last peer review was performed in December 2009 and covered internal
audit work performed from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. According to the three-year peer
review rule, the Internal Audit Department should have had a peer review performed in calendar year 2012
to review audit work performed from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2011, with an additional peer
scheduled for calendar year 2015 to cover audit work performed from January 1, 2012, through December
31, 2014. The audit department changed Directors in December 2013 and it is not known by the current
Director why the peer review was not performed in calendar year 2012 in cadence with a three-year review
cycle. A peer review is planned either late in calendar year 2014 or early in calendar year 2015 depending
on the amount of audit work available to review under revised procedures put in place in February 2013,
the schedule of the peer review team, and approval by the Knox County Audit Committee. We do not
believe the audit or assurance provided by the audit have been affected by the lack of a current peer
review. The Internal Audit Department revised audit procedures used to conduct this review are directly
tied through reference to the generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition, each audit is
subject to a quality control process that ensures that generally accepted government auditing standards
were met within the audit prior to issuing a draft report.

The standards also require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our observations and conclusions based on our
audit objectives.


IDENTIFIED GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES
During the course of the audit, we identified two areas considered good operating practices that promote
efficiency and effectiveness in the criminal justice process. These identified good operating practices are
(1) defined user roles in JIMS, and (2) document preparation for daily court proceedings.

DEFINED USER ROLES IN JIMS
We found JIMS is restricted through defined user roles which limit the information each user has access to
view or update. Defining user roles ensures that each user only enters and has access to the information
needed to perform their individual part of the criminal justice process. For example, certain General
Sessions Court Clerk and Criminal Court Clerk office employees have the ability to enter sentencing
information for a case while other roles in JIMS do not have this ability. Roles are set-up by the Information
Technology Department when a user requests to gain access to the system. The request must be made
using the proper form and signed by the user’s supervisor. This security feature provides proper protection
over the vast amount of information contained in JIMS and how information can be altered and used.

2
Completion for purposes of this audit can be sentence fully served, probation requirements met, or case diverted / dismissed.
All costs must be collected for the case to be considered completed.
File Number 02-2014-01 Page 2


Knox County Internal Audit
DOCUMENT PREPARATION FOR DAILY COURT PROCEEDINGS
The Knox County criminal justice system handles tens of thousands of cases each year and it is the
responsibility of General Sessions Court Clerk and Criminal Court Clerk employees to ensure all warrants,
case files, and other relevant documentation are ready for use in court each day. Applicable court records
and documents are pulled using the daily scheduled docket available in JIMS and brought to the proper
court by the Clerk office employees. Having all required documentation readily available in the court
proceedings promotes efficiency in the process rather than having to wait for files to be retrieved during
proceedings.


FINDINGS
We found the criminal justice process could be improved to operate in a more efficient and effective
manner. While the criminal justice process included (1) departmental understanding of their role in the
criminal justice process and their internal practices in place to perform the activities for which they are
responsible, and (2) reliance on JIMS as the information management system to make case information
more readily available and prepare the daily docket for court each day, we identified one significant issue
and four other areas where the process could be improved.

QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTROLS IN THE CRIMINAL COURT CLERK AND GENERAL SESSION COURT
CLERK OFFICES SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED
We found stronger quality assurance controls should be implemented in the General Sessions Clerk and
Criminal Court Clerk offices. The General Session Clerk and Criminal Court Clerk offices have a
predominately manual process for entering information determined during court proceedings. In addition,
the majority of this information is entered after the court date using notes on warrants, daily dockets, and
case files. The General Sessions Clerk and the Criminal Court Clerk offices handle the bulk of data entry
and file processing in the criminal justice process. Most of the information entered is not reviewed or
quality assurance controls are not performed to prevent errors. There is an inherent risk in a predominately
manual process that information could not entered accurately or timely. As a result, predominately manual
processes should include strong quality assurance controls to minimize entry errors during the process and
reduce time delays to enact judicial orders.

Examples identified during the audit of areas where quality assurance controls could be strengthened
include missing criminal histories, incorrect sentences / dispositions, incorrect scheduling of a case, and
delays in processing information. Although we identified some limited automated and manual quality
assurance controls in the process including inability to post-date information in JIMS, checks for existing
identification number in JIMS, manual review of cases to be expunged cases in the General Sessions Clerk
office, and independent comparison of data entered into JIMS to case file notes in the Criminal Court Clerk
office, additional quality assurance controls are needed to ensure the criminal justice data is processed
accurately and timely. Gaps in quality assurance controls may not necessarily lead to errors in defendant
cases; however, there is a systematic risk that lack of quality assurance controls could result in errors to
criminal cases. Such errors could include incorrect information included on criminal histories, incorrect
court costs assigned, incorrect attachment issued, or delays in releasing defendants.

File Number 02-2014-01 Page 3

Knox County Internal Audit
Stronger quality control processes (1) shift focus from correcting errors when identified to preventing /
minimizing errors in the process and (2) provide a way to evaluate performance. Examples of quality
assurance controls include logic checks in systems, required supervisory approval for critical activities, spot
checking notes to data entered, monitoring system generated reports for defined areas, well documented
and defined internal processes and training programs, validating that practices match the defined process,
and real-time data entry. Since it is not efficient or practical to review 100 percent of the data entered,
quality assurance controls would provide points in the process deemed critical or high risk to undergo
additional scrutiny for accuracy and timeliness.

This issue is considered significant due to (1) the systematic operational risk the lack of strong quality
assurance controls poses to each criminal case in the criminal justice system, (2) exposure of Knox County
to potentially multiple lawsuits due to data entered without strong quality assurance controls in place to
catch or prevent errors, and (3) exposure to reputation damage or additional inquiry from state or federal
agencies.

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURTS SHOULD BE BETTER PROTECTED
We found warrants and other original documents should be better protected. Warrants serve as the official
court record for each case in General Sessions Courts. Original warrants and attachments are brought into
the courtrooms each day for use with the daily docket of cases. All information pertaining to the case is
documented on the warrant to be later entered into JIMS. Information such as charges, new appearance
dates, sentencing, disposition, penalties, and probation requirements are documented on the warrants. The
General Sessions Court Clerk is the official custodian of court records including warrants. We observed
warrants bundled with other original case documentation removed from the General Sessions Court Clerk’s
custody during court proceedings by defending and prosecuting attorneys. At times, this documentation
was observed being taken out of the courtroom by attorneys. If warrants were lost or altered, the official
court record of the case would be lost or altered. Removing original documents from the General Sessions
Court Clerk’s custody poses a risk that information related to a case may not be processed accurately and /
or timely.

INTERNAL PROCESSES SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED
We found procedures should be documented detailing each department’s role and practices for performing
duties in the criminal justice system or referencing how each process interacted with other organizations.
While the departments involved in the criminal justice process understood and explained their role and
practices within the criminal justice process, no department had written procedures to document the
practices in place. Each department should document procedures governing how work is to be performed,
the roles and responsibilities of the department and department employees, and where the process
intersects with or relies upon other departments. Documented procedures provide employees and
departments clear expectations of performance, strengthen consistency of internal operations, assist in
training new employees, and provide a way to hold those involved in the process accountable for their
responsibilities. Documenting internal processes reduces the risk that the criminal justice process within
each department will not be carried out as the department intends or will be performed inconsistently.

File Number 02-2014-01 Page 4

Knox County Internal Audit
JIMS TRAINING PROGRAM AND MATERIALS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED
We found JIMS training programs and materials should be documented. The development and
implementation of JIMS training is currently the user department’s responsibility and varies from
department to department. There are currently neither a documented and defined user guide nor training
programs developed in conjunction with the Information Technology Department to ensure JIMS is being
used consistently and in the manner intended. Having designed the JIMS program, the Information
Technology Department is in the unique position of having intimate knowledge not only of the system
capabilities but how the system was intended to be used in the process. A better defined training program
and user guide should be built in conjunction with the expertise offered by the Information Technology
department. A consistent and universal IT developed help guide and training package would ensure that
the system is being used as designed, all capabilities of the system are known to users, and all users are
operating within the system consistently. Lack of consistent training could lead to information being placed
incorrectly in the system and the system not being utilized as designed.

TRAINING PROGRAMS AND MATERIALS IN THE CRIMINAL COURT CLERK AND GENERAL
SESSIONS COURT CLERK OFFICES SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED
We found training programs and materials in the Criminal Court Clerk and General Sessions Court Clerk
offices should be documented for all positions. Both Clerk offices include a variety of positions such as
bench clerks, computer clerks, docket clerks, bookkeepers, and customer service personnel. No
formalized and documented training programs exist within the Criminal Court Clerk or General Sessions
Court Clerk offices for any of the positions. Most training is done on-the job through job shadowing or by
working through the ranks of the offices. Without a formalized, documented training manual and program,
the training provided may be inconsistent or incomplete which could lead to errors in performing duties.
Consistent training and knowledge is especially important in the performance of bench clerk and computer
clerk duties that require a thorough knowledge of the criminal justice system in order to understand
information decided during court proceedings, make the appropriate notes, and enter the information into
JIMS. A formalized, documented training program and manual ensures all employees are required to have
the same level of base knowledge before assuming sole responsibility for job duties and sets expectations
for performance.


OBSERVATIONS
During the course of this audit, we identified two areas the departments involved in the criminal justice
process should consider to further improve and strengthen the current process. Observations are not
considered findings but are simply areas identified by us during the audit for consideration by management.
These areas relate to (1) improved system integration and (2) real-time data entry.

File Number 02-2014-01 Page 5

Knox County Internal Audit
IMPROVED SYSTEM INTEGRATION
We observed JIMS could be improved through (1) better integration of bookkeeping or accounting systems
and (2) the addition or integration of a document management system. Currently the General Sessions
Court Clerk and Criminal Court Clerk offices operate bookkeeping and accounting systems outside of JIMS
to record assignment and collection of costs
3
on cases. Some, but not all, of the cost information for cases
is entered into JIMS through automated and manual processes. As a result, not all cost information
associated with a case is always readily available in JIMS to departments involved in the criminal justice
process other than General Sessions Court Clerk and Criminal Court Clerk offices. In addition, a document
management system that allows electronic viewing of scanned documentation pertinent to cases is not
currently available in JIMS or as a separate system. The General Sessions Court Clerk and Criminal Court
Clerk offices have considered the addition of such a system. Fully integrated systems with JIMS would (1)
provide instant access to information for all parties involved in a criminal case, (2) place more reliance on
one system for information rather than multiple systems, (3) protect original documents by offering an
electronic view of information, and (4) reduce the amount of cost information and documentation requested
from the General Sessions Court Clerk and Criminal Court Clerk offices. Fully integrated systems are
needed in order to move toward the real-time data entry environment suggested below.
We suggest the departments involved in the criminal justice process consider (1) completely integrating
cost information pertaining to criminal cases into JIMS to provide a more complete picture of case
information without having to obtain information from a separate bookkeeping or accounting system and (2)
use a document management system within JIMS or integrated with JIMS to handle all documents relevant
to criminal cases.

REAL-TIME DATA ENTRY
We observed real-time data entry would improve the efficiency and accuracy of the current criminal justice
process. As described in the report previously, much of the information for criminal cases is entered into
JIMS after court proceedings have concluded based on notes written on warrants, dockets, or case files.
Entering information after court proceedings may affect timeliness and accuracy of information entered. A
real-time data entry system would allow information to be processed as it happens in the courtroom,
provide instant information to all involved in the process, improve quality assurance through immediate
review of information, remove delays in enacting judicial orders, and expedite processing of the case. A
real time data entry system would require the criminal justice process to be examined from a real-time data
entry perspective in order to be successfully implemented.

We suggest the departments involved in the criminal justice process consider entering all information
determined during court proceedings in a real-time manner.


3
The term “costs” include litigation tax, fines, court costs, and restitution.
File Number 02-2014-01 Page 6


Knox County Internal Audit
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the General Sessions Clerk and Criminal Court Clerk offices:

1. Identify critical or high-risk activities or points within their internal processes where quality assurance
controls are needed to improve and / or promote accuracy and timeliness.

2. For those areas identified in recommendation 1, develop and implement quality assurance controls.

3. Develop a well-defined training manual and formalized training program for each position.


We recommend the General Sessions Court Clerk, Criminal Court Clerk, Information Technology, Attorney
General’s Office, Criminal Courts, and General Sessions Courts:

4. Develop and implement a process to manage original documents to ensure the information contained
within is adequately protected.

5. Document unwritten internal practices for performing criminal justice process activities for which they
are responsible to include duties and responsibilities of employees within the department and where
the process relies on or intersects with another department.

6. Work with Information Technology to develop a JIMS user guide and training program to promote
consistent and correct use of the system.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management of the departments involved generally agreed with the recommendations of this audit report.
See responses in Appendices A through E at the end of this report.

File Number 02-2014-01 Page 7

Knox County Internal Audit
APPENDIX A – CRIMINAL COURT / GENERAL SESSIONS COURT CLERK
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

File Number 02-2014-01 Appendix A

Knox County Internal Audit
APPENDIX B – CRIMINAL COURT MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

File Number 02-2014-01 Appendix B

Knox County Internal Audit
APPENDIX C – GENERAL SESSIONS COURT MANAGEMENT RESPONSE



File Number 02-2014-01 Appendix C

Knox County Internal Audit


File Number 02-2014-01 Appendix C

Knox County Internal Audit
APPENDIX D – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT RESPONSE


File Number 02-2014-01 Appendix D

Knox County Internal Audit
APPENDIX E – ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

File Number 02-2014-01 Appendix E

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close