1 / 9

Videoconferencing Survey 2010 Results

Videoconferencing Survey 2010 Results. Jim McMillan jmcmillan@ncsc.org National Center for State Courts September, 2010 http://www.ncsc.org/. Court Technology Framework Model. About. Supported by the State Justice Institute 164 responses

oona
Download Presentation

Videoconferencing Survey 2010 Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Videoconferencing Survey 2010 Results Jim McMillan jmcmillan@ncsc.org National Center for State Courts September, 2010 http://www.ncsc.org/

  2. Court Technology Framework Model

  3. About • Supported by the State Justice Institute • 164 responses • 25 respondents were answering for their entire state / territory • Full results will be posted with interactive graphics on the NCSC website by end of September

  4. Videoconferencing Statute and Rule Compilation • 771 rules and statutes compiled • Organized in a spreadsheet • Sort state, case type, subject code • Hyperlinked when available • Available for download (Excel 2007 and 2003 format) from conference website

  5. Videoconferencing Use • 7 courts answered more than 20 years • Impediments? • More than 40% list funding as an issue • Judicial and attorney buy-in/objections • Nearly 20% said there were no objections • Chambers and training/conference rooms were most often other VC locations • Education and administrative meetings other use

  6. Videoconferencing Operations • Supported by IT staff • State funded VC used for criminal proceedings – others 50/50 • State funded used for crime lab witness and similar • Local funded primarily for initiating hearings like initial appearance and arraignment • Approximately half are using VC for civil case matters • Only a few appellate courts

  7. Potential Use • Only a few allow for attorney use of videoconferencing (and all those are free) • Only a couple support document signing • Only a few use fax or e-mail for documents • Almost none of the videoconferences are recorded

  8. Reliability & Technology • VC is very reliable technology • Downtime is in minutes/hours not days • Fail-over is not a teleconference • Digital IP is becoming the dominant connection protocol • Wiring is a challenge (maybe 802.11n WiFi conversion in the near future?)

  9. Benefits • Time, staff, and fuel savings were cited as VC technology benefits • 80% report that VC helps administer justice • Most have not quantified but those who have report savings of: • $31 million since inception (PA), 30% of travel expenses (UT), 600,000 per year, $50,000 per year, $7,500, $500 per hearing were noted by different courts • Easier to get meeting quorum when VC used • 24/7 magistrate coverage (VA)

More Related