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

BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project: TA Report. 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 vember 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.2009-DC-BX- K019 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 Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction: Project Scope and Focus 4 II. Methodology 5 III. Audit Process 7 IV. Findings 8 A. Background Information 8 B. Key Plan Elements 9 C. Plan Implementation Issues 9 D. Issues Related to Problem Solving Courts 10 E. Facilities and Equipment Issues 10 F. Information Technology and Records Management Issues 10 G. Issues Relating to Preserving Evidence 11 H. Communications Issues 11 I. Human Resource Issues 11 J. Issues Relating to Pandemics/Public Health Emergencies 11 K. Interagency Coordination 11 L. Plan Testing and Training 12 V. Observations and Opportunities for Improvement 13 A. Need for Increased Communication 13 B. Need for Suitable Alternate Facilities 13 C. Need to Expand the Scope and Focus of COOP Planning 13 D. Need to Promote Records Management and Information Technology Best Practices 14 E. Need to Institutionalize Staff Training and Plan Testing 14 F. Need to Enhance and Formalize Interagency Collaboration 14 VI. Conclusion 15 Exhibits 1. Background Information. Does your jurisdiction have a COOP? 2. Background Information. When was your COOP adopted? 3. Background Information. When was your COOP last updated? 4. 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 Page

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 n 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 t 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. Overview of the Necessary Elements of a COOP 2. COOP Planning Process 3. Authority for Court to Operate During An Emergency 4. Performance of Essential Mission Critical Court Functions 5. Special Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts 6. Facilities and Equipment 7. Information Technology 8. Records Management 9. Safeguarding Evidence 10. Communication 11. Human Resources 12. 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. Background Information 2. Key Plan Elements 3. Plan Implementation Issues 4. Issues Related to Problem Solving Courts 5. Facilities and Equipment Issues 6. Information Technology and Records Management Issues 7. Issues Relating to Preserving Evidence 8. Communications Issues 9. Human Resource Issues 10. Issues Relating to Pandemics/Public Health Emergencies 11. Interagency Coordination 12. 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

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. B. Key Plan Elements Threat Assessment: ne 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% (43) 90% EXHIBIT 1

18 BACKGROUND INFORMATION When was your COOP adopted? 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

16 BACKGROUND INFORMATION When was your COOP last updated? 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? 25% 75% / Response/ Plan EXHIBIT 4

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Who maintains your court's COOP? Parish President 3% Parish Government Official 3% Judge 8% Other 16% Court Administrator 57% Chief Judge 13% EXHIBIT 5

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Have you ever had to put your COOP into effect? 37% 63% / Response/ Plan EXHIBIT 6

2% GENERAL INFORMATION Has your jurisdiction ever experienced an interruption in services? 19% 79% response EXHIBIT 7

20 BACKGROUND INFORMATION How many times in the last five years have operations been interrupted in your jurisdiction? 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 One time Two times Three times Four times Five times > Five times EXHIBIT 8

40 BACKGROUND INFORMATION How many times in the last five years have operations been interrupted for the following? 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Weather Fire Public health related n weather related power outage Terrorist event EXHIBIT 9

25 BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service interruption due to a WEATHER INCIDENT? 20 15 10 5 0 < 1 day < I week 1 2 weeks 2 3 weeks 3 4 weeks 1 2 months > 2 months EXHIBIT 10

3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service interruption due to FIRE? 2 1 0 < 1 day < I week 1 2 weeks 2 3 weeks 3 4 weeks 1 2 months > 2 months EXHIBIT 11

4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service interruption due to a PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN? 3 2 1 0 < 1 day < I week 1 2 weeks 2 3 weeks 3 4 weeks 1 2 months > 2 months EXHIBIT 12

7 BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service interruption due to a NON WEATHER RELATED POWER OUTAGE? 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 < 1 day < I week 1 2 weeks 2 3 weeks 3 4 weeks 1 2 months > 2 months EXHIBIT 13

5 BACKGROUND INFORMATION What was the longest period of service interruption due to a TERRORIST EVENT? 4 3 2 1 0 < 1 day < I week 1 2 weeks 2 3 weeks 3 4 weeks 1 2 months > 2 months EXHIBIT 14

48 KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Are the following threats addressed in your COOP? 42 36 30 24 18 12 Response/ Plan 6 0 Weather related incidents Fire Public health epidemic n weather power outage Terrorist event 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 Response/ Plan EXHIBIT 16

48 KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Was your COOP coordinated with the following partners? 42 36 30 24 18 12 6 Response/ Plan 0 EXHIBIT 17

KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Was the development of your COOP coordinated with local and/or state emergency preparedness office(s)? 10% 21% 69% plan EXHIBIT 18

48 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES Does your COOP... 42 36 30 24 18 Response/ Plan 12 6 0 Identify who will activate it? Identify the conditions under which it will be activated? Assign responsibility to specific staff for implementing its components? Identify and assign backup staff to implement its components? Provide for succession of authority? Provide for different levels of response for different levels of emergency? Contain specific provisions regarding how essential case events will be handled? Contain provisions regarding the presence/use of "Drive Away Kits"? 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? 46% 54% EXHIBIT 20

27 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? 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% 71% plan EXHIBIT 22

35 FACILITES AND EQUIPMENT If an alternate site has been identified (n=34), please indicate whether... 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Space can be inhabited on short notice Agreements enabling occupancy/use in place Space is suitable for staff, records and equipment Space is another court EXHIBIT 23

48 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & RECORDS MANAGEMENT ISSUES Does your COOP: 42 36 30 24 18 12 response/n/a 6 0 Contain provisions regarding the safeguarding of electronically stored records? Contain provisions relating to the access of those records, if necessary? Contain provisions regarding the repair and rehabilitation of paper records? Are all record types (i.e., administrative, case files, etc.) covered by these provisions? EXHIBIT 24 Contain provisions for conducting business in the absence of court records?

48 COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES Does your COOP contain contact information for all those affected by it, including: 42 36 30 24 18 12 Response/ Plan 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% Response/ Plan 69% EXHIBIT 26

48 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES Does your COOP: 42 36 30 24 18 12 6 0 Contain specific provisions regarding the handling of essential administrative functions such as payroll, leave and related time and attendance? Contain specific provisions regarding compensated and uncompensated leave during an emergency or disruption? Differentiate between essential and non essential employees in the context of an emergency? Contain provisions regarding telecommuting? Contain provision regarding the protocols that will be followed for compensating employees if normal time reporting is not available? Response/ Plan EXHIBIT 27

48 PANDEMIC/PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES Does your COOP address/include: 42 36 30 24 18 12 Response/ Plan 6 0 Implications of a public health emergency for court personnel? Leave policies in the event of a public health emergency? Measures to protect How shortages of the health of court judges, staff, jurors personnel and court and others will be users in the event of a addressed in the event public health of a public health emergency? emergency? EXHIBIT 28

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION Entity 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 EXHIBIT 29

48 COOP PLAN TESTING AND TRAINING 42 36 30 24 18 12 Response/ Plan 6 0 Has a copy of your plan been provided to all affected employees? Does your plan contain provision for routinely training all affected employees? Does your plan contain provisions for training individuals with critical roles? Does your plan contain provisions for regular testing? Does your plan contain provision for reviews and debriefings after testing? EXHIBIT 30

5 COOP ASSISTANCE Would you like assistance with the following? 4 3 2 1 0 EXHIBIT 31

COOP Training and Technical Assistance Judicial Districts requesting COOP related training and/or technical assistance 1 Bossier 26 Caddo Shreveport DeSoto Mansfield 42 Benton 11 Sabine Many Red River 39 36 14 Webster Minden Coushatta 10 Beauregard DeRidder Calcasieu Lake Charles Natchitoches Vernon Leesville 30 Cameron Cameron Claiborne Homer 2 Bienville Arcadia Natchitoches 38 Allen Oberlin 33 Jefferson Davis Jennings Lincoln Ruston 31 Jackson Jonesboro Winn Winnfield 8 Grant Colfax 35 Rapides Alexandria 9 Union Farmerville 3 4 13 Evangeline Ville Platte Acadia Crowley Ouachita Monroe 15 Vermilion Abbeville 37 Caldwell Columbia LaSalle Jena 28 Avoyelles Marksville 12 Morehouse 27 St. Landry Lafayette Bastrop Richland 5 Franklin Winnsboro Catahoula Harrisonburg Opelousas Lafayette 7 St. Martin Iberia Rayville Concordia New Iberia Vidalia West Carroll Oak Grove Pointe Coupee New Roads St. Martinville 18 16 Lake Providence East Carroll Madison Tallulah 6 Tensas St. Joseph West Feliciana East St. Feliciana Francisville 20 Clinton Port Allen St. Mary Franklin West Baton Rouge Iberville Plaquemine St. Martin East Baton Rouge Baton Rouge 19 Assumption Ascension 23 Napoleonville Livingston Donaldsonville 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 St. Helena Greensburg Livingston St. James Convent Judicial Districts not requesting COOP related training and/or technical assistance 21 St. John Edgard Tangipahoa Lafourche Amite 40 St. Charles Hahnville 29 Washington Franklinton 24 22 St. Tammany Gretna Covington Orleans Jefferson New Orleans 25 St. Bernard Chalmette 34 32 Terrebonne Houma Thibodaux 17 Plaquemines Pointe-a-la-Hache EXHIBIT 32

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

BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project: TA Report. 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.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. 4-134. May 2010.

CONTENTS Page I. Introduction A. How This Template Is Intended to Be Used 1 B. Purpose of COOP Planning 2 C. Functional Areas Addressed 3 D. Methodology for Developing This Template 4 II. Assessment Template: Functional Areas Entailed in COOP Planning and the COOP Planning Process 5 A. Overview of the Necessary Elements of a COOP Plan 5 B. COOP Planning Process 9 C. Authority for Court to Operate During an Emergency 10 D. Performance of Essential Mission Critical Court Functions 11 E. Special Issues Relating to Problem Solving Courts 13 F. Facilities and Equipment 15 G. Information Technology (IT) 17 H. Records Management: Planning, Response, and Recovery 20 I. Evidence 23 J. Communication 24 K. Human Resources 26 L. Special Issues relating to Pandemic/Public Health/ Environmental Emergency Planning 27 M. Interagency Coordination 29 N. Testing and Training 30 O. Provisions for COOP Plan Implementation and Updating 31 III. Summary Findings: Technical Assistance and Training Needs and Priorities 34 Template for Assessing Status of COOP Planning: Louisiana District Courts. BJA Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. American University. TA Assignment Number. 4-134. May 2010. 2