JIS Codes Committee

Code Approval Guidelines

Adopted May 3, 2006, revised November 3, 2009.

Formal guidelines are used to determine the need for new codes in JIS, SCOMIS, or ACORDS. The absence of guidelines allows codes to proliferate, degrading the efficiency of the courts and the accuracy of the data collected.

Background:

There is a natural tendency over time for the number of codes to increase. As business processes change and new requirements are added, courts request codes to facilitate their work. Courts often request codes that are redundant because the sheer number and complexity of existing codes makes the overall logic of the coding system difficult to grasp. In the absence of a standardized business process, courts often request codes for unique local use.

Analysis:

Court managers and agency decision makers are often unable to formulate policy recommendations because coding inconsistencies render the data uninterpretable. Inconsistent usage of trial codes, for example, results in erroneous trial counts.

• Court staff incurs a significant data quality problem when the number of codes increases.
• Court staff incurs a significant training overhead when the number of codes increases.
• AOC staff incurs a significant maintenance burden when the number of codes increases.

Recommendation:

1. The following four criteria are adopted as necessary guidelines for approving new codes.
   1. The code is necessary to collect data that is justified by a significant business need. A significant business need will meet all applicable criteria from the following list:
      1. Statutory and Court Rule Compliance.
      2. Expected benefit as described in the completed Code Request Form.
      3. Efficiency.
      4. Data Quality Across Courts.
   2. The code will be usable statewide.
      
      Whether an approved code is intended for implementation statewide, or generated to satisfy information needs on a more local basis, the code should conform to common underlying business needs for potential statewide utility. For example, codes approved for local “specialty court” programs (e.g., drug court, unified family court) should anticipate the shared information needs among courts so that the code can be usable statewide. Employing these guidelines when creating codes will allow the flexibility needed for each court, while minimizing the proliferation of codes which cannot be meaningfully used statewide.
   3. The code does not duplicate the business intent of any existing code.
      
      For example, existing DISCIS case review tracking codes exist for anger management assessment (AMA) and anger management treatment (AMS).   If a new case review tracking code is requested to meet local need for an “anger management program,” this would be regarded as duplicative of the existing anger management treatment code.
   4. The code does not conflict with state statute or rule authority.
   5. Codes for specific motions should not be approved. The order code will be added when the order is approved making the motion code unnecessary.
2. Codes Committee members consist of the following representatives:
   1. Superior Courts
      1. Superior Court Administrators (2)
      2. Superior Court Clerks (3)
      3. Juvenile Courts (2)
   2. CLJ Courts
      1. District Court Administrators (2)
      2. Municipal Court Administrators (2)
   3. Appellate Courts request a representative as needed.
3. The codes committee will review existing code usage to determine where unused or unnecessary codes can be end-dated, as time allows, and apply the above guidelines to all new code requests.
4. The Juvenile and Corrections System (JCS) Workgroups review all code requests related to JCS. Requests submitted through the online Code Request Form are routed to the JCS Workgroups. Any new JCS code having an impact on SCOMIS and/or JIS must be approved by the JIS Codes Committee prior to implementation.

Workflow for Committee:

1. Code requests are posted for committee members’ review on the JIS Codes Committee Meeting Information Web page one week prior to the scheduled monthly meeting.
2. The codes committee members will review the request.
3. After consulting the chair of the codes committee, AOC staff person will set up any needed teleconferences with the committee members. A quorum of the codes committee membership is required to approve or disapprove code requests.
4. The codes committee will prioritize the order in which the AOC will work on the approved codes requests.
5. The AOC staff person will record the decisions of the committee.
6. Once a codes request is approved, the AOC will update the codes committee members on the status of the approved request during the monthly meetings.
7. Nothing in these guidelines would prevent a teleconference being held at some other time for consideration of a request, as long as all members of the committee are aware of the meeting. Teleconferences or e-mail ballots may be used to address urgent code requests outside of the regularly scheduled meetings. The Codes Committee Chair must approve all requests to address urgent codes committee business outside of the regularly scheduled meeting.

If a request is denied by the committee, the AOC will notify the submitter of the committee’s decision. The submitter may contact the chair of the Codes Committee and request an appeal. The appeal request must be noted on the applicable eService incident, and placed on the next codes committee meeting agenda for discussion.