26 - Prioritize Restitution Recipients

 
Request Status Summary
Request Status Closed
JISC Priority 0
Status Comment On March 30, 2018, the CLJ CLUG closed ITG 26 and referred it to the CLJ-CMS project with the understanding that ITG 26 is contained in the business requirements for the CLJ-CMS.
Request Detail
Requestor Name:
   Ervin, Sandra G
Origination Date:
   08/23/2010
    
Recommended Endorser:
   District and Municipal Court Management Association
Request Type: Change or Enhancement
Which Systems are affected? Judicial Information System (JIS)
Business Area: Accounting
Communities Impacted: CLJ Judges
CLJ Managers
Public and Other Users
Impact if not Resolved: Medium
Impact Description:

Persons/Agencies with large amounts owing would have a delay in in when they begin received payments, but will recieve whole payments instead of partial.

Using figures used in the problem description and $50 monthly payments The following is a summary of payments to recipients: (Amount/Current JIS Set-up/recommend change)

Year 1 - Total Payments:

Rec #1 - ($588.24 / $500.00) Rec #2 ($11.26 / $100.00)

Year 2 - Total Payments

Rec #1 - ($588.24 / $600.00) Rec #2 ($11.76 / $0)

What is the Business Problem or Opportunity

The courts would like the ability to prioritize restitution recepients in cases where restitution is owed to multiple victims.

The problem occurs when one recipient has a large amount of restitution ordered and another victim has a small amount ordered. The payments made by the def are split proportionally between the recipients. This creates alot of small payables to issue or hold on books until they are sufficient to cut a check.

Example - A vehicle accident is invlolved in a case with restitution ordered to insurance company and an individual for deductible.

Recipient 1 - Insurance Company - $5,000

Recipient 2 - Vehicle owner - $100 (deductible)

Currently if the defendant makes a payment - the payments would be split proportionally to each victim. (Breakdown for a $50 pmt is Approx $49.02 to Recipient 1 and $.98 to Recipient 2.

The court can either cut a $.98 check with each payment or hold until the amount is sufficient to cut a check. (12 monthly payments of $50 only total $11.76 for recipient#2)

If able to prioritize court would put recipient #2 payable 1st and Recipient payable 2nd.

Current set-up can should/ remain as defalult setting. Would like the ability to prioritize when ordered and/or needed.
Expected Benefit:

Reduced cost to courts in processing payments to restitution recipients. (time/supplies)
Endorsement Detail
Endorsing Committee
   District and Municipal Court Management Association
Endorser Name:
   Ervin, Sandra G
Origination Date:
   08/23/2010
Endorsing Action: Endorsed
AOC Analysis Detail
Analysis Date: 10/29/2010
Request Rationale
Aligns with JIS Business Priorities, IT Strategies & Plans: Yes
Aligns with applicable policies and with ISD Standards: Yes
Breadth of Solution Benefit: Wide
Cost Estimates
Cost Benefit Analysis Complete? No
Cost to Implement? 1010 hours
Projected Maintenance cost? $0
Feasibility Study needed? No
Court Level User Group
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
Approving Authority JISC
Request Summary:

This request is for an enhancement to JIS to allow courts to prioritize restitution recipients in cases where restitution is owed to multiple victims. The request seeks to maintain the current system as the default whereby any payments are split proportionally amongst the victims.

Business Impacts:

This enhancement would allow Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CLJs) to prioritize restitution recipients in cases where one or more recipients have a large amount of restitution while other recipients has a very small amount ordered. By implementing this request, courts would be able to assign a higher priority to the recipients of the very small amounts in order to reduce the number of payments the courts must make to these recipients.

Summary of Proposed Solution

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) proposes to enhance JIS in order to provide court staff the option to prioritize restitution recipients in cases where one or more recipients have a large amount of restitution while other recipients have a very small amount. When ordered courts would be able to assign a higher priority to the recipients of the very small amounts in order to reduce the number of payments the courts must make to these recipients. The Create Accounts Receivable screen would be modified to capture the prioritization information for restitution recipients.

Proposed Solution

AOC would provide courts the option of prioritizing restitution recipients. This would impact the JIS Create A/R (CAR) and Receipting (RCP) screens. Other screens that might be impacted are Restitution (RST) and Case Financial History (CFHS). JIS Accounting reports may also be impacted.

This work would require complete unit testing of the Time Pay programs. It would also entail full testing and verification of functionality by Quality Assurance.
Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
Endorsing Committee
   District and Municipal Court Management Association
Endorser Name:
   Vance, Aimee R
Origination Date:
   11/01/2010
Endorsing Action: Endorsed
Court Level User Group Decision Detail
CLUG Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
Chair of Group Cynthia Marr
Date of Decision 12/02/2010
Decision
Decision to Recommend for Approval Unamimously recommended to the approving authority
Priority Processing Status Prioritized
Ranking
Request Importance Medium
Scoring Detail Score / Possible
Business Value 3.5 / 10
Relative Priority 7 / 10
Cost 3 /  5
Complexity/Level of Effort 6 / 10
Risk 2.5 /  5
Benefit / Impact 3 /  5
Impact of Doing Nothing 0 /  5
Total Score 25 / 50
Additional Notes

Subject to any statutory requirements or restrictions regarding payment of restitution.

The CLUG combined this request and Request #31, as recommended by the AOC analysis. Although the IT Governance Portal shows Requests #26 and #31 prioritized separately, the CLUG prioritized them and sent them forward for approval to the JISC as one combined request.
Implementation Detail
Analysis Date:
Implementation Stage Authorized
Prioritization Option: Prioritized
Comments:

This request was authorized by the JISC on Feb 18, 2011.
 

Privacy and Disclaimer Notices Sitemap

© Copyright 2025. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

S3