I was recently asked for thoughts on how to prioritize technology and access to justice projects. In case they may be of use, here are some of my ideas, not in any particular order.
- Immediate increase in access
- Overall transformative potential.
- Foundational for future access expansions
- Supportive/facilitative for transformation of non-tech delivery structure
- Short term feasibility
- Supportive of increases in collaboration between broad range of partners
- Relies on existing skills/capacity
- Recruits enthusiastic tech volunteer energy
- Produces ongoing data for planning, research, assessment
- Cost effective as to cost/access ratio
I think usually such lists focus on short term feasbility. I hope this list adds transformative potential. What am I missing? Tell me in the Comments.
Richard Zorza's Access to Justice Blog 
Replicable–can be replicated in other regions–and there is support and training available to help others who want to replicate it. In other words, there is a replicability university–track. This way the capital investment in standing up the technology spreads to other states/areas/practices, over and over and over.
Kept up to date–whatever the tool is, it is kep up to date. Browsers are changing fast, so are the devices people use (hand held vs. desktop), and the tools that support visual information (sound, graphics, recordings)–so whatever the tool is that is built, there is an appetite to keep it current, up to date, and changing to adapt to community needs and changes.
I really like the “supportive” of the transformation of the non legal tech infrastructure–arguably this would include the practice of law–the tool/resource should change the practice of law and delivery of legal services toward more discrete services, and more efficiency and effectiveness. Staffing patterns should eventually change, and services provided should eventually change, migrating the hard cases to full attorney representation and the simpler cases to limited services, advice and counsel, or self help or unbundled. Eventually, these technologies would change the way projects are planned, staffed and budgeted for (sorry for ending this in a preposition).
I think content sharing is also key. If your ATJ Commission has made a great video, why not share the news and the source? Obviously when it’s parochial that’s a problem, but generalized stuff, such as “What to Expect When You Go to Court,” or ADA-issues, etc. that is useful to the greater community should be exploited and in fact encouraged.