Title: Mission Possible: Strong Governance Structures for the Integration
of Justice Information Systems
Series: Monograph
Author: Public Technology, Inc.
Published: February 2002
Subject: information systems
91 pages
172,032 bytes
-------------------------------
Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at
800-688-4252.
-------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Monograph
MISSION POSSIBLE 
Strong Governance Structures for the Integration of Justice Information
Systems
BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance
-------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
John Ashcroft
Attorney General
Deborah J. Daniels
Assistant Attorney General
Richard R. Nedelkoff
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Bureau of Justice Assistance
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
For grant and funding information, contact
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770
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.
NCJ 192278
This document was prepared by Public Technology, Inc., under grant
number 1999-DD-BX-K007, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document
are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
-------------------------------
MISSION POSSIBLE
Strong Governance Structures for the Integration of Justice Information
Systems
Strong Governance Structures for the Integration of Justice Information
Systems
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Acknowledgments 
Chapter 1: Introduction: The Local Governance Survey
o Purpose
o Methodology
o Survey Respondents
o Purpose of Guidebook 
Chapter 2: The Need For Integrated Justice Information
o The Problem 
o Technology is Only Part of the Solution
o The Role of the Federal Government 
o PTI's Role
Chapter 3: Status of Integration and Governance Structures to Facilitate
Integration
o Operation of Integrated Information Systems
o Description of Justice Integration Efforts and Governance Structures   
Chapter 4: No Justice Integration/No Governance Structure     
o Why Agencies Are Not Engaged in Integration     
o Why Jurisdictions Had Not Established a Governance Structure     
o What Would be Included in an Integrated System?     
o Outside Assistance Needed     
o Governance Structure With No Integration    
o Origin, Nature, and Functions of Governance Structures    
o State Integration Efforts     
o Summary Points    
Chapter 5: Governance Structure With or Without Integration     
o Governance Structure with Integration     
o Funding for Governance Structures     
o Involvement in Federal and State Integration Efforts     
o Factors having a Positive/Negative Impact on the Governance Structure  
o Summary Points    
Chapter 6: Integration Without a Governance Structure
o Barriers to Integration
o Origin and Nature of Integration
o Would a Governance Structure Benefit Integration?
o Funding for Integration Efforts
o Summary Points
Chapter 7: Case Studies
o Hennepin County, Minnesota 
o Dakota County, Minnesota 
o Marion County, Oregon
o San Diego County, California 
o Henrico County, Virginia 
o Tillamook County, Oregon 
Chapter 8: Recommendations 
o Recommendations for Establishing Local Governance Structures 
o Obstacles to be Avoided in Implementing an Integrated Justice System
Governance Structure 
o Integration Recommendations to Justice Agencies 
o Integration Obstacles to Avoid 
o Building a Governance Structure 
o Implementing a Structure
o Maintaining the Structure 
Postscript 
Appendixes 
o Appendix A: Survey Instrument 
o Appendix B: Jurisdictions Responding to Survey 
o Appendix C: Bibliography/Resources 
o Appendix D: Worksheets 
-------------------------------
Mission Possible: Strong Governance Structures for the Integration of
Justice Information Systems
Figures
o Figure 1: Geographic Location of Respondents
o Figure 2: Population Size
o Figure 3: Type of Jurisdiction
o Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents that are Integrating Justice
Information Systems 
o Figure 5: Status of Integration/Governance Structure
o Figure 6: Why Jurisdiction Not Engaged in Integration (in percentages)
o Figure 7: Why Governance Structure Not Established 
o Figure 8: Common Roles and Responsibilities of Governance Boards
o Figure 9: Funding for Governance Bodies 
o Figure 10: Would a Governance Structure Benefit Your Integration
Efforts?
o Figure 11: Membership of the CJCC (Hennepin Co., MN)
o Figure 12: The Integrated Systems Advisory Board (Hennepin Co., MN)
o Figure 13: CJIIN Management Committee (Dakota Co., MN) 
o Figure 14: CJIIN Steering Committee (Dakota Co., MN) 
o Figure 15: RAIN Governance Structure (Marion Co., OR) 
o Figure 16: Capital Region Communications Steering Committee
(Henrico Co., VA) 
o Figure 17: Composition of the LPSCC (Tillamook Co., OR)
Tables
o Table 1: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Sample Size and 
Percent of Jurisdictions with No Integration/No Governance Structure
o Table 2: Barriers to Integration
o Table 3: Percentage of Outside Assistance that would Help with
Integration
o Table 4: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey Sample and 
Percent of Jurisdictions With Governance Structure/No Integration 
o Table 5: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey Sample and 
Percent of Jurisdictions With a Governance Structure and Justice
Integration 
o Table 6: How the Governance Structure Was Initiated 
o Table 7: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey Sample and
Percent of Jurisdictions With Integration and No Governance Structure 
o Table 8: Type of Integration 
o Table 9: Barriers to Integration 
o Table 10: Agencies Involved in Integration Within Jurisdiction 
-------------------------------
Executive Summary
Public confidence in the United States justice system is negatively
impacted by the absence of an integrated justice information system that
can share information and provide information that is not only timely, but
also accurate and complete. Some jurisdictions have begun planning, and
others are implementing, systems that integrate data from several justice
agencies within a jurisdiction and among jurisdictions within a region or
state. To enhance the efforts of local jurisdictions engaged in justice
information systems integration and to encourage similar efforts in other
jurisdictions, Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) conducted a study that
examined justice integration governance structures at the local
government level. The study builds upon the recommendations from a
series of U.S. Department of Justice-sponsored conferences that focused
on local and state information system integration. Through PTI's study,
information from the field was compiled and analyzed to ascertain the
type, quality, and capability of existing justice information integration and
governance structure models. 
Surveys were completed by 251 jurisdictional representatives of suburban,
urban, and rural areas throughout the United States. The majority of
respondents were engaged in some aspect of information systems
integration with other departments and/or agencies, and most systems
were integrated with their state justice system. However, one-third had no
integration efforts underway and no governance structure in place to
facilitate integration. 
Some of the major findings of the study were:
o Funding is a major reason that jurisdictions are not engaged in justice
information system integration and that they have not established
governance structures.
o Other obstacles are turf issues and lack of technology.
o Local jurisdictions believe that the federal and state governments can
best assist them by providing funding for their integration efforts.
Regional governments could help best by providing strategic planning and
funding assistance; and local governments could best assist by providing
the appropriate personnel and implementation support.
o The most common type of governance structure was established
through a cooperative agreement.
o Governance structures are most often initiated by persons directly
affected by the structure and/or by key advocates. 
o The roles and responsibilities of a governance board vary, but the most
common include reviewing projects and prioritizing initiatives.
o Law enforcement is most commonly the agency involved in
integration efforts. The top three information systems that respondents
integrated were records management, offender history, and computer
dispatch systems.
o The majority of respondents felt having a governance structure was a
benefit to integration.
o In jurisdictions that have not established a governance structure,
integration tends to be managed by an individual agency.
Based on their experiences with justice information system integration,
respondents offered a number of suggestions for advancing these efforts.
In establishing local governance structures that can facilitate the
integration of justice information systems, several central themes emerged
from the recommendations:
o Ensure equal involvement/participation from all agencies/jurisdictions
involved.
o Explore and secure funding.
o Set realistic goals and objectives with a reasonable implementation
timeframe.
o Keep ongoing, open lines of communication with all
agencies/jurisdictions involved.
o Have unconditional support of county boards/city councils/elected
officials.
o Have well-trained technology users.
o Standardize and network all software, hardware, and protocols.
Well-defined governance structures improve the justice information
integration process by enhancing communication, establishing guidelines
and policies, reducing turf battles, and fostering coordination and
cooperation. Such structures consolidate and streamline information
integration. Governance structures also can play a crucial role in securing
funding for local system integration efforts. Technology, by itself, cannot
solve all system integration problems, and even the best-equipped
integration effort will soon bog down without an effective governing body
to chart its course. 
The PTI study shows that all governance structures do not have to be
created in the same way. Jurisdictions/agencies or clusters of agencies
have to decide what works best for them and design their structures
accordingly. Nevertheless, each structure should have, at a minimum, a
document that sets forth its goals and objectives, establishes the
decisionmaking process, and identifies the committee participants and
their responsibilities.
Survey respondents identified leadership as critical to the success of
justice information integration. Structures must be established in such a
way that they will not be negatively affected by periodic changes in
locally elected and appointed leadership. Each governance structure needs
a committed champion who will work to ensure smooth working
relationships and who will keep the integration efforts moving forward. 
-------------------------------
Acknowledgments
Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) is the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit
technology research, development, and commercialization organization of
the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and
the International City/County Management Association. PTI's mission is
to bring the benefits of technology to local government. 
Participants in the Governance Project are
Vance Arnett, Director of Community Programs, Office of the State
Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Clearwater, Florida;
Douglas Bartosh, Chief of Police, Scottsdale, Arizona; Patrice Bataglia,
County Commissioner, Dakota County, Minnesota; Chris Bosch, Chief
Fire Marshall, Kansas City Fire Department, Kansas City, Missouri; Rich
Cinfio, Commander, San Carlos Police Department, San Carlos,
California; Connie Dillard, Technology Manager, San Carlos, California;
Mike Dunbaugh, Chief of Police, Santa Rosa, California; Jerry Farris,
Information Technology Director, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Gerald
E. Hardt, Program Manager, Criminal Justice Records, Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission, Phoenix, Arizona; Ron Hass, Criminal Justice Senior
Technology Manager, Department of Telecommunications and
Information Services, San Francisco, California; Clint Hubbard,
Information Systems Officer, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Randy Johnson,
County Commissioner, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Debbie Kerschner,
Community Corrections, Dakota County, Minnesota; Winifred Lyday,
Policy Advisor, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC; Bill Mills, City Attorney's Office, Criminal Division,
Tucson, Arizona; Ron Olin, Chief of Police, Lawrence, Kansas; Jim
Peschong, Assistant Chief of Police, Lincoln, Nebraska; Major Kathleen
Pierce, Commander, Information Systems Division, Kansas City Police
Department, Kansas City, Missouri; Tom Russell, Regional Computer
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; C.J. Shaffer, Director, Plans, Analysis and
Emergency Operations Branch, Hampton Police Department, Hampton,
Virginia; and Barbara Sheen Todd, County Commissioner, Pinellas
County, Florida. 
Site visit team members are
Norm Bowman, Citywide GIS Coordinator, Kansas City, Missouri; Will
Davis, Police Planning Manager, Scottsdale Police Department,
Scottsdale, Arizona; Mike Nagan, Director, Information Services, Seattle,
Washington; Pam Scanlon, ARJIS Regional Director, San Diego Police
Department, San Diego, California; and Ron Wilborg, Grants and
Contracts Supervisor, Community Corrections, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Janet Quist, former Director of Public Safety Programs at PTI, and
writer Elsie Scott, Senior Executive, Office of Chief of Police,
Washington, D.C., contributed to this project.
-------------------------------
Chapter 1
Introduction: The Local Governance Survey
Purpose
Through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice's
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Public Technology, Inc. (PTI)
examined the types of structures that local governments either use or are
contemplating to implement or oversee justice information systems
integration efforts. 
PTI is the only nonprofit technology organization for local governments
in the United States whose mission is to advance the development and use
of technology by local government. The National League of Cities, the
National Association of Counties, and the International City/County
Management Association, three leading national and international
organizations representing city and county government, provide PTI with
its policy direction, while a select group of city and county members
conduct applied research and development and technology transfer
functions. Created in 1971, PTI is the only national organization dedicated
to furthering the use of technology in both cities and counties, for both
elected officials and professional managers. Partnerships with private
industry, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a focus on connectivity,
sustainability, and wise decision support are the foundations of PTI's
philosophy.
For this project, PTI conducted a mail survey with followup site visits to
six local jurisdictions selected based on their survey responses, population
size, geographic diversity, and levels of their integration governance
efforts. The purpose of this study was to
o Ascertain the type, quality, and capability of governance processes and
structures in use or contemplated nationwide.
o Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of current models.
o Explore the creative processes behind various governance structures. 
o Observe the progress of different communities as they seek to share 
justice information. 
By achieving total integration, PTI believes that local governments will be
better positioned to respond to the increasing public pressure for faster,
more effective justice services. 
Methodology
The first task of this project was to survey local governments to examine
governance structures facilitating the integration of justice information
systems at the local level. A group of 23 city and county public safety
professionals and local elected officials representing PTI's membership
was convened for the task of drafting the survey and later, once results
were in, drafting the content of the guidebook. Working group members
represented a broad range of experts with direct experience in the area of
local justice information systems and the technologies and governance
structures needed to successfully integrate these systems. Participants
included professionals representing city and county law enforcement,
courts, current managers of integrated justice information systems, public
safety and jurisdictionwide information technology professionals,
emergency operations professionals, criminal records managers, fire
personnel, and elected county officials. One state-level representative also
participated. 
The group used the "Collaboratory," a completely portable, customized
electronic workspace consisting of laptop computers and collaborative
decision-support software. Using professional, experienced facilitators and
technical support, this tool promotes open discussion and brainstorming
using a network of personal computers through which participants
simultaneously and anonymously submit ideas and reach consensus on
difficult issues. 
Once the draft survey was completed, PTI worked with The Leede
Research Group from Manitowoc, Wisconsin, to formalize and administer
the survey. PTI worked with its three sponsoring organizations to obtain a
sampling of each organization's membership. Approximately 250 cities
and counties were chosen from their respective databases using population
size and geography as selection criteria (see appendix B: Jurisdictions
Responding to Survey). 
Because the diversity of agencies and individuals involved in justice
systems at the local level varies among jurisdictions, the survey was sent
to the chief elected or appointed official of each jurisdiction. The recipient
was then asked to forward it to appropriate individual(s) within the
respective agencies for a response. As is noted in the data, the law
enforcement agency was the most likely to respond. It should be noted
that there were issues regarding those jurisdictions with more than one
agency involved in integration, since only one agency was likely to
complete the form. This respondent might not be fully aware of what the
other agencies were doing, resulting in a response that may have been
based solely on that respondent's particular perspective. 
More than 1,300 surveys were sent out. With the exception of PTI's
membership, the surveys were directed to the chief local elected or
appointed official. Most responses were provided by persons with
immediate knowledge concerning local integration (i.e., mainly justice
professionals). Respondents could return the survey by mail, fax, or online
via PTI's Web site.
The survey instrument consisted of 64 open- and closed-ended multiple
choice questions (see Appendix A). With the exception of a few
demographic questions designed to enable comparisons among
jurisdictions, questions were designed to elicit information concerning the
status of justice integration efforts and governance structures at the local
government level. PTI examined the way governance structures were
created (e.g., whether by statute, arising from a series of informal
meetings among staff wanting to improve efficiency or improve current
processes, etc.), the reasons that some succeeded and some failed, and the
types of resources necessary to create and sustain effective governance
structures. A working group comprising representatives from a broad
range of city and county justice agencies and elected officials collaborated
to draft the survey and the contents of this guidebook.
The responses were tallied and the data analyzed during March 2000.
Surveys were completed and returned by 251 respondents, constituting an
18.5% response rate. The error rate associated with the survey was +/-
5.59% at a 95% confidence level.
Survey Respondents
Jurisdictions located in suburban and urban areas made up 68% of the
responses, while rural jurisdictions accounted for 19%; 13% of the
respondents (DK/NA) did not indicate a geographic location (see figure
1).
-------------------------------
Figures 1, 2, and 3 are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view
this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at
800-688-4252.
-------------------------------
Over one-third of the responding jurisdictions (38%) were located in
communities with populations of between 10,000 and 50,000 people, and
one-fifth (20%) were located in areas with populations of more than
250,000 people (see figure 2). Note: The percentages do not total to 100%
because some respondents did not answer the question. 
The largest group of responding jurisdictions was cities (63%); the second
largest group, 22%, was counties (see figure 3). The most common form
of government was council-manager (39%), with 29% having a
mayor-council form of government (see figure 3).
The majority of the responding jurisdictions reported that their jurisdiction
operates information systems that are integrated with other
departments/agencies. Two common factors were found. First, most
jurisdictions were integrated with their respective state's justice
information system and, second, most had not yet developed an integrated
information technology strategic plan.
Analyzing this data, PTI found that most jurisdictions involved in some
phase of justice system integration have 
o Identified a governing body, the composition of which is suited to
their environment.
o Devised a governance structure that guides that body's operation.
o Set policies that increased their chances for success.
o Created an environment of trust.
To provide a clear blueprint for successful integration of justice
information systems, a site visit team visited six jurisdictions representing
a broad spectrum of local governments. Site visits were selected based on
survey responses, population size, geographic diversity, and levels of
integration/governance effort. Those visits proved invaluable for both
supporting empirical survey data and understanding the application of
current governance structures.
Purpose of Guidebook 
This guidebook is designed to help jurisdictions create and deploy
governance for the integration of their justice information systems. Survey
data, coupled with case studies, combine for a compelling study of how to
accomplish better information integration through governance. This
guidebook helps provide the tools local governments need to develop
successful governance structures and improve upon existing structures. It
can enhance the capability and capacity of local governments to move
toward the horizontal and vertical integration of justice information
sharing systems. 
The impetus for developing this guidebook did not come from a Federal
Government mandate. It came from the grassroots--from the potential
users at the local government level. The OJP conference series discussed
in the next chapter made obvious the need to support existing integration
efforts and to provide agencies not currently engaged in integration with
assistance in getting started. Before the mechanisms providing the needed
assistance could be fully established, however, a status assessment needed
to be conducted. The PTI survey was the vehicle used to accomplish this.
This guidebook is an initial step in the process of helping local
governments reach a level of integration that could lead to a nationwide,
seamless integration of justice information systems. Local jurisdictions
that do not have structures in place or are not engaged in justice
information integration can use the guidebook to assist them in developing
successful data integration and governance structures. Jurisdictions that
already have structures in place can use the guidebook as a tool to help
them improve their structures. Also, jurisdictions that have integrated
justice information systems can compare their efforts and ascertain what
can be learned from the experiences of other jurisdictions. In addition, this
guidebook can be used as a local governance training tool for justice
information integration.
-------------------------------
Chapter 2
The Need for Integrated Justice Information
The Problem
The U.S. justice system was established to accomplish several purposes:
to detect, apprehend, convict, and incarcerate offenders; to deter potential
offenders; and to create an ordered society. Its success is immeasurably
strengthened when all the components of the justice system have available
to them the most current, accurate, and complete data that they can obtain. 
The justice system's mission often is hampered or stymied by factors such
as 
o Inefficient manual processes, disparate or missing data.
o Illegible index cards with seminal crime information. 
o Multiple and inconsistent incident/booking reports. 
o Uncoordinated relationships among justice agencies. 
Offenders have remained free because agencies have not had the capacity
to quickly and efficiently communicate with each other. Months, and
sometimes years, unfortunately pass before suspects are adjudicated and
incarcerated. 
The backlog of unprosecuted criminal cases in America continues to grow
frighteningly large while, simultaneously, adjudication bodies work at full
capacity to keep pace with the layers of bureaucracy that have been
created to uphold the principle of due process of the law. Worse still,
these barriers trapped criminal justice workers in a recurring cycle of
paperwork, filing, and phone calls, resulting in a costly misallocation of
safety resources, manual errors, and "lost" work hours that effectively
reduce citizen safety. With many of America's local justice agencies
relying on sticky notes, faxed messages, undocumented telephone calls, or
unsecured e-mail to exchange criminal case information, the integrity,
accuracy, and security of that information is at risk. 
The end result for all involved has been a slow and expensive judicial
process that lacks centralized quality control. For swift, fair, and
economical justice to prevail, local governments desperately need a means
of managing the integration and automated exchange of key crime
information across agency and jurisdictional bounds--a priority of the U.S.
Department of Justice since the late 1960s. Early on, law enforcement and
Federal Government agencies attempted to encourage information sharing
among local jurisdictions by providing funding opportunities through the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) grants. 
Paradoxically, these very funds have often contributed to the creation of
silos of unshared information. Traditionally, funding from these programs
has been "program" or "purpose" specific and unfortunately led to the
installation of many different computer systems, in many cases with
limited purposes, serving the various justice components in state, local,
and tribal governments.
Thirty-plus years have passed since the first LEAA grants were disbursed,
with this program having been replaced by the present Community
Oriented Policing Services and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
programs. Gaping holes still appear in the achievement of effective local
(let alone regional or national) integrated justice information systems.
Agencies in the criminal justice system guard information more carefully
than any other type of government agency, with the exception, perhaps, of
those in national security or the armed forces. Change in bureaucracies
that are protective of their data is neither easy nor fast. Despite the
inherent complexity of integrating their justice information systems,
however, local governments continue to strive to do so in order to
expedite justice and improve the safety for their constituents.
Technology Is Only Part of the Solution 
Modern advances in computing have the power to drastically change
America's justice process. The advent of information technology has had a
substantial impact on the way local government agencies integrate and
exchange criminal information, thus speeding the processes by which
crime is managed, thereby enhancing the capacity of local public safety
agencies to respond effectively. Terabit computing systems, scalable data
warehouses, improved wire line and wireless telecommunications, and the
Internet are already available to foster the exchange of justice information
across agencies that need access to real time information. Technology
itself is not a panacea for slow and inefficient justice processes. And
information systems alone cannot integrate data from one county to
another across jurisdictional lines. Such integration of justice information
processes and systems requires people in local governments to adapt their
processes to such systems. The key to the successful integration of justice
information in America's local justice agencies clearly resides with their
governance structure. 
Well-defined and structured governance empowers the integration of
justice information systems because it requires the cooperation of both the
community's justice professionals and its elected and appointed officials
who possess the detailed process knowledge about their communities that
can provide deep and broad perspectives on integration needs. In parallel,
governance of integration efforts enables information technology
professionals to engineer processes with those who must enforce the rule
of law, creating flexible applications that change with the varying needs of
the community's police officers, lawyers, judges, jails, and motor vehicle
departments. Furthermore, governance structures enable the
documentation of the integration process, thus providing a template that
other jurisdictions and localities can use in similar efforts. Ultimately, it is
governance that consolidates and streamlines the integration of justice
information, providing the guidance needed to ensure that technology
represents a solution for all those involved in managing the justice system.
The Role of the Federal Government
In 1997, OJP created the Information Technology (IT) Executive Council
to help guide federal funding in a more synergistic manner. Through a
series of conferences in 1998, the IT Executive Council met with more
than 300 representatives from state and local criminal justice systems to
o Determine the stages of justice integration efforts at the state and local
levels.
o Identify the issues surrounding the integration of justice information
systems.
o Pinpoint the processes that could spur such integration.
The initial meetings took place in February and March of 1998. During
the first gathering, a focus group of criminal justice experts from a variety
of law enforcement, prosecution, public defense, corrections agencies, and
the courts met with the IT Executive Council to discuss how integrated
criminal justice information systems are built. As a result, the expert focus
group also provided the council with 14 detailed recommendations,
including those to
o Structure grants to support the various phases of project development
and implementation (research, development, maintenance, etc.).
o Provide a one-stop shop for information, answers, and access to the
status of federal standards concerning technology.
o Send federal representatives into the field to help with planning at state
and local levels.
o Coordinate state efforts at a national level, work with states to do the
same for coordinating local initiatives, and be able to discuss how various
federal initiatives work together. 
At the March meeting--the Conference of the States--the council met with
a contingent of criminal justice representatives from eight states to collect
recommendations from the states' point of view. Recommendations
stemming from this meeting addressed similar issues:
o Help states conduct regional, state and/or local integration workshops
onsite.
o Tie grants to data integrity, security, standards, and planning
requirements.
o Recognize that "one size does not fit all."
In July, the council met with criminal justice representatives from an
additional 8 states, along with the original 8, and in November met with
representatives from 8 more states, along with the original 16. The 1998
conference series provided OJP with the field's recommendations to
further state and local justice integration through grant guidance, technical
assistance, and the development of a national integration resource center.
At the culmination of this series of meetings, OJP identified the critical
first steps needed to help move state and local governments toward the
integration of justice information systems. Those eight steps were set forth
in OJP's 1999 Integration Initiative:
1. Building a business case for integration--Assisting justice information
integration efforts by state and local jurisdictions by creating an education
and marketing tool for executives, legislators, the judiciary, and the public
that demonstrates the value of such integrated systems (currently
published; see appendix C: Resources).
2. A governance initiative--Examining, at the state level, the governance
structures in place and overseeing integration efforts to highlight the
strengths and weaknesses of various structures (currently in final review
stage).
3. Procurement improvement initiative--Rethinking the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy process to improve upon it.
4. Standards initiative--Surveying and categorizing results to identify
current standards and to reach national consensus on technical and data
standards for justice integration.
5. State/local government legislation initiative--Creating an inventory
of legislation that supports integration and that can aid jurisdictions in
drafting new or amending current legislation.
6. Federal Web consortium participation--OJP joining the consortium
to build relationships with other federal agencies, exchange ideas, and
work with the agencies on mutually beneficial projects.
7. Information interchange study--Studying how information flows
through the criminal justice process and how that information is shared.
8. National Information Resource Center--Providing a central place for
all levels of government pursuing integration efforts to obtain relevant and
useful information.
Building upon the progress made during 1999, OJP focused its projects
in 2000 on four areas: 
o Creating a National Integration Resource Center.
o Facilitating state pilots, initially in Alabama, where OJP is
collaborating to build an integrated justice information system in the
southwestern portion of the state.
o Helping develop standards for information exchange, maintenance,
and architecture development.
o Fostering a justice information privacy initiative that will help
states, local governments, and tribal governments.
Overall, OJP-funded information technology initiatives include the
following elements:
Functional Standards--OJP is supporting the development of functional
standards in the area of courts by the National Center for State Courts
(adult criminal and juvenile justice case management systems), the
corrections community, and the probation/parole community. In addition,
the National Center for State Courts has developed functional standards
for civil court case management systems and is planning the development
of functional standards for traffic and probate courts.
Resource Center--OJP, through a cooperative agreement with REI
Systems Inc., will create a Web page to support state and local
government teams responsible for developing integrated justice
information systems. OJP will populate the Web page with content based
on recommendations from a Justice Practitioners Working Group and will
task the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement to help consolidate
the recommended content.
XML Initiative--OJP sponsored a workshop in March 2001 that
brought together teams responsible for implementing leading edge
applications of XML used to facilitate exchange of information among
courts, the intelligence community, and the criminal record history
community. Workshop discussions will be used to determine the
appropriate role that OJP should play in coordinating the development and
implementation of XML applications in the justice community.
Industry Working Group--OJP is working with the private sector
through an Industry Working Group to obtain its views on planned policy
and implementation initiatives and its recommendations to improve
government approaches to procurement reform, technology refreshment,
standards, and software development. OJP also is examining the
feasibility of tasking a nonprofit spinoff of the Working Group to provide
technology assistance and periodic seminars on emerging technologies.
Governance Studies--OJP has been working with the National Criminal
Justice Association on a state survey to identify and document the
characteristics of governance models across the country that oversee the
development and implementation of integrated criminal justice systems.
Similarly, OJP is partnering with PTI on a local government survey to
identify and document characteristics of local governance models used to
operate integrated justice systems in counties, municipalities, and regional
units of government. The latter project is this guidebook.
Indian Nations--OJP has been working in partnership with the Office of
Tribal Justice to facilitate the planning, design, and implementation of
integrated information systems by various Indian Nations. In particular
OJP has supported an effort to share justice information among the
Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, and other tribal nations in the United States. OJP is
also supporting plans by the Navajo Nation to conduct a Summit on
Integration for their tribe.
Privacy--OJP is implementing a three-part program aimed at improving
privacy in the development and implementation of justice information
systems. The first initiative resulted in the creation of Privacy Design
Principles for an Integrated Justice System. This was followed by the
development of a Privacy Impact Assessment for Justice Information
Systems. These documents are available on the OJP Integrated Justice
Web page (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/integratedjustice). The third and final
initiative is a series of three workshops aimed at producing guidelines for
Public Access to Criminal Justice Electronic Records. OJP and the Bureau
of Justice Statistics are planning to task The SEARCH Group, Inc. to
schedule a national conference on privacy later this year to roll out some
of the products produced by this initiative.
Courts--OJP is also supporting state courts through partnerships with
the National Center for State Courts and affiliated organizations
(including the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National
Association of Court Management, and the Conference of Chief Justices).
Partnership efforts include providing technical assistance to the courts,
support tools for small and rural courts, developing functional standards
for case management systems, and a Web crawler capability to facilitate
information gathering from state court administration Web pages.
Legislation--OJP, in partnership with the National Conference of State
Legislators, is working to identify legislative initiatives affecting the
justice community and to elevate the understanding of integration and
information sharing issues on the part of state legislators.
Architecture--OJP and the National Association of State Chief
Information Officers are working to conceptualize and implement
appropriate architectures, frameworks, and information sharing standards
to facilitate the movement of justice information across jurisdictional
boundaries. PTI is considering similar efforts with an organization
representing local governments.
Project Management--With assistance from the Industry Working
Group, OJP, the University of New Orleans Center for Society, Law and
Justice, and Auburn University have developed a curriculum aimed at
educating and certifying state and local officials in technology project
management.
State Strategic Planning--OJP and the National Governors Association
(NGA) are conducting a series of workshops designed to develop
implementation plans for integration of justice information systems. OJP
has funded the travel for participating states to attend the workshops and
prepare implementation plans. This initiative is designed to involve the
governors of states more personally and to provide incentives for
competing for additional implementation grants. Funding will be based on
competitive review of states' plans by NGA and an advisory board
established by NGA.
Business Case--OJP funded the development of guidance to state and
local governments for the preparation of business case concepts to help
them secure resources and leadership support for integration and
information sharing. The Center for Technology in Government
developed guidelines based on workshop input from elected and appointed
executives and leaders from the criminal justice community. The
guideline document is available on the OJP Web site
(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/integratedjustice).
Information Exchange Points--OJP and The SEARCH Group are
identifying and documenting key points at which justice information is
transferred between jurisdictions. A computerized model is being
developed to illustrate the flow of information and demonstrate optimal
exchange conditions to facilitate the development of appropriate standards
for integration.
Strategic Planning Model--OJP funded the development of a Strategic
Planning Model by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP). The documented version of this product is available from IACP
and will be placed on the OJP Resource Center Web page upon
completion.
Technology Standards--OJP has funded the development of a process
for identifying, selecting, and approving technology standards for use by
the justice community. The project was developed by the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards, National Center for Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers, and the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration through the National Institute of Justice.
Corrections--OJP is exploring the possibility of partnering with the
Corrections Technology Association to develop functional standards for
the corrections community. 
Law Enforcement Intelligence--OJP is sponsoring the quarterly meeting
of the Law Enforcement Intelligence Forum to recommend appropriate
processes, standards and policies for improving the management of
intelligence information by the law enforcement community.
Transportation Systems--OJP is partnering with the U.S. Department of
Transportation to create a Public Safety Program within the transportation
community designed to create synergy between public safety and
transportation initiatives. A memorandum of understanding (MOU)
committing both departments to support their respective information
sharing efforts was recently signed.
Justice Integration Earmarks--OJP will be monitoring initiatives
established by Congress as earmarks for projects to implement integrated
justice information systems. Examples of this type of project include those
earmarked for the eastern part of Kentucky and the Southwestern
Alabama Project.
Coordination--OJP coordinated meetings in April 2001 for grantees and
technical assistance providers to exchange information about their
programs and to learn about the overall program envisioned by OJP.
Technical Assistance--OJP is working with various organizations to
provide technical assistance to the justice community on a broad basis.
Some of the organizations involved include: The SEARCH Group; the
University of Arkansas Criminal Justice Institute and its National Center
for Rural Law Enforcement; the University of New Orleans Center for
Society, Law and Justice; the National Center for State Courts; the 
Institute for Intergovernmental Research; the Community Oriented
Policing Services; the Development Services Group; the Center for
Network Development; the National Criminal Justice Association; and the
National Institute of Corrections.
PTI's Role
During the course of meetings held in 1999, OJP discovered the
importance of governance structures in cities and counties to oversee the
integration of justice information systems at the local level. To help OJP,
PTI proposed developing a guide to governance from the local
government perspective. PTI's role was to examine local governance
structures to determine their types, qualities, and capabilities. Through a
cooperative agreement with OJP, PTI studied current and planned
governance structures of cities and counties for the integration of justice
information systems.
PTI conducted a national survey of local government elected and
appointed officials to ascertain their efforts to integrate justice information
systems, types of governance structures in place to facilitate integration,
and how those structures were created. The survey also was designed to
identify those jurisdictions that were engaged in integrating systems
and/or have governance structures to facilitate this integration. The survey
results have been compiled, and the analysis of the findings serves as the
foundation for this guidebook.
-------------------------------
Chapter 3
Status of Integration and Governance Structures To Facilitate Integration
Operation of Integrated Information Systems
Initially, survey respondents were asked about the status of justice
information system integration in their jurisdictions. Questions focused on
integration efforts among departments/agencies, with other local
jurisdictions and with state criminal justice information systems.
Three-quarters of survey respondents reported that their jurisdictions
operate integrated information systems with other departments/agencies
(see Figure 4).
-------------------------------
Figures 4 and 5 are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at
800-688-4252.
-------------------------------
Note: Percentages do not total 100% because there were some who did not
respond to the question.
Clearly, respondents were more likely to be involved in integration within
their jurisdictions (74%) than with other local jurisdictions (45%) or with
state systems (64%). A greater percentage of larger jurisdictions indicated
they are integrated with other jurisdictions than did smaller jurisdictions.
Only 38% of jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 were
integrated with other jurisdictions, while 55% of those with populations of
more than 50,000 were integrated with other jurisdictions. Differences
based on size of population were less pronounced in responses relating to
integration with state criminal justice information systems. 
Regardless of the type of integration (among departments/agencies or with
other local jurisdictions), justice systems that were most likely to be
integrated were law enforcement, emergency communications, courts, and
the department of motor vehicles. Of the non-justice systems, a greater
percentage of the agencies within jurisdictions were integrated with
planning/zoning (22%), public works (19%), and public utilities (12%).
Outside their jurisdiction, more agencies were integrated with
planning/zoning (20%) and transportation (17%).
More than half of the participants (55%) had implemented public access
rules, while only about one-fifth had developed an integrated information
technology strategic plan (21%). Larger jurisdictions with populations of
more than 50,000 were more likely to have public access rules (55% v.
38%) and a technology strategic plan (33% v. 10%).
Description of Justice Integration Efforts and Governance Structures
Respondents were asked to place their jurisdictions in one of four
categories best describing current justice integration efforts: 
1. No justice integration effort underway nor a governance structure to
facilitate such integration.
2. A governance structure to facilitate the integration of the justice
information systems, but no current integration of systems.
3. Justice information systems integration, but no governance structure in
place.
4. Justice information systems integration and a governance structure in
place.
The largest percentage of respondents (34%) fell into the first category: no
integration, no governance structure, while the smallest percentage (12%)
had a governance structure but no current systems integration (see figure
5). The responses based on the status of their integration are reported in
the following three chapters. More detail on each of these four categories
is presented in the following chapters.
-------------------------------
Chapter 4
No Justice Integration/No Governance Structure
When jurisdictions were compared by population size, there was a
significant variance between the percentage of jurisdictions in the sample
and the ones reporting no integration/no governance structure (see table
1). For example, the larger areas, jurisdictions with populations of more
than 250,000, made up 20% of the sample, but only 8% of the
jurisdictions with no integration and no governance structure. Jurisdictions
with populations between 10,000 and 50,000 made up 38% of the sample,
but they were almost half of the jurisdictions with no integration or
governance structure.
-------------------------------
Figures 6 and 7 and tables 1 through 6 are not included in this ASCII
plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy
from BJA at 800-688-4252.
-------------------------------
Why Agencies Are Not Engaged in Integration
Respondents were provided with nine preselected options (although they
could write in a response) to explain why their jurisdictions were not
engaged in the integration of justice information systems: (1) politics, (2)
power/control, (3) data/information security, (4) size of relevant
agency(ies), (5) liability, (6) trust, (7) agency "cultural" issues, (8)
funding, and (9) risk management/exposure. 
Funding was the most often cited reason (26%) for not engaging in
integrated justice systems (see figure 6). Data security was selected by
15%, and size of relevant agency(ies) was selected by 14%. The majority
of respondents (82%) who were not engaged in integration nor had a
governance structure reported that they had not attempted integration in
the past. Those that had attempted to integrate justice information systems
but were unsuccessful were asked to describe their experience and explain
why their efforts had failed. Lack of funding was the major reason given,
but other reasons included agency incompatibility and politics.
Respondents were given a list of 13 barriers, and were required to select
those that were preventing the integration of their jurisdictions' justice
information systems (see table 2). Lack of funding was selected by far
more agencies than any other barrier. A number of jurisdictions responded
that the size of their jurisdiction and/or budget prevented them from
integrating. Secondary barriers were staffing/personnel and technology
issues. The personnel barrier was related to the funding barrier because
jurisdictions were likely to state that they could not afford the personnel
needed for an integrated system. Similarly, several jurisdictions tied their
technology issues to funding problems.
Why Jurisdictions Had Not Established a Governance Structure
When asked why they had not established a governance structure, the
responses were similar to those given for not integrating (see figure 6).
Funding was cited by 28%, size was selected by 16%, and
data/information security was selected by 13% (see figure 7). Politics was
identified as the reason for no governance structure by 12%. This was less
than the 8% that identified politics as the reason that they were not
engaged in integration. Data/information security was more of a limitation
in the larger jurisdictions (250,000+ population) than it was in the smaller
jurisdictions. Twenty-six percent of the respondents from larger
jurisdictions listed data security as a barrier compared to only 7% of those
with 50,000-100,000 population and 11% of those with populations of
100,000-250,000.
Of those jurisdictions without a governance structure, 85% had not
attempted to establish a governance structure to facilitate integration. The
15% that had tried and failed in their attempts to establish a governance
structure attributed the failure to funding. A number of other respondents
blamed the failure on politics.
What Would Be Included in an Integrated System?
When asked what agencies would likely be included if their jurisdictions
were to integrate their justice information systems, 15% indicated that law
enforcement would be included, 11% would include the courts, 10%
would include the prosecutor, and 10% would include emergency
communications. Agencies that elicited the fewest responses were
transportation (0.6%), the health department (0.8%), the public defender
(1.4%), and social services (1.6%). 
Outside Assistance Needed
Respondents identified disparate types of assistance needed from the
federal, state, local, and regional levels of government (see table 3). The
type of assistance most desired from the federal and state governments
was funding, while personnel/staff was the assistance most desired from
the local level (15%). Forty percent of the respondents felt that federal
funding would help their jurisdictions engage in justice integration, while
22% selected state funding. This compares with only 11% who felt that
local funding would help, and 13% who felt that regional funding would
help. Besides funding, federal assistance was needed in strategic planning
(10%) and facilitation (10%). Fifteen percent of the respondents wanted
strategic planning from their state or region. Consultant assistance was
cited by 12% and 11%, respectively, from their state and region. The local
government and the region were viewed as the most helpful sources in
assisting with operation and management planning and in developing
public/private partnerships.
Governance Structure With No Integration
Twelve percent of the respondents indicated that they have established a
governance structure to facilitate the integration of their justice
information systems but are currently not doing so (see figure 5). Of the
jurisdictions in this category, the smallest percentage was found in rural
areas (10%), while the largest (41%) was in urban areas. In examining
geographical types, it was revealed that only a small percentage of each
type had a governance structure with no integration: rural areas (6%),
suburban areas (12%), and urban areas (14%).
When jurisdictions were compared by population size, less than
one-fourth of each of the geographical types of jurisdictions had a
governance structure. The largest percentage (20%), was from
jurisdictions with a population of more than 250,000. Jurisdictions with
populations of more than 250,000 were most disproportionate to their
sample percentage (see table 4), meaning the frequency of their having a
governance structure with no integration was higher than their sample
proportionality in the survey would have predicted. 
Origin, Nature and Functions of Governance Structures
The largest number of jurisdictions (44%) had a governance structure that
was formed through a cooperative agreement, memorandum of
understanding, or some similar document. Some structures were created
by statute (15%), others were loose configurations with informal
guidelines (11%), and still others were established as a grant requirement
(8%). 
Affected personnel initiated the governance structure for 47% of the
jurisdictions (see table 6). Fourteen percent of respondents stated their
structures were begun as the result of a legislative mandate.
State Integration Efforts
When questioned about state-level justice information system integration,
most respondents did not know the status of their states' efforts (63%). Of
those who did know about their states' efforts, 57% said their states were
engaged in integration planning, while 43% said their states did not have
integration efforts underway.
Those whose states were engaged in integration were asked how they
learned about the effort. Close to one-third (32%) stated their agencies
were notified, 18% indicated their jurisdictions were notified, and 18%
responded that their jurisdictions were invited to the table. Less than half
of the jurisdictions that knew about their states' efforts (40%) were
participating. 
Summary Points
o Funding is a major impediment to the integration of justice
information systems and the establishment of governance structures.
o Law enforcement, the courts, prosecutors, and emergency
communications are the key agencies to include in an integrated system.
o The type of assistance needed from a local government may differ
from the assistance needed from the federal and state governments.
-------------------------------
Chapter 5
Governance Structure With or Without Integration
Governance Structure With Integration
One-fourth (26%) of the respondents have a governance structure in place
and are integrating justice information systems (see Figure 5). Of the
jurisdictions in this category, the largest percentage (42%) was in urban
areas, 25% were from the suburbs, and 17% were in rural areas. The
following percentage of each type had a governance structure with
integration: rural areas (23%), suburban areas (14%), and urban areas
(32%). 
When population was used to compare jurisdictions with governance and
integration, jurisdictions with populations of 250,000+ and jurisdictions
with populations from 50,000 to 100,000 were the only population types
in the plus column, i.e., their percentage of jurisdictions with governance
and integration was greater than their percentage of the sample (see table
5). 
-------------------------------
Figures 8 and 9 and table 7 are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at
800-688-4252.
-------------------------------
Law enforcement was identified as the most important agency for
participation in the governance structure. More than one-fifth of the
jurisdictions (21%) indicated that law enforcement participates in their
governance structures. The courts participate in 12%, the prosecutor
participates in 11%, and the central information technology agency is a
part of 10% of the structures.
Members of the governance body were more likely to be appointed than to
be elected or selected through some other method. It was reported that
most governance bodies did not have their own staff (39%), and that the
reporting entities for these bodies varied based on form of government
(i.e., mayor/council, city/county manager, county executive/commission). 
Respondents were asked to identify the roles and responsibilities of their
governance board from among nine options. The most common roles were
to review projects (14%), prioritize initiatives (14%), set policy (12%),
recommend funding (11%), set standards (11%), prioritize system changes
(11%), and authorize software (10 %) (see figure 8).
Less than half of the governance structures (40%) have fiscal authority.
Most of the ones with fiscal authority have spending authority (88%) but
no taxing authority (12%). 
Involvement of local elected officials in the governance structure is
varied. One-fourth of the respondents indicated that their local elected
officials participate in the governance structure. Other respondents
indicated lower levels of participation for such functions as funding (21%)
and mandating the structure (14%). Fifteen percent of the respondents
stated that their local officials were not aware of the structure. One-third
or more of the smallest jurisdictions (10,000 or less population) and
jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 to 100,000 indicated that their
local elected officials participate in the governance structure.
Approximately one-fourth of all the other jurisdictions indicated that their
local officials participate in the governance structure, except those with
populations from 10,000 to 50,000. Only 14% of these jurisdictions
reported participation by their local officials. Nevertheless, only 14% of
jurisdictions with populations from 10,000 to 50,000 indicated that their
officials were not aware of the structure. This compares to one-third of the
jurisdictions with less than 10,000 population and one-fifth of those with
population sizes from 50,000 to 250,000. 
Funding for Governance Structures
Most respondents had not received outside funding for their governance
body (see figure 9). Only 11% had received federal block grants, while
14% had received state funding. Over one-third indicated their governance
bodies are funded out of their normal operating budgets, and 17% stated
that their governance bodies are not funded. When population size was
taken into consideration, it was found that the smaller jurisdictions were
more likely to be funded by federal or state funds (43%) than the largest
jurisdictions (13%). 
Several jurisdictions had unique mechanisms for funding their governance
structures. One had an add-on fee, another used a pool of federal grant
funds to individual jurisdictions, and still another had a CRT
Enhancement Fund. Although a few jurisdictions had seen an increase in
funding, most still had funding concerns.
Involvement in Federal and State Integration Efforts
When asked about the involvement of their jurisdictions' governance
bodies in federal justice integration efforts, 42% stated their jurisdictions
had received federal grants. Only 11% were actively involved in the NCIC
(National Crime Information Center) 2000 changes, and 21% of
respondents were unaware of federal justice information system
integration efforts.
Involvement by local governance bodies in statewide justice information
system integration was both voluntary and mandated. One-third of the
jurisdictions were invited to voluntarily participate in statewide efforts,
and 13% had been mandated to participate. Unlike federal involvement,
only 3% of respondents were involved in statewide integration through a
state grant. Thirteen percent of those who were aware of their states'
efforts were not participating; 18% were not aware of any state integration
efforts. The percentage of respondents unaware of their states' integration
efforts increased to 25% when the responses of the jurisdictions with
governance structures were separated from those without governance
structures.
Factors Having a Positive/Negative Impact on the Governance Structure
When asked to list the factors that had a positive impact on their
governance structures, a variety of responses was given. However, one
common theme was found in many of the responses--the structure
benefited from cooperation between the jurisdictions involved. Funding,
especially state and federal funding, was considered to have a positive
impact by many respondents. Several respondents mentioned the impact
of good leadership and commitment. These factors were suggested
because they have created more efficiency, facilitated better
communication between agencies, and forged a spirit of working together.
One theme was consistent throughout many of the responses concerning
factors that have a negative impact on governance structures: lack of
funding. Other prominent themes were staff shortage, political agendas or
other political factors, and changes in personnel or leadership. A few
mentioned inadequate infrastructures or equipment, competition, and lack
of agreement on priorities. One respondent summed up the sentiment
expressed by many: "All of these place a strain on resources and
encourage competition rather than cooperation."
Summary Points
o Governance structures tend to be started by agreements such as
memoranda of understanding and by the people most affected by the
structures.
o Law enforcement is the key agency for participation in a governance
structure.
o Some of the key functions of governance structures are reviewing
projects, prioritizing initiatives, setting policies, and setting standards.
o Governance structures tend to be funded by local funds.
o Governance structures bring about better cooperation between agencies.
o Lack of funding impedes the development of governance structures.
Thirty percent of respondents were engaged in integrating justice
information systems but had no governance structure in place (see figure
5). Ten percent of the jurisdictions in this category were located in rural
areas, 37% in urban areas, 40% in suburban areas, and 14% did not
indicate where they were located. The data was examined to determine
what percentage of each type of jurisdiction had integration but no
governance structure. The results indicated that one-third of the suburban
respondents and 32% of the urban areas were integrating without a
governance structure. A smaller percentage of the rural areas, 15%, had
achieved integration without a governance structure. 
Little variance was found between the percentage of jurisdictions in the
sample and the ones reporting integration but no governance structure
when jurisdictions were compared by population size (see table 7). For
example, the larger areas, jurisdictions with populations of more than
250,000, made up 20% of the sample and 22% of the jurisdictions with no
integration and no governance structure. Jurisdictions with populations
from 50,000 to 100,000 made up 14% of the sample, and they were 14%
of the jurisdictions with no integration or governance structure. When
integration involved state agencies, the office of public safety/state police
was most likely to be included. A number of jurisdictions also indicated
integration with the department of motor vehicles (16%), and the bureau
of criminal identification (12%). Few jurisdictions were integrating with
private or media groups (6%). Integration tends to operate with a
bidirectional data flow (48%) or with a single point of entry (27%). Few
jurisdictions have a one-way data flow (8%).
-------------------------------
Chapter 6
Integration Without a Governance Structure
Barriers to Integration
Funding was, by far, the most common barrier to integration cited by
respondents (see table 9). Other identified barriers were technology issues
(15%), staffing/personnel (14%), turf issues (14%), and political issues
(11%). Funding, however, was not selected as the number one barrier by
the smallest jurisdictions. For jurisdictions of less than 10,000, technology
issues were the top impediment. 
-------------------------------
Figure10 and tables 8 through 10 are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at
800-688-4252.
-------------------------------
Origin and Nature of Integration
More than one-fourth (26%) of the jurisdictions' justice integration
processes were started by top staff. Almost as many were started by a
grassroots effort (21%). Others were begun with an interlocal agreement
(18%), a federal/state grant (10%), statutory mandate (5%), and an
advisory group/association (4%). When the data was analyzed by
population size, it was found that a greater percentage of structures in
jurisdictions with less than 10,000 population was started by interlocal
agreements, and a greater percentage of structures in jurisdictions of
250,000 population or more was started by grassroots efforts. 
The largest number of jurisdictions (40%) were involved in integration
with agencies outside their jurisdictions or with agencies within their
jurisdiction (28%) (see table 8). A much smaller number (14% and 16%,
respectively) were integrating across state boundaries or with a single
agency. 
Would a Governance Structure Benefit Integration?
Respondents were asked if they thought a governance structure would
benefit their justice information systems integration efforts. Whereas 73%
of all respondents felt that a governance structure would benefit their
integration efforts, 38% of those without a governance structure did not
feel that having one necessarily would benefit their jurisdiction (see figure
10). On the other hand, 90% of those with governance structures stated
that the structure furthered their integration efforts. 
When asked why they did not feel that a structure would benefit their
integration, many respondents stated they were doing well without a
structure.
They were concerned about changes should a structure be superimposed
over their current activities. Their concerns revolved around issues such as
the politics of the structure, whether more bureaucracy would be required,
and potential restrictions or controls.
Respondents who felt that a structure would benefit their integration
efforts identified some of its advantages as better coordination,
standardization, and set guidelines or policies. Other benefits suggested
were better communication and more funding opportunities. Some felt
that a structure would help reduce or eliminate turf battles. 
When governance structure exists, other organizations fulfill critical roles.
Forty-seven percent of the jurisdictions having no governance structure
use an individual agency to implement their integration efforts. A
centralized information technology department is in charge in 29% of the
jurisdictions, and an interagency body coordinates in 10% of jurisdictions.
Funding for Integration Efforts
For 31% of jurisdictions, funding for the initial procurement and
implementation of the integrated justice information system came from
their normal operating budgets, not from grants. However, federal grants
were an initial source of funding for 21%, while state funding provided
initial procurement and implementation for 14%. Private funding was not
a factor in providing initial capital, as not one jurisdiction in this category
reported receiving private funds. An initial source of funding for 14% of
the jurisdictions in this category was capital improvement funds. 
When respondents were questioned on funding for ongoing integrated
justice system operation, a large percentage (44%) reported their operating
budget as the source of funds, with state and federal funding, as well as
capital improvement funds, playing smaller roles (12%, 10%, and 8%,
respectively). Ten percent of the respondents reported that user fees help
to fund their ongoing operations.
The normal operating budget also was most often selected (38%) when
respondents were asked about sources of funding. Law enforcement is the
primary agency involved in justice information system integration,
whether the integration is between agencies within a jurisdiction or among
agencies outside the jurisdiction. Within jurisdictions, law enforcement
(37%), the courts (19%), prosecution (14%) and corrections (12%) were
the agencies most respondents identified for enhancement/improvements
to their systems. Federal grants were used by 17% of the respondents, the
capital improvement budget by 12%, and state funding resources by 12%.
Agencies involved in integration, as identified by respondents, included
law enforcement (40%), the courts (19%), corrections (12%), prosecution
(14%), probation (7%), and parole (4%) (see table 10). 
Jurisdictions face a variety of funding challenges in securing funds for
integrated criminal justice technologies. Many respondents stated that
finding the funds to support their integration efforts was one of their
biggest challenges. Other challenges listed were competition for such
funds once they were identified, justifying the need for funds to
policymakers, budget limitations, and the cost of maintaining and
upgrading systems. Some of the challenges listed related directly to
grants, such as finding matching funds, paperwork, not enough grant
sources or overall funding levels, and complicated application processes.
Despite all the challenges mentioned, some jurisdictions have adopted
unique mechanisms for funding their systems. Some of the mechanisms
listed were dedicated CRT enhancement, annexation fees, set-asides from
county filing fees, asset seizures, voter-approved sales tax, capital outlay
technology improvement fund, pooled grant funding, and state-approved
technology fees.
Summary Points
o Integration is most likely to be started by top staff, as a grassroots effort,
or by an interlocal agency agreement.
o Funding is a major barrier to integration.
o Concerns about changes that would result from having a governance
structure may prevent jurisdictions from establishing them.
o An individual agency usually takes the lead in the absence of a
structure.
o Integration tends to be funded out of local budgets, but grants play a
big role in the initiation of some systems.
-------------------------------
Chapter 7
Case Studies
The case studies discussed in this chapter provide snapshots of the
governance structures and justice integration efforts in six localities. The
site visit team selected these jurisdictions based on the nature of their
survey responses, their population, demographics, the type of governance
structure being used or explored; and the sort of justice information
integration effort already underway or being planned. 
-------------------------------
PROFILE
This urban county has a population of approximately 1.2 million--about 
one-fourth the state's population. The county contains more than 40
municipalities, including Minneapolis. Hennepin County neighbor Dakota
County, which the PTI site visit team also visited, is also profiled in this
chapter.
-------------------------------
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Scenario
Hennepin and Dakota Counties share the distinction of being the only two
counties in Minnesota that were awarded state grants in 1999 to integrate
justice information systems. Hennepin's Criminal Justice System
Information Integration Project (CJSIIP) began in 1999 and was originally
planned to address integration needs only within the county. The CJSIIP
evolved, however, into a project that would build a local model for
criminal justice information integration statewide. Hennepin's CJSIIP was
analyzed in Dakota County to see if the state's blueprint for criminal
justice integration would work in a more rural county. To fund efforts for
the CJSIIP, the state awarded Hennepin County a $500,000 grant, which
is part of Minnesota's CriMNet initiative for constructing a statewide
justice information network. 
According to a member of the PTI site visit team, Hennepin and Dakota
counties' integration projects are horizontal, involving justice agencies
from other jurisdictions or agencies. The goal of the CJSIIP is to integrate
law enforcement information systems with adjudication, prosecution and
detention systems, creating a systems architecture that makes information
available to individuals and agencies along any point of the criminal
justice spectrum. 
"We're integrating all the criminal-justice information systems in
Hennepin County," said Ron Wiborg, contracts and grants manager of the
county's Department of Community Corrections, and a member of the PTI
working group. "In Minnesota, the county is totally responsible for pre-
and post-trial detention, prosecution, probation, and parole. The state
operates the court system; all judges, court administrators and all
employees in the court administrator's office are, or soon will be, state
employees.
"More than 40 law enforcement agencies are in the county, including the
county sheriff," he continued. "But we have one corrections system, one
prosecutorial system and one court system. One single agency handles all
of corrections. One single agency (the county attorney's office) prosecutes
all felony and gross misdemeanor offenses and there is one court system.
The fragmentation--the dispersion of the parts of the system-really only
applies to law enforcement."
The goal is to create an information network from which one agency can
access another agency's justice information system in real time;
accomplishing that goal is just around the corner. Still, just getting to this
point has taken some time. Minnesota's legislature enacted statutes that
created the environment in which such a project could flourish by giving
counties legal authority and funding to launch an integration solution.
Wiborg explained, "The need for a state oversight committee was obvious,
but the legislature also recognized that it should not fill that role. An
oversight committee was statutorily created, housed in the state court
administrator's office, and directed to develop and implement a statewide
criminal justice information network." Because Hennepin County's
criminal justice system is the state's largest and most complex, it will be
the first integrated system developed.
Another key component to the integration effort has been the private
sector, especially a group known as Minnesota HEALS (Hope, Education
And Law and Safety), which was started by Honeywell (whose world
headquarters resided in Minneapolis at the time) and the Minnesota
Business Partnership. The partnership is a group of the 100 largest
corporations in the state, many of which had gone through massive
systems integration themselves to improve internal business processes.
The executive director of the partnership successfully explained to the
state legislature the complexity of integrating information systems and
demonstrated how applying corporate "best practices" could aid the state
in its goal of achieving an integrated criminal justice information system. 
Governance Structure
Hennepin County's Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) was
formally established in 1998 as a forum through which local units of
government in Hennepin County may, by association, consultation, and
study, cooperatively promote improvements in the criminal justice system
that transcend departments, agencies, and the geographical boundaries of
the individual communities. The CJCC, which operated for 12 years
informally before 1998, was a natural fit to implement the CJSIIP (see
figure 11).
-------------------------------
Figure 11: Membership of the CJCC
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners (two members)
Hennepin County Suburban Mayor (one member)
Hennepin County Sheriff
Hennepin County Attorney
Hennepin County Director of Community Corrections
Mayor of Minneapolis
Minneapolis City Council (two members)
City Attorney Office
Minneapolis Police Chief
Chief Judge of the District Court
Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court
Fourth Judicial District Court Administrator
Fourth Judicial District Public Defender
Hennepin County Suburban Police Chief (one member)
-------------------------------
The CJCC oversees the county's justice integration effort, and the county's
IT committee handles the actual implementation of the effort. The CJCC
created the Integrated Systems Advisory Board (ISAB) to make
recommendations for projects that contribute to integration of justice
information systems (see figure 12). The ISAB is comprised of
representatives from the state, Hennepin County, Minneapolis, and
members of the Local Government Information Systems Association.
According to the CJCC document that created ISAB, it is responsible for
advising the CJCC on integration issues, identifying integration needs,
developing integration alternatives, preparing requests for proposals
(RFPs), reviewing proposals and making vendor recommendations.
Currently, the county/city relationship in the CJCC is based on a
memorandum of understanding.
"From a practical standpoint, if this type of intergovernmental endeavor
[will] succeed, it is necessary to spell things out in writing," Wiborg said.
He added that the MOU has worked thus far, but as the relationships
among jurisdictions become more complex, a more detailed document
may be necessary to stipulate specific responsibilities and obligations. 
-------------------------------
Figure 12: The Integrated Systems Advisory Board
Hennepin County Representatives
o Deputy CIO
o IT Specialist (criminal justice)
o County Attorney's Office (2)
o Public Defender's Office (2)
o Sheriff's Office (2)
o Community Corrections Department (3)
City of Minneapolis Representatives
o City Attorney's Office (2)
o Deputy CIO
o Police Department (3)
State of Minnesota Agencies Represented
o Supreme Court
o Department of Public Safety
o Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
o MN Office of Intertechnologies
o Department of Corrections
Fourth Judicial District Representatives
o Court Administrator
o IT Specialist
Hennepin County Suburbs Representatives
o LOGIS
o City of Bloomington Police Department
o City of Brooklyn Park City Attorney
CJCC Representative
o Chair
-------------------------------
For more information, contact:
Ron Wiborg, Contracts and Grants Manager
Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections 
612-348-7011 
E-mail: ron.wiborg@co.hennepin.mn.us 
World Wide Web: www.macrogroup.net/cjsiip/project
Dakota County, Minnesota
-------------------------------
PROFILE
Dakota County is the state's third-most populous county, and according to
the U.S. Census Bureau's 1999 estimates, is home to 349,131 residents.
The county is located south of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. While the
county has a relatively high population and hosts 34 cities and towns,
more than half of the county is considered rural.
-------------------------------
Scenario
As noted in the Hennepin County case study, Dakota County was the
other county in Minnesota that was awarded implementation planning
funding in 1999 from the state to develop an integrated justice information
system. Dakota will be the first county to test the model being developed
by Hennepin County. While this is a new project, working together on
technological issues is not new to Dakota County and the cities within the
county, which have been participating in the 11-year-old Dakota County
geographical information system (GIS) partnership.
The county, along with the cities of Eagan and Burnsville, is the prime
mover in the integration effort known as the Criminal Justice Information
Integration Network (CJIIN). The initiative to create CJIIN arose out of
the monthly meetings of city and county managers and long-running
discussions concerning public safety issues. As the lead agency, Dakota
County administers the grant.
"The CJIIN is in its infancy," said CJIIN's Project Manager, Mary
Cerkvenik, who is also the assistant county administrator of Dakota
County. "We have completed the documentation of our current processes;
we are almost finished with our current technology model and our data
model; and we are now moving into envisioning what we would like our
future system to be," Cerkvenik said. "We completed our implementation
plan in January 2001." Cerkvenik added that CJIIN started its work on the
implementation plan in July 2000. The plan now has been reviewed by
CJIIN and its steering committee and currently is being reviewed by state
agency representatives.
"All participants are taking great pains to scrutinize their business
processes during the planning phases of the integration effort, because
those processes must change dramatically before CJIIN is ready to go
live," said Kristi Peterson, information technology coordinator of Eagan,
Minnesota, and the city's representative on the CJIIN Steering Committee.
We knew some of the areas that we were not connecting electronically,
but we did not have any idea of how many areas," Peterson said. 
Minnesota also selected the three jurisdictions' efforts as a pilot project for
the Minnesota Criminal Justice Data Network (CJDN). CJDN will be a
private, dedicated network for law enforcement agencies throughout the
county that officials hope will ultimately connect more than 400 agencies
within the state. Because of this selection, CJDN will provide the primary
infrastructure for CJIIN. 
"The jurisdictions involved have to move fast," Cerkvenik said. "We are
the first county to come in and do an analysis of [the model that Hennepin
County created]," she explained. "That is clearly driving our timeline, in
that the legislature would like to hear from us for the next legislative
session." 
Governance Structure
The jurisdictions involved in CJIIN are not working under a memorandum
of understanding, as in Hennepin County, or a joint powers agreement
(JPA), as is the case in San Diego County, which is discussed later in this
chapter. 
"Given the culture and the work environment that we found ourselves in,
and the relationships that already are established between the different
agencies, we are going to get by without having any kind of a formal
[document]," said Nancy Harms, assistant administrator of the First
Judicial District Court. A management team and a steering committee
handle the day-to-day decisions. Spending decisions rest with the County
Board of Commissioners. The CJIIN Management Committee consists of
15 members-7 county representatives, 2 representatives each from the
cities of Eagan and Burnsville, and 4 representatives from the courts-and
meets regularly (see Figure 13). The CJIIN Steering Committee consists
of 17 members-9 county representatives, 2 from Eagan, 4 from Burnsville,
1 from the courts, and 1 from the public defender's office (see figure 14).
-------------------------------
Figure 13: CJIIN Management Committee
Dakota County representatives
o County Administrator
o Director of Community Corrections
o Sheriff
o Director of Community Services
o County Attorney
o Director of the Office of Management and Budget
o Director of Information Technology
Eagan, MN representatives
o City Administrator
o Police Chief
Courts representatives
o First Judicial Administration
o Court Administration
o Judges
Burnsville, MN representatives
o City Manager
o Police Chief
-------------------------------
"When the CJIIN is up and running, a more formal arrangement may be
struck between the jurisdictions," said Cerkvenik. "Our city and county
managers and the folks on the court side have all been very supportive,
have given us some really great staff to work on this project, and have
made a commitment to put in the time and effort it takes to make it
successful," Cerkvenik said.
"There is no question that there is a lot of good cohesion among us
because we have had that support. They have empowered the staff to go
forth and do this, and the fact that we do not have a MOU or a JPA is a
testament to that."
For more information, contact:
Mary Cerkvenik, Assistant County Administrator
Dakota County
CJIIN Project Manager 
651-438-4559
E-mail: Dakota.County.CJIIN@co.dakota.mn.us
World Wide Web: www.co.dakota.mn.us/sheriff/cjiin/cjiin/htm 
Patrice Bataglia, Dakota County Commissioner
651-438-4429 
E-mail: patrice.bataglia@co.dakota.mn.us
-------------------------------
Figure 14: CJIIN Steering Committee
Dakota County representatives
o Senior Management Analyst, Community
o Corrections
o Manager, Systems & Programming, IT
o Assistant County Administrator
o Lieutenant, Sheriff's Office
o Commander, Sheriff's Office
o Chief Deputy; Sheriff's Office First Judicial
o District Courts
o Assistant Judicial Administrator
o Chief Public Defender
o Assistant County Attorney
o County Surveyor
o GIS Manager
City of Eagan
o IT Coordinator
o Captain; Police Department
City of Burnsville
o Deputy City Manager
o ITC Coordinator
o Captain, Police Department
o Records Manager, Police Department
Court Representatives
o First Judicial District Courts
o Assistant Judicial Administrator
o Chief Public Defender
-------------------------------
Marion County, Oregon
-------------------------------
PROFILE
This county in western Oregon is home to 24 cities and towns, including
Salem, Oregon's state capital. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 1999
estimates, the county has a population of 272,760.
-------------------------------
Scenario
Marion County was one of the original 10 jurisdictions belonging to the
Regional Automated Information Network (RAIN), a justice information
network established in 1975. Now, 23 law enforcement agencies from 4
counties, 23 cities, and Western Oregon University are RAIN members.
Each member jurisdiction has one vote. RAIN provides a wide range of
services to its members, including such systems as
o Crime Analysis: a records management incident-reporting system that
tracks incident, crime analysis, arrest, missing persons, suspect, victim,
vehicle, and property information.
o Property and Evidence: a system that records and tracks the movement
of property and evidence using bar coding technology.
o Jail Management: a system containing booking information, inmates'
physical characteristics, court and arresting agency data, inmate charges,
time-served data, inmates' aliases, date of birth, and housing information.
o FILER: a laptop field-reporting system available to agencies via the
Marion/Salem Data Center's FTP (file transfer protocol) Web site.
o Mugshot Imaging: a system that includes both adult and juvenile
images.
o Query Management Facility: a management-reporting function system
that includes a large collection of predefined management reports.
In addition, funding has been appropriated to upgrade the FILER system
with the addition of a search function for names, incidents, locations,
and incident types. At this writing, the upgrade project has not yet
started.
Governance Structure
RAIN was created under Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 190, which
allows separate government entities to create joint, independent
organizations. The supervision and management of RAIN are the
responsibility of its Policy Board and Executive Committee.
-------------------------------
Figure 15: RAIN Governance Structure
RAIN Policy Board
o One mayor, police chief, city manager or city councilperson, from the
23 cities that participate in RAIN 
o One sheriff or county commissioner, from the four counties that
participate in RAIN
RAIN Executive Committee
o Chief of Police, Newberg
o Chief of Police, Stayton
o Chief of Police, Keizer
o Marion County Commissioner
o City Manager, Dallas
-------------------------------
According to the agreement that created RAIN, the policy board:
o Determines the type of services and equipment required to operate
RAIN.
o Enters into contracts to acquire goods and services for RAIN.
o Adopts an annual budget for RAIN expenditures and sets the amount of
financial participation for each member.
o Creates committees of RAIN members and/or user agency personnel to
advise the board.
o Exercises any other power or authority to implement the powers set
forth in the agreement that created RAIN.
The RAIN Executive Committee
o Provides advice and assistance to the board.
o Supervises and conducts RAIN's day-to-day operations.
o Conducts regular financial reviews.
o Enters into negotiations or signs contracts on behalf of RAIN, with the
proviso that such authority is delegated by the board.
According to Lieutenant Jeff Pikl, staff assistant to RAIN, several user
committees answer to the Policy Board and the Executive Committee:
o A user committee comprised of records personnel that coordinates
changes, training, and operational issues related to the
records-management system.
o A technical committee made up of personnel from video-imaging,
field reporting, and evidence/property tracking.
o A futures committee comprised of agency administrators or CEOs that
look at trends in technology that might ultimately become enhancements
to RAIN's systems.
o A steering committee comprised of the Executive Committee and
selected other members for implementing and directing projects such as
strategic analysis.
During its long history, RAIN has experienced some growing pains. In the
early 1980s, Salem left the RAIN organization and formed the Salem
Unified Network (SUN) in partnership with the Marion County/Salem
Data Center. During that time, RAIN had its own employees and
equipment and provided services directly to its members; but that situation
changed in the late 1980s.
In 2000, RAIN and SUN released an RFP for "A Strategic Evaluation and
Analysis of the RAIN Consortium and SUN and their RMS Technology
Requirements."
"The RFP is looking at where technology is today, whether or not RAIN,
in its current form, is still relevant, or should we, again, reconsider the
services to members," Robert Tardiff, chief of the Newberg Police
Department said. "It is still important to all of us that we share data. At
this point, the question is, 'Do we accomplish that by sharing the same
programs? Or should RAIN become an organization that provides the
mechanism for sharing data from diverse programs, establishes some data
standards, and creates some type of process that accomplishes that
sharing?"
The RFP, the result of which will cause a change in the way governance is
executed, focused on five major areas
1. Defining the purpose of the regional consortia by answering such 
questions as:
o Why should RAIN exist?
o Why should SUN exist?
o Who should be involved?
o Are the geographical boundaries logical?
o Should SUN and RAIN merge?
2. Evaluating the current system.
3. Performing a needs analysis.
4. Proposing alternative methods of providing technology services.
5. Reviewing the current funding streams.
For more information, contact:
Robert Tardiff, Chief of Police
Newberg, Oregon Police Department
Chairman, RAIN Executive Board
503-537-1220 
E-mail: tardiff@ci.newberg.or.us
Jeff Pikl, Lieutenant
Stayton, Oregon Police Department
Staff Assistant to RAIN
503-769-3423
E-mail: jpikl@stayton.org
World Wide Web: www.open.org/~rain
San Diego County, California
-------------------------------
PROFILE
This urban, Southern California county has a population of more than
3,000,000 and covers a land mass approximately the size of Connecticut.
The county is home to 18 cities and a sizeable collection of towns.
-------------------------------
Scenario
Since the 1970s, San Diego County has participated in the Automated
Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), a project that started as a
result of a federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration award to
fund a regional technology system. ARJIS has since grown to comprise
more than 35 member agencies and jurisdictions. As Pam Scanlon, the
executive director of ARJIS said, "The numbers keep growing."
Ten law enforcement agencies are members of ARJIS--nine police
departments and the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. In addition,
a blend of state and federal agencies--law enforcement and others, such as
the San Diego City Schools and the U.S. Postal Service--are involved with
ARJIS as ex officio members.
Today, ARJIS is a multijurisdictional justice information sharing system
that contains information on criminal cases, arrests, citations, field
interviews, traffic accidents, fraudulent documents, and stolen property. In
addition, ARJIS stores regional information on incidents, persons,
vehicles, locations, and property. The ARJIS network consists of 659
terminals and printers throughout the county, and ARJIS provides justice
information to law enforcement agencies, courts, prosecution, probation
departments, corrections departments, juvenile services departments, and
the California DMV.
Governance Structure
Created as a joint powers agency, ARJIS is governed by the ARJIS Board
of Directors, which involves either mayors or members of city councils
from the county's 18 cities and representatives from the county's board of
supervisors. Under the board is the Management Committee, which is
composed of department heads, such as police chiefs, sheriffs, the county's
district attorney and judges. A middle-management group, called the
Regional Coordination Committee, is supported by a technical group. A
variety of user groups round out the set of governing bodies that keep
ARJIS functioning.
ARJIS has a strong governance structure with every agency having one
vote. "There's no 800-pound gorilla here, and the Coronados of the world,
which have 40 officers, and the San Diego Police Department, which has
2,100 officers--they have the same vote. The police chiefs all treat each
other that way too," said Scanlon.
"This has been critical to the success of ARJIS," Scanlon said, noting that
the chair positions on the various committees rotate so that each
participating jurisdiction in ARJIS has a chance to serve as chair of a
committee.
Representatives from the cities of Oceanside and El Cajon told members
of the PTI site visit team that the level of equality in ARJIS and the
knowledge that their voices will be heard is why they continue to be a part
of ARJIS. This contributes to a level of trust that creates a willingness on
the part of ARJIS members to make sacrifices when it comes to grant
money for which the agencies apply on behalf of ARJIS.
"In the case of the agencies that turn over their grant money for a regional
goal, they are not driving the car," Scanlon said. "They are going to get
some input, advice, and suggestions from the other agencies and they have
to be willing to take those types of recommendations. It is not, 'I'm
building this system just for me.'" 
One example of the cooperation within ARJIS is the ARJIS Web site's
regional mapping application, which was created through a $70,000 grant
to the San Diego Police Department (SDPD). SDPD turned grant funds
over to ARJIS, which matched the dollar figure, leaving ARJIS $140,000
to invest in developing the regional mapping application. The department,
because it contributed such a large chunk of money, was closely involved
with the project, but the application still had to win ultimate approval
from the ARJIS Board of Directors. The project won the 2000 Helen
Putnam Award for Excellence from the California League of Cities.
Some of the agencies hesitated when we first talked about the mapping
application," Scanlon said. "But through collective reasoning, they were
able to see the benefit. We do have doubters, and we have got agencies
that question it. It is not a bed of roses. But there is a tremendous
environment of trust built up. I also believe that we are demonstrating
success. We are turning out products, and we are very open in our
iterative process of product development."
In the end, "A strong governance structure is what makes ARJIS tick,"
Scanlon said. "Some agencies don't believe you need a governance
structure," she said. "It is the chicken and the egg argument: 'Do you get
your system or money first, or do you start your governance structure
first?' It does not have to be, 'Oh, we have $15 million, how do we spend
it?' There's a whole bunch of issues that governance boards can look at."
For more information, contact:
Pam Scanlon, Executive Director, ARJIS
858-581-9717
E-mail: plb@dpc.sannet.gov
World Wide Web: www.ARJIS.org 
Henrico County, Virginia
-------------------------------
PROFILE
This suburban county is located in the central part of the state and
surrounds Richmond, the state's capital, on three sides. According to the
U.S. Census Bureaus's 1999estimate, the county has a population of
244,652 residents. In Virginia, counties and cities are independent
jurisdictions. Therefore, there are no cities within the geographic
boundaries of any county.
-------------------------------
Scenario
Henrico County currently does not operate an integrated justice
information system. However, the county's actions do offer lessons for
those jurisdictions in the prejustice integration phase that are pursuing a
course of action that could lead to an integrated justice information
system.
For the last year, the county has used an 800 MHz radio system that 
handles the needs of all its departments, especially public safety agencies.
Chesterfield County and Richmond approached the same vendor used by
Henrico County with the ultimate goal of implementing radio systems
identical to that of Henrico County. When that happens, each jurisdiction
will operate its system independently and have its own communications
center, but the three systems will be interoperable.
At that point, a Henrico County law enforcement officer will be able to
travel between the jurisdictions and communicate not only with the home
communications center, but also with law enforcement agencies from
Chesterfield County and Richmond. Richmond and Henrico and
Chesterfield Counties are not sharing data automatically through
integrated systems, although Henrico County's law enforcement personnel
can query wanted/warrant files, but only for Richmond. Henrico County
has a mobile-data system and is encouraging Richmond and Chesterfield
County to obtain such a system so that all three jurisdictions can share
information.
Governance Structure
While integration efforts are in their infancy, the need to address
governance has been identified. The chief administrative officers from
Richmond and Henrico and Chesterfield Counties created a steering
committee 3 years ago to orchestrate the integration effort. The steering
committee reviews projects, prioritizes initiatives and sets policy and
standards. It also has formed policies regarding data ownership.
Subcommittees handle matters related to the implementation of the radio
systems, coordinating operational protocols, etc.
The steering committee was created by the signing of a Capital Region
Communications Memorandum of Understanding (see figure 16). This
MOU was signed approximately 3 years ago and stipulates that the chief
administrators of each locality are to appoint representatives who will be
responsible for the initiation of this cooperative effort. Further, they will
be responsible for continuing operations affected by mutually agreed-to
resource sharing and establishment of those policies and procedures which
may be necessary to ensure continued cooperation and consistent
operational capabilities for all public-safety systems.
Henrico County's manager played an essential role in creating the MOU
among the jurisdictions. While the MOU is the document that created the
steering committee, its language is not particularly specific. Participation
is voluntary, and there is no set term for participation for members of
either the steering committee or the subcommittees. The governing body
created by Henrico County is a forum that unites participants in working
toward the shared goals of improving communication among agencies and
improving the ability of staff to do their jobs.
"We believe that the most important ingredient of any multijurisdictional
project, especially in the field of public safety communications, is a
mechanism that will enhance the sharing of open and honest
communications among the participants," said Paul Proto, chairman of the
steering committee and Henrico County's Director of General Services.
For more information, contact:
Paul Proto, Director of General Services
Henrico County
Chairman of the Steering Committee
804-501-4957
E-mail: pro@co.henrico.va.us
-------------------------------
Figure 16: Capital Region Communications Steering Committee
Henrico County
o Police Department
o Fire Department
o County Administration
Chesterfield County
o Police Department
o Fire Department
o County Administration
Richmond
o Police Department
o Fire Department
o City Administration
-------------------------------
Tillamook County, Oregon
-------------------------------
PROFILE
This rural county is located on the Pacific coast near the
Washington/Oregon border and covers 1,125 square miles. U.S. Census
Bureau estimates for 1999 put the county's population at approximately
24,420. Like other small, rural counties, Tillamook has a low population
density and is home to a small number of sparsely populated cities--seven,
in fact, which are Bay City, Garbaldi, Manzanita, Nehalem, Rockaway
Beach, Tillamook, and Wheeler.
-------------------------------
Scenario
Justice information integration is currently limited to the county's law
enforcement agencies receiving information from state--operated systems,
such as the State Patrol. This is a common occurrence at the beginning
stages of a broader effort. However, the county is pursuing several
initiatives, which are expected to evolve into a justice information
integration system.
The county is one of six in Oregon that received grant money from the
federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to perform
data gathering and information sharing in the juvenile justice field.
Furthermore, in 1999, the Oregon Legislature passed legislation targeted
at juvenile crime prevention, with the state disbursing grant money to each
county for crime prevention and basic services. Particularly, the
legislation helped create a uniform assessment for county juvenile
departments to help streamline data gathering.
The legislation requires all counties in the state to create a coordinated
juvenile justice plan that focuses on 10- to 18-year-old offenders. Oregon
law requires this plan to provide coordination of communitywide services,
including prevention, treatment, education, employment resources, and
intervention strategies.
Governance Structure
Established legislation requires counties to create a Local Public Safety
Coordinating Council (LPSCC) for coordinating criminal justice policy
among agencies and juvenile-justice agencies (see figure 17). The county
sheriff is the chair of the council, and participating agencies include
community corrections, a county commissioner, a local district attorney,
representatives from the county's Juvenile Department, and representatives
from the county's Commission on Children and Families.
As its roster indicates, the LPSCC is made up of the key members of the
agencies involved--an essential element crucial to the success of any
governing body that jurisdictions or agencies create to oversee integration
efforts. Among its many responsibilities, LPSCC must create and
recommend a plan--to individual county boards of commissioners--that
uses state and local resources to serve both the needs of adult criminal
offenders in the county and of those offenders 10 to 18 years of age. For
the eventual pursuit of justice information systems integration, the statute
requires LPSCC to coordinate local criminal justice policy among affected
criminal justice entities.
-------------------------------
Figure 17: Composition of the LPSCC
A police chief
The sheriff of the county
The county's district attorney
A state court judge
A public defender or defense attorney
A director of community corrections
A county commissioner
A juvenile department director
A director of the county's health departments
A member of the general public
A representative of the Oregon State Police
A representative of the Oregon Youth Authority
A city council person or mayor and a city manager or other city
representative
-------------------------------
Because representatives from various justice agencies already work
together, LPSCC's governance structure offers another organizational
model for creating a governance structure dedicated to overseeing
integration efforts.
"The strength of the LPSCC is getting all the decisionmakers together in
one place," former County Commissioner Gina Firman said. "It makes it
much easier to talk about the plans that are required to get federal grants,
to get state grants--to do almost anything, if you have to have a plan that's
been signed off on. Before, what was happening was that one person
would have to run this plan around to all of the different agencies. Now
we are meeting at least on a quarterly basis and sometimes more
frequently, depending on what planning processes we are going through."
Although state law created the county's LPSCC, other jurisdictions should
have the ability to easily create similar governance structures. Firman
recommended, for example, that groups devise a simple mission
statement, but specify membership requirements.
The county's law enforcement agencies have worked long and hard to
develop a culture that supports cooperation and honesty among agencies,
and Tillamook County logically benefits from the rapport of an intimate
law enforcement community. "The police chiefs in the county's towns and
the sheriff have gotten together informally once a month for coffee down
at the local restaurant," Firman said. "That is where the law enforcement
piece already had a history. What has been added to that are the other
sides of law enforcement--the Commission on Children and Families, the
juvenile justice department, community corrections, attorneys, and
judges."
In a rural jurisdiction like Tillamook, information requests are processed
rapidly between law enforcement agencies because of the tight-knit
community. "If they call each other for help or information, there's a fairly
strong inclination to cooperate because they're going to see each other at
the little league game that night," said Firman. "You can't treat somebody
poorly on the phone during the day and then go sit next to them in the
bleachers that night. There seems to be a good mesh of personalities that
work well together."
For more information, contact:
Gina Firman, former County Commissioner
Tillamook County
503-399-7201
E-mail: gfirman@orlocalgov.org
Dan Krein, Director, Juvenile Department
Tillamook County
E-mail: DKREIN@co.tillamook.or.us
-------------------------------
Chapter 8
Recommendations
Recommendations for Establishing Local Governance Structures
When survey participants were asked to list three top recommendations
for establishing local governance structures that can facilitate the
integration of justice information systems, their responses coalesced
around five themes:
1. Ensure equal involvement/participation from all agencies/jurisdictions
involved.
2. Explore and secure funding.
3. Set realistic goals and objectives with a reasonable timeframe for the
plan--prepare a mission statement.
4. Keep on-going, open lines of communications with all
agencies/jurisdictions involved.
5. Have unconditional support of county boards/city councils/elected
officials.
1. Ensure equal involvement/participation from all agencies/jurisdictions
involved
Throughout the survey, participants mentioned turf battles as an
impediment to the integration of the necessary systems. These can take
many forms, including which jurisdiction or agency has ownership of the
data and the power to control access to it. Turf battles can be significantly
reduced or eliminated if all relevant agencies/jurisdictions are brought to
the table and allowed equal involvement and participation. Justice
information system integration needs to stretch beyond jurisdictional
boundaries; therefore, the list of agencies that must be involved should not
be restricted to one jurisdiction's boundaries. The San Diego case study
presented in the previous chapter demonstrates the kind of success that can
be achieved when there is equal representation and participation among all
agencies involved. 
2. Explore and secure funding
Funding problems and concerns were consistently expressed throughout
the survey. Funding or lack of funding was suggested as a major reason
why jurisdictions were not involved in justice integration. Those involved
in integration saw funding as a consistent problem in their implementation
of integration. Respondents remarked about the high cost of not only
implementing integration, but maintaining and upgrading their systems as
well. The success or failure of integration can be, and often is, directly
related to funding issues.
3. Set realistic goals and objectives with a reasonable timeframe for the
plan--prepare a mission statement
Most of the jurisdictions did not have operational plans for the integration
of their systems. Some had not set goals while others had set goals that
could not be achieved, often based on factors beyond their control. The
adoption of an operational plan and mission statement early in the process
may make the difference between success or failure. In planning,
immediate short-term successes that can be achieved early in the
integration process should be identified. These early victories will
motivate participants to strive for bigger, longer-term accomplishments.
4. Keep ongoing, open lines of communications with all
agencies/jurisdictions involved
A governance structure helps to facilitate ongoing dialog and other
communication between the various parties involved in the integration. In
the creation of a structure, all affected parties should be brought to the
table. Once there, all participants should be open and honest about their
needs and concerns. Structures can be destroyed when decisions are made
by cliques within the structure, when essential parties are excluded from
the communication links, and when parties involved are not open and
honest. 
5. Have unconditional support of county boards/city councils/elected
officials
Many efforts have failed because they did not have the support of the
elected officials. When the officials were needed to provide funding,
statutory authority or some other decisionmaking outcome, many officials
have made the wrong decisions because of ignorance of the project.
Others have been slow to sign on because they were not included in the
planning process. Good leadership was mentioned by respondents with
successful integration projects as critical to their success. Sometimes that
leadership came from elected officials.
Obstacles To Be Avoided in Implementing an Integrated Justice System
Governance Structure
When queried to list major obstacles jurisdictions should try to avoid in
developing and/or implementing an integrated justice governance
structure, four central themes were identified:
1. Turf issues of users, agencies, or governmental bodies.
2. Politics.
3. Inadequate funding.
4. Technology (lack of field testing of hardware or software, inadequate
equipment, and untrained personnel and support staff).
Integration Recommendations to Justice Agencies 
The three main recommendations that survey participants would make to
justice agencies with respect to the integration of information systems
related to:
1. Technology (train in-house users and support staff; standardize and
network all software, hardware and protocols; and utilize up-to-date
equipment).
2. Security of information and security measures.
3. Identification and agreement on information to be shared and
standardize forms for entry of information.
1. Technology
There are numerous issues related to technology that need to be of
concern to criminal justice professionals who are engaged in information
integration. Some jurisdictions have as many as five information systems
that do not communicate with each other, and no one on staff can fix the
problem or the problem cannot be fixed with existing software. Some
jurisdictions have wasted money on unnecessary or underutilized
technology sold to them by consultants or vendors. Lacking the staff to
implement integration, operation, and maintenance of these systems,
expensive hardware and software will not solve integration problems.
Conversely, other jurisdictions have poured money into outdated
equipment that does not have the capability to carry out varied functions
and cannot be updated to meet emerging situations.
2. Security of information and security measures
Concerns about the security of justice information has been a primary
factor in preventing justice information systems integration. Law
enforcement officials often do not trust other elements of the system to
network with their systems for fear of compromising their data security.
This is a valid concern, but it is not an insurmountable one. The
incorporation of appropriate security measures and firewalls can protect
the integrity of integrated systems.
3. Identification and agreement on information sharing
In the planning process, the agencies/jurisdictions involved should
collectively select the types and nature of information to be shared and the
forms that will be used for data entry. A governance structure is the
appropriate mechanism to facilitate the selection of data to be shared and
forms to be used.
Integration Obstacles To Avoid
There were four major obstacles to the integration of justice information
systems identified. These obstacles are very similar to the obstacles to
avoid when developing and implementing a governance structure, as listed
above.
1. Turf wars and politics.
2. Lack of standardized equipment (software and hardware), lack of
networking among agencies, and use of old technology.
3. Lack of funding for implementation and future expansion of systems.
4. Lack of concrete plan with commitment from all agencies.
The presence or lack of technology remains a crucial factor in the success
of an integration effort, yet it does not guarantee the occurrence of
integration. By itself, technology cannot solve all system integration
problems and even the best-equipped integration effort will bog down
without an effective governing body charting the path. Any project's path
will be littered with pitfalls and false trails. However, the integration of
justice information systems creates its own unique problems. Time and
again, survey respondents asserted that a governing body with committed
leadership, that orchestrates a well-conceived plan and is built on equal
participation by those agencies or jurisdictions involved is the best way to
solve inherent problems. 
Unsurprisingly, respondents rated turf issues high on the list of barriers to
creating effective governance structures. That same issue also was
identified in a completely separate research project conducted by the
Center for Technology in Government, State University of New York at
Albany. According to the center's study, the concept of turf generally
included at least three major reasons organizations act defensively:
1. To avoid the costs of change.
2. To reduce or control risk.
3. To preserve autonomy or protect their position in a competitive or 
adversarial environment.
Integration typically requires a degree of centralized control and shared
decisionmaking that could decrease an agency's control of its operations or
resources. Protecting turf can be particularly important when the potential
loss of autonomy or control could benefit other agencies that are political
or institutional competitors.
The governance structure, in its different forms, provides the foundation
for an environment of trust and communication. During PTI's site visits,
several of the jurisdictions indicated that their integration efforts started
years ago through informal discussions of city managers or county
supervisors or through information system users at agencies who, during
casual discussion, saw a way to perform their jobs better.
Building a Governance Structure
Perhaps the most important item to keep in mind is that governance
structures can be formal or informal. Also, governance structures can be
created in a number of ways: through state law, through memoranda of
understanding signed by agencies within a jurisdiction, through a joint
powers agreement signed by agencies in separate jurisdictions or by
several jurisdictions in a region, or through signed charters or other
agreements. Whatever the vehicle, the document should be a statement of
general goals that identifies the members and the decisionmaking process.
The document for creating the overall governance structure should
identify committee participants and note their commitment so that key
players attend meetings. This helps to avoid the potential problem of
executive officers from the representative agencies or jurisdictions lacking
the commitment to devote time and energy to the governance structure. 
Respondents from jurisdictions that are not currently engaged in justice
integration efforts and that do not have a governance structure to oversee
integration identified the lack of funding as the number one barrier to their
integration efforts. Those respondents said that funding was a primary
resource that federal, state, and regional entities could make available to
assist them in initiating a justice information integration project. If
funding is an issue for a jurisdiction, the governing body can solicit
assistance from a dedicated funding source.
Besides identifying and applying for funding, the committees and
governing boards created by a governance structure help move the
business of integrating justice information systems forward. Another
important aspect to creating the governance structure is the level of
jurisdictional and agency equality the structure brings to the integration
effort. Besides setting direction, a governance structure also can set the
stage for involvement by small agencies that might not otherwise have the
resources or the inclination to participate in a large agency dominated
regional consortium.
Implementing a Structure
Once the structure is established, the work begins. The next challenge is to
ensure that the work does not bog down and that all participating agencies
are making progress toward achieving system integration goals.
Maintaining enthusiasm is critical; something as seemingly minor as what
day to schedule the monthly meetings can slow the workflow. While the
timing of meetings is important, the governance structure must also ensure
that the right level of personnel makes up the committees that handle the
day-to-day work of the justice integration effort. Presenting the right kind
of information to the right committee also is crucial.
Maintaining the Structure
While the original document creating the governance structure may meet
the needs of the participating cities or counties and agencies, it may
require revision as the integration of justice information systems
continues. Through the survey and site visits, PTI found that maintaining
the governance structure and the integration effort entails a different set of
needs than creating either of them. Periodically revisiting the document
that created the structure helps cities, counties, and participating agencies
ensure that the document is still valid.
Governance structures must also weather political storms. Because elected
officials typically hold seats on committees or governing boards, the
governance structure is affected by the political cycles. The composition
of the structure may change radically every 2 or 4 years, and it is possible
to lose a strong supporter to the winds of political change. However, this
does not overshadow the important contributions that elected officials can
make to the governance structures overseeing justice integration efforts. In
addition, political change affects key appointed officials, such as city and
county managers.  
Both elected and appointed officials play vital roles in the development,
implementation, and institutionalization processes. Elected officials, for
example, can give governance structures a voice in the political arena, can
give structures statutory authority, and can help to fund integration
projects. Appointed officials, on the other hand, can bring professional
management techniques to the process.
The survey revealed the need for the integration effort to have a
champion. In times of political turnover, the project's champion can work
with newly elected officials to help them understand the benefits of
integration and the value in maintaining their jurisdiction's or agency's
commitment to the integration effort through to its successful conclusion.
Such a champion can keep the structure functioning while the new players
are learning the process.
-------------------------------
Postscript 
The momentum for integrating justice information systems is building
across the country, and as the survey and case studies have demonstrated,
justice agencies and jurisdictions are dedicating significant resources and
personnel time to interoperability. Soon, systems will exist that transport
information across jurisdictional and institutional lines, making that
information available in real time to those who need it when they need it.
The passion for this vision is hard at work.
The conclusions reached by the survey and site visits complement the
findings of the Conference of States and other sessions held in 1997-98
(see chapter 2, The Role of the Federal Government) that a governance
structure is essential to any successful effort to integrate local (and state)
justice information systems. Information contained in this guidebook
should be shared with others. Integrated systems are essential to the future
of processes that provide efficient, fair and timely justice. Elected leaders,
key managers of agencies involved in the criminal justice system, as well
as the public at large, must be educated on the need and agency capacity
for constructing an integrated justice information system and the
governance structure that supports it. Jurisdictions presently engaged in
integration must actively share their experiences so that others can benefit
from their successes and learn from their failures.
Upon completion of its task, the working group felt strongly that this
guidebook should be used as a proactive tool for education and outreach
to jurisdictions nationwide. A key result of the survey and site visit
findings identified the need for buy-in and committed support of local
elected and appointed officials for any integrated justice effort to be
successful. However, there is a need to enhance the knowledge and
understanding of the often complex issues involved for local leaders. The
group felt that this guidebook (and survey) also should be updated
regularly to maintain the database of knowledge on the progress being
made within and among local governments and their state and federal
counterparts. This will enable the U.S. Department of Justice to monitor
progress in a broad range of areas, including whether or not state and
federal assistance is helping, and to target limited resources. Jurisdictions
then can be tracked using the data collected. The group also felt that
training at the "101" level is critical in integrated systems and that it
benefits governance structure building, especially regarding strategic
planning, funding issues, growing professional staff, and procurement
issues. 
Although integration may not yet enjoy popular support, it offers a key
ingredient to the success of justice systems, and the governance of
integrated justice systems offers a key ingredient for effective operation. 
-------------------------------
Appendix A
Survey Instrument
Local Governance Survey
Section I                                 
Respondent Profile
Name:
Title:
Jurisdiction:
Mailing Address (please provide street address rather than P.O. Box)
Phone: 
Fax:
E-mail:
1. Check all of the applicable attributes that primarily apply to your
jurisdiction.
a._____Rural _____Urban _____Suburban
b. _____Population less than 10,000 _____10,000-50,000 
_____50,000-100,000 _____100,000-250,000  _____Over 250,000
c. _____City  _____County  _____City/County
2. What form of government applies to your jurisdiction?
_____Mayor/Council _____Council/Manager _____County
Executive/Commission  _____County Manager/Commission
 _____Other
3. What local government agency or department do you represent?
If you are the Information Technology (IT) Department is it
jurisdictionwide or department within a specific agency?
_____ Jurisdictionwide     _____Department within a specific agency     
4. Do your job responsibilities involve sharing information/data input and
output with other departments, agencies, jurisdictions and/or the state? 
_____Yes  _____No 
If No: Who in your department/agency does (position/title)?
5. Does your agency operate information systems that are integrated with
systems of other departments/agencies? _____Yes  _____No
If yes, with which of the following department(s)/agency(s) is your
system integrated? (Check all that apply)
Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agencies
_____Law enforcement _____Court  _____Corrections  _____Probation 
_____Public Defender _____Juvenile Services _____Department of
Motor Vehicles _____Fire _____Emergency Communications
_____Emergency Medical _____Parole _____Prosecution _____Other:
Non-Criminal Justice/Non-Public Safety Agencies
_____Child Support Agency _____Social Service _____Health
Department _____Education _____Public Utilities _____Planning/Zoning
_____Transportation _____Victim Support Groups _____Public Works 
_____Other:
If you selected any of the above agency categories, please identify the
agency/department and the type of information they access.
a. Agency
Information Accessed
b. Agency
Information Accessed
c. Agency
Information Accessed
6. Does your jurisdiction operate information systems that are integrated
with systems of other local jurisdictions? _____Yes _____No
If yes, please identify the departments. (Check all that apply)
_____Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agencies
_____Law Enforcement _____Court _____Corrections _____Probation 
_____Public Defender _____Juvenile Services _____Department of
Motor Vehicles _____Fire _____Emergency Communications
_____Emergency Medical _____Parole _____Prosecution _____Other:
Non-Criminal Justice/Non-Public Safety Agencies
_____Child Support Agency _____Social Service _____Health
Department _____Education _____Public Utilities
_____Planning/Zoning _____Transportation _____Victim Support
Groups _____Public Works _____Other:
If you selected any of the above agency categories, please identify the
agency/department and the type of information they access.
a. Agency
Information Accessed
b. Agency
Information Accessed
c. Agency
Information Accessed
7. Does your jurisdiction operate information systems that are integrated
with state criminal justice information systems? _____Yes _____No  
8. Has your jurisdiction implemented public access rules or structures for
accessing data? _____Yes _____No  
9. Has your jurisdiction developed an integrated information technology
strategic plan? _____Yes _____No  
If yes, would you provide a copy upon request? _____Yes _____No  
10. Which of the following best describes the status of your jurisdiction's
criminal justice/public safety integration efforts and the governance
structure to facilitate such integration?
A. _____We have no criminal justice/public safety integration effort
underway nor a governance structure to facilitate such integration.
(Proceed to section II) 
B. _____We have a governance structure to facilitate the integration of
our criminal justice/public safety information systems but are currently
not integrating our criminal justice/public safety information systems.
(Skip to section III) 
C. _____We are integrating our criminal justice/public safety information
systems but have not put in place a governance structure. (Skip to section
IV) 
D. _____We are integrating our criminal justice/public safety information
systems and have in place a governance structure to facilitate such
integration. (Skip to section III) 
----------------------
Section II
No Integration/No Governance Structure
(Response A to Question 10)
11. Please check all appropriate reasons why your jurisdiction is not
engaged in the integration of its criminal justice/public safety information
systems.
_____ Politics _____ Size of Relevant Agency(ies) _____ Trust _____
Risk Management/Exposure _____ Power/control  _____ Liability
_____Agency "Cultural" Issues _____ Data/Information Security _____
Funding _____ Other:
12. Has your jurisdiction attempted to establish a governance structure to
facilitate the integration of a criminal justice/public safety information
system in the past?  _____ Yes  _____ No
If yes, please describe the effort and the major reasons that it was not
successful.
13. What are the primary reasons that your jurisdiction has not established
a governance structure to facilitate the integration of its criminal
justice/public safety information systems?
_____ Politics _____ Size of relevant agency(ies) _____ Trust  _____Risk
Management/Exposure  _____ Power/Control _____Liability 
_____Agency "Cultural" Issue _____ Data/Information Security _____
Funding _____ Other:
14. Has your jurisdiction made attempts to integrate its criminal
justice/public safety information system in the past? _____ Yes  _____ No
If yes, please describe the effort and the major reason(s) why it was not
successful.
15. If your jurisdiction were to integrate its criminal justice/public safety
agency(ies) information system, which of the following would most likely
be included? (Check all that apply) 
_____ Law Enforcement _____ Courts  _____ Corrections
_____Probation _____ Parole-- _____ Prosecutor _____ Public Defender 
_____ Schools _____ Juvenile Justice _____ Fire _____ EMS
_____Transportation _____ Emergency Communications
_____Department of Motor Vehicles _____Social Services _____Health
Department _____ Other:
16. Which of the following are the barriers to integrating your
jurisdiction's criminal justice/public safety information system? (Please
check all that apply and explain why you consider this a barrier in the
space provided)
_____ Funding _____Turf Issues _____ Liability _____ Lack of
Champion _____Size of Agency(ies) _____Agency "Cultural" Issues
_____Political _____Liability _____Trust _____ Lack of Governance
Structure  _____Liability _____Technology Issues
_____Staffing/Personnel _____Liability  _____Risk
Management/Exposure _____ Other: 
_____Other:
17. What outside assistance would help your jurisdiction engage in the
integration of its criminal justice/public safety information system(s)?
(Identify all that apply by distinguishing whether it is Federal (F), State
(S), Regional (R), or Local (L)) You may choose more than one level.
Federal (F)--State (S)--Regional (R)--Local (L)
_____Funding
_____Industry
_____Strategic Planning
_____Staff/Personnel
_____Implementation
_____Marketing Plan
_____Facilitation Operation & Management 
_____Plans/Budgeting
_____Consultants
_____Public/Private Partnership
_____Other:
_____Other:
18. Does your state have a statewide information integration planning
effort underway? _____Yes _____No _____ Don't Know
If yes, how did you learn of the effort? (Please check all that apply)
_____Your jurisdiction was notified. 
_____Your agency was notified.
_____Your jurisdiction was invited to the table. 
_____Your agency was invited to the table.
_____Read about it. 
_____Other:
If yes, is your jurisdiction participating in this effort? _____Yes _____No
If yes, is your jurisdiction required to adhere to any established
guidelines?  _____Yes _____No
If yes, would a copy of those guidelines be available upon request?
_____Yes _____No
_____Please skip to section V to complete the survey.
----------------------
Section III
No Integration/Have Government Structure(s)
Your jurisdiction has a governance structure but may or may not be
engaged in integrating its criminal justice/public safety information
system(s). 
"Yes" Governance Structure--"No" Integration (Answer B to Question
10)  Or 
"Yes" Governance Structure--"Yes" Integration (Answer D to Question10)
19. Which of the following best describes your jurisdiction's governance
structure:
_____A group created by statute or ordinance.
_____A group established as a requirement for receiving a grant.
_____A group of criminal justice/public safety agency/department
representatives was formed through a cooperative agreement,
memorandum of understanding, etc.
_____A loose configuration with informal guidelines.
_____A group created for a broader purpose than integrated criminal
justice/public safety systems.
_____A single individual/agency responsible for the jurisdiction's IT
department.
_____Our jurisdiction has multiple governance structures.
_____Other:
20. Which of the following best describes how the governance structure
was initiated?
_____Originally created for another purpose.
_____Created because of a legislated mandate. 
_____Initiated by affected agency personnel.
_____Advocated for and formed by a key advocate/champion.
_____Other:
If you selected key advocate/champion, please explain who or what entity
was the driving force?
21. Which of the following agencies/individuals participate in the
governance structure? (Please check all that apply)
_____Law enforcement _____Courts _____Central IT Agency
_____Corrections _____Prosecutor _____Parole _____Chief Elected
Official _____Probation _____Criminal Defense _____Chief Appointed
Official _____State Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agency(ies) 
_____Other: 
_____Other:
If State Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agencies: Please name them
22. How are the governance body members selected?
_____Vote _____Study _____Resolution _____Appointment _____Other:
23. Has your jurisdiction's governance body established rules, policies or
statutes that establish ownership of data? _____Yes _____No
24. Does the governance structure have fiscal authority? _____Yes
_____No
If yes, does it have _____taxing authority _____no taxing authority
_____spending authority
25. What are the roles/responsibilities of the governance board? (Check all
that apply)
_____Review projects _____Recommend funding _____Approve funding
_____Prioritize initiatives _____Set standards _____Prioritize system
changes _____Set policy _____Authorize software programming
_____Oversee daily operations _____Other:
_____Other:
_____Other:
26. Within your jurisdiction who (position/title) and what agency makes
the following policy recommendations for the operation and maintenance
of your information system(s).
Policy Recommendation--Position/Title--Agency
_____Access to database
_____Release of information
_____Development of new services
_____Upgrades for system
_____Funding
_____Staffing/personnel
27. Does the governance body have its own staff? _____Yes _____No
28. To whom or what entity does the governance body report?
_____City Council _____County Commission _____City Manager
_____County Manager _____Mayor _____County Executive _____User
Agencies _____Regional Authority _____Other:
29. How is the success of the governance board measured?
_____Proper expenditure of funds _____Successful integration
_____Speed of decisionmaking _____Proper vendor selection
_____Integration/activation in a timely manner _____Enhancing crime
solving _____ Meets needs of member agencies _____ Other:
30. How much involvement has your jurisdiction's criminal justice/public
safety governance body had in the federal justice integration effort?
_____Your agency/jurisdiction has received a federal grant(s) 
_____Your agency/jurisdiction is contemplating applying for a federal
grant(s) 
_____Your jurisdiction is actively involved in NCIC 2000 or III changes
_____ You are unaware of federal efforts
_____ Other:
31. What three factors have had a positive impact on your jurisdiction's
governance structure? 
1. 
2.
3.
Why have these factors had a positive impact on your jurisdiction's
governance structure? 
32. What three factors have had a negative impact on your jurisdiction's
governance structure?
1.
2.
3.
Why have these factors had a negative impact on your jurisdiction's
governance?
33.How is the governance body funded? Check all that apply
_____ Federal block grant(s) _____Private funding _____State funding 
_____Capital improvement project _____Normal operating budget
_____Not funded _____Not sure _____Other:
34. Does your jurisdiction have any unique/innovative mechanisms for
funding the governance structure?
If yes, briefly explain.
35. How have changes in your jurisdiction's overall funding priorities
effected funding stream(s) for the governance body? Explain briefly.
36. How much involvement has your local governance body had in the
statewide criminal justice/public safety integration effort?
_____State has mandated participation.  _____You are unaware of any
state integration effort. _____Your jurisdiction has been invited to
participate voluntarily. _____Your agency/jurisdiction has received a state
grant. _____You are aware of state efforts but have not participated.
_____ Other:
37. How are your jurisdiction's local elected officials involved in the
governance structure?
_____The governance structure is mandated by local elected officials.
_____The governance structure is funded by local elected officials.
_____The jurisdiction's local elected officials are not aware of the
governance structure.
_____Elected officials participate in the governance structure.
_____Other:
38. Do all participants in the governance structure have an equal voice in
the decisionmaking process? _____Yes _____No
If no, which agencies or individuals (titles) hold decisionmaking
authority?
If you have NO criminal justice/public safety integration underway, (and
answered question 10 with a B) please skip to section V.
If you HAVE a criminal justice/public safety integration effort underway, 
(and answered question 10 with a D) please continue with section IV.
----------------------
Section IV
Have Integration Effort, May or May Not Have Governance Structure
Have a Criminal Justice/Public Safety Integration Effort but May or
May Not Have a Governance Structure
Yes Integration--No Governance (Response C to Question 10) or
Yes Integration--Yes Governance (Response D to Question 10)
39. What type of criminal justice/public safety information system(s)
integration is your jurisdiction involved in? (Check all that apply) 
_____Within a single agency _____Between agencies of jurisdictions
across state boundary _____Between agencies within the jurisdiction 
_____ Between agencies of outside Jurisdiction(s) or regionally
_____Other:
40. How did your jurisdiction's criminal justice/public safety integration
process start?
_____Between agencies of outside jurisdiction(s) or regionally
_____Grass roots effort _____Mandate by statute _____Initiated by top
staff _____Federal/state grant  _____Interlocal agreement _____Advisory
group/association _____Other:
41. If your jurisdiction is involved in a multijurisdictional integration
effort, how many of each of the following city or county agencies is
involved? (Put number in blank by agency's name) 
_____Law Enforcement  _____Courts _____Corrections _____Parole
_____Probation _____Prosecutor _____Public Defender _____Other:
42. Which of the following state agencies is involved? (Check all that
apply)
_____Office of Public Safety/State Police _____Bureau of Criminal
Investigation _____Corrections _____Bureau of Criminal Identification 
_____Attorney General's Office  _____Parole _____Courts
_____Probation _____Pretrial Detention _____ Prosecutor _____ Juvenile
Services _____Public Defender _____ Chief Information Officer
_____Criminal Justice Planning  _____Department of Motor Vehicles
_____Child Welfare/Protection _____Mental Health _____Health and
Social Services _____ None
43. Is your jurisdiction's criminal justice/public safety information
system(s) integrating with private or media groups? _____Yes _____No
44. How does your jurisdiction's integration process operate? 
_____Single point of entry _____Reentry of data into shared access
systems _____Bidirectional data flow _____One-way data flow
_____Other: 
45. Are there any rules, policies or statutes that establish ownership of
data? _____Yes _____No
46. _____lease identify all agencies within your jurisdiction that are
involved in its integration effort. (Check all that apply)
_____Law Enforcement _____Courts _____Corrections _____Probation 
_____Parole _____Prosecution _____Public Defender _____Other:
47. Please identify all agencies of outside jurisdictions that are involved
in your jurisdiction's integration effort. (Check all that apply)
_____Law Enforcement _____Courts _____Corrections _____Probation 
_____ Parole _____Prosecution _____Public Defender _____Other:
_____Other:
48. Which of the following standards is in place? 
_____Data standards _____Open systems _____Network _____Protocol
_____Security _____Other:
49. If your agency's system(s) are integrated with other data/information
systems, please identify those that apply.
_____Offender-based Tracking/Transaction System
_____Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) _____Records Management
System _____Offender History _____Juvenile Data _____Case
Management _____Fingerprint System _____Geographic Information
Systems _____Fire/Arson _____Court Dispositions _____Corrections
_____Gun Dealers _____Other:
50. What mandates, if any apply for data sharing? (Check all that apply)
_____State Statute _____Local Ordinance _____Jurisdictional Policy
_____Mutual Agreements _____Professional Practice _____None
_____Other:
51. What barriers to integration has your jurisdiction faced? (Check all
that apply)
_____Funding _____Lack of Support _____Lack of Governance
Structure _____Political Issues _____Turf Issues _____Staffing/Personnel
_____Lack of Strategic Planning _____Technology Issues _____Other:
52. Would/does a governance structure benefit your jurisdiction's
integration efforts? _____Yes _____No
If yes, what would be (are) the benefit(s)?
If no, why not?
53. Without a governance structure, under who or what agencies'
authority is your jurisdiction's integration efforts implemented?
_____Centralized IT department _____Individual agency
_____Committee _____Other:
54. Which of the following has engaged in a strategic planning process
for criminal justice/public safety information systems integration?
_____Agency/department _____ City _____ County
_____Regional/multijurisdictional _____State _____No such process
55. What were the sources of funding for the initial procurement and
implementation of the integrated information system? (Check all that
apply)
_____Federal grant(s) _____Private funding _____Capital improvement
project _____User fees _____Not funded _____Normal operating budget
_____State funding _____Not sure _____Local bond issue _____Other:
56. How is the ongoing integrated system operation and maintenance
funded? (Check all that apply)
_____Federal grant(s) _____Private funding _____Capital improvement
project _____ User fees _____Not funded _____Normal operating budget
_____State funding _____Not sure _____Local bond issue _____Other:
_____ Other:
57. How are the enhancements/improvements to the system funded?
(Check all that apply)
_____Federal grant(s) _____Private funding _____Capital improvement
project _____User fees _____Not funded _____Normal operating budget
_____State funding  _____Not sure _____Local bond issue _____Other:
_____ Other:
58. Do those criminal justice/public safety agencies involved in
integration maintain separate funding accounts between existing
technology and emerging technologies? _____Yes _____No _____Varies
59. What challenges did/does your jurisdiction face in obtaining funding
for integrated criminal justice/public safety technologies? Briefly explain.
60. Does your agency use any unique/innovative mechanisms for funding
integrated criminal justice / public safety information systems? If yes,
briefly describe.
All respondents please continue to section V.
----------------------
Section V
Development and Barriers
All respondents please complete section V.
61. What three recommendations would you offer local jurisdictions
regarding establishing local governance structures to facilitate the
integration of criminal justice/public safety information systems? 
1.
2.
3.
62. What are three major obstacles to avoid when developing and/or
implementing an integrated systems governance structure? 
1. 
2.
3. 
63. Please provide three recommendations you would make to criminal
justice/public safety agencies with respect to the integration of
information systems.
1.
2.
3.
64. What are three major obstacles to avoid with respect to the integration
of criminal justice/public safety information systems? 
1.
2.
3.
On behalf of cities and counties nationwide, thank you for the help and
advice you provided by completing this survey. It may be necessary for us
to contact you for further elaboration on your responses. May we do so?
_____Yes  _____No
If yes: What is the best time to call? 
Name:
Phone:
E-mail:
Day of the Week:
Time:
-------------------------------
Appendix B
Jurisdictions Responding to Survey
Alabama
o Auburn
o Huntsville
o Mountain Brook
Arizona
o Chandler
o Mesa
o Phoenix
o Scottsdale
o Tucson
California
o Atwater
o Culver City
o East Palo Alto
o El Cerrito
o Fresno
o Long Beach
o Oakland
o Orange
o Palo Alto
o Richmond
o Rocklin
o San Bernardino
o San Diego
o San Jose
o Sangar
o Santa Ana
o Santa Cruz
o Twentynine Palms
o Victorville
Colorado
o Castle Rock
o Denver
o Pueblo
o Rifle
o Trinadad
o Wheat Ridge
Connecticut
o East Hampton
o Manchester
Delaware
o Newark
Florida
o Clearwater
o Eagle Lake
o Fort Lauderdale
o Lake Mary
o Longwood
o Miami Shores
o Ocala
o Ponce Inlet
o Sarasota
o Titusville
o Vero Beach
Georgia
o Atlanta
o Dublin
Iowa
o Boone
o Council Bluffs
o Des Moines
o Dubuque
o Marion
o Mason City
o Spencer
o Urbandale
o Waterloo
Idaho
o Coeur d'Alene
o Paris
Illinois
o Arlington Heights
o Bradley
o E Peoria
o East Dundee
o East Moline
o Elk Grove Village
o Fulton
o Geneva
o N Chicago
o New Lenox
o Oak Brook
o Park Ridge
o Romeoville
o Roselle
o Schaumburg
o Springfield
o Streamwood
o Wheaton
Indiana
o Greenwood
Kansas
o Abilene
o Chanute
o Overland Park
o Salina
o Wichita
Kentucky
o Campbellsville
o Lakeside Park
o Louisville
o Morganfield
Louisiana
o Westwego
Massachusetts
o Fair Haven
o Lexington
o Newburyport
Maryland
o Bel Air
o Ellicott City
o LaPlata
o Salisbury
Maine
o S Portland
Michigan
o Alpena
o Ann Arbor
o Birmingham
o Coldwater
o Essexville
o Gaylord
o Grand Rapids
o Grandville
o Grosse Ile
o Grosse Pointe Shores
o Midland
o Monroe
o Muskegon
o South Haven
o Sterling Heights
o Traverse City
o White Cloud
Minnesota
o Brooklyn Park
o Fairmont
o Fridley
o Hastings
o Mankato
o Minneapolis
o Perham
o Pine City
o Rochester
Missouri
o Belton
o Blue Springs
o Independence
o Kirkwood
o Richmond Heights
o Webster Groves
Montana
o Missoula
North Carolina
o Albemarle
o Cary
o Lexington
o Long View
o Matthews
o Nags Head
o Roxboro
o Statesville
o Warrenton
North Dakota
o Beulah
o Bismarck
o Fargo
Nebraska
o LaVista
o Omaha
New Jersey
o Hackensack
o Moorestown
New Mexico
o Santa Fe
Nevada
o Reno
New York
o Herkimes
o Monticello
o New Yorko Rochester
Ohio
o Cincinnati
o Columbus
o Kettering
o Springfield
o Waynesville
o West Carrollton
Oklahoma
o Bartlesvilleo Coweta
o Enid
o Oklahoma City
o Yukon
Oregon
o Corvaux
o Eugene
o Lake Oswego
o Salem
o Tillamook
o Tualatin
o West Linn
Pennsylvania
o Ardmore
o Canonsburg
o Carlisle
o Harrisburg
o Levittown
o Philadelphia
o Stroudsburg
Rhode Island
o North Kingstown
South Carolina
o Abbeville
South Dakota
o Watertown
Tennessee
o Fayetteville
o Memphiso 
o Red Bank
Texas
o Beaumont
o Brenham
o Corpus Christi
o Dallas
o Deer Park
o Fort Worth
o Grand Prairie
o Jacksboro
o Llano
o Longview
o McKinney
o Mt Pleasant
o Plainview
o Universal City
o Uvalde
o Victoria
o Waco
Utah
o Farmington
o Layton
o Provo
o S Ogden
Virginia
o Alexandria
o Fairfax
o Lovingston
o Martinsville
o Norfolk
o Richmond
o Rocky Mount
o Stafford
o Tearisburg
o Vienna
o Virginia Beach
o Winchester
Washington
o Bellevue
o Camas
o Seattle
o Shoreline
o Vancouver
Wisconsin
o Hudson
o Kenosha
o Milwaukee
o Monona
o Platteville
o Wausau
West Virginia
o Beckley
Wyoming
o Casper
o Douglas
-------------------------------
Appendix C:
Bibliography/Resources
Bibliography
Anthony Cresswell and David Connelly, Center for Technology in
Government, "Reconnaissance Study: Developing a Business Case for the
Integration of Criminal Justice Information," September 1999.
Cooperative Agreement for Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Operation, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Hennepin County, Minnesota,
June 1998.
Public Technology, Inc., "Local Governance Survey," March 2000
SEARCH, "Integration in the Context of Justice Information Systems: A
Common Understanding," A SEARCH special report, March 2000.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, "Report of the
Intergovernmental Information Sharing: Focus Group," February 24,
1998, and Conference of States, March 5 and 6, 1998. 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of General
Counsel, "Integrated Justice Information Systems: The Department of
Justice Initiative," April 2000. 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, "Report of the
Intergovernmental Information Sharing Conference of States," November
17 and 18, 1998. 
Resources
Site Visits
Hennepin County's Criminal Justice System Information Integration
Project Web site: www.macrogroup.net/cjsiip/.
Dakota County's Criminal Justice Information Integration Network Web
site: www.co.dakota.mn.us/sheriff/cjiin/cjiin/htm.
San Diego County's Automated Regional Justice Information System Web
site: www.arjis.org.
General
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State
University of New York: www.ctg.albany.edu.
National Association of State Information Resource Executives, NASIRE
Justice Report-Toward National Sharing of Governmental Information:
www.nasire.org. 
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics:
www.search.org.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Integrated Justice
Information Technology Initiative: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/integratedjustice/.
-------------------------------
Appendix D
Worksheets
What is your vision for the integration process? In the space below, write
a statement that describes what you hope to accomplish by integrating
justice information systems. 
What is the mission of your integration effort? In the space below write a
mission statement for your governance structure.
What are the goals and objectives of the integration effort? What do you
want to achieve and how can you get there? In the space below, list the
goals and objectives you think are important.
What is the scope of integration?
What problems do you want to solve?
Who are the stakeholders? 
Who are the lead agencies, if any? 
What systems need to be integrated to solve problems you have
identified?
Which and how many users would be impacted as a result of integration?-
What kind of agreement do you need to create the governance board?
_____Memorandum of Understanding
_____Joint Powers Agreement
_____Statute or Ordinance
_____Informal Guidelines
Which agencies should be included in the governance board?
Put a checkmark by the agencies and others that should be represented on
the governance board.
Law Enforcement
_____Sheriff
_____Police
Prosecution
_____Prosecutor
_____District Attorney
_____County Attorney
_____State's Attorney
Courts
State Supreme Court
_____Judges
_____Clerks
_____Court Services
Courts of General Jurisdiction
_____Judges
_____Clerks
_____Court Services
Juvenile or Family Court
_____Judges
_____Clerk
_____Court Services
Courts of Limited or Special Jurisdiction
_____Judges
_____Clerk
_____Court Services
Defense 
_____Legal Aid
_____Public Defender
_____Bar Association
Corrections
_____Jail Administrators
_____State Corrections
Probation/Parole
_____County
_____State
_____Federal
Roles and Responsibilities of the Governance Structure. 
Choose the responsibilities you want the governance structure to carry out.
Executive Responsibilities
_____Provide vision and focus for the scope of the integration 
_____Appoint steering committees and task forces (technology, policy,
management, etc.)
_____Direct and coordinate the initiative
_____Set policy
_____Set priorities
_____Review projects
_____Approve projects
_____Resolve conflict
_____Ensure compliance
_____Monitor progress
_____Secure funding
_____Other
Project Operations Responsibilities
_____Establish policies and procedures for establishment of database and
the maintenance, update, and integration of information
_____Negotiate with vendor of software
_____Commit staff
_____Approve standards and business practices
_____Keep the executive board informed
_____Implementation
Planning Responsibilities
_____Strategic justice information technology projects in, for example,
police, court, corrections, and city attorney's office
_____Determine vision, strategic plan, goals and objectives for justice
information systems programs
_____Implement and oversee the strategic plan
_____Solicit input from all participating agencies and jurisdictions
_____Determine integration needs among stakeholders
Funding and Resource Development Responsibilities
_____Obtain funding
_____Determine funding priorities
_____Approve the annual budget
_____Identify other resources
_____Commit staff
Other Responsibilities
What authority and powers will the governance structure have?
Executive Authority
_____Approve strategic plan
_____Approve annual budget
_____Approve new projects
_____Approve additional agencies and participating members
_____Control funding 
_____Seek funding
_____Approve funding
_____Lobby for funding
Operational Authority
_____Monitor participants for compliance to plan
_____Evaluate against mission
To whom will the Governance Body Report?
Check all agencies or individuals to which your governance structure will
report.
_____Participating Justice Agencies
o_____Police
o_____Sheriff
o_____Prosecution
o_____Courts
o_____Defense
o_____Corrections
o_____Probation
o_____Parole
_____Elected Officials
o_____City Council
o_____County Commission
o_____Mayor
o_____County Executive
o_____Chief Judge
_____Appointed Officials
o_____City Manager
o_____County Manager
_____Funding Sources
o_____Local
o_____State
o_____Regional
o_____Federal
Staffing the Governance Structure. Check the appropriate item below. 
Does the governance structure need a staff of its own?_____Yes _____No 
_____Not now, but maybe in the future
What kind of staff does the governance structure need now or in the
future?
_____Executive director _____Budget or finance director _____Support
staff (secretarial, etc.) _____Technical staff
Where will funds to pay staff come from?
_____Governance structure's budget  _____Participating agencies'
contributions _____Participating agencies' payrolls  _____There won't be
funds to pay staff _____Don't know
Commonsense Factors: Although each governance structure is unique
because it reflects unique mix of goals, personalities, etc., there are several
factors common to all successful ones.
Political support: Successful governance structures have a strong
commitment from the chief elected and appointed officials and strong
public support.
Champion or champions: In every successful governance structure is a
champion--an executive, manager, an elected official--someone who saw
the benefits of integration and worked to bring it about.
Participation and commitment by key stakeholders: Stakeholders shared a
common goal to integrate data through an automated system, and a
common need to have direction in implementing the integration efforts.
Basic technical competency: In successful efforts, the information
technology people were capable of choosing, installing, and maintaining
the appropriate hardware and software. The system was based on common
standards for data and communications.
Sufficient resources: Successful efforts had sufficient resources (funding,
personnel) dedicated to the implementation of the integration of justice
information systems data.
Consistency of leadership, staff, and consultants: The successful efforts
were marked by consistent leadership, stable staffs, and long-term
relationships with good consultants.
Identify a core group and call a meeting: Who would you consider to be
the core group of people interested in integrating justice information
systems? List their names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses below.
Information Technology
_____Information technology directors or officers
_____Information technology managers
_____GIS administrators
State Agencies
_____State Department of Motor Vehicles
_____State Department of Boating and Waterways
_____State Licensing Agencies
_____State Police
_____State Criminal Record Repository
_____Others
Elected Officials and Government Administrators
_____Mayor
_____County executive
_____City council member
_____County commission member
_____City manager
_____County manager
Participants From Outside the Justice System
_____School administration
_____Public works/transportation
_____Planning
_____Fiscal planning/budget officer
_____Health, mental health and human services
_____Children's services
_____Fire/emergency medical services
_____Victim/witness organizations
_____Environmental protection agencies
_____Social service providers
_____Zoning and property managers
_____State and local department of transportation
Consultants
_____Private Sector
_____Other
Name--Telephone--E-Mail
Notes
-------------------------------
Bureau of Justice Assistance Information
General Information
Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for
general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting
grant applications and information about training. To contact the
Response Center, call 1-800-421-6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Indepth Information
For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding
opportunities, requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA
Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local
agencies and community groups across the country. Information
specialists are available to provide reference and referral services,
publication distribution, participation and support for conferences, and
other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can be
reached by 
o Mail
P. O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
o Visit
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
o Telephone
1-800-688-4252
Monday through Friday 
8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time
o Fax
301-519-5212
o BJA Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
o NCJRS Home Page
www.ncjrs.org
o E-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org
o JUSTINFO Newsletter
E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org
Leave the subject line blank
In the body of the message, type:
subscribe justinfo
[your name]