Title: Report of the National Task Force on Court Automation and
Integration.
Series: Monograph
Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Published: BJA, June 1999
Subject: Court technology and information systems
127 pages
293,000 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 or from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY
users). 

-------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Report of the National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration

Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Noel Brennan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance
World Wide Web Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770

This document was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for
Justice Information and Statistics, under grant number 95-DD-BX-0017,
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.

-------------------------------

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.

-------------------------------

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Report of the National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration

Monograph
June 1999
NCJ 177601

Foreward

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is proud to sponsor the Court
Information Systems Technical Assistance Project, a multiyear effort to
develop practical resources for courts to automate and integrate their
information systems, within the court, between courts, and with other
justice agencies, such as law enforcement and corrections. The project is a
national partnership between BJA and four criminal justice information
technology and court organizations: SEARCH, The National Consortium
for Justice Information and Statistics; the National Center for State Courts;
the National Association for Court Management; and the Conference of
State Court Administrators. The no-cost assistance provided under this
project focuses on the needs of courts as they automate and integrate their
information systems and builds on the National Technical Assistance and
Training Program funded by BJA and operated by SEARCH since 1985.

Why do the courts need this assistance? Information system automation
and integration will improve decisionmaking throughout the justice system
via enhanced data quality, better communication between justice agencies,
and expanded capabilities that result from the increasing amount of data
available. If recent activities surrounding the Court Information Systems
Technical Assistance Project are any indication, the nation's court
community has a tremendous interest in the benefits of automating and
integrating information services. Court system integration is particularly
timely, given the passage of S. 2022, the Crime Identification Technology
Act of 1998, in October 1998, which authorizes $1.25 billion over a
5-year
period beginning in 1999. Under this act, state grants will promote the
integration of information and identification technology. Other national
integration initiatives of the U.S. Department of Justice also lend credence
to this effort.

As part of this project, a National Task Force on Court Automation and 
Integration was formed in 1997 to identify the challenges to court
automation and integration, develop recommended strategies to address
these challenges, and build an information infrastructure necessary for
effective state and local court system integration. This document reports
the task force's efforts, its findings, and recommendations. The task force
took a "snapshot" of state and local court automation and integration status
in early 1998. From this information, the task force developed a set of
significant findings and recommendations that support electronic
information exchange within the courts community, between the courts
and other 

justice agencies, and between the courts and treatment and service
providers. We hope these findings and recommendations aid courts at the
state, county, and local levels in their integration efforts.

Nancy E. Gist

Director

Acknowledgments

This report reflects the collaborative efforts of members of the National
Task Force on Court Automation and Integration and the staff of
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

Special thanks go to SEARCH staff Amir Holmes, who was responsible
for report writing and production coordination; Kelly Harris, who helped
edit the report and prepare the sections on technology; David Roberts,
who
prepared materials on security and privacy, guided development of the
findings, and recommended strategies; Owen Greenspan, who prepared
the
first draft of the report and reviewed subsequent iterations; Eric Johnson,
who prepared the executive summary and edited the report; and Twyla
Cunningham, who edited the final report and prepared it for publication.
Fran Bremson served as project manager and oversaw the report's
development.

NCSC staff who participated in the report's development were Larry
Webster, who wrote the court automation and organization sections and
served as chief reviewer of the overall report; Lin Walker, who conducted
the state court automation survey and helped prepare the court
organization materials; Karen Gottlieb, who directed the nationwide court
integration survey with the help of Will Willis and who also wrote the
appendix detailing the survey results; and Stephanie Rondenell, who
reviewed most of the sections prepared by NCSC staff.

The federal project monitor was Scott Kelberg, program manager, Bureau
of Justice Assistance.

Contents

Project Overview

Executive Summary
Findings
Recommended Strategies

Chapter 1--Introduction
Vision
Definition of Integration
Participants Involved
Information Exchange
Method of Information Exchange
Scope of Project
Driving Forces
Benefits

Chapter 2--The Courts
Court Environment
Information Flow
Court Automation and Integration
Automation
Integration

Chapter 3--Driving Forces of Integration
Limited Resources
Legislative Requirements and Initiatives
Federal Legislation
Federal Initiatives
State Laws
Technological Advances
Public Expectations
Changing Role of Courts

Chapter 4--Benefits of Integration
Cost Savings
Harris County, Texas
Washington State
Brockton and Barnstable, Massachusetts
Los Angeles County, California
Improved Performance and Service Delivery
Elimination of Redundant Data Entry
Improved Quality of Decisions
Improved Public Safety

Chapter 5--Challenges to Integration
Legal Issues
Juvenile Justice Reform
State Dissemination and Privacy Policies
Freedom of Information Act Requests
Access to Information
Organizational and Management Issues
Technical Issues
Legacy Systems
Technology and Data Standards
Human Resources
Systems Development Life Cycle
Strategic Information Technology Planning
Security Issues

Chapter 6--National Task Force Findings
Finding 1
Finding 2
Finding 3
Finding 4
Finding 5
Finding 6
Finding 7
Finding 8
Finding 9

Chapter 7--National Task Force Recommended Strategies
Organization for Integration
Standards
Funding
Practical Resources

Appendix A--Task Force Participants
Appendix B--Criminal Justice System Caseflow
Appendix C--National Assessment of State Court Automation
Appendix D--Brief Survey To Identify State and Local 
Operational Integrated Court Systems
Appendix E--Detailed Survey of State and Local Agencies With
Integrated Justice Information Systems
Appendix F--Results of the Nationwide Integrated Justice Survey
Appendix G--Survey List of Counties and States Planning, 
Developing, or Operating Integrated Justice Systems
Appendix H--Scope of State and County Agency Involvement in
Integrated Justice Information Systems

Sources for Further Information

-------------------------------

Project Overview

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ); SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics; the National Center for State Courts (NCSC); the National
Association for Court Management (NACM); and the Conference of State
Court Administrators (COSCA) have joined to undertake the Court
Information Systems Technical Assistance Project.[1] This national effort
focuses on developing practical resources for courts to use in automating
and integrating information systems, both within the courts and
throughout
the justice system. 

This project, a new national partnership between SEARCH and BJA,
builds upon an existing technical assistance program by focusing on courts
and their integration needs. The project is designed to develop coordinated
automation and integration of court systems across the country. One of its
primary objectives is to identify the current state of county and statewide
information systems to direct future integration efforts.

The National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration was
assembled to guide the project.[2] The task force consists of judges, court
administrators, officials from local and state prosecutor and public
defender offices, officials from local and state law enforcement agencies,
a
state legislator, a state chief information officer, officials from national
court associations who represent users of and contributors to court
information systems, and consultants.

While the task force recognizes that some information processed by justice
agencies is outside the interests of the courts, this project was designed to
research and report on automation and integration from the courts'
perspective. Therefore, the task force focused on the courts' efforts to
automate and integrate information systems internally and throughout the
justice system. 

The task force met a number of times in 1997 and 1998 to identify the
challenges to court automation and integration. This report presents the
task force's findings and recommended strategies to build the information
infrastructure necessary for effective state and local system integration.
The strategies recommended herein relate to electronic information
exchange within and between the courts, justice agencies, and support
agencies.

Executive Summary

Our nation's court systems have been affected in recent years by
developments that have necessitated a change in the way they conduct
business. Budget allotments have been reduced at a time when
high-profile
crimes, such as domestic violence and sexual offenses, are attracting
increased public interest in court activities. This public attention has
resulted in legislation that mandates increased and automated disposition
reporting to state and federal repositories. To comply with new legislative
sentencing strategies such as three-strike laws and diversion programs,
courts must have access to a range of information sources not necessary or
available in the past.

Although information technology provides useful tools for responding to
these increased demands, it brings a new set of responsibilities for justice
agencies such as law enforcement, prosecution, public defense, and
corrections. These agencies must develop:

o Ground rules, protocols, and priorities to govern the exchange and
security of data that each previously maintained using their own standards.

o New funding and procurement procedures to guide the acquisition,
maintenance, and upgrade of integrated information systems used by
separate agencies that are often under the control of different government
entities.

o New standards to ensure that the complexities of the justice process are
protected as information services move into the electronic realm.

As part of the Court Information Systems Technical Assistance Project, a
National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration was formed to
identify the key issues of and challenges to justice system automation and
integration from the perspective of the courts. From late 1997 to
mid-1998, the task force conducted a series of extensive
discussions--augmented by an integration survey sent to more than 150
court administrators and information services managers nationwide and a
state-by-state assessment of court automation--to determine the status and
direction of court automation and integration. From these activities, the
task force compiled a list of nine findings and four broad categories of
recommended strategies that court system administrators may use to guide
automation and integration projects in their jurisdictions.

Findings

The task force findings, which include information on the status of state
and county integrated systems in 34 states, are summarized below, and
discussed in greater detail in chapter 6:

Finding 1. Court systems undertaking automation and integration projects
cite a variety of reasons for doing so, including cost savings, increased
efficiency, elimination of redundant data entry, improved decisionmaking,
and increased public safety.

Finding 2. The forces driving justice system integration include increased
pressure to improve service with existing resources, legislation requiring
information sharing, demand for information not historically compiled by
courts, and technological advances.

Finding 3. Barriers to court integration include limited resources,
resistance to change, complex justice processes, fear of reduced service,
distrust, hesitancy to rely on outside staff, current system incompatibility,
disagreements over data ownership, and the lack of resources such as data
standards, peer networks, documentation of successful systems, and
off-the-shelf solutions.

Finding 4. The success of integration projects depends on intense,
comprehensive, and ongoing strategic planning that takes into account the
acquisition, long-term operation and maintenance, and eventual upgrade
of
information systems.

Finding 5. Successful projects focus on day-to-day information sharing
between courts and other justice agencies and generate statistical and
disposition data for state and federal agencies as by-products of these
systems.

Finding 6. State agencies take the lead in developing the framework for
integration, and local agencies are responsible for developing the
operational systems. 

Finding 7. Security measures ensure that confidential information is
available only to authorized users. The agencies participating in an
integrated system must determine what information is confidential and
subject to security protections.

Finding 8. Coordinated funding yields greater returns than splitting
resources among disconnected efforts. Successful planning involves
application of life-cycle costing methods to account for downstream
operations, maintenance, upgrades, and training expenses.

Finding 9. The identification and development of information-sharing
standards will facilitate integration efforts.

Recommended Strategies

The task force recommends the following strategies for agencies
considering or currently administering court automation and integration
projects. The strategies, grouped in four broad categories, are summarized
below and discussed in detail in chapter 7.

Organization for integration. The recommended strategies in this category
are as follows:

o Successful integration requires strategic planning, a commitment to
maintaining top-level technical staff, and acquisition approaches that
account for system life cycles.

o A first step is to establish appropriate governance bodies to provide
vision, strategy, policy direction, and implementation oversight. 

o Each project needs an executive sponsor to address priorities and
funding issues and to remove barriers. 

o States should be responsible for developing strategic plans, system
architectures, and standards or guidelines for statewide implementation. 

Standards. Development of standards and communication protocols to
ensure the collection, transmission, and exchange of data must remain a
high priority of state and national court and justice system management
organizations.

Funding. The recommended strategies in this category are as follows:

o Justice agencies face significant challenges to funding integrated
information systems. Agencies may have significant investments in legacy
systems with limited long-term utility. Purse-string holders must adjust
funding approaches to accommodate technology's explosive growth. 

o National initiatives and incentives are necessary to encourage courts to
transfer technology and test innovative solutions. National and state
funding to develop standards is also needed. Cost benefits should be
highlighted to justify investments in integrated systems.

o As the life cycles of systems continue to compress, the costs of
integrated information systems become ongoing rather than periodic,
requiring creative funding alternatives.

Practical resources. The recommended strategies in this category are 
as follows:

o Practical resources, including planning guides and clearinghouses for
easily accessible standards, are needed to help courts develop integrated
information systems. 

o A national information exchange should be established to share
information and resources. 

o Technical assistance must be available to help courts design, develop,
and manage integrated systems. 

o Best practices should be documented to highlight successful systems. 

o Training should be made available to integrated system users to
maximize benefits and ensure user satisfaction.

Endnotes

1. The project's World Wide Web site, at www.courts.search.org, has
links to the Web sites of all the project partners.

2. Appendix A contains a list of task force members and their biographies.

-------------------------------

Chapter 1

Introduction

Vision

Imagine a justice system in which, within minutes of an arrest, the
arraignment judge has every piece of data needed to make the best
possible decision about a defendant's incarceration or release on bail. The
system provides the judge with the following information on the
defendant:

o Complete fingerprint-based, standardized national criminal history
record, including juvenile records.

o Outstanding wants/warrants.

o Probation status and conditions.

o Schedule of all pending matters.

o Drug treatment status and test results.

o Outstanding protective orders and history.

o Alimony and child support orders.

o Pending gun purchase applications and permits held in states in which a
permit for firearms possession is required and revocable.

o Sexual offense registration status.

Further, the court has before it:

o An evaluation of all relevant information regarding community
contacts, thus enabling it to make the most appropriate bail decision.

o An up-to-date listing of jail and treatment facility availability that
allows the court to determine the most appropriate placement for the
defendant in the event of a plea.

All court documents are electronically filed before trial. Attorneys and
parties are automatically notified of all court dates, which are set to
eliminate calendar conflicts and to schedule specialized court reporters and
interpreters when necessary. All trial participants have real-time access to
appellate decisions, statutes, court rules, and jury instructions. Judges and
attorneys view real-time court transcripts, and bar-coded trial exhibits are
produced instantly.

At sentencing, the system provides the court with detailed information 
regarding all options. Recidivism rates for similarly profiled defendants
are graphically presented for each sentencing alternative. Pursuant to 
more flexible rules of evidence, the court's World Wide Web site provides
a vehicle for those victims and relatives unable to appear in court to make
written and videotaped statements. If the judge orders a prison
commitment, corrections is electronically notified of the need for
transportation and classification. Profiling begins automatically.
Corrections is also provided with information on the amount of time the
defendant has served, with "good-time" and "sentence-served"
calculations.

This use of information technology in the justice system also serves the
community. The public accesses court schedules and other court
information through the Internet and interactive stations in public kiosks.
Individuals are able to report to probation officers, determine juror status,
charge traffic fines to credit cards, schedule hearings to contest alleged
traffic violations, query sex offender databases to learn about registrants
living in their neighborhoods, or file pro se forms with automated
assistance. The justice system successfully accommodates people's
schedules so that courts operate as efficiently as possible.

Information technology is now available to make this vision a reality.
However, barriers such as competing justice system objectives,
technological limitations, stakeholders' inability to understand technology,
and differing visions of technology use due to political, policy,
management, legal, and economic issues must be overcome. Key
decisionmakers must coordinate their efforts for justice information
systems to become integrated. The time has come to improve the quality
of the nation's justice system by improving information exchange within
the system. With integrated justice information systems, this vision will be
realized.

Definition of Integration

Integration of justice information systems is best defined as the electronic
sharing of information by two or more distinct justice entities within a
system. The degree to which information systems are considered
"integrated" depends on who participates, what information is shared or
exchanged, and how data are shared or exchanged within the system.

Participants Involved

Integration efforts vary depending on who is involved in the process.
Integration may be undertaken entirely within a court system. Such efforts
may be horizontal (among different divisions of the same court system) or
vertical (from limited to general jurisdiction courts or from trial to
appellate and state supreme courts). Horizontal integration allows courts to
link civil protection orders to criminal files. In addition, courts are able to
calendar criminal cases along with civil matters. Interagency integration
may also be achieved horizontally between the court system and other
justice system agencies, such as a prosecutor's office, operating at the
same level. 

In addition, integrated systems may link agencies both horizontally and
vertically, as would the automated posting of trial court disposition data 
to a state criminal history repository.[1] Vertical integration extends to the
Federal Government when, for example, the repositories electronically 
forward those dispositions to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or
access the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) for criminal
histories or other information.

Information Exchange

Integrated systems share different kinds of data. Some systems may
include only adult criminal justice data,[2] whereas others may include
juvenile, family, domestic relations, and social service data. Some systems
may address all operating requirements, such as court revenue
management systems, whereas others may limit the database to case
management information requirements. However, "information" is
increasingly more than just raw data elements: It may include images,
audio, video, substance-abuse test results, DNA profiles, and fingerprint
minutiae.

Method of Information Exchange

Integration can also be defined in terms of the technology underlying the
system. Information may be exchanged through a common database
shared by participating agencies; this database applies security standards,
which define levels of access. Information sharing may also be facilitated
by a coordinated system in which data are maintained in separate
databases and exchanged via standardized messages. In addition, hybrid
methods of information sharing exist that allow agencies to maintain
separate databases while using a central database that gives users different
levels of access within the system.

Within these structures, users may have inquiry access only or they may
be able to extract, enter, change, print, and report information. The system
may operate on a mainframe, on a client/server technology, or on a
combination of the two. Information can be shared via a local area
network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), the Internet, a secured
intranet, or a combination of these and other alternatives.

In this report, the discussion of integration refers to information that may
be shared through a messaging system using separate databases, a central
database, or some hybrid method. However, the exchanged information
includes all the data or records necessary to facilitate an information
system shared by the courts and associated justice agencies. The true
measure of success for these systems is the ability to eliminate or reduce
redundant data entry while maintaining access to all relevant data.

Scope of Project

The scope of the Court Information Systems Technical Assistance Project
includes identifying the issues involved in integrating justice information
from the perspective of the courts, including what data are shared, who
shares it, and how it is shared. This project is funded by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and was
established by amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968.[3] While Safe Streets Act funding has historically been
limited to research and to training and technical assistance to agencies to
improve the administration of criminal justice, DOJ regulations define
"the
administration of criminal justice" to include "traditional police, courts,
and corrections agencies as well as subunits of non-criminal justice
agencies performing a function of the administration of criminal justice
pursuant to Federal or State statute or executive order."[4] Thus, for this
project, integrated systems include all agencies and data inside or outside
the traditional criminal justice system that affect the administration of
criminal justice.

Examples of non-criminal justice agencies include social services and
treatment and mental health providers. Examples of non-criminal justice
information handled by the courts with implications for the criminal
justice process include civil protection orders when violations of such
orders result in criminal charges.

Driving Forces

Efforts to integrate justice information systems began in the United States
approximately 30 years ago. Unfortunately, few jurisdictions that
attempted to integrate information systems achieved adequate levels of 
electronic information sharing. The demand for integrated systems,
meanwhile, has increased in recent years. A number of forces, both
internal and external, are driving this demand. Limited resources,
legislative requirements and initiatives, technological advances, public
expectations, and the changing role of the court all drive the need for
automation and integration of justice information systems. For a more
complete analysis of these driving forces, see chapter 3.

Benefits

The automation and integration of information systems promise
improvements in the quality and speed of decisionmaking throughout the
justice system. The benefits of integrated information systems also include
cost savings, improved performance and service delivery, elimination of
redundant data entry, and increased public safety. For a more complete
analysis of the benefits of integration, see chapter 4.

Endnotes

1. Two examples of integration are found in Baltimore, Maryland, and
Manhattan, New York. In Baltimore, criminal history reporting is
integrated with booking system, pretrial processing, and state fingerprint
reporting. Bar-coding and live-scan units facilitate the processing of
information. Fingerprints are electronically forwarded to the state
repository, and the state responds with wants/warrants and identification
information within 30 minutes. The courts, public defenders, state's
attorneys, and corrections are all involved in the integrated system.

In Manhattan, the Midtown Community Court processes a tremendous
number of misdemeanor cases daily. This unique courtroom allows judges
to access a wealth of information on computer terminals at the bench. The
criminal complaint, defendant's criminal history record, case history, and
drug test results are all available on the computer. This requires
integration
of the court with law enforcement, prosecutors, corrections, the state
repository, and treatment providers. 

2. In Los Angeles County, California, for example, criminal history
information is stored in a Consolidated Criminal History Reporting
System (CCHRS) database, also known as CHEERS. The CHEERS
single-source data warehouse system provides almost real-time data from
multiple source systems, including the Los Angeles County court system,
the sheriff's criminal history information system, the sheriff's jail system,
the district attorney's system, the probation department's system, the
juvenile automated index, the California Department of Justice system, the
California Department of Motor Vehicles system, and county, state, and
FBI warrant systems.

3. 42 U.S.C. section 3711 et seq. (amended by striking parts D and E [42
U.S.C. section 3741-3766] and inserting new section 3741-3742). 

4. 28 C.F.R., Appendix to Part 20, 20.3(c) (emphasis added).

-------------------------------

Chapter 2

The Courts

Court systems vary throughout the country. Caseloads, court structures,
and automation levels differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some courts
have been automated for years, whereas others are just beginning to
automate their processes. Before developing automation and integration
solutions that address the more general needs of many courts, it is
important to identify the differing needs and capabilities of individual
courts.

Court Environment

Of the more than 17,000 courts in the United States, more than 16,200 are
state trial courts and 95 are state appellate courts.[1] State court systems
include courts of limited jurisdiction, courts of general jurisdiction,
intermediate appellate courts, and courts of last resort.[2] The greatest
state-to-state variation in terms of court jurisdiction is among trial courts,
where jurisdiction may be defined according to geographic, monetary, or
subject matter limitations. States are frequently dissimilar in the structure
of the judicial branches and jurisdictions assigned to their courts, which
makes it difficult to develop transferable automation solutions and create
national data standards that are relevant from state to state.

In state trial courts, there are more than 10,000 general jurisdiction and
18,000 limited jurisdiction judges.[3] In some states, such as Pennsylvania
and Texas, each judge is counted as a separate court, even if the judges all
work in the same building. In other jurisdictions, hundreds of judges may
work in a single court. When federal, territorial, and appellate courts are
included, when part-time and senior judges are added, and when
quasi-judicial positions are counted, there are approximately 31,000
judicial officers in the United States.[4] This number does not include
federal and state administrative law judges who work in executive branch
agencies. Courts are not built with the hierarchical structure commonplace
in either executive branch agencies or the private sector. Leadership is
more fragmented than in justice agencies; thus leadership support is key to
the success of any automation initiative.

While support is a necessary component of successful projects, many
judges have little time to commit to automation initiatives. Throughout the
nation, judges are saddled with massive caseloads. In 1996, 87.5 million
new cases were filed in state courts. Table 1 lists how these cases are
categorized.[5]

In terms of trends, the number of traffic and parking cases filed is
diminishing as states decriminalize these offenses and transfer them to
administrative agencies. Caseload growth by case types, from 1984
through 1996, is shown in table 2. Population growth over the same period
was about 12 percent.

Although the growth in caseload has been substantial, it has not been
explosive, with the possible exception of domestic relations cases.
Nonetheless, two-thirds of state courts are not disposing of cases in time to
keep up with new criminal and civil filings.[6] Caseload growth is a
significant driving force for improved automation and integration because
these tools improve the productivity of judicial branch staff.

Another complicating factor is the state courts' organizational and funding
structures. In some states, all court staff work for a centralized state court
administrative office. In others, the administrative office plays a minor
role in court operations. In some states, staff reports to an elected clerk of
court in the executive branch, which means that the courts do not control
resources related to their operations.

Some courts are funded almost entirely at the state level; others, at the
local level.[7] Most have a mix of funding from both sources. About 10
states are almost totally state funded,[8] and 11 are mostly state funded.[9]
Fifteen are almost totally locally funded,[10] and another six are mostly
locally funded.[11] Eight have an equal mix of state and local
funding.[12]

Information Flow

The "incremental paper trail" model is traditionally used to map the flow
of offenders through the criminal justice system. This model usually
assumes that information travels the same path as the defendants. It also
assumes a fairly homogeneous set of cases and sequential processing (see
appendix B for a chart showing caseflow through the criminal justice
system and an accompanying narrative).

This model depicts criminal justice information flow as an incremental
paper trail. Police, prosecutors, courts, and corrections each receive
information that is collected and generated in prior steps; these agencies,
in turn, add only the data they create. In reality, only 5 percent of cases
result in trial and less than 1 percent follow this incremental process
because the criminal justice system is a web of semi-interdependent
subsystems. A few examples help illustrate this point.

The arrest-detention-release process may occur at the beginning, middle,
or end of a case. It may occur several times, or it may never occur. A
single arrest may sometimes relate to multiple cases. A system based on
the incremental model, which relies on arrest information to begin
processing, may fail if a case begins at another point in the process. This
would be like an order-processing system in which workers are required to
ship goods to customers even if an order is never received.

Similarly, a defendant can be charged in various ways. A case may begin
when a police officer files a citation or felony summons. The prosecutor,
after screening documents submitted by a law enforcement agency, may
file a complaint in a limited jurisdiction court and later create information
for the general jurisdiction court. If a limited jurisdiction court binds
charges over to a general jurisdiction court, it may modify the charges
considerably. An indictment from a grand jury may also be filed in the
general jurisdiction court. Cases may be created when charges are
transferred to another court or when an appellate court orders a new trial
for a defendant.

Diversion programs also increase the complexity of the system. These
programs, whose names vary from state to state, may be implemented at
various stages during the process. Prefiling diversion halts a case's
progress in the prosecutor's office. If the defendant completes a program
designated by the prosecuting attorney, charges are never filed. If the
suspect fails to comply with the conditions of the program, charges may
be
initiated years after the offense. Deferred prosecution usually occurs at
arraignment, when charges are filed in the court, but a plea is not taken.
The defendant is given a set of conditions and a fixed period within which
to meet those conditions. If all the conditions are met, the court dismisses
charges at the end of that time. Deferred sentencing is similar to deferred
prosecution, but a plea is entered. The court does not enter judgment
unless the defendant fails to comply with the conditions. Other variations
of these types of diversion programs exist. All make case processing and
information flow more complex.

The motion-hearing-order subprocess can also occur at various points
when a court processes a case. It can occur multiple times, or it may never
occur. It can change the nature of the case, consolidate or sever actions, or
result in a disposition.

Incremental models also fail to address the fact that all actions are not
taken on a case-by-case basis. Plea agreements are often accepted for
multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions. For example, a prosecutor may
agree to dismiss charges in one case in exchange for a guilty plea to a
felony charge in another court. In the past, prosecutors were unaware that
defendants had cases pending in other jurisdictions; now,
cross-jurisdiction pleas are routine actions in many parts of the country.

A final example is the postadjudication process. Revocation of probation
can reopen a case that has been closed for years. Appeals also can cause
actions to be revisited after adjudication. An arrest warrant can be issued if
a defendant fails to pay a fine or complete community service. In some
states, conviction charges may be reduced after successful completion of a
sentence. Judgments and sentences can be modified and further processing
initiated long after paper files have been archived.

The flow of information in both directions during the process adds to the
confusion; information does not simply flow forward as the incremental
model assumes. For example, courts or prosecutors must notify law
enforcement agencies when a case is completed so evidence can be
released. Prosecutors and courts continually interact over court schedules,
motions, orders, and so forth. Presentence investigation reports require
probation staff to work with most of the agencies involved in the case.
Courts may monitor drug treatment or other conditions of pretrial release
or probation.

Finally, the justice process involves an increasing number of
nontraditional justice agencies. Social services, treatment providers, and
welfare and child support agencies have become increasingly critical to
the
justice process over the years. With heightened use of alternative
punishments, diversion programs, and drug courts, a large number of
agencies now play a role in the justice process. This further complicates
the flow of information through the justice system.

What does this complexity mean for information system design?
Information systems designed using oversimplified models of the criminal
justice process will never succeed. However, systems that reflect the real
complexity of the process are very expensive to develop and difficult for
users to administer. Flexibility is needed--something that works for most
cases and does not fail with exceptional ones. At the same time, the
information system must be affordable and simple to operate. This may
help to explain why some criminal justice information system projects
have not succeeded.

Court Automation and Integration

Automation

As with court structure and funding, responsibility for automation may
rest
at the state or local level, or each may be partially responsible for different
levels of court. Twenty-three states place most automation responsibility
at the state administrative office of the courts, 15 rely on local resources,
and 12 are mixed.[13] For more detailed and current state-by-state
information regarding court automation, see appendix C, prepared by staff
of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

One challenge court systems face is the cost of developing systems.
Automation is more cost-effective if development costs are spread over a
number of courts and justice agencies. This approach has motivated states
to develop statewide court automation projects and provides a number of
benefits, including uniform information for budgeting and policy
purposes, cheaper maintenance and enhancement, more consistent court
operations, and improved training and data quality programs. There are
also drawbacks. Large and small courts often are stuck with
"one-size-fits-all" systems, optimized for neither court. Local courts may
end up with information systems that lack the level of functionality they
need. Moreover, they may lose the benefits of participating in less
expensive systems, such as the ability to share similar data and
management, and the resources to generate statistical reports quickly and
inexpensively.

Even more problematic for courts is participation in large-scale criminal
justice information systems (CJIS). Designing a CJIS to meet the needs of
many agencies often prevents a court from integrating applications within
the court. In these situations, courts may have to run separate systems for
criminal and civil cases and maintain separate financial systems. This
result negates the benefits of court participation in an integrated system.

Integration

Although courts and justice agencies have been working to integrate
systems for many years, few integrated systems are fully operational.
Courts lack the resources to assist the development of integrated systems,
such as data standards, a peer network, documentation of successful
systems, and off-the-shelf[14] solutions. To determine the state of court
integration in the United States, project staff surveyed state court
administrators, trial court administrators, and court information services
directors in December 1997 to locate operational or planned integrated
systems (see appendix D). Nine statewide and 16 countywide systems
identified through this process were then targeted for indepth review.
Project staff subsequently conducted detailed telephone surveys of
representatives in each site identified in early 1998 (see appendix E). Sites
not reached in the original survey are scheduled for future documentation.
This section summarizes the results of this nationwide integrated justice
survey (see appendix F for a detailed discussion of survey results).

On the one hand, state-level integration projects tend to focus on the
development of statewide data, telecommunication, and system
performance standards geared toward helping state agencies share data and
to develop statewide databases. These standards are also expected to guide
the conduct of state- and county-level pilot projects. On the other hand,
county and small-state integration projects tend to focus on the
development of operational solutions--the need to share case-by-case
information among local law enforcement and prosecutor agencies, county
jails, and courts, as well as the need to access, upload, download, and
share information with other localities at the local, state, and federal
levels.

Survey findings included the following:

Definitions. Respondents generally agree that integration refers to the
sharing of electronic data to facilitate communication within and among
agencies by linking agencies' automated information systems.

Scope. At the state level, all projects include or plan to include linkages
between law enforcement, criminal courts, corrections, and state
departments of motor vehicles. Individual systems provide access or
linkages to probation, parole, juvenile courts, civil case management,
prosecution, defense bar, social services, treatment providers, welfare and
child support agencies, and the public. One system provides a direct
interface to commercial data resellers.

All county-level systems reviewed include criminal and juvenile case-
processing components. Data sharing occurs primarily at a horizontal level
with other court and justice agencies operating at the trial level only. Most
county-level integrated systems reported that they are exploring expansion
to include civil case management, links to appellate courts and
county-level treatment and social service agencies, and information
sharing with state departments of motor vehicles. 

Structure. All states surveyed have established committees to supervise
integrated system development, implementation, and management.
Committees are responsible for policy, management, and technical
support. The most formal organizations are established by statute and may
be supported by direct legislative appropriations. The least formal are
policy committees appointed by executive order or associations of
self-appointed representatives of key agencies that share common goals
but whose funding sources may be less easily identified.

Although county-level systems also have policy advisory boards or
committees whose members represent key justice system agencies,
county-level committees tend to require less formal charters. They are
more likely to have been formed by agreement among the agencies
themselves or as the result of an invitation from the leadership of a
county-level agency or from the county board or commission. In a number
of cases, the county-level or county-appointed organization provides
information technology (IT) staff services to some or all participating
agencies, so that competition for funding among agencies becomes much
less a concern than it may be for state-level boards. 

Underlying technology. In general, state efforts have focused on
middleware solutions[15] to link legacy or existing systems. All surveyed
states are developing or plan to develop Internet-based solutions, including
electronic filing and data entry applications. Most county-level systems
surveyed share databases, or databases built on legacy systems linked by
middleware. Nearly every system reported that efforts were under way to
move applications and access to the Internet.

Standards. All state-level respondents have developed or are in the process
of developing statewide data, performance, and security standards. Most
based development on a data dictionary, including common definitions,
code structures, formats, and edits.

Because county-level systems focus on operations, most counties
developed standards to facilitate data exchange among agencies sharing
the same databases. (State-level projects tended to emphasize development
of data dictionaries to facilitate exchange of data among incompatible
systems.) Most counties also developed performance standards to measure
the impact of information sharing on operations. (State system
performance standards are designed to ensure uniformity in the
implementation of operating policies and procedures statewide.)

Costs. Development and operational costs were generally unavailable.
Most survey respondents indicated that all systems are undergoing
continuous evaluation and upgrading within the context of system
life-cycle planning. Future research may better identify total staff
resources devoted to systems development for comparison purposes.

About half of the county-level projects were able to estimate the costs of
system development (in person-years). Project costs ranged from
$400,000
to $20 million and lasted between 2 and 5 years. Volusia County, Florida,
was able to document substantial cost savings that were attributable in part
to integrated system implementation.

Findings. State-level respondents identified two areas as keys to successful
integration: the need for policy leadership and a commitment to funding at
project outset. 

In retrospect, managers of county-level integrated systems underscored the
value of building systems incrementally and of having independence or
support from the leaders of participating agencies to develop the system
best suited for the needs of all users. They recommended the design of
simpler-to-use and easier-to-maintain systems. They suggested developing
a process to reduce resistance from participating agencies concerned about
data ownership and integrity.

Successful integration projects focus on the day-to-day information-
sharing needs of courts and other justice agencies. They generate statistical
and disposition information for state and federal agencies as by-products
of these systems. At the local level, successful integration efforts focus on
providing police, prosecution, courts, and corrections agencies with the
kinds of information they need to move witnesses, victims, defendants,
and others through the justice process. 

States should facilitate local integration efforts by developing standards
that support information sharing. While states need to create a mechanism
to help integrated systems develop, local courts and justice agencies
should maintain the responsibility for development.

Recommendations. State-level survey respondents all recommended that
any jurisdiction thinking about integration should develop and adopt a
strategic IT planning process; ensure integral roles for judicial or justice
system leadership; include the legislature as an integral player in the
policy development process; make a commitment to identify and retain
top-level technical staff; and focus on integration of functions rather than
organizations.

County-level respondents claimed that the keys to success of an
integration project are careful design and systemwide support for the
project's goals. This support requires the articulation of a vision,
agreement and commitment by key agencies and constituent
representatives to support the project, justice system leadership, and
adequate funding. An effective design is the result of planning, including
review and revision of existing practices and procedures; an assessment of
available (off-the-shelf or easily tailored) solutions; ongoing technology
review to ensure that the system uses state-of-the-art technology and that
all hardware and software is acquired within the system life cycle; and
development of a conceptual system design that accurately reflects the
goals of the agencies within the system, not just the limitations of
available funding.

Strategic planning at state and local levels that involves policymakers,
purse-string holders, managers, and technical staff and that includes a
governance structure and process designed to resolve interagency
differences and to leverage multiagency funding requests is vital to the
success of integration projects. Successful planning addresses technology
acquisition, upgrading or linking preexisting systems, system security,
life-cycle funding, and recruiting, training, and retaining highly qualified
technical staff.

Endnotes

1. Ostrom, Brian J., and Neal B. Kauder, 1996, Examining the Work of
State Courts, Williams-burg, VA: National Center for State Courts: 12.

2. Rottman, David B., Carol R. Flango, and R. Shedine Lockley, National
Center for State Courts, 1995, State Court Organization, 1993,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

3. Ostrom and Kauder: 12.

4. Ibid.

5. Table 1 statistics are from Ostrom and Kauder.

6. Ibid.: 7.

7. Rottman, Flango, and Lockley.: 6. In the source cited, California was
listed as "almost totally locally funded," but that status has recently
changed. California has been moved to the "almost totally state-funded"
group.

8. Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

9. Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Utah.

10. Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, and Wisconsin.

11. Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

12. Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.

13. Rottman, Flango, and Lockley.: 136-163.

14. For purposes of this report, "off-the-shelf" refers to vendor products or
systems in use in one or more jurisdictions.

15. "Middleware" is software that facilitates the sharing of electronic
information among different computer systems.

-------------------------------

Chapter 3

Title of Publication

Driving Forces of Integration

Although the forces that drive integration efforts vary from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, several are common to almost every court system. These
include limited resources, legislative requirements and initiatives,
technological advances, public expectations, and the changing role of
courts.

Limited Resources

Courts, along with other justice system agencies, are continuously asked 
to do more with less. They are even asked to generate revenue to justify
capital and operating expenditures. Budgets are cut or simply fail to keep
pace with increasing caseloads and the rising costs of doing business.
Court system resources are insufficient to handle the increasing demands
on the justice system, even though funding agencies are constitutionally
obligated to provide adequate funding to maintain the courts.[1]

In theory, legislative and executive branch funding agencies have legal
and policy obligations to provide the courts with the funds required to
operate, but most courts, as a practical matter, frequently have to compete
for funds with other agencies in their jurisdiction. As a result, courts have
to identify cost-effective, innovative ways to do business and generate
new
revenues. Increasingly, courts and other justice agencies are realizing that
integrating information systems will provide long-term cost benefits.
Thus, the high cost of maintaining separate, redundant, and inefficient
systems is one of the driving forces of justice integration.

Legislative Requirements and Initiatives

Federal and state legislation and federal administrative policy initiatives
also provide an impetus toward integration. Federal legislation recently
adopted or currently under congressional consideration--such as the Brady
Act, sex offender registries, and community notification
legislation--encourages or requires additional reporting from the local
courts and justice agencies. Courts and justice agencies across the country
are attempting to determine the implication of the legislation and the types
of resources they will need to respond effectively.[2] Significantly,
legislation was signed into law recently that signals the Federal
Government's strong commitment to state and local integration of
information and identification technology. This section provides a review
of federal legislation, federal initiatives, and state legislation that affect the
justice system and the drive for integration.[3]

Federal Legislation 

The Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998,[4] signed into law by
President Clinton on October 10, 1998, provides far-reaching, long-term
benefits with an enormous positive impact on public safety, crime
reduction, and higher quality justice. The legislation has two important
components. First, it authorizes $250 million per year from 1999 to 2003
for state grants to promote the use and integration of information,
identification, and forensic technologies. This authorization of $1.25
billion over a 5-year period will help establish a foundation on which state
and local justice agencies can begin building their integrated information
and identification systems and will reduce the time the public must wait to
enjoy the benefits of full-scale integration.[5] Second, the legislation also
authorizes money to fund grants to states to help them upgrade their
information systems so they can participate in national justice initiatives
such as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System and
National Crime Information Center 2000.[6]

The National Child Protection Act of 1993[7] requires an authorized
criminal justice agency in each state to report child abuse arrests and
convictions to the FBI for inclusion in its criminal history files or index.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act[8] provides for point-of-sale
background checks on all firearms purchasers using the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which went into operation
on November 30, 1998. An effective NICS must have access to
information concerning all disqualification categories, including felons,
fugitives, drug addicts and abusers, adjudicated mental defectives, persons
subject to certain domestic relations protective orders, and persons
convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanors.

The Lautenberg Amendment,[9] a provision of the 1997 Appropriations
Act, amends the 1968 Gun Control Act[10] to add persons convicted of
certain domestic violence misdemeanors to the list of those prohibited
from buying or possessing firearms. The law defined the procedures used
to make a determination under this prohibition, such as whether particular
misdemeanor convictions involved elements of domestic violence or
whether offenders had jury trials if entitled to them.

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Alien Conviction
Notification[11] establishes a requirement, tied to federal funding, that
each state enacts a plan for notifying the INS within 30 days of the
conviction of any alien for a criminal offense, and that the INS must be
provided, upon request, with a certified record of the conviction.

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Statutes, such as the Jacob
Wetterling Act,[12] Megan's Law, and the Pam Lychner Act,[13] set
minimum standards for state sex offender registration and community
notification programs for persons convicted of certain crimes against
minors or sexually violent offenses. More rigid reporting requirements are
imposed on persons determined to be "sexually violent predators." The
statutes require that registration information be made available to local
law
enforcement agencies in whose jurisdictions registered persons reside.
Such agencies are required to establish acceptable notification procedures
to protect the public. Fingerprint and conviction data for persons required
to register must be promptly transmitted to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), and registration information must be provided to a
national sex offender database.

All states have sex offender registration laws, but the federal statutes set
minimum standards for those registries. Forty-five states had enacted
notification laws as of July 1997.[14] States were given until September
1997 to comply with the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan's Law and until
October 1999 to comply with the Pam Lychner Act. Those that failed to
meet the deadlines risked losing funding for state and local crime
eradication efforts provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), however, offered 2-year
"good-faith-effort" extensions to states that failed to meet the September
1997 deadlines.[15]

National Protection Order File,[16] a section of the 1994 Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act,[17] provides that state criminal justice
agencies submitting information for inclusion in the FBI's National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) may also submit civil or criminal court orders
to protect people against stalking or domestic violence. Another provision
of the 1994 Act amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to make it unlawful
for persons subject to certain domestic abuse restraining orders to
purchase
or possess firearms. In most cases, protection orders are entered into the
FBI file by local law enforcement agencies, which determine whether
particular orders qualify for entry. 

A number of reporting mandates imposed on state criminal justice
agencies are established as conditions of federal funding. Failure to
implement particular requirements can result in the loss of grant
entitlements. The two federal grant programs most often tied to these
mandates are the National Criminal History Improvement Program,
administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), DOJ, and the Five
Percent Set-Aside Program, administered by BJA.

In the past, insufficient reporting mechanisms have often prevented courts
from providing necessary conviction information to state repositories. To
achieve the goals of the legislation, many courts will have to upgrade their
reporting and information-sharing capabilities. Moreover, courts seeking
to integrate systems with law enforcement agencies will have to capture
information and report convictions in entirely new ways. Law
enforcement
agencies also will have to develop new procedures to deal with increasing
information management requirements. 

Courts and justice agencies will have to coordinate efforts to ensure that
they collect and maintain information needed by other system users.
Through proper planning, integration of information systems will help
meet these legislative requirements by accurately tying arrests to
convictions and to other court orders. This process will ensure complete
and accurate disposition reporting so these mandates can serve their
intended purposes. 

Federal Initiatives

Federal initiatives are also significantly changing the management of
justice information. The FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS), the Interstate Identification Index (III),
NICS, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) project,
and the NCIC 2000 project are examples of programs that are shaping the
design of justice information systems at state and local levels
nationwide.[18]

o IAFIS is scheduled for full implementation by mid-1999 and will allow
state identification bureaus to submit arrest fingerprints electronically,
receiving in return an FBI determination of identification or
noniden-tification (and a criminal history record routed back to the arrest
or booking site). IAFIS will also allow state identification bureaus to
search FBI files, receiving in return fingerprint images of likely candidates
for a state determination of identification or nonidentification. The
ANSI/NIST-CSL 1-1993 standard defines the record types associated with
digital fingerprint transmission between any two fingerprint systems[19]
and can be used to standardize the transmission of fingerprints from local
justice agencies to state identification bureaus, from one identification
bureau to another, or in exchanges with the FBI.[20]

o III uses an "index-pointer" system for the interstate exchange of
criminal history records for criminal justice purposes. Under III, the FBI
maintains an identification index of persons arrested for felonies or serious
misdemeanors under state or federal law. If a record search results in a
"hit" on the index, the criminal history record data are retrieved from the
state or federal repository that holds the original information and are
forwarded to the requesting agency. If extended to cover non-criminal
justice inquiries, as planned, the III system would eliminate the need for
duplicate recordkeeping at state and federal levels; states would no longer
need to submit second and subsequent arrest fingerprints and
charge/disposition information to the FBI for all criterion arrests. Instead,
states will submit only "first-arrest" fingerprint cards to the FBI. The FBI,
in turn, would not have to maintain state offender files. This process
would free state resources that could be applied to other programs to
further improve federal and state criminal record files.[21]

o NICS is intended to facilitate instant criminal history record checks of
firearms purchasers required under the Brady Law. Using the NICS,
federal firearm licensees (FFLs), through state points of contact or the
FBI, will seek to identify those categories of persons who are ineligible to
purchase firearms. Identification by FFLs requires that they review a
variety of records that may be maintained by federal, state, and local
authorities and by private parties; that may or may not reside in
centralized
locations; that are in various stages of automation; and that may be subject
to state and federal privacy protections which restrict their use.[22]

o NIBRS participation is voluntary. To participate, state or local agencies
must submit standardized criminal justice data to the FBI. NIBRS
fundamentally changes the way crime is counted in the United States.
Instead of monthly aggregate reporting of summary crime and arrest
statistics under the Uniform Crime Reporting program, which has been in
place since the 1930s, agencies would submit detailed data of crime and
arrest activities at the incident level, using standardized coded data
elements. Incident-based reporting promises significantly richer data
regarding the nature of crime and law enforcement response and should
greatly expand analytic capabilities at federal, state, and local levels.

o NCIC 2000 will upgrade NCIC's capabilities to exchange information
without paper. In addition, NCIC will be able to handle graphic
information, including mugshots, tattoos, and offenders' signatures, in a
paperless imaging format.[23]

These federal initiatives will greatly improve the quality of criminal
history and identification information available at the local level. To take
advantage of these enhanced information system capabilities, however,
many state and local agencies will have to upgrade their technical
capabilities. Courts and other justice agencies seeking to integrate systems
will have to comply with national standards so that the benefits of federal
programs can be realized. In addition, some initiatives also result in
greater mixing of federal and state data resources, creating even greater
impetus for local agency information systems to integrate.

State Laws

Pursuant to Megan's Law, all states have enacted laws that require the
registration of sex offenders and all are required to institute some form of
community notification. Courts are frequently required to certify, upon
conviction, that the convicted person is a sex offender and to include the
certification in the order of commitment. Such requirements increase the
need for efficient exchange of complete and accurate information.

For many years, most states have had provisions in their laws for
enhanced
sentencing for repeat offenders. Yet between 1993 and 1995, 24 states and
the Federal Government enacted new laws using the "three-strikes" label.
Similarly labeled bills were introduced in other states.[24] These laws
differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but their purposes are simple:
Offenders convicted repeatedly of serious offenses should be removed
from society for long periods, in many cases for life.[25] Effective
implementation of three-strike laws requires that prosecutors and courts
have access to complete criminal history information to ensure appropriate
charging by the prosecution and proper sentencing by the courts.
Integration of information systems will ensure that complete and accurate
criminal history information is available when needed. 

Technological Advances

Rapid advances in information systems and identification technologies are
steadily allowing courts and other justice agencies to automate and
integrate their information systems. With the advent of distributed
network
computing, telecommunication, open-systems architecture, and powerful
database applications, information systems automation and integration can
be accomplished faster, cheaper, easier--and with more robust
applications--than ever before.

Consider the advanced capabilities that technology can provide courts and
other justice agencies in accessing and retrieving complete and accurate
data in a timely fashion: 

o Technology enables a law enforcement officer to transmit an incident or
crime report electronically from his or her patrol car to headquarters. The
report can be transmitted to the district attorney and forwarded to the court
within hours, if necessary. 

o Technology allows a jailer to capture an electronic fingerprint with a
"live-scan" device and to submit the print electronically to federal, state,
and local databases to receive a positive identification within minutes. 

o Technology gives a judge on the bench comprehensive, accurate, and
reliable information about parties, witnesses, and counsel appearing before
the court. This allows the judge to make informed bond and sentencing
decisions.

Indeed, technology has created a new frontier in justice information
system automation and integration. Disk drive storage capacity alone now
doubles at least every 12 months, and this timeframe is shrinking
significantly, according to industry experts. Simultaneously, the cost of
these powerful systems has plummeted.[26] The growing use of the
Internet and the World Wide Web to exchange information, regardless of
system platforms and architecture, is also changing in the way courts and
justice agencies do business. 

Advanced integration projects that were once nearly impossible to
accomplish are being realized with new technology. Multiple agencies that
collect much of the same data, but use the data differently, no longer have
to agree on identical hardware and software systems to achieve
integration. Internet technology, middleware applications, and
data-warehousing solutions, to name a few, have allowed individual
agencies to acquire and maintain hardware and software components that
best meet their primary business needs but also allow them to participate
in an open data-sharing network. Technology can now transfer crucial data
stored in legacy systems into an integrated system.

The ability of courts and other justice agencies to take advantage of new
technology is particularly crucial as older justice agency information
systems become less able to meet the growing demand for sharing data
and new data formats, such as storing and forwarding electronic mugshots,
fingerprints, and imaged documents; handling Internet and World Wide
Web traffic; and providing for public access. Technology's impact on
courts and justice agency automation and integration is a forceful driver,
particularly as the justice community understands the benefits it offers.

Public Expectations

The general public's expectation for and dependency on information has
grown substantially over the years. The public has become far more
knowledgeable about the type of information available, particularly with
the proliferation of personal computers and accessibility to the Internet,
and has come to expect that most "government" information is freely
available somewhere. Employers, state licensing boards, security
investigators, and many other requestors increasingly rely on criminal
history information to make important decisions.[27]

When inaccurate information regarding a person's criminal history is
released, however, it can have a devastating impact. Naturally, increased
access to data brings increased expectations about data quality. The public
expects criminal history information to be accurate. Criminal histories rely
on linkages between justice agencies that may not have proper lines of
communication. Criminal histories are left incomplete and inaccurate
when court dispositions are not reported to the state or when arrests are
not
properly tied to dispositions. This may lead to the release of dangerous
offenders and to high-profile tragedies, mistakes that undermine the
public's confidence in the justice system. 

Outside the context of criminal histories, many citizens find that getting
information from the justice system is difficult at best. Given the large
volume of paperwork contained in most court files, the average citizen
faces a significant challenge to simply sort through and identify relevant
data.[28] Furthermore, complainants, witnesses, and defendants waste
precious time leaving work to travel to courtrooms, only to learn that their
case has been scheduled for another date. 

To alleviate some of these inefficiencies, many courts have designed
World Wide Web pages and other Internet resources that provide
background information, court schedules, legal references, and other
information.[29] Law enforcement agencies are also creating Web pages
that provide varying amounts of information.[30] In Florida, for example,
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Web site allows access to
information regarding sexual predators, sex offenders, and early releasees
from prison.[31] For a fee, interested parties may order criminal histories
directly from the Web site. Since Florida is an open-records state, the
public has significant access to information that would be considered
private and confidential in other states. Nevertheless, the public's
increasing ability to access court and justice information data through the
Internet has heightened public expectations about the availability of
information. 

Integration of information systems gives courts and justice agencies the
opportunity to make more information available to the public. Through
use
of kiosks, the public can access court documents, court schedules, and
other information in the court records. Confidential information will have
to be restricted from public viewing, however, and increased public access
to information must not infringe on individual privacy rights. Integrated
system planning requires a proper balance of public access to and
protection of information. 

Changing Role of Courts

The role of the courts has changed dramatically over the years. Courts are
increasingly performing social service functions that require tremendous
time and effort. As the justice system evolves, courts are forced to collect
more information, develop new data management functions, and improve
information exchange with other justice system agencies. Systems
designed to facilitate the exchange of new kinds of information must
balance conflicting needs for reporting statistical data with the operational
needs of courts and justice system agencies.

Domestic violence courts, drug courts, diversion programs, and diverse
sentencing options are some examples of the increased monitoring
performed daily by courts. With the addition of domestic violence and
drug courts, the court system must set increasing numbers of review
hearings and monitor defendants' progress through treatment programs.
Similarly, courts monitor defendants' compliance with diversion programs
and related court directives while criminal proceedings are suspended. In
the context of sentencing, defendants may be sent to residential treatment
centers or ordered to perform community service in lieu of jail or prison
commitments. 

These court actions, while socially beneficial, consume judicial resources.
Courts and justice agencies commit much time to reviewing hearings. The
system is slowed tremendously by the number of continuances ordered
because of the lack of information about drug tests, bed space availability
at residential treatment facilities, or defendants' attendance at
court-ordered programs. Without improved sharing of information, those
in the judicial system simply cannot keep pace with the increased numbers
of decisions that need to be made.

The recent proliferation of more than 400 drug courts has driven the
development of integrated management information systems that can
readily provide the information needed by the court to make informed
decisions in individual cases.[32] An integrated drug court system is only
one piece of the larger system, which provides drug court information to
all appropriate justice agencies, thus facilitating the entire justice process.

Endnotes

1. "The inherent power doctrine of the courts pertains to the right of the
courts to support by virtue of their existence. . . . The inherent power of
the courts does not mean that all matters to be adjudicated be given to
them. It means that once the duty to adjudicate is given to the courts, the
courts have a right to the support necessary to do justice." Friesen, Ernest
C., Jr., Edward C. Gallas, and Nesta M. Gallas, 1971, Managing the
Courts, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: 67-69.

2. To assess the impact of federal legislation, SEARCH and the National
Center for State Courts, under the Justice Information Policy Assistance
cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice, have convened the National Task Force on Federal
Legislation Affecting the State Criminal History System. A report of the
task force's findings and recommendations is expected in 1999.

3. Much of the following review of federal legislation is taken from
Interface, (Winter/Spring) 1998: 12-13, 37. Interface is published by
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.

4. Pub. L. No. 105-251 (1998).

5. Although the law authorizes these monies, an appropriation is necessary
to fund the initiatives in the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998.
Congress is expected to address this issue in the 2000 appropriations
process.

6. These initiatives and others are discussed under Federal Initiatives in
this chapter. This section also addresses the approval of the National
Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.

7. Pub. L. No. 103-159, codified as 42 U.S.C. section 5119 et seq.

8. Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, codified as 18 U.S.C. section 922.

9. Pub. L. No. 104-208 (contained in 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act),
codified as 18 U.S.C. section 922(g).

10. 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8).

11. 42 U.S.C. section 3753(a)(11).

12. Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act (including Megan's Law) is Pub. L. No.
103-322, section 170101, codified as 42 U.S.C. section 14071.

13. Pub. L. No. 104-236, codified as 42 U.S.C. section 14072.

14. Beckman, Marlene, May 1998, in National Conference on Sex
Offender Registries, Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Conference,
Criminal
Justice Information Policy series, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 15.

15. Feinberg, Donna, May 1998, National Conference on Sex Offender
Registries Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH Conference, Criminal Justice
Information Policy series, Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 20-21.

16. Pub. L. No. 103-322, codified as 28 U.S.C. section 534.

17. Pub. L. No. 103-322, 1994.

18. For further information on such federal initiatives as IAFIS, NIBRS,
and NCIC 2000, see the FBI World Wide Web site at www.fbi.gov/.
Background on the SEARCH NIBRS project is available at
www.nibrs.search.org. This NIBRS project, funded by BJS, is intended to
identify promising and cost-effective approaches to encouraging the
adoption of NIBRS.

19. ANSI/NIST-CSL stands for American National Standards
Institute/National Institute for Standards and Technology-Computer
System Laboratory. ANSI procedures require the review of each standard
every 5 years to determine whether it should be reaffirmed, modified, or
withdrawn. ANSI/NIST-CSL 1-1993 is undergoing this review process.
Information Systems--Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint
Information, published by ANSI. For more information, see ANSI's World
Wide Web site at web.ansi.org/. A hardcopy of this standard can be
ordered via the Web site.

20. Higgins, Peter T., 1995, "Standards for the Electronic Submission of
Fingerprint Cards to the FBI," Journal of Forensic Identification, 45
(July/August): 411.

21. Belair, Robert R., and Paul L. Woodard, SEARCH Group Inc.,
November 1993, Use and Management of Criminal History Record
Information: A Comprehensive Report, Criminal Justice Information
Policy series, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: x and 52. In October 1998,
the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, which formalizes
use of III for authorized noncriminal justice purposes such as background
checks conducted for security clearances, license issuances, and
preemployment checks, was passed by Congress and signed into law by
President Clinton as Title II of Pub. L. No. 105-251. For a state to
participate, it must ratify the compact through the legislative process.

22. Information regarding the status of NICS was provided in a report by
Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Director, SEARCH.

23. See Jones, Jennifer, 1993, "FBI's Christensen Merges Criminal ID
Systems," Federal Computer Week (Feb. 1): 29.

24. Clark, John, James Austin, and D. Alan Henry, 1998, "Three Strikes
and You're Out," Judicature, 81 (January-February): 144.

25. Ibid.

26. In 1975, an IBM mainframe cost approximately $10 million and
provided 10 million inst-ructions per second (MIPS), or about $1 million
per MIPS. In 1998, a Pentium [register trademark] personal com-puter
cost
approximately $2,500 and provided roughly 300 MIPS at a cost of $6 to
$10 per MIPS.

27. The FBI's Criminal Justice Identification Services (CJIS) Division in
Clarksburg, West Virginia, receives more than 50,000 requests for
identification each day. The Clarksburg facility receives these requests on
fingerprint cards. Roughly half are criminal arrest cards (individuals who
were recently arrested); the remaining half are civil application cards
(individuals applying for jobs requiring criminal background checks, such
as bank officials or police officers). Stone, Alan L., 1997, "FBI Uses
Unique Application of Award Fee Incentive," Program Manager
November/December: 72.

28. The Orange County Superior Court in California has addressed this
issue through use of an integrated imaging system, which gives the public
direct access to court documents at a kiosk housed in the clerk's office.
The public is able to query court documents online.

29. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) provides an extensive
listing and linkages to court Web sites throughout the country at
www.ncsc.dni.us.

30. See the Police Officer's Internet Directory at www.officer.com. The
directory lists more than 1,500 law enforcement departments from around
the world.

31. The Web site address is www.fdle.state.fl.us.

32. Four systems developed by local practitioners to meet drug court
information management needs are the Jacksonville Drug Court
Management Information System (MIS), Florida; the Brooklyn Treatment
Court MIS, New York; the Washington, D.C., Pretrial Real-time
Information System Manager (PRISM); and the Washington/Baltimore
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Treatment Tracking
System in the District of Columbia and Maryland.

-------------------------------

Chapter 4

Benefits of Integration

The benefits of integration include responses to the driving forces
described in chapter 3, such as fulfilling federal and state mandates, using
technological advances, responding to public expectations, and providing
the courts and justice system agencies with the data they need to do their
jobs effectively and efficiently. Integration will yield the following
benefits:

o Cost savings.

o Improved performance and service delivery efficiencies.

o Elimination of redundant data.

o Improved quality of decisions.

o Improved public safety.

Cost Savings

Integration affords opportunities for substantial cost savings, both by
economies of scale among justice system agencies and by reduced
operating expenses within the courts. Integrated systems eliminate the
need for each justice agency to generate its own hard-copy records.
Because approximately 50 percent of court costs are attributed to paper
handling and storage, potential cost savings are substantial.[1] In addition,
staff resources allocated to the generation of duplicate records also will be
substantially reduced because data will be generated only once and
subsequent documents will be electronically generated. Further staff
savings will accrue as electronic filing reduces the need to staff the court
clerk counter. Clerks will no longer have to process by hand multiple hard
copies of filings. Documents will be automatically filed, processed,
copied, and forwarded to counsel, parties, judges, and other affected
agencies and individuals without postage or delivery expenses.

The cost benefits of integrated systems will vary greatly from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. Obviously, broader integration efforts will result in greater
cost savings and increased operating efficiency. Nevertheless, even small
amounts of integration can pay off relatively quickly and increase support
for other efforts. Although few jurisdictions have documented cost
benefits in terms of the dollars saved as a result of integrating systems or
components of systems, the jurisdictions discussed below provide
examples of cost savings. They include Harris County, Texas; Washington
State; and Brockton and Barnstable, Massachusetts. The final example,
from Los Angeles County, California, illustrates the high cost of not
implementing integrated system solutions.

Harris County, Texas

Harris County's integrated justice system has allowed local justice
agencies--including the sheriff, district attorney, district clerk, pretrial
services, courts, and law enforcement agencies--to expedite criminal case
filings, thus significantly reducing the time defendants are held in pretrial
custody. Criminal cases are filed electronically from any law enforcement
station in the county and reviewed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by an
assistant district attorney. During this process, offenders are processed
through the county automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS),
positive identification is established, and defendant data are collected and
entered into the system by the Pretrial Services Agency. If charges are
accepted, a criminal complaint is prepared. A clerk assigns a case number
and court location, indicates the initial bond amount according to a
schedule provided by the courts, and determines if the offender has other
pending charges. If other charges are pending, the new case is assigned to
a court that has pending cases, thus consolidating all cases in a single
court.

Thus, in Harris County, suspects make a first appearance in a court with
dispositive jurisdiction for both felony and misdemeanor cases within 24
hours of their arrest. The previously used case-filing method took up to 30
days to accomplish the same process. The average daily jail population has
been reduced by more than 400 inmates per day. At a current daily
incarceration cost of $45 per inmate, the integrated system saves the
county $18,000 per day, or $6.57 million per year.

Other benefits accrue because all information about the case and the
offender is collected at the beginning of the booking process and
immediately made available to all justice agencies participating in the
system. Courts are able to dispose of cases within days of arrest. For
example, 47 percent of all nontraffic misdemeanors are disposed of within
30 days of arrest. Cases previously were pending more than 120 days
before disposition occurred.[2] Systemwide integration in Harris County
has produced tremendous cost savings and an equally impressive increase
in the quality of justice dispensed.

Washington State

In Washington State, the Law Enforcement/Court Scheduling System
(LECS) was implemented to reduce officer overtime and to ensure officer
participation in court proceedings. The system requires both courts and 
local law enforcement agencies to coordinate officer and court schedules. 

LECS has been used by Pierce County District Court 1, the Washington
State Patrol, and the Pierce County Sheriff's Office since September 1991
to determine the best dates for law enforcement officers' court
appearances. When courts and local law enforcement agencies coordinate
their efforts, LECS has scheduled officers to appear in court on their
scheduled work days 97 percent of the time, thereby reducing overtime
costs by an estimated 68 percent. These reductions have translated into
annual savings of $2,000 per courtroom for misdemeanor cases.[3]
Although the scheduling system involves only minimal integration, the
savings are substantial. 

Integration need not include a range of justice functions to generate
significant cost savings. Videoconferencing, for example, provides
interactive electronic communication between two or more groups located
at separate sites. It is a cost-effective communication tool that can help
agencies avoid the weighty costs of providing legal representation and
probation services for inmates of jails far from the courthouse.
Sacramento
County, California, is one of many jurisdictions that currently uses this
technology to generate cost savings.

Brockton and Barnstable, Massachusetts

Major automation initiatives took place between 1994 and 1996 in the
Brockton and Barnstable District Courts in Massachusetts. The resulting
system in each is integrated by design and incorporates the case-
processing requirements of the clerk-magistrates' office and of the
probation department. It encompasses case preparation, docketing,
scheduling, form and notice generation, cashier processing, and
accounting and management reports. Abstracts of judgments, assignment
of counsel notices, criminal warrants, and orders of commitment, which
are required by the Registry of Motor Vehicles, the Public Defender's
Office, and various enforcement agencies and correctional institutions, are
automatic by-products of the courts' case processing.

The Public Defender's Office has generated significant cost savings as a
result of this project. The office requires the court to issue a multipart
form
for each indigent assignment. It provides these forms to the courts through
a contracted printer to cover the approximately 200,000 such assignments
made each year. Before the implementation of the new system, court
clerks were assigned the task of writing or typing each assignment,
obtaining a judge's signature, and then mailing the form to the appropriate
parties. Currently, the system automatically creates the completed form
from the complaint database in the two district courts. This new process
saves the Public Defender's Office $55,000 a year in printing costs. Due
to its success, this process is scheduled to be extended to the state's other
67 district courts.

Programming will be developed during Phase III of this project that will
allow the electronic transfer of assignment information. This enhancement
should save the Public Defender's Office an estimated $45,000 a year in
data and outsourcing services. The office stands to realize cost savings of
at least $100,000 a year because of integrated information systems.[4] The
cost benefits enjoyed by the Public Defender's Office are only one
measure of the cost-effectiveness of this integrated system. Cost benefits
are clearly being spread among the various users of this system.

Los Angeles County, California

Failure to integrate systems can lead to substantial expenditures. Recently,
Los Angeles County sheriff's officials "disclosed that they mistakenly
held an inmate serving time on a misdemeanor traffic violation for 9
months after he should have been released."[5] According to sheriff's
department documents, "The problem of over-detaining inmates has been
going on for years. In 1997, nearly 700 inmates were held in county jails
for an average of 6.9 days past their ordered release dates. . . . [T]he
department's risk management unit in 1997 paid nearly $200,000 to 548
inmates who were incarcerated for a total of 3,694 days beyond their
sentences--on the condition that they agree in writing not to sue."[6] In
response, then-Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block stated that his
department "is establishing a computer system that will link the Inmate
Reception Center with courthouses, eliminating the need to manually
process thousands of pieces of paperwork at the jails each night."[7]

The custodial errors described above are not unique to Los Angeles
County; they are committed throughout the country. Simply linking the
sheriff's department and the courts may result in significant cost savings.
Integration of systems may thus occur on a limited scale and still create
significant benefits. 

Improved Performance and Service Delivery

The goal of all court systems is to resolve cases "justly, promptly, and
economically."[8] Efforts to achieve this goal can be enhanced by the
development and implementation of integrated information systems that
(1) improve the quality of judicial decisionmaking by providing courts
with relevant data from all sources when needed; (2) schedule events and
provide data to facilitate case processing at every critical step in the
criminal justice process; and (3) reduce justice system costs for data
collection, entry, processing, and dissemination by allowing agencies to
share those costs and responsibilities.

Examples of efficiencies inherent in integrated systems are:

o Justice agencies have access to the same accurate data throughout the
legal process. Thus, if a conviction is expunged in a particular court, all
other court, law enforcement, prosecution, and correction records are
updated simultaneously so that all agencies within the system operate with
the same facts.

o Schedules of events and documents are automatically generated. When
an officer files an arrest report, counsel can be assigned, bail can be
arranged, and arraignment can be scheduled within a constitutionally
appropriate timeframe.

o Court dispositions are sent automatically to state repositories and are
tied to reported arrests, ensuring that criminal history information is
complete and accurate so that judges are able to make informed decisions
when evaluating a defendant's custody status or determining an
appropriate sentence. In addition, courts are able to comply with state and
federal reporting requirements that may be imposed on participants in
federal programs designed to improve the justice system. These federal
initiatives depend considerably on the quality of information generated at
the state and local levels.

Elimination of Redundant Data Entry

Historically, every criminal justice system agency, such as police,
prosecution, courts, pretrial services, public defender, and sheriff,
collected similar information on defendants. Automation further
institutionalized redundant data collection because few communities
automated together or recognized that other agencies might be customers
for or willing to share their data.

The more agencies entering data for a particular case, the greater the
likelihood that data will be entered inaccurately, incompletely, or
inconsistently. Less redundancy means greater consistency. More
important, integrated systems establish data standards across all agencies;
thus, the formats and controls to ensure consistent quality are built into the
system. In addition, integrated systems allow one agency to enter
information that automatically updates other agencies' information; this
ensures consistent information and eliminates data errors. Fewer data
errors mean fewer mistakes, such as the accidental release of a defendant.

Improved Quality of Decisions

Integration of information systems will result in the timely exchange of
data between relevant entities so that decisionmakers have the information
they need, when they need it, to make the best judgments they can.
Integrated systems will arm judges with necessary information when
making critical bond and sentencing decisions. Improved data interchange
will make it possible to capture information that may have been
unavailable in the past at critical stages of the process. For example, a
defendant's progress in making restitution payments will automatically be
available whenever that defendant comes to criminal court because the
agency monitoring restitution will update the defendant's payment activity
electronically. Similarly, court integration with treatment and service
providers will allow the timely exchange of critical information such as
attendance at court-ordered meetings, progress in treatment programs, and
compliance with community service obligations. In all cases, the quality
of
judicial decisions is improved.

Improved Public Safety

The most marketable benefit of integration is its promise to make the
community safer and the public feel more secure. An integrated system
will reduce, if not eliminate, instances in which courts release dangerous
criminals based on erroneous or insufficient information. It will also
ensure that sex offenders are not discharged without notice to law
enforcement and the public. It will also better guard against the sale of
guns to convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers. 

Endnotes

1. McMillan, James E., 1994, Judicial Electronic Document and Date
Interchange (JEDDI), A Road Map, Williamsburg, VA: National Center
for State Courts, Court Technology Laboratory.

2. Information regarding the Harris County Integrated Justice System was
provided by task force Chair Bob Wessels, Court Manager, County
Criminal Courts at Law, Harris County, Texas.

3. Information regarding the Washington Law Enforcement/Court
Scheduling System was provided by task force member Mary Campbell
McQueen, Washington State Court Administrator.

4. Information regarding the Brockton/Barnstable integration project was
provided by task force member Regina M. Dembowski, Director, Private
Attorney Payment Department, Committee for Public Counsel Services,
Boston, Massachusetts.

5. Daunt, Tina, 1998, "Man Held for 9 Extra Months Freed From Jail,"
Los Angeles Times, May 23: Metro section, B1, B3.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. American Bar Association Standards Relating to Court Organization
(1974); ABA Standard 100. 

-------------------------------

Chapter 5

Challenges to Integration

Even though integration of state or local information systems has many
benefits, those involved in implementation must overcome a number of 
legal, organizational and management, technical, and security barriers.

Legal Issues

Courts and justice agencies planning to integrate information systems
must face the following legal issues: (1) the impact of juvenile justice
reform, (2) varying state information dissemination and privacy policies, 
(3) integration's impact on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests,
and (4) appropriate timing and access to information. 

Juvenile Justice Reform

Pending federal juvenile justice recordkeeping legislation will require that
juveniles arrested for serious crimes be fingerprinted and photographed,
that juvenile justice records relating to serious offenses be maintained at
the state's central repository, and that records be handled in the same
manner as adult records for purposes of national reporting.[1] This is
fundamentally different from the way states have traditionally dealt with
juvenile records and may require substantial changes in records processing
at state and local levels. Further, state laws on the confidentiality and
privacy of juvenile records will have to be substantially rewritten, or new
privacy policies and standards will have to be developed, to balance
federal initiatives with privacy guarantees under state laws.

State Dissemination and Privacy Policies

All states have passed different laws defining privacy and confidentiality
of information, thus limiting the availability of certain records and the
state's ability to disseminate information.[2] For instance, some states can 
legally disseminate information over the Internet, whereas others cannot.

This lack of uniformity complicates the issue of interstate dissemination 
of information. With the passage of juvenile justice legislation and the 
increase in electronic data interchange, privacy issues arise whenever 
information flows from one state to another. Furthermore, information
deemed to be public record in court documents is often treated as
confidential by other justice agencies. Determinations will have to be
made about the nature of this information as the policy environment
changes and information becomes more accessible electronically. When
information is deemed to be confidential, system security measures will
have to ensure that such information is made available only to authorized
users. The use of integrated systems will undoubtedly lead to litigation
and
new laws regarding the dissemination of information. 

Interstate dissemination issues were addressed in the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact, which will facilitate interstate and
federal-state criminal history record exchanges for non-criminal justice
purposes as authorized by federal and state laws. Record exchanges would
be made via the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Interstate
Identification Index (III) system. The Compact stipulates that use of the
information obtained by an authorized user through the system for
non-criminal justice purposes will be governed by the laws of the
receiving state and that the receiving repository must screen record
responses and delete any information that cannot be released legally
within
that state.[3] The Compact drafters had to determine the state
dissemination laws that would govern proper exchange of criminal history
information. Such determinations will have to be made whenever criminal
justice information moves between states.

Freedom of Information Act Requests

The Federal Freedom of Information Act and state equivalents pose
similar legal problems. Courts and justice agencies will have to determine
data ownership and how to respond to FOIA requests. Courts or agencies
responsible for responding to such requests will have to ensure that public
access to court records does not compromise personal privacy interests.
Courts may be called upon to decide whether public domain data in the
court system becomes confidential data in an integrated system when
combined with nonpublic data or when contained in a traditionally
nonpublic format. Again, litigation and new laws will have to redefine the
difference between public and confidential information.[4]

Access to Information

As noted previously, rap sheets are used for governmental purposes.
Nevertheless, access to rap sheets and police reports is limited by state
laws. Statutes may limit the number of people with access to information
or the timing for acquiring information. For instance, state statutes may
prohibit court access to rap sheets and police reports after formal charges
have been filed and before trial.[5] Such laws have a direct impact on
court access to information. Integrated information systems will have to
take into account these legal restrictions. 

Similarly, state statutes govern rules of discovery between the prosecution
and defense. Again, integrated systems must be designed with an
awareness of discovery rules to ensure the legal exchange of justice
information. In addition, courts will be faced with decisions regarding
proper compliance with discovery requests. For example, state statutes
may allow the prosecutor 30 days to comply with discovery requests, but
courts may impose stricter timelines due to improved access to
information. This could lead to new statutory discovery rules.

Organizational and Management Issues

Another key challenge is how to organize, develop, fund, and maintain an
integrated system. Limited resources, resistance to change (especially
among elected officials), complexity of the justice process, fear of reduced
customer service, distrust of others, hesitancy to rely on other agencies'
technical staff, incompatibility of court and justice agency information
systems, and disagreements over determining data ownership pose
substantial organizational and management problems. Justice system
integration requires coordination across legislative, executive, and judicial
branch agency lines, and across federal, state, and local jurisdictional
boundaries. Because each participating agency has its own goals and
funding sources, integration requires nontraditional solutions to ensure
that
each agency's control over its domain and management of its own
resources are undiminished. 

For integration projects to be successful, both the management structure
and governing process must accommodate differing agency perspectives.
The structure should include discrete committees responsible for
executive, operational, and technical functions and may be facilitated by
statutory mandate. The process must include executive sponsorship and
allow for support from all stakeholders, including system agencies,
funding agencies, the business community, and the public. In addition, the
process must provide for ongoing program review and evaluation. At the
project development stage, executive, operational, and technical
committees should establish standards and protocols regarding ownership
and management of the system. Policy determinations should be made
regarding data ownership, access, system security, system administration
and control, and funding.

Determining who owns data after the data are entered in the system or
become accessible to system users is a key policy issue. One agency may
treat data as public domain, another as confidential, but the interests of
both must be addressed in policy development. Determination of data
ownership may affect whether and at what cost data can be packaged or
sold to public or private organizations or individuals, and who receives the
revenue generated from the sale. 

Similarly, responsibilities for system administration and control will have
to be determined and the roles of each participating agency defined. To
what extent should courts take a leadership role in future integration
efforts? The court is in a unique position to track information, update the
system with data as they become available, and thereby ensure that the
data entered are complete, timely, and accurate.

Finally, funding is critical to successful integration efforts. In jurisdictions
where courts and justice agencies have historically competed for the same
funds, courts may have to balance their own system development priorities
with those of other agencies in the integrated planning initiative to allow
for funding of enterprisewide solutions. Integration efforts require, at
minimum, a coordination, and perhaps a consolidation, of agency funding
efforts. Funding bodies must understand that money allocated to a
coordinated project will yield greater returns than resources splintered
among disconnected efforts. 

Technical Issues

Court and justice agency information system automation varies
dramatically across the country. Many courts have been automated for
years and have invested significant time and resources into developing
systems that meet their business needs, albeit with older technology.
Automation efforts tended to focus on improving internal agency
operation, with little consideration given to what courts and justice
agencies nationwide were doing. This approach has resulted in
incompatible, piecemeal systems that cannot communicate easily with one
another. 

Rapid advances in information and identification technologies and the
enormous potential for automation and integration that new technology
offers have provided courts with new opportunities to automate internal
systems and to link those systems to other agencies. However, with all the
progress that has been made, significant technical challenges to integration
still exist. Courts and justice agencies must:

o Determine what to do with legacy or existing systems and become
knowledgeable about new technologies for automation and integration.

o Incorporate technology and data standards into new system.

o Hire, train, and retain qualified information technology support staff.

o Understand systems development life cycles.

o Undertake comprehensive strategic information technology planning.

Legacy Systems

Many courts and justice agencies have invested extensively in information
systems that have evolved into valuable tools housing significant amounts
of data. In many cases, these systems were developed to respond to the
crucial daily business needs of single agencies. Consequently, agencies
across the country maintain a variety of information systems--located on
mainframes or PCs and that are either public domain or proprietary--with
applications developed inhouse or purchased from a vendor. Most systems
cannot communicate easily with one another.

Until recently, courts seeking to upgrade or integrate their automated
systems were forced to make one of two decisions: either upgrade and
maintain their legacy systems by purchasing the latest version of their
existing technology or purchase a new system developed on a different
platform and endure the painstaking process of data conversion. Both
options were expensive. If integrating with other justice agencies was the
goal, the only option for all potential participants was to agree to purchase
the same consolidated system. Fortunately, technological advances now
give agencies a number of ways to handle legacy systems and to integrate
with outside agencies. How best to accomplish both activities is still an
important issue. 

Courts can now upgrade their current systems, implement new systems, or
maintain historical data in legacy systems with links to new systems.
Advanced middleware applications--software that can "link" incompatible
systems by extracting data and converting the data to any system's
specifications--can link disparate and legacy systems. While this option
avoids wholesale conversion of historical data and new system startup
costs, those costs may be outweighed by the greater expense of
maintaining the legacy system. In addition, new Internet and World Wide
Web technologies offer justice agencies a variety of options given the
Internet's platform-independent nature. 

Consequently, whether incorporating legacy systems or moving to new
technology, courts are challenged to stay current with the latest advances
in information systems. With the rapid rate of change in the technological
environment, doing so requires highly trained staff and continuing
education.

Technology and Data Standards

A range of federal and state standards have been developed to ensure 
justice information-sharing capabilities. Private industry has developed
standards for many of the same purposes. They include standards for 
applications, data elements, document imaging, security and privacy, 
networks, and hardware. Courts are also beginning to develop standards,
such as those for judgment reporting, which were developed jointly by a
user group--the National Center for State Courts (NCSC)--and Associated
Credit Bureaus, Inc.[6] Courts and justice agencies must understand and
incorporate federal and state standards as they develop automated systems
and plan for integration; failure to do so endangers the benefits of
integrating the nation's justice information systems. 

Federal standards relating to III, National Incident-Based Reporting
System (NIBRS), the National Sex Offender Registry, and other major
national programs are shaping the design of information systems at state
and local levels. Although some of these standards may not apply directly
to courts, they affect courts that are integrating information systems with
justice agencies trying to comply with these standards. State justice
agencies pursuing information systems integration are also setting
standards related to the storage, maintenance, and exchange of justice
data.[7]

Notwithstanding the significant efforts of government and industry to
develop all manner of standards, additional standards governing
technology, data integrity, and interoperability are still needed to help
state
and local agencies integrate.[8] The lack of standards, particularly in
integration, furthers piecemeal approaches to technology implementation,
especially when agencies find their systems fail to communicate with
others.

Human Resources

Managing, maintaining, and supporting information technology requires
highly qualified staff. Many justice agencies have small or nonexistent
information technology departments or departments staffed by employees
who lack training. Information technology has become a major component
of nearly every business, and a department or staff with technical expertise
are essential for long-term planning, system support, and training of users
in advanced applications. 

As technology becomes more sophisticated and as the number of
automated justice agencies increases, managers and other decisionmakers
must plan and budget for a sufficient number of trained staff to support
and maintain those systems. Complex automated information systems
projects demand significant staff attention and support, and existing
systems require ongoing maintenance and administration. 

Recruiting and retaining individuals qualified in information technology is
as difficult for the justice community as it is for government. Job
descriptions in this area are often ill-defined, and government pay can
significantly limit an agency's ability to compete with the private sector in
attracting and retaining qualified staff. Information technology staff also
require continuing education because of rapid advances in technology, and
provisions must be made for their professional development.

Systems Development Life Cycle

Technology planning, acquisition, and implementation is not a one-time
activity. The process is cyclical in nature, following what is known as the
systems development life cycle, a process with several stages, including
planning, acquisition, development, and implementation. However, the
successful implementation of an automated system does not signal the end
of the planning process. Systems implementation signals the beginning of
a new phase of evaluation and planning, a phase that focuses on systems
maintenance, upgrade, enhancement, and replacement.

With rapid advances in hardware and software, new system functionality
is available almost immediately after a system is implemented. That is not
to suggest that an agency postpone acquisition in anticipation of the
"latest" system. It suggests that, after a system is installed, the planning
process continue to take new technology, functionality, and capability into
consideration. In addition, user expectations change quickly when new
systems are implemented, and the demands placed on the system escalate.

Moreover, new federal and state reporting programs--such as Megan's
Law, the Brady Law, and NIBRS--that affect law enforcement agencies
and the data they capture have come into effect. Courts and other justice
agencies must continue to track federal and state justice information
system initiatives and be aware of activities that may have an impact on
information systems and include them in the planning cycle.

Systems development life-cycle planning enhances the planning for
system upgrades or replacement and sets the stage for an orderly
progression of hardware and software technologies. Justice system
stakeholders and funding agencies must be educated about this process.
They must embrace and adhere to the system development life cycle to
maintain a successfully automated and integrated justice information
system. Funding bodies must be convinced to apply life-cycle costing
methods when allocating funds to account for downstream expenses
associated with operation, maintenance, training, and coordination of
change.

Strategic Information Technology Planning

Successfully automated and integrated information systems are preceded
and accompanied by continual, comprehensive, and strategic planning,
which allows system stakeholders to develop a roadmap for the future.

A good plan determines the range of user needs, identifies
automation/integration priorities, and considers existing and potential
federal and state technology and data standards. It focuses on the human
and funding resources required to support these systems. It embraces the
development life cycle. The plan addresses operational system
specifications, hardware and software standards, the needs of user
agencies, legacy systems, and the environment in which the automated
system will work. Planning ensures that all system stakeholders have their
needs addressed by the system. Strategic information technology planning
also includes a complete business process review to find better, more
effective, and more efficient ways of doing business.

Retaining qualified staff, understanding federal and state standards for
justice information systems, and developing strong executive leadership
will lay a foundation for initial and continued strategic planning, and for a
well-designed, functional integrated system. 

Security Issues

Security of information is important whether it protects an agency's
internal records management system or is part of a global information
network. Unwarranted access to data can breach the security and safety of
operations, hinder or derail sensitive investigations, or implicate innocent
people. The potential for security problems increases as agencies expand
their operations beyond stand-alone computers and begin linking
equipment to local and wide area networks and the Internet. Technology
can be a double-edged sword: It provides easy, intuitive, and flexible data
access to geographically remote users, but in doing so, it also exposes data
to unauthorized use.

Challenges also occur when individuals given access to data have the
ability to add, delete, modify, and print data from automated systems.
These new capabilities permit individuals to accidentally or purposely
alter data from its original state. Data could also be printed and given to
unauthorized individuals. These security problems traditionally have been
addressed by measures built into the physical environment housing the
computer systems, such as key access, retinal scanning, and, increasingly,
iris scanning, automated fingerprint identification systems, and live-scan
systems. These security precautions are meaningless, however, as
computer systems are decentralized and users are able to access systems
from remote locations. Software systems also have passwords and other
security protocols built in to identify users and to authorize their use of the
system in incremental steps, such as access, printing, adding, modifying,
and deleting data. These features are normally reserved for system
administrators. In addition, systems typically have transaction logs that
track all uses, including systems and sections accessed, and all actions
taken.

Security becomes even more important and difficult to address as users
begin to link their systems, share information, or authorize the initiation of
transactions within and between systems. When the arrest of an offender
triggers the creation of prosecutor and court records, a system link is
created that increases security risks.

Increased security risks give rise to such tools as firewalls and strong 
encryption programs. Firewalls employ a combination of software and
hardware to separate networks into parts so that critical information is
protected from outside attack. Encryption transforms messages into
mathematical formulas that are indecipherable to unauthorized users.
These measures protect systems from outside attack, but leave systems
vulnerable to internal breaches. 

System users must be educated about security so they do not unwittingly
allow unauthorized users to access the system. Unauthorized users often
gain access by learning passwords of authorized users. Unauthorized
users, or "hackers," access systems through "social engineering." They
gain the confidence of an insider to learn passwords and then use these
passwords to enter the system. Technology alone cannot protect systems
from outside invasion. Education and monitoring of internal operations is
critical to guard against internal threats posed by disgruntled employees
and external forces such as social engineering. 

Integration requires trust, shared objectives, common corporate values,
strong internal and external security controls, ongoing training, systems
monitoring, and an active program of quality assurance.

Endnotes

1. Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, S. 10, 105th Cong.,
1st Sess. Section 303 (1997).

2. In California, for example, a private entity in the business of selling
criminal background information to the public was not entitled to obtain a
compilation of data from a database maintained by the Municipal Courts
of Los Angeles County because it included the name, case number, date of
offense, charges filed, pending court dates, dispositions, birth date, and
ZIP Code of every person against whom criminal charges were pending in
those courts. After reviewing the applicable penal code statutes, the
appellate court determined that the right to privacy outweighed the
justification for disclosure of "a master record of compiled information."
See Westbrook v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 157.

3. Woodward, Paul L., SEARCH Group, Inc., 1999, National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact: Resource Materials, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics: 5. In October 1998, the Compact was approved by the Federal
Government as Title II of Pub. L. No. 105-251.

4. In Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press (1989) 489 U.S. 749, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disclosure of
the contents of an FBI rap sheet to a third party is prohibited by exemption
7(C) of FOIA. Exemption 7(C) of FOIA exempts the dissemination of
information that "could reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. section 552 (b)(7)(C)
(1982 ed., Supp. IV). The Court went on to say, "[A]lthough much
rap-sheet information is a matter of public record, the availability and
dissemination of the actual rap sheet to the public is limited" (Reporters
Committee: 751).

5. In California, for example, Penal Code section 1204.5 reads:

(a) In any criminal action, after the filing of any complaint or other
accusatory pleading and before a plea, finding, or verdict of guilty, no
judge shall read or consider any written report of any law enforcement
officer or witness to any offense, any information reflecting the arrest or
conviction record of a defendant, or any affidavit or representation of any
kind, verbal or written, without the defendant's consent given in open
court, except as provided in the rules of evidence applicable at trial, or as
provided in affidavits in connection with the issuance of a warrant or the
hearing of any law and motion matter, or in any application for an order
fixing or changing bail, or a petition for a writ.

(b) This section does not preclude a judge, who is not the preliminary
hearing or trial judge in the case, from considering any information about
the defendant for the purpose of that judge adopting a pretrial sentencing
position or approving or disapproving a guilty plea entered pursuant to
Section 1192.5, if all of the following occur:

(1) The defendant is represented by counsel, unless he or she expressly
waive[s] the right to counsel.

(2) Any information provided to the judge for either of those purposes is
also provided to the district attorney and to the defense counsel at least
five days prior to any hearing or conference held for the purpose of
considering a proposed guilty plea or proposed sentence.

6. These standards are on NCSC's World Wide Web site at
www.ncsc.dni.us.

7. In Kansas, for example, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) has
developed application, data, imaging, network, messaging, and hardware
standards and placed them on its World Wide Web site at
www.kbi.state.ks.us.

8. To improve the quality, reliability, and readability of criminal history
records exchanged among the states and between states and the Federal
Government, SEARCH convened the National Task Force on Increasing
the Utility of the Criminal History Record. The task force met over 2
years
and, among other things, developed a standardized rap sheet for use
among states. See SEARCH Group, Inc., 1995, Increasing the Utility of
the Criminal History Record: Report of the National Task Force, Criminal
Justice Information Policy series, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

-------------------------------

Chapter 6

National Task Force Findings

This project focuses on electronic information sharing among justice
system agencies from the perspective of the courts. In late 1997 and early
1998, SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), on
behalf of the National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration,
surveyed court and justice agency personnel throughout the country to
assess the level of integration in state and local justice agency information
systems. The results were presented to the task force, and based on its
review of the survey responses, the task force issued the following nine
findings. Also listed are the sections of this report that relate to each
finding.

Finding 1

The growing number of justice agencies pursuing integrated information
system projects cite benefits such as cost savings, increased operating
efficiencies, elimination of redundant data entry, improved
decisionmaking, and increased public safety as motivating factors.

See chapter 4, Benefits of Integration, pages 29-34.

Finding 2

Forces driving justice system integration include increased pressure and
desire to enhance service with existing resources, federal and state
requirements to share information, increased demand for information not
historically kept by court information systems, and technological
advances.

See chapter 1, Introduction, section on driving forces, page 5.

Finding 3

Barriers to integration include limited resources, resistance to change
(especially among elected officials), complexity of the justice process, fear
of reduced customer service, distrust of others, hesitancy to rely on other
agencies' technical staff, incompatibility of court and justice agency
information systems, and disagreements over determination of data
ownership. Courts lack practical resources, such as data standards, a peer
network, documentation of successful systems, and off-the-shelf solutions,
in developing integrated systems.

See chapter 5, Challenges to Integration, section on organizational and
management issues, pages 37 and 38; and chapter 2, The Courts,
subsection on integration, pages 12-15.

Finding 4

Strategic planning that involves policymakers, purse-string holders,
managers, and technical staff and that includes a governance structure and
process designed to resolve interagency differences and to leverage
multiagency funding requests is vital to the success of integration projects. 
Successful planning addresses technology acquisition, upgrading or
linking existing systems, system security, life-cycle funding, and
recruiting, training, and retaining highly qualified technical staff.

See chapter 2, The Courts, subsection on integration, specifically text on
recommendations, pages 12-15.

Finding 5

Successful integration projects focus on the day-to-day information-
sharing needs of courts and other justice agencies and generate statistical
and disposition information for federal and state agencies as by-products
of these systems.

See chapter 2, The Courts, subsection on integration, specifically text on
findings, pages 12-15.

Finding 6

States should facilitate local integration efforts by developing standards
that support information sharing. While states should develop the
framework for integration, local courts and justice agencies should
maintain the responsibility for developing operational integrated systems.

See chapter 2, The Courts, subsection on integration, specifically text on
findings, pages 12-15.

Finding 7

Information deemed part of the public record in court documents is often
considered confidential by other justice agencies. Determinations will
have to be made regarding the nature of information as the policy
environment changes and electronic interchange allows for more access to
information. When information is deemed confidential, system security
measures will have to ensure that such information is made available only
to authorized users.

See chapter 5, Challenges to Integration, section on legal issues,
subsection on state dissemination and privacy policies, pages 35 and 36.

Finding 8

Integration requires a coordination, and perhaps even a consolidation, of
agency funding efforts. Funding bodies must understand that money
allocated to a coordinated project will yield greater returns than resources
splintered among disconnected efforts. Furthermore, funding bodies must
be convinced to apply life-cycle costing methods when allocating funds to
account for downstream expenses associated with operation, maintenance,
training, and coordination of change.

See chapter 5, Challenges to Integration, section on organizational and
management issues, pages 37 and 38; section on technical issues, pages
38-42; and subsection on systems development life cycle, pages 41 and
42.

Finding 9

Information-sharing standards need to be identified and developed to
facilitate integration efforts. These standards should address applications,
data elements, document imaging, security and privacy, networks, and
hardware.

See chapter 5, Challenges to Integration, section on technical issues,
subsection on technology and data standards, pages 40 and 41.

-------------------------------

Chapter 7

National Task Force Recommended Strategies 

The development and implementation of integrated justice information
systems should be a top priority for all state and local judicial agencies in
the coming years. To facilitate the development of integrated systems, the
task force recommends the adoption of a coordinated strategy among
national, state, and local judicial and justice system agencies to include the
following four strategies:

o Establish the necessary organizational structures and processes to ensure
effective strategic planning that is responsive to the requirements of all
stakeholders.

o Develop, document, and disseminate standards to enable federal, state,
and local justice agencies to share data regardless of the underlying
technology.

o Undertake funding initiatives and incentives to encourage agencies to
transfer proven technology and to design and test new solutions.

o Develop practical resources for courts to help them implement the
systems they need, including establishment of a peer network, national
clearinghouse, technical assistance, education and training, and hands-on
guides.

Organization for Integration 

Successful integration requires the development and adoption of a
strategic planning process, a commitment to identify and do what is
necessary to recruit and retain highly qualified technical staff, and an
examination of the approaches to acquiring information technology,
including life-cycle planning, leasing, outsourcing, use of consultants,
cross-checking audits, and assessments. Other keys to successful
integration include documentation, education and training, and evaluation.

A first step toward integration is to establish appropriate governance
bodies, such as governing policy boards, steering committees, or advisory
councils, that can provide vision, strategy, policy direction, and
implementation oversight covering acquisitions, major projects, and
studies. The policy board should include representatives from all affected
federal, state, regional, and local entities, including the legislature or local
funding agencies. The board should also include the state or local chief
information officer (CIO) where the position exists. 

Each project needs an executive sponsor to work with the legislature,
budget officials, and agency heads, to deal with priorities and funding
issues and to remove barriers encountered by implementation teams. The
articulation of a vision and systemwide support for that vision are critical
components of successful integration efforts.

Strong leadership is necessary to secure the cooperation and commitment
of all key system agencies and actors, including representatives of the
courts, prosecutor's office, law enforcement agencies, public defender's 
office, corrections, probation/parole agencies, private bar, and social 
services agencies. In addition, state and local legal authority for
integration may be needed to get key players to the table and to allow
cross-jurisdictional information sharing and cooperative funding
arrangements. 

State involvement should extend beyond legal authorization for integrated
systems. States should be responsible for developing strategic plans,
system architectures, and standards for statewide implementation. States
should also work to ensure consistency among local agencies' efforts to
develop standards that address their specific information system
objectives. 

Standards

Development of standards to ensure the collection, transmission, and
exchange of data between courts and the bar, justice agencies, and
treatment and service providers should be a high priority of national and
state court and justice system management organizations. Such standards
would apply to applications, data elements, document imaging, security
and privacy, networks, and hardware. In addition, communications
protocols--such as TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol), frame relay, Internet/intranet standards, and universal
transaction format standards like XML (Extensible Markup Language)
that allow users to design the system the way they like--should be
researched to determine their applicability to the development of
integrated information systems. 

Funding

Justice agencies face significant challenges to funding integrated
information systems. Agencies have significant investments in legacy
systems that may have limited long-term use. Given the explosive growth
and accelerated evolution of technology, policymakers, legislators, and
other purse-string holders must adjust their historic approaches to funding. 

National initiatives and incentives to encourage courts to transfer
technology and to test innovative solutions are needed. National and state
funding of research to develop standards is also needed. Detailed data on
integrated system cost benefits should be developed to justify funding
agencies' investments in integrated systems.

As the life cycle of systems continues to shorten, the procurement,
maintenance, and upgrade costs of integrated information systems become
ongoing, rather than periodic, obligations of funding agencies. These costs
require the exploration of creative funding alternatives, such as
outsourcing. Court and justice agency efforts to secure funding must be
coordinated to yield the greatest returns.

Practical Resources 

Practical resources are needed to aid courts in developing integrated
information systems. They should include:

o A national clearinghouse and information exchange process to share
information and resources.

o Technical assistance resources to help courts design, develop, and
manage integrated systems, including assistance in strategic planning. 

o A peer network, so courts can learn from the experience of others. 

o A court integration planning guide to facilitate the development of
comparable systems from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

o Documented best practices in a set of case studies that would highlight
the experiences of successful systems.

o Training for users of integrated systems to maximize benefits and
ensure user satisfaction.

-------------------------------

Appendix A

Task Force Participants

Bob Wessels, Chair 
Court Manager, County Criminal Courts at Law, Harris County, Texas

Mike Benzen
State Chief Information Officer
Missouri Office of Information Technology

Edward S. Berberian, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Marin County District Attorney's Office, California

Hon. Thomas M. Cecil
Chair, Court Technology Committee, California Judicial Council
Presiding Judge, Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts

Regina M. Dembowski
Director, Private Attorney Payment Department
Committee for Public Counsel Services, Massachusetts

Geoff Gallas
Court Consultant, Aequitas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Barry Mahoney
President, Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado

Hon. Stephen A. Marcus
Presiding Judge, Division 42 Drug Court, Los Angeles, California

Mary Campbell McQueen
State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Washington

Hon. William D. Missouri
Administrative Judge for the Seventh Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland

Hon. James F. Morrison
Representative, Kansas House of Representatives

James R. Neuhard
Director, State Appellate Defender's Office, Michigan

Dennis E. Nowicki
Chief of Police
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, North Carolina

Kenneth R. Palmer
State Courts Administrator, Florida State Courts System

George B. Riggin, Jr.
State Court Administrator, Maryland

Robert T. Roper
Director, Colorado Judicial Information System

Charles Sexson
Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Kansas Bureau of Investigation

Arthur Sims
Executive Officer, Riverside County Consolidated Courts, California

Walter F. Smith
Trial Court Administrator, 12th Judicial Circuit, Florida

Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.
Sheriff, Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Colorado

Lawrence P. Webster[1]
Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, Delaware
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Timothy J. Murray
Director, Planning and Policy Division

Scott H. Kelberg
Grant Specialist
National Center for State Courts

James D. Thomas
Vice President, Court Services Division 

Laura Klaversma
Client Services Manager, Court Services Division

Stephanie Rondenell[2]
Senior Court Management Consultant

SEARCH

Francis L. Bremson
Project Manager

Amir Holmes
Program Coordinator

Gary R. Cooper
Executive Director

David J. Roberts
Deputy Executive Director

Owen M. Greenspan
Criminal Justice Information Services Specialist

Kelly J. Harris
Manager, Technical Assistance Services

Participants' Biographies

Mike Benzen

Mr. Mike Benzen is Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the state of
Missouri and works in the Missouri Office of Information Technology. As
CIO, Mr. Benzen is responsible for statewide strategic planning,
monitoring information technology (IT) procurement, and directing the
adoption of statewide IT policy and standards. Current initiatives include
year 2000 (Y2K) compliance, electronic commerce, public data access,
and data center consolidations. Before his appointment as CIO, Mr.
Benzen was employed by the Missouri Department of Mental Health for
25 years, serving as Director of Information Technology for 4 years.

Mr. Benzen is President of the National Association of State Information
Resource Executives (NASIRE) and participates on national committees
regarding Y2K initiatives and IT workforce issues. Mr. Benzen has a
master's degree in public administration from the University of Missouri.
He is currently an adjunct faculty member at William Woods University,
teaching computer science in the master of business administration
program.

Edward S. Berberian, Jr.

Mr. Edward S. Berberian, Jr., has worked in the Marin County
(California) District Attorney's Office since 1976 and is Assistant District
Attorney in charge of the criminal division, a responsibility he assumed in
August 1998. Attorneys and investigators under his supervision handle all
criminal, consumer, and insurance fraud prosecutions, and any special
operation investigations the office undertakes.

During the past 22 years, Mr. Berberian has been assigned to try all types
of criminal prosecutions, including special-circumstance murder cases. In
1998, he was involved in the only trial in the past 35 years in California
that considered whether an inmate was sane for the purpose of execution.
In addition to his trial caseload, Mr. Berberian has overseen the training of
new deputies in his office, participated in instructional programs for Marin
County law enforcement agencies, and taught regularly at Marin County
Community College.

In 1987, Mr. Berberian was presented with the Outstanding Prosecutor
Award for Marin County. In 1990, he received a Meritorious Service
Award from the Marin County District Attorney. In 1991, he was
nominated for the California District Attorneys Association's Outstanding
Prosecutor of the Year Award and received the Outstanding Trial Attorney
Award (Region 1) in 1991 from the Association of Government Attorneys
in Capital Litigation.

He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona and his
law degree from the University of San Francisco.

Hon. Thomas M. Cecil

Judge Thomas M. Cecil has served on the Sacramento Superior and
Municipal Courts since March 1989 and is currently Presiding Judge.
During his tenure on the bench, he has presided over the criminal
departments in the municipal and superior courts. Judge Cecil has
conducted felony trials for the past 4 years, the vast majority of which
involved murder offenses.

For 6 years before his appointment to the bench, Judge Cecil served as
Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of the California Department of
Consumer Affairs. His responsibilities included lobbying the California
legislature on issues affecting consumers, and overseeing the department's
press relations, consumer education, and legal staff. As an attorney, Judge
Cecil practiced in bankruptcy, corporate, family, and political law, and
general business litigation. He also served as Special Counsel to the Joint
Select Committee on Municipal Liability Insurance (1976) with the
California legislature.

Judge Cecil previously served as a member and Chair of the Pacific Bell
Telecommunications Consumer Advisory Panel (1988-1991). He is now a
member and current Chair of the California Judicial Council's Advisory
Committee on Court Technology.

Regina M. Dembowski

Ms. Regina M. Dembowski has served as Director of the Private Attorney
and Indigent Court Cost Payment Department (a division of the
Committee for Public Counsel Services) since 1984. The department
records more than 185,000 private attorney assignments per year and
processes more than 225,000 private attorney bills and more than 15,000
court cost vendor bills annually in Massachusetts. The department works
with more than 5,000 vendors throughout the state.

Ms. Dembowski's recent accomplishments include spearheading the
installation of the "Telebill" payment system, which enables private
attorneys to file their bills by phone. This application has resulted in the
direct processing of more than 70 percent of bills by vendors into
computer files. The system has resulted in quicker, more accurate
payments and an extreme reduction in paperflow and subsequent storage
needs. In addition, the department was able to reduce its operational staff
by six full-time employees in less than 2 years, primarily through attrition. 

Ms. Dembowski is also responsible for implementing the online transfer
of data files to the state Comptroller's Office, replacing a manual data
entry system. She is currently working on phase three of the payment
automation plan, called "PC Bill."

Geoff Gallas

Dr. Geoff Gallas is a Principal of Aequitas, an automation, training, and
management consulting company to courts, justice agencies, and
technology partners. He previously served as Executive Administrator in
the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, working under direction of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the state court administrator, and three
presiding and administrative judges.

In that position, he was responsible for the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas, Municipal Court, and Traffic Court from December 1991 to April
1996. During a 6-year period in which the district adhered to a
zero-growth budget, Dr. Gallas initiated projects to cope with zero growth,
including lease and maintenance contract negotiations to achieve savings
of $3 million a year, revenue enhancements to generate $4.2 million a
year, technology and training initiatives to accommodate staff reductions
and increase productivity, and master space planning to anticipate future
requirements. Under his direction, the city and the district designed,
constructed, and occupied the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Center (CJC)
with 64 judicial officers and 900 judicial and executive branch staff. The
CJC opening brought a state-of-the-art criminal justice information system
online, integrating telecommunications, image, voice, and data within a
"smart" building. Other important projects included a multiyear civil
caseflow reduction program to bring Philadelphia in compliance with
American Bar Association standards, and reorganization of the Traffic
Court to bring in more than $95 million in revenue for the city and the
state over a 10-year period. 

Dr. Gallas previously served as Vice President of Research and Technical
Services for the National Center for State Courts, and as Dean of the Court
Executive Development Program of the Institute for Court Management
(ICM) for more than 10 years. Dr. Gallas, who is widely published, has a
bachelor's degree from Wesleyan University, master's degrees from
Harvard University and the University of Southern California (USC), and
a doctorate from USC. He is also an ICM Fellow.

Barry Mahoney

Dr. Barry Mahoney is President of the Justice Management Institute
(JMI), a Denver-based nonprofit organization engaged in education,
research, and technical assistance focused on the operations of courts and
other organizations involved in the administration of justice. He is
responsible for management and program development for JMI and for
directing JMI projects on reduction of litigation cost and delay, caseflow
management, trial management, sentencing policy, drug courts, and
strategic planning.

His prior professional work includes extensive experience in litigation as
an Assistant Attorney General for the state of New York (1962-1967) and
as a lawyer in private practice in New York City (1967-1971). From 1971
to 1973, he was First Assistant Counsel for the New York State Division
of Criminal Justice Services. From 1973 to 1978, Dr. Mahoney was with
the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), where he was the Associate
Director responsible for all of NCSC's national-scope research and
technical assistance programs. In 1978-1979 and 1982-1983, Dr. Mahoney
was Director of the London office of the Vera Institute of Justice. From
1979 to 1982 and 1983 to 1992, he was with the NCSC's Institute for
Court Management, where he led a number of research and technical
assistance projects, including those focusing on court delay reduction,
intermediate sanctions, and fine use and collection.

Hon. Stephen A. Marcus

Judge Stephen A. Marcus is Presiding Judge for the first drug court in Los
Angeles County, California. He directly supervised the planning and
implementation of the drug court, which is a multiagency criminal justice
project. Judge Marcus serves as Chair of the Drug Court Steering
Committee and is working on expanding the drug court to two additional
court sites, obtaining funding for it and its ancillary services, conducting
numerous drug court workshops, and testifying before legislative bodies.
In addition to his drug court calendar, Judge Marcus conducts jury trials
and preliminary hearings.

Previously, Judge Marcus worked on high-volume arraignment and trial
court cases in the Hollywood branch courthouse and handled felony
preliminary hearings in the San Fernando courthouse, including 30
homicides. Before that, he served as prosecutor with the Los Angeles
District Attor-ney's Office for 13 years. Judge Marcus is President of the
California Association of Drug Court Professionals, the first statewide
organization of drug court judges and professionals in California. He also
serves on the board of directors of the California Judges Association's
executive board.

Mary Campbell McQueen

Ms. Mary Campbell McQueen, State Court Administrator for the Supreme
Court of Washington, took office on April 10, 1987. She served as
Director of Judicial Services within the state's Office of the Administrator
for the Courts from 1979 to 1987.

Ms. McQueen has served as Court Planning Officer, District of Columbia
Courts; Planning Coordinator, Kentucky Department of Justice; Manager,
Evaluation Unit, Kentucky Department of Corrections; member, National
Center for State Courts (NCSC) board of directors; President, Conference
of State Court Administrators (1995-1996); member, American Bar
Association (ABA), Judicial Administration Division (Lawyers
Conference); member, Washington State Bar Association; Chair, Court
Management Council; member, Judicial Information Systems Committee;
and member, Board for Trial Court Education and Ethics Advisory
Committee. Ms. McQueen was awarded the ABA/NCSC Jury Standards
Award in 1989 and the NCSC's Distinguished Service Award in 1991. 

Ms. McQueen received her bachelor of arts degree from the University of
Georgia and law degree from the Seattle University Law School.

Hon. William D. Missouri

Judge William D. Missouri serves as Administrative Judge for the Seventh
Judicial Circuit, Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland.
Before that, he served as Associate Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit
(1988-1992); Administrative Judge, Fifth District Court (1987-1988); and
Associate Judge, Fifth District Court (1985-1987). Judge Missouri serves
as a member of committees on child support enforcement, judicial
compensation, and circuit court differentiated case management. Judge
Missouri served on the Judicial Institute of Maryland's board of directors
from 1991 to 1995 and currently serves as a faculty member on new trial
judge orientation within the institute.

Hon. James F. Morrison

Rep. James F. Morrison was first elected to the Kansas House of
Representatives in 1992 and was subsequently reelected in 1994 and 1996.
He was the only freshman in the Kansas legislature to hold a Vice Chair of
a joint committee--the Joint Committee on Computers and
Telecommunications. Since 1994, Rep. Morrison has been the Vice Chair
and Chair of the Joint Committee on Computers and Telecommunications
and Vice Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. He is a
member of the committees on education and health care fund oversight
stabilization. Rep. Morrison also is the House appointee to the Kansas
Information Resources Council and Chair of the National Conference of
State Legislatures' Communications and Information Policy Committee.

Rep. Morrison attended the University of Kansas (1960-1964), majoring
in comparative biochemistry and physiology. He graduated from the
Southern College of Optometry in Memphis, Tennessee, with bachelor of
science and doctor of optometry degrees. After leaving Memphis in 1967,
he entered into an optometric partnership in Garden City, Kansas. In April
1969, he returned to his hometown of Colby, Kansas, and began his
practice.

James R. Neuhard

Mr. James R. Neuhard is Director of the State Appellate Defender's Office
in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Neuhard is the former Chair and special advisor
to the American Bar Association (ABA) Special Committee on Funding
the Justice System. In this position, he was charged with the ABA's
highest priority--to investigate and attack the systemwide crisis in funding
for all aspects of the justice system. Mr. Neuhard was also a member of
the State Justice Initiatives Committee, which was formed to implement
solutions to the crisis.

Mr. Neuhard serves as President of the National Equal Justice Library and
is past President of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association
(NLADA). He is a member of the ABA's Special Committee on the
Constitution in a Free Society, which published the report Criminal Justice
in Crisis. From 1985 to 1992 and again in 1995, Mr. Neuhard served as
Chair of the ABA's Bar Information Project, which provides free aid to
state and local courts and bar associations seeking to improve their
assigned counsel or indigent defense delivery systems.

Mr. Neuhard has served in many other capacities, including Secretary and
past President of Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan; Presidential
Emissary of the ABA; co-Chair of the Michigan Appellate Bench-Bar
Conference; and member of the board of directors, NLADA Insurance
Corporation.

Dennis E. Nowicki

Mr. Dennis E. Nowicki is Chief of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 
Department in North Carolina, leading a department of more than 1,750
members. He has worked in policing for 33 years. He was the Executive
Director of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) for
2 years and Chief of the Joliet (Illinois) Police Department for 3 years. He
began his policing career with the Chicago Police Department, where he
spent 25 years and achieved the rank of Deputy Superintendent.

His varied career in Chicago included such assignments as beat patrol 
officer, area task force member, district tactical officer, burglary detective,
patrol sergeant, robbery unit sergeant, property crimes unit lieutenant, and
administrative aide to deputy superintendents in the bureaus of technical
services, investigative services, and operational services. He also served as
Commander of the youth division. As Deputy Superintendent for the
Bureau of Administrative Services for 6 years, Chief Nowicki
administered nine divisions: internal affairs, auditing and internal control,
personnel, training, data systems, finance, research and development,
professional counseling, and management and labor affairs.

As the Chief of the Joliet Police Department, he led a department of 191
sworn and 43 civilian employees. He developed innovative ways to
implement community problem-oriented policing (CPOP) throughout the
department. Gov. Jim Edgar appointed him Executive Director of the
ICJIA in early 1992. The ICJIA is a state agency responsible for criminal
justice research, planning, and information systems development, has a
staff of 100, and is governed by a 15-member board that includes top
criminal justice officials at the state, county, and municipal levels, as well
as private citizens.

He was appointed Chief of the newly consolidated Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Police Department in April 1994 and has since focused on leading his
department in applying CPOP in all its operations. The department is
currently undergoing a major reengineering effort to redesign its operating
systems as it upgrades its information technology. The department is
recognized as one of the most advanced CPOP agencies in the country.

Chief Nowicki has a bachelor's degree in personnel management from
Northwestern University and a master of science degree in management of
public services from DePaul University. He has taught graduate courses in
public policy development at DePaul University and public-sector labor
relations at Roosevelt University.

Kenneth R. Palmer

Florida State Courts Administrator Kenneth R. Palmer assumed office on
December 26, 1984, having served for 5 years as Deputy State Courts
Administrator. Previously, he worked in the criminal justice system for 14
years, 10 of which were in the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
Mr. Palmer has attended the Court Executive Development Program of the
Institute for Court Management and has co-authored "The Successful
Meeting Master Guide for Business and Professional People," published in
the Florida State University Law Review and the American Bar
Association Journal. Mr. Palmer chairs Florida's Criminal and Juvenile
Justice Information Systems Council and is a member of the board of
directors of the Conference of State Court Administrators. He serves on
the national advisory boards for Judges Pro Tem, Telephone
Interpretation, and Integration of Court and Criminal Justice Information
Systems.

Mr. Palmer earned bachelor's and master's degrees from Florida State
University.

George B. Riggin, Jr.

Mr. George B. Riggin, Jr., has served as the State Court Administrator for
the state of Maryland since May 9, 1990. Previously, he was involved in a
private legal practice (1988-1990), served as the Assignment
Commissioner for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (1974-1988), and
was Founder and Executive Director of Tai Pan Import Corporation
(1980-1984).

Mr. Riggin is former Chair of the Maryland State Judicial EDP Policy
Committee, State Task Force on Arrest to Disposition Reporting,
Baltimore Circuit Court Civil Automation Committee, and the Baltimore
Circuit Court Computer Users Group. He was a member of the Governor's
Criminal Justice Systems Advisory Board, the Mayor's Criminal Justice
Information System User Group, One-trial/One-day Jury System
Development Group, and the Maryland State Judicial Statistics Task
Force. Mr. Riggin is Chair of the Operations and Management Committee
and Commission to Study the Future of Maryland Courts, and is co-Chair
of the Joint Technology Committee of the Conference of State Court
Administrators and National Association for Court Management.

Mr. Riggin received a bachelor of arts degree from the University of
Maryland and a law degree from the University of Maryland School of
Law.

Robert T. Roper

Dr. Robert T. Roper is Director of Information Services and Data
Processing for the Colorado Judicial Branch and currently manages the
implementation of the Colorado Judicial Branch's statewide automated
case tracking, financial, and probation information system. He is one of
the leaders in the effort to integrate criminal justice information in
Colorado, which recently received legislative approval to fund the
statewide project.

Dr. Roper is also a national court management consultant and trainer and a
member of the board of directors for the Justice Management Institute. In
addition, he has worked as a consultant for the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC) in evaluation research and weighted caseload studies. As a
private consultant, Dr. Roper is actively involved in consulting and
training activities in trial courts in the United States and internationally.
These activities involve information systems design, court database access
policies, future trends in court technology, project and caseflow
management, introduction to personal computers for court personnel,
statistics and graphics in courts, methods of coping with technological
change, and court evaluation projects.

Dr. Roper was a Senior Staff Associate at the NCSC's Institute for Court
Management (ICM) between 1988 and 1992. He designed the NCSC/ICM
technology curriculum programs for courts and directed Phase III of
ICM's Court Executive Development Program. Dr. Roper also designed
and taught a course on conducting court evaluation projects.

Before joining ICM in Denver, Dr. Roper was a Senior Staff Associate at
NCSC in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he directed the Court Statistics
and Information Management Project between 1985 and 1988.

Charles Sexson

Mr. Charles Sexson, Assistant Director, Kansas Bureau of Investigation,
currently administers the bureau's Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) division, which is the state's central repository for adult and
juvenile offender information. CJIS programs include the Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), Adult Records Section, Juvenile
Justice Information System, Kansas Incident-Based Reporting System,
Offender Registration Program, Missing Persons Clearinghouse, and the
Automated Statewide Telecommunications and Records Access System
(ASTRA).

He previously worked as Special Agent Supervisor of the
Intelligence/Organized Crime Unit and Special Agent in Charge of the
Narcotics Division.

Mr. Sexson serves as a member of the advisory board of the Kansas
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, as a member of the Kansas
S.T.O.P. Violence Against Women and Children Committee, and as
Kansas' representative to the Membership Group of SEARCH, The
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.

Mr. Sexson has a master's degree in administration from Wichita State
University and is a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Academy.

Arthur Sims

Since February 1994, Arthur Sims has served as Executive Officer and
Clerk for the Riverside County (California) Consolidated/Coordinated
Superior and Municipal Courts. Mr. Sims directs the provision of all
administrative and ministerial support to the consolidated/coordinated
benches, which consist of 68 judicial officers and a staff of 694
employees. Mr. Sims is a former member of the board of directors of the
National Association for Court Management and is a former President of
both the California Association for Superior Court Administration and the
Southern California Trial Court Administrators Association. He is
currently a member of the Metropolitan Superior Courts Association,
comprising judges and court administrators of the nine largest Superior
Courts of California. 

Mr. Sims serves on several California Judicial Council committees,
including the Advisory Committee on Trial Court Staffing, Court
Administrators Standing Advisory Committee Court, Court Technology
Task Force, Evaluation and Appeals Committee of the State Trial Court
Budgeting Commission, Judicial Administration Institute of California,
and Continuing Judicial Education and Research.

Walter F. Smith

Since July 1997, Walter F. Smith has served as Trial Court Administrator
for the 12th Judicial Circuit (De Soto, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties) in
Florida. He is responsible for all nonjudicial activities of the court in the
three counties that make up the 12th Judicial Circuit. These activities
include planning organization needs, budgeting for the circuit with the
state and three counties, monitoring court caseloads, determining
personnel needs and space allocations, and overseeing all court purchases.
In addition, Mr. Smith is responsible for working with the judiciary in
planning the future of the court in the 12th Judicial Circuit.

Previously, Mr. Smith was the Criminal Justice Planning Coordinator with
the Sarasota County Government (1995-1997), Deputy Director for the
Pretrial Services Resource Center (1988-1995), and Project Director of the
center's State Court Processing Statistics Program (1983-1995).

Mr. Smith received master of arts and bachelor of arts degrees in
sociology from the University of Florida and an administrative arts degree
in journalism from Miami Dade North Community College.

Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.

Sheriff Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr., of the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office in
Colorado, began his career with the Littleton (Colorado) Police
Department as a Police Officer/Dispatcher in March 1962. In February
1966, he began an active duty commitment with the U.S. Army, which
was completed in July 1969. He returned to the Littleton Police
Department, where he worked his way up to the rank of Lieutenant in
Charge of the Patrol Division.

In January 1979, he accepted the position of Patrol Captain with the
Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office. He later directed the Criminal
Investigation Division, was appointed Undersheriff in 1983, and became
Sheriff in June 1983 when the incumbent died. He was elected Sheriff in
his own right in November 1984 and was subsequently reelected three
times.

Sheriff Sullivan is very involved in professional and community activities.
He is a member of the President's National Commission on Crime
Prevention and Control; a member of the National Sheriffs' Association's
(NSA's) Executive Committee and board of directors and Chair of its Law
and Legislative Committee; a member of the Commission for the
Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies; a member of the National
Law Enforcement and Correction Technology Advisory Board and the
Littleton Breakfast Optimist Club; and Chair of Citizens Against
Legalizing Marijuana.

He also has chaired the search committee for the Director of the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation; was a member of the Denver Regional Council of
Governments' Prison Diagnostic Unit Site Selection Committee; is former
President of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, Inc., and past Chair of its
Legislative Committee; is past Chair of the NSA's Uniform Crime
Reporting Committee; and is a member of the Governor's Cabinet
Selection Committee for Position of Executive Director for the
Department of Corrections.

Lawrence P. Webster

Mr. Lawrence P. Webster is Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts for the state of Delaware. He previously served as Executive
Director of Court Technology Programs at the National Center for State
Courts, where he was responsible for national-scope technology research
and information exchange. He was also involved in technology education
and consulting.

He has delivered more than 60 seminars, presentations, and courses related
to technology in the justice system. He was the principal author of
Automating Court Systems and has prepared or assisted with more than 30
other books, articles, and papers. Mr. Webster also served as Director of
Data Processing for the Utah courts, Manager of Operations and
Development for the Colorado District Attorney's Council, and Systems
Manager for the U.S. Attorney in Denver, Colorado, and the District
Attorney in Golden, Colorado. He holds a master's degree in judicial
administration from the University of Denver College of Law, is a Fellow
of the Institute for Court Management (ICM), and is a graduate of ICM's
Court Technology Certificate Program.

Bob Wessels

Mr. Bob Wessels is Court Manager for the 15 County Criminal Courts at
Law in Harris County, Texas, a position he has held since 1976. He
received his bachelor of business administration degree from Sam
Houston State University and his master of arts degree from the University
of Houston at Clear Lake, and he is a Fellow of the Institute for Court
Management (ICM). He has taught court management, judicial
administration, and management information systems as an Adjunct
Professor at the University of Houston at Clear Lake, Sam Houston State
University, ICM, and the Texas College for New Judges.

In his current capacity, Mr. Wessels is responsible for caseflow
management, budget, legislative and governmental liaison, management
information systems, court support services, policy development, and
evaluation. He currently serves as a member of the Judicial Committee on
Information Technology recently established by the Texas Legislature and
appointed by the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

Mr. Wessels is a member of the National Association for Court
Management (NACM), currently serving as the association's immediate
past President. He is a member of the board of directors of the National
Center for State Courts and the Justice Management Institute. He is a
member of the Conference of State Court Administrators
(COSCA)/NACM Joint Technology Committee, the COSCA Statistics
Committee, and numerous other state and local committees in criminal
justice administration, policy, and corrections.

Endnotes

1. Mr. Webster was involved in the court task force effort first as National
Center for State Courts staff, then as a task force member when he moved
to his current state position.

2. Ms. Rondenell has since left the National Center for State Courts.

-------------------------------

Appendix B

Criminal Justice System Caseflow

The sequence of the events in the criminal justice system is presented in
figure 1. This caseflow graphic can be found on the World Wide Web
page of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ), at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjsflowbw.pdf. The following
narrative describes each element of the sequence.

Private Sector Initiates the Response to Crime

The first response may come from individuals, families, neighborhood
associations, businesses, industry, agriculture organizations, educational
institutions, the media, or other private services.

It involves crime prevention and participation in the criminal justice
process once a crime has been committed. Private crime prevention is
more than providing private security or installing burglar alarms or
participating in neighborhood watch groups. It also includes a
commitment to stop criminal behavior by not engaging in it or condoning
it when it is committed by others. 

Citizens participate directly in the criminal justice process by reporting
crime to the police, by being a reliable participant (for example, a witness
or a juror) in a criminal proceeding, and by accepting the disposition of
the system as just or reasonable. As voters and taxpayers, citizens also
participate in criminal justice through the policymaking process, which
affects how the criminal justice process operates, the resources available to
it, and its goals and objectives. At every stage of the process--from the
original formulation of objectives to the decision about where to locate
jails and prisons to the reintegration of inmates into society--the private
sector has a role to play. Without its involvement, the criminal justice
process cannot serve the citizens it is intended to protect. 

Response to Crime and Public Safety Involves Many Agencies and
Services

Many services needed to prevent crime and make neighborhoods safe are
supplied by noncriminal justice agencies, including agencies whose
primary concern is public health, education, welfare, public works, and
housing. Individual citizens and public- and private-sector organizations
have joined with criminal justice agencies to prevent crime and make
neighborhoods safe.

Criminal Cases Are Brought by the Government Through the Criminal 
Justice System

Offenders are apprehended, tried, and punished by means of a loose
confederation of agencies at all levels of government. The American
system of justice has evolved from English common law into a complex
series of procedures and decision. Founded on the concept that crimes
against an individual are crimes against the state, the American justice
system prosecutes individuals as though they victimized all of society.
However, crime victims are involved throughout the process, and many
justice agencies have programs that provide help for victims. 

There is no single criminal justice system in this country. We have many
similar systems, but each one is unique. Criminal cases may be handled
differently in each jurisdiction, but court decisions based on the due
process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution require that specific steps be
taken in the administration of criminal justice so that the individual will be
protected from undue intervention from the state.

The description of the criminal and juvenile systems that follows portrays
the most common sequence of events in response to serious criminal
behavior.

Entry Into the System

The justice system does not respond to most crimes because they are not
discovered by or reported to the police. Law enforcement agencies learn
about crimes from the reports of victims or other citizens, from discovery
by police officers in the field, from informants, or from investigative and
intelligence work. 

Once a law enforcement agency has established that a crime has been
committed, a suspect must be identified and apprehended for the case to
proceed through the system. Sometimes, a suspect is apprehended at the
scene; however, identification of a suspect sometimes requires an
extensive investigation. Often, no one is ever identified or apprehended. In
some instances, a suspect is arrested, and later the police determine that no
crime was committed and the suspect is released.

Prosecution and Pretrial Services

After an arrest, law enforcement agencies present information about the
case and about the accused to the prosecutor, who will decide if formal
charges should be filed with the court. If no charges are filed, the accused
must be released. The prosecutor can also drop charges after making
efforts to prosecute (nolle prosequi).

A suspect charged with a crime must be taken before a judge or magistrate
without unnecessary delay. At the initial appearance, the judge or
magistrate informs the accused of the charges and decides whether there is
probable cause to detain the accused person. If the offense is not serious,
the determination of guilt and assessment of a penalty may also occur at
this stage.

Often, the defense counsel is also assigned at the initial appearance. All
suspects prosecuted for serious crimes have a right to be represented by an
attorney. If the court determines the suspect is indigent and cannot afford
such representation, the court will assign counsel at the public's expense.

A pretrial-release decision may be made at the initial appearance but may
occur at other hearings or may be changed at another time during the
process. Pretrial release and bail were originally intended to ensure
appearance at trial. However, many jurisdictions permit pretrial detention
of defendants accused of serious offenses and deemed to be dangerous to
prevent them from committing crimes before trial.

The court often bases its pretrial decision on information about the
defendant's drug use, residence, employment, and family ties. The court
may decide to release the accused on his or her recognizance or into the
custody of a third party after posting a financial bond or on the promise of
satisfying certain conditions such as taking periodic drug tests to ensure
drug abstinence.

In many jurisdictions, the initial appearance may be followed by a
preliminary hearing. The main function of this hearing is to discover if
there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed a known
crime within the jurisdiction of the court. If the judge does not find
probable cause, the case is dismissed; however, if the judge or magistrate
finds probable cause for such a belief, or the accused waives his or her
right to a preliminary hearing, the case may be bound over to a grand jury. 

A grand jury hears evidence against the accused presented by the
prosecutor and decides if there is sufficient evidence to bring the accused
to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence, it submits to the court
an indictment, a written statement of the essential facts of the offense
charged against the accused. 

If the grand jury system is used, the grand jury may also investigate
criminal activity generally and issue indictments called grand jury
originals that initiate criminal cases. These investigations and indictments
are often used in drug and conspiracy cases that involve complex
organizations. After such an indictment, law enforcement tries to
apprehend and arrest the suspects named in the indictment. 

Misdemeanor cases and some felony cases proceed by the issuance of an
information, a formal, written accusation submitted to the court by a
prosecutor. In some jurisdictions, indictments may be required in felony
cases. However, the accused may choose to waive a grand jury indictment
and, instead, accept service of an information for the crime. 

In some jurisdictions, defendants, often those without prior criminal
records, may be eligible for diversion from prosecution subject to the
completion of specific conditions such as drug treatment. Successful
completion of the conditions may result in the dropping of charges or the
expunging of the criminal record where the defendant is required to plead
guilty before the diversion. 

Adjudication

Once an indictment or information has been filed with the trial court, the
accused is scheduled for arraignment. At the arraignment, the accused is
informed of the charges, advised of the rights of criminal defendants, and
asked to enter a plea to the charges. Sometimes, a plea of guilty is the
result of negotiations between the prosecutor and the defendant.

If the accused pleads guilty or accepts penalty without admitting guilt (a
plea of nolo contendere), the judge may accept or reject the plea. If the
plea is accepted, no trial is held and the offender is sentenced at this
proceeding or at a later date. The plea may be rejected and the accused
may proceed to trial if, for example, the judge believes that the accused
may have been coerced. 

If the accused pleads not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, a date
is set for the trial. A person accused of a serious crime is guaranteed a trial
by jury. However, the accused may ask for a bench trial where the judge,
rather than a jury, serves as the finder of fact. In both instances the
prosecution and defense present evidence by questioning witnesses while
the judge decides on issues of law. The trial results in acquittal or
conviction on the original charges or on lesser included offenses.

After the trial, a defendant may request appellate review of the conviction
or sentence. In some cases, appeals of convictions are a matter of right; all
states with the death penalty provide for automatic appeal of cases
involving a death sentence. Appeals may be subject to the discretion of the
appellate court and may be granted only on acceptance of a defendant's
petition for a writ of certiorari. Prisoners may also appeal their sentences
through civil rights petitions and writs of habeas corpus where they claim
unlawful detention. 

Sentencing and Sanctions

After a conviction, sentence is imposed. In most cases, the judge decides
on the sentence, but in some jurisdictions the sentence is decided by the
jury, particularly for capital offenses.

In arriving at an appropriate sentence, a sentencing hearing may be held at
which evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances is considered.
In assessing the circumstances surrounding a convicted person's criminal
behavior, courts often rely on presentence investigations by probation
agencies or other designated authorities. Courts may also consider victim
impact statements.

The sentencing choices that may be available to judges and juries include
one or more of the following:

o The death penalty.

o Incarceration in a prison, jail, or other confinement facility.

o Probation, which allows the convicted person to remain at liberty but
subject to certain conditions and restrictions such as drug testing or drug
treatment.

o Fines, primarily applied as penalties for minor offenses.

o Restitution, requiring the offender to pay compensation to the victim.

In some jurisdictions, offenders may be sentenced to alternatives to
incarceration that are considered more severe than straight probation but
less severe than a prison term. Examples of such sanctions include boot
camps, intense supervision often with drug treatment and testing, house
arrest and electronic monitoring, denial of federal benefits, and
community service.

In many jurisdictions, the law mandates that persons convicted of certain
types of offenses serve a prison term. Most jurisdictions permit the judge
to set the sentence length within certain limits, but some have determinate
sentencing laws that stipulate a specific sentence length that must be
served and cannot be altered by a parole board. 

Corrections

Offenders sentenced to incarceration usually serve time in a local jail or a
state prison. Offenders sentenced to less than 1 year generally go to jail;
those sentenced to more than 1 year go to prison. Persons admitted to the
federal system or a state prison system may be held in prison with varying
levels of custody or in a community correctional facility.

A prisoner may become eligible for parole after serving part of his or her
sentence. Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner before the
prisoner's full sentence has been served. The decision to grant parole is
made by an authority such as a parole board, which has power to grant or
revoke parole or to discharge a parolee altogether. The way parole
decisions are made varies widely among jurisdictions. 

Offenders may also be required to serve out their full sentences before
release (expiration of term). Those sentenced under determinate
sentencing laws can be released only after they have served their full
sentence (mandatory release) less any "good-time" received while in
prison. Inmates get good-time credits against their sentences automatically
or by earning them through participation in programs. 

If released by a parole board decision or by mandatory release, the
releasee will be under the supervision of a parole officer in the community
for the balance of his or her unexpired sentence. This supervision is
governed by specific conditions of release, and the releasee may be
returned to prison for violations of such conditions. 

Recidivism

Once the suspects, defendants, or offenders are released from the
jurisdiction of a criminal agency, they may be processed through the
criminal justice system again for a new crime. Long-term studies show
that many suspects who are arrested have prior criminal histories and
those with a greater number of prior arrests were more likely to be
arrested again. The courts take prior criminal history into account at
sentencing; most prison inmates have a prior criminal history, and many
have been incarcerated before. Nationally, about half the inmates released
from state prison will return to prison. 

Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile courts usually have jurisdiction over matters concerning children,
including delinquency, neglect, and adoption. They also handle "status
offenses," such as truancy and running away, which are not applicable to
adults. State statutes define which persons are under the original
jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The upper age of juvenile court
jurisdiction in delinquency matters is 17 years in most states.

The processing of juvenile offenders is not entirely dissimilar to adult
criminal processing, but crucial differences exist. Many juveniles are
referred to juvenile courts by law enforcement officers, but many others
are referred by school officials, social services agencies, neighbors, or
parents for behavior problems or conditions that have been determined to
require intervention by the formal system.

At arrest, a decision is made either to send the matter further into the
justice system or to divert the case out of the system, often to alternative
programs. Examples of alternative programs include drug treatment,
individual or group counseling, or referral to educational and recreational
programs. 

When juveniles are referred to the juvenile courts, the court's intake
department or the prosecuting attorney determines whether sufficient
grounds exist to warrant filing a petition that requests an adjudicatory
hearing or a request to transfer jurisdiction to criminal court. At this point,
many juveniles are released or diverted to alternative programs. 

All states allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under
certain circumstances. In many states, the legislature statutorily excludes
certain (usually serious) offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court regardless of the age of the accused. In some states and under certain
circumstances at the federal level, prosecutors have the discretion either to
file criminal charges against juveniles directly in criminal courts or to
proceed through the juvenile justice process. The juvenile court's intake
department or the prosecutor may petition the juvenile court to waive
jurisdiction to criminal court. The juvenile court also may order referral to
criminal court for trial as adults. In some jurisdictions, juveniles processed
as adults may be, upon conviction, sentenced to either an adult or a
juvenile facility. 

In those cases where the juvenile court retains jurisdiction, the case may
be handled formally by filing a delinquency petition or informally by
diverting the juvenile to other agencies or programs in lieu of further court
processing.

If a petition for an adjudicatory hearing is accepted, the juvenile may be
brought before a court quite unlike the court with jurisdiction over adult
offenders. Despite the considerable discretion associated with juvenile
court proceedings, juveniles are afforded many of the due-process
safeguards associated with adult criminal trials. Several states permit the
use of juries in juvenile courts; however, given the U.S. Supreme Court
holding that juries are not essential to juvenile hearings, most states do not
make provisions for juries in juvenile courts. 

In disposing of cases, juvenile courts usually have far more discretion than
adult courts. In addition to such options as probation, commitment to a
residential facility, restitution, or fines, state laws grant juvenile courts the
power to order removal of children from their homes to foster homes or
treatment facilities. Juvenile courts also may order participation in special
programs aimed at shoplifting prevention, drug counseling, or driver
education. 

Once a juvenile is under juvenile court disposition, the court may retain
jurisdiction until the juvenile legally becomes an adult (at age 21 in most
states). In some jurisdictions, juvenile offenders may be classified as
youthful offenders; this classification can lead to extended sentences. 

Following release from an institution, juveniles are often ordered to a
period of aftercare that is similar to parole supervision for adult offenders.
Juvenile offenders who violate the conditions of aftercare may have their
aftercare revoked, resulting in recommitment to a facility. Juveniles who
are classified as youthful offenders and violate the conditions of aftercare
may be subject to adult sanctions.

Government Response to Crime Is Founded in the Intergovernmental
Structure of the United States 

Under the American form of government, the Federal Government and
each state has its own criminal justice system. All systems must respect
the rights of individuals set forth in court interpretation of the U.S.
Constitution and defined in case law.

State constitutions and laws define the criminal system within each state
and delegate the authority and responsibility for criminal justice to various
jurisdictions, officials, and institutions. State laws also define criminal
behavior and groups of children or acts under jurisdiction of the juvenile
courts. Municipalities and counties further define their criminal justice
systems through local ordinances that proscribe the local agencies
responsible for criminal justice processing that were not established by the
state. Congress has also established a criminal justice system at the federal
level to respond to federal crimes such as bank robbery, kidnaping, and
transporting stolen goods across state lines. 

Response to Crime Is Mainly a State and Local Function

Very few crimes are under exclusive federal jurisdiction. The
responsibility to respond to most crimes rests with state and local
governments. Police protection is primarily a function of cities and towns.
Corrections is primarily a function of state governments. Most justice
personnel are employed at the local level. 

Discretion Is Exercised Throughout the Criminal Justice System

Discretion is "an authority conferred by law to act in certain conditions or
situations in accordance with an official's or an official agency's own
considered judgement and conscience."[1] Discretion is exercised
throughout the government. It is a part of decisionmaking in all
government systems from mental health to education to criminal justice.
The limits of discretion vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

Concerning crime and justice, legislative bodies have recognized that they
cannot anticipate the range of circumstances or local mores surrounding
each crime, or enact laws that clearly encompass all conduct that is
criminal and all that is not.[2] Therefore, persons charged with the
day-to-day response to crime are expected to exercise judgment within
limits set by law. They must decide:

o Whether to take action.

o Where the situation fits in the scheme of law, rules, and precedent.

o Which official response is appropriate.[3]

Who Exercises Discretion?

Table 3 lists the various law enforcement agencies and their roles in the
criminal justice system. To ensure that discretion is exercised responsibly,
government authority is often delegated to professionals. Professionalism
requires a minimum level of training and orientation, which guides
officials in making decisions. Professionalism in policing is largely due to
the desire to ensure the proper exercise of police discretion.

The limits of discretion vary from state to state and locality to locality. For
example, some State judges have wide discretion in the type of sentence
they may impose. In recent years, some states have sought to limit a
judge's discretion in sentencing by passing mandatory sentencing laws
that require prison sentences for certain offenses. 

Endnotes

1. Pound, Roscoe, 1960, "Discretion, Dispensation and Mitigation: The
Problem of the Individual Special Case," New York University Law
Review 35: 925-926.

2. LaFave, Wayne R., 1994, Arrest: The Decision to Take a Suspect Into
Custody, Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.: 63-184.

3. Mark Moore to James Vorenberg, 1977, "Some Abstract Notes on the
Issue of Discrection," Memorandum, June 21.

-------------------------------

Appendix C

National Assessment of State Court Automation

This section presents a state-by-state assessment of court automation as of
early 1998. It was prepared by National Center for State Courts (NCSC)
staff and is based on material they collected and telephone contacts with
state court personnel.[1] Each state's profile covers the status of
automation from the state's highest court down to courts of limited
jurisdiction, such as traffic courts. Given the diversity of state court
systems, however, uniformity in content was not possible. Table 4 at the
end of this appendix follows the state profiles and provides a chart that
illustrates each state's appellate, general jurisdiction, and limited
jurisdiction court automation status, including:

o The agency primarily responsible for automation in each court.

o An indication of the existence of a uniform case management system
for most courts at the particular court level.

o An indication as to who developed the court's software.

o An indication of who is responsible for maintaining the software.

o The platform in use.

Alabama. Court automation is the responsibility of the state judicial
branch in the appellate, circuit, and district courts. The circuit and district
courts use a uniform, mainframe-based case management system
developed inhouse. The appellate courts operate a system, developed
inhouse, on a local area network (LAN). The probate and municipal courts
depend on local government units for automation support.

Alaska. The state judicial branch is responsible for automation of all the
courts. The trial courts (superior and district) use uniform case
management system software supplied by Aquidneck Management
Associates (AMA), which runs in a UNIX-based client/server
environment. The software is maintained by AMA and court staff.

Arizona. Appellate courts currently operate with software, developed
inhouse, that runs on Digital ALPHA minicomputers. Arizona is using
UNIX software from Progressive Solutions Inc. (PSI) in 13 counties. The
state judicial branch and local government currently share responsibility
for automation of the superior, tax, justice of the peace, and municipal
courts. Trial courts are migrating to client/server software supplied by
PSI. Arizona courts are using or planning for kiosk, imaging, and
electronic filing technologies.

Arkansas. Local government is responsible for the automation of the trial
courts. No uniform applications are in place. Appellate courts use software
supplied by Office Automation Consultants, which runs on an IBM
AS/400, but is being ported to a Microsoft Windows NT environment.

California. Appellate courts use a case management software package
supplied by Relational Semantics. They share responsibility for
maintenance of the UNIX-based application. Automation in the trial
courts is the responsibility of local government. No statewide software
packages are in use. Many superior and municipal courts have extensive
and innovative applications of technology and are among the nation's
leaders in court automation.

Colorado. All courts, with the exception of municipal courts, rely on the
state judicial branch for automation. These courts are part of a
statewide-integrated system for case management, accounting, and
probation that was developed inhouse. The system, the Integrated
Colorado On-line Network (ICON), runs on an IBM AS/400 Model
530-2162 platform. ICON is backed-up real-time to an AS/400 Model 510
located off site, and it feeds directly into the criminal justice information
system (CJIS) through an RS/6000 interface.

Connecticut. Appellate courts maintain a case management system
developed by a local vendor that uses the Oracle relational database.
Superior court automation is the responsibility of the state judicial branch.
Two applications exist: The civil system operates on an IBM mainframe,
and the criminal system uses a Digital VAX operated by the Motor
Vehicles Department. A strategic plan is in place to create a new statewide
system that focuses on civil case management. Imaging technology is
being introduced for citations issued for infractions. Probate court
automation is the responsibility of local government.

Delaware. The Supreme Court of Delaware and Court of Chancery are not
automated. The superior court, family court, court of common pleas, and
justice of the peace court rely on locally developed software running on an
IBM mainframe operated by the executive branch. The criminal case
management application is part of a statewide-integrated criminal justice
information system, but integration with civil and financial information is
weak. The municipal court in Wilmington has recently merged with the
court of common pleas and the justice of the peace court. The alderman's
court is locally funded.

District of Columbia. Two primary platforms are used in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia--an IBM ES/9000 mainframe and a
Windows NT-based local area network. The IBM mainframe supports five
separate information systems, including criminal, family, child support,
probation, and juvenile. The systems were developed in COBOL using
VSAM file structure. Recently, the criminal system was migrated to a
high-performance database management system. The network consists of
an Ethernet backbone, which supports 600 workstations. At the appellate
level, a vendor-developed case management system runs on an AS/400
minicomputer platform.

Florida. Trial court automation is locally funded, but the courts are
attempting to develop a standardized system through the association of
court clerks. About 50 percent of the state's counties have committed to
this project. Florida was one of the early adopters of Internet technology
and has had successes in individual courts with imaging and integrated
justice system applications.

Georgia. The appellate courts have a case management system, developed
inhouse, which runs on a PC network. Trial courts are locally funded. The
state has a contract with Choice Information Systems for a standardized
system, and more than 50 courts have signed up to participate. The
Georgia Court Clerks Association has developed a statewide land and title
registry, which is uploaded from the systems of individual court clerks.

Hawaii. The state judicial branch is responsible for court system
automation. The appellate system was developed by a local contractor and
runs on a Wang VS minicomputer. Circuit, family, and district court
automation run on an IBM mainframe and AS/400 minicomputer. These
applications were developed by court staff. Plans for a state-of-the-art
integrated system have just been initiated.

Idaho. Appellate courts use a case management system, developed
inhouse, that runs on a minicomputer. The district court and its magistrate
division use a uniform application developed by Justice Systems, Inc. This
package runs on IBM AS/400 hardware. An upgraded version will use 
client/server technology and incorporate electronic filing.

Illinois. Appellate courts use a case management system developed by
court staff in a client/server environment. Automation of the circuit courts
is a local responsibility, and no uniform applications exist.

Indiana. Appellate courts use an IBM AS/400-based system developed by
the supreme court's information services group. The Division of State
Court Administration is responsible for approving formats and standards
for trial court automation and recordkeeping. Preliminary design and a
prototype called AIMS (Automated Information Management System) are
available. 

Iowa. A uniform case management system is used at the appellate and
district court levels. The appellate system was developed commercially
and is maintained by the judicial staff. The platform for both the appellate
and district court systems is an RS/6000-AIX UNIX minicomputer. The
district court system was developed by Bull Information Systems. 

Kansas. Appellate courts use a case management system developed and
maintained by their staff. It is Oracle-based and runs on a Sun Solaris,
with Mac clients. Automation of the district and municipal courts is the
responsibility of local government. Uniform applications exist in the
district courts for accounting functions and statistical reporting. 

Kentucky. The circuit and district courts use software developed by
Choice Information Systems. This package, which is being updated
inhouse to a Windows-based system, runs on personal computer networks
at the local level and on a mainframe-based system at the state level. The
administrative office of the courts has joined forces with the justice
cabinet to develop a unified criminal justice information system. The
design of this project is currently under way. Kentucky courts pioneered
the use of imaging technology.

Louisiana. Each appellate court is designing and developing its own case
management systems using client/server technologies. Common data
elements from some courts will be electronically transferred to the
Supreme Court of Louisiana for certain applications. The district, city,
mayors, juvenile, family, and justice of the peace courts are locally funded
and do not share common software applications.

Maine. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has a PC-based case
management system that was developed inhouse. The superior court is
state-funded, but no statewide application exists. Three courts share a
system, developed inhouse and built in a UNIX/Oracle environment. The
district court has a statewide, minicomputer-based system developed
inhouse. The administrative and probate courts do not have uniform case
management applications.

Maryland. The circuit court uses a mixture of case management systems.
The administrative office supplies a system for smaller counties, and
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties have developed their own
systems inhouse. The state system was originally developed on IBM
AS/400 minicomputers but is being replaced by a UNIX client/server
package from Aquidneck Management Associates. Imaging is in place for
land records. An electronic filing pilot project is being conducted in Prince
George's County. District courts have a mainframe-based system
developed by judicial branch staff. The orphan's court is locally funded,
and no uniform statewide application is in place.

Massachusetts. Appellate courts use the Relational Semantics
minicomputer-based case management system. Trial court departments
and superior, district, probate/family, juvenile, housing, Boston municipal,
and land courts are state-funded, but uniform statewide automation is in
the planning stages. Three superior court locations--Middlesex, Suffolk,
and Worcester Counties--share a case management system developed by
Relational Semantics that runs on a Bull Information Systems
minicomputer.

Michigan. Forty-one computer systems serve Michigan courts.
Approximately 60 percent of the trial courts use standard case
management software developed and supported by the State Court
Administrative Office. Other courts use systems developed inhouse or
purchased from vendors. Michigan's appellate courts--the supreme court
and the court of appeals--have a case management system that was
developed inhouse. Court data standards have been developed and
published, and the supreme court has formed a broad-based commission to
design a statewide court automation system, including a network and
identification of minimum system functions.

Minnesota. District courts share a uniform case management system
developed by court staff. The application runs on a Bull Information
Systems mainframe platform. The courts are also experimenting with
data-warehousing technology. 

Mississippi. No statewide case management system applications exist, but
plans are being developed to create them. The state Administrative Office
of the Courts has developed an automated statistical case-tracking system
that will be distributed to counties in the near future. The courts may also
use this program as a case management system.

Missouri. An appellate information system is being tested in St. Louis for
statewide use. It was developed by SCT Corporation and runs in a
Microsoft Windows NT/Oracle environment. A statewide trial court case
management system is being developed. The current version uses SCT
software in a UNIX environment. The case management application will
be transferred by year 2000 to a Microsoft Windows NT/Oracle platform.
Municipal court automation is a local court responsibility, and no uniform
applications exist.

Montana. The supreme court uses a DOS-based, PC software package for
case management support. This system was developed by court staff. The
district court has a statewide uniform system that runs on a PC network. It
was developed inhouse, and plans are to transfer it to the water, justice of
the peace, municipal, and city courts. The next version of this software
will be Microsoft Windows-based.

Nebraska. The supreme court and court of appeals use case management
software developed by Pro Data Computer Services, which runs on an
IBM AS/400. The state's trial court application, JUSTICE, is being
installed in district and county courts across the state. The courts with the
largest caseloads are being installed first. The three largest district court
locations will continue with the software already in place. The workers'
compensation court has its own case management system already in place.

Nevada. The supreme court uses a vendor-developed software package
running on Oracle with a Microsoft Access front-end. Trial courts are
responsible for developing their own applications. The state is currently
developing standards for these systems.

New Hampshire. The supreme court is planning to acquire a
Windows-based case management system soon. The superior, district, and
probate courts use Choice Information System's DOS-based SUSTAIN
CMS for case management. The state judicial branch is reviewing
Windows-based case management systems from various vendors. The
state judicial branch is also building a wide area network to connect all
courts for information sharing. 

New Jersey. All courts use state-developed standard case management
software that runs on an IBM mainframe. Trial courts use personal
computer local and wide area networks to access this system. The state is
testing imaging, electronic-filing, data-warehousing, and client/server
applications for the trial courts. Parking authorities use hand-held
computers with radio-frequency online access to the New Jersey statewide
municipal court system. Jury processing and tax-recordkeeping systems
are in operation using client/server technology. 

New Mexico. Appellate courts are planning to acquire case management
software that incorporates imaging technology. The district and magistrate
courts use a case management system developed by Progressive
Management Solutions (PSI). The PSI software runs on an RS/6000
server, with PC clients. New Mexico is experimenting with electronic
filing, in conjunction with the District Court of the United States for the
District of New Mexico. The system at the Metropolitan Court in
Bernalillo was developed inhouse. Responsibility for municipal and
probate court automation rests with local government, and no uniform
applications exist.

New York. Each of the four appellate courts has court case management
software in use; both are mainframe- and PC-based. Uniform systems for
the supreme court, county court, court of claims, surrogates court, family
court, district court, city court, New York City Civil Court, New York
City Criminal Court, and family court (outside New York City) have been
developed by judicial branch staff. Most run on mainframe computers;
some also use personal computers. The surrogates court and family court
(outside New York City) systems are PC-based. Town and village justice
courts are a local responsibility.

North Carolina. North Carolina has uniform case management system 
applications in both superior and district courts. Applications include
criminal, civil, infractions, financial management, and child support 
enforcement. These systems were developed inhouse in a mainframe 
environment. A district attorney and public defender application was 
developed on a client/server platform. Technology initiatives include a
statewide warrant repository and a statewide juvenile information system.

North Dakota. The Supreme Court of North Dakota runs software that was
developed inhouse and that uses client/server and PC platforms. The
district court uses and maintains software acquired from another state.

Ohio. Trial courts are locally funded. No uniform statewide applications
exist; however, more than 90 percent of the courts are automated through
a group of private-sector vendors that have been awarded contracts
through local competitive bids. The Administrative Office of the Courts
provides technology-consulting services to the trial courts. Ten of the
twelve appellate courts are automated. Five of these courts use a system
developed inhouse called Oasis, which runs on a PC/Novell network using
a Progress database. This system is being upgraded.

Oklahoma. Appellate courts use mainframe- and minicomputer-based
software to support their work. The state has developed a uniform
statewide application for the district court; it runs on a mainframe. Local
courts are required to purchase their own equipment to connect with the
system. No uniform case management technology is in use in the
state-funded workers compensation court and the court of tax review. The
municipal courts are locally funded, and no standardized automation
exists.

Oregon. Appellate, circuit, and tax courts share case management
applications developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
that run on a network of 18 IBM AS/400 minicomputers. This system is
being redeveloped as a client/server application. Lotus Notes is being
installed as a statewide messaging system for all court staff, and an
electronic data interchange project for transferring criminal case data over
the Internet has been completed. Data warehousing is being implemented
in the AOC. Oregon is experimenting with digital recording systems in
two circuit courts. County, justice, and municipal courts are responsible
for their own automation.

Pennsylvania. The three levels of appellate courts have recently upgraded
their desktop applications. A new uniform system is being developed by
COMSYS Information Technology Services. County government is
responsible for automation of the court of common pleas. A conceptual
design for a uniform system is in process. Comprehensive case
management, tracking, and information exchange with other courts is
handled through a network of 31 AS/400 minicomputers. This network is
migrating toward integration with a Justice Network (JNET) involving
nine other executive branch agencies. The Philadelphia municipal court
has its own software, developed inhouse, which runs on an IBM ES9000.
The Philadelphia traffic court runs on a system supplied through contract
with Lockheed Martin. The Pittsburgh city magistrates' court is locally
funded.

Rhode Island. The state judicial branch staff developed and maintains case
management systems at the supreme court, superior court, district court,
and family court levels. The current systems run on a Wang minicomputer
platform. The acquisition process for a new case management system for
the administrative adjudication court has been completed, and the system
is being installed. The probate and municipal courts are responsible for
automation at the local level. 

South Carolina. An internal information resources group developed and
maintains a Windows-based case management system in the appellate
courts. Circuit courts have roll-up capability for criminal history decisions
to a statewide data warehouse. The state judicial branch is planning to
automate the case management systems in the circuit and family courts.
No uniform case management systems exist in the magistrate, probate, or
municipal courts.

South Dakota. State judicial branch staff developed and maintains a
Register of Actions system on a PC LAN in the appellate courts. At the
circuit court level, the criminal docket in the criminal justice information
system application interfaces with law enforcement. An
accounting/financial module was developed in 1993. A committee to study
technology was formed in 1999.

Tennessee. Appellate courts have a case management system, Judicial
Automated Management Systems (JAMS), developed by Government
Systems. The software runs on an AS/400 platform. This system is being
replaced with software developed and written by Nichols Research. The
new software is a client/server system written in Delphi, with Oracle as
the back-end database. The state judicial branch is developing and testing
a new case management system. This system, being developed by Justice
Systems, is planned for deployment to the circuit, chancery, probate,
criminal, and general sessions courts. The software is being written in
Power-Builder with Oracle as the back-end database. Both systems will
run on Novell NetWare-based local area networks, and the client will run
under Windows 95. Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis, and Nashville
have local responsibility for automation.

Texas. The Office of Court Administration developed and maintains a
DOS-based generic case management application in the appellate and trial
courts, with the exception of the constitutional county courts, which are
responsible for automation at the local level. A newly formed Judicial
Committee on Automation will prepare future automation plans for Texas.
Electronic filing is being the discussed at the appellate level.

Utah. The state judicial branch developed and maintains uniform case
management applications in a client/server environment at the appellate,
district, and circuit court levels. The juvenile court is in a mainframe
environment and plans to convert to a new platform. Justice courts have
local-level responsibility for automation. Current development in the state
judicial branch includes electronic filing and data warehousing.

Vermont. A uniform case management system is used at the superior,
district, family, and environmental courts, and at the judicial bureau,
which has statewide jurisdiction for traffic complaints and civil
municipality ordinances. The system was developed by Relational
Semantics and operates in a UNIX environment. State judicial staff
developed the supreme court's system, which also runs in a UNIX
environment. Probate courts are responsible for automation at a local
level. The state judicial branch is developing future automation plans.

Virginia. State judicial branch staff has developed and maintains uniform
case management and financial systems in all levels of the courts, which
includes the appellate, circuit, and district courts. Future plans for the
circuit courts include imaging for record indexing, Internet access to court
records, and electronic filing.

Washington. The Washington state court automated system is known as
the Judicial Information System (JIS). JIS supports all jurisdictions:
appellate, superior, and limited jurisdiction courts. It is used in all 39
counties and 305 court locations. Among the services provided are
electronic docketing, case accounting, case tracking, notice generation,
issue tracking, criminal warrants, and interagency information exchange
(Department of Licensing, Department of Corrections, Washington State
Patrol, and local government law enforcement agencies). There are
currently more than 12,000 users. The system processes more than
800,000 online transactions per day.

West Virginia. The West Virginia judicial branch is overseeing a
Computer Data Systems implementation of unified case management
applications at all court levels under its jurisdiction. RISC-based IBM
AS/400s are the platforms in the larger counties, while PCs are used in the
smaller counties. A networking backbone is being developed statewide. 

Wisconsin. State judicial branch staff developed and maintains case
management systems at the appellate and circuit court levels. These
systems are in a client/server environment and written in "C" code with a
Standard Query Language server. Individual municipal courts are
responsible for their own automation endeavors. The court system's Web
site was completed in March 1998.

Wyoming. County courts and the justices of the peace courts use a case
management application on a PC network, which was developed by Eagle.
The system is currently maintained by inhouse staff. At the district court
level, one court is using a program developed by Eagle; another court is
making the transition to a system developed by Systems and Computer
Technology Corp. The state judicial branch is in the process of developing
new case management capabilities in the county courts and the justices of
the peace courts. No automated case management system exists at the
supreme court and the smaller municipal courts.

Endnote

1. Every attempt was made by project staff to verify the accuracy of these
descriptions, but contact was not established in every instance. For further
information, contact the specific state administrative office of the courts.

-------------------------------

Appendix D

Brief Survey To Identify State and Local Operational Integrated Court
Systems

INTEGRATED JUSTICE SYSTEM SURVEY--12/17/97

To all state court administrators and state and local MIS directors:

SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts are conducting the
Court Information Systems Technical Assistance Project, a project that
assists courts Nationwide with the automation and integration of
information systems. We are interested in identifying operational
integrated court systems at the state and local court system levels.

Integrated systems are defined as either (1) a system comprised of
relatively separate subsystems, each designed primarily to meet the
objectives of a single agency and joined together to meet shared objectives
or (2) a single design concept using one computer language and set of
development tools incorporating a shared database.

MIS Directors: Please take a few minutes to answer the following
questions and return to Karen Gottlieb no later than December 31, 1997.

Fax your survey to:

Karen Gottlieb, National Center for State Courts, 303-296-9007

State:
Contact:
Position:
Address:
Email Address:
Phone:
Fax:

1. Is there an operational integrated justice system that combines court
case management with any other criminal justice functions in your
jurisdiction at the state, county or other governmental unit level?

If Yes, whom do we contact to find out more about it? (Name and phone
number)

2. Is an integrated justice system that combines court case management
with any other criminal justice functions being developed or in the
planning process in your jurisdiction at the state, county or other
governmental unit?

If Yes, whom do we contact to find out more about it? (Name and phone
number)

-------------------------------

Appendix E

Detailed Survey of State and Local Agencies With Integrated Justice
Information Systems

INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM SURVEY

State:
Contact:
Position:
Address:
Email Address:
Phone:
Fax:
Governmental Level of System: (State, County, Other)

DEFINITION/SCOPE

1. In terms of your system, how would you define integration? 

2.Describe your system.

--1. Geographical scope (e.g., county, regional)

--2. Jurisdictional scope (e.g., criminal, civil, juvenile, etc.)

Organizational scope:

What agencies (including public) are involved in the system?

--a. municipal courts

--b. district courts

--c. juvenile courts

--d. appellate courts

--e. Federal justice agencies

--f. prosecutors

--g. public defenders

--h. private attorneys

--i. corrections

--j. law enforcement

--k. social services

--l. treatment centers

--m. motor vehicle department

--n. the public

--o. probation

--p. commercial public information resellers

o Which agencies communicate directly with one another? For what 
general purposes/functions (what does each agency contribute; what
does each agency get out of the system)? 

o How is information shared (e.g., inquiry access only, batch data
transfer, online data transfer, shared database, document transfer, or a
combination thereof)?

GENERAL SYSTEM QUESTIONS

3. In what year did/will your integrated system become fully
operational?

4. How long did/will it take to go from initial planning stages to a fully
operational system? Describe the process.

5. What was the approximate cost of system implementation?

6. How was the project funded?

POLICY STRUCTURE

7. Is there a governing body (committee) that has the authority and
responsibility for coordinating the integrated justice information system --
(IJIS)?

8. What is the authority for that committee (statutory, appointment, etc.)?

9. What powers does the committee have (advisory, policymaking,
etc.)?

10. Who makes up that committee?

11. How are decisions made regarding: system design, construction,
maintenance, implementation, and operation? 

12. Who is responsible for general system management, software
maintenance, and so on?

INFRASTRUCTURE

13. Are there data standards for sharing information (e.g., common 
definitions, common code structures, common formats, common edits)?

Do you have a data dictionary? If yes, may we get a copy?

14. Are there functional standards in place (these are standards related to
the way the system performs--how to avoid redundant data entry, how
to track charges and dispositions, how to handle payments of fines,
etc.)? 

If yes, describe. May we get a copy?

15. Are there security standards in place? 

If yes, describe. May we get a copy?

16. oes the Internet play a role in your system? 

If yes, describe, along with the underlying technology used for sharing of
data on the Internet (data warehousing, EDI, online procurement, etc.).

17. What formerly paper processes has your system eliminated?

EVALUATION

18. What were your project objectives? 

19. To what extent were they achieved?

20. Knowing what you know now, what, if anything, would you do   
differently?

21. What were the principal obstacles to overcome in implementing your
integrated system?

22. hat strategies would you recommend?

23. Do you have real cost-benefit data (not estimates, but evaluation data
collected after implementation of the system)?

If yes, please describe and provide copy of the data.

24. What type of assistance would be most useful to you in continuing 
development of your system (security, money, strategic planning, etc.)?

25. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

-------------------------------

Appendix F

Results of the Nationwide Integrated Justice Survey

Introduction

The Status of Integrated Justice in the United States

Definition of an Integrated Justice System

Results of Indepth Interviews With Statewide Integrated Justice
Information System Respondents
a. Respondents
b. Organizational Scope: An Overview
c. State-by-State Breakdown
d. Policy Structure
e. Integrated Justice Information System Infrastructure
f. Standards
g. Achievement of Project Objectives
h. Implementation Cost Estimates
i. Integrated Justice Information System Funding Sources
j. Lessons Learned and Obstacles Overcome
k. Recommended Strategies

Results of Indepth Interviews With Countywide Integrated Justice
Information System Respondents
a. Respondents and Their Organizational Scope
b. Policy Structure
c.Integrated Justice Information System Infrastructure
d. Standards
e.Achievement of Project Objectives
f.Implementation Cost Estimates and Integrated Justice Information
System Funding Sources
g. Lessons Learned and Obstacles Overcome
h.Recommended Strategies

Introduction

The Court Information Systems Technical Assistance Project sought to
identify the existence of operational integrated court systems in state and
county courts.[1] National Center for State Courts (NCSC) staff sent a
short, two-question survey in December 1997 to a mailing list of more
than 150 possible respondents in 50 states and the District of Columbia
(see appendix D). The mailing list, maintained by NCSC, included all
state court administrators and selected managers of information services in
state and local courts. The survey requested information on operational
integrated justice information systems (IJISs) that combined court case
management with any other criminal justice functions in the respondent's
state, county, or other governmental unit. The survey also asked if such a
system was being developed or planned.

Thirty-three surveys from twenty-five states were returned. Twenty-two
respondents reported the use of an operational IJIS, eight responding
agencies were considering or planning an IJIS, and three neither had nor
were planning an IJIS. The 22 affirmative respondents and an additional
11 possibilities that expressed interest in IJIS were contacted by telephone
to participate in an indepth integrated justice survey (see appendix E).
Indepth surveys were completed covering 16 county IJISs in 9 states and
10 statewide IJISs.[2] An attempt was also made to contact by telephone
the information services managers who did not return the short,
two-question survey. In all, NCSC staff collected information on the IJIS
status in 34 states.

The Status of Integrated Justice in the United States

The following analysis relates to the 9 statewide systems and 16 local
systems that were surveyed.[3] An overlap of statewide and county-level
systems was reported in Michigan, Missouri, and Nebraska. Of the 34
states that participated in the survey, 9 states reported no statewide or
county-level operational IJISs, but several were planning to implement
such a system.

Definition of an Integrated Justice System

Survey respondents were asked to define integration in terms of their
systems. Six of the nine statewide IJIS respondents defined integration as
the ability to share information between agencies. One of the nine added
that data are keyed only once. Two statewide IJIS respondents emphasized
the multiple-systems aspect of IJIS. One mentioned that integration is
multiple systems that act transparently. Another respondent defined
integration as the ability to access multiple, different applications so
seamlessly that the user does not know the difference, or in such a way
that the user does not have to go through multiple application startups to
access different pieces of information. One respondent defined integration
as movement of data from originating agency computers directly into
court computers for tracking, and then the return of the data from court
computers to other agencies.

Respondents with countywide IJISs had similar responses. Seven defined
integration as information sharing, often to reduce redundant data entry.
One respondent added that integrated systems create one centralized view
of criminal cases from start to finish and provide a comprehensive view of
a defendant's cases, warrants, and programs. The same respondent stated
that the system also provided identified information alerts to agencies
based on activities from another agency. Two other respondents defined
integration as using the same files, and one defined integration as using
common tables designed to work together. Three mentioned that
integration does not require redundant data entry and that the first agency
enters the data. Two other respondents defined integration as a computer
system that interacts with all agencies. One respondent emphasized that
integration was the capture, maintenance, and use of information in a
single system, processed by several applications, and used by multiple
agencies to conduct related work. The same respondent stated that the goal
of an integrated system is to ease communication. 

Results of Indepth Interviews With Statewide Integrated Justice
Information System Respondents

Indepth information on nine statewide operational IJISs was obtained for
Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, South Dakota, and Vermont. Each state's IJIS is described in
this section. Other jurisdictions reporting that they are operating or
planning integrated systems include Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
and Wyoming. Many states, such as New York, have adopted specific
statewide integrated applications to facilitate automated posting of court
dispositions to state criminal history repositories. Although no state
reported a fully operational IJIS, Delaware, New Jersey, and South Dakota
are closer to achieving that goal than other states. They provide a clear
picture of the successes and problems that occur in implementing
integrated criminal justice systems.

Respondents

Connecticut. Connecticut began planning for its IJIS in the 1990s, with the
adoption of the Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan in 1993. The
state expects its system, an Offender-Based Tracking System (OBTS), to
be fully operational in the year 2001. The jurisdictional scope is criminal;
the system will include the capability to handle records of juveniles who
are convicted as adults. 

Delaware. Delaware's IJIS includes civil, juvenile, and criminal
jurisdictions. The criminal IJIS became fully operational in 1996. The
civil system is not yet fully operational. The Delaware statewide IJIS does
not include municipal courts, but includes justices of the peace, courts of
common pleas, and superior and family courts.

Michigan. The Michigan IJIS comprises 41 different computer systems.
The Judicial Information Systems Advisory Commission (JISAC) is
working on data and functional standards for implementation throughout
Michigan. The project's main goal is to implement a statewide
consolidated disposition reporting system by the year 2001. Only Phase I
of the Michigan statewide IJIS is operational at the present time; this
phase encompasses 11 circuits in the southwest region of the state. 

Missouri. Missouri's statewide IJIS encompasses state appellate courts,
and state trial, circuit, associate circuit, and, potentially, municipal courts.
Its current jurisdictional scope is criminal, civil (including traffic and
probate), and appellate. Traffic and ordinance violations will be integrated
when the municipal courts are added to the system. A separate part of the
project is examining the possibility of including juvenile data in the
system. The state will achieve base functionality with attorney and public 
access available statewide by between mid-1999 and mid-2000. Full
implementation with external agencies and all courts will occur 4 years
later. Only one court is currently up and running, and two more are in the
testing stage.

Nebraska. Nebraska is in the planning stages of an integrated system to
include all types of cases. A 5-year strategic plan was completed in 1997.
The implementation of the statewide IJIS began at that time. The system
was not designed to be "all or nothing," and stand-alone projects are
currently under way.

New Hampshire. The New Hampshire IJIS is not yet fully operational.
Phase I, the Criminal History Record Improvement phase, was based on a
state police audit conducted 4 years ago that recommended electronic data
exchange. The agencies involved accepted the recommendation and began
implementation. Phase I is expected to be fully operational in 1 to 2 years.
The IJIS's jurisdictional scope is exclusively criminal. 

New Jersey. New Jersey's statewide systems reside on a central
mainframe in Trenton and can be accessed by 21 counties. Several
separate statewide systems are in place for different jurisdictions, such as
criminal, civil, and family courts, including juvenile court. The separate
systems share some interfaces, but they are not fully integrated. New
Jersey's first statewide court system was implemented in 1985, and it
continues to evolve in stages. The probation component, which is still
being implemented, is integrated in 5 of the state's 21 counties.

South Dakota. South Dakota has implemented a unified court system. All
county court offices share the same software. The jurisdictional scope
includes criminal and accounting. Criminal docketing was operational in
1989, the online accounting capabilities were operational in 1993, and the
defendant demographic database was operational in 1997. A probation
component is in development, with the first phase expected for statewide
implementation by early 1999. The register of action and civil
development was scheduled to begin operation in spring 1998.

Vermont. The Vermont IJIS is criminal in jurisdiction. Planning started 5
years ago, and the state developed a criminal justice data dictionary and
worked to get all agencies on a common network about 3 years ago. The
prosecutor's office has funding to develop its own system. In the past 6
months, a committee has been developing a plan for electronic disposition
reporting. Significant parts of the IJIS are operational, although no date
has been set for full implementation. A separate integration project
involves juvenile courts.

Organizational Scope: An Overview

Respondents were asked to list all agencies involved in the IJIS effort in
the state or county (see appendix H). At the state level, six of the nine
states report that their limited jurisdiction, general jurisdiction, and
juvenile courts are or would be included in the IJIS. Three
states--Connecticut, Delaware, and Vermont--do not include limited
jurisdiction courts. (Connecticut has only a state-level court system.) Six
of the nine responding states include appellate courts in their IJIS. The
three that did not include the appellate courts--Nebraska, South Dakota,
and Vermont--have no plans to do so. Only Connecticut and New Jersey
include federal agencies in their IJIS. New Jersey includes the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Customs Service. In
Connecticut, federal agencies are integrated for domestic violence and
protection orders with the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
Seven of the nine IJISs include the prosecutor, and Missouri and Vermont
plan to do so in the future. Seven of the nine states reported that the public
defender is or will be included in the IJIS. In Connecticut, the public
defender has limited access. Michigan, which uses a court-appointed
attorney rather than a public defender, does not include the
court-appointed attorneys in the IJIS. Only New Jersey includes private
attorneys in its IJIS. Online access to the civil court system is available in
New Jersey. Delaware and Missouri plan to include private attorneys. New
Hampshire plans to eventually provide electronic filing and docket
information on an external Web server.

Six of the nine respondents reported that corrections was included in the
IJIS. The other three states are adding or planning to add corrections. All
respondents reported that law enforcement was or would be included in
the IJIS, but with variations. Michigan includes its state police; South
Dakota includes its local law enforcement in the larger counties; Nebraska
includes its local police departments, sheriff's offices, and the state patrol.
Delaware, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, and South Dakota reported
that social services agencies are included in the IJIS. Connecticut and
Missouri plan to include social services agencies in the future. Delaware
integrates social services to a limited degree, for child support and drug
treatment purposes. Nebraska has included the Office of Juvenile Services,
which is the only social service agency in its system. South Dakota's
Division of Social Services has query access to the criminal docket, and
court access to social service records is being developed. The welfare and
child support systems in New Jersey are included in the IJIS through the
Department of Human Services. 

Only Delaware reported that treatment centers are included in the IJIS, but
Connecticut and Missouri may include treatment centers in the future. All
states but one reported that the division of motor vehicles (DMV) was
included in the IJIS. Missouri plans to include the DMV in the future. In
New Jersey, the court informs DMV if a person misses a scheduled court
appearance; DMV then revokes that person's drivers license. Courts have
query access to the DMV files in South Dakota. 

Public access to the IJIS is offered only in Delaware, Michigan, and New
Jersey. Public access in Delaware is limited to walkup terminals, while
New Jersey's public access consists of dumb terminals available at the
courthouse. Two other states plan public access in the future. All
respondents reported that probation is or will be part of their IJIS.
However, Michigan includes district and juvenile courts only, leaving out
circuit probation courts. New Jersey includes commercial public
information resellers through tape dumps in its IJIS. None of the other
responding states include commercial public information resellers in their
statewide IJISs, but Delaware plans to do so in the future. 

State-by-State Breakdown

Connecticut. All criminal justice agencies in the judicial and executive
branches of government are able to communicate with one another,
although the state's IJIS is not fully implemented and integrated at this
time. The Connecticut IJIS is broad in scope. No distinction exists
between general and limited jurisdiction courts. Public defenders, private
attorneys, and the public have access to information as authorized. The
potential exists to interface with social services and treatment centers. 

The Connecticut initiative to establish an OBTS will integrate information
systems from criminal justice agencies to more effectively and efficiently
track offenders. OBTS will:

o Contain, in one system, offender data including names and identifying
data, criminal histories, court data, dispositions, restraining and protective
orders, incarceration status, probation information, and parole status.

o Build upon and use state agency systems and data.

o Provide access to complete, timely, and accurate criminal history
records.

o Generate uniform crime reports for FBI or state statistical or
administrative purposes.

o Set the stage for future enhancements.

Delaware. Courts receive electronic filings, attorney updates, prisoner
location data, and criminal history from criminal justice agencies. They
disseminate calendar, docket, and scheduling information to criminal
justice agencies.

Michigan. Courts have the capability to report disposition data
electronically to the state repository, but not all courts are doing so.
Michigan is developing a Consolidated Disposition Reporting System that
will require courts to send disposition data only once. The state's goal is to
have courts transmit information once to a Court Information Distribution
Center (CIDC). The CIDC will then forward the information to state
police and DMV, thereby eliminating the need to report information to
each agency separately. Courts have to send disposition data to the state
police and DMV in traffic-case misdemeanors. The Michigan State Police
are conducting pilot projects with automated incident capture and ticket
citation systems. Patrol officers can issue a ticket, print it in the patrol car,
and transmit the data instantly to the court system. Michigan's future IJIS
plans include an interface that will allow prosecutors to file charges
directly with the court. A federal/state committee is also looking into
electronic filing.

Missouri. Officials have not determined a method of communication
regarding external agencies. Attorneys, prosecutors, and public defenders
should have Internet access in the next several years. Data exchange
among traffic enforcement, highway patrol, sheriff's departments, and
corrections may not be implemented until the year 2002 or 2003. State
officials believe that they need to establish a data warehouse to
accommodate these functions. First, however, they need a case
management structure in place. Officials must also examine the issue of
electronic filing. Plans call for the State Department of Corrections to
gather probation information on defendants. Under this system, highway
patrol officers will also be able to access criminal history in the field with
hand-held readers.

Nebraska. Officials plan to establish a central repository that would allow
every agency to share criminal histories, DMV records, juvenile
information, and other data. The system plan is to generate a chain of
events beginning with arrest and continuing through booking to the county
attorney and to court actions. Improvements are planned to allow local
agencies to share or transfer data.

New Hampshire. Primary IJIS integration occurs between the courts and
law enforcement. Each court has a file server to accept and dispense
information. Law enforcement links to the courts by sending them arrest
data and receiving case disposition information in return.

New Jersey. Every single case, including each traffic offense, is updated
on the statewide judicial system. This is accomplished through several
different means. Law enforcement can access criminal and municipal
court systems online to search for outstanding warrants. Depending on
local technology, police officers can write parking tickets online. Officers
are also able to enter arrest information online through an automated
complaint system; this information is sent directly to the municipal courts.
An information-tracking system used by county jails for arrests and
bookings is integrated with a local criminal court scheduling system. This
allows county jails to determine whether individuals who are booked have
pending criminal matters elsewhere in the state. Prosecutors share the
PROMIS/GAVEL database. The prosecutor's office enters the initial
information, court orders are generated by the system, and the sheriff's
office receives them electronically. The Department of Human Services
(DHS) and probation interact via an automated child support enforcement
system operated by DHS and accessed by probation departments via a
wide area network. The child support enforcement system is housed in the
executive branch database.

South Dakota. The defendant demographic, the criminal docketing, and
the judicial accounting files in South Dakota courts are integrated with one
another so that data are stored only once and are shared among the three
systems. Only the Sioux Falls Police Department and the Minnehaha
County Sheriff's Department (the largest police and sheriff agencies in the
state) currently share data with the courts. Plans are under way to transfer
data between the Rapid City Police Department and the Pennington
County Sheriff's Office. Citation information from the police department
and from the sheriff's office is uploaded to the state's criminal docketing
database. Sentencing information is downloaded to these two agencies to
prevent the need to rekey data. At the state level, sentencing information is
passed on to law enforcement and to related agencies such as DMV, the
Division of Criminal Investigations, and the law enforcement systems of
the Departments of Parks and Fish and Game. Judges and probation
officers have query access to law enforcement files for presentence
investigations. Plans include integration with the State Highway Patrol as
soon as funding is located. Discussions have also been held about
including the Department of Corrections. The current probation system,
which is in development, will be integrated with existing demographic,
criminal docket, and judicial accounting files.

Vermont. Law enforcement agencies file electronically with prosecutors
and can access court records for enforcement purposes. Prosecutors also
file electronically and have access to all court records. Electronic filing
occurs in the courts, and disposition reports are sent electronically to
different criminal justice agencies. The Vermont Crime Information
Center (VCIC), the state's criminal history repository, receives
information from the courts electronically and has access to court records
to reconcile data problems. Corrections receives sentencing information
from the courts electronically and sends release data to the VCIC
electronically.

Policy Structure

Eight of the nine responding states have a governing body with the
authority and responsibility to coordinate the IJIS. (South Dakota's court
technology committee was newly appointed at the time of the survey; its
first meeting was scheduled for spring 1998.) The ninth state, New
Hampshire, has no governing body; instead, it uses a cooperative approach
between the courts, the state's attorneys, and the state police. Connecticut,
Delaware, Nebraska, and New Jersey maintain a governing body--called
the Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) committee--in each state.
Michigan's governing body is the Judicial Information Systems Advisory
Commission (JISAC). Vermont has no formal body; the Criminal Record
Improvement Task Force governs the IJIS.

Governing bodies in Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Dakota, and
Vermont have advisory powers, while the Connecticut, Delaware, and
Missouri bodies have policymaking authority.

The top priority of Missouri's committee is to develop an integrated court
system. The committee's policymaking power may be an outgrowth of its
statutory authority. The Missouri legislature approved a court automation
fund and directed the Chief Justice of the state supreme court to name
members to an oversight committee whose composition was prescribed by
legislation. The committee manages the project and the expenditure of
funds.

New Jersey's committee has been formed on an ad hoc basis; it has no
authority to compel, but it does make critical decisions regarding
allocation of funds, system architecture, and related issues. Nebraska's
advisory committee was formed by operating instruction of the state's
Crime Commission. It makes recommendations to the commission,
governor, and legislature on funding, planning, and project
implementation. Michigan's committee was created by the Michigan
supreme court. South Dakota committee members are appointed.

The Missouri committee's strong ties to the state legislature are reflected
in its composition. The committee includes two representatives each from
the state senate and house, although most of its members are from the
courts, primarily the appeals, circuit, and associate circuit courts. Also
represented on the committee are state court administrators,
data-processing telecommunication experts, and attorneys. The Michigan
board contains four legislators: a Republican and a Democrat from the
state's house and senate. The commission also has members from the
judiciary, court administration, DMV, social service agencies, prosecution
offices, and the state court administrative office, along with the state chief
information officer from the governor's office. It invites agency leaders to
participate.

Other responding states do not have legislative representatives on their
committees. New Jersey's committee is made up of middle and senior
management people from the executive and judicial branches of
government. The South Dakota committee roster lists representatives from
various user groups, court technical staff, and magistrates, judges, justices,
court administrators, probation officers, and court clerks.

Nebraska's committee is the most encompassing, including a variety of
representatives from state and local criminal justice, court and technology
agencies, and law enforcement, court, legal, and government
organizations.[4] Legislative fiscal planners also actively participate in
Nebraska's IJIS planning process, but they do not vote.

In Vermont, the Criminal Record Improvement Task Force, required as a
condition for receiving federal Byrne Grant funds,[5] comprises
information services directors from the courts, corrections, the VCIC, law
enforcement, and the state's attorney. Delaware's committee comprises
one or two representatives from each of the state's criminal justice
agencies, the heads of executive branch departments, and two
representatives each from the judicial branch and law enforcement. In
Connecticut, the committee includes representatives from all criminal
justice agencies.

Decisions regarding IJIS design, construction, maintenance,
implementation, and operation are made differently. In Missouri, a
governing body subcommittee, which has been incorporated into the state
Court Administrator's Office, provides the main committee with "best
choice" recommendations. The office is responsible for general system
management and software maintenance for most Missouri courts, although
metropolitan courts may take over that responsibility if they choose. IJIS
decisions in Michigan are the product of a multiagency working group
with the state Court Administrator's Office responsible for general system
management. Nebraska also follows a committee approach for IJIS
decisions; the final responsibility for a project goes to the agency taking
ownership of the project.

In New Jersey, technical staff, such as the manager of information
services, make decisions along with user groups. The information services
department is responsible for general system management. In South
Dakota, technical staff and user groups make the decisions. Responsibility
for general system management belongs to the state court administrator's
systems development office. Participating agencies make the decisions in
Vermont and are responsible for system management. The same is true in
Delaware, where each agency makes its own IJIS decisions, except for
those that maintain systems with large interface components developed by
the Delaware Justice Information System (DELJIS). In these cases, the
DELJIS governing board makes decisions. In Connecticut, decisions are
made pursuant to a system design agreed to by all agencies, which is then
reviewed by the CJIS policy board. The driving force behind
decisionmaking in New Hampshire is the state police, but all agencies
make decisions regarding their specific data. The New Hampshire State
Police are also responsible for maintaining the statewide network, and
each participating agency is responsible for its own portion.

Integrated Justice Information System Infrastructure

A variety of data interchange methods are contemplated by the various
statewide IJISs. Michigan officials hope that the system becomes an
online, interactive resource at the local level. At the state level, the DMV
uses batch data transfer to send information to its database once a week,
and courts send tapes with dispositions to the DMV. Michigan has no
current statewide plans for electronic filing, but several local trial courts
are experimenting with pilot projects.

Missouri is considering a variety of technological tools ranging from
kiosks to voice interactive telephone response systems to deliver
information. It plans to implement electronic filing within 18 months.
New Jersey is interested in testing electronic filing. South Dakota uses a
combination of data interchange methods; local law enforcement uses
batch transfers over the Internet, and state agencies use online data
transfers with batch interfaces.

Connecticut uses inquiry access, batch data transfer, online data transfer,
and shared databases, depending on the application. Delaware's criminal
IJIS has physically separate databases that appear as a single database, and
the civil IJIS uses only batch data transfer at public terminals. New
Hampshire uses batch data transfer and real-time online data transfer in its
criminal IJIS. Vermont has not decided how it will share information, but
the state will not use shared databases.

It appears that none of the statewide systems rely on one central database,
although Missouri is planning to develop a data warehouse based on one 
database, located possibly in the state data center. Each Michigan agency
will continue to use its own database; no central database will be
established. In New Jersey, each system (criminal, civil, and family) is
integrated on a shared database. Information from the separate databases
populates two central databases. These two main computers (one judicial
and one executive) speak to one another through a cross-domained
network, and users in each branch can access data on the other branch's
computer.

Missouri is the only respondent that uses the Internet to exchange data
with electronic filing. It will soon have administrative court information
on a Web site with password access. The underlying technology will be
data-warehousing and Lotus Domino databases for information
repositories. Delaware uses the Internet to access legal research. New
Jersey uses the Internet only for electronic mail; it is planning to make its
civil system available via a secure server on the Internet. Nebraska is also
looking at allowing access through a more secure intranet. South Dakota is
considering using the Internet to implement electronic filing. State
government intranets in New Hampshire and Vermont are behind firewalls
to the Internet; these states expect all business to occur behind the firewall.

Standards

Data Standards. Not all states have established data standards (for
example, common definitions, code structures, formats, and edits) for
sharing information. Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, South
Dakota, and Vermont have statewide data standards. Michigan's first
phase was the formulation of a task force to define court data element
standards for required reporting. All court systems in South Dakota are
standardized with one another. Most state agencies have adopted the
court's structure for tracking charges. Other codes, edits, and definitions
are somewhat standardized, but a considerable amount of data coding
remains agency-specific.

In Connecticut, the Department of Information Policy provides data
standards for executive branch agencies, and Justice Information Services
provides data standards for the courts. Connecticut, Delaware, New
Jersey, South Dakota, and Vermont have data dictionaries. South Dakota's
dictionary is an alphabetical listing of all data elements with codes and
definitions explained. In Connecticut, the data dictionary is used only for
the shared data elements, although it contains an inventory of all data
elements.

Missouri, Nebraska, and New Hampshire do not have data standards in
place. Missouri conducted a lengthy evaluation with the help of a
consulting firm that identified interchange points that will be used when
Missouri moves to data warehousing. Nebraska has circulated a request for
proposals (RFP) to obtain assistance in developing data standards.

Performance standards. Not all states developed performance standards,
although Michigan, Nebraska, and Vermont plan to put performance
standards in place. New Hampshire does not have performance standards
either, but it reports that the system design works to avoid redundant data
entry. Delaware's system is also designed to avoid redundant data entry.

In Missouri, performance standards are included in a case management
system that is undergoing testing. New Jersey has more than one set of
performance standards because each court sets its own rules, procedures,
and user procedures. Connecticut's performance standards were designed
to prevent redundant data entry and to establish a single data-entry point. 

Security standards. Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey, and
South Dakota have security standards. In Connecticut, the security
standards vary by agency. Delaware deals with security by maintaining
separate databases. Missouri's security standards are defined by a state
judicial records committee in the same fashion as standards related to
paper records. As an ongoing activity, the committee will be responsible
for distinguishing between public and private data using previously
identified standards. New Jersey uses various mainframe software
packages customized for its system. Individual user groups--such as court
practice areas-- control access and security. Each user in South Dakota is
assigned a user password and a security officer determines which files a
user can access, which functions can be accessed within those files, and
the type of access. The security software requires that users reset
passwords every 90 days.

Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Vermont have not
implemented security standards. Michigan and Nebraska are planning to
develop them. Michigan's standards will correspond to federal security
standards. For example, NCIC requires that the system be controlled by a
criminal justice agency. Nebraska requested security standards in its
communication network RFP. Vermont's Criminal Record Task Force will
recommend security standards, but it is up to criminal justice agencies to
decide whether to implement them.

Achievement of Project Objectives

IJIS objectives range from narrowly defined goals in Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Vermont to more broadly 
defined objectives in Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, and Nebraska.
Michigan's objective is the simultaneous electronic submission of court
dispositions to the DMV and state police rather than the transmission of
the dispositions to each agency separately. The project objective in New
Hampshire is to improve the criminal history repository through electronic
data exchange. The original objective of New Jersey's IJIS was to reduce
all paperwork to a case file folder, but new objectives are established
regularly. They include electronic filing, remote electronic access to court
records, and increased Internet use.

Each South Dakota system had different project objectives. The criminal
docketing system's objective is to eliminate duplicate data entry and
improve interfaces between courts and law enforcement. The judicial
accounting system's objective is to eliminate manual bookkeeping and to
track all monies handled by the court system. The objective of the
defendant demographic file is to tie all individual docket records for an
individual to one unique, demographic name record that contains
identifying and alias information about the defendant. Vermont's objective
is access to current records.

Connecticut's project objectives are to provide accurate and timely
information to the judiciary and to law enforcement at locations of need.
Delaware's objective is efficient management of criminal and civil justice
through improvement of timeliness in case processing and through control
of case processing to avoid case loss. Nebraska's objective is easily
defined: efficient access to data throughout the state. Missouri's project
objectives are to (1) provide citizens with an integrated court system that
improves access to courts, speeds the administration of justice by reducing
backlogs, and results in smaller staff levels, and (2) improve clerical
efficiency.

It is too early to determine whether Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Vermont have met their IJIS project
objectives, but New Jersey and South Dakota believe their projects have
met the objectives defined during project design. Delaware reports that it
achieved most, but not all, of its project objectives. New Jersey finds that
its original objective was achieved far beyond expectations, but that New
Jersey users always want better systems. Evaluating specific objectives,
such as Michigan's electronic disposition process, will be easier than
assessing general objectives, such as Nebraska's goal of easy and efficient
data access.

Another way to evaluate the achievement of IJIS project objectives is to
measure the elimination of paper processes. In South Dakota, daily and
month-end account balancing and reporting that previously took up to 2
weeks when performed manually have been automated by IJIS. South
Dakota's system also generates indexes, notices, court calendars, bench
warrants, and jail forms. Delaware reports that internal control sheets and
data gathering for statistics are paper processes eliminated by IJIS. New
Hampshire eliminated judicially issued warrants only, but other paper-
dependent processes, such as disposition reporting, will be automated to
such a degree that paper use will be significantly reduced.

Missouri is striving to use entirely electronic case files. The permanent
storage medium is undefined at this time. Missouri is also planning to
automate workflow processes with a system that generates summonses and
warrants and that provides electronic service of process, fee collection and
receipt, and electronic filing. In Michigan, court dispositions will be sent
to the state repository electronically. Nebraska is seeking to reduce paper
processes via a victim notification system and a protection order system,
but the state is not expecting significant paper reduction because of the 
nature of protection orders. Vermont expects the paper processing of
criminal disposition reporting, criminal and state's attorney filings, and
corrections sentencing reports to be eliminated.

Implementation Cost Estimates

The states had difficulty estimating the cost of IJIS implementation. New
Jersey mentioned that funding was a "never-ending story." The state 
currently spends $30 million a year on judicial branch operations, which 
includes Title IV-D child support money. Thirteen years ago, it spent $5
million a year on judicial branch operations. New Jersey's biggest
expenditure is the cost of maintaining 10,000 court personnel. Connecticut
estimates that the cost of its OBTS for the executive and judicial branch
criminal justice agencies will reach $23.6 million for the period between
1997 and 2001. Additionally, federal funding is fostering projects
supportive of, and integrated with, OBTS.

Missouri, which is implementing a 10-year IJIS project, initially estimated
that full implementation, which includes 120 courts and 3,000 users,
would cost the state $73 million. The estimate does not include staffing
costs and expenditures for ongoing maintenance for applications and
hardware. Nebraska estimates that the approximate cost of its IJIS
implementation will be between $8 million and $9 million, a figure that
does not include separate costs to implement IJIS in state courts in various
local jurisdictions. Michigan initially budgeted $3.9 million for its
disposition reporting system. That figure is expected to rise. In Delaware,
IJIS cost the courts $2 million and criminal justice agencies $5 million.
New Hampshire estimates that IJIS cost its courts $1.5 million, but it
cannot estimate costs shared by other participating agencies. Vermont
reports that the cost of phase I was $90,000. South Dakota did not have
implementation costs available. 

Integrated Justice Information System Funding Sources

Respondents reported that a variety of sources were used to pay for IJIS
development and implementation, but all used some state funds.
Municipal courts in New Jersey are funded entirely by state dollars
generated by a $2 court automation surcharge on every traffic or parking
ticket paid in the state. Primary funding for Missouri's system will come
from court case assessments. State officials received legislative approval
for a $7 court automation assessment at the time of disposition for every
civil and criminal case filed in the state. They also approached the
legislature this year seeking general revenue funds to cover staffing and
operational costs. Connecticut will pay most of its IJIS tab with state bond
funds totaling $22.6 million. Delaware used a mix of federal and state
funding, but most funding came from the state.

Federal grants also play a role in funding IJIS systems.[6] Nebraska uses
Byrne set-aside money and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
grants. It is attempting to obtain funding through the National Criminal
History Improvement Program (NCHIP). New Jersey has been successful
in obtaining federal grants. It received both Byrne and NCHIP federal
grants that were applied primarily to superior courts in collaboration with
law enforcement, VAWA money that has been applied to family court,
and grant money from the Victims of Crime Act. Connecticut, New
Hampshire, and Vermont also received Byrne Grant money, and
Connecticut also receives NCHIP and State Identification Systems grant
money. Connecticut has applied for funding from the National Sex
Offender Registries-Assistance Program (NSOR-AP), which will enhance
court and law enforcement handling of sex offender data. Michigan
received Byrne and NCHIP grant money and used it to fund the state
police portion of its consolidated disposition reporting system. Michigan
funded the DMV portion of its IJIS with funds directed toward combating
drunk driving. New Hampshire reported using Brady Grant money to fund
its IJIS. The Missouri IJIS has received hardware grants for small courts
(fewer than six staff members) and is looking for additional grant funding.
IJIS activities in South Dakota were funded by a combination of staff time
and federal and state monies.

None of the states had cost-benefit evaluation data for IJIS
implementation. Two states mentioned that it would be impossible to
evaluate because of the difficulty of putting a price on the increased
quality of justice. Another state mentioned that a cost-benefit analysis is
difficult because placing a value on access to information is impossible.
Missouri plans to measure the cost benefit by determining whether the
IJIS can handle more cases with the same number of employees.

Lessons Learned and Obstacles Overcome

Respondents were asked what they would do differently, if given the
opportunity to reorganize their IJIS projects. Connecticut indicated it
would continue in its direction of extensive planning. Missouri officials
said that they would do nothing differently. Both states planned
extensively and are satisfied with the results. Michigan believes it learned
from other states' mistakes. Planners in Michigan made sure that all
necessary players were involved in the planning process. South Dakota
thought it might implement some of the larger projects in different phases.
The judicial accounting system, for example, took a long time to design,
program, and implement. Phased implementation of this system would
have allowed users to benefit from the system components sooner. New
Hampshire would have worked for small successes early and tested
individual elements so they would become operational as soon as possible
without waiting for other parts of the system to come online. Nebraska
mentioned that it would have guaranteed that adequate personnel and
financial resources were available when its IJIS project began. New Jersey
echoed Nebraska's suggestion and added that it would have budgeted
more money to retain information technology professionals because of the
difficulty in retaining qualified staff. The Delaware respondent said the
state wished it had conducted a better "upfront" business analysis to
determine what it wanted from its IJIS, which became an automated
version of its current system without improvements. Delaware officials
also emphasized the importance of a full-time administrative and technical
staff.

Reported obstacles to IJIS implementation were similar across the states.
Seven of the nine responding states identified funding as an obstacle.
Missouri obtains funding from the state legislature, so funding was not a
problem. In Michigan, court projects were funded at the local level, and
courts compete with local criminal justice agencies for money. New Jersey
indicated that funding was not its biggest obstacle, but more funds are 
necessary to accomplish all its goals. South Dakota thought systems 
implementation was slowed by limited programming resources.

Some states identified the "people" factor as a major obstacle. The
Missouri respondent stated that many people are traditionally resistant to
change and fear losing control of their data. The New Jersey respondent
believed that, even though people generally worked well together on a
state IJIS project, conflicts inevitably occurred. Nebraska dealt with
potential turf battles by showing potential system participants the benefits
of integration. Missouri indicated that problems arose when planners tried
to design a system to account for both major metropolitan jurisdictions
and rural ones. New Hampshire identified old technology as an obstacle to
overcome in implementation. Problems in Vermont included the fact that
state's attorneys are not part of the IJIS and that it was difficult getting
agencies to enter data that comply with the standard formats specified in
the state's dictionary.

Recommended Strategies

Respondents from three states mentioned that comprehensive strategic
planning with a clear set of outcomes is necessary for successful IJIS
projects. Three states emphasized the importance of working with
legislatures, governors' offices, and other fiscal representatives from the
beginning. One emphasized the importance of obtaining legislative
approval and commitment to funding at the highest possible level. New
Hampshire mentioned the importance of knowing who the players are,
identifying what they want, and determining the availability of good
technical and operational staff. Missouri remarked on the role the Chief
Justice played in motivating politicians and technical staff to support IJIS.
The respondent from Michigan added that flexibility is necessary during
project development to account for the unexpected, such as technological
changes, and that the project focus should be on functionality, not
structure. Connecticut identified the importance of ensuring participation
by all criminal justice agencies and noted that patience is necessary while
agencies learn about the requirements and benefits of integration.
Delaware emphasized the importance of reengineering business systems
and ensuring that a technological infrastructure can handle IJIS.

Results of Indepth Interviews With Countywide Integrated Justice
Information System Respondents

Respondents and Their Organizational Scope

Representatives from 16 countywide IJISs in 9 states consented to indepth
interviews, which are summarized in this section. The scope of their
organizations differs from statewide IJISs in several respects (see
appendix H). For example, countywide IJIS are less likely to include
appellate courts but are more likely to include juvenile courts, private
attorneys, and treatment centers. 

Kern County, California. Kern County's IJIS jurisdiction is criminal.
Juvenile courts were added to the system in mid-1998. Kern County's IJIS
is far-reaching, including all courts (except for the appellate court) and
criminal justice agencies. It was developed concurrently with similar IJISs
in San Joaquin, Marin, Monterey, and San Mateo Counties in California. 

Sacramento County, California. Sacramento County has an adult criminal
integrated system that includes traffic and will soon include juvenile
delinquency data. It has been in existence in its entirety since November
1988; however, pieces were in place as early as the 1970s. The IJIS
consists of five modules (adult criminal justice, jail inmate management,
court caseload management, probation, and municipal court caseload
management). The Juvenile Automation System (JAS), implemented in
1998, facilitates a modest level of information sharing between the
county's juvenile courts and other criminal justice agencies.

San Diego County, California. The San Diego County IJIS is in the early
stages of implementation and will become fully operational between 1999
and 2001. Design planning began in 1993 with discussions between the
courts and the criminal justice agencies. Development began in 1996. At
the present time, the civil component of the IJIS is operational in one
judicial district; the criminal component is in development, with the
sheriff developing the booking subsystem. The development of the district
attorney module is currently on hold. Some of the IJIS subsystems cross
county lines.

Ventura County, California. Ventura County maintains a coordinated
county IJIS with criminal jurisdiction. The IJIS includes all county-level
courts. The IJIS now in use was completed in 1989, and a new IJIS project
began in 1996. Public access to the system is considerable. In addition to
public-access terminals in the courthouse, kiosks in three shopping malls
in the county provide court information. Sixty businesses, including credit
bureaus, private investigators, and insurance companies, paid a one-time
administrative fee of $200 to gain system access.

Dade County, Florida. Dade County maintains a CJIS, along with Civil
and Traffic Information Systems, to serve the 11th Judicial Circuit and
Dade County courts. The IJIS includes the juvenile delinquency and
dependency caseload of the circuit court. It enables the courts, state's
attorney, police, public defender, and corrections to keep track of
defendants from the moment they are arrested and booked to the end of
their trials and sometimes even after appeal. The system resides on a
mainframe platform and has more than 3,000 programs. Approximately
100 agencies and 9,500 users access the system each day.

Palm Beach County, Florida. Palm Beach County has not completed its
IJIS project. It is in contract negotiations for a CJIS (including adult
criminal, traffic, and juvenile components) and is in the final stages of
selecting a vendor for its civil information system (which includes family,
domestic violence, county civil, circuit civil, and probate/mental health
components). The county would like to have an operational system by the
year 2000.

Pinellas County, Florida. This IJIS includes criminal, civil, and juvenile
cases. The juvenile system is a clone of the adult system with more
restricted access. The agencies and the courts have been sharing data since
1972. The Pinellas County IJIS does not include the appellate courts or
federal justice agencies, but it does provide access to most court agencies,
including juvenile treatment centers and social service agencies.

Volusia County, Florida. The Volusia County criminal justice system
handles criminal cases and defendants for Volusia County only; it does not
serve the other three counties assigned to the court circuit. It also houses
juvenile warrants and is analyzing a juvenile witness system. The IJIS has
been fully operational since January 1982. It includes inmate roster and
banking systems, pretrial release management and case tracking,
victim-witness notification, career criminal monitoring and alerts,
warrants, cash bond tracking, and accounting. The jail commissary will be
included in the future. The IJIS also provides ad hoc and regularly
scheduled reports to member agencies, newspapers, and colleges, as
approved.

Ada County, Idaho. The jurisdictional scope of the Ada County IJIS is
criminal: primarily misdemeanors, initial felony appearances, and traffic
infractions. The IJIS does not have a broad scope; it includes the limited
and general jurisdiction courts, prosecutors, public defenders, the jail, and
DMV. It has been fully operational since 1981.

Saginaw County, Michigan. The Saginaw County IJIS has two discrete
systems, criminal and civil, which were developed separately. The
juvenile system is two-thirds completed. County officials describe their
system as substantially rather than fully integrated. The criminal module
was implemented in 1986, and the probation module in 1988. The IJIS
features an impressive system that generates many critical forms such as
warrants, complaints, and notification forms.

Berrien County, Michigan. The criminal and traffic modules are the most
sophisticated components of the Berrien County IJIS. All agencies can
access case management systems for civil, juvenile, and probate cases.

Douglas County, Nebraska. The Douglas County IJIS includes civil,
criminal, and juvenile cases. The system has been fully operational since
1980. The IJIS scope is fairly broad, but does not include the appellate
courts, treatment centers, or DMV. The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms can view data.

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The jurisdictional scope of the
Montgomery County IJIS is both criminal and civil, including the Register
of Wills. The system became fully operational in 1988 after a six-stage
phased-in implementation plan. The IJIS has a fairly broad countywide
scope and includes all courts and agencies except for the appellate courts,
treatment centers, and DMV.

Knox County, Tennessee. The Knox County IJIS covers only criminal
jurisdiction, but the inclusion of civil cases is planned. The criminal
justice system became operational in 1998. The Knox County IJIS is
unusual in that the grand jury is one of its users. 

Harris County, Texas. Harris County's IJIS--called JIMS, or the Justice
Information Management System--includes criminal, civil, and juvenile
cases. JIMS serves more than 15,400 users in 144 county courts and
agencies, 111 noncounty agencies (including municipalities and school
districts), 11 state agencies, and 15 federal agencies. JIMS also supports
more than 800 private-sector subscriber companies under contract with the
county through the Harris County District Clerk's Office. Harris County
has been updating its system since its initial development in 1974 and
created a JIMS department in 1977. It is currently one of the most
comprehensive integrated systems in the United States.

Waukesha County, Wisconsin. The jurisdictional scope of the Waukesha
County system includes both criminal and juvenile cases. Civil cases are
managed on a different statewide system. The Waukesha County IJIS does
not include appellate courts, defense attorneys, treatment centers, DMV,
or probation, but it does include the county council and the parks and
land-use department. Portions of the system have been operational since
1988, with the system becoming fully operational in 1997. 

Policy Structure

The policy structure of the countywide IJISs appears to be more informal
and staff-driven than that of statewide IJISs. Management teams, rather
than policy advisory committees, drive development at the county level. 

None of the countywide IJIS committees had statutory authority. Several
were appointed by a county board or comparable authority, but several
organized on their own with no official imprimatur or were formed
through interagency agreements. The composition of countywide
governing bodies emphasized users. Legislative representatives were not
included on any of the county bodies. Decisions regarding system design,
construction, maintenance, implementation, and operation were usually
made by committees at the county level. The same was true for IJIS
maintenance: The responsibility for countywide IJIS maintenance was
usually given to information services managers or other technical staff at
the county level with little or no policy-level involvement.

Integrated Justice Information System Infrastructure

As with the statewide IJIS, both online and batch transfer from a shared
database are data interchange methods used by the countywide IJIS. In
Sacramento County, for example, all CJIS components are mainframe
systems that share database tables. Participating agencies use dumb
terminals or terminal emulations on personal computers to access the
CJIS. In Dade County, access to the three primary justice information
systems ranges from limited online access for the public to full online
access for primary agency users to online update capability for those with
appropriate security. The system offers both batch and online data
transfer, and several agencies create ad hoc reports. Montgomery County
has approximately 750 PCs networked to an online database. The county
also supports a bulletin board system for remote access to public
information. 

Countywide IJISs are similar to statewide IJISs in that the majority do not
integrate the Internet into their IJIS. Only Harris and San Diego Counties
have created a role for the Internet in their systems. Harris County posts
reports on the Internet, including a great deal of information regarding
their system. San Diego County posts traffic school information on the
Internet. The county is exploring a system that will allow the public to pay
fines, register for traffic school, and access court records through the IJIS.
Although the majority of countywide systems do not have an Internet
presence on their systems, many are looking into it.

Standards

Unlike statewide IJISs, all countywide IJISs have data, performance, and
security standards. However, not all countywide IJIS have data
dictionaries or formalized written performance guidelines. 

Data Standards. Several counties reported having data standards, but have
not formalized them with a data dictionary. Sacramento County based data
standards for most fields in its IJIS juvenile module on its CJIS standards.
Berrien County stated that it was implementing the state data standards as
its standards. San Diego County reported using state and federal data
standards. Montgomery County uses structured COBOL-85. Volusia
County employs a database manager to review all new tables and columns
to keep them consistent with standards. The county tries to keep the
presentation common among different screens, but it will try to
accommodate the specific needs of user agencies that may require
variations. In Ventura County, the person who discovers an error, corrects
the error. 

Performance Standards. Ventura County maintains case-closing standards
such as traffic school eligibility and flags for mandatory appearances that
cannot be overridden. One county reported strict control over what users
can and cannot do. If someone changes data in the system, the system
identifies who made the change. In Kern County, fines are immediately
entered into accounts receivable, and input errors are highlighted. In
Sacramento County, each agency is responsible for entering certain data,
and common code tables ensure that all information is entered the same
way. Knox County reported real-time updates.

Security Standards. Several counties mentioned that their security
standards involved passwords. In one Michigan county, the level of access
is determined during the sign-on process. One user reported that physical
security standards were in place both for the data center and for data at the
user level. Several county officials surveyed mentioned that system
software handled security. Another user reported a tier of security
standards that included several levels of passwords, situational analyses,
transactional audits, and exception reports that show unsuccessful attempts
by people who try to log on. In Dade County, each agency security
administrator is responsible for maintaining user security and access
within his or her agency. One Michigan county court administrator
reported that he would like more stringent security, such as passwords
rotation. Other counties also reported passwords that do not expire. In Ada
County, Idaho, only certain personnel have authority to alter or delete
data. Waukesha County assembled security groups made up of staff
members who limit what screens can be accessed and what types of cases
or data can be accessed.

Achievement of Project Objectives

The reduction of redundant data entry was the most frequently cited
countywide project objective. San Diego County was the only county that
mentioned year 2000 (Y2K) compliance as a project objective. Other
objectives cited by the county included building systems quickly and
inexpensively within the constraints of system availability, achieving high
reliability, and sharing as much information as allowed by law. Project
objectives mentioned by other counties included an increase in
information sharing, improved timeliness and reliability of data sharing,
standardized equipment, meeting state data standards, eliminating paper
processes, providing a central location for the data, stabilizing staff size,
providing public information, and meeting department needs for
information tracking and reporting. One respondent remarked that it was
difficult to eliminate paper processes because of the lack of control over
users' business practices.

Implementation Cost Estimates and Integrated Justice Information System
Funding Sources

Half the countywide IJIS respondents did not know the implementation
costs of their systems. Implementation estimates from the half that did
know ranged from $400,000 to $20 million. Several estimates were in the
$1 million to $2 million range, and several were in the $16 million to $20
million range. Countywide IJISs relied more on local funds than did
statewide IJISs. The majority of the countywide IJISs were funded by
county, rather than by federal, funds. One county that needs $18 million
over the next several years to implement its system has applied for a $14
million federal COPSMORE grant that would provide $10.3 million for a
$3.4 million match.

Volusia County, Florida, has compiled actual cost-benefit data that show
the CJIS database has saved the county millions of dollars. A study was
conducted in 1990 to examine the reduction of the county's jail
population. The CJIS database aided the analysis and identified
bottlenecks. Based on the study, procedures were put in place, maximum
time-to-file limits were set, and blind filing was implemented, resulting in
a 28-percent reduction in the daily inmate population and a 20-percent
reduction in the time from arrest to arraignment. The CJIS application was
used to perform the study and help monitor the imposed standards. The
county council documented $78 million in savings resulting from the new
procedures and filing requirements. Without IJIS, data collection from all
the different agencies necessary to carry out the study would have been
difficult, if not impossible.

Lessons Learned and Obstacles Overcome

One respondent indicated that he wished that the initial approach to
project design focused more on integration than on compartmentalization.
Another wished that his jurisdiction had implemented one module at a
time. Yet another respondent mentioned that project coordinators had 
allowed programs to become too complex. Another information services
manager thought it was a mistake to align the IJIS system with the rest of
the county and that it would be better to remain semi-independent. Better
preparation for Y2K issues was a lesson learned by one county. Another
wished for a design that allowed more interaction between personal
computers and the mainframe. One respondent remarked that subsequent
projects would ensure easier access to information. The county currently
uses Standard Query Language and a Statistical Analysis System to extract
and manipulate data, which requires technical expertise and is too slow.
Also, the respondent's system is not flexible enough, making it difficult to
change or customize. 

Respondents from countywide IJISs did not identify funding as an
obstacle, unlike their statewide IJIS counterparts. However, one
respondent mentioned that juggling available resources was difficult. Two
respondents said politics, not technical difficulties, were obstacles. To
ensure cooperation from all parties, agencies need to understand the
benefits of sharing information and trust that security can be implemented
at whatever level is determined necessary. Selfishness concerning others'
data needs was mentioned as an obstacle. Others mentioned problems that 
develop when information systems encounter existing office procedures.
Two respondents mentioned the problem of switching from electric
typewriters to personal computers. 

Recommended Strategies

The recommended strategies of respondents fell into two categories: (1)
how to get people to support the IJIS effort and (2) how to design the best
IJIS possible. Several people mentioned the importance of getting agency
leaders involved and committed early, perhaps with a written
memorandum of agreement, to ensure their commitment. A suggestion
was made to tie the project to other initiatives such as a regional
fingerprint laboratory. Another suggestion was to have at least one key
person in a high position with the vision to see what can be accomplished
and have this person share that vision with upper management and elected
officials. The importance of building a strong foundation and securing
funding also was mentioned.

Recommended strategies for obtaining the best IJIS design include
researching the technology available to design the best system and taking
advantage of new technologies. Other suggestions included making
documentation a strong priority, eliminating paper processes, avoiding
imaging because it creates more paper, putting a significant amount of
information on the Internet, and avoiding reliance on one mainframe to
operate the system. One respondent suggested stepping back a bit and
asking, "Why do we do things the way we do--is there a statute?"
Information systems should not mimic paper procedures. Another
respondent emphasized the importance of determining the needs of the
system without regard to funding because if needs are made to fit financial
resources, the system will not be satisfactory.

Other recommended strategies included buying a package currently
installed in a neighboring county rather than developing a new system,
selecting--and staying with--one vendor, selecting tools that allow for
quick development and a stable production environment, providing more
training for users, and making users an integral part of design and testing.
One county assigns a person in each department as a data-processing
coordinator to serve as a contact for all IJIS problems. The county also has
"help desk" staff trained to answer routine problems. Another county
suggested using money to get and keep competent technical staff and
using the incremental approach to development.

Endnotes

1. For a summary of survey results, see section on court automation and
integration in chapter 2, The Courts.

2. An indepth interview was conducted with a respondent from Rhode
Island, but it was decided not to include Rhode Island because its planned
IJIS had not been implemented. 

3. Appendix G lists counties and states reporting that they were planning,
developing, or operating integrated justice information systems. Due to
time constraints, every juris-diction was not surveyed. This report pertains
solely to the jurisdictions that were surveyed during the course of this
study. 

4. Nebraska's IJIS committee includes representatives from the Nebraska
Crime Commission, State Patrol, State Court Administrator's Office, State
Corrections Department, Juvenile Services, State Probation Department,
Juvenile Probation, State Parole Board, Attorney General's Office,
Nebraska Intergovernmental Data Communications Advisory Board,
Police Officers Association, Police Chiefs Association, Sheriffs
Association, Omaha and Lincoln Police Departments, County Attorneys
Association, Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, Clerks of District
Court, County Court Employee Association, League of Municipalities,
Commission of Public Advocacy, and the State Domestic Violence
Coalition.

5. Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Program funds for crime eradication programs are administered by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

6. The federal grants mentioned in this section are administered through
various bureaus of DOJ.

-------------------------------

Appendix G (please see PDF file)

Survey List of Counties and States Planning, Developing, or Operating
Integrated Justice Systems

Information was gathered for the integration survey by contacting all state
court administrators and management information system directors and
asking them for referrals to integrated systems. Contacts in those
jurisdic-tions were then interviewed.

-------------------------------

Appendix H (please see PDF file)
 
-------------------------------

Sources for Further Information

For more information on court automation and integration, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-5947
World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-688-4252
World Wide Web: http://www.ncjrs.org

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480

SEARCH
The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145
Sacramento, CA 95831
916-392-2550
World Wide Web: http://www.search.org

National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
757-253-2000
World Wide Web: http://www.ncsc.dni.us/

-------------------------------

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
grants applications and information on 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:

Mail
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000

Visit
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone
1-800-688-4252
Monday through Friday
8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time

Fax
301-519-5212

Fax on Demand
1-800-688-4252

BJA Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

NCJRS World Wide Web
http://www.ncjrs.org

E-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org

JUSTINFO Newsletter
E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org
Leave the subject line blank In the body of the message, type: 
subscribe justinfo 
[your name]