MISSION

POSSIBLE

Bureau of 

Justice Assistance

Strong Governance 

Structures for the 

Integration of Justice

Information Systems
This document was prepared by Public Technology, Inc., under grant number 

1999–DD–BX–K007, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations 

expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

Richard R. Nedelkoff

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information, contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 192278
Bureau of Justice Assistance

MISSION POSSIBLE

February 2002 Monograph NCJ 192278

Strong Governance Structures for the 

Integration of Justice Information Systems
i

Mission Possible:

Strong Governance Structures

for the Integration of

Justice Information Systems

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 1: Introduction: The Local Governance Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Purpose of Guidebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 2: The Need For Integrated Justice Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Technology Is Only Part of the Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Role of the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

PTI’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 3: Status of Integration and Governance Structures

To Facilitate Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Operation of Integrated Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Description of Justice Integration Efforts and Governance Structures . . 17

Chapter 4: No Justice Integration/No Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Why Agencies Are Not Engaged in Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Why Jurisdictions Had Not Established a Governance Structure . . . . . 19

What Would Be Included in an Integrated System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Outside Assistance Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Governance Structure With No Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Origin, Nature, and Functions of Governance Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

State Integration Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Summary Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 5: Governance Structure With or Without Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Governance Structure With Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Funding for Governance Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Involvement in Federal and State Integration Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Factors Having a Positive/Negative Impact on the 

Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Summary Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Chapter 6: Integration Without a Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Barriers to Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Origin and Nature of Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Would a Governance Structure Benefit Integration? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Funding for Integration Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Summary Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii

Chapter 7: Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Hennepin County, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Dakota County, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Marion County, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

San Diego County, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Henrico County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Tillamook County, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 8: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Recommendations for Establishing Local Governance Structures . . . . 41

Obstacles To Be Avoided in Implementing an Integrated 

Justice System Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Integration Recommendations to Justice Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Integration Obstacles To Avoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Building a Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Implementing a Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Maintaining the Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix B: Jurisdictions Responding to Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Appendix C: Bibliography/Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix D: Worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
iii

Mission Possible:

Strong Governance Structures

for the Integration of

Justice Information Systems

Figures

Figure 1: Geographic Location of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 2: Population Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 3: Type of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents That Are Integrating Justice Information Systems . . . . 16

Figure 5: Status of Integration/Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 6: Why Jurisdiction Not Engaged in Integration (in percentages) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 7: Why Governance Structure Not Established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 8: Common Roles and Responsibilities of Governance Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 9: Funding for Governance Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 10: Would a Governance Structure Benefit Your Integration Efforts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 11: Membership of the CJCC (Hennepin Co., MN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 12: The Integrated Systems Advisory Board (Hennepin Co., MN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 13: CJIIN Management Committee (Dakota Co., MN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 14: CJIIN Steering Committee (Dakota Co., MN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 15: RAIN Governance Structure (Marion Co., OR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 16: Capital Region Communications Steering Committee (Henrico Co., VA) . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 17: Composition of the LPSCC (Tillamook Co., OR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Tables

Table 1: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Sample Size and 

Percent of Jurisdictions with No Integration/No Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2: Barriers to Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 3: Percentage of Outside Assistance That Would Help With Integration . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 4: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey Sample and 

Percent of Jurisdictions With Governance Structure/No Integration . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 5: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey Sample and 

Percent of Jurisdictions With a Governance Structure and Justice Integration . . 21

Table 6: How the Governance Structure Was Initiated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 7: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey Sample and Percent of 

Jurisdictions With Integration and No Governance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 8: Type of Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 9: Barriers to Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 10: Agencies Involved in Integration Within Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

FIGURES AND TABLES
iv MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
1

Executive Summary

Public confidence in the United States justice system is negatively impacted by the

absence of an integrated justice information system that can share information and provide

information that is not only timely, but also accurate and complete. Some jurisdictions

have begun planning, and others are implementing, systems that integrate data from several justice agencies within a jurisdiction and among jurisdictions within a region or state.

To enhance the efforts of local jurisdictions engaged in justice information systems integration and to encourage similar efforts in other jurisdictions, Public Technology, Inc.

(PTI) conducted a study that examined justice integration governance structures at the

local government level. The study builds upon the recommendations from a series of U.S.

Department of Justice-sponsored conferences that focused on local and state information

system integration. Through PTI’s study, information from the field was compiled and

analyzed to ascertain the type, quality, and capability of existing justice information integration and governance structure models. 

Surveys were completed by 251 jurisdictional representatives of suburban, urban, and rural

areas throughout the United States. The majority of respondents were engaged in some

aspect of information systems integration with other departments and/or agencies, and

most systems were integrated with their state justice system. However, one-third had no

integration efforts underway and no governance structure in place to facilitate integration. 

Some of the major findings of the study were:

• Funding is a major reason that jurisdictions are not engaged in justice

information system integration and that they have not established 

governance structures.

• Other obstacles are turf issues and lack of technology.

• Local jurisdictions believe that the federal and state governments can best

assist them by providing funding for their integration efforts. Regional

governments could help best by providing strategic planning and funding

assistance; and local governments could best assist by providing the

appropriate personnel and implementation support.

• The most common type of governance structure was established through

a cooperative agreement.

• Governance structures are most often initiated by persons directly affected by the structure and/or by key advocates. 

• The roles and responsibilities of a governance board vary, but the most

common include reviewing projects and prioritizing initiatives.

• Law enforcement is most commonly the agency involved in integration

efforts. The top three information systems that respondents integrated

were records management, offender history, and computer dispatch 

systems.

• The majority of respondents felt having a governance structure was a

benefit to integration.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2

• In jurisdictions that have not established a governance structure, integration tends to be managed by an individual agency.

Based on their experiences with justice information system integration, respondents

offered a number of suggestions for advancing these efforts. In establishing local governance structures that can facilitate the integration of justice information systems, several

central themes emerged from the recommendations:

• Ensure equal involvement/participation from all agencies/

jurisdictions involved.

• Explore and secure funding.

• Set realistic goals and objectives with a reasonable 

implementation timeframe.

• Keep ongoing, open lines of communication with 

all agencies/jurisdictions involved.

• Have unconditional support of county boards/

city councils/elected officials.

• Have well-trained technology users.

• Standardize and network all software, hardware, and protocols.

Well-defined governance structures improve the justice information integration process by

enhancing communication, establishing guidelines and policies, reducing turf battles, and

fostering coordination and cooperation. Such structures consolidate and streamline information integration. Governance structures also can play a crucial role in securing funding

for local system integration efforts. Technology, by itself, cannot solve all system integration problems, and even the best-equipped integration effort will soon bog down without

an effective governing body to chart its course. 

The PTI study shows that all governance structures do not have to be created in the same

way. Jurisdictions/agencies or clusters of agencies have to decide what works best for

them and design their structures accordingly. Nevertheless, each structure should have, at a

minimum, a document that sets forth its goals and objectives, establishes the decisionmaking process, and identifies the committee participants and their responsibilities.

Survey respondents identified leadership as critical to the success of justice information

integration. Structures must be established in such a way that they will not be negatively

affected by periodic changes in locally elected and appointed leadership. Each governance

structure needs a committed champion who will work to ensure smooth working relationships and who will keep the integration efforts moving forward. 

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
3

Acknowledgments

Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) is the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit technology

research, development, and commercialization organization of the National League of

Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the International City/County

Management Association. PTI’s mission is to bring the benefits of technology to local

government. 

Participants in the Governance Project are

Vance Arnett, Director of Community Programs, Office of the State Attorney for the Sixth

Judicial Circuit of Florida, Clearwater, Florida; Douglas Bartosh, Chief of Police, Scottsdale,

Arizona; Patrice Bataglia, County Commissioner, Dakota County, Minnesota; Chris Bosch,

Chief Fire Marshall, Kansas City Fire Department, Kansas City, Missouri; Rich Cinfio,

Commander, San Carlos Police Department, San Carlos, California; Connie Dillard,

Technology Manager, San Carlos, California; Mike Dunbaugh, Chief of Police, Santa Rosa,

California; Jerry Farris, Information Technology Director, Winston-Salem, North Carolina;

Gerald E. Hardt, Program Manager, Criminal Justice Records, Arizona Criminal Justice

Commission, Phoenix, Arizona; Ron Hass, Criminal Justice Senior Technology Manager,

Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, San Francisco, California; Clint

Hubbard, Information Systems Officer, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Randy Johnson, County

Commissioner, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Debbie Kerschner, Community Corrections,

Dakota County, Minnesota; Winifred Lyday, Policy Advisor, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Bill Mills, City Attorney’s Office, Criminal Division,

Tucson, Arizona; Ron Olin, Chief of Police, Lawrence, Kansas; Jim Peschong, Assistant Chief

of Police, Lincoln, Nebraska; Major Kathleen Pierce, Commander, Information Systems

Division, Kansas City Police Department, Kansas City, Missouri; Tom Russell, Regional

Computer Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; C.J. Shaffer, Director, Plans, Analysis and Emergency

Operations Branch, Hampton Police Department, Hampton, Virginia; and Barbara Sheen Todd,

County Commissioner, Pinellas County, Florida. 

Site visit team members are

Norm Bowman, Citywide GIS Coordinator, Kansas City, Missouri; Will Davis, Police Planning

Manager, Scottsdale Police Department, Scottsdale, Arizona; Mike Nagan, Director,

Information Services, Seattle, Washington; Pam Scanlon, ARJIS Regional Director, San Diego

Police Department, San Diego, California; and Ron Wilborg, Grants and Contracts Supervisor,

Community Corrections, Hennepin County, Minnesota.

Janet Quist, former Director of Public Safety Programs at PTI, and writer Elsie Scott, Senior

Executive, Office of Chief of Police, Washington, D.C., contributed to this project.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
4

Chapter 1

Introduction: The Local Governance Survey

Purpose

Through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice

Programs (OJP), Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) examined the types of structures that local

governments either use or are contemplating to implement or oversee justice information

systems integration efforts. 

PTI is the only nonprofit technology organization for local governments in the United

States whose mission is to advance the development and use of technology by local government. The National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the

International City/County Management Association, three leading national and international organizations representing city and county government, provide PTI with its policy

direction, while a select group of city and county members conduct applied research and

development and technology transfer functions. Created in 1971, PTI is the only national

organization dedicated to furthering the use of technology in both cities and counties, for

both elected officials and professional managers. Partnerships with private industry, an

entrepreneurial spirit, and a focus on connectivity, sustainability, and wise decision support

are the foundations of PTI’s philosophy.

For this project, PTI conducted a mail survey with followup site visits to six local jurisdictions selected based on their survey responses, population size, geographic diversity, and

levels of their integration governance efforts. The purpose of this study was to

• Ascertain the type, quality, and capability of governance processes and

structures in use or contemplated nationwide.

• Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of current models.

• Explore the creative processes behind various governance structures. 

• Observe the progress of different communities as they seek to share 

justice information. 

By achieving total integration, PTI believes that local governments will be better 

positioned to respond to the increasing public pressure for faster, more effective justice

services. 

Methodology

The first task of this project was to survey local governments to examine governance

structures facilitating the integration of justice information systems at the local level. A

group of 23 city and county public safety professionals and local elected officials representing PTI’s membership was convened for the task of drafting the survey and later, once

results were in, drafting the content of the guidebook. Working group members represented a broad range of experts with direct experience in the area of local justice information

systems and the technologies and governance structures needed to successfully integrate

these systems. Participants included professionals representing city and county law

enforcement, courts, current managers of integrated justice information systems, public

safety and jurisdictionwide information technology professionals, emergency operations

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
5

professionals, criminal records managers, fire personnel, and elected county officials. One

state-level representative also participated. 

The group used the “Collaboratory,” a completely portable, customized electronic workspace consisting of laptop computers and collaborative decision-support software. Using

professional, experienced facilitators and technical support, this tool promotes open discussion and brainstorming using a network of personal computers through which participants simultaneously and anonymously submit ideas and reach consensus on difficult

issues. 

Once the draft survey was completed, PTI worked with The Leede Research Group from

Manitowoc, Wisconsin, to formalize and administer the survey. PTI worked with its three

sponsoring organizations to obtain a sampling of each organization’s membership.

Approximately 250 cities and counties were chosen from their respective databases using

population size and geography as selection criteria (see appendix B: Jurisdictions

Responding to Survey). 

Because the diversity of agencies and individuals involved in justice systems at the local

level varies among jurisdictions, the survey was sent to the chief elected or appointed official of each jurisdiction. The recipient was then asked to forward it to appropriate individual(s) within the respective agencies for a response. As is noted in the data, the law

enforcement agency was the most likely to respond. It should be noted that there were

issues regarding those jurisdictions with more than one agency involved in integration,

since only one agency was likely to complete the form. This respondent might not be fully

aware of what the other agencies were doing, resulting in a response that may have been

based solely on that respondent’s particular perspective. 

More than 1,300 surveys were sent out. With the exception of PTI’s membership, the surveys were directed to the chief local elected or appointed official. Most responses were

provided by persons with immediate knowledge concerning local integration (i.e., mainly

justice professionals). Respondents could return the survey by mail, fax, or online via

PTI’s Web site.

The survey instrument consisted of 64 open- and closed-ended multiple choice questions

(see Appendix A). With the exception of a few demographic questions designed to enable

comparisons among jurisdictions, questions were designed to elicit information concerning

the status of justice integration efforts and governance structures at the local government

level. PTI examined the way governance structures were created (e.g., whether by statute,

arising from a series of informal meetings among staff wanting to improve efficiency or

improve current processes, etc.), the reasons that some succeeded and some failed, and the

types of resources necessary to create and sustain effective governance structures. A working group comprising representatives from a broad range of city and county justice 

agencies and elected officials collaborated to draft the survey and the contents of this

guidebook.

The responses were tallied and the data analyzed during March 2000. Surveys were completed and returned by 251 respondents, constituting an 18.5% response rate. The error

rate associated with the survey was +/- 5.59% at a 95% confidence level.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: THE LOCAL GOVERNANCE SURVEY
6

Survey Respondents

Jurisdictions located in suburban and urban areas made up 68% of the responses, while

rural jurisdictions accounted for 19%; 13% of the respondents (DK/NA) did not indicate a

geographic location (see figure 1).

Over one-third of the

responding jurisdictions

(38%) were located in

communities with populations of between 10,000

and 50,000 people, and

one-fifth (20%) were

located in areas with populations of more than

250,000 people (see figure 2). Note: The percentages do not total to 100%

because some respondents did not answer the

question. 

The largest group of

responding jurisdictions

was cities (63%); the second largest group, 22%,

was counties (see figure

3). The most common

form of government was council-manager (39%), with 29% having a mayor-council form

of government (see figure 3).

The majority of the responding jurisdictions reported that their jurisdiction operates information systems that are integrated with other departments/agencies. Two common factors

were found. First, most jurisdictions were integrated with their respective state’s justice

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

– – –
7

information system and, second, most had not yet developed an integrated information

technology strategic plan.

Analyzing this data, PTI found that most jurisdictions involved in some phase of justice

system integration have 

• Identified a governing body, the composition of which is suited to

their environment.

• Devised a governance structure that guides that body’s operation.

• Set policies that increased their chances for success.

• Created an environment of trust.

To provide a clear blueprint for successful integration of justice information systems, a site

visit team visited six jurisdictions representing a broad spectrum of local governments.

Site visits were selected based on survey responses, population size, geographic diversity,

and levels of integration/governance effort. Those visits proved invaluable for both supporting empirical survey data and understanding the application of current governance

structures.

Purpose of Guidebook 

This guidebook is designed to help jurisdictions create and deploy governance for the integration of their justice information systems. Survey data, coupled with case studies, combine for a compelling study of how to accomplish better information integration through

governance. This guidebook helps provide the tools local governments need to develop

successful governance structures and improve upon existing structures. It can enhance the

capability and capacity of local governments to move toward the horizontal and vertical

integration of justice information sharing systems. 

The impetus for developing this guidebook did not come from a Federal Government

mandate. It came from the grassroots—from the potential users at the local government

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: THE LOCAL GOVERNANCE SURVEY
8

level. The OJP conference series discussed in the next chapter made obvious the need to

support existing integration efforts and to provide agencies not currently engaged in integration with assistance in getting started. Before the mechanisms providing the needed

assistance could be fully established, however, a status assessment needed to be conducted. The PTI survey was the vehicle used to accomplish this.

This guidebook is an initial step in the process of helping local governments reach a level

of integration that could lead to a nationwide, seamless integration of justice information

systems. Local jurisdictions that do not have structures in place or are not engaged in justice information integration can use the guidebook to assist them in developing successful

data integration and governance structures. Jurisdictions that already have structures in

place can use the guidebook as a tool to help them improve their structures. Also, jurisdictions that have integrated justice information systems can compare their efforts and ascertain what can be learned from the experiences of other jurisdictions. In addition, this

guidebook can be used as a local governance training tool for justice information 

integration.

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
9

Chapter 2

The Need for Integrated Justice Information

The Problem

The U.S. justice system was established to accomplish several purposes: to detect, apprehend, convict, and incarcerate offenders; to deter potential offenders; and to create an

ordered society. Its success is immeasurably strengthened when all the components of the

justice system have available to them the most current, accurate, and complete data that

they can obtain. 

The justice system’s mission often is hampered or stymied by factors such as 

• Inefficient manual processes, disparate or missing data.

• Illegible index cards with seminal crime information. 

• Multiple and inconsistent incident/booking reports. 

• Uncoordinated relationships among justice agencies. 

Offenders have remained free because agencies have not had the capacity to quickly and

efficiently communicate with each other. Months, and sometimes years, unfortunately pass

before suspects are adjudicated and incarcerated. 

The backlog of unprosecuted criminal cases in America continues to grow frighteningly

large while, simultaneously, adjudication bodies work at full capacity to keep pace with

the layers of bureaucracy that have been created to uphold the principle of due process of

the law. Worse still, these barriers trapped criminal justice workers in a recurring cycle of

paperwork, filing, and phone calls, resulting in a costly misallocation of safety resources,

manual errors, and “lost” work hours that effectively reduce citizen safety. With many of

America’s local justice agencies relying on sticky notes, faxed messages, undocumented

telephone calls, or unsecured e-mail to exchange criminal case information, the integrity,

accuracy, and security of that information is at risk. 

The end result for all involved has been a slow and expensive judicial process that lacks

centralized quality control. For swift, fair, and economical justice to prevail, local governments desperately need a means of managing the integration and automated exchange of

key crime information across agency and jurisdictional bounds—a priority of the U.S.

Department of Justice since the late 1960s. Early on, law enforcement and Federal

Government agencies attempted to encourage information sharing among local jurisdictions by providing funding opportunities through the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration (LEAA) grants. 

Paradoxically, these very funds have often contributed to the creation of silos of unshared

information. Traditionally, funding from these programs has been “program” or “purpose”

specific and unfortunately led to the installation of many different computer systems, in

many cases with limited purposes, serving the various justice components in state, local,

and tribal governments.

Thirty-plus years have passed since the first LEAA grants were disbursed, with this program having been replaced by the present Community Oriented Policing Services and

Local Law Enforcement Block Grant programs. Gaping holes still appear in the

CHAPTER 2. THE NEED FOR INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION
10

achievement of effective local (let alone regional or national) integrated justice information

systems. Agencies in the criminal justice system guard information more carefully than

any other type of government agency, with the exception, perhaps, of those in national

security or the armed forces. Change in bureaucracies that are protective of their data is

neither easy nor fast. Despite the inherent complexity of integrating their justice information systems, however, local governments continue to strive to do so in order to expedite

justice and improve the safety for their constituents.

Technology Is Only Part of the Solution 

Modern advances in computing have the power to drastically change America’s justice

process. The advent of information technology has had a substantial impact on the way

local government agencies integrate and exchange criminal information, thus speeding the

processes by which crime is managed, thereby enhancing the capacity of local public safety agencies to respond effectively. Terabit computing systems, scalable data warehouses,

improved wire line and wireless telecommunications, and the Internet are already available

to foster the exchange of justice information across agencies that need access to real time

information. Technology itself is not a panacea for slow and inefficient justice processes.

And information systems alone cannot integrate data from one county to another across

jurisdictional lines. Such integration of justice information processes and systems requires

people in local governments to adapt their processes to such systems. The key to the successful integration of justice information in America’s local justice agencies clearly resides

with their governance structure. 

Well-defined and structured governance empowers the integration of justice information

systems because it requires the cooperation of both the community’s justice professionals

and its elected and appointed officials who possess the detailed process knowledge about

their communities that can provide deep and broad perspectives on integration needs. In

parallel, governance of integration efforts enables information technology professionals to

engineer processes with those who must enforce the rule of law, creating flexible applications that change with the varying needs of the community’s police officers, lawyers,

judges, jails, and motor vehicle departments. Furthermore, governance structures enable

the documentation of the integration process, thus providing a template that other jurisdictions and localities can use in similar efforts. Ultimately, it is governance that consolidates

and streamlines the integration of justice information, providing the guidance needed to

ensure that technology represents a solution for all those involved in managing the justice

system.

The Role of the Federal Government

In 1997, OJP created the Information Technology (IT) Executive Council to help guide

federal funding in a more synergistic manner. Through a series of conferences in 1998, the

IT Executive Council met with more than 300 representatives from state and local criminal

justice systems to

• Determine the stages of justice integration efforts at the

state and local levels.

• Identify the issues surrounding the integration of justice

information systems.

• Pinpoint the processes that could spur such integration.

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
11

The initial meetings took place in February and March of 1998. During the first gathering,

a focus group of criminal justice experts from a variety of law enforcement, prosecution,

public defense, corrections agencies, and the courts met with the IT Executive Council to

discuss how integrated criminal justice information systems are built. As a result, the

expert focus group also provided the council with 14 detailed recommendations, including

those to

• Structure grants to support the various phases of project

development and implementation (research, development,

maintenance, etc.).

• Provide a one-stop shop for information, answers, and

access to the status of federal standards concerning 

technology.

• Send federal representatives into the field to help with

planning at state and local levels.

• Coordinate state efforts at a national level, work with

states to do the same for coordinating local initiatives,

and be able to discuss how various federal initiatives

work together. 

At the March meeting—the Conference of the States—the council met with a contingent

of criminal justice representatives from eight states to collect recommendations from the

states’ point of view. Recommendations stemming from this meeting addressed similar

issues:

• Help states conduct regional, state and/or local integration workshops onsite.

• Tie grants to data integrity, security, standards, and planning requirements.

• Recognize that “one size does not fit all.”

In July, the council met with criminal justice representatives from an additional 8 states,

along with the original 8, and in November met with representatives from 8 more states,

along with the original 16. The 1998 conference series provided OJP with the field’s recommendations to further state and local justice integration through grant guidance, technical assistance, and the development of a national integration resource center.

At the culmination of this series of meetings, OJP identified the critical first steps needed

to help move state and local governments toward the integration of justice information

systems. Those eight steps were set forth in OJP’s 1999 Integration Initiative:

1. Building a business case for integration—Assisting justice information integration

efforts by state and local jurisdictions by creating an education and marketing tool for

executives, legislators, the judiciary, and the public that demonstrates the value of such

integrated systems (currently published; see appendix C: Resources).

2. A governance initiative—Examining, at the state level, the governance structures in

place and overseeing integration efforts to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of

various structures (currently in final review stage).

3. Procurement improvement initiative—Rethinking the Office of Federal Procurement Policy process to improve upon it.

4. Standards initiative—Surveying and categorizing results to identify current standards

and to reach national consensus on technical and data standards for justice integration.

CHAPTER 2. THE NEED FOR INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION
12

5. State/local government legislation initiative—Creating an inventory of legislation

that supports integration and that can aid jurisdictions in drafting new or amending

current legislation.

6. Federal Web consortium participation—OJP joining the consortium to build relationships with other federal agencies, exchange ideas, and work with the agencies on

mutually beneficial projects.

7. Information interchange study—Studying how information flows through the criminal justice process and how that information is shared.

8. National Information Resource Center—Providing a central place for all levels of

government pursuing integration efforts to obtain relevant and useful information.

Building upon the progress made during 1999, OJP focused its projects in 2000 on four

areas:

• Creating a National Integration Resource Center.

• Facilitating state pilots, initially in Alabama, where OJP is collaborating

to build an integrated justice information system in the southwestern portion of the state.

• Helping develop standards for information exchange, maintenance, and

architecture development.

• Fostering a justice information privacy initiative that will help states,

local governments, and tribal governments.

Overall, OJP-funded information technology initiatives include the following elements:

Functional Standards—OJP is supporting the development of functional standards in the

area of courts by the National Center for State Courts (adult criminal and juvenile justice case management systems), the corrections community, and the probation/parole

community. In addition, the National Center for State Courts has developed functional

standards for civil court case management systems and is planning the development of

functional standards for traffic and probate courts.

Resource Center—OJP, through a cooperative agreement with REI Systems Inc., will

create a Web page to support state and local government teams responsible for developing integrated justice information systems. OJP will populate the Web page with

content based on recommendations from a Justice Practitioners Working Group and

will task the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement to help consolidate the recommended content.

XML Initiative—OJP sponsored a workshop in March 2001 that brought together teams

responsible for implementing leading edge applications of XML used to facilitate

exchange of information among courts, the intelligence community, and the criminal

record history community. Workshop discussions will be used to determine the appropriate role that OJP should play in coordinating the development and implementation

of XML applications in the justice community.

Industry Working Group—OJP is working with the private sector through an Industry

Working Group to obtain its views on planned policy and implementation initiatives

and its recommendations to improve government approaches to procurement reform,

technology refreshment, standards, and software development. OJP also is examining

the feasibility of tasking a nonprofit spinoff of the Working Group to provide technology assistance and periodic seminars on emerging technologies.

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
13

Governance Studies—OJP has been working with the National Criminal Justice

Association on a state survey to identify and document the characteristics of governance models across the country that oversee the development and implementation of

integrated criminal justice systems. Similarly, OJP is partnering with PTI on a local

government survey to identify and document characteristics of local governance models used to operate integrated justice systems in counties, municipalities, and regional

units of government. The latter project is this guidebook.

Indian Nations—OJP has been working in partnership with the Office of Tribal Justice to

facilitate the planning, design, and implementation of integrated information systems

by various Indian Nations. In particular OJP has supported an effort to share justice

information among the Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, and other tribal nations in the United

States. OJP is also supporting plans by the Navajo Nation to conduct a Summit on

Integration for their tribe.

Privacy—OJP is implementing a three-part program aimed at improving privacy in the

development and implementation of justice information systems. The first initiative

resulted in the creation of Privacy Design Principles for an Integrated Justice System.

This was followed by the development of a Privacy Impact Assessment for Justice

Information Systems. These documents are available on the OJP Integrated Justice

Web page (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/integratedjustice). The third and final initiative is a

series of three workshops aimed at producing guidelines for Public Access to Criminal

Justice Electronic Records. OJP and the Bureau of Justice Statistics are planning to

task The SEARCH Group, Inc. to schedule a national conference on privacy later this

year to roll out some of the products produced by this initiative.

Courts—OJP is also supporting state courts through partnerships with the National

Center for State Courts and affiliated organizations (including the Conference of State

Court Administrators, the National Association of Court Management, and the

Conference of Chief Justices). Partnership efforts include providing technical assistance to the courts, support tools for small and rural courts, developing functional

standards for case management systems, and a Web crawler capability to facilitate

information gathering from state court administration Web pages.

Legislation—OJP, in partnership with the National Conference of State Legislators, is

working to identify legislative initiatives affecting the justice community and to elevate the understanding of integration and information sharing issues on the part of

state legislators.

Architecture—OJP and the National Association of State Chief Information Officers are

working to conceptualize and implement appropriate architectures, frameworks, and

information sharing standards to facilitate the movement of justice information across

jurisdictional boundaries. PTI is considering similar efforts with an organization representing local governments.

Project Management—With assistance from the Industry Working Group, OJP, the

University of New Orleans Center for Society, Law and Justice, and Auburn

University have developed a curriculum aimed at educating and certifying state and

local officials in technology project management.

State Strategic Planning—OJP and the National Governors Association (NGA) are conducting a series of workshops designed to develop implementation plans for integration of justice information systems. OJP has funded the travel for participating states

to attend the workshops and prepare implementation plans. This initiative is designed

to involve the governors of states more personally and to provide incentives for

CHAPTER 2. THE NEED FOR INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION
14

competing for additional implementation grants. Funding will be based on competitive

review of states’ plans by NGA and an advisory board established by NGA.

Business Case—OJP funded the development of guidance to state and local governments

for the preparation of business case concepts to help them secure resources and leadership support for integration and information sharing. The Center for Technology in

Government developed guidelines based on workshop input from elected and appointed executives and leaders from the criminal justice community. The guideline document is available on the OJP Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/integratedjustice).

Information Exchange Points—OJP and The SEARCH Group are identifying and documenting key points at which justice information is transferred between jurisdictions. A

computerized model is being developed to illustrate the flow of information and

demonstrate optimal exchange conditions to facilitate the development of appropriate

standards for integration.

Strategic Planning Model—OJP funded the development of a Strategic Planning Model

by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). The documented version

of this product is available from IACP and will be placed on the OJP Resource Center

Web page upon completion.

Technology Standards—OJP has funded the development of a process for identifying,

selecting, and approving technology standards for use by the justice community. The

project was developed by the Office of Law Enforcement Standards, National Center

for Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers, and the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration through the National Institute of

Justice.

Corrections—OJP is exploring the possibility of partnering with the Corrections

Technology Association to develop functional standards for the corrections 

community. 

Law Enforcement Intelligence—OJP is sponsoring the quarterly meeting of the Law

Enforcement Intelligence Forum to recommend appropriate processes, standards and

policies for improving the management of intelligence information by the law enforcement community.

Transportation Systems—OJP is partnering with the U.S. Department of Transportation

to create a Public Safety Program within the transportation community designed to

create synergy between public safety and transportation initiatives. A memorandum of

understanding (MOU) committing both departments to support their respective information sharing efforts was recently signed.

Justice Integration Earmarks—OJP will be monitoring initiatives established by

Congress as earmarks for projects to implement integrated justice information systems. Examples of this type of project include those earmarked for the eastern part of

Kentucky and the Southwestern Alabama Project.

Coordination—OJP coordinated meetings in April 2001 for grantees and technical assistance providers to exchange information about their programs and to learn about the

overall program envisioned by OJP.

Technical Assistance—OJP is working with various organizations to provide technical

assistance to the justice community on a broad basis. Some of the organizations

involved include: The SEARCH Group; the University of Arkansas Criminal Justice

Institute and its National Center for Rural Law Enforcement; the University of New

Orleans Center for Society, Law and Justice; the National Center for State Courts; the

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
15

Institute for Intergovernmental Research; the Community Oriented Policing Services;

the Development Services Group; the Center for Network Development; the National

Criminal Justice Association; and the National Institute of Corrections.

PTI’s Role

During the course of meetings held in 1999, OJP discovered the importance of governance

structures in cities and counties to oversee the integration of justice information systems at

the local level. To help OJP, PTI proposed developing a guide to governance from the local

government perspective. PTI’s role was to examine local governance structures to determine their types, qualities, and capabilities. Through a cooperative agreement with OJP,

PTI studied current and planned governance structures of cities and counties for the integration of justice information systems.

PTI conducted a national survey of local government elected and appointed officials to

ascertain their efforts to integrate justice information systems, types of governance structures in place to facilitate integration, and how those structures were created. The survey

also was designed to identify those jurisdictions that were engaged in integrating systems

and/or have governance structures to facilitate this integration. The survey results have

been compiled, and the analysis of the findings serves as the foundation for this 

guidebook.

CHAPTER 2. THE NEED FOR INTEGRATED JUSTICE INFORMATION
16

Chapter 3

Status of Integration and Governance

Structures To Facilitate Integration

Operation of Integrated Information Systems

Initially, survey respondents were asked about the status of justice information system

integration in their jurisdictions. Questions focused on integration efforts among departments/agencies, with other local jurisdictions and with state criminal justice information

systems. Three-quarters of survey respondents reported that their jurisdictions operate integrated information systems with other departments/agencies (see Figure 4).

Note: Percentages do not

total 100% because there

were some who did not

respond to the question.

Clearly, respondents were

more likely to be involved

in integration within their

jurisdictions (74%) than

with other local jurisdictions (45%) or with state

systems (64%). A greater

percentage of larger jurisdictions indicated they are

integrated with other jurisdictions than did smaller

jurisdictions. Only 38% of

jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000

were integrated with other

jurisdictions, while 55% of

those with populations of

more than 50,000 were integrated with other jurisdictions. Differences based on size of

population were less pronounced in responses relating to integration with state criminal

justice information systems. 

Regardless of the type of integration (among departments/agencies or with other local

jurisdictions), justice systems that were most likely to be integrated were law enforcement,

emergency communications, courts, and the department of motor vehicles. Of the nonjustice systems, a greater percentage of the agencies within jurisdictions were integrated

with planning/zoning (22%), public works (19%), and public utilities (12%). Outside their

jurisdiction, more agencies were integrated with planning/zoning (20%) and transportation

(17%).

More than half of the participants (55%) had implemented public access rules, while only

about one-fifth had developed an integrated information technology strategic plan (21%).

Larger jurisdictions with populations of more than 50,000 were more likely to have public

access rules (55% v. 38%) and a technology strategic plan (33% v. 10%).

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

T A
17

Description of Justice Integration Efforts and

Governance Structures

Respondents were asked to place their jurisdictions in one of four categories best describing current justice integration efforts:

1. No justice integration effort underway nor a governance structure to

facilitate such integration.

2. A governance structure to facilitate the integration of the justice information systems, but no current integration of systems.

3. Justice information systems integration, but no governance structure in

place.

4. Justice information systems integration and a governance structure in

place.

The largest percentage of respondents (34%) fell into the first category: no integration, no

governance structure, while the smallest percentage (12%) had a governance structure but

no current systems integration (see figure 5). The responses based on the status of their

integration are reported in the following three chapters. More detail on each of these four

categories is presented in the following chapters.

CHAPTER 3. STATUS OF INTEGRATION AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES TO FACILITATE INTEGRATION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35
18

Chapter 4

No Justice Integration/

No Governance Structure

When jurisdictions were compared by population size, there was a significant variance

between the percentage of jurisdictions in the sample and the ones reporting no integration/no governance structure (see table 1). For example,

the larger areas, jurisdictions with populations of more

than 250,000, made up 20% of the sample, but only 8%

of the jurisdictions with no integration and no governance structure. Jurisdictions with populations between

10,000 and 50,000 made up 38% of the sample, but they

were almost half of the jurisdictions with no integration

or governance structure.

Why Agencies Are Not Engaged in

Integration

Respondents were provided with nine preselected

options (although they could write in a response) to

explain why their jurisdictions were not engaged in the

integration of justice information systems: (1) politics,

(2) power/control, (3) data/information security, (4) size of relevant agency(ies), (5) liability, (6) trust, (7) agency “cultural” issues, (8) funding, and (9) risk management/exposure. 

Funding was the most often cited reason (26%) for not engaging in integrated justice systems (see figure 6). Data security was selected by 15%, and size of relevant agency(ies)

was selected by 14%. The majority of respondents (82%) who were not engaged in

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

% With No Integration

Population % Of Sample No Governance Difference

< 10,000 13 18 +5

10,000–50,000 38 49 +11

50,000–100,000 14 12 -2

100,000–250,000 14 12 -2

250,000+ 20 8 -12

Table 1: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Sample

Size and Percent of Jurisdictions With No Integration/No

Governance Structure
CHAPTER 4. NO JUSTICE INTEGRATION / NO GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

integration nor had a governance structure reported that they had not

attempted integration in the past. Those that had attempted to integrate

justice information systems but were unsuccessful were asked to describe

their experience and explain why their efforts had failed. Lack of funding

was the major reason given, but other reasons included agency incompatibility and politics.

Respondents were given a list of 13 barriers, and were required to select

those that were preventing the integration of their jurisdictions’ justice

information systems (see table 2). Lack of funding was selected by far

more agencies than any other barrier. A number of jurisdictions responded that the size of their jurisdiction and/or budget prevented them from

integrating. Secondary barriers were staffing/personnel and technology

issues. The personnel barrier was related to the funding barrier because

jurisdictions were likely to state that they could not afford the personnel

needed for an integrated system. Similarly, several jurisdictions tied their

technology issues to funding problems.

Why Jurisdictions Had Not Established a 

Governance Structure

When asked why they had not established a governance structure, the

responses were similar to those given for not integrating (see figure 6). Funding was cited

by 28%, size was selected by 16%, and data/information security was selected by 13%

(see figure 7). Politics was identified as the reason for no governance structure by 12%.

This was less than the 8% that identified politics as the reason that they were not engaged

in integration. Data/information security was more of a limitation in the larger jurisdictions

(250,000+ population) than it was in the smaller jurisdictions. Twenty-six percent of the

respondents from larger jurisdictions listed data security as a barrier compared to only 

19

Barriers Number Percent

Funding 64 21.0

Lack of Champion 15 4.9

Political 21 6.9

Lack of Governance 

Structure 15 4.9

Staffing/Personnel 35 11.5

Turf Issues 27 8.9

Size of Agency 19 6.2

Liability 12 3.9

Data Security 25 8.2

Trust 8 2.6

Cultural Issue 9 3.0

Technology Issues 31 10.2

Risk Management/

Exposure 14 4.6

Table 2: Barriers to Integration
20

7% of those with 50,000–100,000 population and 11% of those with populations of

100,000–250,000.

Of those jurisdictions without a governance structure, 85% had not attempted to establish

a governance structure to facilitate integration. The 15% that had tried and failed in their

attempts to establish a governance structure attributed the failure to funding. A number of

other respondents blamed the failure on politics.

What Would Be Included in an Integrated System?

When asked what agencies would likely be included if their jurisdictions were to integrate

their justice information systems, 15% indicated that law enforcement would be included,

11% would include the courts, 10% would include the prosecutor, and 10% would include

emergency communications. Agencies that elicited the fewest responses were transportation (0.6%), the health department (0.8%), the public defender (1.4%), and social services

(1.6%). 

Outside Assistance Needed

Respondents identified disparate types of assistance needed from the federal, state, local,

and regional levels of government (see table 3). The type of assistance most desired from

the federal and state governments was funding, while personnel/staff was the assistance

most desired from the local level

(15%). Forty percent of the respondents felt that federal funding would

help their jurisdictions engage in justice integration, while 22% selected

state funding. This compares with only

11% who felt that local funding would

help, and 13% who felt that regional

funding would help. Besides funding,

federal assistance was needed in strategic planning (10%) and facilitation

(10%). Fifteen percent of the respondents wanted strategic planning from

their state or region. Consultant assistance was cited by 12% and 11%,

respectively, from their state and

region. The local government and the

region were viewed as the most helpful

sources in assisting with operation and

management planning and in developing public/private partnerships.

Governance Structure With No Integration

Twelve percent of the respondents indicated that they have established a governance structure to facilitate the integration of their justice information systems but are currently not

doing so (see figure 5). Of the jurisdictions in this category, the smallest percentage was

found in rural areas (10%), while the largest (41%) was in urban areas. In examining geographical types, it was revealed that only a small percentage of each type had a governance structure with no integration: rural areas (6%), suburban areas (12%), and urban

areas (14%).

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Type of Assistance Federal State Regional Local

Funding 41.0 22.3 13.4 11.4

Strategic Planning 10.1 14.5 14.6 11.7

Implementation 7.0 10.8 11.8 13.2

Facilitation 10.1 10.8 11.0 9.4

Consultants 8.9 13.0 11.4 8.8

Industry 3.2 4.5 5.7 5.3

Staff/Personnel 5.7 7.4 8.1 14.9

Marketing Plan 5.1 6.7 7.7 6.4

Operation & Management

Plans/Budgeting 4.4 7.4 10.6 12.0

Public/Private Partnership 2.5 1.5 4.5 6.1

Other 1.9 1.1 1.2 .9

Table 3: Percentage of Outside Assistance That Would Help With Integration
21

When jurisdictions were compared by population size,

less than one-fourth of each of the geographical types

of jurisdictions had a governance structure. The largest

percentage (20%), was from jurisdictions with a population of more than 250,000. Jurisdictions with populations of more than 250,000 were most disproportionate to their sample percentage (see table 4), meaning

the frequency of their having a governance structure

with no integration was higher than their sample proportionality in the survey would have predicted. 

Origin, Nature and Functions of

Governance Structures

The largest number of jurisdictions (44%) had a governance structure that was formed

through a cooperative agreement, memorandum of understanding, or some similar document. Some structures were created by statute (15%), others were loose configurations

with informal guidelines (11%), and still others were established as a grant requirement

(8%). 

Affected personnel initiated the governance structure

for 47% of the jurisdictions (see table 6). Fourteen percent of respondents stated their structures were begun

as the result of a legislative mandate.

State Integration Efforts

When questioned about state-level justice information

system integration, most respondents did not know the

status of their states’ efforts (63%). Of those who did

know about their states’ efforts, 57% said their states

were engaged in integration planning, while 43% said

their states did not have integration efforts underway.

Those whose states were engaged in integration were

asked how they learned about the effort. Close to one-third (32%) stated their agencies

were notified, 18% indicated their jurisdictions were notified, and 18% responded that

their jurisdictions were invited to the table. Less than half of the jurisdictions that knew

about their states’ efforts (40%) were participating. 

Summary Points

• Funding is a major impediment to the integration of justice information systems and the

establishment of governance structures.

• Law enforcement, the courts, prosecutors, and

emergency communications are the key agencies to include in an integrated system.

• The type of assistance needed from a local

government may differ from the assistance

needed from the federal and state governments.

CHAPTER 4. NO JUSTICE INTEGRATION, NO GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Population % of Sample % With Governance Difference

Structure/No Integration 

10,000 13 3 -10

10,000-50,000 38 41 +3

50,000-100,000 14 3 11

100,000-250,000 14 17 +3

250,000+ 20 35 +15

Table 4: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey

Sample and Percent of Jurisdictions With a Governance

Structure/No Integration

Population % of Sample % With Governance Difference

Structure/Integration

10,000 13 9 -4

10,000–50,000 38 28 -10

50,000–100,000 14 22 +8

100,000–250,000 14 12 -2

250,000+ 20 26 +6

Table 5: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey

Sample and Percent of Jurisdictions With a Governance

Structure and Justice Integration

How Structure Initiated Number Percent

Created for another purpose 9 9.8

Legislative mandate 13 14.1

By affected personnel 43 46.7

By key advocate/champion 13 14.1

Other 13 14.1

Table 6: How the Governance Structure Was Initiated
22

Chapter 5

Governance Structure 

With or Without Integration

Governance Structure With Integration

One-fourth (26%) of the respondents have a governance structure in place and are integrating justice information systems (see Figure 5). Of the jurisdictions in this category, the

largest percentage (42%) was in urban areas, 25% were from the suburbs, and 17% were

in rural areas. The following percentage of each type had a governance structure with

integration: rural areas (23%), suburban areas (14%), and urban areas (32%). 

When population was used to compare jurisdictions with governance and integration,

jurisdictions with populations of 250,000+ and jurisdictions with populations from 50,000

to 100,000 were the only population types in the plus column, i.e., their percentage of

jurisdictions with governance and integration was greater than their percentage of the sample (see table 5). 

Law enforcement was

identified as the most

important agency for

participation in the

governance structure.

More than one-fifth

of the jurisdictions

(21%) indicated that

law enforcement participates in their governance structures.

The courts participate

in 12%, the prosecutor participates in

11%, and the central

information technology agency is a part

of 10% of the

structures.

Members of the governance body were more likely to be appointed than to be elected or selected through some

other method. It was reported that most governance bodies did not have their own staff

(39%), and that the reporting entities for these bodies varied based on form of government

(i.e., mayor/council, city/county manager, county executive/commission). 

Respondents were asked to identify the roles and responsibilities of their governance board

from among nine options. The most common roles were to review projects (14%), prioritize initiatives (14%), set policy (12%), recommend funding (11%), set standards (11%),

prioritize system changes (11%), and authorize software (10%) (see figure 8).

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
23

Less than half of the governance structures (40%) have fiscal authority. Most of the ones

with fiscal authority have spending authority (88%) but no taxing authority (12%). 

Involvement of local elected officials in the governance structure is varied. One-fourth of

the respondents indicated that their local elected officials participate in the governance

structure. Other respondents indicated lower levels of participation for such functions as

funding (21%) and mandating the structure (14%). Fifteen percent of the respondents stated that their local officials were not aware of the structure. One-third or more of the smallest jurisdictions (10,000 or less population) and jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 to

100,000 indicated that their local elected officials participate in the governance structure.

Approximately one-fourth of all the other jurisdictions indicated that their local officials

participate in the governance structure, except those with populations from 10,000 to

50,000. Only 14% of these jurisdictions reported participation by their local officials.

Nevertheless, only 14% of jurisdictions with populations from 10,000 to 50,000 indicated

that their officials were not aware of the structure. This compares to one-third of the jurisdictions with less than 10,000 population and one-fifth of those with population sizes from

50,000 to 250,000. 

Funding for

Governance

Structures

Most respondents had not

received outside funding for

their governance body (see

figure 9). Only 11% had

received federal block grants,

while 14% had received state

funding. Over one-third indicated their governance bodies

are funded out of their normal

operating budgets, and 17%

stated that their governance

bodies are not funded. When

population size was taken into

consideration, it was found that

the smaller jurisdictions were

more likely to be funded by

federal or state funds (43%)

than the largest jurisdictions

(13%). 

Several jurisdictions had unique mechanisms for funding their governance structures. One

had an add-on fee, another used a pool of federal grant funds to individual jurisdictions,

and still another had a CRT Enhancement Fund. Although a few jurisdictions had seen an

increase in funding, most still had funding concerns.

Involvement in Federal and State Integration Efforts

When asked about the involvement of their jurisdictions’ governance bodies in federal justice integration efforts, 42% stated their jurisdictions had received federal grants. Only

CHAPTER 5. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WITH OR WITHOUT INTEGRATION
24

11% were actively involved in the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) 2000

changes, and 21% of respondents were unaware of federal justice information system integration efforts.

Involvement by local governance bodies in statewide justice information system integration was both voluntary and mandated. One-third of the jurisdictions were invited to voluntarily participate in statewide efforts, and 13% had been mandated to participate. Unlike

federal involvement, only 3% of respondents were involved in statewide integration

through a state grant. Thirteen percent of those who were aware of their states’ efforts

were not participating; 18% were not aware of any state integration efforts. The percentage

of respondents unaware of their states’ integration efforts increased to 25% when the

responses of the jurisdictions with governance structures were separated from those

without governance structures.

Factors Having a Positive/Negative Impact on the

Governance Structure

When asked to list the factors that had a positive impact on their governance structures, a

variety of responses was given. However, one common theme was found in many of the

responses—the structure benefited from cooperation between the jurisdictions involved.

Funding, especially state and federal funding, was considered to have a positive impact by

many respondents. Several respondents mentioned the impact of good leadership and commitment. These factors were suggested because they have created more efficiency, facilitated better communication between agencies, and forged a spirit of working together.

One theme was consistent throughout many of the responses concerning factors that have

a negative impact on governance structures: lack of funding. Other prominent themes were

staff shortage, political agendas or other political factors, and changes in personnel or

leadership. A few mentioned inadequate infrastructures or equipment, competition, and

lack of agreement on priorities. One respondent summed up the sentiment expressed by

many: “All of these place a strain on resources and encourage competition rather than

cooperation.”

Summary Points

• Governance structures tend to be started by agreements

such as memoranda of understanding and by the people

most affected by the structures.

• Law enforcement is the key agency for participation in a

governance structure.

• Some of the key functions of governance structures are

reviewing projects, prioritizing initiatives, setting policies,

and setting standards.

• Governance structures tend to be funded by local funds.

• Governance structures bring about better cooperation

between agencies.

• Lack of funding impedes the development of governance

structures.

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
25

Thirty percent of respondents were engaged in integrating justice information systems but

had no governance structure in place (see figure 5). Ten percent of the jurisdictions in this

category were located in rural areas, 37% in urban areas, 40% in suburban areas, and 14%

did not indicate where they were located. The data was examined to determine what percentage of each type of jurisdiction had integration but no governance structure. The

results indicated that one-third of the suburban respondents and 32% of the urban areas

were integrating without a governance structure. A smaller percentage of the rural areas,

15%, had achieved integration without a governance structure. 

Little variance was found between the percentage of jurisdictions in the sample and the

ones reporting integration but no governance structure when jurisdictions were compared

by population size (see table 7). For example, the larger areas, jurisdictions with populations of more than 250,000, made up 20% of the sample and 22% of the jurisdictions with

no integration and no governance structure. Jurisdictions with populations from 50,000 to

100,000 made up 14% of the sample, and they were 14% of the jurisdictions with no integration or governance structure.When integration involved state agencies, the office of

public safety/state police was most likely to be included. A number of jurisdictions also

indicated integration with the department of motor vehicles (16%), and the bureau of criminal identification (12%). Few jurisdictions were integrating with private or media groups

(6%). Integration tends to operate with a bidirectional data flow (48%) or with a single

point of entry (27%). Few jurisdictions have a one-way data flow (8%).

CHAPTER 5. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WITH OR WITHOUT INTEGRATION

Population % of Sample % With Integration/ Difference

No Governance Structure

10,000 13 15 +2

10,000-50,000 38 33 -5

50,000-100,000 14 14 0

100,000-250,000 14 16 +2

250,000+ 20 22 +2

Table 7: Comparison of Jurisdictions by Percent of Survey

Sample and Percent of Jurisdictions With Integration and 

No Governance Structure 
26

Chapter 6

Integration Without a Governance Structure

Barriers to Integration

Funding was, by far, the most common barrier to integration cited by respondents (see

table 9). Other identified barriers were technology issues (15%), staffing/personnel (14%),

turf issues (14%), and political issues (11%). Funding, however, was not selected as the

number one barrier by the smallest jurisdictions. For jurisdictions of less than 10,000,

technology issues were the top impediment. 

Origin and Nature of

Integration

More than one-fourth (26%) of the jurisdictions’

justice integration processes were started by top

staff. Almost as many were started by a grassroots

effort (21%). Others were begun with an interlocal

agreement (18%), a federal/state grant (10%), statutory mandate (5%), and an advisory group/association (4%). When the data was analyzed by population size, it was found that a greater percentage of

structures in jurisdictions with less than 10,000

population was started by interlocal agreements,

and a greater percentage of structures in jurisdictions of 250,000 population or more was started by

grassroots efforts. 

The largest number of jurisdictions (40%) were involved in integration with agencies outside their jurisdictions or with agencies within their jurisdiction (28%) (see table 8). A

much smaller number (14% and 16%, respectively) were integrating across state boundaries or with a single agency. 

Would a Governance Structure

Benefit Integration?

Respondents were asked if they thought a governance structure would benefit their justice information systems integration efforts. Whereas 73% of all

respondents felt that a governance structure would

benefit their integration efforts, 38% of those without a governance structure did not feel that having

one necessarily would benefit their jurisdiction (see

figure 10). On the other hand, 90% of those with

governance structures stated that the structure furthered their integration efforts. 

When asked why they did not feel that a structure

would benefit their integration, many respondents

stated they were doing well without a structure.

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Type of Integration Number Percent

Within single agency 22 16.7

Between agencies within 

the jurisdiction 37 28.0

Between agencies outside 

jurisdictions or regionally 52 39.4

Between agencies of jurisdictions 

across state boundary 19 14.4

Other 2 1.5

Table 8: Type of Integration

Barriers Number Percent 

Funding 59 24.7

Political Issues 25 10.5

Lack of Strategic Planning 22 9.2

Lack of Support 10 4.2

Turf Issues 33 13.8

Technology Issues 36 15.1

Lack of Governance Structure 16 6.7

Staffing/Personnel 33 13.8

Other 5 2.1

Table 9: Barriers to Integration
27

They were concerned about changes should a structure be superimposed over their current

activities. Their concerns revolved around issues such as the politics of the structure,

whether more bureaucracy would be required, and potential restrictions or controls.

Respondents who felt that a structure would benefit their integration efforts identified

some of its advantages as better coordination, standardization, and set guidelines or policies. Other benefits suggested were better communication and more funding opportunities.

Some felt that a structure would help reduce or eliminate turf battles. 

When governance structure exists, other organizations fulfill critical roles. Forty-seven percent of the jurisdictions having no governance structure use an individual agency to implement their integration efforts. A centralized information technology department is in

charge in 29% of the jurisdictions, and an interagency body coordinates in 10% of 

jurisdictions.

Funding for Integration Efforts

For 31% of jurisdictions, funding for the initial procurement and implementation of the

integrated justice information system came from their normal operating budgets, not from

grants. However, federal grants were an initial source of funding for 21%, while state

funding provided initial procurement and implementation for 14%. Private funding was

not a factor in providing initial capital, as not one jurisdiction in this category reported

receiving private funds. An initial source of funding for 14% of the jurisdictions in this

category was capital improvement funds. 

When respondents were questioned on funding for ongoing integrated justice system operation, a large percentage (44%) reported their operating budget as the source of funds,

CHAPTER 6. INTEGRATION WITHOUT A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

W W

Don't know/Not applicable
28

with state and federal funding, as well as capital

improvement funds, playing smaller roles (12%, 10%,

and 8%, respectively). Ten percent of the respondents

reported that user fees help to fund their ongoing

operations.

The normal operating budget also was most often

selected (38%) when respondents were asked about

sources of funding. Law enforcement is the primary

agency involved in justice information system integration, whether the integration is between agencies within a jurisdiction or among agencies outside the jurisdiction. Within jurisdictions, law enforcement (37%),

the courts (19%), prosecution (14%) and corrections

(12%) were the agencies most respondents identified

for enhancement/improvements to their systems. Federal grants were used by 17% of the

respondents, the capital improvement budget by 12%, and state funding resources by 12%.

Agencies involved in integration, as identified by respondents, included law enforcement

(40%), the courts (19%), corrections (12%), prosecution (14%), probation (7%), and

parole (4%) (see table 10). 

Jurisdictions face a variety of funding challenges in securing funds for integrated criminal

justice technologies. Many respondents stated that finding the funds to support their integration efforts was one of their biggest challenges. Other challenges listed were competition for such funds once they were identified, justifying the need for funds to policymakers, budget limitations, and the cost of maintaining and upgrading systems. Some of the

challenges listed related directly to grants, such as finding matching funds, paperwork, not

enough grant sources or overall funding levels, and complicated application processes.

Despite all the challenges mentioned, some jurisdictions have adopted unique mechanisms

for funding their systems. Some of the mechanisms listed were dedicated CRT enhancement, annexation fees, set-asides from county filing fees, asset seizures, voter-approved

sales tax, capital outlay technology improvement fund, pooled grant funding, and stateapproved technology fees.

Summary Points

• Integration is most likely to be started by top staff, as a

grassroots effort, or by an interlocal agency agreement.

• Funding is a major barrier to integration.

• Concerns about changes that would result from having a

governance structure may prevent jurisdictions from

establishing them.

• An individual agency usually takes the lead in the absence

of a structure.

• Integration tends to be funded out of local budgets, but

grants play a big role in the initiation of some systems.

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Agencies Number Percent

Law enforcement 65 36.9

Prosecution 24 13.6

Courts 33 18.8

Public Defender 1 .6

Corrections 21 11.9

Probation 13 7.4

Parole 7 4.0 

Other 12 6.8 

Table 10: Agencies Involved in Integration Within Jurisdiction
29

Chapter 7

Case Studies

The case studies discussed in this chapter provide snapshots of the governance structures

and justice integration efforts in six localities. The site visit team selected these jurisdictions based on the nature of their survey responses, their population, demographics, the

type of governance structure being used or explored; and the sort of justice information

integration effort already underway or being planned. 

HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Scenario

Hennepin and Dakota Counties share the distinction of being the only two counties in

Minnesota that were awarded state grants in 1999 to integrate justice information systems.

Hennepin’s Criminal Justice System Information Integration Project (CJSIIP) began in

1999 and was originally planned to address integration needs only within the county. The

CJSIIP evolved, however, into a project that would build a local model for criminal justice

information integration statewide. Hennepin’s CJSIIP was analyzed in Dakota County to

see if the state’s blueprint for criminal justice integration would work in a more rural

county. To fund efforts for the CJSIIP, the state awarded Hennepin County a $500,000

grant, which is part of Minnesota’s CriMNet initiative for constructing a statewide justice

information network. 

According to a member of the PTI site visit team, Hennepin and Dakota counties’ integration projects are horizontal, involving justice agencies from other jurisdictions or agencies.

The goal of the CJSIIP is to integrate law enforcement information systems with adjudication, prosecution and detention systems, creating a systems architecture that makes information available to individuals and agencies along any point of the criminal justice spectrum. 

“We’re integrating all the criminal-justice information systems in Hennepin County,” said

Ron Wiborg, contracts and grants manager of the county’s Department of Community

Corrections, and a member of the PTI working group. “In Minnesota, the county is totally

responsible for pre- and post-trial detention, prosecution, probation, and parole. The state

operates the court system; all judges, court administrators and all employees in the court

administrator’s office are, or soon will be, state employees.

“More than 40 law enforcement agencies are in the county, including the county sheriff,”

he continued. “But we have one corrections system, one prosecutorial system and one

court system. One single agency handles all of corrections. One single agency (the county

attorney’s office) prosecutes all felony and gross misdemeanor offenses and there is one

court system. The fragmentation—the dispersion of the parts of the system—really only

applies to law enforcement.”

The goal is to create an information network from which one agency can access another

agency’s justice information system in real time; accomplishing that goal is just around the

corner. Still, just getting to this point has taken some time. Minnesota’s legislature enacted

statutes that created the environment in which such a project could flourish by giving

counties legal authority and funding to launch an integration solution.

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES: HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA

PROFILE

This urban county has a

population of approximately 1.2 million—

about one-fourth of the

state’s population. The

county contains more

than 40 municipalities,

including Minneapolis.

Hennepin County neighbor Dakota County,

which the PTI site visit

team also visited, is

also profiled in this

chapter. 
30

Wiborg explained, “The need for a state oversight committee was obvious, but the legislature also recognized that it should not fill that role. An oversight committee was statutorily

created, housed in the state court administrator’s office, and directed to develop and implement a statewide criminal justice information network.” Because Hennepin County’s criminal justice system is the state’s largest and most complex, it will be the first integrated

system developed.

Another key component to the integration effort has been the private sector, especially a

group known as Minnesota HEALS (Hope, Education And Law and Safety), which was

started by Honeywell (whose world headquarters resided in Minneapolis at the time) and

the Minnesota Business Partnership. The partnership is a group of the 100 largest corporations in the state, many of which had gone through massive systems integration themselves

to improve internal business processes. The executive director of the partnership successfully explained to the state legislature the complexity of integrating information systems

and demonstrated how applying corporate “best practices” could aid the state in its goal of

achieving an integrated criminal justice information system. 

Governance Structure

Hennepin County’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) was formally established in 1998 as a forum through which local units of government in Hennepin County

may, by association, consultation, and study, cooperatively promote improvements in the criminal justice

system that transcend departments, agencies, and the

geographical boundaries of the individual communities. The CJCC, which operated for 12 years informally before 1998, was a natural fit to implement the

CJSIIP (see figure 11).

The CJCC oversees the county’s justice integration

effort, and the county’s IT committee handles the

actual implementation of the effort. The CJCC created

the Integrated Systems Advisory Board (ISAB) to

make recommendations for projects that contribute to

integration of justice information systems (see figure

12). The ISAB is comprised of representatives from

the state, Hennepin County, Minneapolis, and members of the Local Government Information Systems

Association. According to the CJCC document that

created ISAB, it is responsible for advising the CJCC on integration issues, identifying

integration needs, developing integration alternatives, preparing requests for proposals

(RFPs), reviewing proposals and making vendor recommendations. Currently, the

county/city relationship in the CJCC is based on a memorandum of understanding.

“From a practical standpoint, if this type of intergovernmental endeavor [will] succeed, it

is necessary to spell things out in writing,” Wiborg said. He added that the MOU has

worked thus far, but as the relationships among jurisdictions become more complex, a

more detailed document may be necessary to stipulate specific responsibilities and 

obligations. 

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Hennepin County Board of Commissioners (two members)

Hennepin County Suburban Mayor (one member)

Hennepin County Sheriff

Hennepin County Attorney

Hennepin County Director of Community Corrections

Mayor of Minneapolis

Minneapolis City Council (two members)

City Attorney Office

Minneapolis Police Chief

Chief Judge of the District Court

Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court

Fourth Judicial District Court Administrator

Fourth Judicial District Public Defender

Hennepin County Suburban Police Chief (one member)

Figure 11: Membership of the CJCC
31

For more information, contact:

Ron Wiborg, Contracts and Grants Manager

Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections 

612–348–7011 

E-mail: ron.wiborg@co.hennepin.mn.us 

World Wide Web: www.macrogroup.net/cjsiip/project

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES: HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Hennepin County Representatives

Deputy CIO

IT Specialist (criminal justice)

County Attorney’s Office (2)

Public Defender’s Office (2)

Sheriff’s Office (2)

Community Corrections Department (3)

City of Minneapolis Representatives

City Attorney’s Office (2)

Deputy CIO

Police Department (3)

State of Minnesota Agencies Represented

Supreme Court

Department of Public Safety

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

MN Office of Intertechnologies

Department of Corrections

Fourth Judicial District Representatives

Court Administrator

IT Specialist

Hennepin County Suburbs Representatives

LOGIS

City of Bloomington Police Department

City of Brooklyn Park City Attorney

CJCC Representative

Chair

Figure 12: The Integrated Systems Advisory Board
32

DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Scenario

As noted in the Hennepin County case study, Dakota County was the other county in

Minnesota that was awarded implementation planning funding in 1999 from the state to

develop an integrated justice information system. Dakota will be the first county to test the

model being developed by Hennepin County. While this is a new project, working together

on technological issues is not new to Dakota County and the cities within the county,

which have been participating in the 11-year-old Dakota County geographical information

system (GIS) partnership.

The county, along with the cities of Eagan and Burnsville, is the prime mover in the integration effort known as the Criminal Justice Information Integration Network (CJIIN). The

initiative to create CJIIN arose out of the monthly meetings of city and county managers

and long-running discussions concerning public safety issues. As the lead agency, Dakota

County administers the grant.

“The CJIIN is in its infancy,” said CJIIN’s Project Manager, Mary Cerkvenik, who is also

the assistant county administrator of Dakota County. “We have completed the documentation of our current processes; we are almost finished with our current technology model

and our data model; and we are now moving into envisioning what we would like our

future system to be,” Cerkvenik said. “We completed our implementation plan in January

2001.” Cerkvenik added that CJIIN started its work on the implementation plan in July

2000. The plan now has been reviewed by CJIIN and its steering committee and currently

is being reviewed by state agency representatives.

“All participants are taking great pains to scrutinize their business processes during the

planning phases of the integration effort, because those processes must change dramatically before CJIIN is ready to go live,” said Kristi Peterson, information technology coordinator of Eagan, Minnesota, and the city’s representative on the CJIIN Steering Committee.

We knew some of the areas that we were not connecting electronically, but we did not

have any idea of how many areas,” Peterson said. 

Minnesota also selected the three jurisdictions’ efforts as a pilot project for the Minnesota

Criminal Justice Data Network (CJDN). CJDN will be a private, dedicated network for

law enforcement agencies throughout the county that officials hope will ultimately connect

more than 400 agencies within the state. Because of this selection, CJDN will provide the

primary infrastructure for CJIIN. 

“The jurisdictions involved have to move fast,” Cerkvenik said. “We are the first county to

come in and do an analysis of [the model that Hennepin County created],” she explained.

“That is clearly driving our timeline, in that the legislature would like to hear from us for

the next legislative session.”

Governance Structure

The jurisdictions involved in CJIIN are not working under a memorandum of understanding, as in Hennepin County, or a joint powers agreement (JPA), as is the case in San Diego

County, which is discussed later in this chapter. 

“Given the culture and the work environment that we found ourselves in, and the relationships that already are established between the different agencies, we are going to get by

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

PROFILE

Dakota County is the

state’s third-most populous county, and

according to the U.S.

Census Bureau’s 1999

estimates, is home to

349,131 residents. The

county is located south

of the Minneapolis/St.

Paul area. While the

county has a relatively

high population and

hosts 34 cities and

towns, more than half

of the county is considered rural.
33

without having any kind of a formal [document],” said Nancy

Harms, assistant administrator of the First Judicial District Court.

A management team and a steering committee handle the day-today decisions. Spending decisions rest with the County Board of

Commissioners. The CJIIN Management Committee consists of

15 members—7 county representatives, 2 representatives each

from the cities of Eagan and Burnsville, and 4 representatives

from the courts—and meets regularly (see Figure 13). The CJIIN

Steering Committee consists of 17 members—9 county representatives, 2 from Eagan, 4 from Burnsville, 1 from the courts, and 1

from the public defender’s office (see figure 14).

“When the CJIIN is up and running, a more formal arrangement

may be struck between the jurisdictions,” said Cerkvenik. “Our

city and county managers and the folks on the court side have 

all been very supportive, have given us some really great staff to

work on this project, and have made a commitment to put in the

time and effort it takes to make it successful,” Cerkvenik said.

“There is no question that there is a lot of good cohesion among

us because we have had that support. They have empowered the

staff to go forth and do this, and the fact that we do not have a

MOU or a JPA is a testament to that.”

For more information, contact:

Mary Cerkvenik, Assistant County Administrator

Dakota County

CJIIN Project Manager 

651–438–4559

E-mail: Dakota.County.CJIIN@co.dakota.mn.us

World Wide Web:

www.co.dakota.mn.us/sheriff/cjiin/cjiin/htm 

Patrice Bataglia, Dakota County Commissioner

651–438–4429 

E-mail: patrice.bataglia@co.dakota.mn.us

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES: DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Dakota County representatives

County Administrator

Director of Community Corrections

Sheriff

Director of Community Services

County Attorney

Director of the Office of Management and Budget

Director of Information Technology 

Eagan, MN representatives

City Administrator

Police Chief

Courts representatives

First Judicial Administration

Court Administration

Judges

Burnsville, MN representatives

City Manager

Police Chief

Figure 13: CJIIN Management Committee

Dakota County representatives

Senior Management Analyst, Community 

Corrections

Manager, Systems & Programming, IT 

Assistant County Administrator

Lieutenant, Sheriff’s Office

Commander, Sheriff’s Office

Chief Deputy; Sheriff’s Office First Judicial 

District Courts

Assistant Judicial Administrator

Chief Public Defender

Assistant County Attorney

County Surveyor

GIS Manager

City of Eagan

IT Coordinator

Captain; Police Department

City of Burnsville

Deputy City Manager

ITC Coordinator

Captain, Police Department

Records Manager, Police Department

Court Representatives

First Judicial District Courts

Assistant Judicial Administrator

Chief Public Defender

Figure 14: CJIIN Steering Committee
34

MARION COUNTY, OREGON

Scenario

Marion County was one of the original 10 jurisdictions belonging to the Regional

Automated Information Network (RAIN), a justice information network established in

1975. Now, 23 law enforcement agencies from 4 counties, 23 cities, and Western Oregon

University are RAIN members. Each member jurisdiction has one vote. RAIN provides a

wide range of services to its members, including such systems as

• Crime Analysis: a records management incident-reporting system that

tracks incident, crime analysis, arrest, missing persons, suspect, victim,

vehicle, and property information.

• Property and Evidence: a system that records and tracks the movement

of property and evidence using bar coding technology.

• Jail Management: a system containing booking information, inmates’

physical characteristics, court and arresting agency data, inmate charges,

time-served data, inmates’ aliases, date of birth, and housing information.

• FILER: a laptop field-reporting system available to agencies via the

Marion/Salem Data Center’s FTP (file transfer protocol) Web site.

• Mugshot Imaging: a system that includes both adult and juvenile

images.

• Query Management Facility: a management-reporting function system

that includes a large collection of predefined management reports.

In addition, funding has been appropriated to upgrade the FILER system with the addition

of a search function for names, incidents, locations, and incident types. At this writing, the

upgrade project has not yet started.

Governance Structure

RAIN was created under Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 190, which allows separate

government entities to create joint, independent organizations. The supervision and management of RAIN are the responsibility of its Policy Board and Executive Committee.

According to the agreement that created RAIN, the policy board:

• Determines the type of services and equipment required to operate

RAIN.

• Enters into contracts to acquire goods and services for RAIN.

• Adopts an annual budget for RAIN expenditures and sets the amount of

financial participation for each member.

• Creates committees of RAIN members and/or user agency personnel to

advise the board.

• Exercises any other power or authority to implement the powers set forth

in the agreement that created RAIN.

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

PROFILE

This county in western

Oregon is home to 24

cities and towns,

including Salem,

Oregon’s state capital.

According to the U.S.

Census Bureau’s 1999

estimates, the county

has a population of

272,760.
35

The RAIN Executive Committee

• Provides advice and assistance to the board.

• Supervises and conducts RAIN’s day-to-day 

operations.

• Conducts regular financial reviews.

• Enters into negotiations or signs contracts on behalf

of RAIN, with the proviso that such authority is 

delegated by the board.

According to Lieutenant Jeff Pikl, staff assistant to RAIN,

several user committees answer to the Policy Board and the

Executive Committee:

• A user committee comprised of records personnel that

coordinates changes, training, and operational issues related to the

records-management system.

• A technical committee made up of personnel from video-imaging, field

reporting, and evidence/property tracking.

• A futures committee comprised of agency administrators or CEOs that

look at trends in technology that might ultimately become enhancements

to RAIN’s systems.

• A steering committee comprised of the Executive Committee and selected other members for implementing and directing projects such as strategic analysis.

During its long history, RAIN has experienced some growing pains. In the early 1980s,

Salem left the RAIN organization and formed the Salem Unified Network (SUN) in partnership with the Marion County/Salem Data Center. During that time, RAIN had its own

employees and equipment and provided services directly to its members; but that situation

changed in the late 1980s.

In 2000, RAIN and SUN released an RFP for “A Strategic Evaluation and Analysis of the

RAIN Consortium and SUN and their RMS Technology Requirements.”

“The RFP is looking at where technology is today, whether or not RAIN, in its current

form, is still relevant, or should we, again, reconsider the services to members,” Robert

Tardiff, chief of the Newberg Police Department said. “It is still important to all of us that

we share data. At this point, the question is, ‘Do we accomplish that by sharing the same

programs? Or should RAIN become an organization that provides the mechanism for sharing data from diverse programs, establishes some data standards, and creates some type of

process that accomplishes that sharing?”

The RFP, the result of which will cause a change in the way governance is executed,

focused on five major areas

1. Defining the purpose of the regional consortia by answering such 

questions as:

• Why should RAIN exist?

• Why should SUN exist?

• Who should be involved?

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES: MARION COUNTY, OREGON

RAIN Policy Board

One mayor, police chief, city manager or city councilperson, from

the 23 cities that participate in RAIN 

One sheriff or county commissioner, from the four counties that

participate in RAIN

RAIN Executive Committee

Chief of Police, Newberg 

Chief of Police, Stayton 

Chief of Police, Keizer 

Marion County Commissioner

City Manager, Dallas

Figure 15: RAIN Governance Structure
36

• Are the geographical boundaries logical?

• Should SUN and RAIN merge?

2. Evaluating the current system.

3. Performing a needs analysis.

4. Proposing alternative methods of providing technology services.

5. Reviewing the current funding streams.

For more information, contact:

Robert Tardiff, Chief of Police

Newberg, Oregon Police Department

Chairman, RAIN Executive Board

503–537–1220 

E-mail: tardiff@ci.newberg.or.us

Jeff Pikl, Lieutenant

Stayton, Oregon Police Department

Staff Assistant to RAIN

503–769–3423

E-mail: jpikl@stayton.org

World Wide Web: www.open.org/~rain

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Scenario

Since the 1970s, San Diego County has participated in the Automated Regional Justice

Information System (ARJIS), a project that started as a result of a federal Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration award to fund a regional technology system. ARJIS has since

grown to comprise more than 35 member agencies and jurisdictions. As Pam Scanlon, the

executive director of ARJIS said, “The numbers keep growing.”

Ten law enforcement agencies are members of ARJIS—nine police departments and the

San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. In addition, a blend of state and federal agencies—law enforcement and others, such as the San Diego City Schools and the U.S. Postal

Service—are involved with ARJIS as ex officio members.

Today, ARJIS is a multijurisdictional justice information sharing system that contains

information on criminal cases, arrests, citations, field interviews, traffic accidents,

fraudulent documents, and stolen property. In addition, ARJIS stores regional information

on incidents, persons, vehicles, locations, and property. The ARJIS network consists of

659 terminals and printers throughout the county, and ARJIS provides justice information

to law enforcement agencies, courts, prosecution, probation departments, corrections

departments, juvenile services departments, and the California DMV.

Governance Structure

Created as a joint powers agency, ARJIS is governed by the ARJIS Board of Directors,

which involves either mayors or members of city councils from the county’s 18 cities and

representatives from the county’s board of supervisors. Under the board is the

Management Committee, which is composed of department heads, such as police chiefs,

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

PROFILE

This urban, Southern

California county has a

population of more than

3,000,000 and covers a

land mass approximately the size of

Connecticut. The county is home to 18 cities

and a sizeable collection of towns.
37

sheriffs, the county’s district attorney and judges. A middle-management group, called the

Regional Coordination Committee, is supported by a technical group. A variety of user

groups round out the set of governing bodies that keep ARJIS functioning.

ARJIS has a strong governance structure with every agency having one vote. “There’s no

800-pound gorilla here, and the Coronados of the world, which have 40 officers, and the

San Diego Police Department, which has 2,100 officers—they have the same vote. The

police chiefs all treat each other that way too,” said Scanlon.

“This has been critical to the success of ARJIS,” Scanlon said, noting that the chair positions on the various committees rotate so that each participating jurisdiction in ARJIS has

a chance to serve as chair of a committee.

Representatives from the cities of Oceanside and El Cajon told members of the PTI site

visit team that the level of equality in ARJIS and the knowledge that their voices will be

heard is why they continue to be a part of ARJIS. This contributes to a level of trust that

creates a willingness on the part of ARJIS members to make sacrifices when it comes to

grant money for which the agencies apply on behalf of ARJIS.

“In the case of the agencies that turn over their grant money for a regional goal, they are

not driving the car,” Scanlon said. “They are going to get some input, advice, and suggestions from the other agencies and they have to be willing to take those types of recommendations. It is not, ‘I’m building this system just for me.’”

One example of the cooperation within ARJIS is the ARJIS Web site’s regional mapping

application, which was created through a $70,000 grant to the San Diego Police Department (SDPD). SDPD turned grant funds over to ARJIS, which matched the dollar figure,

leaving ARJIS $140,000 to invest in developing the regional mapping application. The

department, because it contributed such a large chunk of money, was closely involved with

the project, but the application still had to win ultimate approval from the ARJIS Board of

Directors. The project won the 2000 Helen Putnam Award for Excellence from the

California League of Cities.

Some of the agencies hesitated when we first talked about the mapping application,”

Scanlon said. “But through collective reasoning, they were able to see the benefit. We do

have doubters, and we have got agencies that question it. It is not a bed of roses. But there

is a tremendous environment of trust built up. I also believe that we are demonstrating success. We are turning out products, and we are very open in our iterative process of product

development.”

In the end, “A strong governance structure is what makes ARJIS tick,” Scanlon said.

“Some agencies don’t believe you need a governance structure,” she said. “It is the chicken and the egg argument: ‘Do you get your system or money first, or do you start your

governance structure first?’ It does not have to be, ‘Oh, we have $15 million, how do we

spend it?’ There’s a whole bunch of issues that governance boards can look at.”

For more information, contact:

Pam Scanlon, Executive Director, ARJIS

858–581–9717

E-mail: plb@dpc.sannet.gov

World Wide Web: www.ARJIS.org 

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES: SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
38

HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Scenario

Henrico County currently does not operate an integrated justice information system.

However, the county’s actions do offer lessons for those jurisdictions in the prejustice 

integration phase that are pursuing a course of action that could lead to an integrated justice information system.

For the last year, the county has used an 800 MHz radio system that handles the needs of

all its departments, especially public safety agencies. Chesterfield County and Richmond

approached the same vendor used by Henrico County with the ultimate goal of implementing radio systems identical to that of Henrico County. When that happens, each jurisdiction will operate its system independently and have its own communications center, but

the three systems will be interoperable.

At that point, a Henrico County law enforcement officer will be able to travel between the

jurisdictions and communicate not only with the home communications center, but also

with law enforcement agencies from Chesterfield County and Richmond. Richmond and

Henrico and Chesterfield Counties are not sharing data automatically through integrated

systems, although Henrico County’s law enforcement personnel can query wanted/warrant

files, but only for Richmond. Henrico County has a mobile-data system and is encouraging Richmond and Chesterfield County to obtain such a system so that all three jurisdictions can share information.

Governance Structure

While integration efforts are in their infancy, the need to address governance has been

identified. The chief administrative officers from Richmond and Henrico and Chesterfield

Counties created a steering committee 3 years ago to orchestrate the integration effort. The

steering committee reviews projects, prioritizes initiatives and sets policy and standards. It

also has formed policies regarding data ownership. Subcommittees handle matters related

to the implementation of the radio systems, coordinating operational protocols, etc.

The steering committee was created by the signing of a Capital Region Communications

Memorandum of Understanding (see figure 16). This MOU was signed approximately 3

years ago and stipulates that the chief administrators of each locality are to appoint representatives who will be responsible for the initiation of this cooperative effort. Further, they

will be responsible for continuing operations affected by mutually agreed-to resource sharing and establishment of those policies and procedures which may be necessary to ensure

continued cooperation and consistent operational capabilities for all public-safety systems.

Henrico County’s manager played an essential role in creating the MOU among the jurisdictions. While the MOU is the document that created the steering committee, its language

is not particularly specific. Participation is voluntary, and there is no set term for participation for members of either the steering committee or the subcommittees. The governing

body created by Henrico County is a forum that unites participants in working toward the

shared goals of improving communication among agencies and improving the ability of

staff to do their jobs.

“We believe that the most important ingredient of any multijurisdictional project, especially in the field of public safety communications, is a mechanism that will enhance the

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

PROFILE

This suburban county is

located in the central

part of the state and

surrounds Richmond,

the state’s capital, on

three sides. According

to the U.S. Census

Bureau’s 1999 estimate,

the county has a population of 244,652 residents. In Virginia, counties and cities are independent jurisdictions.

Therefore, there are no

cities within the geographic boundaries of

any county.
39

sharing of open and honest communications among the participants,” said

Paul Proto, chairman of the steering committee and Henrico County’s

Director of General Services.

For more information, contact:

Paul Proto, Director of General Services

Henrico County

Chairman of the Steering Committee

804–501–4957

E-mail: pro@co.henrico.va.us

TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON

Scenario

Justice information integration is currently limited to the county’s law enforcement agencies receiving information from state-operated systems, such as the State Patrol. This is a

common occurrence at the beginning stages of a broader effort. However, the county is

pursuing several initiatives, which are expected to evolve into a justice information integration system.

The county is one of six in Oregon that received grant money from the federal Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to perform data gathering and information

sharing in the juvenile justice field. Furthermore, in 1999, the Oregon Legislature passed

legislation targeted at juvenile crime prevention, with the state disbursing grant money to

each county for crime prevention and basic services. Particularly, the legislation helped

create a uniform assessment for county juvenile departments to help streamline data

gathering.

The legislation requires all counties in the state to create a coordinated juvenile justice

plan that focuses on 10- to 18-year-old offenders. Oregon law requires this plan to provide

coordination of communitywide services, including prevention, treatment, education,

employment resources, and intervention strategies.

Governance Structure

Established legislation requires counties to create a Local Public Safety Coordinating

Council (LPSCC) for coordinating criminal justice policy among agencies and juvenilejustice agencies (see figure 17). The county sheriff is the chair of the council, and participating agencies include community corrections, a county commissioner, a local district

attorney, representatives from the county’s Juvenile Department, and representatives from

the county’s Commission on Children and Families.

As its roster indicates, the LPSCC is made up of the key members of the agencies

involved—an essential element crucial to the success of any governing body that jurisdictions or agencies create to oversee integration efforts. Among its many responsibilities,

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES: HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA; TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON

PROFILE

This rural county is

located on the Pacific

coast near the

Washington/Oregon border and covers 1,125

square miles. U.S.

Census Bureau estimates for 1999 put the

county’s population at

approximately 24,420.

Like other small, rural

counties, Tillamook has

a low population density and is home to a

small number of sparsely populated cities—

seven, in fact, which

are Bay City, Garibaldi,

Manzanita, Nehalem,

Rockaway Beach,

Tillamook, and Wheeler.

Henrico County

Police Department

Fire Department

County Administration

Chesterfield County

Police Department

Fire Department

County Administration

Richmond

Police Department

Fire Department

City Administration

Figure 16: Capital Region 

Communications Steering Committee
40

LPSCC must create and recommend a plan—to individual county boards of

commissioners—that uses state and local resources to serve both the needs

of adult criminal offenders in the county and of those offenders 10 to 18

years of age. For the eventual pursuit of justice information systems integration, the statute requires LPSCC to coordinate local criminal justice policy

among affected criminal justice entities.

Because representatives from various justice agencies already work together, LPSCC’s governance structure offers another organizational model for

creating a governance structure dedicated to overseeing integration efforts.

“The strength of the LPSCC is getting all the decisionmakers together in

one place,” former County Commissioner Gina Firman said. “It makes it

much easier to talk about the plans that are required to get federal grants, to

get state grants—to do almost anything, if you have to have a plan that’s

been signed off on. Before, what was happening was that one person would

have to run this plan around to all of the different agencies. Now we are

meeting at least on a quarterly basis and sometimes more frequently,

depending on what planning processes we are going through.”

Although state law created the county’s LPSCC, other jurisdictions should have the ability

to easily create similar governance structures. Firman recommended, for example, that

groups devise a simple mission statement, but specify membership requirements.

The county’s law enforcement agencies have worked long and hard to develop a culture

that supports cooperation and honesty among agencies, and Tillamook County logically

benefits from the rapport of an intimate law enforcement community. “The police chiefs in

the county’s towns and the sheriff have gotten together informally once a month for coffee

down at the local restaurant,” Firman said. “That is where the law enforcement piece

already had a history. What has been added to that are the other sides of law enforcement—the Commission on Children and Families, the juvenile justice department, community corrections, attorneys, and judges.”

In a rural jurisdiction like Tillamook, information requests are processed rapidly between

law enforcement agencies because of the tight-knit community. “If they call each other for

help or information, there’s a fairly strong inclination to cooperate because they’re going

to see each other at the little league game that night,” said Firman. “You can’t treat somebody poorly on the phone during the day and then go sit next to them in the bleachers that

night. There seems to be a good mesh of personalities that work well together.”

For more information, contact:

Gina Firman, former County Commissioner

Tillamook County

503–399–7201

E-mail: gfirman@orlocalgov.org

Dan Krein, Director, Juvenile Department

Tillamook County

E-mail: DKREIN@co.tillamook.or.us

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

A police chief

The sheriff of the county

The county’s district attorney

A state court judge

A public defender or defense attorney

A director of community corrections

A county commissioner

A juvenile department director

A director of the county’s health departments

A member of the general public

A representative of the Oregon State Police

A representative of the Oregon Youth Authority

A city council person or mayor and a city manager 

or other city representative

Figure 17: Composition of the LPSCC
41

Chapter 8

Recommendations

Recommendations for Establishing Local 

Governance Structures

When survey participants were asked to list three top recommendations for establishing

local governance structures that can facilitate the integration of justice information systems, their responses coalesced around five themes:

1. Ensure equal involvement/participation from all agencies/jurisdictions

involved.

2. Explore and secure funding.

3. Set realistic goals and objectives with a reasonable timeframe for the

plan—prepare a mission statement.

4. Keep on-going, open lines of communications with all agencies/

jurisdictions involved.

5. Have unconditional support of county boards/city councils/elected 

officials.

1. Ensure equal involvement/participation from all agencies/jurisdictions involved

Throughout the survey, participants mentioned turf battles as an impediment to the integration of the necessary systems. These can take many forms, including which jurisdiction or

agency has ownership of the data and the power to control access to it. Turf battles can be

significantly reduced or eliminated if all relevant agencies/jurisdictions are brought to the

table and allowed equal involvement and participation. Justice information system integration needs to stretch beyond jurisdictional boundaries; therefore, the list of agencies that

must be involved should not be restricted to one jurisdiction’s boundaries. The San Diego

case study presented in the previous chapter demonstrates the kind of success that can be

achieved when there is equal representation and participation among all agencies involved. 

2. Explore and secure funding

Funding problems and concerns were consistently expressed throughout the survey.

Funding or lack of funding was suggested as a major reason why jurisdictions were not

involved in justice integration. Those involved in integration saw funding as a consistent

problem in their implementation of integration. Respondents remarked about the high cost

of not only implementing integration, but maintaining and upgrading their systems as well.

The success or failure of integration can be, and often is, directly related to funding issues.

3. Set realistic goals and objectives with a reasonable timeframe for the plan—

prepare a mission statement

Most of the jurisdictions did not have operational plans for the integration of their systems.

Some had not set goals while others had set goals that could not be achieved, often based

on factors beyond their control. The adoption of an operational plan and mission statement

early in the process may make the difference between success or failure. In planning,

immediate short-term successes that can be achieved early in the integration process

should be identified. These early victories will motivate participants to strive for bigger,

longer-term accomplishments.

CHAPTER 8. RECOMMENDATIONS
42

4. Keep ongoing, open lines of communications with all agencies/

jurisdictions involved

A governance structure helps to facilitate ongoing dialog and other communication

between the various parties involved in the integration. In the creation of a structure, all

affected parties should be brought to the table. Once there, all participants should be open

and honest about their needs and concerns. Structures can be destroyed when decisions are

made by cliques within the structure, when essential parties are excluded from the communication links, and when parties involved are not open and honest. 

5. Have unconditional support of county boards/city councils/elected officials

Many efforts have failed because they did not have the support of the elected officials.

When the officials were needed to provide funding, statutory authority or some other

decisionmaking outcome, many officials have made the wrong decisions because of ignorance of the project. Others have been slow to sign on because they were not included in

the planning process. Good leadership was mentioned by respondents with successful

integration projects as critical to their success. Sometimes that leadership came from

elected officials.

Obstacles To Be Avoided in Implementing an

Integrated Justice System Governance Structure

When queried to list major obstacles jurisdictions should try to avoid in developing 

and/or implementing an integrated justice governance structure, four central themes were

identified:

1. Turf issues of users, agencies, or governmental bodies.

2. Politics.

3. Inadequate funding.

4. Technology (lack of field testing of hardware or software,

inadequate equipment, and untrained personnel and 

support staff).

Integration Recommendations to Justice Agencies 

The three main recommendations that survey participants would make to justice agencies

with respect to the integration of information systems related to:

1. Technology (train in-house users and support staff; standardize and network all software, hardware and protocols; and utilize up-to-date equipment).

2. Security of information and security measures.

3. Identification and agreement on information to be shared

and standardize forms for entry of information.

1. Technology

There are numerous issues related to technology that need to be of concern to criminal justice professionals who are engaged in information integration. Some jurisdictions have as

many as five information systems that do not communicate with each other, and no one on

staff can fix the problem or the problem cannot be fixed with existing software. Some

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
43

jurisdictions have wasted money on unnecessary or underutilized technology sold to them

by consultants or vendors. Lacking the staff to implement integration, operation, and

maintenance of these systems, expensive hardware and software will not solve integration

problems. Conversely, other jurisdictions have poured money into outdated equipment that

does not have the capability to carry out varied functions and cannot be updated to meet

emerging situations.

2. Security of information and security measures

Concerns about the security of justice information has been a primary factor in preventing

justice information systems integration. Law enforcement officials often do not trust other

elements of the system to network with their systems for fear of compromising their data

security. This is a valid concern, but it is not an insurmountable one. The incorporation of

appropriate security measures and firewalls can protect the integrity of integrated systems.

3. Identification and agreement on information sharing

In the planning process, the agencies/jurisdictions involved should collectively select the

types and nature of information to be shared and the forms that will be used for data entry.

A governance structure is the appropriate mechanism to facilitate the selection of data to

be shared and forms to be used.

Integration Obstacles To Avoid

There were four major obstacles to the integration of justice information systems identified. These obstacles are very similar to the obstacles to avoid when developing and implementing a governance structure, as listed above.

1. Turf wars and politics.

2. Lack of standardized equipment (software and hardware),

lack of networking among agencies, and use of old technology.

3. Lack of funding for implementation and future expansion

of systems.

4. Lack of concrete plan with commitment from all 

agencies.

The presence or lack of technology remains a crucial factor in the success of an integration

effort, yet it does not guarantee the occurrence of integration. By itself, technology cannot

solve all system integration problems and even the best-equipped integration effort will

bog down without an effective governing body charting the path. Any project’s path will

be littered with pitfalls and false trails. However, the integration of justice information systems creates its own unique problems. Time and again, survey respondents asserted that a

governing body with committed leadership, that orchestrates a well-conceived plan and is

built on equal participation by those agencies or jurisdictions involved is the best way to

solve inherent problems. 

Unsurprisingly, respondents rated turf issues high on the list of barriers to creating effective governance structures. That same issue also was identified in a completely separate

research project conducted by the Center for Technology in Government, State University

of New York at Albany. According to the center’s study, the concept of turf generally

included at least three major reasons organizations act defensively:

CHAPTER 8. RECOMMENDATIONS
44

1. To avoid the costs of change.

2. To reduce or control risk.

3. To preserve autonomy or protect their position in a competitive or 

adversarial environment.

Integration typically requires a degree of centralized control and shared decisionmaking

that could decrease an agency’s control of its operations or resources. Protecting turf can

be particularly important when the potential loss of autonomy or control could benefit

other agencies that are political or institutional competitors.

The governance structure, in its different forms, provides the foundation for an environment of trust and communication. During PTI’s site visits, several of the jurisdictions indicated that their integration efforts started years ago through informal discussions of city

managers or county supervisors or through information system users at agencies who, during casual discussion, saw a way to perform their jobs better.

Building a Governance Structure

Perhaps the most important item to keep in mind is that governance structures can be formal or informal. Also, governance structures can be created in a number of ways: through

state law, through memoranda of understanding signed by agencies within a jurisdiction,

through a joint powers agreement signed by agencies in separate jurisdictions or by several

jurisdictions in a region, or through signed charters or other agreements. Whatever the

vehicle, the document should be a statement of general goals that identifies the members

and the decisionmaking process.

The document for creating the overall governance structure should identify committee participants and note their commitment so that key players attend meetings. This helps to

avoid the potential problem of executive officers from the representative agencies or jurisdictions lacking the commitment to devote time and energy to the governance structure. 

Respondents from jurisdictions that are not currently engaged in justice integration efforts

and that do not have a governance structure to oversee integration identified the lack of

funding as the number one barrier to their integration efforts. Those respondents said that

funding was a primary resource that federal, state, and regional entities could make available to assist them in initiating a justice information integration project. If funding is an

issue for a jurisdiction, the governing body can solicit assistance from a dedicated funding

source.

Besides identifying and applying for funding, the committees and governing boards created by a governance structure help move the business of integrating justice information systems forward. Another important aspect to creating the governance structure is the level of

jurisdictional and agency equality the structure brings to the integration effort. Besides setting direction, a governance structure also can set the stage for involvement by small agencies that might not otherwise have the resources or the inclination to participate in a large

agency dominated regional consortium.

Implementing a Structure

Once the structure is established, the work begins. The next challenge is to ensure that the

work does not bog down and that all participating agencies are making progress toward

achieving system integration goals. Maintaining enthusiasm is critical; something as

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
45

seemingly minor as what day to schedule the monthly meetings can slow the workflow.

While the timing of meetings is important, the governance structure must also ensure that

the right level of personnel makes up the committees that handle the day-to-day work of

the justice integration effort. Presenting the right kind of information to the right committee also is crucial.

Maintaining the Structure

While the original document creating the governance structure may meet the needs of the

participating cities or counties and agencies, it may require revision as the integration of

justice information systems continues. Through the survey and site visits, PTI found that

maintaining the governance structure and the integration effort entails a different set of

needs than creating either of them. Periodically revisiting the document that created the

structure helps cities, counties, and participating agencies ensure that the document is still

valid.

Governance structures must also weather political storms. Because elected officials typically hold seats on committees or governing boards, the governance structure is affected

by the political cycles. The composition of the structure may change radically every 2 or 

4 years, and it is possible to lose a strong supporter to the winds of political change. However, this does not overshadow the important contributions that elected officials can make

to the governance structures overseeing justice integration efforts. In addition, political

change affects key appointed officials, such as city and county managers. 

Both elected and appointed officials play vital roles in the development, implementation,

and institutionalization processes. Elected officials, for example, can give governance

structures a voice in the political arena, can give structures statutory authority, and can

help to fund integration projects. Appointed officials, on the other hand, can bring professional management techniques to the process.

The survey revealed the need for the integration effort to have a champion. In times of

political turnover, the project’s champion can work with newly elected officials to help

them understand the benefits of integration and the value in maintaining their jurisdiction’s

or agency’s commitment to the integration effort through to its successful conclusion.

Such a champion can keep the structure functioning while the new players are learning the

process.

CHAPTER 8. RECOMMENDATIONS
46

Postscript 

The momentum for integrating justice information systems is building across the country,

and as the survey and case studies have demonstrated, justice agencies and jurisdictions

are dedicating significant resources and personnel time to interoperability. Soon, systems

will exist that transport information across jurisdictional and institutional lines, making

that information available in real time to those who need it when they need it. The passion

for this vision is hard at work.

The conclusions reached by the survey and site visits complement the findings of the

Conference of States and other sessions held in 1997–98 (see chapter 2, The Role of the

Federal Government) that a governance structure is essential to any successful effort 

to integrate local (and state) justice information systems. Information contained in this

guidebook should be shared with others. Integrated systems are essential to the future of

processes that provide efficient, fair and timely justice. Elected leaders, key managers of

agencies involved in the criminal justice system, as well as the public at large, must be

educated on the need and agency capacity for constructing an integrated justice information system and the governance structure that supports it. Jurisdictions presently engaged

in integration must actively share their experiences so that others can benefit from their

successes and learn from their failures.

Upon completion of its task, the working group felt strongly that this guidebook should

be used as a proactive tool for education and outreach to jurisdictions nationwide. A key

result of the survey and site visit findings identified the need for buy-in and committed

support of local elected and appointed officials for any integrated justice effort to be successful. However, there is a need to enhance the knowledge and understanding of the often

complex issues involved for local leaders. The group felt that this guidebook (and survey)

also should be updated regularly to maintain the database of knowledge on the progress

being made within and among local governments and their state and federal counterparts.

This will enable the U.S. Department of Justice to monitor progress in a broad range of

areas, including whether or not state and federal assistance is helping, and to target limited

resources. Jurisdictions then can be tracked using the data collected. The group also felt

that training at the “101” level is critical in integrated systems and that it benefits governance structure building, especially regarding strategic planning, funding issues, growing

professional staff, and procurement issues. 

Although integration may not yet enjoy popular support, it offers a key ingredient to the

success of justice systems, and the governance of integrated justice systems offers a key

ingredient for effective operation. 

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
47

Appendix A

Survey Instrument

Local Governance Survey

Section I 

Respondent Profile

Name:___________________________________________Title: _____________________________________________

Jurisdiction: ________________________________________________________________________________________

Mailing Address (please provide street address rather than P.O. Box)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone: _______________________ Fax:_______________________ E-mail: _____________________________

1. Check all of the applicable attributes that primarily apply to your jurisdiction.

a. ❐ Rural ❐ Urban ❐ Suburban

b. ❐ Population less than 10,000 ❐ 10,000–50,000 ❐ 50,000–100,000 ❐ 100,000–250,000 ❐ Over 250,000

c. ❐ City ❐ County ❐ City/County

2. What form of government applies to your jurisdiction?

❐ Mayor/Council ❐ Council/Manager ❐ County Executive/Commission ❐ County Manager/Commission

❐ Other________________________________

3. What local government agency or department do you represent?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you are the Information Technology (IT) Department is it jurisdictionwide or department within a specific agency?

❐ Jurisdictionwide ❐ Department within a specific agency 

4. Do your job responsibilities involve sharing information/data input and output with other departments, agencies,

jurisdictions and/or the state? ❐ Yes ❐ No 

If No: Who in your department/agency does (position/title)? _______________________________________________

5. Does your agency operate information systems that are integrated with systems of other departments/agencies?

❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, with which of the following department(s)/agency(s) is your system integrated? (Check all that apply)

Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agencies

❐ Law enforcement ❐ Court ❐ Corrections ❐ Probation 

❐ Public Defender ❐ Juvenile Services ❐ Department of Motor Vehicles ❐ Fire 

❐ Emergency Communications ❐ Emergency Medical ❐ Parole

❐ Prosecution ❐ Other: __________________________________________________________

Non-Criminal Justice/Non-Public Safety Agencies

❐ Child Support Agency ❐ Social Service ❐ Health Department ❐ Education 

❐ Public Utilities ❐ Planning/Zoning ❐ Transportation

❐ Victim Support Groups ❐ Public Works

❐ Other:________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
48

If you selected any of the above agency categories, please identify the agency/department and the type of information 

they access.

a. Agency___________________________________ Information Accessed________________________

b. Agency___________________________________ Information Accessed________________________

c. Agency___________________________________ Information Accessed________________________

6. Does your jurisdiction operate information systems that are integrated with systems of other local jurisdictions? 

❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, please identify the departments. (Check all that apply)

Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agencies

❐ Law Enforcement ❐ Court ❐ Corrections ❐ Probation 

❐ Public Defender ❐ Juvenile Services ❐ Department of Motor Vehicles ❐ Fire 

❐ Emergency Communications ❐ Emergency Medical ❐ Parole

❐ Prosecution ❐ Other: __________________________________________________________

Non-Criminal Justice/Non-Public Safety Agencies

❐ Child Support Agency ❐ Social Service ❐ Health Department ❐ Education 

❐ Public Utilities ❐ Planning/Zoning ❐ Transportation

❐ Victim Support Groups ❐ Public Works

❐ Other:______________________________________________________________________________________

If you selected any of the above agency categories, please identify the agency/department and the type of information 

they access.

a. Agency___________________________________ Information Accessed________________________

b. Agency___________________________________ Information Accessed________________________

c. Agency___________________________________ Information Accessed________________________

7. Does your jurisdiction operate information systems that are integrated with state criminal justice 

information systems? ❐ Yes ❐ No 

8. Has your jurisdiction implemented public access rules or structures for accessing data? ❐ Yes ❐ No 

9. Has your jurisdiction developed an integrated information technology strategic plan? ❐ Yes ❐ No 

If yes, would you provide a copy upon request? ❐ Yes ❐ No 

10.Which of the following best describes the status of your jurisdiction’s criminal justice/public safety integration

efforts and the governance structure to facilitate such integration?

A. ❐ We have no criminal justice/public safety integration effort underway nor a governance structure to facilitate such

integration. (Proceed to section II) 

B. ❐ We have a governance structure to facilitate the integration of our criminal justice/public safety information systems

but are currently not integrating our criminal justice/public safety information systems. (Skip to section III) 

C. ❐ We are integrating our criminal justice/public safety information systems but have not put in place a governance

structure. (Skip to section IV) 

D. ❐ We are integrating our criminal justice/public safety information systems and have in place a governance structure to

facilitate such integration. (Skip to section III) 

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
49

Section II

No Integration/No Governance Structure

(Response A to Question 10)

11.Please check all appropriate reasons why your jurisdiction is not engaged in the integration of its criminal 

justice/public safety information systems.

❐ Politics ❐ Size of Relevant Agency(ies) ❐ Trust ❐ Risk Management/Exposure 

❐ Power/control ❐ Liability ❐ Agency “Cultural” Issues

❐ Data/Information Security ❐ Funding ❐ Other: ____________________________________________

12.Has your jurisdiction attempted to establish a governance structure to facilitate the integration of a criminal 

justice/public safety information system in the past?

❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, please describe the effort and the major reasons that it was not successful. _______________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

13.What are the primary reasons that your jurisdiction has not established a governance structure to facilitate the

integration of its criminal justice/public safety information systems?

❐ Politics ❐ Size of relevant agency(ies) ❐ Trust

❐ Risk Management/Exposure ❐ Power/Control ❐ Liability

❐ Agency “Cultural” Issue ❐ Data/Information Security ❐ Funding

❐ Other: _____________________________________________________________________________________

14.Has your jurisdiction made attempts to integrate its criminal justice/public safety information system 

in the past? ❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, please describe the effort and the major reason(s) why it was not successful.___________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

15.If your jurisdiction were to integrate its criminal justice/public safety agency(ies) information system, which of

the following would most likely be included? (Check all that apply) 

❐ Law Enforcement ❐ Courts ❐ Corrections ❐ Probation

❐ Parole ❐ Prosecutor ❐ Public Defender ❐ Schools

❐ Juvenile Justice ❐ Fire ❐ EMS ❐ Transportation

❐ Emergency Communications ❐ Department of Motor Vehicles ❐ Social Services

❐ Health Department ❐ Other: __________________________________________________________

16.Which of the following are the barriers to integrating your jurisdiction’s criminal justice/public safety information system? (Please check all that apply and explain why you consider this a barrier in the space provided)

❐ Funding ❐ Turf Issues ❐ Liability

❐ Lack of Champion ❐ Size of Agency(ies) ❐ Agency “Cultural” Issues

❐ Political ❐ Liability ❐ Trust

❐ Lack of Governance Structure ❐ Liability ❐ Technology Issues

❐ Staffing/Personnel ❐ Liability ❐ Risk Management/Exposure

❐ Other:____________________________ ❐ Other:____________________________

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
50

17.What outside assistance would help your jurisdiction engage in the integration of its criminal justice/public safety

information system(s)? (Identify all that apply by distinguishing whether it is Federal (F), State (S), Regional (R),

or Local (L)) You may choose more than one level.

Federal (F) State (S) Regional (R) Local (L)

Funding Industry

Strategic Planning Staff/Personnel

Implementation Marketing Plan

Facilitation Operation & Management Plans/Budgeting

Consultants Public/Private Partnership

❐ Other:____________________________ ❐ Other:____________________________

18. Does your state have a statewide information integration planning effort underway?

❐ Yes ❐ No ❐ Don’t Know

If yes, how did you learn of the effort? (Please check all that apply)

❐ Your jurisdiction was notified. ❐ Your agency was notified.

❐ Your jurisdiction was invited to the table. ❐ Your agency was invited to the table.

❐ Read about it. ❐ Other: _____________________________________

If yes, is your jurisdiction participating in this effort? ❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, is your jurisdiction required to adhere to any established guidelines? ❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, would a copy of those guidelines be available upon request? ❐ Yes ❐ No

Please skip to section V to complete the survey.

Section III

No Integration/Have Government Structure(s)

Your jurisdiction has a governance structure but may or may not be engaged in integrating its criminal justice/public safety

information system(s). 

“Yes” Governance Structure—“No” Integration (Answer B to Question 10) Or

“Yes” Governance Structure—“Yes” Integration (Answer D to Question 10)

19.Which of the following best describes your jurisdiction’s governance structure:

❐ A group created by statute or ordinance.

❐ A group established as a requirement for receiving a grant.

❐ A group of criminal justice/public safety agency/department representatives was formed through a cooperative 

agreement, memorandum of understanding, etc.

❐ A loose configuration with informal guidelines.

❐ A group created for a broader purpose than integrated criminal justice/public safety systems.

❐ A single individual/agency responsible for the jurisdiction’s IT department.

❐ Our jurisdiction has multiple governance structures.

❐ Other: ______________________________________________________

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
51

20.Which of the following best describes how the governance structure was initiated?

❐ Originally created for another purpose.

❐ Created because of a legislated mandate. 

❐ Initiated by affected agency personnel.

❐ Advocated for and formed by a key advocate/champion.

❐ Other: ______________________________________________________ 

If you selected key advocate/champion, please explain who or what entity was the driving force?_________________

21.Which of the following agencies/individuals participate in the governance structure?

(Please check all that apply)

❐ Law enforcement ❐ Courts ❐ Central IT Agency ❐ Corrections

❐ Prosecutor ❐ Parole ❐ Chief Elected Official ❐ Probation

❐ Criminal Defense ❐ Chief Appointed Official ❐ State Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agency(ies)

❐ Other:____________________________ ❐ Other:____________________________

If State Criminal Justice/Public Safety Agencies: Please name them________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

22.How are the governance body members selected?

❐ Vote ❐ Study ❐ Resolution ❐ Appointment

❐ Other:_______________________________________________________________________________________

23. Has your jurisdiction’s governance body established rules, policies or statutes that establish ownership of data?

❐ Yes ❐ No

24. Does the governance structure have fiscal authority?

❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, does it have ❐ taxing authority ❐ no taxing authority ❐ spending authority

25. What are the roles/responsibilities of the governance board? (Check all that apply)

❐ Review projects ❐ Recommend funding ❐ Approve funding

❐ Prioritize initiatives ❐ Set standards ❐ Prioritize system changes

❐ Set policy ❐ Authorize software programming

❐ Oversee daily operations ❐ Other: ______________________________

❐ Other:____________________________ ❐ Other:____________________________

26. Within your jurisdiction who (position/title) and what agency makes the following policy recommendations for

the operation and maintenance of your information system(s).

Policy Recommendation Position/Title Agency

❐ Access to database ____________________________________________________________________________

❐ Release of information __________________________________________________________________________

❐ Development of new services ____________________________________________________________________

❐ Upgrades for system ____________________________________________________________________________

❐ Funding______________________________________________________________________________________

❐ Staffing/personnel ______________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
52

27.Does the governance body have its own staff? ❐ Yes ❐ No

28.To whom or what entity does the governance body report?

❐ City Council ❐ County Commission ❐ City Manager

❐ County Manager ❐ Mayor ❐ County Executive

❐ User Agencies ❐ Regional Authority ❐ Other: ___________________

29.How is the success of the governance board measured?

❐ Proper expenditure of funds ❐ Successful integration ❐ Speed of decisionmaking

❐ Proper vendor selection ❐ Integration/activation in a timely manner

❐ Enhancing crime solving ❐ Meets needs of member agencies

❐ Other: ______________________________________________

30.How much involvement has your jurisdiction’s criminal justice/public safety governance body had in the 

federal justice integration effort?

❐ Your agency/jurisdiction has received a federal grant(s)

❐ Your agency/jurisdiction is contemplating applying for a federal grant(s)

❐ Your jurisdiction is actively involved in NCIC 2000 or III changes

❐ You are unaware of federal efforts

❐ Other: ______________________________________________________

31.What three factors have had a positive impact on your jurisdiction’s governance structure? 

1.________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why have these factors had a positive impact on your jurisdiction’s governance structure? 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

32.What three factors have had a negative impact on your jurisdiction’s governance structure?

1.________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.____________________________________________________________________________________________

3.____________________________________________________________________________________________

Why have these factors had a negative impact on your jurisdiction’s governance?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

33.How is the governance body funded? Check all that apply

❐ Federal block grant(s) ❐ Private funding ❐ State funding ❐ Capital improvement project

❐ Normal operating budget ❐ Not funded ❐ Not sure ❐ Other:__________________

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
53

34.Does your jurisdiction have any unique/innovative mechanisms for funding the governance structure?

If yes, briefly explain. ____________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

35.How have changes in your jurisdiction’s overall funding priorities effected funding stream(s) for the governance 

body? Explain briefly. ____________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

36.How much involvement has your local governance body had in the statewide criminal justice/public safety 

integration effort?

❐ State has mandated participation. ❐ You are unaware of any state integration effort.

❐ Your jurisdiction has been invited to participate voluntarily. ❐ Your agency/jurisdiction has received a state grant.

❐ You are aware of state efforts but have not participated. ❐ Other: _____________________________________

37.How are your jurisdiction’s local elected officials involved in the governance structure?

❐ The governance structure is mandated by local elected officials.

❐ The governance structure is funded by local elected officials.

❐ The jurisdiction’s local elected officials are not aware of the governance structure.

❐ Elected officials participate in the governance structure.

❐ Other: ____________________________________________________

38.Do all participants in the governance structure have an equal voice in the decisionmaking process? 

❐ Yes ❐ No

If no, which agencies or individuals (titles) hold decisionmaking authority?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have NO criminal justice/public safety integration underway,

(and answered question 10 with a B) please skip to section V.

If you HAVE a criminal justice/public safety integration effort underway,

(and answered question 10 with a D) please continue with section IV.

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
54

Section IV

Have Integration Effort, May or May Not Have Governance Structure

Have a Criminal Justice/Public Safety Integration Effort but May or May Not Have a Governance Structure

Yes Integration—No Governance (Response C to Question 10) or

Yes Integration—Yes Governance (Response D to Question 10)

39.What type of criminal justice/public safety information system(s) integration is your jurisdiction involved in?

(Check all that apply) 

❐ Within a single agency ❐ Between agencies of jurisdictions across state boundary

❐ Between agencies within the jurisdiction ❐ Between agencies of outside Jurisdiction(s) or regionally

❐ Other: _________________________________________________________

40.How did your jurisdiction’s criminal justice/public safety integration process start?

❐ Between agencies of outside jurisdiction(s) or regionally

❐ Grass roots effort ❐ Mandate by statute ❐ Initiated by top staff 

❐ Federal/state grant ❐ Interlocal agreement ❐ Advisory group/association

❐ Other: _______________________________________________________

41.If your jurisdiction is involved in a multijurisdictional integration effort, how many of each of the following city

or county agencies is involved? (Put number in blank by agency’s name) 

❐ Law Enforcement ❐ Courts ❐ Corrections ❐ Parole

❐ Probation ❐ Prosecutor ❐ Public Defender ❐ Other:___________________

42.Which of the following state agencies is involved? (Check all that apply)

❐ Office of Public Safety/State Police ❐ Bureau of Criminal Investigation ❐ Corrections

❐ Bureau of Criminal Identification ❐ Attorney General’s Office ❐ Parole

❐ Courts ❐ Probation ❐ Pretrial Detention

❐ Prosecutor ❐ Juvenile Services ❐ Public Defender

❐ Chief Information Officer ❐ Criminal Justice Planning ❐ Department of Motor Vehicles

❐ Child Welfare/Protection ❐ Mental Health ❐ Health and Social Services 

❐ None

43.Is your jurisdiction’s criminal justice/public safety information system(s) integrating with private or media

groups? ❐ Yes ❐ No

44.How does your jurisdiction’s integration process operate?

❐ Single point of entry ❐ Reentry of data into shared access systems

❐ Bidirectional data flow ❐ One-way data flow ❐ Other: _________________________________

45.Are there any rules, policies or statutes that establish ownership of data? ❐ Yes ❐ No

46.Please identify all agencies within your jurisdiction that are involved in its integration effort. 

(Check all that apply)

❐ Law Enforcement ❐ Courts ❐ Corrections ❐ Probation ❐ Parole ❐ Prosecution

❐ Public Defender Other:_______________________________

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
55

47.Please identify all agencies of outside jurisdictions that are involved in your jurisdiction’s integration effort.

(Check all that apply)

❐ Law Enforcement ❐ Courts ❐ Corrections ❐ Probation ❐ Parole ❐ Prosecution

❐ Public Defender ❐ Other:____________________ Other:_______________________________

48. Which of the following standards is in place? 

❐ Data standards ❐ Open systems ❐ Network ❐ Protocol ❐ Security

❐ Other:_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

49. If your agency’s system(s) are integrated with other data/information systems, please identify those that apply.

❐ Offender-based Tracking/Transaction System ❐ Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) ❐ Records Management System

❐ Offender History ❐ Juvenile Data ❐ Case Management

❐ Fingerprint System ❐ Geographic Information Systems ❐ Fire/Arson

❐ Court Dispositions ❐ Corrections ❐ Gun Dealers

❐ Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________

50. What mandates, if any apply for data sharing? (Check all that apply)

❐ State Statute ❐ Local Ordinance ❐ Jurisdictional Policy 

❐ Mutual Agreements ❐ Professional Practice ❐ None 

❐ Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________

51.What barriers to integration has your jurisdiction faced? (Check all that apply)

❐ Funding ❐ Lack of Support ❐ Lack of Governance Structure 

❐ Political Issues ❐ Turf Issues ❐ Staffing/Personnel

❐ Lack of Strategic Planning ❐ Technology Issues ❐ Other: _________________________________

52.Would/does a governance structure benefit your jurisdiction’s integration efforts? ❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes, what would be (are) the benefit(s)?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

If no, why not? ___________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

53.Without a governance structure, under who or what agencies’ authority is your jurisdiction’s integration efforts

implemented?

❐ Centralized IT department ❐ Individual agency ❐ Committee

❐ Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 

54.Which of the following has engaged in a strategic planning process for criminal justice/public safety information

systems integration?

❐ Agency/department ❐ City ❐ County ❐ Regional/multijurisdictional ❐ State ❐ No such process

55.What were the sources of funding for the initial procurement and implementation of the integrated information

system? (Check all that apply)

❐ Federal grant(s) ❐ Private funding ❐ Capital improvement project

❐ User fees ❐ Not funded ❐ Normal operating budget

❐ State funding ❐ Not sure ❐ Local bond issue

❐ Other:_________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
56

56.How is the ongoing integrated system operation and maintenance funded? (Check all that apply)

❐ Federal grant(s) ❐ Private funding ❐ Capital improvement project

❐ User fees ❐ Not funded ❐ Normal operating budget

❐ State funding ❐ Not sure ❐ Local bond issue

❐ Other: __________________ ❐ Other: __________________

57.How are the enhancements/improvements to the system funded? (Check all that apply)

❐ Federal grant(s) ❐ Private funding ❐ Capital improvement project

❐ User fees ❐ Not funded ❐ Normal operating budget

❐ State funding ❐ Not sure ❐ Local bond issue

❐ Other: ❐ Other: __________________

58.Do those criminal justice/public safety agencies involved in integration maintain separate funding accounts

between existing technology and emerging technologies? ❐ Yes ❐ No ❐ Varies

59.What challenges did/does your jurisdiction face in obtaining funding for integrated criminal justice/public safety 

technologies? Briefly explain._______________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

60.Does your agency use any unique/innovative mechanisms for funding integrated criminal justice / public safety

information systems? If yes, briefly describe.__________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

All respondents please continue to section V.

Section V

Development and Barriers

All respondents please complete section V.

61.What three recommendations would you offer local jurisdictions regarding establishing local governance 

structures to facilitate the integration of criminal justice/public safety information systems? 

1._______________________________________________________________________________________________

2._______________________________________________________________________________________________

3._______________________________________________________________________________________________

62.What are three major obstacles to avoid when developing and/or implementing an integrated systems 

governance structure? 

1._______________________________________________________________________________________________

2._______________________________________________________________________________________________

3._______________________________________________________________________________________________

63.Please provide three recommendations you would make to criminal justice/public safety agencies with 

respect to the integration of information systems.

1._______________________________________________________________________________________________

2._______________________________________________________________________________________________

3._______________________________________________________________________________________________

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
57

64.What are three major obstacles to avoid with respect to the integration of criminal justice/public safety 

information systems? 

1._______________________________________________________________________________________________

2._______________________________________________________________________________________________

3._______________________________________________________________________________________________

On behalf of cities and counties nationwide, thank you for the help and advice you provided by completing this survey.

It may be necessary for us to contact you for further elaboration on your responses. May we do so?

❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes: What is the best time to call?

Name:_____________________________________________________________________________________

Phone:_________________________________ E-mail:_____________________________________________

Day of the Week: ________________________ Time: ________________________

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
58 MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Appendix B

Jurisdictions Responding to Survey

Alabama

Auburn

Huntsville

Mountain Brook

Arizona

Chandler

Mesa

Phoenix

Scottsdale

Tucson

California

Atwater

Culver City

East Palo Alto

El Cerrito

Fresno

Long Beach

Oakland

Orange

Palo Alto

Richmond

Rocklin

San Bernardino

San Diego

San Jose

Sangar

Santa Ana

Santa Cruz

Twentynine Palms

Victorville

Colorado

Castle Rock

Denver

Pueblo

Rifle

Trinadad

Wheat Ridge

Connecticut

East Hampton

Manchester

Delaware

Newark

Florida

Clearwater

Eagle Lake

Fort Lauderdale

Lake Mary

Longwood

Miami Shores

Ocala

Ponce Inlet

Sarasota

Titusville

Vero Beach

Georgia

Atlanta

Dublin

Iowa

Boone

Council Bluffs

Des Moines

Dubuque

Marion

Mason City

Spencer

Urbandale

Waterloo

Idaho

Coeur d’Alene

Paris

Illinois

Arlington Heights

Bradley

E Peoria

East Dundee

East Moline

Elk Grove Village

Fulton

Geneva

N Chicago

New Lenox

Oak Brook

Park Ridge

Romeoville

Roselle

Schaumburg

Springfield

Streamwood

Wheaton

Indiana

Greenwood

Kansas

Abilene

Chanute

Overland Park

Salina

Wichita

Kentucky

Campbellsville

Lakeside Park

Louisville

Morganfield

Louisiana

Westwego

Massachusetts

Fair Haven

Lexington

Newburyport

Maryland

Bel Air

Ellicott City

LaPlata

Salisbury

Maine

S Portland

Michigan

Alpena

Ann Arbor

Birmingham

Coldwater

Essexville

Gaylord

Grand Rapids

Grandville

Grosse Ile

Grosse Pointe Shores

Midland

Monroe

Muskegon

South Haven

Sterling Heights

Traverse City

White Cloud

Minnesota

Brooklyn Park

Fairmont

Fridley

Hastings

Mankato

Minneapolis

Perham

Pine City

Rochester

Missouri

Belton

Blue Springs

Independence

Kirkwood

Richmond Heights

Webster Groves

Montana

Missoula

North Carolina

Albemarle

Cary

Lexington

Long View

Matthews

Nags Head

Roxboro

Statesville

Warrenton

North Dakota

Beulah

Bismarck

Fargo

Nebraska

LaVista

Omaha

New Jersey

Hackensack

Moorestown

New Mexico

Santa Fe

Nevada

Reno

New York

Herkimes

Monticello

New York

Rochester

Ohio

Cincinnati

Columbus

Kettering

Springfield

Waynesville

West Carrollton

Oklahoma

Bartlesville

Coweta

Enid

Oklahoma City

Yukon

Oregon

Corvaux

Eugene

Lake Oswego

Salem

Tillamook

Tualatin

West Linn

Pennsylvania

Ardmore

Canonsburg

Carlisle

Harrisburg

Levittown

Philadelphia

Stroudsburg

Rhode Island

North Kingstown

South Carolina

Abbeville

South Dakota

Watertown

Tennessee

Fayetteville

Memphis

Red Bank

Texas

Beaumont

Brenham

Corpus Christi

Dallas

Deer Park

Fort Worth

Grand Prairie

Jacksboro

Llano

Longview

McKinney

Mt Pleasant

Plainview

Universal City

Uvalde

Victoria

Waco

Utah

Farmington

Layton

Provo

S Ogden

Virginia

Alexandria

Fairfax

Lovingston

Martinsville

Norfolk

Richmond

Rocky Mount

Stafford

Tearisburg

Vienna

Virginia Beach

Winchester

Washington

Bellevue

Camas

Seattle

Shoreline

Vancouver

Wisconsin

Hudson

Kenosha

Milwaukee

Monona

Platteville

Wausau

West Virginia

Beckley

Wyoming

Casper

Douglas
APPENDIX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RESOURCES 59

Bibliography

Anthony Cresswell and David Connelly, Center for Technology in Government, “Reconnaissance Study: Developing a Business Case

for the Integration of Criminal Justice Information,” September 1999.

Cooperative Agreement for Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Operation, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Hennepin County,

Minnesota, June 1998.

Public Technology, Inc., “Local Governance Survey,” March 2000

SEARCH, “Integration in the Context of Justice Information Systems: A Common Understanding,” A SEARCH special report, March

2000.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Report of the Intergovernmental Information Sharing: Focus Group,”

February 24, 1998, and Conference of States, March 5 and 6, 1998.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of General Counsel, “Integrated Justice Information Systems: The

Department of Justice Initiative,” April 2000.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Report of the Intergovernmental Information Sharing Conference of States,”

November 17 and 18, 1998.

Resources

Site Visits

Hennepin County’s Criminal Justice System Information Integration Project Web site: www.macrogroup.net/cjsiip/.

Dakota County’s Criminal Justice Information Integration Network Web site: www.co.dakota.mn.us/sheriff/cjiin/cjiin/htm.

San Diego County’s Automated Regional Justice Information System Web site: www.arjis.org.

General

Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York: www.ctg.albany.edu.

National Association of State Information Resource Executives, NASIRE Justice Report—Toward National Sharing of Governmental

Information: www.nasire.org.

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics: www.search.org.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Integrated Justice Information Technology Initiative: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

integratedjustice/.

Appendix C:

Bibliography/Resources
60 MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Appendix D

Worksheets

What is your vision for the integration process? In the space below, write a statement that describes what you hope to accomplish by integrating justice information systems. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What is the mission of your integration effort? In the space below write a mission statement for your governance structure.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What are the goals and objectives of the integration effort? What do you want to achieve and how can you get there? 

In the space below, list the goals and objectives you think are important.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What is the scope of integration?

What problems do you want to solve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Who are the stakeholders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Who are the lead agencies, if any? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What systems need to be integrated to solve problems you have identified? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Which and how many users would be impacted as a result of integration? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What kind of agreement do you need to create the governance board?

❐ Memorandum of Understanding

❐ Joint Powers Agreement

❐ Statute or Ordinance

❐ Informal Guidelines
APPENDIX D: WORKSHEETS 61

Which agencies should be included in the governance board?

Put a checkmark by the agencies and others that should be represented on the governance board.

Law Enforcement

❐ Sheriff

❐ Police

Prosecution

❐ Prosecutor

❐ District Attorney

❐ County Attorney

❐ State’s Attorney

Courts

State Supreme Court

❐ Judges

❐ Clerks

❐ Court Services

Courts of General Jurisdiction

❐ Judges

❐ Clerks

❐ Court Services

Juvenile or Family Court

❐ Judges

❐ Clerk

❐ Court Services

Courts of Limited or Special

Jurisdiction

❐ Judges

❐ Clerk

❐ Court Services

Defense

❐ Legal Aid

❐ Public Defender

❐ Bar Association

Corrections

❐ Jail Administrators

❐ State Corrections

Probation/Parole

❐ County

❐ State

❐ Federal

Roles and Responsibilities of the Governance Structure. 

Choose the responsibilities you want the governance structure to carry out.

Executive Responsibilities

❐ Provide vision and focus for the

scope of the integration 

❐ Appoint steering committees and

task forces (technology, policy, management, etc.)

❐ Direct and coordinate the initiative

❐ Set policy

❐ Set priorities

❐ Review projects

❐ Approve projects

❐ Resolve conflict

❐ Ensure compliance

❐ Monitor progress

❐ Secure funding

❐ Other

Project Operations Responsibilities

❐ Establish policies and procedures

for establishment of database and the

maintenance, update, and integration

of information

❐ Negotiate with vendor of software

❐ Commit staff

❐ Approve standards and business

practices

❐ Keep the executive board informed

❐ Implementation

Planning Responsibilities

❐ Strategic justice information technology projects in, for example, police,

court, corrections, and city attorney’s

office

❐ Determine vision, strategic plan,

goals and objectives for justice information systems programs

❐ Implement and oversee the strategic

plan

❐ Solicit input from all participating

agencies and jurisdictions

❐ Determine integration needs among

stakeholders

Funding and Resource Development

Responsibilities

❐ Obtain funding

❐ Determine funding priorities

❐ Approve the annual budget

❐ Identify other resources

❐ Commit staff

Other Responsibilities

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62 MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

What authority and powers will the governance structure have?

Executive Authority

❐ Approve strategic plan

❐ Approve annual budget

❐ Approve new projects

❐ Approve additional agencies and participating members

❐ Control funding 

❐ Seek funding

❐ Approve funding

❐ Lobby for funding

Operational Authority

❐ Monitor participants for compliance

to plan

❐ Evaluate against mission

To whom will the Governance Body Report?

Check all agencies or individuals to which your governance structure will report.

❐ Participating Justice Agencies

❐ Police

❐ Sheriff

❐ Prosecution

❐ Courts

❐ Defense

❐ Corrections

❐ Probation

❐ Parole

❐ Elected Officials

❐ City Council

❐ County Commission

❐ Mayor

❐ County Executive

❐ Chief Judge

❐ Appointed Officials

❐ City Manager

❐ County Manager

❐ Funding Sources

❐ Local ❐ State

❐ Regional ❐ Federal

Staffing the Governance Structure. Check the appropriate item below.

Does the governance structure need a staff of its own?

❐ Yes ❐ No ❐ Not now, but maybe in the future

What kind of staff does the governance structure need now or in the future?

❐ Executive director❐ Budget or finance director

❐ Support staff (secretarial, etc.) ❐ Technical staff

Where will funds to pay staff come from?

❐ Governance structure’s budget ❐ Participating agencies’ contributions

❐ Participating agencies’ payrolls ❐ There won’t be funds to pay staff

❐ Don’t know
APPENDIX D: WORKSHEETS 63

Commonsense Factors: Although each governance structure is unique because it reflects unique mix of goals, personalities, etc., there are several factors common to all successful ones.

Political support: Successful governance structures have a strong commitment from the chief elected and appointed officials

and strong public support.

Champion or champions: In every successful governance structure is a champion—an executive, manager, an elected official—

someone who saw the benefits of integration and worked to bring it about.

Participation and commitment by key stakeholders: Stakeholders shared a common goal to integrate data through an automated

system, and a common need to have direction in implementing the integration efforts.

Basic technical competency: In successful efforts, the information technology people were capable of choosing, installing, and

maintaining the appropriate hardware and software. The system was based on common standards for data and communications.

Sufficient resources: Successful efforts had sufficient resources (funding, personnel) dedicated to the implementation of the

integration of justice information systems data.

Consistency of leadership, staff, and consultants: The successful efforts were marked by consistent leadership, stable staffs, and

long-term relationships with good consultants.

Identify a core group and call a meeting: Who would you consider to be the core group of people interested in integrating

justice information systems? List their names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses below.

Information Technology

❐ Information technology directors or

officers

❐ Information technology managers

❐ GIS administrators

State Agencies

❐ State Department of Motor Vehicles

❐ State Department of Boating and

Waterways

❐ State Licensing Agencies

❐ State Police

❐ State Criminal Record Repository

❐ Others

Elected Officials and Government

Administrators

❐ Mayor

❐ County executive

❐ City council member

❐ County commission member

❐ City manager

❐ County manager

Participants From Outside the Justice

System

❐ School administration

❐ Public works/transportation

❐ Planning

❐ Fiscal planning/budget officer

❐ Health, mental health and human

services

❐ Children’s services

❐ Fire/emergency medical services

❐ Victim/witness organizations

❐ Environmental protection agencies

❐ Social service providers

❐ Zoning and property managers

❐ State and local department of

transportation

Consultants

❐ Private Sector

❐ Other

Name Telephone E-Mail

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MISSION POSSIBLE: STRONG GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific n

such as assistance in submitting grant applications and information about training. To contact the Respon

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 

BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Se

(NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups across th

country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distrib

tion, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearin

house 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

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Page

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]