Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Multi-Jurisdictional Information Systems Study, Phase II Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Multi- Jurisdictional Information Systems Study, Phase II Final Report Author(s): Center for Technology Commercialization, Inc Document No.: 181054 Date Received: 03/30/2000 Award Number: 97-LB-VX-K012 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Law EnforcementlCriminal Justice Mu It i-j u ris d ict io nal In f o rma t io n Systems Study Phase II Final Report Prepared for Department of Justice National Institute of Justice Office of Science and Technology I Submitted by The Center for 'Technology Commercialization, Inc. I Public Safety Technology Center '1400 Computer Drive I Westborough, MA 01 581 I December 22,1999 I Grant Number: 97-LB-VX-K102 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Table of Contents Executive Summary ................ Chapter 1 Introduction ....................... Chapter 2 1. Purpose of this Report II. Overview of Phase I 111. Target Audience IV. Project Support Objectives ........................ Chapter 3 Methodology ....................... Chapter 4 1. System Selection II. Notification of lnterviewees Ill. Survey Instruments IV. Test Cases System Summaries ................... Chapter 5 1. Regional Systems Northwest 019io Regional Information System II. State Systems Colorado Criime Information System Aut om at ed Fi n g e rp r in t Id ent ifica t ion System (CT) On Line Law Enforcement Teleprocessing Collection System (CT) Florida Crimes Information Center Criminal Justice Information System (MA) Automatic Pistol Registration System (MI) Law Enforcement Information Network (MI) Criminal Justice Information Network (NC) Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NC) Automated Fingerprint Identification System (TX) Texas Crime Information Center Automated Fingerprint Identification System (VA) Sex Offender Registry (VA) This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 111. Municipal Systems Palm Beach Law Enforcement Management System (FL) Integrated Justice System (Travis County, TX) IV. Local Systems Police Inforniation Management System (Aurora, CO) Findings ......................... Chapter 6 Case Study ........................ Chapter 7 Michigan’s Law Enforcement Information Network (LIEN) I Conclusion ........................ Chapter 8 Appendices Su rvey lnstrumen tsi .................. Appendix A A-I Manager Survey A-2 User Community Survey Interviews and Supporting Information ....... Appendix B B-I Northwest Ohio Regional Information System 8-2 Colorado Crime Information Center B-3 Connecti c: ut Automated Fing e rpri n t Ident if i c at io n System 8-4 Connecticut On Line Law Enforcement Communications Teleprocessing Collection System B-5 Florida Crimes Information System B-6 Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information System B-7 Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network B-8 Michigan Automated Pistol Registration System B-9 North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network B-I0 North Carolina State Automated Fingerprint Identification System B-11 Texas Au to mat ed Fi n g e r pri n t Ide nt ifi cat io n S ys t e m B-I2 Texas Crime Information Center B-I3 Vir gi n i a Auto mat e d Fi n g e r pr in t Id e nt ifi cat io n S ys t e m 8-14 Virginia Sex Offender Registry B-15 Palm Beach Law Enforcement Management System, FL B-I6 Integrated Justice System, Travis County, TX B-I7 Police Information Management System, Aurora, CO This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chapter 1 Executive Summary This report summarizes the results of seventeen select law enforcementlcriminal justice multi-jurisdictional information system on-site evaluations conducted by the Center for Technology Commercialization, Inc. (CTC) as part of a grant from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Science and Technology (Grant Number 97-LB-VX-K102). This study was performed as Phase II of a two- part project, which was initially undertaken in 1997. PurposelO bjectives The purpose of this study was to closely examine the seventeen identified criminal justice information systems, which represent a cross-section of regional, State, and local/municipal multi- jurisdictional informatiion systems, to: (1) Ascertain what the systems purport to do and whom they serve; (2) Identify the duplicative multi- jurisdictional law enforcement systems and gaps; (3) Identify the funding sources of the systems; and (4) Establish a multi-user custom database. Target Audience We hope that this report will be read by and benefit jurisdictions developing or upgraiding multi-jurisdictional information systems. I Specifically, States, municipalities and cities; persons responsible for authorizing funds for information systems, such as state legislators, county commissioners or executives; Federal granting agencies; system users; and system vendors. This report provides information on seventeen diverse systems to those seeking advice on obtaining and managing a successful multi- jurisdictional information system. The information will include funding options, the importance of engaging the user community in system development and the utilization of advisory/policy boards for strategic planning. Methodology We performed face-to-face interviews of both system managers and system users from May-August 1999. Most interviews with system This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. managers included a period of informal discussion about the system (averaging 2-4 hour:;) as well as time to answer an eight-page questionnaire that asked detailed questions about the system, its capabilities, funding levels and sources. The system user interviews were shorter (three-page questionnaire) and provided information to help us ascertain whether the system worked as well for the users as the system manager:; thought it did. Both survey instruments are available in Appendix A. The seventeen systems include: 4 Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems 7 State Criminal Justice Information Systems m 2 County Justice Systems 9 1 City Justice System 1 Regional (CriminalJustice Information System . 1 State Firearms Registry 1 State Sex Offender Registry Findings The systems proviide a wide array of information services to the criminal justice agencies in their states and communities. Sixteen of the seventeen systems provide information services beyond law enforcement. Prosecutors, courts, non-criminal justice agencies and private citizens also use or have direct or indirect access to many of these systems. The systems gather information on incidents, suspects, arrestees, victims, stolen items and vehicles, warrants, firearms and court dispositions. Personal data on individuals who are arrested is gathered, mugshots are taken and fingerprint impressions are stored and analyzed. Information is entered at both central and remote sites, often including mobile data term ina Is. Changes and/or upgrades were occurring throughout all of the systems we evaluated. Most of these changes were generated-- at least in part--by new national initiatives, such as NCIC 2000 and IAFIS. NCIC: 2000 and/or IAFIS “standards” were often supplemented by additional applications from State or local users to help tailor systerns to individual needs. All of the information systems provide services or links vertically-- to other governrnental units--or horizontally--to other law enforcement agencies--and in most cases, they provide both. The vertical and horizontal links are what make the systems truly multi-jurisdictional in nature, serving all levels of local law This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. enforcement, courts, prosecutors, State offices, Highway Departments, schc)oIs, etc. In general, success of the diverse information systems evaluated for this study can be grouped into the following four categories: (1) Effective leadership; (2) Strategic planning; (3) Partnerships with users and the vendor community; and