CRIMIT - Judiciary and DPSCS IT

Document Sample
CRIMIT - Judiciary and DPSCS IT Powered By Docstoc
					         Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
             Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview




                                 Department of Legislative Services
                                     Office of Policy Analysis
                                       Annapolis, Maryland


For further information contact: Flora M. Arabo/Chantelle M. Green/Rebecca J. Moore   Phone: (410) 946-5530

                       Analysis of the FY 2010 Maryland Executive Budget, 2009
                                                  1
Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
     Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview




                2
                 Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                     Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

Summary
        Every arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of an offender involves numerous criminal
justice agencies, individually collecting information about the offender. In the State of
Maryland, there is little uniformity regarding how criminal justice system data and information
are collected and maintained among criminal justice partners. For example, the Maryland
Judiciary tracks and maintains data based on court cases and charges, but not for individuals. By
contrast, the Division of Correction (DOC) tracks information and data based upon incarcerated
offenders. As in the case of Calvin Boswell 1 , where a convicted prisoner was released from the
Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) in error, the inability of criminal justice system
partners to share data in a timely and accurate manner has consequences for private citizens and
law enforcement.

        The lack of data normalization and real-time data sharing were the two major issues
discovered during a comparative analysis of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services (DPSCS) and the Judiciary’s capabilities to record, track, and communicate criminal
justice data. Currently, there is no uniform system across the State for gathering and tracking
data from the point of arrest until release from court or custodial supervision. The Judiciary uses
a case tracking number as its unique identifier, while DPSCS tracks offenders through its State
identification number (SID). It is currently a convoluted process for matching these two separate
numbers and as previously mentioned, has resulted in errors. Further complicating the
mismatched data collection systems, is the fact that even when the data is shared, it is not
currently shared in real-time, limiting each agency’s knowledge and ability of how to handle
individual cases. This is of particular concern with the exchange of bail information between the
Judiciary and the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services (DPDS) in Baltimore City. The
overall impact of these issues is to limit the State’s ability to discover and address global issues
throughout the system because there is no capability to conduct macro-level analysis.
Development of a web-based system to share data and a unique identifier to be used by all State
criminal justice agencies are possible suggestions for addressing these issues.

         In recent years, both the Maryland Judiciary and DPSCS have undertaken efforts to
implement new information technology (IT) systems. As these two criminal justice partners
proceed with the initial rollout of their IT systems, it is imperative that these systems have the
ability to share and exchange pertinent data. Until data collection and reporting efforts between
DPSCS and the Judiciary are coordinated, difficulties with tracking, maintaining, and
aggregating vital criminal justice system statistics will continue to persist.
       1
          On June 23, 2008, it was discovered that Calvin Boswell had been mistakenly released from the
Baltimore City Detention Center on April 22, 2008, a day after he was convicted of attempted murder.

                                                3
                                 Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                      Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

        The Department of Legislative Services (DLS) recommends that DPSCS and the
Judiciary be prohibited from expending any funds for the further development of the Case
Management Modernization Project and the Offender Case Management System (OCMS)
until a common State identifier has been developed for each offender.

      DLS also recommends that DPSCS, the Judiciary, the Office of the Attorney
General, and the Department of Information Technology formally establish a workgroup
to address the formulation of an interoperable case management system. Issues to be
addressed by the workgroup include the process and timeline for developing a mechanism
to share data in a real-time format, the identification of cost savings resulting from
improved data communication, and the development of reports providing long-term
criminal justice trend data. Lastly, the workgroup should also submit a Joint Case
Management Interoperability IT Plan on an annual basis.


The Judicial Branch of Government
        The Judiciary is composed of four courts and six agencies which support the
administrative, personnel, and regulatory functions of the Judicial Branch of government. Courts
consist of the Court of Appeals, Court of Special Appeals, circuit courts, and District Court. The
primary focus of this paper will involve data exchange that takes place between the Judiciary and
DPSCS regarding Maryland’s two criminal trial courts – the District and circuit courts.

        A Case-based Systems Approach
        Information contained within the Judiciary’s current legacy systems is tracked and
maintained by what is known as a case number. A case number is a unique reference number
allocated to each case by the issuing court. Depending on which court has jurisdiction over the
action, a case number will be automatically generated by the computer system when an initiating
document is filed or in some cases, pre-printed on case folders. Once a case number is
generated, it will serve as the basic identifier for tracking a case throughout its duration. Upon
final disposition, sentencing information is transferred to DPSCS via a data file.

        As previously mentioned, the Maryland judicial system operates primarily through two
appellate courts (Court of Appeals and Court of Special Appeals), trial courts of general
jurisdiction (circuit courts), a trial court of limited civil and criminal jurisdiction (District Court),
and courts with special jurisdiction (orphans’ courts). As shown in Exhibit 1, five separate
legacy application systems are used to support the Judiciary’s primary operations. Consequently,
there is little cross-system access or data commonality among the systems.




                                                 4
                                  Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                       Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview


                                                 Exhibit 1
                                         Judiciary
                          Information Technology Systems Summary
Application                                      Description                                Users

District Court Civil           Mainframe-based Case Management System for           District Court clerks
                               civil, special proceeding, forfeiture proceeding,    and judges
                               and contempt of court cases filed in the District
                               Court.

District Court Criminal        Mainframe-based Case Management system for           District Court clerks,
                               District Court Criminal cases, civil citations,      judges, commissioners,
                               fugitive warrants, Housing Authority cases,          law       enforcement
                               municipal infractions, Mass Transit citations, and   agencies, and State’s
                               Department of Natural Resources citations.           attorneys
                               Provides functions such as case entry, trial
                               scheduling, event history, limited accounts
                               receivable, automatic notifications, audit trails,
                               and reporting.

District Court Traffic         Mainframe-based Case Management system for           District Court clerks,
                               traffic citations filed in the District Court.       judges, commissioners,
                                                                                    and circuit court clerks

UCS Circuit Court              Server-based Case Management system used in          Circuit court clerks,
                               all but two circuit courts to initiate new cases,    judges, and State’s
                               manage cases through the litigation process,         attorneys
                               manage motions, notices, and similar case-
                               related documents, and update information on
                               existing cases. An accounting module provides
                               billing and escrow functionality

Baltimore City Circuit Court   Mainframe-based Case Management system               Circuit court clerks,
                               used to support Baltimore City criminal cases.       judges, and State’s
                               Provides full case management functionality          attorneys
                               similar to UCS with specific customization to
                               meet the demands of that circuit.


UCS: Uniform Court system

Source: Maryland Judiciary



                                                   5
                                     Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                          Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

        The Proposed System
        Nearly all of the Judiciary’s current court case management systems are legacy systems that
have been in use for 15 to 25 years. These systems are unable to respond to the emerging needs of the
courts (e.g., electronic filing, drug and family court program management, and revenue collection and
financial system integration) and cannot support effective interoperability with other federal and State
agencies, principally, DPSCS, the Department of State Police, and local State’s attorneys.

        The Case Management Modernization Project focuses on the replacement of the Judiciary’s
legacy case management systems to an environment that employs Oracle relational database
technology and a base of flexible business modules consistent with the standards required at both the
federal and State levels. The new system will allow for development of web-based case processing
systems, facilitating improved access to selected data for public law enforcement agencies.
Additionally, the system will facilitate improved interoperability for case transfers and web access for
electronic filing and payment, as well as statistics and reports to Judiciary management for
decisionmaking purposes. The project will automate court operations and management to fully meet
the needs of the courts; integrate computer applications serving the courts; improve delivery of IT
services for all participants in the judicial process; and automate tools to aid in the effective court
management.

        Project Funding
        In 2001, following a comprehensive evaluation of its current case management systems, it was
determined that the existing legacy case management systems should be replaced with an integrated
statewide case management system. As shown in Exhibit 2, approximately $10 million has been
expended for the Case Management Modernization Project through fiscal 2008. The Judiciary is
currently in the final two phases of project development. Based on recent cost estimates, the
four-phase, multi-year project is anticipated to cost approximately $42 million when complete.


                                                   Exhibit 2
                                    Judiciary
                   Case Management Modernization Project Funding
                                                Fiscal 2003-2011
                                                 ($ in Millions)

                                                                   (Est.)      (Est.)   (Est.)   (Est.)
 2003     2004     2005      2006       2007      2008    2009     2010        2011     2012     2013     Total
$2.03     $0.27    $1.35     $0.85      $3.22     $2.31   $2.83    $4.48       $8.38    $8.38    $8.38    $42.46


Source: Maryland Judiciary



                                                      6
                                Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                     Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
        DPSCS is responsible for operating all State prisons, BCDC, and the Baltimore Central
Booking Intake Center. DPSCS also oversees probationers that are conditionally returned to the
community by the court in lieu of incarcerations. The department also supervises all parolees
including mandatory supervisees. There are currently 26 State prisons (ranging from maximum
security to pre-release) and 50 offices within the Division of Parole and Probation (DPP), which
includes the parole/probation and Drinking Driver Monitor Program field and administration
offices. As of March 2008, the offender population under DPSCS’ jurisdiction at DPDS and
DOC totaled approximately 26,748. Additionally, approximately 69,261 offenders were under
the active supervision of DPP, including the Drinking Driver Monitor Program.

         An Offender-based Systems Approach
        The provision and support of criminal justice information systems to the department and
to the State are managed through DPSCS’ Information Technology Communications Division
(ITCD). DPSCS’ information systems are primarily offender-based systems that are designed to
track information by person and by most serious offense. ITCD provides a range of automated
technology services to support user communities’ offender case management information needs.
The current applications were developed over a time period ranging from the mid 1970s to the
present. Many of these systems are considered to be “legacy” applications.

        The main users of the department’s current offender based IT systems are DPDS, DOC
(including the Patuxent Institution), and DPP (including the Maryland Parole Commission).
Exhibit 3 provides a summary of the current IT systems used to manage offender case files.


                                                Exhibit 3
                 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
                     Information Technology Systems Summary
Application                                       Description                                    Users
Violation of Parole (VOP)     Web-enabled application to automate DPP reporting       Division of Parole      and
                              and violation of parole process; connects to OBSCIS I   Probation (DPP)
                              and II.

Arrest Booking System (ABS)   Maintains all arrest and booking information and        DPDS; Baltimore City; and
                              interfaces live scan machines to Maryland Automated     Charles, Frederick, Harford,
                              Fingerprint Information Systems (MAFIS) to provide      Howard, Montgomery, Prince
                              positive identifications of offenders.                  George’s, St. Mary’s, and
                                                                                      Wicomico counties




                                                   7
                                      Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                           Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

Application                                              Description                                       Users
JAIL                                Online information system used by Baltimore City to        DPDS, DOC, and all courts
                                    maintain sentenced inmate data, tracking medical
                                    treatment, trial schedules, bed assignments, infractions
                                    and releases, and inmate transfers to/from other
                                    jurisdictions.

Offender Based State                Information system used to store data relevant to each     DOC, DPP, law enforcement,
Correctional Information            inmate housed in DOC. Recorded information                 and    Maryland     Parole
System I (OBSCIS I)                 includes commitment, classification, institutional         Commission (MPC)
                                    movement, institutional progress, and diminution of
                                    confinement data.

Offender Based State                Manages current case data and previous supervision         DPP, law enforcement, MPC,
Correctional Information            history for offenders who have been released into the      DPDS, and DOC
System II (OBSCIS II)               community on either parole or probation.

Parole Information System           Online information system providing the Parole             MPC, DOC, DPP, and local
(PARIS)                             Commission with offender data information. Linked          jails
                                    with OBSCIS I, the system specifically provides: past,
                                    current, and future parole hearing dates and automated
                                    victim notification letters.

Profile Information System          Mainframe system used to store updated offender            DOC, law enforcement, and
(PROFILE)                           information during their affiliation with DPDS.            DPDS

Pretrial Release Services Program   Mainframe system used to store updated offender            DPDS
(PRSP)                              information for those who have been arrested and
                                    released prior to their trials.

Pretrial Information System         Captures and stores data needed to process the             DPDS, police districts, courts;
(PTIS)                              offender from initial interview through the hearing        State’s Attorney
                                    before the District Court.

Release System (REL)                Mainframe system to query inmates released from            DPSCS
                                    DOC institutions within the last 12 months using
                                    specific criteria.

Repeat Incarceration Supervision    Computerized statistical tool providing data on the        DPSCS
Cycles (RISC)                       number of offenders who were supervised at one or
                                    more correctional agencies within the State.


DOC: Division of Correction
DPDS: Division of Pretrial Detention and Services
DPSCS: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Source: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services




                                                          8
                                   Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                        Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

          The Proposed System
        Problems with data gathering and sharing within the department have led DPSCS to
move forward with the implementation of a new OCMS. Duplicate information currently stored
in multiple legacy systems has resulted in inconsistent, inaccurate, or inaccessible case history
information from an offender’s initial entry into the system throughout his or her stay. There is
insufficient information available to case managers in order to assess individual offender needs
or to develop appropriate correctional programming and case plans. Currently, the agencies
within the department use a variety of information systems to track and manage the offenders
under their jurisdiction. The age of these systems limits the speed, size, and types of databases
and constrains the agencies’ abilities to share data effectively with each other and with external
users. The lack of a consolidated data repository presents significant challenges in satisfying
data queries and reporting needs with regard to analyzing offender population changes and
attributes, thereby limiting executive policy analysis and decisionmaking.

        In response to these concerns, DPSCS presented an item to the Board of Public Works on
December 17, 2008, to award a contract for a new statewide OCMS. Initial funding for the
OCMS was provided in fiscal 2006. The goal of OCMS is to provide accurate and timely access
to integrated data reflective of an offender’s entire lifecycle within the system, from arrest and
booking through termination of supervision. The new system will also standardize business
practices throughout the department and provide a single point of entry for offender related data.
As shown in Exhibit 4, a total of $8.2 million has been appropriated through fiscal 2009. The
department anticipates requesting an additional $7.3 million over the next four fiscal years (2010
through 2013) in order to fully fund implementation and maintenance of the new system. To
date, approximately $1.0 million has been spent on salaries for a project manager and two
business analysts to assist in the project design and bid package development.


                                                  Exhibit 4
                Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
                    Offender Case Management System Funding
                                             Fiscal 2006-2013
                                              ($ in Millions)

                                                            (Est.)   (Est.)   (Est.)   (Est.)
              2006       2007        2008       2009        2010     2011     2012      2013    Total
OCMS
Funding       $1.50      $1.50         -        $5.20       $4.50    $1.60    $0.65    $0.60    $15.55


Source: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services


                                                    9
                                    Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                         Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

Data Sharing Between the Judiciary and DPSCS
       In addition to the need to address data sharing issues internally, it is equally important
that the Judiciary and DPSCS have the capacity to share information with each other. While
some progress has been made in this area, the ability of Maryland’s court and prison systems to
share data remains a challenge. Nonetheless, data sharing between DPSCS and the Judiciary is
necessary in order to develop a clear assessment of the State’s entire criminal justice system.

       The Current Process
         The existing process of data sharing between DPSCS and the Judiciary begins with the
initial arrest of an individual. Whenever an individual is arrested by law enforcement, ITCD
creates a data file that consists of an individual’s fingerprints and personal demographics. In the
case of the District Court, where the case management process is automated, a tracking number
is affixed to the fingerprint card during arrest. Fingerprint and demographic information
obtained by the arresting agency is then transferred to the Criminal Justice Information System
Central Repository (CJIS-CR) maintained by DPSCS. CJIS-CR serves as the State’s central
repository for criminal justice information. If an individual is arrested in a jurisdiction where
fingerprint information is processed in paper form, the information is mailed to CJIS-CR for
manual entry into the system. Transmitting data in this manner does not provide for timely
identification and, therefore, only serves to update criminal history.

         In the case of Baltimore City and seven2 other jurisdictions, an electronic booking system
known as the Arrest Booking System (ABS) is used to process arrestee information. In these
jurisdictions, fingerprint information is transferred electronically, via Network Livescan. The
Network Livescan system (NLS) is the use of Livescan devices to transmit demographic data,
fingerprint images, and mug shots from remote locations for rapid positive identification of
criminal and non-criminal subjects for the purpose of creating a complete Report of Arrest and
Prosecution sheet. If an individual is arrested in a jurisdiction that uses ABS and Livescan
technology, the ABS case file serves as the initial source of data used to populate the Judiciary’s
current case management system. In all other jurisdictions, arrestee data is received and
processed manually into the Judiciary’s case management system regardless of whether the same
data is transferred electronically to CJIS-CR using live scan technology.

        Following an arrest, an individual may choose to go to trial or utilize a variety of other
legal tools at his or her disposal. Once a case has concluded, a final disposition will be entered
by the court. Upon entering the final case disposition into the Judiciary’s database, the Judiciary
creates a messaging queue (MQ) file that is used to transfer case disposition data to DPSCS. The
MQ file is then transmitted electronically to DPSCS’ ITCD on a daily basis. The MQ file, which
utilizes the Judiciary’s case tracking number as the key identifier, is then compared against
pre-existing case tracking numbers within CJIS. If the incoming tracking number matches a

       2
           Harford, Frederick, Montgomery, Howard, St. Mary’s, Wicomico, and Charles counties.
                                                    10
                                Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                     Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

pre-existing tracking number, the subject’s criminal history record is automatically updated to
reflect new court information. In cases where there is no preexisting information, new offender
data is automatically populated within CJIS.

       Data Normalization
        The lack of data normalization between the Judiciary and DPSCS serves as an
impediment to tracking and sharing data. For example, the Judiciary uses a case tracking
number as its unique identifier. By contrast, DPSCS uses a SID to track each offender. The use
of two different identifiers may result in identification errors when trying to match data initiated
by the courts with data initiated and maintained by DPSCS. The absence of a common identifier
has major implications on the State’s ability to effectively manage caseloads and certain inmate
populations. The State’s ability to conduct a useful analysis of the entire criminal justice system
is hampered by the lack of data normalization. Without a common identifier, it is virtually
impossible to assess an individual’s impact on criminal justice resources, thereby making it
difficult to plan and prioritize projects and to identify appropriate resources. If all of the State’s
criminal justice partners were to track data via a common identifier or follow identical data
collection standards, the efficiency at which data requests are handled would improve
significantly. Additionally, both policy and fiscal leaders would be in a better position to assess
the appropriateness of policy and budgetary decisions as the State’s ability to follow an
individual’s total impact on the overall system would be greatly improved.

       Real-time Data Sharing
        Case disposition information is not always transferred between the Judiciary and DPSCS
on a real-time basis. While the ability of the Judiciary and DPSCS to share and exchange
pertinent data on a real-time basis is important, it is of even greater significance in Baltimore
City where DPSCS operates in a local jail arrest and booking capacity. Particularly, in
Baltimore City, the absence of a real-time data exchange of bail information between the
Judiciary and DPSCS has resulted in erroneous releases. A potential solution to this issue would
entail the use of a web service.

        The Statewide Domestic Violence Central Repository represents one of the newest efforts
currently being utilized by the Judiciary to provide law enforcement agencies with real-time
web-based access to protective and peace orders. Additionally, discussions are underway
between DPSCS and the Judiciary that would allow DPSCS to build an interface onto the new
system to retrieve data. Despite these efforts, it remains unclear to DLS as to the type of
information that can be shared between criminal justice partners and why additional efforts have
not been made to allow for further expansion of data sharing capabilities. DLS has been advised
that an individual’s criminal history is not considered “public information,” and consequently,
the legal definition of what can be shared between criminal justice partners has at times impeded
data sharing efforts between the Judiciary and DPSCS. Nonetheless, it still remains unclear to
DLS as to how the legal definition of what can be shared limits the ability of DPSCS and the
                                              11
                               Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                    Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

Judiciary to share data. Additionally, neither entity has communicated a clear solution for
addressing this issue.


Conclusions and Recommendations
        Going forward, it is imperative that a coordinated effort takes place between the Judiciary
and DPSCS about how their new IT systems will share and exchange data. Similar to the efforts
made in developing the Statewide Domestic Violence Central Repository, DPSCS and the
Judiciary need to improve communication regarding the development of real-time data sharing
between the two entities. To facilitate this, DLS recommends DPSCS, the Judiciary, the
Office of the Attorney General, and the Department of Information Technology formally
establish a workgroup to address the formulation of an interoperable case management
system. Issues to be addressed by the workgroup include the process and timeline for
developing a mechanism to share data in a real-time format, the identification of cost
savings resulting from improved data communication, and the development of reports
providing long-term criminal justice trend data. The workgroup should also annually
submit a Joint Case Management Interoperability IT Plan.

        Broader access and interoperability would likely result in long-term cost savings as well
as improved productivity and efficiency. Additionally, shared and accurate data would provide a
basis for making better policy decisions and improve the dissemination of information. A key
requirement in this effort will be the willingness of both parties to work in partnership to share
data and the formation of policy and technical governance committees.

        Another key component to enhancing the Judiciary and DPSCS’ IT systems would be the
advent of data normalization. Establishing a common identifier for individuals traveling
throughout Maryland’s criminal justice system would not only improve data gathering and
analysis but would improve the ability of all State and local partners to gain greater insight of
Maryland’s criminal justice system operations as a whole. Additionally, an enhanced analysis of
court caseloads and corrections populations would improve the State’s ability to assess the
impact of policy decisions as well as improve the allocation of criminal justice system resources.
Perhaps even more important, establishing a common identifier would limit the possibility of
data discrepancies between the Judiciary and DPSCS’ IT systems, which may lead to erroneous
releases.

        Although the Judiciary operates under a case-based system, the system itself is heavily
driven by individual offenders since every case that comes before the court has a person attached
to it. It is for this reason that DLS believes that the primary common identifier should be one
that is attached to an individual; each related case or occurrence is a derivative of the primary
identifier. Due to fraud and name aliases, the most reliable commonly shared identifier to use
would be a biometric key such as fingerprints. Currently, DPSCS assigns a SID to an offender
during fingerprinting. Regardless of which name, date of birth, or Social Security number a
                                              12
                               Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                                    Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

person provides, his or her fingerprints will not change, making the SID a reliable indicator of
identity. One possible solution, therefore, would be to formulate a system for assigning a SID to
every user of the criminal justice system.

        While the Judiciary agrees with the concept of a common identifier, the Judiciary has
noted that there are many instances, e.g., indictments, where a case is convened prior to charging
someone with an offense. While these types of cases would generate a case number for purposes
of the Judiciary’s case tracking system, unless charged, they are of no consequence to DPSCS.
Thus, unless later indicted, an individual would not have a SID. The ideal system would allow
the Judiciary to operate under its case-based system, while also requiring the Judiciary to identify
and track individuals. In order to address the concerns of all interested parties, DLS
recommends that the Judiciary and DPSCS be prohibited from expending any funds for
the further development of the Case Management Modernization Project and the OCMS
until a common State identifier has been developed for each offender.

       Budget bill language to this effect is enclosed as Appendix 1.




                                               13
                       Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                            Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

                                                                              Appendix 1


Add the following language:

SECTION XX. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That no funds in this budget may
be expended for the further development of the Case Management Modernization Project
and the Offender Case Management System until the Judiciary and the Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) develop a common State identifier for
each offender.

Further provided that members from the Judiciary, DPSCS, Office of the Attorney
General (OAG), and Department of Information Technology (DoIT) shall establish a
workgroup to address the formulation of an interoperable case management system and
submit a report to the budget committees, with bi-annual submissions thereafter,
addressing the following provisions:

(1)      the process and projected timeline for establishing a mechanism that allows the
         real-time transfer of information between the Judiciary and DPSCS;

(2)      initial and ongoing cost savings resulting from the establishment of a common
         identifier and real-time data sharing; and

(3)      the joint development and submission of reports providing long-term criminal
         justice system trend data (e.g., the number of individuals sentenced for certain
         offenses, the number of nolle prosequi dispositions, and the number of
         individuals sentenced to probation).

Further provided that with the annual budget submission, the Judiciary, OAG, DPSCS,
and DoIT, shall develop and submit a Joint Case Management Interoperability
Information Technology (IT) Plan. The IT plan shall discuss the interoperability status
of the IT systems currently under development by the Judiciary and DPSCS as well as
whether any consideration that has been given toward developing interoperable IT
systems for new systems contemplated in the future.

The budget committees shall have 45 days to review and comment following receipt of
the report.




                                       14
                        Report on Criminal Justice Data Sharing
                             Fiscal 2010 Budget Overview

                                                                          Appendix 1 (Cont.)

Explanation: This action prohibits the Judiciary and DPSCS from expending funds
related to the further development of their respective information technology systems
until a common State identifier is developed for each offender. It also requires the
Judiciary, DPSCS, Office of the Attorney General, and Department of Information
Technology (DoIT) to establish an IT workgroup and to submit periodic status reports.
The workgroup is tasked with establishing a mechanism for the real-time transfer of
information between the parties; identifying potential cost savings resulting from changes
in the way information is tracked and shared between the parties; and developing reports
providing long-term criminal justice trend data. Lastly, the language requires the
development of a Joint Case Management Interoperability Information Technology Plan
and requires that certain agencies and departments serve as workgroup representatives.


Information Request                Authors                        Due Date

IT Status report                   DoIT                           As needed, and bi-annually
                                   Judiciary                      thereafter
                                   DPSCS

Joint Case Management              DoIT                           With the submission of the
Information Technology IT          Judiciary                      fiscal 2011 allowance and
Plan                               DPSCS                          annually thereafter




                                        15

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:42
posted:8/22/2009
language:English
pages:15