SOUTH CAROLINA - DOC

Document Sample
SOUTH CAROLINA - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					        SOUTH CAROLINA
        STATE STRATEGY

DRUG CONTROL AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
       FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2004 - 2007




         South Carolina Department of Public Safety
                Office of Justice Programs
                                                                      CONTENTS
                                                                                                                                                  Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................                    1

DATA AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................                 5
   DRUGS       ................................................................................................................................      5
      State Geography and Infrastructure ......................................................................................                      5
      State Overview .....................................................................................................................           5
      Specific Population Centers..................................................................................................                  7
           Columbia .......................................................................................................................          7
           Charleston .....................................................................................................................          7
           Greenville ......................................................................................................................         8
   VIOLENT CRIME ......................................................................................................................              9
   JUVENILES ................................................................................................................................       10
   CHILD ABUSE ...........................................................................................................................          11
   ELDER ABUSE ..........................................................................................................................           12
   DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ............................................................................................................                   13
   GANGS       ................................................................................................................................     13
   COURTS ................................................................................................................................          14

RESOURCE NEEDS .........................................................................................................................            17
   PREVENTION ............................................................................................................................          17
   LAW ENFORCEMENT ..............................................................................................................                   18
   JUDICIAL ................................................................................................................................        19
   VICTIMS ................................................................................................................................         19
   RECORDS MANAGEMENT and INFORMATION SYSTEMS ...............................................                                                       20

PRIORITIES AND THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY ........................................                                                          23

SELECTED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................                  27
   JUVENILE and VIOLENT CRIME ............................................................................................                          27
   COURT SYSTEM EFFICIENCY ...............................................................................................                          28
   CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS .................................................................                                           30
   MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES ............................................................................                                    31
   DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ............................................................................................................                   32
   CHILD/ELDER ABUSE .............................................................................................................                  33
   STATE FORENSIC and LOCAL DRUG ANALYSIS LABORATORIES ...............................                                                              34

COORDINATION EFFORTS ….. .....................................................................................................                      35
   STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION ..................................................................                                             35
   OTHER COORDINATION EFFORTS ......................................................................................                                36

REFERENCE LIST ............................................................................................................................         41

CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................                                                     43
   Criminal Justice Records Improvement Task Force ....................................................................                             43
   Criminal Justice Records Improvement Program FFY04 Goals .................................................                                       45
   Updates to the FFY03 Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan ..........................................                                        46
   DCSIP Grants Implementation ....................................................................................................                 49
   DCSIP Grants Funded Table FFY 98 – FFY 03 ..........................................................................                             65
                State of South Carolina

Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs


  Post Office Box 1993, Blythewood, South Carolina 29016
       Phone: (803) 896-8790 FAX: (803) 896-8714




            Burke Fitzpatrick, Administrator

        Ginger P. Dukes, Program Administrator

          Charlotte Thomas, Program Evaluator

          Bonnie Burns, Program Coordinator

           John Stuart, Program Coordinator

           Traci Dove, Program Coordinator

          Terri Reed, Administrative Specialist
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


In accordance with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 503(a)(1), South Carolina's Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004-2007 State Strategy is
provided as an overview of the drug and violent crime problem in the state. This overview
includes an analysis of several geographic areas with an assessment of the resources currently
being utilized to address these problems. A plan for addressing the needs of the criminal
justice system through the administration of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program (a.k.a. Drug Control and System
Improvement Formula Grant Program), is also furnished and includes identification of
statewide priorities for crime and drug control activities. These priorities are the result of
information gathered from federal, state and local agencies and developed in conjunction with
the 2003 National Drug Control Strategy. Based on this strategy, Byrne Formula Grants may
provide personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance and criminal justice information
systems for the more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention and
rehabilitation of persons who violate criminal laws. In addition, funds are available for
prevention projects and innovative initiatives aimed at crime and drug control.

Implementation of the Byrne Formula Grant Program in South Carolina has been a
cooperative effort among federal, state and local agencies working to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. A wide array of programs and projects have
been initiated through Byrne grants and subsequently supported by state or local monies once
grant funding was no longer available. Services provided by these grant funds have primarily
addressed the lack of resources available to law enforcement, followed by criminal justice
records improvement, court system efficiency, substance abuse treatment and crime
prevention.

Efforts to reduce juvenile drug and violent crime in South Carolina through prevention and
education endeavors have been successful, notably through the School Resource Officer
(SRO) program. By bringing law enforcement personnel into the public schools and taking a
proactive rather than a reactive stance, these projects encourage students to avoid becoming
involved in illegal activities. The positive feedback received from participants and continued
interest in establishing SRO projects indicate that this will remain an important funding area.
Also, with the reported increased presence of gangs, funding of gang investigators and other
anti-gang initiatives will be given added importance.

Providing relief to the state’s overburdened criminal court system has been accomplished by
various methods and will continue to be a funding priority. Caseload data show that grant-
funded Drug Courts and Mental Health Courts have managed to reduce the burden on General
Sessions Court by diverting less serious cases to other venues and providing treatment options
for offenders. Funding personnel in solicitor’s offices has been another method of attacking
the problem.       Grant-funded drug prosecutors remain an important component of
multijurisdictional narcotics task forces. Through these additional positions, solicitors can
keep pace with the increase in drug-related cases that are generated through task force
investigations. Specialized prosecution units for violent crime, domestic violence and


                                              1
child/elder abuse have also made an impact on the quality of the prosecution efforts for these
types of cases.

Improvement of criminal justice information systems through advanced technology and
automation of records has continued through projects implemented with Byrne Formula
grants. This area of funding remains one of utmost importance and has regularly been in
excess of the required five percent set aside. More departments have acquired LIVESCAN
devices allowing them to improve the quality of fingerprints submitted to SLED. Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) equipment has allowed more agencies to analyze
latent prints retrieved from crime scenes leading to the identification of hundreds of offenders
who otherwise may have avoided arrest and prosecution.                The use of computerized
information systems has also progressed, and enhancements are constantly being made to the
databases through which agencies access information concerning individuals in prisons and
jails, disposition of court cases, and persons wanted on outstanding warrants. The South
Carolina State Law Enforcement Division has mandated that all departments, regardless of
size, transmit incident report information electronically to them for inclusion in the National
Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Helping support agencies meet this mandate will
be a priority in the coming year.

Grant-funded narcotics and violent crime task forces continued to prove effective by bringing
together law enforcement agencies from neighboring jurisdictions for the purpose of sharing
resources and investigating offenders who cross jurisdictional boundaries. Joint operations
yielded higher levels of arrests and seizures of drugs and assets than any one of the agencies
could have attained by themselves. Task forces that have full-time prosecutors as members of
their teams are a positive trend. For years this additional component has benefited Violent
Crime Multijurisdictional Task Forces (VCTFs) by allowing the prosecutors to advise on the
legal aspects of investigations and bring appropriate cases to federal court where non-
parolable sentences may be handed down. The creation of Multi-jurisdictional Task Forces
(MJTF) has produced more comprehensive investigations and a better direction of activities
by targeting individuals who have committed both violent and drug-related crimes. As with
the VCTFs, the partnerships with assistant solicitors have expanded the impact of the MJTFs’
efforts and improved cooperation between law enforcement and solicitor’s offices.

The priority of funding for child/elder abuse investigations has steadily gained attention and
has developed into a highly effective program area. Improved casework performed by the
specially trained officers and the increase in arrests they are able to make by concentrating
solely on these crimes are significant achievements. Also impressive is the degree of
interagency cooperation that has resulted from these projects. Improvements in the handling
of incidents and a reduction of victim trauma (by decreasing the number of interviews) have
been attained by coordinating the efforts of the implementing law enforcement agencies with
those of other organizations such as the local Department of Social Services. Dedicated
Child/ Elder Abuse Prosecutors have also been funded. The coming funding years are
expected to include an expanded number of child/elder abuse projects and include those with
assistant solicitors to assure timely prosecution of cases.




                                               2
Domestic violence will continue to be a top priority. South Carolina leads the nation in the
rate of women killed by men. Investigators and prosecutors specializing in domestic violence
cases have been funded over the past few years and the number is expected to increase. In
addition, the subgrantees are working with related agencies (such as social services) to
coordinate efforts and ensure these crimes are reported and prosecuted. This multidisciplinary
approach will be encouraged in future projects.

Until recently, the drug and other illegal substances submitted to SLED for analysis created a
backlog, delaying cases from going to trial. This situation has been eased somewhat by
implementing regional drug analysis labs at several local departments in accordance with
SLED standards using grant funds. However, an expansion of sites throughout the state
complete with appropriate staff and equipment is still needed to handle the escalating volume
of tests.

The Byrne Formula Grant Program has provided tens of millions of dollars to support drug
control and system improvement initiatives in the past several years, resulting in clear
advancements in South Carolina’s criminal justice system. Ultimately, achievement of the
State Strategy objectives relies on both the priorities established through the process described
earlier as well as the subject matter and quality of the applications submitted by potential
subgrantees. Through communication with local agencies, the expansion and replication of
successful projects, and the implementation of innovative concepts, the Office of Justice
Programs will continue to administer funding to worthwhile projects that further the reduction
of crime in South Carolina.




                                               3
4
                                DATA AND ANALYSIS


                                            DRUGS

State Geography and Infrastructure

Although South Carolina is a small state, ranking 40th of the fifty states in terms of total land
area, the state has a coastline of 187 miles and a system of intra-coastal waterways that
reaches beyond its borders to the southern tip of Florida. The seacoast has numerous bays and
harbors as well as the major Atlantic seaport of Charleston. The history of investigations
conducted by the Charleston Regional Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
reveals that a significant portion of the cocaine and marijuana distributed by coastal South
Carolina distribution organizations originated from Charleston port smuggling activities.

South Carolina's highway system includes five numbered interstate routes- 20, 26, 77, 85 and
95. These corridors and our rail system allow for effective passage of contraband through the
state, to and from northern, southern and western points of supply and distribution. In
addition, South Carolina has numerous county and private airstrips that provide another
source of transit for operations in the importation of cocaine and marijuana.

South Carolina continues to be extremely vulnerable as an importation base and transit area
for illicit drugs bound for the eastern seaboard of the United States. With its extensive
coastline, numerous rural airstrips and matrix of interstate highways, South Carolina
represents an attractive transshipment point.

State Overview

Although South Carolina’s drug law arrest rate per 10,000 population decreased 1.9 percent
from 2000 to 2002, the arrest rate has increased 171 percent since 1976. Information
provided by SLED indicates that there were 28,774 reported drug law arrests in South
Carolina in 2000, a 0.3 percent decrease of drug law arrests in South Carolina from 1999.
The drug law arrest rate includes arrests for crimes related to the possession, distribution or
manufacture of illegal narcotic substances. In South Carolina, more people were arrested for
simple possession of marijuana than crack cocaine. It appears that more people continue to be
arrested for using marijuana in South Carolina, but crack cocaine is the most trafficked drug
in the state. However, there is a growing problem with methamphetamine sales and
production in the state. More inmates within the South Carolina Department of Corrections
are serving time for drug offenses than any other offense category, 21.1 percent of the 22,826
inmates in FY 2002.

According to the DEA, South Carolina is identified more as a drug ―consumer state‖ rather
than a ―source state.‖ However, there has been increased evidence of organizational activity
extending to major distribution hubs, such as southern California (methamphetamine,
marijuana and cocaine), southern Florida (cocaine and Ecstasy), New York City (cocaine and


                                               5
heroin), and Texas/Mexico (marijuana, methamphetamine and diverted/illicit drugs).
Investigations are becoming more complex and cross numerous statewide and nationwide
jurisdictions. Additionally, Mexican-based traffickers have taken advantage of the increase in
Latino immigration in the state by hiding within Hispanic enclaves. Recent investigations
have identified Cuban, Haitian and Jamaican traffickers.

Marijuana is the most prevalent illegal drug of abuse in South Carolina, with Mexico the most
common source location. Traffickers use passenger vehicles, tractor-trailers, commercial
aircraft, buses, and trains, as well as commercial package shipping companies to import
marijuana from Mexico through California. Members of the South Carolina National Guard
and The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) routinely eradicate small patches
of outdoor marijuana. As an example, in August 2002, SLED discovered and destroyed 6,820
plants in Lancaster County that had attained heights of between six and nine feet.

Cocaine trafficking has been detected at stable to moderately increased levels in the major
metropolitan areas of the state, to include the population centers of Columbia, Greenville and
Florence. An increase in trafficking has also been noted in recent years along the coast,
particularly in the tourist areas of Myrtle Beach and Charleston. Sources of supply are
located in South Florida, New York, Georgia and California, with the most common method
of importation being motor vehicle. Other less common methods of transport of drugs into
the state include courier services, commercial airline, bus and train travel. At the retail level,
trafficking groups appear to be moderately sized and loosely organized. Cocaine is often
transported into the state in powder form and converted into crack cocaine by local
distributors at its destination. During 2003, DEA offices statewide have placed significant
attention on cases targeting high level trafficking organizations.

Heroin is available throughout South Carolina and is routinely packaged in ―bindles‖ for
distribution. The most common source location for heroin distributed in South Carolina is the
New York City area. Heroin supply sources use a variety of methods, including mail service
and public transportation, to transport heroin into South Carolina. Although the heroin user
population has historically been a limited and stable group generally located in the inner
cities, recent information indicates an increasing pattern of heroin use by a younger
population in ―experimental‖ or ―party‖ situations.

While methamphetamine is available across South Carolina, investigations indicate that there
is a growing abuse and availability of the drug in the coastal population centers of the state,
particularly in the Myrtle Beach area. Methamphetamine distributed in the state is normally
obtained from supply sources in California, and in some cases, from Atlanta. There has been
an increase in clandestine laboratory seizures in South Carolina during FY 03. State and local
seizures plus DEA seizures totaled 32 in the second quarter of FY 03 alone.

Ecstasy (MDMA) is readily available in several cities in South Carolina, predominantly in the
population centers of Greenville and Columbia and cities along the state’s coastal area. There
have been increasing incidents of LSD distribution and abuse as well as incidents of
Rohyphol and Ketamine appearing in entertainment clubs in communities along the coast and
upstate.



                                                6
Specific Population Centers

The drug information for the specific population centers of Columbia, Charleston and
Greenville discussed in the following paragraphs was obtained from the Office of National
Drug Policy Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse.

                                         Columbia

In the Columbia metropolitan area, there were 3,632 drug violation arrests during 2000. The
majority of these arrests (2,542) were for marijuana. Crack was the next highest with 832
arrests.

Heroin is considered widely to somewhat available and overall availability has increased. A
bundle of heroin, which is two grams, costs $225. A gram of heroin costs $125- $130. In
2001, law enforcement conducted two heroin seizures from commercial train passengers
transporting 5 grams to 56 grams of heroin from New York City to Columbia.

Crack cocaine also contributes to serious medical, legal and societal consequences and is
considered widely available in Columbia. Crack cocaine is easily obtained with prices
ranging from $100 per gram to $120 for a rock. Powder cocaine is considered widely to
somewhat available. Female powder cocaine users are increasing in the Columbia area. A
gram of powder cocaine costs $100. As of May 2002, powder cocaine sold for $25,000-
$30,000 per kilogram with purity levels ranging from 75-95 percent.

Hydroponic marijuana availability has increased and adolescents are the predominant
marijuana users in Columbia. Mexican and local commercial marijuana prices range from
$10 per dime bag (3-4 grams) to $180 per ounce. As of May 2002, commercial grade
marijuana (typically produced in Mexico) sold for $750- $850 per pound.

Methamphetamine is an emerging problem in the Columbia area with sales reported in
nightclubs and bars for the first time in 2002. Methamphetamine is commonly sold in
suburban areas in Columbia and a gram of methamphetamine costs $175. According to the
DEA Columbia District Office, 37 methamphetamine labs were seized between January 1,
2002 and May 28, 2002. These labs were discovered in private residences, motel rooms, cars,
trucks, trailers, and secluded wooded areas.

The availability of diverted OxyContin has increased in Columbia and is considered
somewhat available. The predominant user group is adolescents. Diverted OxyContin is
often sold by female senior citizens referred to as ―pill ladies.‖ This drug is also obtained
from pharmacies using forged prescriptions.

                                        Charleston

In 2000, there were 4,728 drug violation arrests in the Charleston metropolitan area. This
number included 3,191 arrests for marijuana and 1,124 for cocaine. There were an additional
2,744 juvenile drug arrests during 2000 in Charleston County.



                                             7
Heroin abuse and distribution are concentrated in the Charleston and Low Country area. A
highly pure form of heroin in 2000 caused many overdoses including 15 heroin overdose
deaths in one week. Heroin prices range from $300 for a gram, to $3,500- $8,000 for an
ounce, to $125,000 for a kilogram. Dominican criminal groups and local African American
dealers and street gangs transport South American, Southeast Asian, and Southwest Asian
white powered heroin into Charleston and distribute the drug. Mexican criminal groups
transport Mexican brown powdered and Mexican black tar heroin into the Charleston area.

Investigations conducted by the Charleston Regional Office of the DEA reveal that a
significant portion of the cocaine and marijuana distributed by coastal South Carolina
distribution organizations originated from Charleston port smuggling activities. Traffickers
utilize forty-foot and twenty-foot containers to transport contraband secreted inside these
containers with legitimate commercial products. It is estimated that for every container
loaded with illegal drugs discovered at the Charleston port at least nine other containers with
illegal drugs have slipped through without detection. The Port of Charleston is the second
largest containerized seaport on the eastern seaboard of the United States and handles over 1.5
million containers. The United States Customs Service has only ten inspectors to service the
inspection requirements of three Charleston port facilities and they are only able to actually
inspect less than one percent of these containers. They must rely on confidential source
information and container profiling to maximize their chances of success. Homeland Security
funding is being used in part to help remedy this situation.

Methamphetamine prices in the Charleston area range from $85 for a gram, to $900- $1,500
for an ounce and up to $15,000 for a pound.

There have been several incidents in Charleston involving Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate (GHB).
A medical student received 500 milligrams of GHB from a relative in Iowa that the student
advised was intending for treatment of two women suffering from illness and depression.
Two brothers sold ―date rape‖ drug kits, disguised as computer cleaning solvents, on their
Web site. The kits contained enough Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and sodium hydroxide to
make 15 to 20 doses of GHB.

                                         Greenville

In 2000 in Greenville County, there were 2,601 drug violation arrests. Marijuana was
involved in 1,677 of those arrests and crack in 504 arrests. Additionally, there were 2,315
juvenile drug arrests.

Heroin distribution and abuse is limited to metropolitan areas such as Greenville. Like
Charleston in 2000, Greenville had a problem with the distribution of very high purity heroin
(90% pure) causing many overdoses among users usually accustomed to lower purity levels.
Nigerian criminal groups operating in Greenville have transported Southeast and Southwest
Asian heroin into South Carolina and often use a cover company to disguise their criminal
activity. African American street gangs and local independent dealers travel to distribution




                                              8
centers in neighboring states and transport heroin back to Greenville where they then
distribute the drugs.

In the Greenville area, powder cocaine prices range from $90 for a gram, to $1,000 for an
ounce, to $26,000 for a kilogram. Prices for crack cocaine range from $25 for a rock to
$1,200 for an ounce.

According to the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office, cannabis is grown in rural areas in the
western part of the state. The South Carolina Highway Patrol Aggressive Criminal
Enforcement Team has seized large amounts of marijuana during traffic stops in Greenville
County.

Methamphetamine production, distribution and abuse are expanding and pose a significant
threat to the western part of South Carolina known as the Upstate, particularly the Greenville
area. According to the Greenville Sheriff’s Office, one Caucasian criminal group had been
operating several methamphetamine labs in Greenville, Spartanburg, Laurens and Anderson
counties.


                                     VIOLENT CRIME

South Carolina has consistently ranked among the states with the highest annual violent crime
(murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) rate each of the past five years. The state
ranked 1st in the nation in 2002. The state’s violent crime rate has been higher than the
national rate every year since 1975. The violent crime rate increased 3.2% from 2001 to
2002.

South Carolina’s murder rate decreased 6.3% from 2001 to 2002. Firearms were involved in
67% of the murders, with handguns alone being involved in 42% of all murders. Violence
within the family accounted for 19% of murders while violence between people known, but
not related to, one another accounted for 49% of murders. Murder victims were more often
male (74%) than female (26%) and more often non-white (59%) than white (41%). Young
adults from 22 to 35 accounted for 38% of murder victims. Those arrested for murder were
also disproportionately male (89%), minority (69% black) and young (45% between 22 and
34).

South Carolina’s rape rate increased a remarkable 13.8% from 2001 to 2002. This increase
resulted in the state ranking 4th nationally after ranking 14th the previous year. Rape victims
were most often assaulted by someone known to them but not related (59%) or a family
member (17%). Rapes usually occurred in private residences (70%) and weapon use was
usually hands, feet or fists (88%). Rape victims were most often young adults; 24% were17
to 21 years old, 8% were 22 to 24 years old, 26% were 25 to 34 years old and 23% were
between the ages of 35 and 44.

Historically the state’s robbery rate lagged well behind the national rate until recently. South
Carolina’s robbery rate was less than the national rate every year from 1975 until 1999. The



                                               9
state robbery rate exceeded the national robbery rate in 1999 and 2000, while the national
robbery rate was higher in 2001 and 2002. The state robbery rate increased 1.9% from 2001
to 2002. Robberies most often occurred between strangers (56%) followed by situations
where the relationship was unknown (26%). Robberies involving victims and offenders who
knew one another were uncommon (18%). Firearms were involved in 51% of robberies.

The state’s aggravated assault rate has been a continuing source of great concern. The state’s
aggravated assault rate has been higher than the national rate every year since 1975, and
South Carolina ranked first among the states in 2002. The aggravated assault rate increased
3.9% from 2001 to 2002. Aggravated assaults occurred most often between people who knew
one another; assaults between family members accounted for 28% of the total, assaults
between people who knew one another but were not related accounted for 50% of the total.
Firearms were involved in 21% of aggravated assaults.

South Carolina has devoted great time and effort into developing an accurate and efficient
crime reporting system. The state was a pioneer in crime reporting, having implemented a
state wide incident based reporting system in 1976. South Carolina participated in the FBI’s
pilot testing of NIBRS in 1991 and for several years was the only state to have virtually 100%
participation in NIBRS reporting among law enforcement agencies. Although there is
speculation that this effective crime reporting system might contribute toward the state’s high
crime rates relative to other states, it almost certainly provides a highly accurate and reliable
basis for internal comparisons within the state and over time.


                                         JUVENILES

While the causes of delinquency are complex in nature, the following information provides
insight into social factors that may influence delinquency. In the South Carolina Kids Count
2003, it was reported that 11,128 children were victims of abuse and neglect; 5,110 children
lived in foster care as of June 2001; and 187,275 (or 21 percent) children and youth under age
18 lived in families with incomes below the poverty level. There were 128,764 of our children
under age 18 with no health insurance in 2000-02, with at least twice that number lacking
basic accessible primary care. In South Carolina, 34.8 percent of students entering the eighth
grade did not graduate five years later (1998-2000). Furthermore, there were 2,807 births to
teenage mothers in 2001 and an infant mortality rate of 9.3 per 1,000 live births.

The South Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey showed that in 2001-02, 7.7 percent of
seventh and eighth graders and 18.9 percent of high school students in the state reported
drinking five or more drinks in a day during the past month. This percentage was 22.9 for
seniors alone. The survey also revealed that during the same time frame, 9.5 percent of
seventh and eighth graders and 20.1 percent of high school students in the state reported using
illegal drugs during the previous month. Some young people initiated drug use at an early
age: 5.3 percent had experienced their first use by age 11 or sooner; 16.3 percent had used a
drug by age 13, and 34.7 percent by age 15.




                                               10
Juvenile crime is a matter of great concern because delinquent patterns of behavior, if not
interrupted, may persist into and throughout adult lives. South Carolina’s juvenile violent
crime rate increased 7.7% to 11.3 from 2000 to 2002. This increase represents the largest
increase in the juvenile violent crime rate since the mid 1990’s. It is important, however, to
note that this increase occurred over a two year period and that it is the first increase in the
juvenile violent crime arrest rate after a downward trend since 1996. The juvenile property
crime arrest rate decreased 10.3% from 2000 to 2002. This pattern of an increasing violent
crime rate in the face of an overall decrease in juvenile delinquency is notable, and may have
implications for focusing new resources on juvenile violence.

A total of 28,550 juvenile cases were referred to South Carolina solicitors in 2002,
representing a 1.8% decrease over 2001 and a 161% increase since 1983. In 2002, 58% of all
dispositions in South Carolina Family Court resulted in a sentence of probation supervision.
In 2002, 2,152 children were admitted to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Reception
& Evaluation Center, representing a 2.3% decrease from 2001. A total of 1,999 children were
committed to DJJ long term institutions, representing a 4% increase over 2002. Long term
commitments to DJJ have remained fairly constant since 1998, after they nearly doubled from
1996 to 1998.


                                       CHILD ABUSE

According to the South Carolina Kids Count 2003, in 2000-01, there were 19,250
investigations into reported cases of abuse and neglect involving children. Through its
investigations, the Department of Social Services (DSS) determined that 6,651 of the
investigations indicated abuse or neglect: 15.1 percent for physical abuse, 6.4 percent for
sexual abuse, 0.6 percent for mental injury, 30.2 percent for physical neglect, 4.8 percent for
educational neglect, 3 percent for medical neglect, 38.6 percent for threat of harm for
physical/sexual abuse and 1.4 percent for other types of abuse. These percentages do not sum
to 100 percent because many investigations involved multiple areas of abuse and neglect.
Through its investigations, the DSS found enough evidence to determine that 11,128 children
were victims of abuse and neglect. They constituted 1.1% of all South Carolina children age
18 or younger. Numerous studies have shown that abused children tend to grow up to abuse
others in a cycle of violence.

As computer technology advances, the Internet is often being used by perpetrators to target
young victims. Young people are bombarded with pornography and sexual approaches over
the Internet, according to a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The study found that one in five young people between 10 and 17 who regularly use the
Internet received unwanted sexual advances during the year. A quarter of the young people
surveyed received unwanted online pornography during the same period. The pornography
was sometimes e-mailed to them or they saw it by surfing the Web or misspelling Web
addresses. The study discovered that in one in every 33 cases the sender asked to meet the
children, send gifts or talk to them over the phone. South Carolina law enforcement agencies
are continuing to see more and more of these cases involving the use of computers and the
internet.



                                              11
                                       ELDER ABUSE

The United States Census Bureau predicts the 65 and older population will grow from one in
eight Americans today to one in six by 2020. The mature adult population will total 53.7
million, representing a 53.8 percent increase over today’s 34.9 million mature adult
population. South Carolina’s older residents show the same trends: mature adults as a group
outpaced others with a 33 percent growth rate between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, South
Carolina boasted 485,300 residents 65 and older, a number that has increased by 100,000 each
decade from 1950 to 1990, and by 90,900 from 1990 to 2000. This was an increase of 322
percent from 1950 to 2000. In 2000, 27.9 percent or 1,121,000 of the state’s residents were
over 50, a 111 percent increase from 1970. An astonishing growth in the numbers of South
Carolina residents over 85 parallels the national trend. In 1950, their numbers totaled 4,193
and by 2000 there were 50,269, twelve times the 1950 number. By the year 2025, estimates
are that the number of people over 85 will reach 98,609, representing a 96 percent increase
from 2000.

Elder abuse includes sexual, physical, or emotional abuse as well as financial exploitation.
Many cases involve neglect by the caregiver that fails to provide food or medicine and not
maintain safe living conditions. However, like children, elderly citizens are often the victims
of abuse because many are unable to care for themselves or to provide a defense against the
violent actions of others. Caregiver stress in many instances escalates to physical abuse of the
elder person being cared for. Another growing problem is financial exploitation of the elderly
that includes loss of assets (often by those closest to them), telemarketing scams, and
Medicaid fraud.

According to the Mature Adults in South Carolina 2003 State Report, in state fiscal year 2001,
4,333 adults were reported to the Department of Social Services as needing Adult Protective
Services due to abuse, neglect or exploitation. Sixty-five percent of the total adults reported
were over the age of 60 and fifteen percent were over the age of 85. Of the 4,333 situations
reported, 68 percent were substantiated as involving abuse, neglect or exploitation. Of these
cases, 30 percent involved neglect by another, 47 percent involved self-neglect, nine percent
involved abuse, two percent involved psychological abuse and eight percent involved
exploitation. It is estimated that as many as 70,000 cases need to be brought to the attention
of Adult Protective Services. Also, it is estimated that for every report received, 14 go
unreported because of the vulnerable adult’s inability or reluctance to get help.

Also, during fiscal year 2001, 4,791 cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation regarding long-
term facility residents were reported to the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program. These
cases occurred in an institutional setting such as a nursing home. Although these cases
included vulnerable adults over 18 and not solely elders, the fact that 49 percent involved
alleged physical, sexual or verbal abuse or neglect is disturbing.




                                              12
                                 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

In 2001, the homicide rate among female victims murdered by males in single victim/single
offender incidents in the United States was 1.35 per 100,000 according to a study by the
Violence Policy Center. For that year, South Carolina ranked first as the state with the
highest homicide rate for this group with a rate of 3.15 per 100,000, more than twice the
national rate. Sixty-four females were murdered and 22 (54 percent) of those were killed with
guns.

It is difficult to obtain specific statistics on the number of domestic violence incidents from
published crime reports such as Crime in South Carolina because they are included in the
totals for murder, simple and aggravated assaults, rape, kidnapping, etc. However, some idea
of the problem can be determined by examining the victim to offender relationship.
According to Hitting Close to Home: A Statistical Handbook on Domestic Violence in South
Carolina 1996-2000, there were 48,724 domestic violence victimizations, or 132.9 victims per
10,000 people, in South Carolina in 2000. Simple assault was the most frequently reported
violent domestic offense. The most frequent type of victim to offender relationship in
domestic violence was a marital relationship (40.2 percent) followed by romantic (30.5
percent), family (26.6 percent), and ex-spouse (2.7 percent).

During FY 2002, 3,921 cases of domestic violence related offenses, ranging from first offense
domestic violence to murder, were investigated by DCSIP grant funded investigators in
eleven agencies in South Carolina. This resulted in 1,662 arrests involving 579 repeat
offenders.

The Violence Against Women Act funding in South Carolina supports domestic violence
related services including shelters, counseling and victim advocates. From October 2001
through September 2002, 7,196 victims received some form of service under these programs.
From October 2002 through September 2003, this number was 8,632.


                                           GANGS

On progress reports submitted to the Office of Justice Programs, grant funded School
Resource Officers indicated that some portion of gang activity in South Carolina may be a
result of youths copying what is seen on television and perceived to be "cool." Many local
law enforcement agencies do not publicly recognize street gang activity for one of two
reasons. First, city officials are sensitive to the local tourist industry and do not want their
locality to be seen as having a gang problem. Second, gang membership may be attractive to
juveniles. Therefore, the thinking is that once gang activity is recognized, membership often
increases.

However, many law enforcement agencies throughout the state are seeing a growing presence
of national gangs and their members in the state. Although these gangs primarily conduct
business in narcotics, some areas are seeing more violence connected to gang activity. The
Charleston area is one of three main cities in South Carolina with the largest number of gangs



                                              13
in the state. The Insane Gangster Disciples have a significant presence in Charleston and
members have been involved in assaults, homicides, home invasions, and weapon
distributions. Other violent gangs in Charleston include the Mafia Gangster Disciples and the
South Side Piru Bloods. Both of these gangs have been involved in assaults on law
enforcement officers, drive-by shootings, car-jacking, home-invasions, homicides and
weapons distribution. In the Greenville upstate region of the state, the biggest problem
identified is a Chicago based gang named the Folks (Black Gangster Disciples). Gangs from
Florida as well as the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago and New York have also moved into
Greenville County. According to the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office, local turf wars
between African American gangs culminate in drive by shootings and contribute to violence
in the area. The Columbia area is in a similar situation with more incidents involving drugs
and violence having a gang connection.

Graffiti, tattoos and hand signs found at the S.C. Department of Juvenile Justice indicate
youth gang activity. These materials were connected to national gangs such as the "Crips"
and "Vice Lords," and they also identified local gangs such as the "Port City Posse" located in
Charleston and the "Metro" located in Columbia. Gangs can also be found in the South
Carolina Department of Corrections. The Black Gangster Disciples, Crips, Bloods, Latin
Kings, Five Percent Nation of Islam, Nation of Gods and Earths, Aryan Nation, Black Mafia,
"B" Society, Junior Black Mafia, Nine Click and Partners In Crime (PIC) have all been
identified as existing within South Carolina correctional facilities. Many of these gangs were
first formed in prisons for self-protection reasons and have grown to be highly organized and
influential outside the prison structure. Characteristics of these groups include the presence of
a hierarchical structure, by-laws, constitutions and codes of conduct.

Motorcycle gangs are another source of gang activity in South Carolina. Three national,
criminally active motorcycle gangs operate within the state: Hells Angels, Pagans and
Warlocks. The Hells Angels control motorcycle gang activity throughout South Carolina and
currently maintain a truce with the Warlocks. The Pagans do not associate with either of
these groups. The number of full member Hells Angels is estimated to be between 9 and 12.
However, there are numerous "hang-arounds" and "wannabes" that associate with this
particular gang and participate in much of the criminal activity, which includes narcotics
distribution (methamphetamine), prostitution, auto theft, weapons violations, arson, assault
and murder for hire.


                                           COURTS

Criminal justice professionals report that delays in the judicial process often hinder effective
prosecution. If too much time passes between an incident/arrest and the subsequent hearing
or trial, witnesses may be difficult to track down and testimony as to what occurred may no
longer be clear. Specialized prosecutors and investigators for major and time intensive cases
can aid the advance of these cases through the system. Also, slowing the court process is the
lack of adequate indigent defense resources. Computerization of court records is still a
problem for many smaller judicial jurisdictions with no standardized format and ability to
share information. In an effort to rectify this shortcoming, the South Carolina Judicial



                                               14
Department, with DCSIP and other federal funding, is implementing a statewide technology
plan to automate all systems within the judicial department and allow for the sharing of
information to all judicial jurisdictions.

In FY 2001, there were a total of 108,597 cases filed and 117,636 cases reaching disposition
in the General Sessions courts in South Carolina. Of the total cases disposed of in General
Sessions, 48,903 or 41.6 percent were convictions, 54,988 or 46.7 percent were non-
convictions and 13,745 or 11.7 percent were categorized as ―other‖ (includes cases dismissed
at preliminary hearing, no bill by grand jury, remanded, failure to appear and judicial
dispositions). The standard measure of time-to-trial in General Sessions is 180 days. The
average age from date of arrest to disposition was 322.3 days.

During FY 2001, 966,928 cases reached disposition in the state’s Magistrate level courts. The
majority of these cases were traffic (76.8 percent) with 22 percent criminal and 1.2 percent
Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Most criminal cases (traffic and non-traffic) resulted in
convictions: 69.2 percent were convictions, 11.9 percent were non-convictions, 16.5 were
transferred and 2.4 percent were continued.




                                             15
16
                                   RESOURCE NEEDS

Law enforcement officers, judges, treatment, prevention and education professionals across
South Carolina are working to maximize services as budgets remain flat or decline. With
extremely tight state and local budgets, Byrne funding is essential in many instances for
agencies to implement needed programs. Even so, financial resources to fund more
personnel, equipment and supplies are not the only needs identified by criminal justice
agencies. Increasingly, improved coordination among federal, state and local criminal justice
agencies is cited as a way to maximize resources. Innovative minds in all areas of criminal
justice are exploring the uses of automation, computers and emerging technologies to reduce
the time necessary to complete routine tasks, free up personnel for more important tasks and
gain greater accountability in data reporting. Finally, leaders in criminal justice are
increasingly focused on evaluation of existing programs and methods to ensure that available
funding is spent most effectively. The following is a summary of resource needs of the
criminal justice system in South Carolina.


                                        PREVENTION

Because the future of our society rests in the hands of today’s young people, it is of vital
importance to take all steps possible to keep them from becoming involved in criminal
activity. A key element in prevention is to familiarize youth with law enforcement and the
responsibilities of officers in order to foster relationships based on respect. In this regard, the
School Resource Officer (SRO) program has functioned in South Carolina for several years
with great success and should continue to be implemented in more schools. However,
additional funding is needed to hire more officers. SROs receive specialized training, provide
pupils with law-related education, counseling services and referrals to social service agencies.
They also serve as a deterrent by being present full-time at the schools. While all middle and
high school students would gain from the interaction with law enforcement, children living in
high drug and crime areas and otherwise classified as ―at-risk‖ would receive the most
benefit. It has already been seen that early intervention via the type of after school and
summer activities initiated and overseen by the SROs (i.e.Explorer Clubs, sporting events,
camps) can serve to instill pride and self-determination in juveniles while promoting
academic achievement.

A growing area of concern relates to an increase in drugs and violence linked to a larger gang
presence in the state. Specialized gang investigators and other anti-gang initiatives are needed
to stem this growing problem before it becomes unmanageable. Public awareness and
prevention education would be beneficial for the entire community but in particular to young
people who are targeted for recruitment into gangs.

On a wider scale, more participation in community-policing efforts would assist in crime
prevention. It has been shown that creating mutually beneficial partnerships between citizens
and law enforcement can lead to the elimination of street drug sales, the demolition of crack
houses and safer neighborhoods. The reluctance to modify traditional methods of policing or


                                                17
thinking that assisting the public in non-criminal matters should be left to social services must
be overcome if lasting progress toward achieving a crime-free environment is to be made.
However, agencies who want to make this effort often need financial assistance to implement
the programs.


                                   LAW ENFORCEMENT

The efforts of police officers and deputies are commonly accepted as the main reason that the
public is protected from the criminal element. However, several distinct areas of law
enforcement need additional resources in order to function more effectively. As officers have
become more specialized in the types of cases they handle, the importance of their receiving
appropriate training has grown. Narcotics officers would benefit from courses on conducting
undercover drug buys and keeping up with the methods of operation employed by those in the
illegal narcotics trade. Investigators specializing in family violence (domestic violence, child
abuse and elder abuse) need to learn more about handling these types of crime for their own
protection and for the welfare of those involved in the incidents. The South Carolina
Legislature has mandated that all certified law enforcement officers receive criminal domestic
violence training each year to be recertified. With a growing Hispanic and Asian population
in South Carolina, officers must also be trained in cultural factors and language to help them
effectively and appropriately handle situations involving these citizens. Additionally, white
collar and computer crimes and financial exploitation of the elderly are complicated and
difficult to investigate requiring specialized training. After receiving specialized instruction,
these officers could go on to share their knowledge with others in their departments.

Favorable collaborations between agencies on local, state and federal levels need to be
stressed to avoid fragmentation of services and to launch successful multi-jurisdictional
investigations. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the formation of task forces that
incorporate law enforcement agents from neighboring cities and counties. However, care
must be taken to ensure that all participating departments are aware of their responsibilities
and that cooperation and coordination with other agencies remains a top priority. The
inclusion of assistant solicitors in the task forces is of great importance, for besides being on-
hand to help guide the agents’ investigations, they may be cross-designated as special
assistant US attorneys and be empowered to bring a number of cases up to the federal level
for prosecution. This blending together of law enforcement and judicial elements is a
worthwhile trend that, as further illustrated by the Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Units
that join investigators with solicitors, makes for stronger cases against offenders and raises
assurances that court hearings will proceed in a timely manner. Fatality Review Teams that
examine cases of elder deaths, much like Child Fatality Review Teams, would help ensure
that some cases where death resulted from abuse would not be written off as natural deaths.

Over the past several years, the lack of adequate drug testing facilities in law enforcement
agencies has consistently been mentioned as a significant contributor to the delay in
prosecuting criminal cases. Until recently, the overwhelming majority of substances to be
examined were submitted to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), and the
limited number of criminologists there were unable to keep pace with the demand. This



                                               18
situation has been eased somewhat by establishing regional drug analysis labs at several
departments in accordance with SLED standards. However, continued expansion of
subgrantee sites throughout the state, complete with knowledgeable staff and technically
advanced equipment, is needed to handle the escalating volume of tests.


                                         JUDICIAL

Efforts to more effectively handle offenders should include the implementation or expansion
of specialized courts, such as Domestic Violence Courts, Mental Health Courts, and Drug
Courts with dedicated prosecutors in each one. Drug Courts and Mental Health Courts have
shown to be effective in allowing non-violent offenders a chance to receive treatment instead
of being processed through the system and given probation or jail time, neither of which is
likely to keep the individual from recidivating. Alternative courts have permitted more time
to be spent on critical cases in General Sessions.

A second area of need regarding the increase of court efficiency is that of personnel.
Experience has proven that the addition of prosecutors generally leads to a decrease in the
number of pending cases. Prosecutors should receive training in elder abuse, especially
financial exploitation, and computer-related crimes, which are increasing. There should be a
close working relationship between prosecutors and investigators, especially in the specialized
courts.

South Carolina also supports projects which focus on improving the operational effectiveness
of the court process by expanding prosecutorial and judicial resources and implementing court
delay reduction programs. In this area, the key components are personnel and automation.
Increasing resources in one area of the justice system can have an adverse effect on other
components of the system. It is important in this area to focus on coordination between all
agencies to better manage the court dockets. The South Carolina Judicial Department has
begun implementing an initiative, with the help of grant funds, to provide reliable information
technology systems on which to build improved efficiency in day-to-day operations. This is
being done by automating processes, providing connectivity and improving both education
and technology. The first stage of this initiative included the county Clerk of Court offices.
The next stages will expand the development of a statewide case management system.


                                         VICTIMS

Domestic violence continues to be a problem in South Carolina. According to a report by the
Violence Policy Center, South Carolina ranked first in the nation in 2001 in numbers of
female deaths at the hands of abusive men. Children who witness domestic violence learn to
be violent and take these values and behaviors into their own relationships. Suggestions for
changes in the way these cases are handled include: forming specialized units of law
enforcement officers; creating more Domestic Violence Courts capable of mandating
appropriate counseling, treatment, incarceration, and monitoring; establishing and developing




                                              19
batterer treatment programs; and establishing prevention programs in schools to teach non-
violent relationship skills.

The issues of child and elder abuse have become more prominent in South Carolina, as well
as throughout the entire country. In response to the likelihood that the problems are much
more pervasive than the statistics indicate, more law enforcement agencies are creating
specialized units which specifically deal with allegations and incidents of these types of
abuse. However, with elder population numbers expected to rise as the ―baby boomers‖ begin
―aging out‖; the need for these specialized personnel will undoubtedly increase. Additionally,
reports of financial exploitation of the elderly by family members and caretakers, or by
telecommunication fraud, and Medicaid fraud have shown an increase in the past few years.

While the work of the investigator has thus far been positive, their accomplishments also
highlight the absence of these services in many other parts of the state. Programs such as
VOCA may address the needs of the children and elderly through victim advocates, but from
a law enforcement perspective there is a lack of training which will educate all officers on
how to identify and proceed with instances of abuse. Creating additional child/elder abuse
units within local and county agencies would not only focus resources on the problem but also
enable more investigators to share their knowledge with fellow officers. In particular, elder
abuse needs to be better documented so that law enforcement agencies can begin to develop
methods to address and solve the problems of senior citizens who are taken advantage of or
abused by caregivers. The elderly often have unique problems that can only be solved
through multidisciplinary teams of law enforcement and service providers. In addition, more
investigation of child and elder abuse will necessarily mean an increased need for trained
specialized prosecutors.


            RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has recognized that the availability
of information that can be shared by departments throughout the state and beyond is crucial to
the future of the criminal justice system. In the area of offender identification, support must
continue for equipment such as the Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS)
which enable criminologists to enter latent fingerprints from a crime scene and compare them
to a series of like prints electronically transmitted from the state’s central database at SLED.
The ongoing use of Live Scan Devices will also be encouraged, with the electronic scanning
of fingerprints being more efficient than the traditional inking method. The Live Scan
Devices have the ability to transmit the arrestees’ prints to the state agency via phone lines
replacing the need to send them on print-out cards. SLED’s software integration also allows
departments, through the use of Verification Stations, to receive transmissions back from the
central database to assist in verifying the identity of the persons being fingerprinted.

Another South Carolina priority is to integrate the criminal justice information system. Law
enforcement agencies, solicitor's offices, judges, the S.C. Department of Juvenile Justice, the
S.C. Department of Corrections and the S.C. Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
Services need access to fully automated criminal history records. While significant



                                              20
technological advances and systems improvements have occurred in recent years, the various
components of the South Carolina criminal justice system are still, to a large extent, "islands."
Although the criminal justice system is a continuum, offenders are processed through the
system as new entities at each juncture. Major concerns are the duplication of information on
each offender, uniform sentencing sheets and the inadequacy of information exchange among
system components. While the technical means of accomplishing this system continue to be
worked on by software and hardware developers, policy issues and procedural requirements
for this system must also be developed as well as the fiscal resources required and how the
system will fit in with other informational systems.

Docket management, automation and staffing at the local court level, as well as automated
disposition reporting from all levels of the court system remain high priorities. The South
Carolina Judicial Department’s initiative discussed in the Judicial section has taken great
strides toward the achievement of automating and connecting all levels of court. However,
there is still much work to be done and Byrne funding will be needed, particularly by the local
courts in the system.

One of the best tools available to investigators is the rapidly expanding area of forensics.
Criminal investigators need the best and most modern equipment to examine crime scenes and
evidence. The results of drug testing, DNA testing, latent fingerprint examination, blood
alcohol testing, firearms testing and tests on trace evidence must be available to state and
local law enforcement agencies quickly in order to thoroughly investigate criminal cases and
supply legally sufficient evidence to prosecutors. In addition, laboratory technicians and
criminalists must be properly trained to conduct these tests so they provide incontrovertible
results that withstand scrutiny by courts and defense attorneys.

Most drug law arrests require drug testing to verify the substance as illegal. Test backlogs can
be up from six months to a year and, in most cases, offenders will not accept a plea
arrangement and/or the solicitor cannot prosecute the cases until the drug test results have
been received. Incarcerated pre-trial defendants are very expensive to house and arrestees
who post bond are likely to reoffend. Solicitors' caseloads continue to increase because these
cases cannot be processed. Therefore, the number of regional drug analysis laboratories in
areas that have high drug arrest rates should be increased.




                                               21
22
    PRIORITIES AND THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY


STRATEGY PRIORITY: JUVENILE DRUG AND VIOLENT CRIME

PRIORITY EFFORTS:

     School Resource Officers
     Gang Investigators
     Anti-Gang Initiatives


RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY:

     Goal 1- Stopping Use Before It Starts: Education and Community Action

       The reduction of juvenile and violent crime relates to the National Drug Control
       Strategy in terms of Goal 1 by stopping use before it starts through education and
       community action.


___________________________________________________________________________


STRATEGY PRIORITY: COURT SYSTEM EFFICIENCY

PRIORITY EFFORTS:

     Improving Court Based Operations
     Drug Court Programs
     Specialized Prosecutors


RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY:

     Goal 2- Healing America’s Drug Users: Getting Treatment Resources Where They
              Are Needed
     Goal 3- Disrupting the Market: Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade

      This priority is directly related to Goal 3- disrupting the market: attacking the
      economic basis of the drug trade- by aiding prosecution efforts and to Goal 2 by
      providing treatment resources where they are needed.




                                            23
STRATEGY PRIORITY: CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

PRIORITY EFFORTS:

    NCIC 2000 and NIBRS Systems Upgrades
    LIVE SCAN Device and Verification Station
    Records Improvement Systems


RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY:

    Goal 3- Disrupting the Market: Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade

     The improvement of criminal justice information services results in more efficient
     identification of suspects and offenders and more rapid criminal history checks which
     aids in the arrest and prosecution of perpetrators thereby relating to Goal 3 of the
     National Drug Control Strategy.



___________________________________________________________________________


STRATEGY PRIORITY: MULTIJURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES

PRIORITY EFFORTS:

    Narcotics Multi-jurisdictional Task Forces
    Violent Crime Multi-jurisdictional Task Forces
    Regional Multi-jurisdictional Task Forces


RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY:

    Goal 3- Disrupting the Market: Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade

     Establishing and maintaining multi-jurisdictional and regional task forces relates to
     Goals 3 National Drug Control Strategy by, for example, disrupting the flow of drugs,
     increasing asset forfeiture, impeding local drug production and, in general, reducing
     drug-related crime and violence.




                                           24
STRATEGY PRIORITY: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

PRIORITY EFFORTS:

    Domestic Violence Investigators
    Domestic Violence Prosecution
    Multi-agency Collaboration of Services


RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY:

    Goal 1- Stopping Use Before It Starts: Education and Community Action
    Goal 2- Healing America’s Drug Users: Getting Treatment Resources Where They
             Are Needed
    Goal 3- Disrupting the Market: Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade

     Investigation and prosecution in the area of domestic violence is related to Goal 3 of
     the National Drug Control Strategy, because many incidents of domestic violence
     escalate with the use of alcohol and illegal narcotics and reducing the presence of
     drugs and alcohol may help decrease the level of violence within the family. There is
     also a relationship with Goal 1 as education and community action may help prevent
     or reduce family violence and to Goal 2 whereby treatment for drug and alcohol use
     may be part of court sanctions.


STRATEGY PRIORITY: CHILD/ELDER ABUSE

PRIORITY EFFORTS:

    Child/Elder Abuse Investigators
    Child/Elder Abuse Prosecution

RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY:


    Goal 1- Stopping Use Before It Starts: Education and Community Action
    Goal 2- Healing America’s Drug Users: Getting Treatment Resources Where They
             Are Needed
    Goal 3- Disrupting the Market: Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade

     Investigation and prosecution in the area of child/elder abuse is related to Goal 3 of the
     National Drug Control Strategy because many incidents of abuse arise from the use of
     illegal narcotics and helping to reduce the presence of drugs will serve to decrease
     cases of abuse and neglect. As with domestic violence, Goal 2 may be related by
     treatment plans through court sanctions and Goal 1 through education and awareness
     efforts.


                                            25
STRATEGY PRIORITY: STATE FORENSIC LABORATORIES AND LOCAL DRUG
                   ANALYSIS LABORATORIES

PRIORITY EFFORTS:

    Enhancement of State Forensic Laboratories
    Regional Drug Analysis Laboratories
    Accreditation for Regional Laboratories


RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY:

    Goal 3- Disrupting the Market: Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade

     The enhanced capabilities and efficiency of forensic laboratories relates to Goal 3 of
     the National Drug Control Strategy by supporting the development of scientific
     information and data to assist in disruption of criminal organizations and the arrest and
     prosecution of its participants.




                                            26
                               SELECTED PROGRAMS


Programs that South Carolina plans to continue funding during the next four years are
discussed on the following pages. The programs are each discussed under the state’s funding
priority that is most appropriate.


1. JUVENILE DRUG AND VIOLENT CRIME:

School Resource Officer

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1994

National Priorities: Goal 1: Stopping Use Before It Starts

Authorized Purpose Area: #4: Providing community and neighborhood programs that assist
citizens in preventing and controlling crime, including special programs that address the
problems of crimes committed against the elderly and special programs for rural jurisdictions.

Description of Program: The goal of the School Resource Officer (SRO) program is to
bridge the gap between police officers and adolescents in order to increase positive attitudes
toward law enforcement and reduce juvenile crime and drug use through counseling, teaching
about the criminal justice system and taking a personal interest in the students. The objectives
of this project focus on maintaining a safe and secure environment on the school campus
which would then be conducive to an educationally stimulating atmosphere, prevent criminal
activities and disturbances, and promote positive attitudes regarding the role of police in
society.

Performance Measures:
      Number of students served.
      Number of law related education classes presented.
      Number of gang awareness/prevention classes presented.
      Number of incidents reported.
      Number of arrests made.
      Number of extra-curricular activities attended.
      Number of conferences held with students, faculty and parents.
      Number of training courses officers attended.

Evaluation Target Date: An evaluation of School Resource Officers funded by South
Carolina under the Byrne program in FY 1996-1998 was conducted in 1999 by Rain & Brehm
Consulting Group, Inc. Future Strategy as required.




                                              27
2. COURT SYSTEM EFFICIENCY:

Drug Crimes Prosecuting Unit
Violent Crime Prosecution Team

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1993

National Priorities: Goal 2: Healing America’s Drug Users
                     Goal 3: Disrupting the Market

Authorized Purpose Area: #10: Improving operational effectiveness of the court process by
expanding prosecutorial, defender and judicial resources and implementing delay reduction
programs.

Description of Program: The overall goal of this program to improve court effectiveness is
to reduce the overall backlog in the court system and achieve higher conviction rates by
aggressive prosecution of adult violators of drug and violent crime laws with the addition of
equipment and resources to more effectively manage caseloads.

Performance Measures:
      Number of additional prosecutors and other judicial personnel hired.
      Number of cases prosecuted.
      Number of outstanding cases by age of case.
      Total value of funds and assets seized and forfeited.

Evaluation Target Date: Future Strategy as required.


Adult Drug Court

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1997

National Priorities: Goal 2: Healing America’s Drug Users
                     Goal 3: Disrupting the Market

Authorized Purpose Area: #10: Improving operational effectiveness of the court process by
expanding prosecutorial, defender and judicial resources and implementing delay reduction
programs.

Description of Program: The goals of the drug court program are to divert cases normally
processed through General Sessions Court to an alternate venue for faster disposition; reduce
caseloads through rapid disposition of less severe cases; reduce the incarceration time of
offenders awaiting disposition of court cases; provide intensive drug treatment options and
improve communication among all elements of the court system.




                                             28
Performance Measures:
      Number of drug court programs created.
      Number of active drug court participants.
      Number of offenders screened but not admitted into program.
      Number of offenders terminated from the program.
      Number of offenders successfully completing program.
      Number of program graduates rearrested within six months.

Evaluation Target Date: Future Strategy as required.


Mental Health Court

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1997

National Priorities: Goal 2: Healing America’s Drug Users

Authorized Purpose Area: #20: Providing alternatives to prevent detention, jail and prison
for persons who pose no danger to the community.

Description of Program: The main goal of this program was to establish a comprehensive
mental health court program to identify, divert to community treatment, track and provide
judicial oversight for offenders with mental health disorders. This population often lacks
access to mental health treatment, are often arrested for minor offenses and on release many
become repeat offenders, continuing to cycle through the criminal justice system contributing
to jail overcrowding.

Performance Measures:
      Number of alternative courts or programs created.
      Number of active mental health court participants.
      Number of offenders screened but not admitted into program.
      Number of offenders terminated from the program.
      Number of offenders successfully completing program.
      Number of program graduates rearrested within six months.

Evaluation Target Date: Future Strategy as required.


Violent Crime Reduction Project: Judicial Enhancement

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 2000

National Priorities: Goal 2: Healing America’s Drug Users
                     Goal 3: Disrupting the Market




                                             29
Authorized Purpose Area: #16: Innovative programs which demonstrate new and different
approaches to enforcement, prosecution and adjudication of drug offenses and other serious
crimes.

Description of Program: The overall goal of projects under this program area is to address
crime and violence in our state using new and different approaches to enforcement,
prosecution and adjudication. The focus of the Violent Crime Reduction Project was to
reduce violent crime in a targeted geographic area by means of an extraordinarily
concentrated and coordinated effort involving all segments of the community over a defined
period of time. In conjunction with the larger project and as one of the recommended
implementation measures, the South Carolina Judicial Department received funding to assign
a non-rotating judge, and law clerk, for the General Sessions (GS) Court in the targeted
county. This effort was made in order to bring more severity to the criminal trial process and
to increase the deterrent effect for violent crimes. The judge tried all the cases, increased the
terms of court, and utilized a docket management system as part of several changes in the trial
process to reduce the backlog. Top priority was given to major cases such as murder,
kidnapping and gun-related offenses.

Performance Measures:
      Number of sessions of court.
      Number of offenders prosecuted.
      Number of outstanding cases on the docket.
      Number of cases reaching disposition.

Evaluation Target Date: The consulting firm, Justice Planning Associates (JPA), who
oversaw this two-year project, submitted an evaluation report at the end of the project. At
present, the SAA has contracted with a local firm, Tidwell and Associates, to conduct an
outside evaluation of the project.


3. CRIMINAL JUSTIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS:

NCIC 200 and NIBRS Systems Upgrade
LIVE SCAN Device
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)
Records Management Systems Upgrade

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1989

National Priorities: Goal 3: Disrupting the Market

Authorized Purpose Area: #15b: Criminal justice information systems to assist law
enforcement, prosecution, courts and corrections organizations (including automated
fingerprint identification systems).




                                               30
Description of Program: The goal of the criminal justice information system programs is to
improve the completeness, accuracy and timeliness of criminal history records information at
the S.C. Central Criminal Records Repository (CRR) located within the S.C. Law
Enforcement Division (SLED). The objectives focused on improvements throughout the
entire spectrum of criminal history records. This included projects to achieve the following:
automate records management systems; enhance access of law enforcement agencies to
criminal history records information; develop the capability to electronically report criminal
record dispositions to the state repository; improve identification of offenders through latent
fingerprints collected via Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS); improve
upon the quality of inked fingerprint cards; and decrease the time it takes to fingerprint a
suspect and allow for the electronic transmission of prints to SLED.

Performance Measures:
      Number of criminal justice records automated.
      Number of systems enhanced or automated.
      Number of fingerprint records electronically transmitted.
      Number of fingerprint records rejected.
      Number of positive identifications made through fingerprints.
      Number of inquiries resulting in arrest.
      Number of training sessions attended.

Request for Waiver: Most of the programs are not of sufficient size to justify a full
evaluation because they are only funded for one year. All are designed primarily to provide
material resources and supplies and would not justify a full evaluation.


4. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES:

Narcotics Multi-jurisdictional Task Force
Violent Crime Multi-jurisdictional Task Force

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1989 (NMJTF)/ FFY 1994 (VCMJTF)

National Priorities: Goal 3: Disrupting the Market

Authorized Purpose Area: #2: Multi-jurisdictional task force programs that integrate
Federal, State and/or local drug law enforcement agencies and prosecutors for the purpose of
enhancing interagency coordination and intelligence and facilitating multi-jurisdictional
investigations.

Description of Program: Enhancement of existing efforts in enforcement, prosecution and
conviction of major drug and violent crime offenders through shared critical resources and
elimination of jurisdictional problems is the goal of the multi-jurisdictional task force
programs. This is accomplished through the formation of true, separate and distinct entities
that pool manpower, equipment, intelligence and other pertinent resources. While providing
assistance to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, the task forces jointly plan



                                              31
operations and strategy for targeting drug and violent crime offenders. Coordinating efforts
with prosecutors to build stronger cases and raise the conviction rate is a primary objective.

Performance Measures:
      Number of offenders arrested.
      Number of offenders prosecuted.
      Number of drug seizures.
      Quantity of drugs (by weight and drug type) seized.
      Total value of funds and assets forfeited.
      Number of training courses task force personnel attended.

Evaluation Target Date: Evaluations of multi-jurisdictional narcotics task forces have been
conducted in the past. Future Strategy as required.


5. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Domestic Violence Investigator
Domestic Violence-Child/Elder Abuse Investigator
Domestic Violence Prosecutor
Domestic Violence Court

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1993

National Priorities: Goal 1: Stopping Use Before It Starts
                     Goal 2: Healing America’s Drug Users
                     Goal 3: Disrupting the Market

Authorized Purpose Area: #18: Improving the criminal and juvenile justice system’s
response to domestic and family violence, including spouse abuse, child abuse and abuse of
the elderly.

Description of Program: The primary purpose of this program is to improve investigation
and prosecution of cases of domestic violence through increased resources, to improve
coordination of the various agencies responsible for family welfare, and to increase the
number of officers and prosecutors with specialization in these areas. Successful prosecution
and a decrease in the number of cases dropped is also the objective of the Domestic Violence
Court with the added aim of providing access to treatment for offenders and victims. A
secondary purpose is to take a proactive stance in an effort to prevent further abuse by raising
public awareness regarding these problems. Together, these efforts should then cause a
decline in the cases of domestic violence and other criminal activity associated with such acts.

Performance Measures:
      Number of offenders arrested.
      Number of offenders prosecuted.
      Number of charges made by offense.



                                              32
       Number of offenders completing treatment programs.
       Number of training courses grant personnel attended.
       Number of pubic awareness presentations made.

Evaluation Target Date: An evaluation of the Lexington County Domestic Violence Court,
funded by South Carolina under the Byrne program in FY1999-2001, was completed in 2003
by criminal justice researchers at the University of South Carolina. This evaluation was
funded by an award from the National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of Justice.


6. CHILD/ELDER ABUSE:

Child/Elder Abuse Investigator
Child/Elder Abuse Prosecutor
Child/Elder- Domestic Violence Investigator

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1993

National Priorities: Goal 1: Stopping Use Before It Starts
                     Goal 2: Healing America’s Drug Users
                     Goal 3: Disrupting the Market

Authorized Purpose Area: 18: Improving the criminal and juvenile justice system’s
response to domestic and family violence, including spouse abuse, child abuse and abuse of
the elderly.

Description of Program: This program's goal is to improve law enforcement response to
crimes of child abuse, child neglect and abuse of the elderly. The objectives of the program
are: increased investigators' skills in child/elder abuse investigation; increased coordination
among agencies responsible for child/elder welfare; increased successful prosecution of
child/elder abuse cases and penalties levied by the court; decreased child/elder abuse
homicides; and increased knowledge of all law enforcement officers, other professionals who
come into contact with children/elders, and the general public regarding signs of child/elder
abuse and reporting requirements.

Performance Measures:
      Number of offenders arrested.
      Number of offenders prosecuted.
      Number of charges made by offense.
      Number of offenders completing treatment programs.
      Number of training courses grant personnel attended.
      Number of pubic awareness presentations made.

Evaluation Target Date: Future Strategy as required.




                                              33
7. STATE FORENSIC and LOCAL DRUG ANALYSIS LABORATORIES

Regional Drug Analysis Laboratories

Year of BJA Approval: FFY 1989

National Priorities: Goal 3: Disrupting the Market

Authorized Purpose Area: #15a: Developing programs to improve drug control technology,
such as pretrial drug testing programs, programs which provide the identification, assessment,
referral to treatment, case management and monitoring of drug-dependant offenders, and
enhancement of State and local forensic laboratories.

Description of Program: The broad goal of this program is to increase the ability to solve
crime by providing sufficient, modern laboratory equipment, laboratory facilities and other
technology to rapidly analyze evidence and return accurate results to requesting agencies.
The objectives of this program include: substantial reduction of drug analysis backlog and
turnaround time that, in turn, improves drug disposition rates for law enforcement agencies
and judicial circuit solicitor’s offices; improvement in drug test results' reliability through
state-of-the-art technology; and increased knowledge of laboratory technicians through
training in current technology and procedures.

Performance Measures:
      Number of positive drug analysis by type of drug.
      Number of negative drug analysis by type of drug.
      Number of analysis conducted for other agencies.
      Number of training courses lab personnel attended.
      Total value of equipment purchased.

Request for Waiver: The program is designed primarily to provide material resources and
supplies that would not justify a full evaluation.




                                               34
                            COORDINATION EFFORTS


                    STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION

In the development of South Carolina's FFY 2004-2007 State Strategy, a variety of
information-gathering techniques and analytical procedures were used to identify successful
federal, state and local efforts and to respond to the specific needs and concerns throughout
South Carolina. The process attempted to include as many points of view as possible and all
significant competing interests. This information was compared to the criminal justice data
gathered during the past year and to previous State Strategies. This plan examines the nature
and extent of the problem, summarizes current efforts and promotes coordination of drug and
violent crime control efforts by illustrating existing state and local collaboration activities.
The Strategy also identifies goals and recommendations designed to meet the challenge of
controlling violent crime and substance abuse.

Throughout the year, contacts seeking data and comments for the Strategy were made by staff
members of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) with the following agencies:

* State and Local Criminal Justice System, Drug Treatment and Education/Prevention
  Agencies: S. C. Law Enforcement Division; S.C. Department of Corrections; S.C.
  Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; S.C. Department of Alcohol and
  Other Drug Abuse Services; S.C. Department of Education; S.C. Court Administration;
  S.C. Department of Juvenile Justice; S.C. Department of Public Safety, Criminal Justice
  Academy; S.C. Department of Mental Health; S.C. Attorney General’s Office, S.C. Bar
  and the S.C. Commission on Prosecution Coordination. In addition, contacts were made
  with several of the state’s Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, and Solicitors, as well as
  organizations including the S.C. Law Enforcement Officers Association, the South
  Carolina Police Chief’s Association, and the South Carolina Sheriff's Association.

* Federal Agencies: Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Agency; U.S.
  Customs; U.S. Attorney's Office; Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and
  Office of National Drug Control Policy.

   * Public, Legislative and Executive Agency Review: The opinions of various citizens
   groups and non-profit agencies were included. The intergovernmental review process also
   solicits public input. A Public Notice was posted on the SCDPS, Office of Justice
   Programs website announcing that the proposed statewide drug strategy was available for
   public review and comment.

* Drug Control and System Improvement Program: Quarterly progress reports and
  annual evaluation reports were analyzed for each of the DCSIP grant projects. In
  addition, on-site monitoring of these grants provided many insights into criminal justice
  needs throughout the state.



                                              35
* Federally Funded Programs: The S.C. Department of Public Safety (SCDPS), Office of
  Justice Programs, is responsible for the following grant programs: DCSIP, Residential
  Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants,
  Police Corps, Bullet Proof Vest Partnership, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block
  Grant, Title 5 Formula Grant, Victims of Crime Act, Violence Against Women Act, and
  State Victims Assistance Program. The project administrators of these programs
  coordinate during staffing of grants on projects that impact areas of specific interest to
  another grant program.

   * Advisory or Policy Board: The South Carolina Public Safety Coordinating Council
   (PSCC) was created to administer certain responsibilities of the SCDPS and coordinate
   certain activities between the department, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
   (SLED) and municipal and county law enforcement agencies. As part of their
   responsibilities, the PSCC oversees the process for the solicitation of applications for
   public safety grants and reviews and approves the disbursement of funds. Members of the
   PSCC include the Governor, Chief of the S.C. Law Enforcement Division, Chairman of
   the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary
   Committee, and Director of the S.C. Department of Public Safety or their
   representative(s). Additionally, the Governor appoints a Sheriff, Chief of Police and
   victim of crime representative as members of the PSCC.


                           OTHER COORDINATION EFFORTS

The South Carolina Department of Public Safety and the Office of Justice Programs are also
involved, both directly and indirectly, in many efforts to recognize and address the criminal
justice needs and concerns within the state. These efforts involve federal, state and local
agencies and funding. Some examples are:

U. S. Attorney’s Office:

   Federal Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee (LECC): The LECC has been
   primarily involved from the perspective of this office in identifying critical drug, and
   more recently, violent crime-related training needs in the state and offering opportunities
   to federal, state and local law enforcement personnel to learn about important enforcement
   areas. For example, seminars on narcotics task forces, law enforcement and schools, and
   domestic violence have been very well received by the law enforcement community.
   During this past year, members of the Office of Justice Programs actively participated in
   seminars, both as speakers and attendees, as well as serving as members of the LECC
   Executive Board and Training, Drug and Violent Crime Subcommittees.

   Violent Crime Task Force: The District of South Carolina's Violent Crime Task Force
   was an innovative program organized in October, 1993 and was the first of its type. This
   unique task force was created to target, investigate, indict, prosecute and convict habitual
   career criminals. The law enforcement entities detailed to the program consist of local
   police officers, state prosecutors, and federal agents who now work in cooperation rather


                                             36
   than in competition. The creation of this multi-jurisdictional program has enabled the
   U. S. Attorney’s Office to double the allotment of prosecutors and allow complex
   conspiracy investigations involving multiple defendants to proceed in both state and
   federal court. Currently, there are task forces in Columbia, Charleston, Greenville,
   Florence, Rock Hill, and Orangeburg. The Office of Justice Programs acts as a member
   of the Violent Crime Task Force by funding local law enforcement efforts such as Violent
   Crime Task Forces and Multi-jurisdictional Narcotics Task Forces

   Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN): This national program was created to fund
   innovative projects to reduce the incidence of gun violence. Types of programs include
   dedicated gun prosecutors and investigators, training, community outreach efforts and
   programs aimed to reducing the incidence of juvenile gun crime. This program is
   implemented through the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the District of
   South Carolina. The Office of Justice Programs has been designated to serve as the fiscal
   agent for the sub-grant program. Staff monitor sub-grantee progress through telephone
   and e-mail contacts, progress reports and site monitoring visits.


Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA):

   Methamphetamine Training and Education Program: In the last few years, South
   Carolina has seen a huge increase in the clandestine methamphetamine (meth) labs. Many
   law enforcement officers do not have the specialized training to deal with these sites and
   few departments have the funds to send personnel away for proper training. To provide
   officers the appropriate training to handle these dangerous sites, the Office of Justice
   Programs has coordinated with the DEA for their contractors to hold a training session in
   South Carolina in May, 2004 for forty officers from law enforcement agencies across the
   state. This is the same training conducted at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, and
   the officers trained will receive equipment to aid them in their investigations. It is hoped
   that another of these trainings can be scheduled in the future.


South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED):

   Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) Committee: The CJIS Committee
   membership is composed of agency heads or their designees from law enforcement,
   judicial, correction and victim service agencies and organizations within the state. The
   mission of the CJIS Committee is to provide leadership, guidance and direction in the
   development of a statewide criminal justice information system. SLED is the criminal
   records repository for the state and is a lead agency on the committee. OJP staff
   represents the Department of Public Safety at committee meetings. The Bureau of Justice
   Assistance has mandated a five percent set-aside of Byrne funds allocated to each state for
   the improvement of criminal justice records. Because of the coordination with the CJIS
   Committee, OJP has been able to recommend funding for projects that will complement
   the development of a statewide system and far exceed the minimum set-aside amount.




                                             37
   NIBRS/NCIC: SLED has mandated that all departments, regardless of size, submit
   incident data electronically. Agencies must also have the means to electronically access
   SLED’s criminal records using NCIC technology. OJP has been working closely with law
   enforcement agencies, primarily small and medium size, across the state to upgrade their
   computers and purchase software to meet this mandate. Byrne and Local Law
   Enforcement Block Grant funds have been the major source of funding for these agencies.

   National Forensics Sciences Improvement Act (NFSIA): SLED has been awarded the
   NFSIA grant in South Carolina administered by the Office of Justice Programs. The goal
   of this program is to improve services and decrease the backlog of death investigation
   analysis for coroners performed in the SLED Toxicology Lab. Grant funds are used to
   provide appropriate workspace for toxicologist and purchasing additional instrumentation
   to decrease the time needed to perform required analysis.

   Computer Crime Center (CCC): SLED’s Computer Crime Center began with Byrne
   grant funding and was later further enhanced with direct federal funding. The CCC
   conducts cyber crime investigations, which have predominantly involved internet child
   pornography. They also perform forensic examinations of computers and provide
   information and technical assistance to law enforcement agencies across the state. The
   Secret Service has designated the Computer Crime Center (CCC) as an Electronic Crimes
   Task Force (ECTF), one of only thirteen in the country and the only one not managed by
   the Secret Service on a day to day basis. Representatives from different states have
   visited the CCC to view the facility and operation in an effort to replicate it in their
   respective jurisdictions.

   Homeland Security: SLED administers federal funds for homeland security efforts in the
   state. The Office of Justice Programs assisted SLED in the first year preparation for the
   administration of these funds. OJP continues to cooperate with SLED in these efforts. In
   addition, OJP has coordinated its efforts with other emergency preparedness endeavors in
   the state to avoid duplication of funding.


South Carolina Judicial Department:

   Court System Efficiency Improvements: The South Carolina Judicial Department
   (SCJD) initiative has provided reliable information technology systems on which to build,
   improved efficiency in day-to-day operations by automating processes, and improved both
   education and technology within the state’s forty-six county Clerk of Court offices.
   Through their website, SCJD now provides court calendars, assignments, reports,
   procedure manuals and forms. SCJD is now in the process of implementing a statewide
   case management system (CMS). Many of the counties are making efforts to upgrade
   their magistrate court computer systems in anticipation of the new system. Much of this
   total effort has been funded either with Byrne (DCSIP) funds or direct federal funding.




                                            38
South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services (DAODAS):

   Enforcement of Underage Drinking Task Force Grant: DAODAS received federal
   funding to expand the Task Force’s efforts statewide to reduce underage drinking and
   increase enforcement. The Administrator of the Office of Justice Programs is the Chair of
   the Task Force. The Task Force has been coordinating with the Governor’s Cooperative
   Agreement for Prevention Task Force (G-CAP) to establish a common web link between
   all state agencies that have an interest in prevention with a standardized resource page for
   each agency.


South Carolina Attorney General’s Office:

   STOP Violence Against Woman: With funding from Violence Against Women grants,
   the Attorney General’s Office has developed law enforcement protocols and prosecution
   procedures for criminal domestic violence, criminal sexual conduct and stalking crimes.
   This includes conducting training in this area for prosecutors, victim advocates and
   judges.

   Internet Crimes Against Children-SC Task Force: Through Congressional direction,
   the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created the Internet
   Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program. South Carolina’s Task Force is
   operated through the Attorney General’s Office and works closely with SLED- the chief
   ICAC investigation agency in the state. The purpose of the ICAC program is help law
   enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber enticement and child
   pornography cases that encompass forensic and investigative components, training and
   technical assistance, victim services, and community action.


South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services:

   Adult Protection Coordinating Council: This Council was created by Article Three of
   the South Carolina Omnibus Adult Protection Act in 1993. The Council was created
   because of the depth of concern about the need for frequent, continued coordination and
   cooperation among the entities involved specifically in the adult protection system. It is
   thought to be the only council of its type in the United States. The twenty-two member
   Council is composed of twenty public and private organizations and two gubernatorial
   appointees. These members include a representative from the South Carolina Department
   of Public Safety, Criminal Justice Academy Division.




                                             39
40
                                 REFERENCE LIST

Crime in South Carolina 2002. S.C. Law Enforcement Division. October, 2003.

Crime in the United States 2002. Federal Bureau of Investigation. October, 2003.

Charleston, South Carolina: Profile of Drug Indicators. Office of National Drug Control
Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. August,2002.

Columbia, South Carolina: Profile of Drug Indicators. Office of National Drug Control
Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. November, 2003.

Greenville, South Carolina: Profile of Drug Indicators. Office of National Drug Control
Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. October, 2003.

Hitting Close to Home: A Statistical Handbook on Domestic Violence in South Carolina
    1996-2000. South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs. Ed.
    Rob McManus.

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. South Carolina Attorney General’s Office.
    www.sckidsonline.com.

Mature Adults in South Carolina 2003 State Report. Office of Research and Statistics, South
   Carolina State Budget and Control Board

National Drug Control Strategy. The White House. March, 2004.

South Carolina Criminal and Juvenile Justice Trends 2003. South Carolina Department o
   Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs. Ed. Rob McManus.

South Carolina Criminal and Juvenile Justice Trends 2002. South Carolina Department of
   Public Safety, Office of Safety and Grants. Ed. Rob McManus.

South Carolina Drug Control and System Improvement Program Federal Fiscal Year 2000-
   2002 State Strategy. South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice
   Programs.

South Carolina Drug Threat Assessment Update. National Drug Intelligence Center, United
States Department of Justice. June, 2002.

South Carolina Fact Sheet. United States Drug Enforcement Administration. www.dea.gov.

South Carolina Kids Count Report 2003. Office of Research and Statistics, South Carolina
   Budget and Control Board. February, 2004



                                            41
South Carolina Statistical Abstract 2001. Office of Research and Statistics, South Carolina
   State Budget and Control Board.

State of South Carolina: Profile of Drug Indicators. Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. November, 2003.

S.T.O.P. Violence Against Women. South Carolina Attorney General’s Office.
   www.scattorneygeneral.org.

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2001 Homicide Data. Violence Policy
  Center. September, 2003.




                                             42
               CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PLAN

                                               FFY 2004

                     Criminal Justice Records Improvement Task Force

South Carolina's criminal justice agencies continued in their commitment to improving the timeliness,
completeness and accuracy of the criminal history record information maintained by the state's repository
during FFY 2003. In order to ensure comprehensive and effective improvement of criminal history record
information, South Carolina established a Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRIP) task force in
early 1991. In 1998, the CJRIP task force became a Standing Committee of the Information Resources
Council (IRC) of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board. The IRC was established to provide
leadership, guidance and direction in the development of a statewide information technology management
strategy. By this committee becoming part of the IRC, the CRJIS task force provides an integral link to
other criminal justice initiatives throughout the state.

The state of South Carolina, through the Governor's Standing Committee on Criminal Justice Information
Systems (CJIS) continues to seek increased continuity of criminal justice information across its business
units to improve services both internal and external. In January 2001, MTG Management Consultants,
L.L.C., completed an assessment of the information technology used by the criminal justice community
and developed a plan for the improvement and integration of information technology throughout the state.
This plan is being used by agencies as they seek to improve criminal justice information systems.

The task force is comprised of the following agencies and their representatives:

S.C. Law Enforcement Division (SLED) (State Repository)--Mark Huguley (Chair)
S.C. Dept. of Public Safety--Rob McManus, Ginger Dukes, Burke Fitzpatrick, Jim Kleckley
S.C. Judicial Department--Joan Assey, Rosalyn Frierson, John Starmack

S.C. Dept. of Corrections—John Davis, John Ward, Blake Taylor, Tom Barrett
S.C. Dept. of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services--David Stagg, Keela Thomas
Budget and Control Board/Research and Statistics--Charles Poole
S.C. Commission on Prosecution Coordination--William Bilton, Paula Calhoon
S.C. Sheriff's Association--Jeff Moore
Richland County Clerk of Court--Barbara Scott
S.C. Reorganization Commission--Charles Bradbury
SC Victim Assistance Network--Laura Hudson




                                                    43
S.C. Bar Association--Robert Wells
S.C. Police Chief’s Association—Chief Gene Sealy
Charleston Police Department—Bob Flynn
S.C. Summary Courts--William Womble
S.C. Office of the Chief Information Officer--Tom Fletcher, Regis Parson
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center—Coleman Knight



The CJRIP task force as a group met on a quarterly basis in 2003. Subcommittees met at different times
during the year to discuss different areas of concern and to prepare information for the upcoming
legislative session.

Based on the recommendation of the planning document, the major focus of the CJIS committee in 2003,
was to establish CJIS membership, identify the key stakeholders and write enabling legislation that would
establish the purpose of the CJIS committee and to identify its primary functions. In 2003, many
initiatives continue to be dedicated to providing up-to-date technology to meet requirements by SLED
that relate to the submission of National Incident- Based Reporting (NIBRS) data and the NCIC 2000
system. The South Carolina Judicial Department continued the on-going effort to upgrade technology in
the South Carolina court system. The case management system developed by the Judicial Department is
being piloted in three counties. The continued success of this and other initiatives will have far-reaching
impact on criminal justice information systems across the state.




                                                    44
          CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FFY 04 GOALS
This section is dedicated to the revised goals and objectives of South Carolina's Criminal Justice Records
Improvement Plan.

Goal:         Improve the capability to track criminal justice disposition data statewide along with
              the timeliness, accuracy and completeness of criminal history record information
              maintained in the state's Central Records Repository.

Objective:    To evaluate the state criminal justice information systems and how they serve and support
              state operations.


Goal:         To increase the efficiency of records management through automation.

Objective:    Provide support for state and local agencies to increase the quality, accuracy and overall
              management of court disposition arrest data and incident reporting.


Goal:         Improve prison/jail custodial information.

Objective:    To provide support for the jail management software that electronically manages and
              transmits prison/jail occupancy information to the central relational database.


Goal:         Reduce fingerprint processing time and improve the quality of fingerprints submitted
              to the Central Records Repository.
Objective:    Increase the quality and timeliness of fingerprint data through the funding of systems to
              capture fingerprints electronically and facilitate the electronic transmission of these to the
              state's Central Records Repository for processing.




                                                    45
            Updates to the FFY 03 Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan (CJRIP)
                                         (5% set-aside)

The CJIS system in South Carolina consists of a central repository of criminal history record information,
fingerprints and other information along with a network to enable the rapid exchange of information about
crimes, wanted persons and other law enforcement information through secure channels. The State Law
Enforcement Division (SLED) maintains the central site that houses millions of records and operates the
statewide network. The operation of the network requires SLED to have resources to support the network
infrastructure, but funding is not increasing, as the network becomes more complex.

The State Law Enforcement Division CJIS Division set forth objectives for FY 2003-2004; these
objectives are related to the overall goal of ensuring the quality operation and maintenance of the
statewide criminal justice database and data processing communications system. One objective was to
improve the quality and usefulness of the UCR data. SLED has addressed this issue by placing the South
Carolina UCR data on the World Wide Web, in the form of the Crime in South Carolina book that is
available for public use. SLED also seeks to improve CJIS support to law enforcement and correctional
agencies through the application of identification services on a 24-hour basis. However, staff resources
are not available to implement this objective at this time.

One of the most important challenges facing the South Carolina CJIS system in FFY 2004 will be the
transition to NCIC 2000. As required by FBI deadlines, states must be NCIC 2000 compliant by July 1,
2002. SLED has been diligent in helping to prepare local users of the NCIC system for this impending
deadline. SLED has proposed two solutions to meet the inquiry needs for various types of users. Costs to
update to NCIC 2000, depending on the needs of the local agency, could be limited to the cost of a
personal computer, internet service, and monthly cost of the software, which is priced based on usage.

Another major challenge to CJIS users across South Carolina in FFY 2004 will be the ability of local and
state law enforcement agencies to automate their incident report data (NIBRS) as required by SLED.
SLED has mandated that all agencies submit their incident data electronically by December 31, 2003.
However, many agencies were unable to purchase the required items to become compliant. The DCSIP
has made funding these types of projects, including hardware and software, a main priority for FFY 2004.
In an effort to help agencies come into compliance, the DCSIP issued a solicitation designed to
exclusively fund hardware and software needs of those state and local law enforcement agencies not yet in
compliance with NIBRS protocol.

The South Carolina Judicial Department was awarded $ 802,641 to continue their efforts to automate the
state’s court system. At the end of the second grant year, 43 of 46 county courthouses and Clerks of
Court had reliable, high-speed internet connectivity with the remaining three in process. Routine
correspondence and reports are being completed using e-mail and the web. Through their website, SCJD
now provides court calendars, assignments, reports, procedure manuals and forms. This has resulted in
both cost savings through a reduction of paper and postage costs and enhanced availability of accurate
information to judicial personnel.

SCJD is now viewed as a leader in the state in technology use. The statewide court case management
effort will bring consistency to court processes and procedures. Court rules and procedures established
decades ago when computer technology was nonexistent are being re-examined. A pilot project to



                                                   46
implement the system in the Circuit and Magistrate Courts is in the final stages of completion before the
statewide rollout begins. Nearly all of the counties are making efforts to upgrade their magistrate court
computer systems in anticipation of the new system. The direct electronic interface between the court
case management system (CMS) and SLED is still in progress. SLED went live with the new South
Carolina Law Enforcement Message Switch (LEMS) at the end of 2002. Once completed, the court CMS
will interface directly with the new LEMS in the traditional NCIC message format and protocol. The
South Carolina Department of Corrections and the Clerks of Court are now utilizing e-mail in monitoring
the movement of prisoners going to court. On Fridays, SCDC e-mails a list of inmates scheduled to
appear in a particular court the next week. At the end of the week, the Clerk of Court e-mails SCDC a
short synopsis of whether the hearing was actually held.

Although the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) has maintained prison occupancy data
for South Carolina, previously there was no central database for jail inmate data for the state. To discover
whether a person was in jail, one had to call each of about sixty jails in South Carolina. Many jails only
had a paper data system. Through the support of Byrne funds, a jail management software system was
developed by Advanced Solutions Group for those jails that did not have an information management
system. Data exports were also developed for jails that had their own commercial software, allowing these
sites to export data to the central system. The Jail Management system was moved to SCDC in 2002.
This system was designed to allow any site with a modem to access the state’s inmate records for both
jails and prisons in the central state database by using a simple web browser. During FY 2003, SCDC
was awarded grant funds ($203,111) to the Jail Management System (JMS) and to continue to upgrade the
database in order to better meet the needs of the criminal justice community. Complete data loads of
booking records from two large counties have been sent to SCDC to refresh the current database and help
fine tune the new database design. The data is being analyzed to ensure the new database design is
flexible enough to contain the data from multiple and sometimes slightly disparate booking applications.
Many of the county and local detention centers are beginning to move from the dial-up modem transfer
method to the internet based FTP methodology. This allows a much higher speed for data transmission
and a lower instance of data transmission failure. The data transmission changes have been implemented
in one county and will be distributed to all sites within the near future. County and local detention centers
currently transmit data daily into the database which is useable for search applications but marked
unverified. Nightly, SLED will transmit FBI/NCIC data on inmates which has been confirmed through
fingerprint files. A program will attempt to match the FBI data against the unverified data. When a
match occurs, the data will be marked as verified. This will ensure as complete a criminal history on an
individual as possible. It will also allow law enforcement easier identification of an individual regardless
of the use of alias information.

The Statistical Analysis Center (SAC), within the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of
Justice Programs, plays an integral role in various projects that support the South Carolina CJIS. The SAC
Director regularly attends meetings of the South Carolina Criminal Justice Records Task Force and
annually reviews the State Law Enforcement Divisions' (SLED) National Criminal History Improvement
Program plan. The SAC has also provided important technical assistance in improving the state's capacity
to access and analyze criminal justice data.

The SAC recently completed a joint project with the S.C. Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), S.C.
Budget and Control Board Office of Research and Statistics (ORS) and SLED to link files from SLED's
computerized criminal history records (CCHR) to a DJJ records for a cohort of juveniles. The analysis



                                                     47
provided important information concerning the subsequent adult criminal history of juvenile delinquents.
This project is the direct result of a previous collaborative effort with SLED and among the same
participants to convert CCHR files into flat files useful for statistical analysis.

Along similar lines, the SAC is currently working with ORS and SLED to link CCHR data with records
from the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services to describe the nature and
geographic distribution of a high risk offender population targeted by the United States Attorney. The
end result should provide a better understanding of the scope and nature of this important offender
population. The SAC also worked with SLED to produce a report describing long-term victimization
trends in the state. This report was the direct result of a previous collaborative effort with SLED to
convert old incident based data into a NIBRS compatible format.



.




                                                  48
                                    DCSIP Grants Implementation


                                                FFY 1998

South Carolina awarded 8 projects for a total of $1,030,287 or 14 percent of the total Byrne Grant Award
received by the state in FFY 98. That is over three times the five- percent set-aside required for criminal
justice records improvement projects. South Carolina's FFY 1998 State Strategy included the
improvement of criminal justice records as an important part of the goals and objectives. During FFY
1998, the state awarded three agencies funds to implement Remote Latent Workstations (AFIS); these
projects were funded for $287,596. One of these projects ($135,852) was awarded with reverted funds
from FFY 1997. Two agencies purchased LIVE SCAN devices, for a total of $275,168, which allowed for
these agencies to produce better quality fingerprints, thereby improving the state’s ability to identify
arrestees and improve criminal justice records, as these fingerprints will be electronically transmitted to
the state repository. One of these projects ($47,738) also purchased a fingerprint verification station,
which allowed for immediate verification of the identity of the prints at the local agency. One agency
received funds ($3,331) to lease a NCIC terminal. This allowed for the Solicitor’s Office to have
immediate access to criminal history data and will allow for more efficient case prosecution. The
Advanced Solutions Group (ASG) at the University of South Carolina continued to support the
Magistrate/NIBRS Information System and Jail Information System Test sites with a help line for
questions and a data line for modem transmission and research and development work on the NIBRS data
system; this project was funded for $400,000.

                                                FFY 1999

South Carolina awarded 9 projects (one with reverted funds) for a total of $983,829 or 13.5 percent of the
total Byrne Grant Award received by the state in FFY 99. That is over two times the five- percent set-
aside required for criminal justice records improvement projects. South Carolina's FFY 1999 State
Strategy included the improvement of criminal justice records as an important part of the goals and
objectives. During FFY 1999, the state awarded three agencies funds to implement Remote Latent
Workstations (AFIS); these projects were funded for $358,712. One of these projects ($103,506) was
awarded with reverted funds from FFY 1998. Two agencies purchased LIVE SCAN devices, for a total of
$147,096, which allowed for these agencies to produce better quality fingerprints, thereby improving the
state’s ability to identify arrestees and improve criminal justice records, as these fingerprints will be
electronically transmitted to the state repository. One agency was awarded $107,549 to automate the
police department’s dispatching process and records system. The system will maintain active wants and
warrants and to allow for a link to the NCIC system at SLED. Another agency was awarded $8,083 to
purchase updated computer equipment and software; this equipment would allow for the electronic
transmission of NIBRS data to SLED. A grant for $12,389 was awarded to provide computer software
and equipment in order to upgrade the Municipal Court System for another agency.




                                                    49
The Advanced Solutions Group (ASG) at the University of South Carolina continued to support the
Magistrate/NIBRS Information System and Jail Information System Test sites with a help line for
questions and a data line for modem transmission and research and development work on the NIBRS data
system; this project was funded for $350,000.

                                               FFY 2000

South Carolina awarded 10 projects (one with reverted funds) for a total of $820,304 or 11.5 percent of
the total Byrne Grant Award received by the state in FFY 2000. That is over two times the five- percent
set-aside required for criminal justice records improvement projects. South Carolina’s FFY 2000 State
Strategy included the improvement of criminal justice records as an important part of the goals and
objectives. During FFY 2000, two agencies purchased LIVE SCAN devices, for a total of $229,270. One
of these agencies, the South Carolina Department of Public Safety -Criminal Justice Academy Division,
planned to use the equipment to improve the quality and transmission of fingerprints of all Basic Law
Enforcement students. Federal funds ($70,776) continued to support the salary of a fingerprint examiner
and to support the maintenance contracts on the LIVE SCAN and AFIS equipment purchased in previous
grant years. Three agencies purchased hardware and software to upgrade the efficiency of their Municipal
Court systems. These projects, a total of $72,532, enabled the Municipal Courts to improve
communications with local and state law enforcement and with South Carolina Court Administration.
One Magistrate Court was able to automate their court proceedings with the hardware purchased with
grant funds, when previously all work was done by hand. Funds were provided to two agencies to
upgrade from a DOS-based NIBRS system to a Windows NT version. It was critical that these agencies
upgrade from a DOS-based system, as the software would no longer be supported after December 2001.
The South Carolina Commission on Prosecution Coordination was awarded $53,941 to upgrade the
software used by the State Law Enforcement Division for the state's Pre-Trial Intervention program. The
Advanced Solutions Group (ASG) at the University of South Carolina was awarded $325,698 to continue
to maintain, enhance and fully deploy the criminal justice information systems developed in previous
grant years. In addition, the ASG planned to design and deploy a web-based law enforcement records
management system.

                                               FFY 2001

South Carolina awarded five projects (one with reverted funds) for a total of $1,076,947 or 15 percent of
the total Byrne Grant Award received by the state in FFY 2001. That is three times the five- percent set-
aside required for criminal justice records improvement projects. South Carolina’s FFY 2001 State
Strategy included the improvement of criminal justice records as an important part of the goals and
objectives. One agency purchased hardware and software to upgrade the efficiency of their Municipal
Court system. This project, funded in the amount of 15,758, enabled the Municipal Court to improve
communications with local and state law enforcement and with South Carolina Court Administration.
During FY 2001, one agency purchased a LIVE SCAN device ($80,925), which will enhance the ability
of the agency to submit high quality fingerprints to SLED. DCSIP funds ($617,487) allowed the South
Carolina Judicial Department to implement an innovative project to automate the court system across the
state. Training and equipment were provided to equip all 46 Clerks of Court with hardware and
connectivity to Court Administration. The South Carolina Department of Corrections received funds
($262,640) to begin the process of maintain and upgrading the Jail Information System. Also, reverted



                                                   50
funds in the amount of $100,137 to allow one agency to upgrade (hardware and software) their records
management system.

                                               FFY 2002

South Carolina awarded eight projects for a total of $1,189,990 or 16 percent of the total Byrne Grant
Award received by the state in FFY 2002. That is over three times the five- percent set-aside required for
criminal justice records improvement projects. South Carolina’s FFY 2002 State Strategy included the
improvement of criminal justice records as an important part of the goals and objectives. During this
fiscal year, three agencies were awarded funds to upgrade to the NCIC 2000, which is a requirement of
the State Law Enforcement Division. This system will improve law enforcement’s ability to make more
efficient criminal history checks and other computer inquiries. DCSIP funds ($769,371) allowed the
South Carolina Judicial Department to continue their effort to automate court procedures throughout the
state. The second year of the project sought to implement the case management system in three pilot
counties. The South Carolina Department of Corrections received funds ($273,859) to continue the
process of maintaining and upgrading the Jail Information System. Also, two agencies received funds to
upgrade (hardware and software) their records management systems to allow for automated submission of
incident report data to SLED.

                                               FFY 2003

South Carolina awarded 35 projects for a total of 2,247,012 or 34 percent of the total Byrne Grant Award
received in FFY2003. This is over six times the five-percent set-aside required for criminal justice
improvement projects. In addition, a special solicitation was issued exclusively for projects designed to
upgrade the records management systems of state and local law enforcement agencies to allow for
automated submission of incident data. This program used funds reverted from FFY 2002 and was able
to fund hardware and software for 35 projects, for a total of $477,703. The criminal justice records
system improvement projects funded in FFY 2003 are explained in detail below:

A major priority of the Drug Control and System Improvement program in FFY 2003 was to assist state
and local law enforcement agencies in becoming fully automated in their record keeping functions in an
effort to produce better quality reports, allow for storage and faster retrieval of information and
electronically transfer incident reports to SLED. This is an effort to reduce time spent on reports and
allowing more time for patrol duties and public assistance. SLED, the states’s central repository imposed
a December 31, 2003 deadline for all agencies to submit their UCR data electronically. The following
agencies were provided NIBRS software from a SLED-approved vendor and, in many cases hardware and
other supplies. Projects marked with an asterisk also purchased hardware and software to upgrade to the
NCIC 2000 system.

Implementing Agency                                                Federal Funds
Lexington PD                                                       $ 25,000
Bonneau PD *                                                       $ 15,000
Chesterfield PD                                                    $ 29,550
Conway PD                                                          $ 35,815
Anderson PD                                                        $175,600
Olanta PD                                                          $ 17,022



                                                   51
Surfside Beach DPS*                        $ 56,250
Pamplico PD                                $ 10,500
Winthrop University PD*                    $ 18,750
Allendale County SO                        $ 14,300
Jamestown PD                               $ 14,775
Ridgeville PD                              $ 2,906
Kershaw County SO                          $ 53,464
Lexington County SO                        $137,425
Westminster PD                             $ 2,625
Scranton PD                                $ 17,022
South Carolina State University PD*        $ 26,850
Hemingway PD                               $14,550
Coward PD                                  $10,650
SC Museum Commission DPS                   $ 1,875
Cowpens PD                                 $11,640
Cheraw PD                                  $14,771
Bethune PD                                 $ 5,250
McCormick Co. SO                           $11,250
Francis Marion University DPS              $12,375
Ridge Spring PD                            $ 3,525
Nichols PD                                 $10,087
Kingstree PD                               $30,844
Ehrhardt PD                                $ 2,775
Berkeley Co. SO                            $43,622
Campobello PD                              $ 7,800
Lake View PD                               $11,775
Salem PD                                   $ 1,875
Lyman PD                                   $12,900
Williamston PD                             $24,030
Whitten Center DPS                         $ 1,875
Clarendon Co. SO                           $38,100
Ninety-Six PD                              $15,000
Hampton Co. SO                             $23,500
Lane PD                                    $ 9,607
Olar PD                                    $ 1,875
Allendale PD                               $ 9,525
Greeleyville PD                            $ 2,250
Moncks Corner PD                           $ 7,875
Timmonsville PD                            $ 1,875
Walhalla PD                                $ 7,500
SC Dept. of Mental Health DPS              $ 1,650
Orangeburg Co. SO                          $33,423
SC Dept. of Public Safety                  $73,851
Springfield PD                             $ 3,428
Edisto Beach PD                            $ 1,875
West Union PD                              $ 1,875



                                      52
The funding of projects designed to upgrade state and local law enforcement agencies to the NCIC 2000
system was also an area that saw a multitude of projects. The Federal Bureau of Investigation imposed a
deadline for all agencies to upgrade to the new system by December 31, 2003. The NCIC 2000 system
will allow for agencies to increase efficiency, productivity as well as officer safety by reducing response
time to inquiries. Any users of the new system will be properly trained and certified by SLED. Items
funded under this type of projects include hardware, NCIC 2000 software and software licenses.

Implementing Agency                                         Federal Funds
West Columbia PD                                            $ 14,160
Bonneau PD*                                                 $ 15,000
Surfside Beach PD*                                          $ 56,250
Winthrop University PD*                                     $ 18,750
Greenwood County SO                                         $ 5,580
South Carolina State University PD*                         $ 26,850
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources              $ 34,549
Allendale County SO                                         $ 5,423




                                                    53
The following agencies were provided funds for the upgrade of the central repository latent print database
through the use of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) or use LIVE SCAN
technology to improve the quality of rolled fingerprints and then to transmit those prints electronically to
SLED. This equipment will reduce the time spent processing arrestees or civilian fingerprint requests and
will improve the efficiency of law enforcement at the local and state level. The projects are described in
detail below:

AGENCY NAME: Clarendon County Detention Center

PROJECT TITLE: LIVE SCAN

FEDERAL FUNDS: $62,777

BUDGET : LIVESCAN station, LIVESCAN desktop station, image management system, color printer,
software, installation, service agreement, training, and additional software interface.

PROJECT FOCUS: The LIVE SCAN equipment will provide SLED with better quality fingerprints,
thereby improving the state's ability to identify arrestees and improve criminal justice records. The
project will utilize the LIVE SCAN Device to reduce the number of man-hours required in processing an
inmate. The LIVE SCAN Device will scan the fingerprints of an arrestee. The resulting fingerprint will
then be electronically transmitted to the SLED AFIS database or can be printed on a card at the local
agency.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Clarendon County Detention Center provides fingerprint services to all
agencies in Clarendon County and reports that approximately 2,040 individuals were fingerprinted for law
enforcement purposes in 2002. This number was 2,180 in 2001 and 2,465 in 2000. Using the current
manual system, it takes approximately 35 minutes to fingerprint each arrestee. Using these figures, over
1,191 man-hours were spent fingerprinting arrestees in 2002. Also, fingerprint cards on suspects must
then be mailed to SLED and the FBI. The Detention Center also plans to interface their current jail
management system with the LIVE SCAN device so that information does not have to be entered twice.
The above totals do not include the almost 450 people fingerprinted for outside job requirements at the
Clarendon County Sheriff’s Office in 2002. That number does not justify the requested desktop LIVE
SCAN for the Sheriff’s Office. Through coordination with SLED, it was determined that local agency
LIVE SCAN Devices would significantly reduce the workload for the overburdened fingerprint input staff
at SLED.

AGENCY NAME: Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office

PROJECT TITLE: LIVE SCAN

FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 63,750

BUDGET : One LIVE SCAN Device interface software to current jail management system.

PROJECT FOCUS: The LIVE SCAN equipment will provide SLED with better quality fingerprints,
thereby improving the state's ability to identify arrestees and improve criminal justice records. The
project will utilize the LIVE SCAN Device to reduce the number of man-hours required in processing an



                                                    54
inmate. The LIVE SCAN Device will scan the fingerprints of an arrestee. The resulting fingerprint will
then be electronically transmitted to the SLED AFIS database or can be printed on a card at the local
agency. The LIVE SCAN Device will be interfaced with the current jail management system so that the
entire booking process can become automated.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The need for this project is supported by current available statistics.
Greenwood County ranked fourth in reported violent crime rates and eighth in reported drug law arrest
rates in 2000. The Greenwood County Detention Center is the only booking and holding facility in
Greenwood County. Between January 1 and November of 2002, 2,450 individuals were fingerprinted for
law enforcement purposes. This total does not include people fingerprinted for outside job requirements
(security, teachers, child care workers, concealed weapon permits, retail employees, etc.). Using the
current manual system, it takes approximately 35 minutes to fingerprint each arrestee. Using these
figures, over 1,429 man-hours were spent fingerprinting arrestees 2002. Also, fingerprint cards on
suspects must then be mailed to SLED and the FBI. This allows some arrestees to provide erroneous
information and possibly be released while the information is being verified by SLED. Through
coordination with SLED, it was determined that local agency LIVE SCAN Devices would significantly
reduce the workload for the overburdened fingerprint input staff at SLED.

AGENCY NAME: Lancaster Police Department

PROJECT TITLE: LIVE SCAN

FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 45,906

BUDGET : One LIVE SCAN Device, printer, communications link, and dedicated phone line
installation and service.

PROJECT FOCUS: The LIVE SCAN equipment will provide SLED with better quality fingerprints,
thereby improving the state's ability to identify arrestees and improve criminal justice records. The
project will utilize the LIVE SCAN Device to reduce the number of man-hours required in processing an
inmate. The LIVE SCAN Device will scan the fingerprints of an arrestee. The resulting fingerprint will
then be electronically transmitted to the SLED AFIS database or can be printed on a card at the local
agency.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Lancaster Police Department fingerprints each arrestee and submits
manually typed fingerprint cards to SLED on a weekly basis. Using the current manual system, it takes
approximately fifteen minutes to fingerprint each arrestee. The entire booking process takes
approximately 45 minutes to complete. In 2002, 2,374 arrests were made; this is a dramatic increase from
1,558 in 2001. In 2002, approximately, 593 work hours were spent fingerprinting arrestees. In addition,
the agency also fingerprints persons for civil application purposes. Also, fingerprint cards on suspects
must then be mailed to SLED and the FBI. This allows some arrestees to provide erroneous information
and possibly be released while the information is being verified by SLED.

AGENCY NAME: Hanahan Police Department

PROJECT TITLE: LIVE SCAN



                                                  55
FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 50,627

BUDGET : One LIVE SCAN Device, maintenance, and printing supplies.

PROJECT FOCUS: The LIVE SCAN equipment will provide SLED with better quality fingerprints,
thereby improving the state's ability to identify arrestees and improve criminal justice records. The
project will utilize the LIVE SCAN Device to reduce the number of man-hours required in processing an
inmate. The LIVE SCAN Device will scan the fingerprints of an arrestee. The resulting fingerprint will
then be electronically transmitted to the SLED AFIS database or can be printed on a card at the local
agency.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The City of Hanahan is located in Berkeley County. The application states that
when an individual is arrested for a criminal act, he/she is transported to the police department for
booking. The person is then photographed and inked fingerprint images are captured on standard ten print
cards. The number of arrestees booked by the Hanahan Police Department in 2001 was 970. This
number decreased in 2002 to 741. Officers also rolled fingerprint cards for 220 civil applicants in 2002.
Also, fingerprint cards on suspects must then be mailed to SLED and the FBI. This allows some arrestees
to provide erroneous information and possibly be released while the information is being verified by
SLED. Through coordination with SLED, it was determined that local agency LIVE SCAN Devices
would significantly reduce the workload for the overburdened fingerprint input staff at SLED.

AGENCY NAME: Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office

PROJECT TITLE: LIVE SCAN

FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 50,252

BUDGET REQUEST: One LIVE SCAN Device, remote communications package, and dedicated
phone line installation and service.

PROJECT FOCUS: The LIVE SCAN equipment will provide SLED with better quality fingerprints,
thereby improving the state's ability to identify arrestees and improve criminal justice records. The
project will utilize the LIVE SCAN Device to reduce the number of man-hours required in processing an
inmate. The LIVE SCAN Device will scan the fingerprints of an arrestee. The resulting fingerprint will
then be electronically transmitted to the SLED AFIS database or can be printed on a card at the local
agency.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The need for this project is supported by current available statistics. The
Cherokee County Detention Center is responsible for booking and detention of all arrestees in Cherokee
County. The number of arrestees booked in 2002 was 4,466. Using the current manual system, it takes
approximately eight minutes to fingerprint each arrestee. Using these figures, almost 600 man-hours were
spent fingerprinting arrestees 2002. Also, fingerprint cards on suspects must then be mailed to SLED and
the FBI. This allows some arrestees to provide erroneous information and possibly be released while the
information is being verified by SLED. Through coordination with SLED, it was determined that local
agency LIVE SCAN Devices would significantly reduce the workload for the overburdened fingerprint
input staff at SLED.



                                                   56
AGENCY NAME: Lexington County Sheriff’s Office

PROJECT TITLE: Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)

FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 84,300

BUDGET REQUEST: One latent workstation, color video printer, office supplies, operating supplies,
maintenance service extended fees, and training expenses.

PROJECT FOCUS: A certified latent fingerprint examiner will enter latent prints into the remote latent
workstation so that the SLED AFIS database can be searched for a match at the sheriff's office, saving
valuable time and resources. The workstation will also be used to compare latent prints from crime
scenes of other local area law enforcement agencies.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The need for this project is supported by data supplied in the application.
Through close coordination with SLED, the DCSIP funded several Remote Latent Workstation sites
located strategically throughout the state. The Remote Latent Workstation will allow the latent
fingerprint examiner to search SLED's fingerprint database electronically, which will give them access to
all arrestees' fingerprints statewide. Prior to the grant, latent prints were driven to SLED headquarters for
an electronic search. However, due to the large volume of cases in Lexington County, only high priority
cases were taken there. In 1999, the Lexington County Sheriff’s Office collected 118 latent prints while
other county agencies collected 80. For the first ten months of 2002, LCSO collected 134 latent prints
and other county agencies collected 136 prints which supports the need for an AFIS Workstation for the
department. The Lexington County Sheriff’s Office currently sends 40-45% of their prints to SLED for
identification. Since the fingerprint system is localized, the possibility of identifying individuals without
transporting fingerprint cards to SLED is virtually eliminated.

The following projects addressed a variety of Criminal Justice Records Improvement priorities, including
automation of municipal courts, in coordination with the South Carolina Judicial Department overall court
automation project. In addition, the South Carolina Department of Corrections continued its project
aimed at automating and providing support for a centralized jail management system. The South Carolina
Commission on Prosecution Coordination continued its efforts at upgrading the Pre-Trial Intervention
records system. The South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services initiated an
effort to provide computer support and networking capabilities in courtrooms across the state. This
upgrade will allow for more accurate, real-time offender information in the courtroom. The Department
also received federal funds to digitize offender photographs. These projects are described in detail below:

AGENCY NAME: Kershaw County Summary Court

PROJECT TITLE: Automation Project

FEDERAL FUNDS: $14,640

BUDGET REQUEST: Software and eleven each of computers, printers, and workstations.

PROJECT GOAL: To improve the efficiency, accuracy and availability of criminal justice information
at the magistrate court level and provide networking capabilities with the state Judicial Department.


                                                     57
PROJECT FOCUS: This project will improve the efficiency of the Kershaw County Summary Court
offices by computerizing record keeping functions, payment functions, court cases and disposition data.
The hardware and software will also allow the clerk to automate reports and issue arrest warrants and
bench warrants. This project will also prepare the Kershaw County Summary Court to become part of the
Judicial Department’s statewide connectivity endeavor.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: According to information provided in the application, the caseload in Kershaw
County has increased from 14,127 in 2000 to 15,382 in 2002. Currently, the majority of information
generated is being managed manually. This results in a lack of data sharing and duplication of data in the
county and statewide. They have difficulty coordinating their information with other elements of the
criminal justice system: law enforcement, prosecutors, and corrections. All of the existing computers are
out-dated and will not adapt to new case management software or allow connection to the internet. The
Judicial Department is in the process of expanding its statewide connectivity endeavor to the magistrate
court level and the computer equipment in Kershaw County is not compatible. Presently the offices of the
Kershaw County Summary Court either contact the Judicial Department by phone or written
correspondence. However, they have been advised by the Judicial Department that this will no longer be
possible as everything will be sent over the internet. Therefore, as a priority of the FFY 2003 State
Strategy, this project is recommended for funding.

AGENCY NAME: Sumter County Summary Court

PROJECT TITLE: Court Information System

FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 20,413

BUDGET REQUEST: Seven laptop computers, seventeen printers, seven desktop computers, three line
printers, port switch, and all-in-one printers.

PROJECT GOAL: To modernize the court operations in Sumter County to integrate with South
Carolina's Judicial Automation Project.


PROJECT FOCUS: To acquire the necessary technical computer equipment for the county's summary
court system, so that the summary court will be connected to the South Carolina Judicial Department.
The will help to shorten or eliminate case backlog and enable the court system to work more efficiently

PROJECT ANALYSIS: Sumter County is located in the middle of South Carolina and has a population
of 104,237. It covers 665 square miles and has 157.3 persons per square mile. The county's Information
Technology Department (IT) has recently installed the entire technical infrastructure necessary to connect
to the South Carolina Judicial Department, Case Management System (T3 network) to the Sumter County
Court system. All of the recommendations have been met except for the networking equipment. Sumter
County's summary court system has a backlog of criminal and civil cases totaling 1,638 as of the end of
November 2002. Last year, the county hired a full staff of judges to help accommodate the backlog which
helped some. The availability of funds from the county to bring its court system up to speed with
technology will take years to produce. The Sumter County court system is the first to assign warrant
numbers to a case, which then goes to the Sheriff's Department and onto the Correctional Center. With



                                                   58
the help of other grants, the Sheriff's Office and the Correctional Center are in the process now of
installing software and new equipment, which leaves the summary court last. This funding will enable
the summary court to become more efficient and allow for connectivity to the South Carolina Judicial
Department.

AGENCY NAME: Lake City Municipal Court

PROJECT TITLE: Municipal Court Improvement

FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 18,169

BUDGET REQUEST: One server and software and services

PROJECT GOAL: Through the utilization of information system technology, improve the efficiency,
accuracy, and availability of information from incident through to final disposition.

PROJECT FOCUS: The server will be used as the central repository for all municipal court case
management files for the City of Lake City. The server will actually be a high-end desktop computer due
to the fact that it will only have three other desktops, a dial-up connection, and database software to
manage.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The City of Lake City is located in Florence County and has an estimated
population of 6900 residents. The City employs thirty sworn police officers, a full time clerk of court, an
assistant clerk of court and a judge. Lake City hold regularly scheduled court twice a week and averages
about 225 cases per month. The court records system and the police department records system are in
separate database systems that cannot be interfaced. Due to this, court staff must duplicate disposition
data entry and this also creates problems during court with the clerk/judge trying to find either the
officer’s ticket or the incident report. By obtaining this new program, this will ensure that municipal
court and police department can be on the same system and able to handle growth in caseload and current
efforts in record maintenance. A complete history on each case cannot be contained in the new system
without data entry redundancy. In 1991, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) imposed a mandate on
the DCSIP to set aside five percent of the federal funds allocated to each state for the improvement of
criminal justice records. The funding for this project assists in enabling South Carolina to meet that five
percent set-aside mandate. In addition, the improvement of criminal justice information systems is a
priority of the FFY 2003 State Strategy.


AGENCY NAME: Hampton County Magistrate

PROJECT TITLE: Implementing Judicial Technology

FEDERAL FUNDS: $36,686

BUDGET REQUEST: Seven computers, three laptops, nine laser printers, two hard drive host
computers, firewall and box, and software.




                                                    59
PROJECT GOAL: To improve the efficiency, accuracy and availability of criminal justice information
at the magistrate court level and provide networking capabilities with the state Judicial Department.

PROJECT FOCUS: This project will improve the efficiency of the Hampton County Magistrates’
offices by computerizing record keeping functions, payment functions, court cases and disposition data.
The hardware and software will allow the clerks to automate reports and issue arrest warrants and bench
warrants. This project will also prepare the Hampton County Magistrates’ offices to become part of the
Judicial Department’s statewide connectivity endeavor.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: Hampton County is a small county with limited resources and does not have
the funds to implement this project on its own. According to the application, the computers in the
magistrates’ offices are so outdated that they cannot effectively connect them to a high speed internet
connection to download information and a firewall protection cannot be connected to them. However,
criminal caseload information for the courts was not indicated in the application. The Judicial
Department is in the process of expanding its statewide connectivity endeavor to the magistrate court
level and the computer equipment in Hampton County is not compatible. Presently the Hampton County
Magistrates’ offices either contact the Judicial Department by phone or written correspondence.
However, they have been advised by the Judicial Department that this will no longer be possible as
everything will be sent over the internet. Therefore, as a priority of the FFY 2003 State Strategy, this
project is recommended for funding.


AGENCY NAME: South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services

PROJECT TITLE: Digital Imaging

FEDERAL FUNDS: $ 38,223

BUDGET REQUEST: Fifteen computer systems, two VPN routers, 15 digital cameras, camera
supplies, printer supplies, computer supplies, computer maintenance, and 15 flatbed scanners.

PROJECT GOAL: To improve the criminal justice information system by providing updated digital
images of offenders on probation and parole.

PROJECT FOCUS: This project will utilize digital cameras, scanners and computers to capture high
quality color images of all offenders currently under supervision and all new admissions in 15 counties.
The 15 proposed counties are Aiken, Anderson, Charleston, Dorchester, Edgefield, Florence, Greenville,
Horry, Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Spartanburg, Sumter and York. Capture of these digital
images will enhance agent safety during the service of warrants, aid in the extradition of wanted
offenders, aid agents in the management of their caseloads, be of assistance to other law enforcement
agencies who come into contact with the offender, and help protect and inform the public in the event of a
criminal act committed by an offender who subsequently flees and is considered dangerous.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The problem and need for this project are supported by current statistics. The
SCDPPPS currently has over 34,327 active offenders under the direct supervision of 521 field agents.
The 15 counties that this project wishes to target represented 67 percent of the SCDPPPS admissions in
calendar year 2002, and 68 percent of the SCDPPPS total active caseload. Agents manage their caseloads


                                                   60
using the Offender Information System (OIS). According to the application, for current active offenders
who were sentenced after 1995, the information available in the OIS includes extensive case history notes,
a social history, employment history, financial account payment data, and victim information. One vital
piece of information that is not available through the OIS is the image of the offender. Current practice
regarding offender identification is to take a color ―instant‖ picture of the offender at the time of
admission and to paper clip this inside the hard copy file. Due to expense, this picture is generally not
updated during the period of supervision, which can be up to five years for a probationer and life for a
parolee. An accurate and up to date image is crucial to proper identification in a variety of circumstances.
Offenders who violate conditions of supervision and pose a threat to the community or are at risk of flight
are served with warrants so that they can be held over for General Sessions Court. Per policy, the agent
issuing the warrant, generally the one most familiar with the appearance of the offender, does not serve
the warrant. The updated digital image would be most helpful to the ones serving the warrant. Also, the
digital images would be a valuable tool in the apprehension of wanted offenders because the images of
those under the jurisdiction of SCDPPPS could be placed into the NCIC warrant database. The scanners
would be used to convert Polaroid pictures into digital format if no other picture exists. Due to high
caseloads and agent turnover, the digital images would be useful to line staff in the identification of
offenders under supervision. In a DCSIP grant to this agency in FFY 1999, digital cameras, enhanced
computers, and flatbed scanners were purchased for Greenville, Spartanburg, Richland, and Charleston
Counties. This equipment was used for the same purposes as requested in this application. All computers
and scanners are still working and being used in those four counties. One of the original digital cameras
is still in use, another one broke and was replaced by the agency, one is broken and no efforts have been
made to repair or replace it, and the fourth camera recently broke and is in the process of being repaired.
Since some equipment has already been purchased for this program under a previous grant, the number of
sites recommended has been reduced to 11. The 11 sites will include all sites requested except the four
originally funded under the previous grant


AGENCY NAME: South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
                     Services (SCPPPS)

PROJECT TITLE: Courtroom Technology

REQUESTED AMOUNT: $ 148,514                  RECOMMENDED AMOUNT: $ 147,951

BUDGET REQUEST: Thirty-six laptop computers, fifteen laser jet printers, server, computer software,
computer supplies, laptop docking stations, laptop batteries and chargers, authenization mechanism,
printer supplies and computer maintenance.

PROJECT GOAL: To increase the information available to judicial authorities at the time of sentencing
new offenders and offenders with current or past supervision histories. Also, the level of efficiency for
SCDPPPS agents will increase while in the courtroom.

PROJECT FOCUS: The SCDPPPS will purchase computer hardware and software to be installed in 15
counties and will be assigned to courtrooms based on the volume of charges. This will increase the level
of offender information and this increased speed of delivery will be in the best interest of public safety
and will decrease the amount of court time taken with pleas and sentencing.



                                                    61
PROJECT ANALYSIS: The need for the implementation of this project is well justified in the
application. The application stated that the SCDPPPS currently has over 34,000 active offenders under
the supervision of over 500 field agents throughout the state. Offender information is maintained through
the agency's Offender Information System (OIS). The agency also operates a custom application for the
purpose of managing parole information, known as the Parole Information Center (PIC). Unfortunately,
this extensive information is not available to agents in the courtroom. Usually, only a hardcopy printout
of offenders active in the agent’s county is available. If the offender is active in another county, this is not
immediately known. Consequently, the judge may not have all the pertinent information regarding an
offender’s current status and history. This is a threat to public safety and is inefficient for the agents. The
computer systems would allow for in-line access to the OIS on a real-time basis. Agents can also verify
any outstanding warrants in other counties or even in other states. The SCDPPPS would also work in
conjunction with the South Carolina Judicial Departments courtroom automation project. The application
provided a detailed plan for implementing the program and how the equipment would be distributed. This
application would fall within the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) imposed mandate on DCSIP to set
aside five percent of the federal funds allocated to each state for the improvement of criminal justice
records. The funding for this project assists in enabling South Carolina to meet the five- percent set-aside
mandate. The application is therefore recommended for funding.


AGENCY NAME: South Carolina Department of Corrections

PROJECT TITLE: Centralized Jail Management System

FEDERAL FUNDS: $203,111

BUDGET REQUEST: Database administrator, two information resource consultants, computer and
accessories, mileage, computer supplies, software license fees, server maintenance contract, telephone
lines and service, beepers, printing, postage, advertising, registration and travel expenses, and indirect
costs.

PROJECT GOAL: To maintain and upgrade the Jail Information System, improving data integrity and
comprehensiveness in order to eventually implement objective inmate classification procedures at jails.

PROJECT FOCUS: A project team will continue to support the Jail Information System; redesign the
database and the web interface and develop additional end user reports. Current automated systems will
be evaluated to identify solutions to procedural and interface issues that cause data integrity problems and
transmission problems. Periodic training sessions will be conducted along with monitoring of system
performance.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The problem and need for the continuation of this project are supported by
current information. In 2000, the South Carolina Legislature mandated that the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC) begin monitoring the classification procedures practiced at jails
around the state. However, inadequate exchange of incarceration and criminal history information
precluded the agency from successfully carrying out this mandate. Currently, state and local jurisdictions
have implemented automated systems that assist in meeting the daily objectives of the agencies.
However, these jurisdictions have taken vastly different approaches to meeting their needs, resulting in a
variety of hardware and software being used across the state. This has resulted in information sharing


                                                      62
being fragmented and ineffective. Due to the demands of the system and the need for SCDC to house and
maintain the system, SCDC is requesting funding to continue the process of managing the Jail
Information System by adding additional staff, software and licenses. MTG Management Consultants
conducted an evaluation of South Carolina’s criminal justice information systems in November 2000.
The evaluation stated that the Jail Information System project is a key strategy towards data sharing
across jurisdictions and recommended that the project continue with enhancements. This project would
continue to implement the recommendations made in that evaluation. This project is critical for the
ultimate goal of statewide data sharing of data used for jail classification. The first phase of
implementation moved the entire SCI-CRIS application to the new environment. Thus far the project has
accomplished many important tasks. They have surveyed registered users of the Central Jail Database to
identify the usefulness of current web application, moved hardware (J30) to SCDC Headquarters,
extracted and analyzed Jail System data and identified data integrity problems, data format issues and data
transfer volumes and frequency; and conducted numerous on-site visits to observe jail management,
Magistrates, and Warrant systems. They are developing a prototype of a new web application and central
database to include features such as real time booking of individuals in to the database, and have met with
developers of SC Court Administration automation project to specify interchanges of information
between court system and jail system. In addition, this project is a priority of the FY 2003 State Strategy
and is therefore recommended for continued funding.




                                                    63
64
                                   DRUG CONTROL AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM


                                                       GRANTS FUNDED FOR


                                       CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PLAN


                                            (FEDERALLY MANDATED 5% SET-ASIDE)


                                                 FFY 98-FFY 03


                                                     FFY 98


 GRANT         FUND        PROG                      LOCAL                              PROJECT             FED AMOUNT
NUMBER         YEAR        AREA                     AGENCY                                TITLE               AWARDED
                                                                                 Criminal Justice Records
 1F98008         5         15b                         USC                      Improvement Program - V         400,000
                                                                                Remote Latent Workstation
 1F98009         1         15b    Greenville Department of Community Services             (AFIS)                 91,744
                                                                                Remote Latent Workstation
 1F98019         1         15b                    Rock Hill PD                            (AFIS)                 60,000
 1F98021         1         15b    Greenville Department of Community Services      LIVE SCAN Devices            227,430
                                                                                   LIVE SCAN Device
 1F98042         2         15b         Richland County Detention Center             Verification Station         47,738
 1F98058         1         15b             6th Circuit Solicitor's Office          FBI/NCIC Terminal              3,331
                                                                                Remote Latent Workstation
 1F98067         1         15b            Anderson Co. Sheriff's Office                  (AFIS)                 135,852



# Applications funded--8                             TOTAL                                                    $1,030,287

                                                                 65
                                              FFY 99


 GRANT        FUND         PROG               LOCAL                          PROJECT              FED AMOUNT
NUMBER        YEAR         AREA              AGENCY                            TITLE                AWARDED
 1F99015         1         15b     Florence Co. Sheriff's Office         LIVE SCAN Device              80,625
 1F99019         1         15b    Chesterfield Co. Sheriff's Office      LIVE SCAN Device              66,471
                                                                        Records Management
 1F99024         1         15b          West Columbia PD                   System Project             107,549
                                                                      Remote Latent Workstation
 1F99033         1         15b     Anderson Co. Sheriff's Office               (AFIS)                  98,568



                                              FFY 99


 GRANT        FUND         PROG               LOCAL                          PROJECT              FED AMOUNT
NUMBER        YEAR         AREA              AGENCY                            TITLE                AWARDED
                                                                      Remote Latent Workstation
 1F99040         1         15b       Aiken Co. Sheriff's Office                (AFIS)                 156,638
 1F99041         1         15b             Prosperity PD               Police Software Project          8,083
                                                                      Criminal Justice Records
 1F99050         6         15b                  USC                   Improvement Program-VI          350,000
 1F99063         1         15b           Town of Allendale             Computer System-Court           12,389
                                                                      Remote Latent Workstation
1F98068(R)       1         15b     Columbia Police Department                  (AFIS)                 103,506


# Applications Funded--9                      TOTAL                                                  $983,829



                                              FFY 00

                                                         66
 GRANT        FUND      PROG                      LOCAL                               PROJECT              FED AMOUNT
NUMBER        YEAR      AREA                      AGENCY                               TITLE                 AWARDED
                                                                                Records Management
 1F00009         1          15b              West Columbia PD                      System Project               43,904
 1F00014         1          15b                 SCDPS - CJA                       LIVE SCAN Device             148,800
                                                                               Magistrate Court System
 1F00024         1          15b                  Laurens Co                    Efficiency Improvements           3,000
 1F00034         2          15b                 Prosperity PD                   Police Software Project          9,750
                                                                              Remote Latent Workstation
 1F00037         3          15b               Anderson Co SO                      (AFIS)/LIVE SCAN              70,776
                                                                              Clemson Emergency NIBRS
 1F00041         1          15b                 Clemson PD                              Upgrade                 57,537
                                                                                 Pre-trial Intervention-
 1F00052         1          15b   SC Commission on Prosecution Coordination        Records Upgrade              53,941
 1F99080         1          15b              City of Folly Beach              Municipal Court Automation        25,628
 1F00057         1          15b              Georgetown Co SO                    LIVE SCAN Device               81,270
                                                                              Law Enforcement Records
 1F00067         1          15b                     USC                         Management System              325,698


# Applications Funded--10                          TOTAL                                                       820,304



                                                   FFY 01


 GRANT        FUND      PROG                      LOCAL                               PROJECT              FED AMOUNT
NUMBER        YEAR      AREA                      AGENCY                                TITLE                AWARDED
 1F01002         1          15b            North Myrtle Beach DPS                 LIVE SCAN Device              80,925
                                                                                    Municipal Court
 1F01032         1          15b               Town of Bonneau                        Improvement                15,758
 1F01043         1          15b            SC Judicial Department               Court System Efficiency        617,487
                                                            67
                                                                 Improvements
                                                           Centralized Jail Information
 1F01056         1         15b            SCDC                       System                   262,640
                                                             Records Management
1F00073(R)       1         15b        Lancaster PD           System Improvement               100,137



# Applications Funded--5                 TOTAL                                              $1,076,947


                                         FFY 02


 GRANT        FUND         PROG          LOCAL                     PROJECT                FED AMOUNT
NUMBER        YEAR         AREA         AGENCY                      TITLE                   AWARDED
                                                             Records Management
 1F02024         1         15b        McCormick PD           System Improvement                11,250
 1F02037         1         15b           SCDNR             NCIC 2000 System Upgrade            38,670
 1F02039         1         15b       Mt. Pleasant PD       NCIC 2000 System Upgrade            45,240
 1F02055         1         15b       Greenwood PD          NCIC 2000 System Upgrade            11,475
 1F02061         1         15b       Florence Co SO        LIVE SCAN/AFIS Interface            24,000
                                                           Centralized Jail Information
 1F02065         2         15b            SCDC                       System                   273,859
                                                            Court System Efficiency
 1F02072         2         15b    SC Judicial Department          Improvement                 769,371
                                                             Records Management
 1F02081         1         15b        Springdale PD           System Improvement               16,125


# Applications Funded--8                 TOTAL                                              $1,189,990




                                                  68
                                   FFY 03


GRANT     FUND   PROG              LOCAL                          PROJECT                FED AMOUNT
NUMBER    YEAR   AREA             AGENCY                            TITLE                  AWARDED
1D03001    1     15b          West Columbia PD                    NCIC 2000                   14,160
1D03003    1     15b             Lexington PD                     NIBRS                       25,000
                                                          NIBRS/NCIC 2000 System
1D03005    1     15b             Bonneau PD                      Upgrade                      15,000
1D03017    1     15b            Chesterfield PD                     NIBRS                     29,550
1D03020    1     15b             Conway PD                          NIBRS                     35,815
                                                          Centralized Jail Information
1D03021    3     15b                SCDC                            System                   203,111
1D03023    1     15b             Anderson PD                        NIBRS                    175,600
1D03026    1     15b              Olanta PD                         NIBRS                     17,022
1D03028    1     15b    Clarendon County Detention Ctr.         LIVE SCAN                     62,777
                                                          NIBRS/NCIC 2000 System
1D03030    1     15b         Surfside Beach DPS                  Upgrade                      56,250
1D03035    1     15b               SCPPP                    Courtroom Technology             147,951
                                                              Court Information
1D03036    1     15b      Sumter Co. Summary Court              Management                    20,413
1D03037    1     15b             Pamplico PD                        NIBRS                     10,500
1D03038    1     15b               SCPPP                        Digital Imaging               38,223
1D03046    1     15b          Greenwood Co SO                    LIVE SCAN                    63,750




                                   FFY 03
                                              69
GRANT     FUND   PROG                    LOCAL                             PROJECT              FED AMOUNT
NUMBER    YEAR   AREA                   AGENCY                               TITLE                AWARDED
                                                                     Court System Efficiency
1D03048    3     15b             SC Judicial Department                   Improvement               802,641
1D03049    1     15b             Winthrop University PD             NIBRS/NCIC 2000 Upgrade          18,750
1D03051    1     15b                  Lancaster PD                         LIVE SCAN                 45,906
1D03053    1     15b                Allendale Co. SO                         NIBRS                   14,300
1D03054    1     15b                 Jamestown PD                            NIBRS                   14,775
                                                                      Pre-Trial Intervention
1D03059    2     15b    SC Commission on Prosecution Coordination      Records Upgrade               75,000
1D03061    1     15b                  Hanahan PD                           LIVE SCAN                 50,627
1D03062    1     15b                  Ridgeville PD                          NIBRS                    2,906
1D03064    1     15b                 Kershaw Co SO                           NIBRS                   53,464
1D03066    1     15b               Greenwood Co SO                     NCIC 2000 Upgrade              5,580
1D03068    1     15b               SC State University              NIBRS/NCIC 2000 Upgrade          26,850
1D03072    1     15b                Lexington Co SO                          NIBRS                  137,425
1D03074    1     15b                Lexington Co SO                           AFIS                   84,300
1D03075    1     15b                     SCDNR                         NCIC 2000 Upgrade             34,549
1D03076    1     15b                 Westminster PD                         NIBRS                     2,625
                                                                         Municipal Court
1D03077    1     15b             Lake City Muncipal Court                 Improvement                18,169
1D03078    1     15b                Cherokee Co. SO                        LIVE SCAN                 50,252
1D03079    1     15b                Allendale Co. SO                   NCIC 2000 Upgrade              5,423
1D03080    1     15b           Kershaw Co. Summary Court             Court Automation Project        14,640
                                                                      Implementing Judicial
1D03084    1     15b          Hampton Co. Magistrate Court                 Technology                36,686
1D03085    1     15b                  Scranton PD                            NIBRS                   17,022
1F02082    1     15b                 Hemingway PD                            NIBRS                   14,550
                                                    70
1F02083   1   15b           Coward PD           NIBRS   10,650
1F02084   1   15b   SC Museum Commission DPS    NIBRS    1,875
1F02085   1   15b          Cowpens PD           NIBRS   11,640
1F02086   1   15b           Cheraw PD           NIBRS   14,771
1F02087   1   15b         Bethune PD            NIBRS    5,250
1F02088   1   15b       McCormick Co. SO        NIBRS   11,250
1F02089   1   15b    Francis Marion Univ. DPS   NIBRS   12,375
1F02090   1   15b        Ridge Spring PD        NIBRS    3,525
1F02091   1   15b          Nichols PD           NIBRS   10,087
1F02092   1   15b         Kingstree PD          NIBRS   30,844
1F02093   1   15b          Ehrhardt PD          NIBRS    2,775
1F02094   1   15b        Berkeley Co. SO        NIBRS   43,622
1F02095   1   15b        Campobello PD          NIBRS    7,800
1F02096   1   15b         Lake View PD          NIBRS   11,775
1F02097   1   15b           Salem PD            NIBRS    1,875
1F02098   1   15b           Lyman PD            NIBRS   12,900
1F02099   1   15b       Williamston PD          NIBRS   24,030
1F02100   1   15b      Whitten Center DPS       NIBRS    1,875
1F02101   1   15b       Clarendon Co. SO        NIBRS   38,100
1F02102   1   15b         Ninety Six PD         NIBRS   15,000
1F02103   1   15b        Hampton Co. SO         NIBRS   23,500
1F02104   1   15b           Lane PD             NIBRS    9,607
1F02105   1   15b         Allendale PD          NIBRS    9,525
1F02106   1   15b        Greeleyville PD        NIBRS    2,250
1F02107   1   15b       Moncks Corner PD        NIBRS    7,875
1F02108   1   15b        Timmonsville PD        NIBRS    1,875

                                        71
 1F02109         1          15b      Walhalla PD        NIBRS       7,500
 1F02110         1          15b     SCDMH DPS           NIBRS       1,650
 1F02111         1          15b   Orangeburg Co. SO     NIBRS      33,423
 1F02112         1          15b        SCDPS            NIBRS      73,851
 1F02113         1          15b     Springfield PD      NIBRS        3,428
 1F02114         1          15b    Edisto Beach PD      NIBRS       12,900
 1F02115         1          15b    West Union PD        NIBRS        1,875
 1F02116         1          15b        Olar PD          NIBRS        1,875


# Applications Funded--70              TOTAL                    $2,724,715




                                                   72

				
DOCUMENT INFO