Fall 1999/Winter 2000

A REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON COURT AUTOMATION AND INTEGRATION

By Amir Holmes, SEARCHBy Amir Holmes, SEARCHBy Amir Holmes, SEARCHBy Amir Holmes, SEARCHBy Amir Holmes, SEARCH

Delaware was the first State toimplement an integrated criminal justiceinformation system (CJIS) thatsupported electronic sharing of criminaljustice information among the criminaljustice community. While Delaware CJIShas been in existence since 1990, it isconstantly changing to meet the needs ofsystem participants — State and localpolice, the Attorney General’s Office, thePublic Defender’s Office, the Courts(Justice of the Peace Courts, Courts ofCommon Pleas, Family Courts andSuperior Courts), and the Departmentof Correction.1

In 1982, the Delaware StateLegislature passed Title 11, Chapter 86,§8603, thereby creating the DelawareJustice Information System (DELJIS)Board of Managers (hereafter referred toas The Board), which was tasked withestablishing “policy for thedevelopment, implementation andoperation of comprehensive datasystems in support of the agencies andcourts of the criminal justice system ofthe State.” The Board has met on amonthly basis since its inception andhas overseen the development ofDelaware’s integrated Criminal JusticeInformation System (CJIS). In addition,a State agency, known as DELJIS, wasformed to oversee the day-to-dayoperations of the CJIS.

According to Larry Webster, Directorof the State Administrative Office of theCourts, Delaware’s small geographicalsize and limited number of localagencies facilitated the integration ofjustice information systems because“every added agency adds exponentially[to the challenges of integrating justiceinformation systems].” Delaware hasonly three counties — Kent, Sussex andNew Castle. The State has no countyprosecutors; the State AttorneyGeneral’s Office handles all localprosecutions. Similarly, there are nolocal jails in the State; all detentionfacilities are part of the StateDepartment of Correction. Finally, there

are no county courts in Delaware; allcourts are part of the State system. Withthese factors in its favor, the Delawarecriminal justice community was poisedto electronically share information bythe end of the 1980s.

Laying the FoundationLaying the FoundationLaying the FoundationLaying the FoundationLaying the Foundation2

In 1984, an informal group of topdecisionmakers directed a team ofcriminal justice agency representativesto define the information needs of thecriminal justice community and toprepare an Information Systems Plan(ISP) for meeting those needs. TheInformation Systems Plan of theCriminal Justice System of the State ofDelaware was released for disseminationon May 15, 1984. The ISP concludedthat “there is a tremendous need for datasharing within the criminal justiceprocess.”3 The ISP provided the impetusfor subsequent efforts to integrate thecriminal justice community in Delaware,but it would still take some time beforeimplementation of an integrated CJISwas realized.

At the beginning of 1989, fiveseparate databases were operating at theState level without the ability to link toone another:1) Law enforcement operated the

Computerized Criminal History(CCH) database;

2) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)

The National Task Force on Court

Automation and Integration

consists of 13 State court system

representatives, including judges,

State-level and trial court adminis-

trators, and consultants; and 9

government and justice system

officials representing prosecution,

defense and law enforcement

agencies, as well as a State legislator

and a State chief information

officer. For more information, visit

www.search.org.

Delaware Criminal Justice Information System

The Evolution of Integration

2

information was being collected on aseparate database;

3) The Department of Correction(DOC) operated a system to handleinmate tracking;

4) The courts operated the DispositionReporting System, which was usedprimarily by Justice of the Peace (JP)courts (this case-tracking systemcollected data and provided a nameindex of defendants who had beenbefore the JP courts); and

5) The Judicial Information Center(JIC) operated a system to serve theCourts of Common Pleas (CCP),Superior Courts, WilmingtonMunicipal Court,4 and FamilyCourts.5

The first episode of informationsharing occurred in 1989 when the DOCsystem was integrated with lawenforcement’s CCH; this enabled theincorporation of criminal identificationdata into the DOC database. With thisintegration, the DOC began to use thecharges and identification portions ofCCH, but CCH was not enhanced as a

result of this one-sided linkage.The courts’ Disposition Reporting

System merged with CCH in 1990. Thelinkage, which occurred in the Springthat year, resulted in the formal creationof CJIS. This merger gave CJISparticipants access to more charge,disposition, arrest and identificationdata. The State Attorney General’s Office(AG) and Public Defender’s Office (PD),meanwhile, were not enteringinformation into CJIS, but were able toaccess data through CJIS as needed.

From this point, DELJIS oversaw thedevelopment of additional systemcomponents. In 1991, the AutomatedWarrant System was implemented,which allowed law enforcement officersto enter complaint data and createwarrants on-line. Officers could nowimmediately check for the existence ofwarrants through CJIS. At first, it wasdifficult to get the law enforcementcommunity to use the system properly,and officers needed additional training.6

The turning point came when TroopTwo of the Delaware State Police wassold on the benefits of the system. Oncethey endorsed the system, othersfollowed, and eventually the lawenforcement community was completelysupportive of the Automated WarrantSystem.

At the same time, the AG componentwas being developed. This componentwas added in 1992, enabling the sharingof indictment information with CJISusers. In 1990 – 1991, the Dual DataEntry Elimination Project wasimplemented; it ensured greater dataquality by facilitating batch datatransfers between CJIS and the JICsystem. In 1991 – 1992, DELJIS built acomprehensive case managementsystem for the JP courts. This systemtook care of all magistrate caseprocessing — even accountingfunctions.

On October 23, 1993, JIC upgradedits infrastructure and began to providemore extensive batch data transfers toCJIS. Key interfaces, however, were not

working properly at the outset. ByJanuary 1995, the programming issueswere resolved, but case numbermismatches were still occurring on casesthat were in existence before that time.Cases entered into the system afterJanuary 1995, however, were properlylinked in the JIC and CJIS databases.

On April 22, 1996, the JIC providedthe CCP and Superior Courts with animproved Case Management System(CMS). One of the immediate benefits ofCMS implementation was the ability toelectronically recall warrants throughuse of the CJIS database. In October1997, the JIC database moved onto thesame mainframe (IBM ES 9000) as theCJIS database. By April 1999, court userswere finally able to access informationfrom the CJIS database without loggingout of the JIC database, creating avirtually seamless interface between thetwo databases.

Since 1982, $8 million in State andFederal grants has been spent on CJISenhancements. The Federal grants,which came from the U.S. Departmentof Justice, were awarded under theseprograms: the National CriminalHistory Improvement Program(NCHIP), the Edward Byrne MemorialState and Local Law EnforcementAssistance Program, and COPSMORE.

System StrengthsSystem StrengthsSystem StrengthsSystem StrengthsSystem Strengths

Sharing of Criminal History, WarrantSharing of Criminal History, WarrantSharing of Criminal History, WarrantSharing of Criminal History, WarrantSharing of Criminal History, Warrantand Case Informationand Case Informationand Case Informationand Case Informationand Case Information

CJIS facilitates the electronic sharingof information among all participantagencies. Specifically, case information,from initial contact to case-closingevents, is available to CJIS participants.For example, warrant and incarcerationinformation is available to CJISparticipants instantly; court dispositionsare electronically transmitted to theState Bureau of Identification (SBI); andProtection From Abuse Orders, createdon-line in Family Court, are available toall CJIS participants in real-time.

Such extensive information sharing

The Case Study Series is published bySEARCH, The National Consortium forJustice Information and Statistics, withfunding from the Bureau of Justice Assis-tance, U.S. Department of Justice.

This document was prepared under grantnumber 95-DD-BX-0017, provided by theBureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Depart-ment of Justice. The points of view oropinions stated in the document are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily rep-resent the official position or policies ofthe U.S. Department of Justice.

SEARCH is located at 7311 GreenhavenDrive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California95831, (916) 392-2550.

Kenneth E. BischoffChairman

Gary R. CooperExecutive Director

Sheila J. BartonDeputy Executive Director

George A. BuckDeputy Executive Director

David J. RobertsDeputy Executive Director

Francis L. BremsonCourts Program Director

has significantly enhanced systemcapabilities. CJIS has supportedinformation exchanges that have proveninvaluable to Delaware’s criminal justice

One of the main reasons for the JPcourt system’s functional success is thatDELJIS staff spent considerable timewith system users assessing their needs.

In addition, users were trained in theirenvironment, so that they could learnhow to use the system efficiently. Amajor component of the JP court systemis the Automated Voluntary AssessmentCenter, which processes traffic ticketsand fine payments. When policeagencies issue a traffic ticket, data areloaded electronically into the JP courts’system. If a defendant fails to makepayments within 21 days of the offense,the court sends the defendant a noticeinforming him that his license will besuspended and a warrant will be issuedfor his arrest. In addition, if a defendantfalls behind on paying fines, an arrestwarrant is issued. The system then

electronically populates the WantedPerson File and the Department ofMotor Vehicles (DMV) is automaticallynotified of the warrant and queued tosuspend the defendant’s license.

Defendants may pay their fines viamail, telephone or in person at any JPcourt. They may also go to any JP courtfor their arraignments becauseinformation is shared among all JPcourts. Once payments are made,warrants are recalled. This automatedprocess is extremely important becauseit ensures that warrants are current,which helps avoid a situation in which adefendant is falsely arrested on awarrant that should have been recalled.

Extensive Use of VideophonesExtensive Use of VideophonesExtensive Use of VideophonesExtensive Use of VideophonesExtensive Use of VideophonesSince JP courts handle first

appearances, they use videophones toconduct video arraignments. The use ofvideophones saves the State a great dealof money because it avoids the need totransport in-custody defendants to andfrom court. It costs an average of $83 tomove a prisoner between correctionalfacilities and courts in Delaware; byusing the videophones for videoarraignments, the State estimates that it

An example of a videophone used in Delaware. By using the videophones forvideo arraignments, the State estimates that it saves at least $1 million a year.

CJIS facilitates the electronic sharing of informationamong all participant agencies. Specifically, caseinformation, from initial contact to case-closingevents, is available to CJIS participants.

community. Users are able to determinethe status of a case instantly, whichgreatly enhances the ability to processcriminal cases efficiently. Lawenforcement’s instant access to criminalhistory, warrant and protection orderinformation has been a criticalcomponent of system success. Publicsafety has been greatly enhanced by theefficient exchange of such backgroundinformation.

JP Courts’ SystemJP Courts’ SystemJP Courts’ SystemJP Courts’ SystemJP Courts’ SystemOne particularly strong aspect of CJIS

involves the case management systemused by the Justice of the Peace courts,which handle traffic and ordinanceviolations, some misdemeanors, warrantprocessing and intake. In most cases, JPcourts are the first courts of contact inthe State; more serious misdemeanorsand felony cases originate in the JPcourts, and are later moved to CCP andSuperior Courts for adjudication.

When asked about the JP courts’automated case management system,Larry Sipple, Management Analyst forthe JP courts, said, “It’s one of the bestsystems in the country; head andshoulders above most others.” At thistime, the JP courts’ system works so wellthat its staff would not change anythingfunctionally; it takes care of all their casemanagement needs. They would,however, like to improve the “look-and-feel” of the system by implementing aGraphical User Interface (GUI) front-end.

3

saves at least $1 million a year.The State uses 27 large videophone

units and 55 PC-based videophoneunits.7 They are available in almost allpolice barracks, in all AG and PD offices,and in all criminal courts. In addition,they are available in all prisons andseveral social service centers (for court-ordered visitation purposes).

warrant with charges attached, the AGmay modify the charges and seek agrand jury indictment on the newcharges. When the defendant isindicted, an arrest warrant may beissued to bring the defendant to court(known as a Rule Nine Warrant). Whenthe defendant is returned to JP court,however, the court is unable to use its

subsections; this leaves court clerks toguess at the proper subsection to enter,and results in unreliable datamaintained in the system. To add to theconfusion, charges entered into the JICdatabase do not always transfer into theCJIS database and vice versa (theproblem arises in up to 10 percent ofcases). Also, when the AG’s Officegenerates Nolle Prosequi 9 documents,this action incorrectly overridesSuperior Court dispositions in CJIS.System users are unsure if this is a resultof improper data entry or systemshortcomings.

The CMS used by Superior Courts,meanwhile, has caused a problem withcapias/warrant information — thesystem does not flag such informationelectronically. Thus, in some instances,court staff must look up warrantsmanually. Information maintained inCMS and CJIS is not always consistentand clerks cannot rely on one databasemore than the other. Moreover, the AG’scase-tracking system may contain datathat conflict with both the CMS and CJISdatabases. Again, some of theseproblems are due to systemshortcomings and some are due to dataentry issues, but it is often difficult todetermine whether the system or theusers are at fault. Variations in dataentry from court to court make itdifficult to pinpoint systeminefficiencies.

Need to Enhance SystemwideNeed to Enhance SystemwideNeed to Enhance SystemwideNeed to Enhance SystemwideNeed to Enhance SystemwideParticipationParticipationParticipationParticipationParticipation

In spite of the extraordinarycapabilities of the CJIS, there are keyinformation exchange points at whichnecessary information is not sharedamong CJIS entities. For example, JPcourts cannot log into CJIS to search forCCP/Superior Court information, andwhile JP courts schedule initial hearingsin CCP/Superior Courts, they do nothave access to subsequent court datesset in those courts. Similarly, juvenilecase information maintained by the

The State purchased these video-phones using $1.5 million in grantfunding received from the federalEdward Byrne Memorial State and LocalLaw Enforcement Assistance Program.In addition, the State adds $1 to everydefendant’s fine, which generates$14,000 per month in income and paysfor the phone lines and maintenancecosts. In Delaware, videophones areused for many purposes. In addition tobeing used for video arraignments andbail hearings, they are also used forwarrant approval so police officers donot have to travel to the courthouse; thePD and AG Offices use them forteleconferencing; and courts have usedthem extensively for administrativepurposes, as well as for trials sowitnesses could testify from as far awayas Australia and Israel.

System WeaknessesSystem WeaknessesSystem WeaknessesSystem WeaknessesSystem Weaknesses

Need to Improve Data QualityNeed to Improve Data QualityNeed to Improve Data QualityNeed to Improve Data QualityNeed to Improve Data QualityWhile CJIS has been operating well

for most of the 1990s, there is room forimprovement. There are instances inwhich data quality is compromised. Forexample, when the JP court issues a

case management system to determinethe specific charges filed by the AG’sOffice because its system does not link tothose charges, which are on file in CJIS.

In addition, the AG’s Office createsseparate case files when cases move fromJP courts to CCP, so there are oftenduplicate charges related to the samecase (charges that originate out of the JPcourt and charges associated with theAG case files). In 1998, 17,000 – 18,000records had to be corrected due toduplicate data entry.8

In the Superior Courts, the currentprocess of producing sentencing ordersis very time-consuming. In addition, dueto the lack of standardization, differentcourts often produce sentencing ordersin different ways. In some courts, clerkstype information onto their sentencingorders but fail to enter data into thesystem; this, of course, leads to datainaccuracies. The same problem arises inthe context of violation of probationorders.

Court clerks complain thatincarceration, bail and charginginformation is unreliable due to dataentry problems. The AG’s Office sendscharges over that do not include

One of the main reasons for the JP court system’sfunctional success is that DELJIS staff spentconsiderable time with system users assessing theirneeds. In addition, users were trained in theirenvironment, so that they could learn how to use thesystem efficiently.

4

Family Court is not being sharedthrough CJIS, even though there is nostatutory proscription against suchinformation sharing. Moreover, CJISdoes not link to noncriminal justiceinformation because it was neverdesigned to do so; therefore, a good dealof relevant information is unavailable tosystem users. For example, Family Courtcases dealing with matters such astermination of parental rights are notentered into CJIS, even though they mayimpact criminal matters.

A related problem involves the lack ofreal-time information sharing withagencies that should be activelyparticipating in CJIS. For example, theProbation and Parole Departmentmaintains a wealth of information that isnot available to CJIS participantsbecause the Probation and ParoleDepartment operates a stand-alonesystem. Violations of probation, as anexample, are handled primarily viapaperwork (75 percent paper trail), andit is very difficult to pull information ona person’s probation/parole statusbecause probation/parole information isnot linked to CJIS.

In addition, the New Castle CountyPolice (the second largest police agencyin Delaware) built its own informationsystem, and 8 months passed beforedata could be transferred to the Stateand national systems. Today, this systemcommunicates with CJIS via tape, but isunable to support real-time sharing ofinformation.

The Department of Services forChildren, Youth and Their Families(DSCYF), which operates the Division ofYouth Rehabilitative Services andDivision of Family Services, has notshared much information with CJIS. Bylate 1999, DSCYF will begin receivingbatch data transfers from CJIS, but willnot be sending informationelectronically to CJIS. Several years ago,DSCYF received grant funding todevelop its system, which operates viaan Oracle database, Sequel Server andGUI screens. The goal is to develop real-

time information exchanges with CJIS.The PD’s Office also shares a modest

amount of information with CJIS. Infact, the PD shares only six data fieldswith CJIS.10 The PD operates its owncase management system, but CJIS doesnot meet its data-sharing needs: co-defendant screens are not updatedproperly; it is difficult to determine theidentity of a judge on a given casebecause the CJIS screens that maintainthat information are hard to find; andPD caseloads are not tracked in CJIS.Therefore, the PD’s Office operates itsown Sequel and Access system, whichemploys client/server technology andhas a GUI front-end. The PD system isprepared to share information in thefuture with CJIS via batch feeds.

The issues mentioned here hampersystem efficiency. These problems arecompounded by slim resources. Also,additional training is needed to ensurethat users are utilizing the system to itsfull potential. System users said they aredissatisfied with inadequateprogramming resources and a lack ofhelp desk support to address their needsin a timely fashion.

Governance StructureGovernance StructureGovernance StructureGovernance StructureGovernance StructureDelaware’s integrated justice

oversight committee is the DELJIS Boardof Managers. The Board is comprised ofrepresentatives from the participatingCJIS entities; in addition, representatives

of the legislature sit on the Board as non-voting members, and a representative ofthe State Budget Office is invited toparticipate in the meetings. Some of theCJIS representatives are technical staff,not policymakers, and therefore cannotspeak with full authority for theirrespective agencies. This has posed someproblems for CJIS development, andBoard members are aware of the need toattain high-level support for future CJISinitiatives. Through the support of topdecisionmakers, the Board will be in abetter position to enhance CJISefficiency. Board member David Deputy,who is Director of the SBI, said,“Appointing authorities need to buy intothe system more … [we should] havepeople on the Board who are as close tothe agency authority as possible.”

In other states, such as Colorado andKansas, CJIS oversight committees,comprised of the highest level officialsfrom each of the CJIS participantagencies, are responsible for overseeingand making major decisions regardingstatewide integration efforts. They arenot responsible for user-leveldecisionmaking. Instead, oversightcommittees are responsible for agreeingupon the vision for the system,providing leadership and oversight, andmaking major decisions about theproject. Various working groups andtask forces are then employed to carryout the research on and development of

Delaware’s integrated justice oversight committee is the DELJIS Board of Managers. TheBoard is comprised of representatives from the participating CJIS entities; in addition,representatives of the State Legislature sit on the Board as non-voting members, and arepresentative of the State Budget Office is invited to participate in the meetings.

5

6

7

Sample screens for the Enhanced Police ComplaintSystem (EPC), which is a Windows-based, VisualBasic program that will allow the law enforcementcommunity to file police reports on-line.

a variety of project-specific plans,models, policies and directions.

Both Colorado and Kansas have avariety of subcommittees in place tohandle specific issues. Technical groupshandle technical issues while businessanalysts handle process issues. Inaddition, “users” are integrated intogroups that require an understanding ofthe business process. For example,Colorado’s Tactical Business Group iscomprised of working staff (on-lineusers) from each of the five Stateagencies involved in the Stateintegration effort, local lawenforcement, other involved agencies,and the business analyst staff personfrom their statewide integration project.The Technical Work Group includestechnical analyst/programming stafffrom each of the five State agencies.

Kansas looks to various criminaljustice entities for assistance onsubcommittees, such as the AFISSubcommittee, Standards/TechnologySubcommittee, and Local ApplicationsTask Forces. These subcommitteesreport back to the statewide oversightcommittee, but they are responsible forworking through the user-level issues. Bycontrast, the DELJIS Board isresponsible for addressing operational,technical and policy issues, which is asignificant challenge.

Present and Future SystemPresent and Future SystemPresent and Future SystemPresent and Future SystemPresent and Future SystemEnhancementsEnhancementsEnhancementsEnhancementsEnhancements

New technologies, projects andcommittees are inplace as of mid-1999and/or planned for thefuture so that CJIS mayaddress identified gapsand improve upon itssuccesses. Accordingto Ron Torgerson,DELJIS ExecutiveDirector, “If there’s a way to shareinformation, we’ve considered it.”DELJIS and JIC personnel have workeddiligently to improve the CJISenvironment over the last several years,

and the following section highlightssome of the proposed systemenhancements.

Automated Sentencing Order ProjectAutomated Sentencing Order ProjectAutomated Sentencing Order ProjectAutomated Sentencing Order ProjectAutomated Sentencing Order ProjectThe JIC is heading an effort to

improve the processing of sentencingorders filed in CCP and Superior Courts.This effort, which began several yearsago, is nearing implementation. TheAutomated Sentencing Order Project(ASOP) will be used in CCP andSuperior Courts, but not JP courts. It is aWindows-based, Visual Basic programthat utilizes the mainframe database andincorporates a GUI front-end. Themixing of PC and mainframe technologyhas been controversial becauseprogramming on the PC side had to becomplemented by programming on themainframe side; this resulted in delaysand increased expenditures.

When ASOP is implemented, thefollowing functional enhancements areanticipated: improved calendaringinformation (when a clerk enters adisposition, the case status, docket andtickler system will be updated);restitution (calculated fines) willautomatically appear on the screen;within 30 minutes, sentencing orderswill be available in court; approvedorders will be available to anyone withaccess to CJIS or JIC; users will be able toaccess a defendant’s criminal history,sentencing history, and warrant/capiashistory; flags will be restored for capias/warrants; and, in the future, the publicwill have access to approved orders.

Once users can access sentencingorders on ASOP, DELJIS will stopstoring sentence order information onthe CJIS database; the database willsimply provide a pointer to the JICdatabase, which will store the sentenceorder document and provide the onlyaccess to sentence order detail. Whilesentence order detail will not bedisplayed on the CJIS database, the CJISdatabase will continue to displayoffender, charge and disposition data.

Delaware Automated Correction SystemDelaware Automated Correction SystemDelaware Automated Correction SystemDelaware Automated Correction SystemDelaware Automated Correction SystemThe Delaware Automated Correction

System (DACS) project entails a majoreffort to revamp the present Departmentof Correction (DOC) system, which usesthe CJIS mainframe to run itsoperations. The project began in April1999 and is being facilitated by DeloitteConsulting. DACS will operate throughan Oracle database and several Sun andNT Servers to allow for interfaces withthe rest of the CJIS community. DACS,which will incorporate a GUI “look-and-feel,” will greatly enhance efficiency ofoperations at the DOC and allow forinformation sharing with other CJISparticipants through batch interfacesand on-line sharing of information.Moreover, the Probation/ParoleDepartment will participate in DACS,and for the first time, electronicallyshare information with the rest of theCJIS community.

DACS will be implemented in twophases. The first phase, which is themost significant, will greatly enhanceDOC’s ability to operate its populationmanagement functions, which includeintake, booking, classification,transportation, case management andspecial programs. This phase is slatedfor implementation in April 2000. As thefirst phase is brought up, the secondphase of the project will begin. Thesecond phase will include enhancedfunctionality in supplementary areas,such as inmate accounting, visitation,commissary, inventory andwarehousing, and should be operationalby October 2000.

The cost of this project is estimated at$8-$10 million, and is being paid forusing State general funds (technologyfund). The estimated price for this newsystem includes the cost of enhancingthe CJIS infrastructure; for example,Livescan and Mugshot units will beinstalled in all State correctionalfacilities and larger Probation/Paroleoffices by November 1999 (smallerProbation/Parole offices will use two-

RonTorgerson

8

print scanners). The use of Livescan andMugshot technology will greatlyenhance DOC operations and the qualityof identification information throughoutthe CJIS community.

Enhanced Police Complaint SystemEnhanced Police Complaint SystemEnhanced Police Complaint SystemEnhanced Police Complaint SystemEnhanced Police Complaint SystemThe Enhanced Police Complaint

System (EPC) is a Window-based, VisualBasic program that will allow the lawenforcement community to file policereports on-line (see sample screens onpages 6-7). This system will integratemainframe data with a PC-based GUIfront-end application. It will increasefunctionality and have an improved“look-and-feel.” Once EPC isimplemented, law enforcement officerswill write reports in their patrol cars andpopulate the mainframe with data; theAG will be able to download incidentreports; jails will pick up offender dataright off the incident report; suspectvehicle information will be pulleddirectly from the DMV database, whichis on the same mainframe as CJIS andJIC; and the system will link directly toNCIC 2000.

EPC is being implemented at thistime. All Delaware police agenciessupport the new system, and the StatePolice have pilot-tested it. Communityagencies will implement it in the nearfuture, pending completion of a TCP/IPnetwork. SBI will conduct a qualitycontrol check of the reports issued byEPC and then move the data to thepolice complaint files, which are used forState and Federal uniform crimereporting. The State Police are workingon a Mugshot server and Livescaninterface so that fingerprints andmugshots will be available on the EPCscreens.

Also underway is a related projectdesigned to upgrade the AutomatedWarrant System, which operates via aMainframe 3270 interface. Funding isavailable to upgrade the system with thesame technology being used toimplement EPC. This will allow EPC toprovide a link to warrant information,

which will be available right off theelectronic complaint.

Real-Time Crime ReportingReal-Time Crime ReportingReal-Time Crime ReportingReal-Time Crime ReportingReal-Time Crime ReportingThis project will assist in the

identification of criminal “hot spots”(areas where crime is likely to occur) bylooking at criminal activity committedwithin the previous 48- to 72- hourperiod. Through use of this system, lawenforcement agencies will be able todeploy their forces to areas most likely torequire their assistance. This system willbe browser-based, so that lawenforcement officers will be able toaccess it from their patrol cars. Inaddition, Geographical InformationSystems (GIS) technology will be used toassist officers in locating a target area.Funding is available for this project,which should be operational by late Fall1999.

Browser-Based Rap SheetBrowser-Based Rap SheetBrowser-Based Rap SheetBrowser-Based Rap SheetBrowser-Based Rap SheetThe browser-based rap sheet is now

available to law enforcement officers.Through use of a Web browser, officersare able to access a person’s criminalhistory over a secured Intranet (notavailable in their patrol units becausethe laptops are outside the firewall). Thisrap sheet will link to sentencing ordersgenerated by ASOP.

Livescan and Mugshot UnitsLivescan and Mugshot UnitsLivescan and Mugshot UnitsLivescan and Mugshot UnitsLivescan and Mugshot UnitsThe DOC is expected to receive

Livescan units in late 1999 for use incorrectional facilities and Probation/Parole offices. The law enforcementcommunity, meanwhile, is alreadymaking use of Livescan technology.Twenty-three FBI-compliant Livescanunits have been connected to the Statenetwork and will be accessed by everylaw enforcement agency in the State.This was made possible by a FederalNCHIP grant of $800,000, and a Statematch of $800,000. In addition, aCOPSMORE grant brought in another$2 million for additional Livescan andMugshot units.

The Mugshot system is currently

being installed, and training is slated tobegin soon. The law enforcementcommunity enthusiastically supportsthe Livescan/Mugshot systems. In fact,the Dover Police Department scrappedits independent Mugshot system inorder to participate in the State system.The Mugshot system will allowwitnesses to identify suspects throughcustomized searches of the database.More money is needed to movemugshots out of specialized terminalsand onto the network. As alreadydiscussed, the goal is to providefingerprints and mugshots on the EPCscreens.

Rule Nine ProjectRule Nine ProjectRule Nine ProjectRule Nine ProjectRule Nine ProjectThe Rule Nine Project is presently in

test mode. It will ensure that the initialcharges brought in JP court will bedeleted real-time when staff in the AG’sOffice modifies charges for indictmentpurposes. The new charges will be sentelectronically to the JP court so thatwarrants can be processed correctly.This project will effectively address theexisting data problems associated withthe indictment process.

Release Date Black Box ProjectRelease Date Black Box ProjectRelease Date Black Box ProjectRelease Date Black Box ProjectRelease Date Black Box ProjectA Task Force was formed in 1998 to

develop a program that will calculatecredit for time served, good time andmeritorious time credit so that CJIS isable to keep track of incarceration timeautomatically. In addition, the programwill have the capacity to define asubject’s release date when the subjecthas multiple sentencing orders in effectat any given time, including violations ofprobation. The Release Date Black BoxProject is funded and the Task Force iscurrently grappling with the complexissues involved.

Data Quality Task ForceData Quality Task ForceData Quality Task ForceData Quality Task ForceData Quality Task ForceDelaware has received an NCHIP

grant of $450,000 to create a DataQuality Task Force whose mission is “Toclean up the inaccurate data in the CJIScharge and disposition files; and develop

9

10

system to maintain the quality of thatdata at the highest possible level.”11

The Task Force’s goals are as follows:

• Identify bad data,

• Identify the steps to fix the data,

• Implement the data fixes,

• Identify the causes of bad data,

• Identify the actions needed to assurethat the data will be high qualityhenceforth, and

• Implement the system modificationsto assure future data quality.12

New Environment: Mainframe as DataNew Environment: Mainframe as DataNew Environment: Mainframe as DataNew Environment: Mainframe as DataNew Environment: Mainframe as DataWarehouseWarehouseWarehouseWarehouseWarehouse

As mentioned, DSCYF and the PD’sOffice operate stand-alone systems.DSCYF looks up very little informationheld on the CJIS mainframe — about 10percent of staff reads information fromCJIS. DSCYF is preparing to receivebatch data transfers from CJIS (these arenot yet in real-time because the StateOffice of Information Services has notprovided the software that would allowfor real-time transfers of data). About 50fields will be transmitted to DSCYF(such as names, addresses and personalidentifiers). Any client with an SBINumber will produce information suchas charges; details (arrest dates, hearingdates, etc.); victim information; andwarrants that will be transmitted viabatch feeds at least once a day. Thesebatch transfers will help testinformation-sharing needs for eventualreal-time, on-line transfers. Similarly, aState-funded Public DefenderIntegration Project, which will allow forbatch data transfers between the PD’sOffice and CJIS, is underway.

The DOC and the AG’s Office plan toimplement Oracle databases to handletheir case management needs. The DOC,AG and PD have all committed tosharing information through CJIS. Theeventual goal is for information sharingto occur in real-time throughdevelopment of data-sharing standardsand direct connections to the existing

mainframe. In that way, the mainframewould serve as a data warehouse linkingthe separate agency databases.

According to Ron Torgerson, “Themainframe system will be moving to PCsover time, and the mainframe will justexist as a data source — applications willbe processed at the PC level.” Inaddition, data standards will bedeveloped in order to facilitate a newgeneration of data sharing. Also, an SQLserver will be set up for data mining sothat police agencies will have the abilityto run data analyses (English languagesearches). This will alleviate DELJIS’sburden of running reports for all lawenforcement agencies, but they will stillrun reports for less sophisticated users.Finally, DELJIS will use NCHIP funds toimprove the “look-and-feel” ofDelaware’s Sex Offender Registry, whichcurrently runs on a 3270 application; aswith other projects, the Registry willutilize a Visual Basic, GUI front-end.

Another system enhancement willinvolve the Family Court, which plannedto implement CMS (the CCP/SuperiorCourt Management System) in lateSummer 1999.13 When this occurs, theAG’s Office will have information on anyindividual who interacts with FamilyCourt, whether that individual is adefendant or a participant in a givencase. In addition, future enhancementswill allow the AG to use the system torequest a subpoena in Family Court(currently, AG staff uses the telephone torequest subpoenas). Since CMS wasdesigned for Superior Court, it will haveto be modified in order to fit FamilyCourt needs.

Lessons LearnedLessons LearnedLessons LearnedLessons LearnedLessons LearnedWhile many States and local

jurisdictions are considering projects tointegrate justice information systems,Delaware was the first State toimplement an integrated criminal justicesystem. Therefore, there was no one tolook to for guidance when CJIS firstcame on-line. Now, when jurisdictions

seek to integrate justice informationsystems, they look to others that havebeen down that path to learn from pastsuccesses and avoid past mishaps.

Through discussions with variousmembers of the CJIS community,distinct “lessons” were emphasized andre-emphasized. Participants inDelaware’s CJIS effort want to conveythese points:

People, not technology,present the biggestobstacles to integratedjustice.

Technology is not the obstacle tointegrating justice information systems.Clearly, the real difficulty is attaining thenecessary leadership, commitment andcooperation of key representatives of thecriminal justice community. Often,people in different agencies havedifferent ideas of how projects shouldmove forward; they have differentpersonal and political agendas, and theyare more focused on their own agencyneeds than on the system as a whole.Moreover, the justice community suffersfrom a general distrust among itsmembers. While many want to benefitfrom enhanced information sharing,they are hesitant to give up control oftheir information.

Before CJIS took shape in Delaware,system developers assumed that peoplewould cooperate. They learned that suchan assumption was flawed. As a result ofthis experience, Ken Allen, InformationResource Manager of the StateAdministrative Office of the Courts(AOC), suggests that courts and criminaljustice agencies enter into formalagreements at the policy and operationallevels as a means to ensure cooperation.These agreements must clearly defineeach participant’s responsibilities so thateveryone is clear on what is expected oftheir respective agencies. If possible,these agreements should account forchanges in administration becausepeople leave and new people take over.

Such changes can damage momentumachieved through initial cooperation.

Top-Level commitmentis essential.

When discussing cooperation, allCJIS participants agree that top-levelcommitment is essential to success ofthe integration effort. As Larry Webstercommented, “Concerned, engagedleadership is necessary.” Without thesupport of agency heads, there is no wayto move projects along in a coordinated,efficient manner. There is no quick andeasy way to ensure top-level support.According to Mike McLaughlin, DeputyDirector of the AOC, “Legislation won’tdo it; developing personal relationshipsand commitment over time is theanswer.”

User involvement iscritical.

System planners have to ensure thatstakeholders buy into the new system.As previously noted, the New CastlePolice Department installed a computersystem that was unable to communicatewith CJIS, and is unable to share data inreal-time to this day. When users fail toparticipate, the system suffers due to aloss of essential data. Once data are lostor corrupted, users can no longer rely onthe system for complete and accurateinformation. David Deputy suggests,“Make sure you get a core group whobelieves in the system, so thatmanagement has enough faith topromote the usage.” This bottom-upapproach presents another way to attainhigh-level support.

Users must be trainedproperly.

The most technologically advancedsystem will not operate efficiently unlessthe users know how to use it properly. InDelaware, some of the problems beingaddressed may be a result of impropertraining, not system gaps. Several CJISparticipants suggested that training

should occur in the users’ naturalenvironment, not the classroom. Usersin the JP courts were trained in theirnatural environment, and theyflourished. It is difficult to simulate real-world issues in the classroom. AsDebora Foor, Deputy Prothonotary ofNew Castle County, put it, “You cannever predict all the bugs you’re going toencounter until you’re handling thedata.” Larry Webster suggests thattraining should incorporate both theclassroom and the natural environmentby using “a training facility for initialtraining on new systems and majorupgrades, and [handling] updates andminor release training on site.” Thiscombination allows users to attain real-world experience while receivingeffective and efficient education.

Planning must beintense andcomprehensive.

Ken Allen assessed the currentsituation in Delaware and suggested thatpolicymakers form a committee tooversee the following process:

• Define business relationships,

• Objectively look at strengths andweaknesses of the system,

• Define data ownership and dataquality issues,

• Step back and re-engineer,

• Build cooperative agreements amongthe criminal justice community, and

• Build new automated systems.

Mr. Allen makes the point thatsystem developers “can’t look totechnology to solve business problems.”

They have to go through the difficultsteps listed above to truly build aneffective and efficient integrated justicesystem. In addition, he believes that theplanning process should encourage thecoordinated use of technology amongthe criminal justice community,whenever possible, so that technicalsolutions are simplified rather thancomplicated. Finally, Mr. Allen suggeststhat system integrators undertake aseries of smaller projects rather than onelarge project that addresses a wide rangeof issues. These smaller projects aremore manageable and provide the short-term results that are often needed tomaintain project momentum andenthusiasm for future efforts.

While comprehensive planning isrequired, jurisdictions must moveprojects along and get systemcomponents implemented in areasonable amount of time. Delawarehas learned a great deal byimplementing specific projects andassessing their impact on overall systemefficiency. Ed Pollard, Family CourtAdministrator, made the point that“some things have to be up and runningbefore you can tell that work needs to bedone to improve efficiency.”

Finally, Larry Webster observes that agreat deal of work must go intodesigning the system before the systemis actually built. He points out that ittakes more work to modify softwareonce it is in use than to design itproperly in the first place. On a relatedissue, Mr. Webster suggests that data-sharing business rules should be clearlyestablished before system implemen-tation. System participants must be able

“…Integration is not an event, it’s ajourney.”

— Mike McLaughlinDeputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts

11

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

P A I DPermit No. 1632Sacramento, CA

SEARCH, The National Consortium forJustice Information and Statistics

7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145Sacramento, CA 95831

to turn to “standard transaction anddata descriptions that everyone agreesto” in order to ensure properinformation exchange. These businessrules must be published and “no oneshould change these withoutcommunicating and getting approvalfrom everyone else.”

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionDelaware has been working on

integrating CJIS for a long time, and thesystem is constantly being improved.For State and local jurisdictions that areheading down the path to integratedjustice, there are important lessons tolearn from Delaware’s experience. Thechallenges ahead will be plentiful, but sowill the rewards. Mike McLaughlinsummed it up best: “Wins can be fewand far between, but they’re worth it … .Integration is not an event, it’s ajourney.”

ENDNOTES

1 The Department of Services for Children, Youthand Their Families (DSCYF) is also considered aCJIS participant, but it operates a stand-alonesystem and shares very little information withCJIS at this time. DSCYF is beginning to viewinformation via batch data transfers and hopes toimplement real-time data exchanges in the nearfuture.

2 This section addresses some of the major eventsthat shaped the development of CJIS over theyears. It is not intended to describe all of theprojects that have been implemented in recentyears. For more detail regarding specific projectsthat are planned or currently underway, see thesection on Present and Future System Enhance-ments on page 8.

3 Information Systems Plan, Executive Summary,at page vii.

4 The Municipal Court was phased out of theDelaware court system in 1998.

5 The Judicial Information Center (JIC) wasestablished in the early 1980s in order to developcourt case management systems. The JIC iscurrently staffed by 27 employees and providesnetwork and PC support to the Delaware courtcommunity (other than the JP courts, which aresupported by DELJIS). The JIC is the primaryliaison between the judicial system and DELJIS.

6 Prior to implementation of the AutomatedWarrant System, law enforcement officers wereonly able to create warrant forms through text/processor applications. After systemimplementation, law enforcement officerscontinued to produce forms without datacontent, thereby failing to take advantage ofsystem enhancements.

7 Large units are older, more expensivevideophones that utilize 27- to 32- inch monitorsand a remote- controlled camera; at the timethese were purchased, PC units did not exist. PCunits are the newer, smaller models; they are farless expensive and operate as PCs as well asvideophones.

8 Approximately 282,000 cases were filed in 1998.

9 Prosecution is dropped with the ability to filecharges at a later date.

10 The six data fields are PD case number,eligibility, referring court, PD assigned, casereferral date and case opening date.

11 Verbiage taken from DELJIS Planning Retreat(May 27-28, 1999) documentation.

12 Ibid.

13 At this time, CMS does not provide for theintegration of financial management with courtcase management, but according to LarryWebster, such integration of information wouldbe of great value to the judicial branch.

12