MCGEORGE LAW REVIEW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC

Integrated Criminal Justice Technologies: An Introduction
Clark Kelso

Justice and Public Safety in the Twenty-First Century
Janet Reno

Legislation: A New Design for Justice Integration
Paul F Kendall
Anne K Gardner

VOLUME 30, Issue 1
Fall 1998

Introduction

Integrated Criminal Justice Technologies: An Introduction
J. Clark Kelso

Criminal justice systems around the country are at a critical crossroads in the development and use of information and communication technologies. Decisions being made right now and during the next year will set the course for the next 20 years. Will we have an integrated system in which everyone who routinely works with the criminal justice system (including law enforcement, social services, schools, courts, prosecutors, public defenders, corrections, probation and parole offices) has easy, cheap and quick access to accurate and relevant information? Or, will we have what Chief Justice Ronald M. George of the Supreme Court of California calls the Electronic Tower of Babel, where every agency and player in the justice system is technologically equipped but, because of uncoordinated planning, everyone is technologically isolated from each other?

I. YESTERDAY'S VISION IS HERE TODAY

For fifteen years, I've been writing and speaking on how technology can fundamentally change the way we manage information in the justice system. In these prior publications, I've always spoken of a vision for the future and where technology would be in the very near future. Elements of that vision are probably familiar to most readers by now, and parts of that vision were incorporated into the California Judicial Council's futures report, Justice in the Balance-2020 (1994).

A. Paperless Reports, Filings and Records

Beginning with the police report completed in the field on a laptop, and all the way through the system to corrections, probation and parole, all information will be stored electronically and shared electronically among all criminal justice system agencies as appropriate, taking into account an agency's need-to-know and privacy concerns. The criminal justice system agencies include: all law enforcement departments, prosecutors, public defenders, the private defense bar, the state trial courts, the state appellate courts, corrections, probation, parole, and the federal courts. The improved effectiveness of the entire system will make California a safer place to live, and the cost savings In terms of paper and time wasted will easily reach into the tens of millions of dollars.

*Professor of Law and Director of he Institute for Legislative Practice, University of the Pacific. McGeorge School of Law

B. Virtual Presence

Using interactive video communication technology, physical appearances will be replaced with electronic appearances. For example, nearly all arraignments will be conducted remotely using this technology. Counsel will no longer need to be physically present in the courtroom to argue non-evidentiary motions. Law enforcement will benefit by being able to remain longer in the field.

C. Frequent and Routine Telecommuting

The traditional commute to and from the office will increasingly vanish as employers and employees learn how to be equally productive in a home office as in a downtown office building. Visions for the future are not particularly threatening because they are, by definition; tomorrow's problems-something for the next generation to confront. And as recently as four years ago, I would have agreed that we still had some breathing room for deliberative, strategic planning

That breathing room has evaporated. In the last four years, we have seen quantum leaps forward in computer and communication technologies. Desktop computers now have processing power and data storage capacity equivalent to that possessed by mainframe computers from as little as twenty years ago. With the abandonment of DOS in favor of a windows-based environment, there is an increasing convergence in the look and feel of major software programs. The combination of increased computing power, advances in data transmission, and attractive graphics interfaces resulted in an explosion of Internet use, whetting the public's appetite for greater access to government databases (an appetite to which government agencies are quickly responding with thousands of web sites) and conditioning the public to expect government to make efficient use of information technology.

With these advances, the vision for the future has become the reality of today. A few examples from California will make the point:

• Criminal record information is now widely available to law enforcement around the State and in the field through, for example, the Violent Crime Information Network (VICINS), Statewide Integrated Narcotics System (SINS), and Western States Information Network (WSIN). These systems are scheduled for integration with California's largest criminal justice system, the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems (CLETS).
• The previously time-consuming process of confirming someone's identity through their fingerprints is now being streamlined into a five to fifteen minute process that can happen in the field using Live Scan technology.
• County social workers working in the child welfare services division now have a statewide system to help them track their cases.
• Trial courts in Alameda, Riverside, Orange, San Francisco and Ventura counties are implementing "paperless" technologies.
• Video arraignments and virtual presence are routinely employed in counties around California.
• Telecommuting has become an accepted and widely followed policy both in the public and private sectors.

Some of the most significant technological hurdles-the supposed incompatibilities of databases and communication protocols have been resolved creatively by the industry. The Internet and windows-based platforms have established a common ground for users. And sophisticated programs dubbed "middleware" create user-friendly interfaces between vastly different databases with vastly different data structures. Once again, this is not tomorrow's technology. A fully integrated justice network-linking together law enforcement, jail management, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, court clerks, probation, and corrections-is up and running in Oklahoma, and the success in Oklahoma has jurisdictions nationwide taking notice.

II. IT'S ABOUT GOVERNANCE

The issues now are not technological. The issue is ones of governance, of accountability, of responsibility, and of budgets. The issue is one of leadership.

We should not underestimate the difficulty of resolving these governance issues. And there is more here than turf wars between competing bureaucracies. There are serious structural, policy and budget questions.

Over the course of the last year, I have worked with California state and local leaders to promote coordinated technology development in the criminal justice system. As part of this effort, we created an Inter2overnmental Coordinating Council ("ICC") which is a part of the McGeorge School of Law's Institute for Legislative Practice. I am the Director of the ICC, and its membership includes representatives from the Governor's office, the Attorney General's office, the Legislature, the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, law libraries, the State Public Defender, the Chair of the Judicial Council's Court Technology Committee, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties.

These efforts at the state and local level have been matched by similar efforts around the country. Most importantly, under the leadership of Attorney General Janet Reno, the United States Department of Justice has begun actively to coordinate information sharing and collaborative technology development among federal, state and local justice agencies. The first major event was a two-day "Intergovernmental Meeting on Integrated Criminal Justice Systems, Information and Networks" held in Washington, D.C. in March 1998, sponsored by the

Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs (which administers billions of dollars of grants and funding to state and local justice agencies). The ICC represented California at this meeting, which was attended by representatives from seven other states (Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas). The discussions at the conference focused on governance issues such as the need for executive sponsorship in planning, implementation, and ongoing system management, the need for technical assistance and training during all phases of system development, the need to set benchmarks, to conduct evaluation, and to document best practices. The Office of Justice Programs has sponsored two subsequent meetings to bring together criminal justice leaders from other states with a goal of ultimately developing a strategic plan to coordinate the use of justice technologies among federal, state and local agencies to further the fight against crime.

In this issue of the McGeorge Law Review, we have two articles on this important topic. The first article reprints a speech given by Attorney General Janet Reno on May 13,1998, at Government Technology's Justice and Public Safety in the 21st CenturyConference.⁽¹⁾ She makes the case for building integrated criminal justice information systems that span the criminal justice system. The second article, ⁽²⁾ by Paul Kendall and Anne Gardner, explores in greater detail how this important local, state and federal initiative can be funded and coordinated by the Office of Justice Programs. Kendall and Gardner set forth a roadmap for congressional action to endorse and support integrated criminal justice system technologies. I encourage you to read the articles carefully and to consider how you can contribute to this important effort.

Speech

Justice and Public Safety in the Twenty-First Century
Janet Reno'

'Attorney General of the United Stales. This speech 'vas given before the Government Technology West Conference and the Justice and Public Safety in the Twenty-First Century Conference, May 13,1998, Sacramento, California.

Good morning. It is a real privilege to speak with you this morning about the extraordinary opportunities we have in the area of information technology. I regret that I am not able to join you personally this morning, but I would like to take advantage of our technology to speak with you about using technology to share information between and among law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to improve and enhance in every way possible our ability to fight crime.

The information technology industry has given us some remarkable tools, but with these tools come some extraordinary challenges for law enforcement. Advances in technology have created new kinds of crime and criminals who keep pace with, if not out-run, our new crime fighting tools. It is estimated that by the year 2000, a vast majority of terminals may be computer literate. With this literacy, they will have new opportunities for crime directly related to computer Systems such as software piracy and theft of intangible property. This literacy will also enable criminals to perpetrate traditional crimes such as theft, embezzlement, gambling, drug trafficking, and pornography on a much wider scale. Super-sophisticated criminals have even turned technology against law enforcement by using computers, cellular phones and other devices to gather counterintelligence on law enforcement operations.

In addition, we have the challenge of keeping current. In just the five years that I have been Attorney General, I realize that as each day goes by, something we purchased in those five years has become obsolete. We must mitigate this problem by appropriate strategic planning, encouraging coordination and cooperation between government and private industry, encouraging the development of information sharing standards, and building carefully so that we build for the future with the resources we have. We must ensure links and interoperability within the Department of Justice, between the Department and all Federal agencies, and especially with state and local criminal justice agencies. We must make sure that we do not duplicate efforts with expensive systems that only serve one use or one criminal justice component. This equipment is going to be too, too expensive to afford this luxury. We must plan ahead to ensure that we use the taxpayer's dollar as wisely as possible. We must balance privacy interests with the need to catch the bad guys and to protect our property and our people. To do this, we must acquire information technology tools, and it is imperative that we build prudently.

The ultimate challenge is how to do all this-how do we use the tools at our command? How do we build and buy prudently? How do we get the bad guys?-while at the same time protecting our Constitution, our rights of privacy, and all the principles that we hold dear in this democracy.

One way is to work together to build an effective, responsible, integrated information-sharing capability between all law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. This includes information-sharing architectures between law enforcement, courts, prosecution, public defense, corrections, probation, and parole offices. It also means the ability to share information between state and local jurisdictions and with the Federal Government.

In February 1997, at the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) Virtual Government Conference, I announced that the Department of justice was pleased to accept the leadership role for the development of a Global Criminal Justice Information Network, a capability under Vice-President Gore's Access America initiative. The Department has taken steps toward developing this information-sharing capability. The Department's Office of justice Programs and Justice Management Division are working together on this very critical initiative. So far this year, the Justice Management Division has convened an advisory body to develop core requirements for the Global Information-Sharing Network. The Office of Justice Programs is working to facilitate integrated information-sharing at the state and local level through the strategic use of federal grants for information technology, and by encouraging cooperation, dialogue, planning, and peer-to-peer counseling at the state and local level.

Another important step toward a global information-sharing capability is for the Department to develop its own Department of Justice consolidated network. I know many of you are concerned, as am I, that there are difficulties in communication between parts oft he Department of justice. It was frustrating to become Attorney General to discover that the FBI can't really communicate directly with the DEA, which really can't communicate with the Marshal's Service, which never talks to Treasury through modern technology. If we can get these agencies going in the same direction within our own Department of justice, we will have a powerful force to prevent crime, to solve crime, and still protect the privacy of all Americans. We still have much work to do to complete this action, but we are now well on our way toward our own Justice consolidated network.

In overseeing the development of our own consolidated network, I can appreciate the challenges you face in developing and implementing integrated information systems in you jurisdictions. The challenges of working with existing, yet outdated, information systems that are in place; the challenges of strategically planning systems which will take us into the future; the challenges of overcoming traditional "turf' battles between criminal justice agencies which impede the free flow of information; and the challenges of doing all of this on a limited budget stagger the imagination.

Now, more than ever, coordination and cooperation in the criminal justice community is imperative to building a successful and useful crime fighting tools-relating to access information. Why is access to information so important, and why is it so important that we develop a partnership with each other? You know yourselves how urgent it is to have the right information at the right time and place. In your lines of work, lives often depend upon this. When I talk about information sharing, I usually emphasize three aspects, which I believe are critical to the missions of our government organizations and to the effective support of the American people. To me, what is so necessary in our daily business is that we must be able to share information in the most timely, secure, and cost-effective manner possible.

First is the issue of timeliness. The criminal justice community needs the capability of linking information rapidly in order to solve crimes, and more importantly, to prevent crimes. Second, in order for the criminal justice community to share information securely, we need to protect our information from an attack and misuse. Third, since our resources are limited, we must be able to share information in the most cost-effective manner possible. If we are to meet each of these three requirements, it is absolutely necessary that we all work together state, local, and federal criminal justice players-and that we all work with the private sector and other branches of government. That is why I am very supportive of efforts like the California Intergovernmental Coordinating Council, which brings together components of the criminal justice system, including the public defender. These kinds of wholly cooperative efforts are so very important to breaking down the barriers to true integration and to effective communication.

To me, these three aspects of information sharing must be included in any discussion of networking initiatives. Working together, we must be willing to see this kind of sharing as our ultimate goal. We must challenge ourselves to overcome any obstacle that would prevent us from reaching this goal.

Inclosing, I want to thank Government Technology for the opportunity to speak with you today and I want to applaud all of you for your commitment to improving the criminal justice system.

Information sharing in the criminal justice system is the right thing to do. We need to provide our entire community with the ability to access use and share all information necessary to respond to and resolve the consequences of criminal activity. The technology is there for us to do just this. There is a willingness of all the criminal justice agencies to meet this need. There is support for this effort at the highest levels of government. We have talked about such a network capability for a long, long time, and it is now time to do something.

Finally, we need to ensure that our investments in information technology are directed toward common goals of information-sharing, not continued development of systems that don't talk to each other.

I know I'm "preaching to the choir." I also know that there are formidable challenges that must be met for implementation of this information architecture. I encourage you to work together to overcome these and other obstacles you will undoubtedly encounter. I am confident that, working together, we can overcome these and many other challenges that are likely to arise.

I wish I could be there to ask you in person the question that I always try to ask when I meet with groups like you. If you were the Attorney General of the United States, what would you do to improve the networking that is so essential to modern-day crime fighting? How would you address the problems I have discussed today? How can the Department of justice more effectively serve you? Please let me know if you have ideas by writing to me in Washington at the Department of Justice.⁽¹⁾ Your answers from the people in the field on the front lines often provide some of the best solutions.

Thank you for all you are doing.

Article

Legislation: A New Design for Justice Integration
Paul F. Kendall'
Anne F. Gardner"

I General Counsel for the U.S. Department of justice's Office of Justice Programs (OJP); Executive Chairman of OJP's Information Technology Executive Council; Chairman of the Executive Council's Inter-governmental Information Sharing working Group. the intelligence Systems Policy Review Board, and the Privacy Task Force. Mr. Kendall is leading a variety of efforts in developing state and local coordinated information technology programs, and is heading the Intelligence Systems Policy Review Board's examination of legal and public policy issues associated with information sharing. Prior to his arrival at the Office of Justice Programs, Mr. Kendal held positions as Counsel at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and Assistant General Counsel of the Legal Services Corporation, as well as other positions in public and private practice. BA, Columbia College of Columbia University; MBA, University of Maryland; J.D., Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.

II Attorney Advisor for ale U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs under the Attorney General's Honors Program. Ms. Gardner is a member of the Office of justice Programs' Inter-governmental Information Sharing Working Group, Intelligence Systems Policy Review Board and Privacy Task Force, BS, University of Wisconsin at Madison; J.D., Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.

I. INTRODUCTION

Federal crime initiatives play an integral role in supporting state and local criminal justice efforts. The interplay between grant assistance and control, and independent, yet integrated, state and local programs focuses attention on the Federal Government's duty and ability to coordinate information sharing within the criminal justice system.

The information age has mandated a change in the way criminal justice agencies operate. Information sharing technology allows seamless communication between law enforcement courts, prosecutors, public defenders, corrections departments, probation and parole officers, as well as social welfare agencies. As criminal justice components seek to integrate and share information, intricate statewide plans for information architectures are emerging. These courses of events present Congress with a new opportunity to support and encourage coordination in the criminal justice system.

This Article examines the history of federal funding mechanisms that support state and local criminal fighting efforts, discusses the recent integrated information sharing developments among criminal justice components, explains how current federal statutes can be coordinated to support state and local information sharing projects, and explores legislative means by which Congress can improve federal criminal justice assistance for the twenty-first century.

II. ROLE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Since 1968, the Federal Government has endeavored to delineate its role in the fight against crime. Its first organized effort was set forth in the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which created the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) within the United States Department of Justice.(1) In creating the LEAA, Congress recognized that crime control is primarily a state and local effort, but that federal financial support and coordination is necessary. ⁽²⁾ Under the LEAA, the Federal Government formed partnerships with state and local governments, aiding them through grant programs in the reduction of crime and the improvement of the Nation's criminal justice system. ⁽³⁾ Since that time, the Federal Government has maintained financial and coordination assistance to state and local governments through variations of the LEAA. ⁽⁴⁾ Today, the LEAA exists as the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and its five component criminal justice Bureau: the National Institute of Justice (14IJ), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), and the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). ⁽⁵⁾ OJP and the five Bureaus continue the crime-fighting mission of the LEAA by providing assistance to state and local governments through grant programs designed to foster partnerships with law enforcement and criminal justice agencies nationwidc. ⁽⁶⁾ Tic structure of today's OJP is a testament to Congress' endeavors to create an agency for coordinated criminal justice assistance, research, and evaluation while protecting state and local law enforcement autonomy. ⁽⁷⁾

Beginning with thc Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, various crime bills have defined OJP and its initiatives in response to the times. For example, the original crime act was concerned with the riots and civil uprisings of the mid-1960s. ⁽⁸⁾ Accordingly, the LEAA was instructed to give special emphasis to programs addressing riots and other civil disorders. ⁽⁹⁾ By 1974, the federal crime focus turned to juvenile justice with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. ⁽¹⁰⁾ This Act created a specialized juvenile justice bureau within the LEAA. ⁽¹¹⁾ When the LEAA's authorization expired, ⁽¹²⁾ Congress reevaluated the LEAA's crime initiatives and passed the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979. ⁽¹³⁾ The Act reorganized the agency in an effort to foster grant program coordination, to streamline the federal crime assistance grant process, and to increase the emphasis on state and local, rather than federal, justice system problems. ⁽¹⁴⁾

Although the LEAA lost favor with the Carter Administration and was terminated in 1982, ⁽¹⁵⁾ the need to address a growing national violent crime problem revived the concept of the federal agency in 1984. ⁽¹⁶⁾ The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ⁽¹⁷⁾ updated the original 1968 Act with a new set of streamlined and targeted grant processes designed to prevent waste of criminal justice resources and to assure maximum fiscal impact at state and local levels. ⁽¹⁸⁾ The 1984 Act specifically targeted a component of the criminal justice system overlooked in the 1970s: corrections. ⁽¹⁹⁾ The 1984 Act also added new areas of federal criminal justice involvement by amending the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to include missing children provisions in response to increasing multi-jurisdictional child abductions, and including provisions addressing victims' compensation and assistance, known as the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. ⁽²⁰⁾

By 1988, the national crime focus was on multi-jurisdictional drug crime, as evident in the new crime bill entitled the "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. ⁽²¹⁾ Through this Act, Congress provided OJP's Bureau BJA, BJS, and OJJDP- with specific authority to encourage state and local governments to target federal resources on programs for the apprehension and prosecution of drug offenders. ⁽²²⁾ The 1988 Act also provided ongoing support to crime victims by reauthorizing the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 and by establishing a separate office within OJP to address victims' issues. ⁽²³⁾ In 1990, the authority of OJP's Office of Victims of Crime was expanded to include new children's provisions under Title 11 of the Crime Control Act of 1990, known as the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990. ⁽²⁴⁾ The Crime Control Act of 1990 also responded to the growing apprehension of white collar crime initiated by the savings and loan scandals of the late 1980s. ⁽²⁵⁾

The most recent substantive amendments to OJP and the Bureaus' authorities were the Juvenile Justice Act of 1992 and Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. ⁽²⁶⁾ Through these Acts, Congress enhanced the statutory authority of OJP and its Bureaus in response to increased violence by juvenile offenders, violence against women, and the national desire to return to the traditional concept of law enforcement: by returning officers to the community. ⁽²⁷⁾

As in the past, changes in the social and political climate continue to call for Congressional response. Today, the criminal justice system faces new issues related to the explosion in advanced information technology and communications systems. In the criminal justice arena, technology has enabled once ordinary, localized crimes to take on a sophisticated, multi-jurisdictional significance. ⁽²⁸⁾ Criminal sophistication, in combination with the large numbers of crimes committed nationwide, necessitates information sharing and calls for OJP to find programs enabling state and local criminal justice agencies to use new technology to their advantage in addressing criminal justice problems of the "information age." Capabilities of new information sharing technology present Congress with an opportunity to respond to new problems by enabling OJB to assist state and local criminal justice agencies through legislation coordinating the implementation of information technology.

A. Why Information Sharing is Necessary to Success in Today's Criminal Justice System

Traditionally, it was law enforcement's response to organized crime that focused attention on manual or automated systems for gathering, storing, and disseminating information. ⁽²⁹⁾ National networks of criminals communicating within sophisticated organizational structures created the need for law enforcement to share information across state and local lines. ⁽³⁰⁾ Today, information sharing is necessary to deal not only with traditionally multi-jurisdictional crimes, but also with a new kind of criminal sophistication.

Advances in technology have created new kinds of crimes and criminals who keep pace with, if not out-run, new crime fighting.tools. ⁽³¹⁾ It is estimated that by the year 2000, a vast majority of criminals may be computer literate. ⁽³²⁾ Computer literacy among a criminal element begets new opportunities for crime directly related to computer systems, such as software piracy and theft of intangible property, and enables criminals to perpetrate traditional crimes such as theft, embezzlement, gambling, drug trafficking, Child molestation, and child pornography on a wider scale. ⁽³³⁾ Super-sophisticated criminals have even turned technology against law enforcement by using computers, Cellular phones and other devices to gather counterintelligence on law enforcement operations. ⁽³⁴⁾

In addition, the increase in criminal sophistication is exacerbating the chronic problems of today's criminal justice system. ⁽³⁵⁾ Too often, law enforcement officers are frustrated by cumbersome paperwork, lack of automation, and an inability to communicate with neighboring jurisdictions federal law enforcement. ⁽³⁶⁾ Corrections officials face problems of overcrowding and officer safety. ⁽³⁷⁾ Courts and prosecutors juggle mill dockets and struggle to efficiently communicate with law enforcement and with each other? ⁽³⁸⁾ Probation and parole officers battle unreasonable caseloads without an effective means of communicating with social service agencies. ⁽³⁹⁾ In response to these ongoing obstacles, OJB has funded various grant programs, enabling state and local governments to attack systemic problems with technology. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ Criminal justice system components ⁽⁴¹⁾ have individually responded by applying technology to improve their operations and to apprehend increasingly sophisticated criminals. ⁽⁴²⁾

Although the rewards from implementing technology have been substantial in many cases, ⁽⁴³⁾ criminal justice system components are realizing that technology alone, is not the answer. ⁽⁴⁴⁾ Technology of the 1980's and early 1990's, applied for technology's sake, did not fix many of the coordination problems within the criminal justice system. Today, the idea is to improve crime fighting efforts by returning to the "basics" of law enforcement and criminal justice: encouraging communication and interaction of law enforcement within communities, and encouraging cooperation and integration of all criminal justice components. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ The goals include freeing law enforcement from burdensome paperwork arid returning officers to neighborhoods, ⁽⁴⁶⁾ improving speed and accuracy of the judicial process, ⁽⁴⁷⁾ and reducing the rate ofrecidivism. ⁽⁴⁸⁾ To achieve these McGeorge Law Review / Vol. 30 goals in the new information age, components are focusing on the heart of the criminal justice system: information management. ⁽⁴⁹⁾

B. Information Sharing for the Twenty first Centu~Deve1opment of Integrated Criminal Justice Information Architectures

Advances in information sharing technology male "high-tech" sharing capabilities a reality, even to small criminal justice agencies. Such advances enable the entire criminal justice system to benefit from quick criminal identification, increased officer safety, cost savings in processing offenders, increased efficiency in record keeping and administration, enlightened sentencing, and increased public awareness, among other benefits. ⁽⁵⁰⁾ In developing information sharing capabilities, criminal justice components are recognizing that inter-agency communication and sharing are essential to success. ⁽⁵¹⁾ Therefore, the desire is to develop integrated criminal justice information architectures that connect all components, rather than stand atone Systems.

Information architectures, as often described in technical terms, are individualized plans for storing, maintaining, and manipulating information resources. ⁽⁵²⁾ An integrated criminal justice information architecture is somewhat broader in scope. It is a plan for gathering, storing, maintaining, and analyzing information across a varied technological landscape comprised of criminal justice components' existing information systems, whether automated or manual. This information architecture combines the strategies for using information sharing to further criminal justice with the development of information flows, operational uses, connectivity, and system interoperability.

Integrated criminal justice information architectures are beginning to form within state and local criminal justice systems. Many architectures entail city and county cooperation or county and state cooperation, and some entail cooperation at all levels of state and local govemment. ⁽⁵³⁾ Architectures vary in inclusiveness, some connecting only law enforcement agencies, courts, or corrections departments, and some connecting all the criminal justice components at once. ⁽⁵⁴⁾ Variances in the levels of integration can be attributed to the fact that architecture development often requires more than just technical solutions. A successful integrated architecture requires that all components communicate and agree on a human level before technology is applied. ⁽⁵⁵⁾ Certain states have successfully overcome interpersonal, or "turf," obstacles by applying creative, strategic, and technological solutions. States that have achieved degrees of inter-governmental coordination include Colorado, ⁽⁵⁶⁾ Ohio, ⁽⁵⁷⁾ and Pennsylvania, ⁽⁵⁸⁾ among others. ⁽⁵⁹⁾

As state and local governments forge ahead with the development of information sharing architectures, OJP and its Bureaus are presented with an unparalleled opportunity, through the efficient, coordinated, and targeted use of grant funds, to form partnerships to assist state and local governments in the future integration of the criminal justice enterprise. ⁽⁶⁰⁾ Presently, the statutory authority of OJP and its Bureaus allows for information technology grants, training, and technical assistance in support of information sharing projects. ⁽⁶¹⁾ Such statutory authority, however, is programmatically isolated and is scattered throughout the controlling statutes. ⁽⁶²⁾ Although it is possible for OJP and its Bureaus to piece together various statutes to target and coordinate information technology funding, there is no legislation mandating that the agency operate in this manner. A Congressional directive expressly permitting, encouraging, and administratively enabling coordinated information technology grants could substantially increase OJP's effective assistance to state and local governments in this area.

Ill. OJB’s ROLE IN ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION ARCHITECTURES

As a result off finding independent technology projects over the past few years, state and local governments commonly have different computer systems serving the various criminal justice components. These systems were funded by different sources, sometimes from various federal grants, and they are limited to singular purposes. Many of these "stove pipe" systems are incapable of sharing information, and thus, they perpetuate, rather than alleviate, the inefficiency of the criminal justice enterprise. Because current technology permits a level of information sharing that is capable of serving the collective needs of many criminal justice components, it is imperative that the Federal Government uses its funding capabilities to encourage state and local governments to build integrated systems rather than repetitive, overlapping, and non-interoperable systems. ⁽⁶³⁾

To encourage and support the creation of state and local integrated criminal justice systems, OJP and its Bureaus have begun to develop an internal, coordinated grant funding strategy. ⁽⁶⁴⁾ Additionally, to ensure the success in implementation and use of the information architectures, OJI' and its Bureaus must hasten development of a strategy for coordinated training and technical assistance. ⁽⁶⁵⁾

A. Examples of Statutory Authority for Funding Coordination

OJP's generalized basis for a coordinated grant funding strategy is found in over forty of its current statutory provisions that expressly or impliedly authorize the purchase of information technology. ⁽⁶⁶⁾ Each of these statutes provides for and encourages the development of information sharing systems to further the fight against crime. ⁽⁶⁷⁾

Coordination possibilities can be found in many of the OIP and the Bureaus' grant programs that contain complementary purpose areas, especially in providing for and encouraging information sharing. ⁽⁶⁸⁾ For example, under the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Byrne grant program, ⁽⁶⁹⁾ grants are awarded to states and units of local government to improve the criminal justice system by providing personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance and information systems for the more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of persons, and to assist the victims of such crimes. ⁽⁷⁰⁾ Specifically, states may use funds to develop criminal justice information systems to assist police, prosecutors, courts and corrections facilities. ⁽⁷¹⁾ Similarly, OJP, through its Violence Against Women Grant Office, awards grants for programs that provide personnel, training, technical assistance, data collection, and other equipment for die more widespread apprehension, prosecution, and adjudication of persons committing violent crimes against women. ⁽⁷²⁾ Specifically, state and local governments may use funds for developing, installing, or expanding data collection and communication Systems, including computerized systems, linking police, prosecutors, and courts, or for the purpose of identifying and tracking arrests, protection orders, prosecutions, and convictions for violent crimes against women.⁽⁷³⁾ Moreover Office of juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention formula grants can be used fur programs that assist in the design of technology transfer systems to get risk assessments to state juvenile justice personnel to aid them in determining appropriate sanctions for delinquent behavior. ⁽⁷⁴⁾

Each of these grant programs, although generally separate and distinct in its overall purpose area, ⁽⁷⁵⁾ has a common information technology component that allows the creation of an information sharing system between police, courts, prosecutors, and corrections departments. Because there is no express statutory connection between these provisions, OIP and its Bureaus are challenged with developing an internal programmatic strategy whereby the common elements from various grants are used efficiently to permit broad information sharing that benefits all the grantees, rather than restricting grant funds to single purpose systems that are more expensive to build and maintain and that do not facilitate information sharing within the criminal justice enterprise.

Even though grant programs have varied purpose areas, OJP and the Bureaus development of a strategy to internally coordinate information technology grants is not expressly prohibited. In fact, precedent for the coordinating federal funding streams exists, for example, in BJA's Byrne program that requires states, as part of their applications, to submit plans for coordinating the Byrne program funds with their other federally funded programs. ⁽⁷⁶⁾ Such federal funding coordination is also required by the Residential Substance Abuse for State Prisoners grant applications where all applications must include a description of how the funds will be coordinated with federal assistance for substance abuse treatment currently provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ⁽⁷⁷⁾

In some instances, the Bureaus' coordination with each other, with OJB, and with other federal agencies is mandated. For example, Nil, BJS, and OJJDP are required to coordinate efforts in developing and implementing programs in the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention lield. ⁽⁷⁸⁾ OJJDP is required to implement a strategic plan that provides for coordination of joint funding and administrative activities with other federal juvenile delinquency programs, including those funded by HHS. ⁽⁷⁹⁾ Furthermore, one of OJP's primary functions is the overall coordination of the Bureaus' activities. ⁽⁸⁰⁾

The complementarily existing among statutory objectives offers OJP and the Bureau a unique opportunity to reorganize organic processes to coordinate and combine the information technology components of various grant programs. OJP's opportunity, however, may be a defining opportunity for Congress to link systematically these grant capabilities throughout the governing crime statutes and other federal programs. In availing itself oft his opportunity to design new grant strategies, Congress can greatly contribute to developing nationwide information architectures that will provide substantial and lasting benefits to the criminal justice enterprise.

B. Strategy for Technical Assistance and Training

In addition to a coordinated funding strategy, the successful implementation and use of information sharing technology at state and local levels will depend on technical assistance and training. Many state and local governments have sophisticated information networks serving their jurisdictions, while other state and local governments are in more elementary stages of automation. ⁽⁸¹⁾ No matter what level of integration and automation has been achieved within the criminal justice system to date, future success of an integrated criminal justice enterprise requires trained personnel to develop ongoing strategies and to maintain and adapt the technical systems. ⁽⁸²⁾ Technical assistance and training should accompany federal technology grants, so that funds are available not only to create efficient and productive systems, but to ensure their ongoing compatibility with other state, local, and federal systems.

C. Statutory Authority to Provide Computer Equipment, Technical Assistance and Training

Currently, OJP and its Bureaus can fund computer systems, technical assistance, and training at the state and local levels through statutory language providing for computer systems equipment, technical assistance, and general sharing of information. ⁽⁸³⁾

Some statutory language clearly provides for the purchase of computer systems equipment. For example, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women, states that grant funds may be used for developing, installing, or expanding data collection and communication systems, including computerized systems. ⁽⁸⁴⁾ Other statutory language provides for "technical assistance." For example, the Victims of Child Abuse Act states that grants may be given to national organizations to provide technical assistance and training to attorneys and others instrumental to the prosecution of child abuse cases for the purpose of improving the quality of criminal prosecution of such cases. ⁽⁸⁵⁾ Still, other statutory language implies, through its purpose, the need for general information sharing. For example, under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, Drug Courts grants may be made to state and local governments for programs that offer continuing judicial supervision of non-violent offenders and for the integrated administration of other sanctions and services. ⁽⁸⁶⁾

Where the statutes clearly indicate that grant funds can be used to purchase equipment or provide technical assistance and training, these grants may be used to provide necessary support to state and local governments in their development and maintenance of compatible information sharing systems. ⁽⁸⁷⁾ To facilitate effective coordination of the remaining funding streams, however, the "necessary expense doctrine" is the only available method to provide computer systems equipment, technical assistance, or training where it is not authorized by specific statutory language.

The "necessary expense doctrine" embodies the concept that a spending agency has reasonable discretion in determining how to carry out the objects of appropriated funds. ⁽⁸⁸⁾ The rule, as applied, means that where an appropriation is made for a particular purpose, a grantee may incur expenses that are necessary, proper, or incident to the objective of the grant program. ⁽⁸⁹⁾ Technical assistance and training is necessary and logically related to encouraging the development and implementation of integrated information sharing capabilities as directed by a statute. To carry out the object of the statute, grants awarded thereunder may employ the necessary expense doctrine to include training of personnel and technical assistance to the party implementing information sharing technology and to all other parties who are anticipated to participate in the new information sharing capability.

Like the strategy to coordinate funding, discussed above, implementation of training and technical assistance in support of information sharing requires OJB and its Bureau to combine creatively statutory authority and apply vague statutory principles, such as the necessary expense doctrine. One might ask why such statutory contortions should he required. The concept of encouraging coordination within the criminal justice system through coordinating grants to criminal justice components is not new. In fact, coordination within and coordinated assistance to state and local law enforcement was articulated in the 1968 Act. ⁽⁹⁰⁾ Present statutory authority and the Conference Report to the 1998 Appropriations Act ⁽⁹¹⁾ support the underlying concept of program coordination mandated by the 1968 Act. ⁽⁹²⁾ The means of encouraging coordination at state and local levels, however, has grown in a way not contemplated by current legislation, As it has developed, technology has been added piecemeal to the criminal justice statutes, and its use has become practical in the criminal justice systern. ⁽⁹³⁾ Therefore, although current statutes for funding information sharing technology, training, and technical assistance can be pieced together to promote state and local coordination, Congress needs to provide a better map, plan, and funding initiative to move coordinated information technology efforts into the twenty-first century.

IV. LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE TO COORDINATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, TRAINING, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS IN THE TWENTY- FIRST CENTURY

Throughout OJP's history, each crime bill has tackled current criminal justice problems by heeding the directive to coordinate crime fighting efforts at all levels of government and by employing available technology. ⁽⁹⁴⁾ Information exchange to facilitate coordination in 1968, however, was generally limited to paper transfers and telephone communications. ⁽⁹⁵⁾ Ten years later, in 1979, the first specific reference to "automation" was made in the Conference Report regarding court automation through the "PROMI S" system. ⁽⁹⁶⁾ In the agency's 1984 statutory reorganization, information sharing systems language appeared in the BJA and BIS statutes. ⁽⁹⁷⁾ As reflected in these provisions, computer technology was coming of age and was beginning to be implemented as a tool for improvement of the criminal justice system.

By 1988 technology had improved to the point that it could effectively aid law enforcement in its efforts against drug crimes that mandated increased inter-jurisdictional criminal tracking and law enforcement cooperation. Recognizing this fact, Congress' 1988 legislation gave specific statutory authority to the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants for automated regional information sharing systems. ⁽⁹⁸⁾ The Juvenile Justice Amendments of 1992 ⁽⁹⁹⁾ introduced grants for information sharing technology into the juvenile justice statutes, and by 1994, grants in furtherance of information sharing technology pervaded nearly every program area.⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

New criminal justice problems ensuing from the explosion in information and communications technology, and chronic communication problems intensified by such technology, oblige Congress to revisit and reevaluate the needs of the criminal justice system and the capabilities current technology affords criminal justice efforts. Just as LEAA and OJARS needed reorganization to better serve state and local efforts, ⁽¹⁰¹⁾ OJ P's current information technology, training, and technical assistance grants require coordination to eliminate redundancy and duplication of information systems and to foster state and local interoperability nationwide.

A. Enhancing Coordination Through Legislation

Congress can enhance coordination through legislative measures. For example, any hesitance OJP and the Bureaus feel toward participating in internal funding coordination can be eliminated by providing OJP and its Bureaus with express authority to coordinate information sharing technology grants across programmatic lines. For example, by providing express coordination authority, grants for information sharing systems given by OJB's Violence Against Women Grant Office can be used by state and locals in conjunction with BJA's Byrne Grant information technology funding and technology funding from the Office for Victims of Crime to build an integrated system. This integrated system will allow many criminal justice components to interface, while also maintaining information for their programs' distinct purposes.

Through legislation, Congress can create a centralized coordination mechanism, whose primary purpose of which is to coordinate federal information technology grants. This mechanism could also coordinate training and technical assistance packages and develops a clearinghouse for information technology resources for state and local criminal justice components. In creating a coordination mechanism, it must be noted that federal agencies other than OJP have information technology grant authority relating to criminal justice purposes. Ultimately, the success of a fully integrated criminal justice enterprise requires legislative coordination, in total, of these various agencies' grant programs.

Furthermore, Congress can increase the statutory ability of OJP and the Bureaus to encourage integrated systems by appropriating funding for existing statutes which, at this time, remain unfunded. For example, under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, part H provides for community justice grants to encourage the cooperation between and the coordination of resources of prosecutors, school officials, probation officers, youth and social service professionals, and community members.⁽¹⁰²⁾ Although appropriation is authorized in the amount of $10,000,000 in 1998, ⁽¹⁰³⁾ no appropriation has been made by Congress.

Lastly, Congress can ensure the coordinated application of funding by requiring state and local grantees to identify' other criminal justice information technology efforts implemented in their jurisdiction, or neighboring jurisdictions, and to describe their projects' abilities to interface with these efforts and within an integrated architecture. Recently, state and local officials have suggested a return to statewide strategic planning requirements for information technology grant applications.⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ Before such state planning requirements are implemented, however, Congress should review the reasoning behind OJARS 1984 restructuring: streamlining the federal grant process by eliminating over-burdensome state planning requirements.⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ To ensure the timely receipt of grant funds, new legislation should seek to balance effective planning and efficient grant administration.

B. Language of Future Information Technology Legislation

Future legislation in support of information technology for criminal justice agencies is essential to the ability of state and local governments to develop, implement, and maintain integrated criminal justice systems. New legislation, however, must avoid becoming another piece of the legislative puzzle OIP is seeking to complete. Legislation that funds information technology without language that specifically speaks to overall architectural planning at the state, local, and regional levels, and the necessity to use funding in a coordinated fashion at these levels of government, is likely to perpetuate the stove pipe approach to criminal justice technology.

Future legislation should include precise language leading to coordinated funding of information technology and efficient spending of these dollars. It must acknowledge other information technology-funding sources and permit recipients to combine funding for greater utility. It must avoid federal mandates while strongly encouraging state, local, and regional governments to engage in criminal justice integration planning and the development of open architectures. It must openly support interoperability among existing federal, state, and local systems, and strongly discourage development of isolated, yet "locally" integrated, networks. By incorporating these ideas in future legislation, Congress can facilitate new integration, increase the successes of ongoing state and local integration initiatives, and ensure the judicious use of federal dollars in the information technology arena. ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾

V. CONCLUSION

Information and communications technology has changed the face of the criminal justice system. Increases in criminal sophistication require criminal justice components to implement improved information sharing Systems capable of multi-jurisdictional communication. In response to the needs of law enforcement, counts, prosecution, connections, and probation and parole, many states and localities are developing information architectures to facilitate accurate and accessible information sharing across the criminal justice enterprise.

The recent developments in information sharing technologies provide OJP and its Bureaus with an unparalleled opportunity to increase effective state and local crime fighting efforts through grants for integrated information sharing Systems. OJP's ability to assist state and local governments in their criminal justice efforts is impeded, however, by the lack of internal coordination and appropriation of integrated information technology, training and technical assistance statutes.

The opportunity technology has created for OJB may be a defining opportunity for Congress as well. Through legislation, Congress can systematically link federal grant making capabilities, create a point of contact to coordinate information technology grant funding, and encourage state and local architectural planning of information sharing systems. By undertaking such legislation, Congress can contribute to developing a nationwide information architecture that will provide substantial and lasting benefits to the criminal justice enterprise.

APPENDIX A

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MAP

Note: All cites refer to title 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § (1994). Some of the authorizations listed below may not be appropriated. The Executive Council's development of a strategy for coordinated information technology funding, however, presents a rationale for requesting that Congress fund any non-appropriated statutes listed below.

GRANTS TO SHARE INFORMATION BY LINKING STATE AND LOCAL POLICE, COURTS, PROSECUTION, AND CORRECTIONS