Fill and Sign the Room Rental Agreement Pdfelement Form

North Carolina Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot Program Quarterly Report October 2008 North Carolina Office of the State Controller October 1, 2008 Table of Contents I. Background .............................................................................................................. 1 II. Criminal Justice Pilot Program for Wake County ...................................................... 1 II (A). Objectives...................................................................................................... 2 II (B). Summary ...................................................................................................... 2 II (C). Approach ...................................................................................................... 3 II (D). Accomplishments ......................................................................................... 3 II (E). Next Steps .................................................................................................... 8 III. Summary .................................................................................................................. 8 Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 10 A. SESSION LAW 2007-323, HOUSE BILL 1473 ................................................ 10 B. SESSION LAW 2008-107, HOUSE BILL 2436 ................................................ 12 SESSION LAW 2008-118, HOUSE BILL 2438 ................................................ 14 C. Criminal Justice Pilot Program Committee Membership .................................. 15 D. BEACON Program Steering Committee Minutes - September 15, 2008 ......... 17 E. Criminal Justice Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2008 ..... 20 F. Criminal Justice Advisory Committee Report – September 24, 2008 .............. 22 G. Preliminary Report of NC Existing Criminal Justice Applications ..................... 30 ~i~ I. Background BEACON, Building Enterprise Access for NC’s Core Operation Needs, is a statewide collaborative effort to transform the business in North Carolina by modernizing and standardizing key business processes. Under the BEACON umbrella of enterprise services the BEACON Data Integration Program has emerged with the support from Session Law 2007-323, House Bill 1473, (Appendix A) the development of a Strategic Plan for Statewide Data Integration and the ratification of Session Law 2008-107, House Bill 2436 (Appendix B). The BEACON Data integration program’s goal is to provide a statewide framework that enables agencies with enterprise analytical capabilities for improved decision making. The plan suggests senior leadership champion a cultural shift which promotes data sharing and encouraged business leaders to become stewards rather than owners of the State’s data assets. Data integration’s foundation is based upon the merging and reconciliation of dispersed data for analytical purposes through the use of standardized tools to support quick, agile, event-driven analysis for business. In short, its mission is to transform data into meaningful information for business decisions. In early 2008 the State was saddened with the unfortunate deaths of two university students. This much publicized event brought to the forefront the number of disparate data sources and lack of integration across the criminal justice continuum. In response to these events and in alignment with the BEACON Data Integration Strategic Plan, the General Assembly directed the Office of the State Controller, in cooperation with the State Chief Information Officer, and under the governance of the BEACON Project Steering Committee, to develop and implement a Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot Program in Wake County. This pilot project’s goal is to provide criminal justice professionals with access to timely, complete, and accurate information for enhanced decision making. This report summarizes the Wake County Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot Program activities following the ratification of Session Law 2008-107, House Bill 2436. II. Criminal Justice Pilot Program for Wake County Session Law 2008-107, House Bill 2436 recognized criminal justice’s urgent need for upto-date integrated data and directed the establishment of a framework which promotes the sharing of information. H.B. 2436 further directed the aforementioned parties to implement a pilot program in Wake County. The pilot is to provide integrated up-to-date criminal information in a centralized location via a secure connection for use by State and local government. 1 The legislation identified an Advisory Committee, a collaborative team of criminal justice professionals to work together with state and local criminal justice agencies in the identification of the informational needs, the development of a plan of action and implementation of a secure integrated application for information sharing of criminal justice and corrections data. II (A). Objectives The objective of the data integration criminal justice pilot program for Wake County is to identify the criminal justice informational needs and develop a solution that is scalable for use by State and local criminal justice professionals. II (B). Summary The criminal justice continuum is complex with multiple rules and decisions points. The following process map developed by US Department of Justice reflects the complexity associated with case flow. This map serves as an example of the number of decision points within the criminal justice work flow. Along each path, decisions are made where information delivery is critical to ensuring public safety. To support this process multiple systems and applications are being utilized and as a result multiple layers of disparate data exist at the federal, state and local levels. 2 The Criminal Justice Pilot Program for Wake County’s mission is to integrate the disparate criminal justice data into meaningful information which can be employed when making informed decisions related to the health and safety of citizens. II (C). Approach The criminal justice pilot program development includes the: Analysis of the business issues and data/informational needs Analysis of the data available and the associated data quality and use requirements Analysis and design of the technical infrastructure Development of a proposed strategy and detailed work plan Design development and implementation. The following Committees are collaborating to support the Criminal Justice Pilot Program. (Appendix C) BEACON Program Steering Committee Criminal Justice Advisory Committee Criminal Justice Pilot Program Working Group II (D). Accomplishments Business Analysis 1. Established a Criminal Justice Community of Interest To aid in the successful implementation of the data integration initiative, the BEACON Strategic Plan for Data Integration recommended the establishment of a Communities of Interest that is comprised of stakeholders familiar with the strategic mission of a particular focus area and attuned to its issues and needs. It is intended that this group, or a subset of such, will partner with technical experts to develop solutions that make data visible, accessible and understandable. The Criminal Justice Community of Interest has begun to emerge and will continue to develop as the project follows a standard development life cycle. Currently the Criminal Justice Community of Interest has multiple levels of representation ranging from senior leadership to subject matter experts. This community is comprised of the BEACON Data Integration Steering Committee, the Advisory Committee to the Criminal Justice Pilot Program and a Subject Matter Working Group. The BEACON Data Integration Steering Committee is comprised of senior leadership within State Government. This Committee provides guidance and policy direction in the development of enterprise solutions. Minutes from the Committee meetings can be found in Appendix D. The Advisory Committee to the Criminal Justice Pilot Program is a team of experts familiar with the business issues that relate to decision making across the criminal 3 justice continuum. This committee has been directed to identify the informational needs, develop a plan of action and implement of a secure integrated application for information sharing of criminal justice and corrections data. The Criminal Justice Pilot Program Working group is a team of State business and technical experts that demonstrates proficiency in the current criminal justice applications. This team will provide insight into existing applications, data characteristics, accessibility, and security requirements. This working team has met individually with the data integration project manager, and supplied technical documentation. 2. Business Issue Analysis Colon Willoughby, Chair of the Advisory Committee, assembled a team of criminal justice professionals in accordance with Session Law 2008-107, House Bill 2436. The initial goal of this committee was to identify the business issues and information weakness across their business processes. The committee members met as a team and within separate discussion groups to evaluate their business needs. Minutes of the initial meeting are located in Appendix E. On September 25, 2008 the Advisory Committee submitted a preliminary report that documented the business needs of criminal justice professionals. (Appendix F). The Criminal Justice Data Integration Project Initial Report of the Advisory Committee established that all participating agencies have a common need for following information: Positive Offender ID Comprehensive, easy to read Criminal History Outstanding warrants and orders for arrest Probation status Juvenile offense history Domestic Violence Protective Order status Sex offender status Immigration status The report further recommended that the information be delivered through two different methods; a single portal for all offender information (single offender search) and a messaging function that provides an offender watch/notification case management process. The watch/notification concept includes the ability to trigger a message to a criminal justice professional in the event that their person of interest has had an encounter within the criminal justice system. 4 3. Identification of Current Criminal Justice Activities Within the State, local and federal levels, criminal justice information systems are undergoing improvements and strategic planning efforts. To understand the impact of these activities a high level review has been conducted. In addition to the effort, a working group, comprised of subject matter experts, has begun to document the State’s existing applications and data use requirements. (Appendix G). This information, combined with the review of the State’s current or planned activities, will be used to analyze the needs and define the criminal justice scope of work. NC Initiatives Related to Data Sharing: a. Wake County is currently reviewing their business processes associated with the transportation and flow of defendants throughout court operations. An outcome of this analysis includes the documentation of process and information work flows. The criminal justice pilot program intends to leverage this work during the project’s planning and design effort. b. The State Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) is currently piloting NCAWARE, an on-line warranting application that when fully implemented will offer an up to date statewide warrant information system. The Advisory Committee has acknowledged the value of this application and its ability to aggregate the State’s warrant data. c. The Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC) has successfully implemented SAVAN a Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) modules that are used to manage victim notifications to provide information about an offender. Realizing that the information contained within this network could benefit criminal justice professionals, the GCC has piloted SAVAN IJIS. This pilot project is available to five counties and provides access to jail, prison probation and access to national data on offender movement. GCC is considering the expansion of SAVAN IJIS to include the sharing of local records management system (RMS) on a statewide basis. d. In April 2008 the North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board (CJIN) Report to the Legislature summarized their activities to date and future plans. Within this report CJIN identified the need to refresh their 1995 list of objectives to align with technology and standards changes that have occurred. They acknowledge some activities outlined within the original charter have become outdated with the advent of new opportunities. To this effort the CJIN Executive Director has begun to examine other states applications, and federal standards associated with the sharing of criminal justice information nationally. e. The SBI is working in conjunction with Nlets to standardize criminal history record information at a national level. This initiative, CHIEF, Criminal History Information Exchange Format, leverages the efforts of federal and state agencies to standardize shared data throughout the United States. 5 4. National Data Sharing Approaches: Many states have integrated data to improve their delivery of information for criminal justice. The approach taken in developing solutions is varied; some have followed a long-term strategic plan, while others have developed solutions in response to a particular event. For each state, the solution developed has been tailored to the state’s specific business needs. The follow examples reflect the variety of approaches taken within a few states. In District of Columbia there was an inherent need to develop a case management system which supported offender management. As such, the courts services and offender supervision agency developed an integrated application which pulls data from court hearings, dispositions and sentences; nightly police booking reports; prison release schedules; disciplinary actions; drug testing and treatment participation; DNA; and other disparate data sources. The offender management system aggregates information into a user friendly view that case workers can use to track and gauge the progress individuals are making in the reintegration with the community. With this data, the case workers are able to develop better, more appropriate treatment plans. Florida lacked a real-time capability to provide judges current and complete sentencing reports during the initial appearance. This lack of information was highlighted with the abduction of a child, by a previously known sex offender. To remedy this problem, data is compiled virtually, and returned in an unobtrusive electronic mechanism that captures accurate and complete detainee information. This solution provides the courts system with the real-time information necessary for presentencing. Pennsylvania’s JNET has been under development since 1998. It’s mission is to develop a strategic vision for the sharing of electronic information between justice and justice affiliated agencies. Through very strong governance, the appropriate funding and both gubernatorial and executive sponsorship JNET has been successful in building an infrastructure which provides for a standardized exchange of information. The J-Net design has been built based upon a strategic plan. Pennsylvania’s JNET connects over 33,000 authorized practitioners throughout the Commonwealth’s sixty-seven counties to critical information from various contributing municipal, county, state, and federal agencies. Information systems connected to JNET benefit from the JNET data exchange and messaging capabilities, while JNET users benefit from over fifty secure criminal justice and public safety applications. These applications include access to the Pennsylvania State Police, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Department of Welfare, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Juvenile Court Judges Commission, as well as many additional inquiry sources. 6 Technical Infrastructure Development 1. Leverage Enterprise Tools Session Law 2008-107, House Bill 2436, Section 6.8.(c) 4, states ―To conduct integration activities as approved by the BEACON Project Steering Committee. The State Chief Information Officer shall utilize current enterprise licensing to implement these integration activities.‖ In accordance with this directive, the State CIO has reviewed the existing enterprise licensing and recommended that the existing SAS enterprise license be expanded to include the judicial branch. The BEACON Steering Committee agreed with this approach and authorized the SCIO and Deputy Director of AOC to negotiate with SAS institute for the procurement of the necessary licenses to serve the judicial branch and come to an understanding of the scope of services SAS would provide at no cost to the State. 2. Engage Vendor for Software Development The BEACON Steering Committee reviewed the business needs presented by the Advisory Committee for the Criminal Justice Pilot. The SCIO examined the Advisory Committee’s high-level needs assessment and determined that the State’s enterprise licensed software could be leveraged to support much, if not all, of the business requirements currently identified. During the September 25th BEACON Steering Committee meeting the State Controller stressed that the unfortunate deaths of two university students brought to the forefront an urgency upon which the State needs to act, and stated that it is imperative to the safety of our citizens that criminal justice professionals have easy access to accurate criminal justice and corrections information. The Committee agreed that the Legislative Act required the BEACON Steering Committee to take immediate action. The State Controller stated that SAS had been approached by legislative leadership and is willing to provide the necessary services, software and top developers in support of the effort. Following discussion, the BEACON Program Steering Committee agreed to approach SAS Institute on the development of the enterprise software tools in support of the Wake County Data Integration Pilot Project for Criminal Justice in order to meet the legislative mandate that ―a vendor be selected by October 1, 2008‖. The SCIO, representatives from ITS and AOC have entered into discussions with SAS on the terms and conditions of an amendment to the existing Enterprise Licensing Agreement (ELA). As part of these negotiations SAS has offered to provide the services for this project at no cost to the State. It is anticipated that an agreement with the vendor and the State will be reached in a timely manner consistent with the legislative mandate. 7 II (E). Next Steps Business Analysis 1. Information Analysis The Criminal Justice Pilot Program Working Group will conduct an analysis of the criminal justice applications and document the data flow and data characteristics. 2. Perform GAP Analysis A review of the business needs combined with associated data available will be conducted. This GAP analysis will identify the information which is currently available and identify the information needed to conduct business. 3. Develop the Scope of Work The working group and vendor will collaborate to develop the scope of work for the Criminal Justice Pilot Program. Infrastructure Development 1. Technical Platform The vendor, SCIO, representatives from ITS and AOC will assess the Wake County Criminal Justice Pilot’s technical infrastructure needs. Once confirmed, they will scope a solution, develop a plan of action, and implement the infrastructure needed to stand up the criminal justice pilot. III. Summary The criminal justice and corrections agencies are contending with massive amounts of data which is not easily accessible by all members of these agencies. A review of the business operations at the Wake County Courthouse revealed the complexity involved in accessing, reviewing and understanding information about an offender. In many instances multiple systems and screens are utilized to understand a person of interest’s history. This is compounded by the need to match individual’s information across records with similar names and/or patterns of information. 8 Many of the existing systems storing and managing criminal justice information are old and may be considered for replacement in the near future. In some cases the information is available through a green screen format while in other instances continuous feed paper provides supporting information. The Criminal Justice Data Integration Program will focus on developing a secure flow of information that integrates existing data for reporting, analysis and/or predictive modeling. During discussions with the Advisory Committee and the CJIN Board it was noted that the most recent comprehensive strategic analysis of the criminal justice system’s improvement dates back to the mid- 1990’s. Consistent with the legislative desire to enhance the State’s ability to access the criminal justice and correction data through a centralized secure system, the Committee will work to develop an updated criminal justice strategic plan which considers current technologies, federal initiatives and mandates, and the need for improved integration. 9 Appendix A. SESSION LAW 2007-323, HOUSE BILL 1473 AN ACT TO MAKE BASE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR CURRENT OPERATIONS OF STATE DEPARTMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, AND AGENCIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BEACON DATA INTEGRATION SECTION 6.8.(a) The Office of the State Controller, in cooperation with the State Chief Information Officer, shall develop a Strategic Implementation Plan for the integration of databases and the sharing of information among State agencies and programs. This plan shall be developed and implemented under the governance of the BEACON Project Steering Committee and in conjunction with leadership in State agencies and with the support and cooperation of the Office of State Budget and Management. This plan shall include the following: (1) Definition of requirements for achieving statewide data integration. (2) An implementation schedule to be reviewed and adjusted by the General Assembly annually based on funding availability. (3) Priorities for database integration, commencing with the integration of databases that the BEACON Project Steering Committee identifies as most beneficial in terms of maximizing fund availability and realizing early benefits. (4) Identification of current statewide and agency data integration efforts and a long-term strategy for integrating those projects into this effort. (5) Detailed cost information for development and implementation, as well as five years of operations and maintenance costs. While it is the intent that this initiative provide broad access to information across State government, the plan shall comply with all necessary security measures and restrictions to ensure that access to any specific information held confidential under federal and State law shall be limited to appropriate and authorized persons. SECTION 6.8.(b) The State Controller shall serve as Chairman of the BEACON Project Steering Committee (Committee). The other members of the Committee shall include the State Chief Information Officer, the State Personnel Director, the Deputy State Budget Director, and the Department of Transportation's Chief Financial Officer. SECTION 6.8.(c) Of the funds appropriated from the General Fund to the North Carolina Information Technology Fund, the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the 2007-2008 fiscal year shall be used for BEACON data integration as provided by subsection (a) of this section. The Office of the State Controller, in coordination with State agencies and with the support of the Office of State Budget and Management, shall identify and make all efforts to secure any federal matching funds or other resources to assist in funding this initiative. Funds authorized in this section may be used for the following purposes: (1) To support the cost of a project manager to conduct the activities outlined herein reportable to the Office of the State Controller. (2) To support two business analysts to provide support to the program manager and agencies in identifying requirements under this program. (3) To engage a vendor to develop the Strategic Implementation Plan as required herein. 10 (4) To conduct integration activities as approved by the BEACON Project Steering Committee. The State Chief Information Officer shall utilize current enterprise licensing to implement these integration activities. SECTION 6.8.(d) The Office of the State Controller, with the assistance of the State Chief Information Officer, shall present the Strategic Implementation Plan outlined by this section to the 2007 Regular Session of the General Assembly when it convenes in 2008 for action as deemed appropriate. This plan shall be completed not later than April 30, 2008. Prior to the reconvening of the 2007 Regular Session of the General Assembly in 2008, the Office of the State Controller shall provide semiannual reports to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee for Information Technology. Written reports shall be submitted not later than October 1, 2007, and April 1, 2008, with presentations of the reports at the first session of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology following the written report submission date. The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology shall then report to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations. SECTION 6.8.(e) Neither the development of the Strategic Information Plan nor the provisions of this section shall place any new or additional requirements upon The University of North Carolina or the North Carolina Community College System. Ratified July 31, 2007 11 B. SESSION LAW 2008-107, HOUSE BILL 2436 AN ACT TO MODIFY THE CURRENT OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2007, TO AUTHORIZE INDEBTEDNESS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND TO MAKE VARIOUS TAX LAW AND FEE CHANGES. CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA INTEGRATION PILOT PROGRAM SECTION 6.15.(a) The General Assembly finds that the State's Uniform Crime Reporting technology is based on procedures developed in the 1930s and a design plan developed in the late 1980s. Based on recent unfortunate events, it is abundantly clear that the State must establish a framework for sharing critical information, and the framework must be implemented as soon as possible. With improved access to timely, complete, and accurate information, the members of the General Assembly, leadership in State and local law enforcement agencies, law enforcement officers, and everyone working in the criminal justice system can enhance their ability to make decisions on behalf of the people of the State, with fewer decisions based on instinct or guesswork. The General Assembly further finds that the April 2008 Beacon Report on a Strategic Plan for Data Integration recommends the development and implementation of a Crime Reporting Re-Design Project, a statewide crime analysis system designed to save time, save money, and save lives. SECTION 6.15.(b) The Office of the State Controller, in cooperation with the State Chief Information Officer, and under the governance of the BEACON Project Steering Committee, shall by May 1, 2009, develop and implement a Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot Program in Wake County in cooperation and communication with the advisory committee established pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and the leadership of State and local agencies. This pilot program shall integrate and provide up-to-date criminal information in a centralized location via a secure connection for use by State and local government. The pilot program vendor shall be selected by October 1, 2008. While it is the intent that this initiative provide a broad new access to information across State government, the plan shall comply with all necessary security measures and restrictions to ensure that access to any specific information held confidential under federal and State law shall be limited to authorized persons. SECTION 6.15.(c) The Advisory Committee to the Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot program is hereby established. The Advisory Committee shall consist of the following members: (1) The District Attorney for Prosecutorial District 10, who shall serve as chair. (2) The senior resident superior court judge for Superior Court Districts 10A through 10D. (3) A Wake County magistrate designated by the senior resident superior court judge. (4) The Clerk of Superior Court of Wake County. (5) The sheriff of Wake County. (6) The judicial district manager for District 10 of the Division of Community Corrections. (7) The chief court counselor for District Court District 10. (8) The president of Duke University and the chancellor of The University of North Carolina, or their designees. 12 SECTION 6.15.(d) The Advisory Committee, the Department of Justice, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Department of Correction, the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, the Department of Transportation, and local law enforcement agencies shall fully cooperate with the Office of the State Controller and the State Chief Information Officer, under the guidance of the BEACON Steering Committee, to identify the informational needs, develop a plan of action, provide access to data, and implement secure integrated applications for information sharing of criminal justice and corrections data. SECTION 6.15.(e) Of the funds appropriated in this act, the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) may be used to support the Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot Program. Other funds available to BEACON may also be used for this purpose. The Office of the State Controller, with the support of the Office of State Budget and Management, shall identify and make all efforts to secure any matching funds or other resources to assist in funding this initiative. SECTION 6.15.(f) The Office of the State Controller, with the support of the Advisory Committee and the State Chief Information Officer, shall provide a written report of the plan's implementation progress to the House of Representatives and Senate Appropriations Committees, to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology, and to the Fiscal Research Division on a quarterly basis beginning October 1, 2008. BEACON DATA INTEGRATION SECTION 6.16.(a) The Office of the State Controller, in cooperation with the State Chief Information Officer, shall begin implementation of the Beacon Strategic Plan for Data Integration, issued in April 2008. This plan shall be implemented under the governance of the BEACON Project Steering Committee and in conjunction with leadership in appropriate State agencies and with the support and cooperation of the Office of State Budget and Management. While it is the intent that this initiative provide broad access to information across State government, the plan shall comply with all necessary security measures and restrictions to ensure that access to any specific information held confidential under federal and State law shall be limited to appropriate and authorized persons. SECTION 6.16.(b) The State Controller shall serve as the Chairman of the BEACON Project Steering Committee. The other members of the committee shall be the State Chief Information Officer, the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Correction, the Administrative Officer of the Courts, the State Budget Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Transportation. SECTION 6.16.(c) Of the funds appropriated from the General Fund to the North Carolina Information Technology Fund, the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the 2008-2009 fiscal year shall be used for BEACON data integration as provided by subsection (a) of this section. Funds to support this activity shall also be the unexpended balance from the funds appropriated for BEACON/Data Integration Funds in Section 5.3(b) of S.L. 2007-323. The Office of the State Controller, with the support of the Office of State Budget and Management, shall identify and make all efforts to secure any matching funds or other resources to assist in funding this initiative. SECTION 6.16.(d) Funds authorized in this section may be used for the following purposes: (1) To support the cost of a project manager to conduct the activities outlined herein reportable to the Office of the State Controller. (2) To support two business analysts to provide support to the program manager and agencies in identifying requirements under this program. (3) To establish a Business Intelligence Competency Center (BICC), a collaborative organization comprised of both technical and business 13 stakeholders, to support and manage the business need for analytics through the development of standards and best practices. (4) To engage a vendor to implement the Strategic Implementation Plan as required herein. (5) To conduct integration activities as approved by the BEACON Project Steering Committee. The State Chief Information Officer shall use current enterprise licensing to implement these integration activities. SECTION 6.16.(e) Prior to the convening of the 2009 General Assembly, the Office of the State Controller shall provide semiannual reports to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee for Information Technology. Written reports shall be submitted not later than October 1, 2008, and April 1, 2009, with presentations of the reports at the first session of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology following the written report submission date. The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology shall then report to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations. SECTION 6.16.(f) Neither the implementation of the Strategic Information Plan nor the provisions of this section shall place any new or additional requirements upon The University of North Carolina or the North Carolina Community College System. Ratified July 16, 2008 SESSION LAW 2008-118, HOUSE BILL 2438 AN ACT TO MAKE TECHNICAL, CLARIFYING, AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE STATE BUDGET. SECTION 2.3. Section 6.16(b) of S.L. 2008-107 reads as rewritten: "SECTION 6.16.(b) The State Controller shall serve as the Chairman of the BEACON Project Steering Committee. The other members of the committee shall be the State Chief Information Officer, the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Correction, the Administrative Officer of the Courts, the State Budget Officer, the Secretary of Administration, and the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Transportation." Ratified July 18, 2008 14 C. Criminal Justice Pilot Program Committee Membership BEACON Program Data Integration Steering Committee Agency Representatives Office of the State Controller Office of Information Technology Services Secretary of Corrections Department of Administration Department of Transportation Department of the State Treasurer North Carolina Department of Justice Office of State Budget Administrative Officer of the Courts David McCoy, State Controller – Committee Chair George Bakolia, State Chief Information Officer Theodis Beck, Secretary Britt Cobb, Secretary of Administration Mark Foster, Chief Financial Officer Richard Moore, State Treasurer Robin Pendergraft, Director, State Bureau of Investigations Charlie Perusse, State Budget Officer Gregg Stahl, Senior Deputy Director Advisory Committee Representatives Colon Willoughby, Wake County District Attorney - Committee Chair th Maggie Brewer, 10 Judicial District Manager, Division of Community Corrections Howard Cummings, Wake County Assistant District Attorney N. Lorrin Freeman, Clerk of Superior Court, Wake County Barker French, appointee representing President of Duke University Sheriff Donnie Harrison, Wake County Sheriff’s Office th Diane Isaacs, Acting 10 Judicial District Manager, Division of Community Corrections th Tim Montgomery, Chief Juvenile Court Counselor, 10 Judicial District th Judge Robert Rader, Chief District Court Judge, 10 Judicial District th Judge Donald Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, 10 Judicial District th Magistrate Judge Gary Wills, Chief Magistrate Judge, 10 Judicial District Chris Creech, Information Technology Manager for the Wake Co., Sheriff's Office Professor Joe Kennedy, University of North Carolina 15 Collaborative Agencies Representation Department of Justice Administrative Office of the Courts Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Department of Correction Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Department of Transportation Local Law Enforcement Agencies Working Group of Subject Matter Experts Representatives Wyatt Pettengill, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations Eugene Vardaman, Executive Director CJIN Governing Board Debbie Allen, NC SAVAN Coordinator, North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission Cindy Cousins, Application Systems Manager, North Carolina Department of Corrections Gary Kearney, Interim Chief Information Officer, North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Cliff Layman, Chief Information Officer, Administrative Office of the Courts-Technology Services 16 D. BEACON Program Steering Committee Minutes - September 15, 2008 BEACON Data Integration/Wake County Criminal Justice Pilot Monday, September 15, 2008 Office of State Personnel – 3rd floor Conference Room Meeting Minutes Data Integration Governing Board Members Present: David McCoy, Chair George Bakolia Mark Foster Charles Perusse Robin Pendergraft Gregg Stahl Guests: Tom Newsome Gwen Canady David Jones Carol Burroughs Dennis Patterson Colon Willoughby Britt Cobb Theodis Beck Debbie Allen The BEACON Data Integration Steering Committee held its first regular meeting on Monday, September 15, 2008 in the Office of State Personnel’s Conference Room, Administration Building. State Controller David McCoy convened the initial meeting of this committee at 9:00 a.m. and welcomed all in attendance. The first order of business involved a discussion of the governance structure for the BEACON Data Integration Steering Committee. David McCoy reported that Gwen Canady had conversations with FRD staff and it was determined that the legislative intent was to leave in place the BEACON governing body for the BEACON ERP Initiative. It will continue to direct the activities associated with the HR/Payroll and Financial Systems implementation. He also reported that the Legislature created the BEACON Data Integration Steering Committee in S.L. 2008, HB 2436. This steering group’s legislative mandate is the successful implementation of data integration initiatives. Committee members indicated that this was reasonable and there was no objection to proceeding under this understanding. David McCoy summarized the BEACON Data Integration directive set forth in S.L. 2007-323, H.B. 1473; S.L. 2008-107, H.B. 2436, 2008-118, H.B.2438 and the Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot Program set forth in S.L. 2008-107, B.B. 2436. 17 The Strategic Plan for Data Integration defines data integration as the capability of merging and reconciling dispersed data for analytical purposes through the use of standardized tools to support quick, agile, event-driven analysis for business. The plan focuses on starting small, focusing strategically and growing incrementally. With regards to criminal justice, Appendix 4A notes the need for a Uniform Crime Reporting Repository. The SBI has begun to address the challenges associated with this project through collaboration with SAS, which has delivered a comprehensive plan to design, implement and maintain the new system. Carol Burroughs reported that many states are approaching the needs for data integration based upon their business needs. Some states have taken a long term strategic approach while others have targeted specific business problems. Ms. Burroughs reported on Pennsylvania’s long term strategic plan which evolved into a uniformed approach to the sharing of justice information. Specifically Pennsylvania has developed J-Net a criminal justice public safety portal that allows information to be shared with public safety partners. It connects 33,000 practitioners in 67 counties. George Bakolia noted that the success of their system can be attributed to a plan that originated with the Governor’s executive order, proper funding, and a clear mandate. The District of Columbia’s project, CSOCA monitors and supervises nearly 20,000 offenders annually. Through data collections and the warehousing of information on a common platform, business intelligence and data analytics are being used to monitor and provide performance management reporting and an early warning portal to support offender supervision. Florida has many different applications that share information. Within their court applications a solution was developed in response to the Jessica Lumsford Act which required a comprehensive sexual criminal history be available at the initial appearance to all judicial courts. Florida courts have access to intelligence that provides a sex offender risk assessment based upon prior offenses and infractions. District Attorney, Colon Willoughby, expressed his concern for easily accessible and upto-date criminal information. He reported that the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee met twice to discuss their needs and is now in the process of compiling a summary document. He is hopeful once this document is produced the Steering committee would act expeditiously towards implementation of data integration efforts that can be implemented as quickly as possible. Gregg Stahl noted that a special provision was passed that requires the flow of information to DCI on a daily basis. Robin Pendergraft stated that the federal systems are the eyes and ears of the criminal justice community. It may be possible to branch out on the existing network to support integration. 18 Concern was shared by many members of the Committee that existing systems may provide the information needed to support the judges and magistrates in understanding the offender’s background. It was suggested that a team of business and technical subject matter experts convene to evaluate the business problems and recommend possible solutions. Each member agreed to identify and provide a resource person to work with Carol Burroughs. It was also suggested that a comprehensive inventory of all applications that currently exist be complied. Carol Burroughs will be in contact with each committee member to begin the inventory compilation and the assembly of a working group. George Bakolia noted that the most effective approach to developing an integrated justice network is to develop a long term plan that have funding and the proper resources to continue to build a single integrated law enforcement network. Mr. Bakolia explained the State currently has an enterprise licensing agreement with SAS for unlimited use of all of their products for a flat fee. The contract currently covers the executive branch of government but could be extended to include the judicial branch. George noted that it would be best to enter into discussions sooner rather than later to include the justice branch. Gregg Stahl agreed to work with ITS to explore the SAS licensing to support the judicial branch. A motion was made by Secretary Beck and seconded by Mark Foster to authorize the State Controller to obtain the necessary personnel to assist with the operations of this project. Members of the Committee were asked to hold the date of Thursday September 25, 2008 for a follow-up meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30am. 19 E. Criminal Justice Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – August 19, 2008 Criminal Justice Data Integration Advisory Committee Meeting Tuesday August 19, 2008 Wake County Courthouse- 10th floor TCA Conference Room Attendees: Colon Willoughby, Wake County District Attorney, Committee Chair Carol Burroughs, Program Director, Beacon Data Integration, Office of State Controller Maggie Brewer, 10th Judicial District Manager, Division of Community Corrections Howard Cummings, Wake County Assistant District Attorney Barker French, appointee representing President of Duke University Sheriff Donnie Harrison, Wake County Sheriff’s Office Diane Isaacs, Acting 10th Judicial District Manager, Division of Community Corrections Tim Montgomery, Chief Juvenile Court Counselor, 10th Judicial District Judge Robert Rader, Chief District Court Judge, 10th Judicial District Judge Donald Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, 10th Judicial District Magistrate Judge Gary Wills, Chief Magistrate Judge, 10th Judicial District Chairman Colon Willoughby convened the initial meeting of this advisory committee at 12:35 p.m. Mr. Willoughby began by explaining the budget provision that created this committee. He indicated that five million dollars had been allocated to create a pilot project in Wake County that would improve the sharing of information among criminal justice agencies. Mr. Willoughby informed the group that there were several deadlines generated by the General Assembly that would require that the group work diligently over the next few weeks and months. Specifically, he pointed out that the vendor for the pilot project was to be selected by the Office of State Controller by October 1, 2008 and that the project was to implemented by May 1, 2009. Mr. Willoughby then turned the meeting over to Carol Burroughs who he introduced as a project director for the pilot. Ms. Burroughs explained that the criminal justice data integration pilot project was the most recent project in a series of projects focused on sharing information between state agencies that were being completed under the direction of a strategic business plan developed by the BEACON Data Integration Program in conjunction with the State Controller’s Office and the State Chief Information Officer. Ms. Burroughs indicated that the purpose of the advisory committee was to determine what the information needs of the criminal justice actors were. She asked the committee to discuss what they saw as the greatest needs in the area of technology at this time for their offices. Howard Cummings stated that he believed a lot of information was being collected at various points and by different agencies within the criminal justice system that would be helpful to prosecutors in making decisions. He expressed concern that the information was being stored in different data systems. He explained how seeking information on an offender from multiple systems is cumbersome. He stated that a local committee called the Criminal Justice Operations Committee (CJOC) had been working for over a year at tackling the problem of comparing data in different systems. He emphasized that that committee could provide an important starting point for this project. Mr. Cummings invited Ms. Burroughs to attend the next CJOC meeting. 20 Mr. Barker French said that a local group in Durham County had also been working on issues of information sharing between criminal justice agencies. He encouraged the group to look at these local projects as well as at the work done by the Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN). Sheriff Harrison expressed concern that his officers and other law enforcement do not have ready access to information about offenders who they stop. He stated that his officers had to check multiple systems to determine if there are outstanding warrants on an individual. He said that he worries that an officer involved in a traffic stop might inadvertently let an offender who is wanted go because he does not know the offender has an outstanding warrant. Lorrin Freeman stated that she believed it was important to approach this project with a framework of looking at decision making points within the criminal justice system and determining what information is needed to make sound decisions. For example, she said the committee should consider what information would a magistrate need when setting conditions of release; what information would a prosecutor need when determining whether to offer a plea to a reduced charge; and what information at judge would need at sentencing. Ms. Freeman also indicated that other states had begun data integration projects and encouraged the committee to learn from these other jurisdictions. Ms. Freeman also warned that information overload should be avoided and that the committee might consider proposing the creation of a risk matrix that would allow easy synthesis of the information provided. Magistrate Wills indicated that it was his understanding that SAS would be working on the project. Ms. Burroughs stated that the State Controller’s Office had been working with SAS on other data integration projects but that the determination of whether SAS would be the vendor for the project had not been finalized. Magistrate Wills expressed concern that NCAWARE which is the most recent magistrate system being developed by AOC was not operating as well as anticipated in its pilot in Johnston County. Ms. Burroughs turned the committee’s attention to the handout that included an individual assessment for each office. She encouraged the committee to consider their individual needs prior to the next meeting. She stated that the BEACON Steering Committee would meet on September 23, 2008 and that she would like to report to them the committee’s progress. It was agreed that the committee should meet again on Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned. 21 F. Criminal Justice Advisory Committee Report – September 24, 2008 Criminal Justice Data Integration Project Initial Report of the Advisory Committee Section 16.5 of S.L. 2008-107 established the Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot Program for the purpose of delivering timely, complete and accurate information to law enforcement and those working within the criminal justice system in order to improve their ability to make decisions that impact public safety. Pursuant to this legislation, an advisory committee was established for the purpose of identifying the informational needs of criminal justice professionals. The Advisory Committee of the Criminal Justice Data Integration Pilot program consists of the Wake County District Attorney, the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge for the 10th Judicial District, the Chief District Court Judge for the 10th Judicial District, the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court, a Wake County magistrate, the Wake County Sheriff, the 10th Judicial District Manager for the Department of Community Corrections, the 10th Judicial District Chief Court Counselor and the designees of the President of Duke and the Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Advisory Committee members, in consultation with other individuals working within the criminal justice system, have conducted a preliminary evaluation of their informational needs and submit the following report. Executive Summary Through an analysis of information needs by each agency within the criminal justice system, the Advisory Committee found that all participating agencies would benefit from access to the following information: Positive Offender ID Comprehensive, easy to read Criminal History Outstanding warrants and orders for arrest Probation status Juvenile offense history Domestic Violence Protective Order status Sex offender status Immigration status There was additional information that one or more of the entities would find useful in making decisions. This is outlined in Appendix A of this report. 22 Advisory Committee members determined that access to information through two different methods was necessary. Criminal Justice professionals need access to information by looking up individual offenders (Offender Search). Criminal justice professionals who are responsible for a caseload need automatic notification when the status of an offender on their caseload changes (Offender Watch). For the purpose of this report, criminal justice professional shall include criminal justice and correction professionals. Introduction Professionals within the criminal justice system make decisions daily that impact public safety. These decisions include, but are not limited to, whether to charge and/or arrest an offender, whether to release an offender on bail, how to prosecute a case, and what sentence to impose. In order to successfully manage the high volume of cases within the system, criminal justice professionals often have to make decisions quickly relying on readily available information. The purpose of this project is to increase access to reliable information about offenders. The project can meet this goal by both making existing information easier to utilize and by broadening the scope of information available to each criminal justice professional. The type of information needed varies based on the responsibilities of individual entities within the criminal justice system. After receiving input from each entity, the Advisory Committee has analyzed the identified information deficiencies and determined common needs. Because there is significant overlap in information that is required to make informed decisions, the Committee recommends that the project initially focus on providing that information which is set forth below. The Committee further recommends that the project be developed and implemented in a manner that permits future expansion and customization. The Advisory Committee’s recommendation would make criminal justice information available in two different components: Offender Search, access to information by offender, and Offender Watch, notification of change in offender status for criminal justice professionals carrying a caseload. 23 Offender Search: Advisory Committee members identified a need to be able to easily access specific information about an offender in order to make informed decisions. Members suggested that this information be provided in summary form on an easy to read screen that would allow the criminal justice professional to access more detailed information by clicking on various field alternatives. Positive ID: o Problem Identified: Law Enforcement, prosecutors and judges all indicated that it is vitally important to be able to confirm that the person in their presence is in fact the person of interest. It is also necessary to be able to determine whether additional pending cases with the defendant’s name belong to the defendant. Identifying defendants based on their name has become increasingly problematic as the number of immigrants and the use of aliases has increased. Currently there is no unique identifier that is constant in all criminal justice databases. o Information Delivery Proposal: A picture of the offender derived from DMV, jail or Department of Correction records and an indicator of positive ID based on matching available identifiers across databases should be part of the offender search screen. Pending cases and/or warrants should appear on the summary screen and could be categorized as positive, reliable or possible matches with the offender. Complete, Easy to Read Criminal History: o Problem Identified: All members indicated a need for comprehensive criminal history information on an offender that was easy to read and understand. Each member expressed some level of dissatisfaction with the current court system database as a means to gather this information. Currently criminal justice professionals have to search multiple sources (ACIS state and local, and DCI) to gather criminal history information. The information is formatted in a manner that is difficult to understand. o Use of Information: The extent and seriousness of an offender’s prior record sheds light on the threat the offender poses to public safety and the likelihood of the offender to recidivate. A defendant’s prior record is considered in setting conditions of release, in determining what, if any, plea offer to negotiate, and in determining a defendant’s sentence. o Information Delivery Proposal: The District Attorney’s office requested automatic calculation of an offender’s prior record level. To address this requirement, an offender’s prior record level could appear on the offender search screen while a more detailed criminal record could be accessed by clicking on the Prior Record Level. It was suggested that criminal history 24 information be made available to be reviewed in either chronological order or by offense category (i.e., motor vehicle offense, offense involving weapon, property offense, drug offense). In addition to past convictions, information concerning cases for which a defendant has been called and failed or cases that are in dismissal with voluntary leave status should also be made available. Outstanding Warrants and Orders for Arrest: o Problem Identified: Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) do not have easy access to a database in which all outstanding warrants and/or orders for arrest are entered. Consequently they may inadvertently let an offender go who should be apprehended. Additionally, magistrates do not have easy access to outstanding orders for arrest/warrants that could be served on a defendant who has been brought before them. As a result, defendants who have active warrants or orders for arrest in other cases are released from custody. o Use of Information: Reliable, current information on existing warrants and orders for arrest would allow for offenders to be more readily apprehended. If outstanding warrants and pending orders for arrest could be readily identified and obtained, they could be served on the defendant which would allow for unresolved cases to be disposed of in a more efficient manner. o Information Delivery Proposal: An offender search screen could indicate the existence of outstanding warrants and pending orders for arrest. It is recommended that the offender search screen be developed to interface with the Administrative Office of the Court’s technology application NCAWARE, which is currently being piloted in Johnston County, which, when fully operational, will provide an electronic repository containing all outstanding warrants and pending orders for arrest and will allow for a stored document to be printed for service on an offender. Probation Status: o Problem Identified: Criminal justice professionals who are not in the corrections field do not have a means to easily determine if an offender is on probation or to assess an offender’s performance while under supervision in the community. Without access to probation information, Law Enforcement Officers may come in contact with a person of interest who has absconded from probation without knowing the person’s status; prosecutors may recommend a probationary status for an offender who has not been compliant while on probation; or, judges may sentence an offender to a supervision level that has been ineffective in managing a defendant. 25 o Use of Information: Information about an offender’s performance on probation provides insight into whether community supervision is an effective way to manage the offender. Prosecutors would consider a defendant’s performance on probation in determining what type of plea to negotiate, if any. Judges would rely on information about a defendant’s past performance on probation in determining what sentence to impose in a case. o Information Delivery Proposal: Probation status could be indicated as active, inactive or N/A on the offender search screen. Additional probation information such as level of supervision (unsupervised, supervised, intensive), number and basis of probation violations, past and/or current compliance with supervision, identity of supervising officer, the county where the defendant is being supervised and frequency of contacts with probation officer could be available through a link off the offender search page. Juvenile offense history o Problem Identified: Access to juvenile offense history is limited and cumbersome despite the fact that N.C.G.S. 7B-3000 (e) allows the existence of an adjudication of a felony offense to be considered by law enforcement, magistrates and prosecutors in making decisions about pretrial release and plea negotiations. Too often a defendant has an extensive record as a juvenile but is treated as a first offender when charged as an adult at age 16 or above. Despite the fact that the defendant may have been on probation as a juvenile or was sentenced to a juvenile detention facility, the prosecutor and the judge are typically unaware of a defendant’s involvement with juvenile court. Currently the Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention operates a webbased information system that includes detailed juvenile case information in the court system but none of the criminal justice system agencies at the adult level may access this data. o Use of Information: The existence of an extensive or serious juvenile record provides insight into the threat the offender poses for the community and the likelihood the offender will recidivate. Access to this information could impact the prosecutor’s decision to negotiate a plea in a case and a judge’s sentencing decisions. o Information Delivery Proposal: Current law may restrict easy access to some juvenile information. If the law permitted, the existence of a juvenile record could be indicated on the summary screen with a more detailed report of juvenile court involvement available by accessing a link to information. 26 Domestic Violence Protective Order Status o Problem Identified: The existence of a domestic violence protective order is not always known by magistrates, prosecutors, and judges who are dealing with a domestic violence offender. Because the process for obtaining a domestic violence protective order is civil, criminal justice professionals must access civil court records to determine if a domestic violence protective order exists. A registry of domestic violence protective orders is maintained by the Sheriff but that information is not readily available to magistrates, prosecutors and judges. o Use of Information: Magistrates and judges consider the existence of a domestic violence protective order in making decisions about conditions of pretrial release. Prosecutors may rely on the existence of the orders in prosecuting domestic violence cases. Judges may also consider the history of domestic violence protective orders in determining an appropriate sentence. o Information Delivery Proposal: The existence of a domestic violence protective order against the defendant could be indicated on the offender search screen. Information pertaining to this order such as the date the order was entered and the complainant could be accessed through a secondary screen. Sex Offender Status o Problem Identified: Law enforcement officers need information concerning an offender’s status when responding to calls of persons on school grounds, playgrounds, etc. A case that otherwise appears to be a simple trespass takes on additional significance if the party is a sex offender and the presence is a violation of conditions. o Use of Information: Law enforcement would rely on this information in determining whether an offender is in violation of state law concerning sex offenders. A violation of sex offender prohibitions may result in a separate charge and may impact conditions of pretrial release. o Information Delivery Proposal: The offender search summary screen could include an indicator of whether the defendant is a registered sex offender. 27 Immigration Status o Problem Identified: The Wake County Sheriff’s Office recently began a 287(g) program, commonly referred to as ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Under this program, offenders who are arrested may be detained until immigration enforcement officers determine their immigration status. Offenders who are illegal immigrants may be subject to deportation. Information concerning whether a defendant is subject to a detainer or whether a defendant is scheduled to be deported is not readily available to criminal justice professionals. o Use of Information: The fact that an offender is subject to a detainer or is scheduled for deportation may impact a prosecutor’s decision to proceed with a case and a judge’s sentence. o Information Delivery Proposal: The offender search summary screen could include an immigration indicator with a link to immigration detail. Offender Watch Advisory Committee members expressed a need for criminal justice professionals to receive notice of information pertaining to an offender on an assigned caseload without having to do an individual offender search. This component of the project would a