1

NYC

D.C Metro

PA

JUSTIS & The SHIELD Pilot

December 12, 2003

Office of Justice Programs

Senior Staff Presentation

2

JUSTIS - Stakeholders• Metropolitan Police Department • Superior Court of the District of Columbia• Office of Corporation Counsel• Pretrial Services Agency• District of Columbia Department of

Corrections• Office of the United States Attorney for the

District of Columbia• Public Defender Service• United States Parole Commission• Department of Human Services’ Youth

Services Administration• United States Probation Office (US Dist. Ct)• Court Services and Offender Supervision

Agency• Child and Family Services Agency• United States Bureau of Prisons • District of Columbia DMV

City

Federal

Federal Independent

Judicial

3

The Future is

4

The Problem

• The information systems maintained by the justice agencies within the Region and the Nation are difficult, if not impossible, to access.

• Information exchanges are labor intensive, time consuming, inconsistent, frequently manual, and often go unprocessed.

5

The SHIELD Pilot

• New York City, Metropolitan Washington DC, Pennsylvania - sharing vital information through a regional pilot.

NYC

D.C Metro

PA

6

SHIELD Pilot Stakeholders

• DC - JUSTIS • PA - JNET• VA – District Courts

Circuit Courts Local Incarceration

• MD – Circuit Court Division of Corrections

• NYC – Corrections

Observers: Ohio, Alabama, Fairfax County PD / County Sheriff / City PD, Georgetown University, New York City PD, Virginia State Police, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, Virginia Department of Corrections, State Department / Diplomatic Security, University of Tennessee, Wisconsin, Upper Midwest Justice Consortium, New York Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure, Colorado State Courts, University of Alabama.

7

Objectives:

• Pilot a Regional Homeland Security and Criminal Justice Model

• Exhibit we have the ability• Prove we have the will

• Learn from the experience

• Use that knowledge as the foundation for the future Regional System

8

Demonstrate the PossibilitiesOF

• Real-time, multi-jurisdictional sharing of data through secure Internet connections

• A medium for secure interoperability, communication and collaboration

• An end of historical barriers to sharing vital information for homeland security

• A basis for a model that can be replicated by jurisdictions throughout the nation

• Utilization of the data by CJ and HS personnel in both Tactical and Investigative situations

9

JUSTIS Provided a SHIELD Foundation

• recognize the primacy of each justice agency mission

• facilitate collaborative solutions to justice information challenges

• commit to the quality and integrity of justice data

• implement effective data and system security

• respect the confidentiality of information and individual privacy

10

Expected SHIELD Benefits

• Provide users with timely information on offender status

• Provide a unified access – a user in one city/state/agency can see all accessible data

• Enable secure collaboration among authorized users • Increase speed in processing, investigation

• Improve quality of public safety decisions

• Enable Homeland Security analysis

• Provide an architecture to support the future

11

Did We Obtain the Expected SHIELD Benefits ?

• Yes - Provide users with timely information on offender status

• Yes / No - Provide a unified access – a user in one city/state/agency can see all accessible data

• Yes - Enable secure collaboration among authorized

users • Yes / No - Increase speed in processing, investigation

• Yes - Improve quality of public safety decisions

• Yes - Enable Homeland Security analysis

• No - Provide an architecture to support the future

12

Yes – Provide users with timely information on offender status

Yes – Improve quality of public safety decisions

Evaluation: Comparison of "Hits" - JUSTIS Augmented by SHIELD

JUSTIS SHIELD

Va Va Va Md Md PaDCDC DCSC MPD PSA USAO USPC CSOSA Circuit District Jails Circuit DOC JNET

Offender1 12 23 1 1 14 1 1 1 15 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 17 1

Totals 2 4 1 4 1 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0

System Total 13 System Total 6

Increase in Knowledge

46.2%

13

Yes – Provide users with timely information on offender status

Yes – Improve quality of public safety decisions

Evaluation: Systems NOT In Play for SHIELD

Typical Record Types SHIELD Participants

DC MD NYC PA VA

Criminal History XIdentification X XArrest Records X XDetention Records X X XPretrial Records X XLower Court Records X X XSuperior Court Records X X X XIncarceration Records X X X XSupervision Records X X

Total Involved 8 2 1 9 3Total Available 9 9 9 9 9

Percent Used 89% 22% 11% 100% 33%

Total Systems Not in Play 49%

14

Yes – Enable Homeland Security analysis

Yes – Enable secure collaboration among authorized users

For Example:

• State Department - Diplomatic Security, participating in a SHIELD demo, made hits advancing a current investigation!

• Pretrial Services made hits on DC offenders in both Maryland and Virginia allowing better input to Superior Court judges.

15

Yes / No - Provide a unified access Yes / No - Increase speed

No - Provide an architecture

“No’s” Become Lessons Learned:

We Learned that:

• Every system had different access methods, controls, input requirements

• Logging off and then logging on, going from IP to 327x emulation took too much time and effort

• No uniformity, all data presented differently, no sense of continuity

• Not all systems are intuitive – training & documentation required

16

We Stopped Talking – We Decided to Do Something

• We Piloted a Regional Homeland Security &Criminal Justice Model

• We Demonstrated we have the ability• We Proved we have the will

• We Learned from the experience

• We Will Use that knowledge as the foundation for the future Regional System

17

SHIELD Next Steps

SHIELDPhase 2

Plan 

EvaluationRequirements

AnalysisPartnering

Implementation

SHIELD Statement

of Work  

 SHIELD Phase Two

Requirements Analysis

SHIELD Pilot

Evaluation

Questionnaire

&

Results

DONE

DONE

Final Draft

18

Phase 2

19

Requirement Analysis Method

• Seven Joint Application Development Sessions - JAD’s

• Co-Chairs: 1 SHIELD Pilot Participant1 National Participant & Volunteer Participants

• Eight Weeks• Document Policies / Vision Statements• Culminate in a Plan of Action• Endorsed in Two-Day, On-site Conference (?)

• Basis for the SHIELD Blueprint

20

SHIELD Requirements Analysis

Analysis Deliverables

• SHIELD Governance Structure• SHIELD Conceptual Blueprint and Design Policy • SHIELD Partnership Agreement• SHIELD Access Security & Secure Communication• SHIELD User Requirements and External Design• SHIELD Data Descriptions, Foundation, Authority

and Use • SHIELD Short Term and Strategic Funding

Strategy

RESULTING IN The SHIELD Blueprint

21

Specific Working Group Deliverables

“The Working Groups’ deliverable is a policy or vision statement.

The deliverable will have two parts: a) a one to three paragraph policy

statement or vision statement, b) a one to five page description,

explanation or justification for the policy or vision statement.”*

*SHIELD Phase 2 Statement of Work

22

We Can Build A Regional HS and CJ Foundation Through Partnerships

• Partner Lessons Learned with Goals• Partner Policy & Vision with Action Plans• Partner New Communities of Common Interest• Partner Blueprint with Cities, States, Regions• Partner Homeland Security with Justice• Partner Existing Regional Programs

We Will connect the Dots / Fit the pieces of the puzzle together………

23

We Can Partner to Build A Comprehensive Regional Homeland Security /

Criminal Justice Model