December 21, 2001

C J I S L O G I C A L D E S I G N

December 21, 2001

Deliverable # 2:Preliminary Review of Goals and Objectives

andOverview of Current Technology and Infrastructure

P U B L I C S E R V I C E S

Table of Contents

1.0 Importance of Goals and Objectives2.0 Approach to Validation

2.1 Document Review2.2 Key Stakeholder Interviews2.3 Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting

3.0 Goals and Objectives3.1 Framework of Understanding3.2 Overall CJIS Goal3.3 Guiding Principles3.4 Objectives3.5 Intended Results

4.0 High-level Overview of Current Technology and Infrastructure

4.1 Approach to Understanding Current Environment4.2 Overview and Observations

4.2.1 Department of Safety4.2.2 Department of Corrections4.2.3 Judiciary4.2.4 Overview and Observations


1.0 Importance of Goals and Objectives

1.0 Importance of Goals and Objectives

The importance of goals and objectives to any project or endeavor is typically understood. They are formulated at the beginning of the effort to shape its direction and purpose. Typically, goals and objectives:

Serve to define project boundaries with respect to business scope and organizational involvement

Focus efforts around common results Shape the discussion and investigation of user requirements Keep activities on track and focused over the course of the project Provide guidance to prioritizing and sequencing implementation

activities Serve to eliminate that which is not relevant

This report is a preliminary review of goals and objectives. As the project progresses, particularly through User Requirements definition, the goals and objectives may change. Therefore, a final statement of goals and objectives will be included within that project deliverable.


2.0 Approach to Validation

2.0 Approach to Validation

For several years, dating back to at least before 1995, New Hampshire has contemplated the creation of a CJIS system. Over the years, various goals and objectives for the CJIS have been discussed and documented. An initial step in the CJIS Logical Design project was to re-visit and validate the goals and objectives of the CJIS with respect to current circumstances.

The approach used to validate goals and objectives was comprised of three distinct steps: 1) Document Reviews; 2) Key Stakeholder Interviews; and 3) Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting.


2.1 Document Review

2.1 Document Review

As part of the process to validate goals and objectives, two specific documents were reviewed.

Opportunities and Challenges: Building the New Hampshire Criminal Justice Information System, Justiceworks, University of New Hampshire, Benchmarks and Blueprints, Volume IV, April 2001

CJIS Master Plan, Maximus, February 1995

While at different levels of discussion, each report describes the essence of a CJIS system and highlights many explicit and implicit goals and objectives.


2.1 Document Review

Notable insights in the respective documents are:

Opportunities and Challenges: “New advances in information technology allow us to breach the walls that divide the justice system and create a virtual conference room. A virtual conference room is not a single mainframe computer. Rather, it is a network of multiple systems within the criminal justice system, each maintained and operated separately, but linked with each other to allow for the secure exchange of information in real time across the state.”

CJIS Master Plan: “Rather than developing an independent database, the requirements of the NH CJIS can be addressed by developing connectivity among the courts and different criminal justice agencies. Under this approach, the courts and the agencies would maintain exclusive control over the information they generate on offenders and cases, but would participate in a comprehensive automated network in which specific types of data are transmitted among organizations”.


2.2 Key Stakeholder Interviews


In order to re-visit goals and objectives, representatives of the four key stakeholder organizations were interviewed. Each interview was attended by at least one member of each of the State CJIS project team and KPMG Consulting.

Judiciary Judge Linda Dalianas, New Hampshire Supreme Court, December 5, 2001Don Goodnow, Administrative of Courts, December 5, 2001

Department of SafetyJohn A. Stephen, Esq., Assistant Commissioner, December 3, 2001Executive Major Fred Booth, December 6, 2001Virginia Beecher, Director DMV, December 5, 2001Peter Croteau, Director IT, December 4, 2001Carol Houle, CJIS Project Manager, December 4, 2001

Department of JusticeMark Thompson, Director of Administration, December 5, 2001



Department of CorrectionsPhil Stanley, Commissioner, December 6, 2001Robert Ness, Director IT, December 6, 2001Joan Schwartz, Ph.D., Admin. of Research & Planning, December 6, 2001

Interviews were from 1-2 hours in length and focused on current statements of goals and objectives. Judicial and agency key stakeholders were asked to articulate specific goals and objectives from their own viewpoint, as well as from the perspective of an overall CJIS system. No discrepancies were uncovered with respect to previously documented goals and objectives.

As a result of the review of documents and the key stakeholder interviews, a composite list of goals and objectives was documented. The content of this composite list includes the following. These items are listed in no particular order and may have been articulated by more than one person.



Composite List of Goals and Objectives resulting from Document Review and Key Stakeholder Interviews

1. Provide for a more efficient and effective criminal justice system2. Reduce or contain costs associated with the criminal process3. Make information more accessible from the key aspects of the criminal justice process thereby

enabling law enforcement and the judiciary to be more effective in their efforts4. Help individual agencies and the judiciary to perform their functions more efficiently5. Provide the technical infrastructure to directly support information sharing with the New Hampshire

justice community6. Allow for infrastructure growth and change over time as both business needs and technologies

change7. Provide a data sharing framework that will support the implementation of secure data systems that

will protect the integrity and privacy of all information in the system8. Ensure information on criminal cases and offenders is as accurate and up-to-date as possible9. Ensure that information is readily available to all authorized agencies and organizations in a timely

manner who are involved in the criminal justice system – automate the flow of data and reduce keystrokes

10. Enable accelerated case processing within the courts11. Enable timely and accurate disposition reporting from the courts to criminal records12. Enable offender status to be tracked as the offender moves through the criminal justice process



13. Provide more information on offenders and cases that is timely and accurate14. Enable a greater degree of safety for law enforcement officers in the streets15. Improve the identification and processing of criminal offenders16. Promote more effective law enforcement17. Support the timely provision of information to victims of crime18. Capture data electronically at its source and share data electronically to improve its timeliness and

accuracy19. Do not enable the electronic sharing of information to reverse due process20. Do not disable open access to information that is now readily accessible by the public21. Enable the technical infrastructure to share non-criminal information22. Put necessary information at the fingertips of law enforcement23. Support the sharing of information between agencies per State regulations24. Provide access to Domestic Violence restraining orders and warrants25. Enable County Attorneys to have electronic access to criminal history records26. Enable employers, attorneys, and others who have a right to have electronic access to criminal history

records27. Enable agencies and the judiciary to maintain and control their respective data while enabling data

sharing28. Provide for the analysis of crime and criminals in the criminal justice system29. Create a criminal justice data dictionary to standardize the definition of data shared among the

participants


2.3 Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting


As a third step, a work session on goals and objectives was held at the Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting on December 14, 2001.

Invitees to this meeting included State, county, and local government personnel, as well as interested 3rd parties who will be involved in some manner with the CJIS Logical Design project.

A structured set of goals and objective (see Section 3.0 of this document), based on an analysis of the goals and objectives compiled from the document reviews and key stakeholder meetings, was presented for discussion at the meeting.

The purpose of the discussion was to validate the goals and objectives as regards:

Are they complete (are they all there)? Are they worded correctly? Should any be removed?



Attendees at the Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting who participated in the goals and objectives work session are listed below:

Cheryl Bennett, AOC Executive Major Fred Booth, DOSTim Brackett, DOJ Cindy Crompton, DOCPeter Croteau, DOS Judge Linda Dalianis, Supreme CourtReg Drapeau, DOS Arthur Durette, LOGINTom Edwards, AOC Don Goodnow, AOCDenise Heath, DOC Tom Hettinger, DMVCarol Houle, DOS Julie Howard, Superior CourtChris Keating, PD Tricia Lucas, Juvenile JusticeDon Lund, Justiceworks Norman Major, House of RepresentativesPhil McLaughlin, DOJ Walter Murphy, Superior CourtBob Ness, DOC Mike Prozzo, County SheriffsJohn Stephen, DOS Larry Smukler, Superior CourtJim Sullivan, DOC Mark Thompson, DOJDon Veno, DOC David Welch, House of RepresentativesJoseph Arcidiacono, DCYF Charles Putnam, JusticeworksJoan Schwartz, DOC KPMG Consulting team



As a result of the work session, the following attendee comments were recorded (in no particular order or importance):

The system needs to track bail and bail conditions Protection of constitutional rights and privacy must be preserved The system should enable crime trend analyses to be performed The technologies employed in the solution must be able to accommodate

changes in available technologies and changes within the participating organizations

County-level needs must be addressed The system should support public access, particularly to judicial information that

is now accessible through the courts Security and privacy representatives within the agencies (public information

officers) and the judiciary should be engaged in the project to determine what data is accessible and by whom

The value to the general public of the CJIS system should be clearly stated Need to balance public access to data v. privacy The CJIS must exist within the “NH culture” The CJIS should serve the public and public officials



The CJIS should make it easier for the court staff to do their work Accuracy of information is important

Comments expressed at the Kick-off Meeting have been incorporated into the goals and objectives discussed in Section 3 of this document.


3.0 Goals and Objectives

3.0 Goals and Objectives

This section presents the goals and objectives of the CJIS system for the State of New Hampshire. Numerous state, county, and local officials have contributed to the formulation of the goals and objectives. To assist in understanding and positioning the comments that have been made, a framework for categorizing them is presented below.

3.1 Framework of Understanding

Several of the goals and objectives that have appeared in documents or that have been articulated, fall into one of four categories:

Overall Goal of the System Guiding Principles Objectives Intended Results


3.1 Framework of Understanding

OverallGoal

GuidingPrinciples Objectives

IntendedResults

Overall Goal – The overall goal is the primary aim, or intent, of the system. It expresses the underlying goal of what is to be achieved.

Guiding Principles – Guiding principles are considered “givens”. Statements or sentiments that are non-negotiable. They must be achieved or preserved by the project.

Objectives – Objectives are measurable achievements/milestones that can be prioritized. The prioritization of objectives establishes a strategy for phasing-in the system implementation.

Intended Results – These statements more properly indicate the future-state environment once the system is implemented.


3.2 Overall CJIS Goal

OverallGoal

GuidingPrinciples

Objectives IntendedResults

3.2 Overall CJIS Goal

The overall CJIS goal is to…

Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the CJ agencies and the Judiciary through the capture of data at its source and the sharing of information electronically.

This goal embodies the intent to capture data that is to be shared at its first entry into the criminal justice process and to share that information among the judiciary and CJ agencies thereby eliminating the need to re-key the data at subsequent processing steps.


3.3 Guiding Principles

OverallGoal

GuidingPrinciples


3.3 Guiding Principles

The CJIS logical design needs to be based on the following guiding principles:• Data security, integrity, privacy, and constitutional rights must be achieved and/or preserved• Data Owners, CJ agencies and the Judiciary, must maintain and control their own data while enabling interagency data sharing• Access to data that now is available must be preserved•The CJIS system should support the NH culture of restrained government and respect for individuals

These principles will serve to guide the user requirements and design of the system.


3.4 Objectives

OverallGoal

GuidingPrinciples


3.4 Objectives

A number of specific objectives have been expressed by the project participants. All of the statements previously documented, articulated by key stakeholders in recent interviews, and expressed by the participants at the Stakeholder Meeting in December 2001 have been condensed into the following objectives.

While objectives of the CJIS system, not all may be realized at the time of initial implementation. As such, these objectives will need to be prioritized during the project such that a phased approach to implementation can be planned.


3.4 Objectives

OverallGoal

GuidingPrinciples


1. Provide accurate, up-to-date and timely information on offenders, including identification and status, as they move through the CJ process

2. Put necessary information at the fingertips of law enforcement3. Enable accelerated case processing within the courts; make it easier for court

staff to do their jobs4. Enable timely electronic transmittal of dispositions to CHR5. Provide timely access to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders6. Track bail and bail conditions7. Support the timely provision of information to victims of crime8. continued...


3.4 Objectives

OverallGoal

GuidingPrinciples


1. Provide the technical infrastructure to support information sharing2. Allow for the infrastructure to grow over time as business and technology change3. Support data sharing of common data across all agencies and the courts to

facilitate timely and dependable exchange4. Provide for public access to authorized information


3.5 Intended Results

OverallGoal

GuidingPrinciples


3.5 Intended Results

Through the implementation of the CJIS system, the resultant environment is intended to provide for the following:

•Improved public safety•More effective law enforcement•Improved safety for law enforcement officers•More accurate identification and timely processing of offenders•More expedient judicial processing•Improved trend analysis of crime and criminal justice processing•Reduced or contained operational costs associated with inter-agency Public Safety and Criminal Justice processes•Public support for the purpose and intent of the CJIS•The CJIS serves both the general public and public officials




The purpose at this time to examine the current technologies and infrastructure in place is to determine to what extent the environment has evolved since the CJIS Master Plan was prepared in 1995. That plan spoke to the state of automation at that time and recommended automation projects related to the CJIS system. This section describes the current state of automation as the CJIS Logical Design project gets underway. The present technical environment was re-visited regarding:

Department of Safety Department of Corrections Judiciary

This section begins with a discussion of how the investigation was performed.


4.1 Approach to Understanding Current Environment

4.1 Approach to Understanding Current Environment

In order to understand how the technical environments within the aforementioned agencies and the judiciary may have changed since 1995, a series of interviews were held specifically to discuss technologies being used, applications in production or planned, databases and accesses, and networks.

The following interviews were conducted with this purpose:

Department of Safety (SPOTS, DMV, and related systems) Executive Major Fred Booth, December 3, 2001 Peter Croteau, Director IT, December 5, 2001

Judiciary (Superior and District court systems) Tom Edwards, Director IT, AOC, December 4, 2001

Department of Corrections (State Correctional systems) Anita Wiswell, December 11, 2001


4.2 Overview and Observations

4.2 Overview and Observations

Observations regarding the current IT environments within the Department of Safety, Department of Corrections, and the Judiciary are presented in the context of how the environments have evolved since the 1995 CJIS Master Plan report was published. The observations are matrixed by the following categories:

Applications and/or databases as reported in the 1995 CJIS Plan

Anticipated growth of capabilities outlined in the CJIS Plan

Actual capabilities at present time

Observations/Comments

Initially, a hi-level profile for each of DOS, DOC, and the Judiciary is presented.


4.2.1 Hi-level Profile of DOS

The Department of Safety operates the State Police Online Telecommunications System (SPOTS) for all criminal justice agencies, local and federal.

SPOTS provides access to the following

Vehicle registration, drivers licenses, titles, and acts & violations data at DMV NCIC for stolen vehicles, wanted persons, and missing persons III for interstate criminal history NICS for hand gun and long gun checks NH Criminal Records (CHRI) Misdemeanor and warrants files Electronic Bench warrants issued by the courts Domestic Violence petitions NLETS

SPOTS operates over a WAN with 180+ access points for State Police barracks County Sheriffs Local Police Departments County Attorneys Corrections Attorney General’s office Courts


4.2.1 Hi-level Profile of DOS

The State Police operate an AFIS system

Tri-state compact between New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont Interfaced to 28 LiveScan devices located at

All State Police barracks Ten (10) County jails Men's State Prison Women's State Prison Highest contributing LLE jurisdictions in the state

All FP cards submitted to State Police HQ are scanned into the AFIS system

Troopers

Each is equipped with a laptop computer serving as a MDT Wireless communications through Tenbase T or modem

Dispatch

Under contract with PrintTrack for CAD Dispatch at HQ and each of five barracks in field


4.2.2 Hi-level Profile of DOC

Network of 15 remote sites connected over the Department of Safety’s frame relay network

DOC subnet consists of

Concord Men’s State Prison Concord Headquarters Goffstown facility Laconia facility Berlin facility

Operate the Automated Prison System (APS) providing the following functionality: Inmate processing Visitation processing Sentence Management processing Inmate accounting Canteen Housing and Classification processing


4.2.3 Hi-level Profile of the Judiciary

AOC maintains information relating to Bench Warrants, Restraining Orders, Prosecutions, and Case Scheduling

Automation within a court building is supported by a Novell, MS-DOS environment on the desktop

Currently operate DOS version of Case Management System for Superior Courts District Courts

In the process of implementing a Case Management system for Supreme Court

Provide nightly batch transfer of electronic bench warrants to DOS

Current project funded to:

Upgrade the courts to Windows 2000 servers and Windows 2000 desktops Acquire and implement a new case management system Utilize SPOTS network to share data among courts Connect 600 personal computers in 67 NH courts in 53 facilities to the AOC through SPOTS


Department of Safety Backbone provided by Verizon Some fiber links Communications is encrypted Firewall not yet fully implemented,

expected shortlySPOTS RS6000

Connects to DMV for registration,diver’s license, Title and Accident andViolations

Connects to NCIC for FBI, Hotfile,III, NICS

NLETS CPI in Chicago provides CH, DV,

Bench warrants (physical DBs housedlocally) and message switch toNLETS and NCIC

Character based 3270 emulator withminimal cut-and-paste capability.

Provides access to NCIC, Triple I(III), NH and other state DMV(NLETS), warrants.

Except for interfaces through themessage switch, there do not appear tobe any electronic interfaces.

SPOTS terminals are the primary (andonly) cross agency/court data accesscapability.

Oracle forms front-end replaced byAccess front-end

Entry can bog down when usedextensively – only 10-11 usersmaximum

Criminal History Referenced as required by law, but nospecific references to planned activity.

Criminal History Oracle database In-house, MS Access front-end. Law enforcement can access history

of charges without convictions. Most access for history that only

includes convictions. Requires authentication of person

requesting and receiving information May receive a court order to provide

criminal history information Retains history of inquiries – notifies

those receiving histories if annulment,etc.

Used by Gun Line $10 fee

Functionality exists which is beyondwhat is currently being used.

Complaint and disposition formsreceived in hardcopy.

Appears to have capabilities notcurrently being used

Could provide temporary, automatedinterfaces for data entry and documentconstruction

Major crime has their own database –need to discover the ramifications ofthis

Track who makes inquiries but doesnot retain contact information forthose doing inquiries

Department, JudicialEntity, or System

Existing System or PlannedGrowth from 1995 Plan

Present December 2001Situation

Observations & Comments

4.2.4 Overview and Observations



UCR Plan to send NIBRS data through theSPOTS terminals.

NIBRS interface 115-118 towns submit data from

NIBRS software systems. Floppy disks from LLE are sent to

DOS Information is summarized from

SPOTS and sent to the FBI. Some reports communicated back to

the local law enforcement Compiled at DOS before transmission

to SPOTSNational Sexual Offender Registry Sex offenders database

Currently not an adjunct database tocriminal history.

Suggestion was that it be an adjunct tocriminal history.

Misdemeanor warrant Not referenced In placeElectronic Bench warrants Not referenced In place

Transferred nightly in batch fromAOC

Domestic Violence and Protective Orders Not referenced In place Received via a fax server Keyed into NCIC (III) Retained as fax images NH users can use fax back serviceCar 54 UNH grant to develop the police

cruiser of the future Voice recognition for vehicle control Linked to DOS Electronic transfer of information to

courts (complaint) Local storage of 40G of images/video Testing IP6 license plate system to

provide information directly to anofficers onboard computer system

Laboratory Information ManagementSystem (LIMS)

Not referenced In place

Lab server Not referenced Evidence tracking No notification, feedback, electronicresults or tracking available



Present December 2001Situation

Observations & Comments


Imaging system Not referenced Oracle based imaging system Slow response Better imaging systems are available

which provide proper storage andresponse

AFIS Testing Livescan with anticipated roll-out. State Police operate a tri-state systemwith Vermont and Maine.

28 LiveScan devises in use at all SPbarracks, 10 County jails, Men’sprison, Women’s prison, and highestcontributing local LE agencies

All FP cards submitted to SP HQ arescanned into AFIS.

Approximately 420,000 ten prints onfile.

Two counties have stopped using thedevices for fingerprinting

Unable to communicateelectronically with the FBI becauseof a conflict with the Lab Serverinterface for investigating latentprints Could cut rap sheet response

time from 4-6 days to 4 hours Proper interface would reduce

labor involved with printing,packaging 10 print cards.

Proper interface would reducelabor involved with receivingpaper rap sheets.

Dispatch (CAD) State Police have dispatch at HQ and 5Field barracks Installing Printrak (Motorola)

Currently not coordinated/linkedsystems.

Will be linked when replacementsystem is in place.



Present December 2001Situation Observations & Comments



Mobile Data Terminals Planned Completion of incident reports from

cruisers

State police have laptops that dock intheir cruisers.

No indication that incident reports arecompleted from the cruisers

Currently doing multiple queries. CJIS should permit a single query to

multiple sources with consolidatedresults.

Troop C IBEX SP 500 system for incidentand arrest data.

Anticipated sending electronic data toConcord

No information on the status of thissystem

If this system is still operational it isassumed that it will be replaced by thenew dispatch system.

Gun line Not included Uses various systems to produce reportson those purchasing guns or requesting aconcealed weapon permit.

Currently doing multiple queries. CJIS should permit a single query to

multiple sources with consolidatedresults.

Communications (DOS) Not included Responsible for entering information intoNCIC.

Information is keyed into variousSPOTS screens by users which is thenprinted in communications andentered into NCIC (and othersystems?).

It is assumed that the informationrequires validation bycommunications before allowing theinformation to be entered into NCIC.This should be done by reviewing theinformation “on screen.” If approved,transfer of the information should beelectronic and should not include re-keying.

NICS – National Instant Check System Not included Used by the gun line






DMV Not included S390/VM/VSE IDMS database COBOL programs Driver’s license (including digital

photos) Registration Titles Violations Accidents Point-to-point communications Interfaces are terminal emulation NMVTIS for intrastate title and VIN

data exchange Theft file Brand file (flood damage, etc.) Pointer to information on a

vehicle (like III) Electronic liens and titles Ethernet OSA adapter to State Police

system Supports a few transactions (6-7) from

SPOTS

Plan to upgrade to more modernplatform and language in the future.

Plan to web enable common citizenfunctionality currently handled byclerks.

Attempting to integrate with banksand municipalities for transactionprocessing.

Department of Corrections No automated systems listed. In the process of implementing an

Automated Prison System.

Automated Prison System UNIX Informix database Inmate sentence, history, status,

precautions, etc. including out-of-state

Sentence calculations Local MS Access databases and

spreadsheets used for someapplications.

Send diskettes of information tovarious places such as MA Welfareand Social Security Administration

Only one person knows and supportsthis system.

Large, paper based files still used. Not using the AFIS mug shot

capability – investigating a stand-alone system instead.

No integrated program participationrecords – currently done on paper

Significant amount of papermovement and duplicate documentsthat could be cured with adocument/image managementsystem.

PPOMS – Probation and ParoleManagement System - anticipated

Installed DPS90 based syste Replacement system due in 1999, not

yet functional Informix database VB interface

No delivery date established No planned interfaces DPS90 failed Y2K, no automation of

P&P since






Local Law Enforcement Some LLE have bookings systems, someof which are interfaced to their LiveScandevices. Crissnet IMC (~ 11 installations) Spillman Tiburon Other

Limited interfaces to AFIS systems(2) Requires double entry of

information if no electronicinterface exists

2 municipalities have stoppedusing the AFIS systems becauseof double entry

Need inventory of systems andvendors

Inventories to be collected atinterviews or through IT survey

Mobile Data Terminals Planned No details on local law enforcementMDTs other than statements that local lawenforcement has MDTs.

AOC, Superior Courts, DistrictCourts and Supreme Court

Planned rollout of SUSTAIN.Planned email and electronic documenttransfer.

SUSTAIN rolled out. Btrieve MS DOS

Email recently implemented WordPerfect 5.1 DOS

Some limited integration betweenSUSTAIN and WP

No electronic document or case fileexchange

Not planning image/documentmanagement – could significantlyenable exchange of information

Case management Supreme court acquiring a casemanagement system which is beingimplemented.

Replacing existing PCs, to becompleted in 2002

Upgrading to Windows 2000, Office2000

Planning acquisition for Superior andDistrict courts in March-April Oracle or SQLServer Browser interface Centrally housed and supported at

AOC

Not likely that anything will be inplace until late 2002 or early 2003.

Should include interface requirementsin RFP/RFI.

Electronic bench warrants – District court Nightly batch transfer of information toDOS

Transfer should be real-time. Should include electronic Superior

Court bench warrants






Sheriff Inventories to be collected at interviews orthrough IT survey

County jails Livescan devices Inventories to be collected at interviews orthrough IT survey

Attorney General’s Office Plan due in late summer of 1995 forinternal networks and communicationsamong client agencies and opposingcounsel.

No information on the status of thisproject.

Inventories to be collected at interviews orthrough IT survey





December 21, 2001

Documents

Transcript of December 21, 2001