Florida’s Integrated Criminal HistorySystemby Pearl Adams Terrell

Pearl Adams Terrell has been employed at the Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement for over 30 years and served in many different capacitiesduring this period. Currently, she is a Government Analyst in the CriminalJustice Information Services (CJIS) program area and serves as a memberof ICHS Project Management Team, assigned to coordinate the End Users’Input and Communication efforts associated with the implementation ofthe new Integrated Criminal History System. She can be reached atPearlTerrell@fdle.state.fl.us.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) embarked on a massive ini-tiative at the beginning of the new millennium to improve Florida’s crime solvingprocesses and technologies and to improve the delivery of services mandated by FloridaStatutes. This major initiative is the replacement and integration of the currentComputerized Criminal History (CCH) System and the Automated FingerprintIdentification System (AFIS) into the Integrated Criminal History System (ICHS).

BackgroundThe Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) manages Florida’s

central repository of criminal history records (arrest, judicial, and custody infor-mation associated with criminal offenders) as well as the Automated FingerprintIdentification System (AFIS).This repository is referred to asthe Computerized CriminalHistory (CCH) system and wasoriginally designed in the early1970’s. Florida has the thirdlargest CCH file in the nation.The current CCH systemcontains criminal historyrecords on more than 4.6million offenders representingover 21 million criminal arrestrecords stored in the CCHsystem. These are used bycriminal justice agencies to identify suspects in criminal cases, identify repeatoffenders, implement sentencing guidelines, and identify inmates. In addition,criminal records are also widely used in Florida, which is a public record state, byprivate and public organizations as an important part of back-

In this Issue

Florida’s Integrated CriminalHistory Systemby Pearl Adams Terrell . . .1

MATRIX Loses TwoStates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Case Study:Using XML for AlaskaCriminal Justice DataExchangeby Steve Horneman andNancy LaPlaca . . . . . . . . . .8

A Report to Congress on theInformation Sharing Needs &Requirements of the Officeof the Sheriffby Dr. Lee Colwell . . . . . .12

Integrated Databanks CauseConcern for ForeignVisitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Private Sector Responds toWA Call for Educationby Brian LeDuc . . . . . . . .20

Maryland Counties CreateIntegrated Network . . . .21

Connecticut to ImproveOfficer Access toInformation . . . . . . . . . . .22

Conferences andEvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

IntegrationNewsCRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA INTEGRATION

vol. 1, no. 2March/April 2004

continued on page 2

[ ]“In addition, non-criminaljustice governmental agenciesand the public were given anopportunity to articulate theirneeds for new features, sincecriminal history information isused outside the criminal justicecommunity, as well.”

Integration News is published bimonthly by BGL PublishingP.O. Box 68301 S. Main St.Milbank, SD 57252

Phone: (605) 432-6801 Fax: (605) 432-9121Website: www.integrationnews.comE-mail: editor@integrationnews.com

Regular Price Subscriptions:One year (6 issues), Electronic, $125One year (6 issues), Hard Copy, $149

Promotional Offer: $95 for Any Subscription

Five Convenient Ways to Subscribe:E-mail: subscribe@integrationnews.comWebsite: www.integrationnews.comPhone: (605) 432-6801Fax: (605) 432-9121Mail: P.O. Box 68, 301 S. Main St., Milbank, SD 57252

Submissions:Original article submissions regarding criminal justice data integration are encouraged. Pleasecontact the editor at editor@integrationnews.com.

2004 BGL Publishing

Editor Dara Lynn Ekanger

Advisory BoardTalmage EkangerGreg GrajczykGeorge Boos

EditorialAssistantsMiriah FawcettMary HansonTerri MielitzJan Rollins

DesignVision Marketing

page 2 vol. 1, no. 2

ground investigations for licensing and employmentpurposes. This information must be available in varyingformats and degrees of completeness as needs and Floridalaws permit.

Current SystemThe current CCH system serves as the point of contact

between the State of Florida and the identification andcriminal history systems at the Federal level, operated bythe Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Likewise, theCCH system interfaces with the corresponding criminalhistory systems in other states via the National LawEnforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS).

Although this dated CCH system has undergone scoresof major modifications, the underlying technology (operatingsystem, database management system, and much of theapplication code) has remained essentially unchanged. Thecurrent computing platform is proprietary and no longerprovides FDLE with a strategic growth path, nor will thetechnology effectively support the functions demanded bythe customers.

The AFIS was initially acquired from PrintrakCorporation in the late 1980’s and contains fingerprints onfile of persons arrested in Florida. The purpose of AFIS iselectronic storage, retrieval, and identification of fingerprints

associated with criminal offenders in Florida. Again, thisinformation must be readily available to members of thecriminal justice community. AFIS too, has undergone modifi-cation as well as technology changes over the last decade.Yet, there is a need to upgrade both the hardware andsoftware technology of AFIS to fully integrate its interactionwith the central repository of criminal records.

Launching the ProjectThe ICHS project itself is a statewide initiative and in

order to design the most effective tool possible, FDLE rec-ognized that it must give utmost consideration to sugges-tions of those who rely upon the system to carry out theirorganization’s mission. Therefore, FDLE invited a broadrange of systems users and customers to participate innumerous activities aimed at gathering information ondesired features for the ICHS. The initial efforts on theICHS project began during 2001, with the establishment of astatewide ICHS Advisory Workgroup, which consisted ofoperational experts and criminal justice practitioners fromall entities of the criminal justice community. In addition,non-criminal justice governmental agencies and the publicwere given an opportunity to articulate their needs for newfeatures, since criminal history information is used outsidethe criminal justice community, as well. For example, gov-ernmental agencies obtain criminal history information fromthe system in support of background checks on prospective

integration news page 3

or current employees. Firearm dealers depend on ICHS toprovide approval or disapproval of firearms purchases byindividuals, in accordance with state and federal law. Lastly,the general public uses the system to obtain public criminalhistory records.

Utilizing the aforementioned groups and other stake-holders, FDLE conducted a series of meetings andworkshops with stakeholders’ groups to assist in identifyingthe needs, requirements and functionality for the ICHS. Thiscomprehensive approach included a web-based survey,consensus sessions and a series of stakeholder interviews.The stakeholders’ participation is an ongoing effortthroughout the life of the project.

During April 2001, FDLE selected the ScienceApplications International Corporation (SAIC) for theAnalysis phase of the project, which completed June 2002.Approximately 3,000 system requirements resulted fromthis effort, which reflect the needs of those that use thedata and form the foundation for the design of the newsystem.

Design—Development—ImplementationUntil April 2002, all supporting documents for ICHS

reflected and presumed a single development effort–followed by an implementation in what was referred to as aturn-key “Big Bang” approach. However, due to theprudence of FDLE’s internal Project Manager, this approachwas abandoned. Subsequently, during April 2002, a majorchange occurred in the implementation approach, whenFDLE determined that a less risky and perhaps more appro-priate approach for this large and complex undertaking wasto develop and accept the system in incremental “Builds.”

The ICHS Design, Development, and Implementationundertaking is a two-and-one-half-year effort that began onApril 29, 2003, when the Florida Department of LawEnforcement (FDLE) entered into a $37.4 million contractwith Science Applications International Corporation as theprime Architecture and Integration (A&I) vendor for theproject. As conceptualized, the five phases depicted in theICHS PhaseTimeline/Schedulechart (see page 4)represent the entireDesign, Development,and Implementationproject. At the end ofeach phase, FDLE hasthe option of retainingor replacing thevendor; therefore,these phases essentiallyrepresent five sequen-

tial, interim projects. The first of these, Phase 1, began onApril 29, 2003 and was completed October 29, 2003.

Phase 1—System DesignPhase 1 work resulted in the creation of a System

Design Document (SDD) describing the master design foraccomplishing the development effort to follow in laterphases. The SDD allocated the system requirements to oneof the four Builds.

Phase 2—Build 1The second phase of the work will produce two

products: a Bridge AFIS, which will augment the current AFISsystem, and a Build 1 model, which provides a non-produc-tion demonstration of the ICHS system and is deemed non-production only. The Bridge AFIS will incorporate ICHShardware components into the existing AFIS system toaddress specific suspected failure points as a means tomitigate the risk associated with the current systemapproaching capacity limit.

Phase 3—Build 2The completion of the Build 2 product is the Initial

Operational Capability (IOC) for ICHS. The focus of thisphase will be the replacement of the legacy CCH functional-ity. Bridge AFIS will continue to be utilized and will be inte-grated into the ICHS architecture. At IOC, there will be anoperational capability for participants to perform selectedtasks to completion and an environment for local agenciesto transition from current systems to the new ICHS. Inaddition, the vendor must demonstrate that the ICHS IOCcan handle the required volumes and capacities of informa-tion and perform within the speed and memory standardsspecified for the system.

Phase 4—Build 3The fourth phase of work will produce the Build 3

product. The Build 3 cycle will occur while there is a con-current operation between ICHS and the current AFIS andCCH systems. Further, Build 3 will add additional criticalrequirements that relate to the core business functions, andwill see the end user operational transition taking place.

Phase 5—Build 4The last phase of the work will produce the Build 4

product and will represent the Fully Operational Capability(FOC) for ICHS. During this phase, interfaces to additionalexternal systems and the remaining unfulfilled requirementswill be implemented.

Although not originally part of the ICHS project scope,in early 2002 FDLE began to document the need toreplace/update older livescan equipment at local agencieswithin the scope of the ICHS project. The replacement/upgrade will be required to maintain ICHS compatibility.Finding a means to maintain the uninter-

“[At] the completion ofthe Build 2 product …there will be an oper-ational capability forparticipants to performselected tasks to comp-letion and an environ-ment for local agenciesto transition from cur-rent systems to thenew ICHS.”

continued on page 4

page 4 vol. 1, no. 2

rupted interface of ICHS to the livescan equipment of locallaw enforcement agencies is a significant issue for theproject.

Bridge AFIS is the concept developed by the FDLE toensure that fingerprint capability will be available beyond theprojected failure date of the current AFIS system (currentlyprojected for April 2005). In order to build Bridge AFIS, theFDLE has purchased ICHS production hardware earlier thanplanned and this hardware will host the Bridge AFIS capabili-ty. Bridge AFIS will enable local agency users to continue touse their existing livescan equipment to interface withBridge AFIS to access ICHS fingerprint data. However, evenwith Bridge AFIS, some of the ICHS functionality (such assingle print identification and palm print analysis) will not beavailable to law enforcement agencies using older modelequipment. This interim Bridge AFIS capability is scheduledto be delivered as part of Phase 2/Build 1 in early summer2004. The capability will only be in place between Build 1completion and the completion of the final Build inDecember 2005. After that, agencies will have to upgradeor replace their older model livescan equipment to beable to use any of the ICHS system capabilities.

Thinking outside the box on the dilemma ofthe AFIS failure date presented FDLE with aunique opportunity to devise a unique resolution!

New ICHS FeaturesRap (Record of Arrested Person)Sheet

The readability and presentation of the rap sheet will beimproved to make it more easily understood.The new rapsheet will include the data elements covered in the nationalstandard rap sheet that has recently been adopted for infor-mation interchange. Some of these new data elementsinclude: drivers license number, photographs, and date-specific height, weight, hair color, eye color, and address. Inaddition, based on a requestor’s profile, a customized rapsheet oriented to the requestor’s needs may be obtained.Some examples include: rap sheets with just felonies, rapsheets with the information ordered from the last date ofarrest to the first date of arrest or vice versa, and rapsheets with or without photos.

ProfileICHS will use a profile of each individual within an

agency to determine the allowed functionality and accessrights or activity. The profile will contain contact informa-tion and access permissions to regulate access to functionsand data throughout the system. The profile will alsomaintain the individual’s preferences for the content, format,and method of delivery of reports (rap sheets), and informa-tion related to the billing for services, if applicable.

Searching Multiple Data SourcesICHS will provide the capability to search multiple data

sources. This is considered a time-saving strategy whennumerous data sources are queried for routine activities.ICHS will allow submission of an inquiry that will provideselected information from a variety of sources without thetedium of doing queries to each source independently.

Linking DataICHS will provide the capability to link demographic

data to each applicable arrest. Some examples of informa-tion to be collected and linked to the associated arrest

include: name(s); DOB(s); height; weight; hair color;mugshot; photos of scars, marks, and tattoos;

address; and occupation. This will allow a viewof the changes to a subject over a period oftime if multiple arrests occur.

Suspect LineupsICHS will provide the capability to provide

photo lineups of possible suspects when ICHSrecords include mugshots. This will assist investigators

in identifying suspects.

Elimination PrintsICHS will provide the capability to submit and retain

elimination prints from a crime scene and other emergencyresponse personnel when applicable laws allow it. This willhelp avoid potential misidentification of suspects.

Offender InformationICHS will provide the capability to enter information

regarding items worn or carried by an offender at the timeof arrest, and a text description of tattoos. Both of theseare searchable elements useful for investigations.

ICHS Phase Timeline/ Schedule

integration news page 5

DNAICHS will provide a notation that a DNA sample is

already available for the subject, which prevents duplicationof samples. There will be a reduced need for costly suppliesand labor used for DNA testing and an overall reduction induplicate processing. Cross references within the criminalhistory showing a DNA sample is on file along with finger-prints will provide additional reliability to the submissionand identification process.

Barcode PrinterAfter a single fingerprint identification of a subject from

whom a DNA sample needs to be collected, a barcode ofthe state identification number for the subject will beavailable for inclusion on the label that must be printed andattached to the DNA sample. The barcode printer may beused wherever the sample is taken.

Identity TheftICHS will provide the capability to verify a confirmed

identity theft victim based on fingerprints. On a voluntarybasis, an identity theft victim may be fingerprinted to havefingerprints stored in a database available to law enforce-ment agencies for positive identification.

ImagesA camera will capture a mugshot of the individual as

well as photographs of scars,marks and tattoos. A digitalimage of these photographsmay be submitted to ICHS forinclusion in the individual’srecord. These images providethe basis for subsequentautomated lineup capabilitieswithin ICHS.

Fingerprint CaptureA livescan device can

capture all ten fingerprints aswell as palm prints for entryinto ICHS or identification ofthe individual. Both rolledprints as well as slap prints maybe collected on this device.These livescan devices can alsointerface to a printer toproduce a hardcopy record forretention needs. This devicemay be used in severallocations, which include court-rooms for the capture of tenprints from individualsappearing due to a Notice toAppear, Summons or direct files

where fingerprints have not already been submitted for thiscase to establish an ICHS record.

Rapid IdentificationA rapid identification device will allow a single finger-

print (either a rolled or flat print) to be captured and usedto provide rapid and positive identification of an individual.Demographic information (e.g., name) and an associated fin-gerprint will be used to confirm the identity of the individ-ual subject. An input device, such as a PC or a magneticstripe reader, would be necessary to capture the demo-graphic information. Rapid identification techniques have anumber of potential applications. These include:

• Courtrooms to confirm the identity of the defendant.This includes first appearances.

• Clerks of Court to assist in insuring that dispositioninformation is associated with the correct individual.

• Prisons, detention centers, jails, etc. for processingindividuals as they enter or are released. This canalso be used for prisoner movement.

• Probation offices to allow probation officers toconfirm the identity of probationers.

• Patrol cars for on-site identification.

continued on page 6

page 6 vol. 1, no. 2

Among the many benefits anticipated withthe New Integrated Criminal HistorySystem are the capabilities to:

• Improve the rate of dispositions, on-line and withoutpaper submission from Florida’s Clerks of Court.

• Reduce processing time for the creation of andupdating of criminal records.

• Increase accuracy of records through automation andsingle entry at the data source.

• Continue Florida’s goal of meeting the timetables forcriminal history record completeness.

• Improve the presentation and readability of rapsheets, including implementation of the nationalstandard rap.

• Create the ability to allow links to hot files (protec-tive orders, domestic violence, arrests, warrants andconviction information) to improve access to protec-tion orders and records of subjects wanted forstalking and domestic violence.

• Allow the submission of images including mugshots,scars, tattoos and other features that will assist ininvestigations.

• Allow the submission of infor-mation regarding persons givenClemency by the Office of theGovernor that are necessaryto determine if the right topossess firearms has beenrestored.

• Support high volume on-linetransaction processing to meetthe growing needs of thecriminal justice community.Florida has over 51,000 devices, representing over1,000 criminal justice agencies with access to thenetwork. In addition, more than 2 million non-criminal justice checks are conducted each year.

• Improve integration between criminal history infor-mation, fingerprint images, and photographic images.

• Allow the submission of commitment information on-line and automated from the Department ofCorrections, with fingerprint images to supportpositive identification of incarcerated offenders.

• Create the foundation for a truly integrated criminalrecords system that is flexible to meet the growingand changing needs of our customers in Florida andnationally.

Lessons LearnedIf an organization is anticipating managing a large,

complex project, consideration should be given to dividingthe project into smaller tasks that can be associated withcontractual deliverables.

• The vendor’s incremental payments should always beassociated with contractual deliverables.

• Break vendors’ proprietary hold on system softwareand hardware and create competition amongvendors for cut-rate prices.

• Based on past experiences, FDLE believes that it ismore cost-effective to build a system that is modularin design, to avoid totally reengineering when there isa need to install additional components to theexisting system.

• Early involvement of stakeholders is critical to theproject’s success and is essential for change manage-ment.

• In the area of management ofexpectations, it is critical to ensurethat customers, policy makers, andthe vendor clearly perceive “successas success.”

• During the Analysis phase, it is oftendifficult for staff to share businessrules about each function when thestaff is very familiar with a routine.Staff must communicate these rules indetail while guarding against the riskof recreating your existing system.

• Involving a wide range of system users, with a varietyof disciplines, will minimize misunderstandings duringthe Analysis phase and will result in more accurateand complete system requirements.

• While attempting to establish a timeline for a projectof this magnitude, it is wise to factor in time thatmay be required to settle a dispute after thecontract award.

[ ]“FDLE believes that it is morecost-effective to build a sys-tem that is modular in design,to avoid totally reengineeringwhen there is a need to installadditional components to theexisting system.”

integration news page 7

SummaryThe ICHS is expected to be fully operational by

December 2005, with an Initial Operational Capabilitycurrently scheduled for October 2004. This major initiativeis expected to improve the delivery of services mandated byFlorida Statute and will include direct support for localagencies’ activity as a major component of ICHS. At theFinal Operational Capability, FDLE’s ICHS vision will beimplemented:

• A modular, integrated system providing online accessto a person’s complete criminal history, based onpositive biometric identification

• A high-volume, transaction-based system, using singledata entry to provide integrated, unambiguous,quality-assured multimedia data

• A system providing enhanced accessibility and dissem-ination of criminal justice information to the publicand criminal justice community through seamlessintegration with local, state, and federal systems

• A criminal justice information system that is moreresponsive and cost-effective

For more information on the ICHS project, readers mayemail the staff at ICHS@FLCJN.net or view the ICHS web-site at www.fdle.state.fl.us/ICHS/.

Project Matrix (Multistate Antiterrorism InformationExchange) lost two more states in January amid concerns ofprivacy, cost, and data security. Utah and Georgia, bothstarter members of the intergovernmental criminal trackingand identification project, pulled out, joining six other statesthat have withdrawn in the last six months.

Gov. Olene Walker put a hold on Utah’s participationJanuary 29 and formed a committee to assess the securityand social implications. Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue pulledhis state out on January 30, a few months after his attorneygeneral stated that sharing drivers license and vehicle regis-tration information violates state law.

Membership in Project Matrix costs states $1.7 million ayear for licenses to access the system.That is in addition toas much as $130,000 to build the necessary infrastructureto become a node on the Regional Information Sharing

Systems (RISS), a secure intranet that connects to a super-computer hosted by a Seisint Inc.

Jeffrey Hunker, a former senior director for critical infra-structure at the National Security Council stated,“Anetwork of information sharing and data mining among lawenforcement is both appropriate and inevitable. What Idon’t see with Matrix is a system of checks and balances.”Such checks and balances are necessary in an age whereprivacy and data security are prime considerations.

Project Matrix was started in January 2002 by theJustice and Homeland Security departments.

For more information visit: http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17602295.

MATRIX Loses Two States

page 8 vol. 1, no. 2

Steve Horneman has over 11 years experience inthe IT and software industries. Prior to becoming theDirector of Marketing for XAware, Inc., Steve served invarious leadership capacities at DEC, Quantum andCompaq. He has been instrumental in growingXAware’s Criminal Justice Integration Practice. Steve isa graduate of the University of Colorado in Marketing,with an MBA in Finance. He can be reached atshorneman@xaware.com.

Nancy LaPlaca, J.D., worked on justice integrationissues for the State of Arizona for five years for theArizona Supreme Court and the Criminal JusticeCommission. She helped develop Arizona’s statewidecriminal justice data dictionary and common chargetable, drafted statute and rule changes to improvereporting, and worked with counties to determinecriminal justice business process flows. Nancy’s privatesector experience includes criminal justice consultingwith Sybase, Inc. and XAware, Inc. She can be reachedat nancy@xaware.com.

XAware, Inc. is a worldwide leader in XML enablement, dataintegration, and information exchange. From a single point ofaccess, users can query, view, and update information fromdozens of data sources. XAware’s drag-and-drop environmentreduces the need to write complex custom code to retrieve,translate, manipulate, and exchange information. XAware utilizesweb services and can implement Justice XML. XML “views” ofdata from different systems can be created, updated, and thendecomposed and sent back to the original data source.

The State of Alaska used SEARCH’s JIEM (JusticeInformation Exchange Model) tool to map out thirty-sixexchanges. Rather than continue mapping hundreds ofexchanges, Alaska hired XAware to help implement an XML-based exchange between the Court and Public Defender forNotice of Appointment of Counsel. Implementing this exchangetook XAware and Alaska three days.

Every justice agency in the U.S. is acutely aware of thelack of electronic data sharing. Over the past two decades,approaches to sharing justice information have changed dra-matically. Integration efforts have included point-to-point,proprietary interfaces, centralized repositories and, mostrecently, a network-based approach. Traditionally, interfaceswere brittle, meaning custom code was required, and re-writing was required if any agency changed applications ordatabase. Some jurisdictions find data repositories a

necessary part of their IT infrastructure. Statistical analysismay require that persistent data be available. However, datarepositories have ongoing maintenance costs, technologiescan become out-of-date, and system performance issues arecommon problems. Bulk porting of data sets is oftennecessary.

Most recently, agencies have begun consideringnetwork-based integration. Users access information on-demand, and stakeholder agencies maintain ownership ofdata. Network-based integration using XML can include adata warehouse, but data persistence is not required. XML-based integration uses standardized protocols like SOAP(Simple Object Access Protocol) and WSDL (Web ServicesDescription Language) to exchange information over theweb.

Justice XMLJustice XML is the common articulated language that

drives a network-based approach. The standards created byJustice XML allow agencies to exchange information in aplatform-, application- and vendor-neutral environment.

Justice XML was created by the U.S. Department ofJustice (DOJ) and Georgia Tech Research Institute. IJIS, theInstitute for Justice Information Systems, is a non-profitorganization dedicated to helping justice agencies make thebest use of technology to share information. The GlobalJustice XML Data Dictionary Schema (GJXDDS) was firstreleased in June 2002. Both DOJ and IJIS have embracedXML as the best technology to quickly achieve interagencyexchanges.

Justice XML is standardizing data elements anddocuments and developing schema for rap sheets, courtfiling records, driver records, arrest warrants, chargingdocuments, and potentially hundreds of other documents.For more information, see: http://it.ojp.gov/initiatives/files/-JusticeXMLStructureTaskForceReport.doc.

Global Justice XML Data Dictionary (GJXDD) workgroups are developing common, well-defined data elements.The GJXDD group recognizes that the full schema is verylarge and over-inclusive, and that many agencies will only usea small percentage of the elements. They are working on atool that will allow agencies to pick and choose parts of theschema. Some customization of schemas will also beallowed. For example, an agency could restrict the fieldlength for a name to 30 characters, or filter out codes like

Case Study: Using XML for Alaska Criminal JusticeData Exchangeby Steve Horneman and Nancy LaPlaca

integration news page 9

the National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC’s) long listof vehicle codes. Unique, local components could also beadded as long as they fit GJXDD guidelines. GJXDD can befound at: www.it.ojp.gov/jxdd/prerelease/3.0.0.1/JusticeXML-DataDictionary.pdf.

The DOJ’s goals for Justice XML are to maximize datasharing, object reusability, and extensibility,easy mainte-nance, and employ currenttechnologies and best practices–for free!Although adoption of Justice XML isvoluntary, it will eventually be the standardfor all justice agencies.

What Are Web Services andService-Oriented Architecture?Web Services Overview

Web services are loosely coupledsoftware components delivered overInternet standard technologies. They enableenterprises to create interlinked, interactive systems thatcan communicate in a common dialect with each other.Web services are defined by three XML-based components:Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI)for registering and discovering web services,Web ServiceDescription Language (WSDL) for contacting/specifying thedetails of the service to be provided and describing thecommunication between the provider and the user, and theSOAP protocol for actually carrying the message andcarrying out the procedure call aspects on all interactions.

SOAP defines a uniform way of passing XML-encoded data.It allows remote procedure calls using HTTP (Hyper TextTransfer Protocol), allowing communication via the internetbetween remote systems. The internet is the physicalnetwork infrastructure, and SOAP is used to communicateXML messages via HTTP.

Service-oriented architecture has beenaround for some time, but until commonstandards like XML, SOAP, and WSDLexisted, there was no practical way to useit. XML, SOAP, UDDI, and WSDL are inter-operable and platform-neutral.

Web services run over HTTP andTCP/IP networks, just like web pages.Integration using XML and web servicescan be implemented one exchange at atime. XML’s revolutionary premise is thatdata can reside anywhere: in a database,

web pages, flat files, spreadsheet, etc. An XML message isconverted to a request that the data source being queriedcan understand, and the results are converted back to XML.The programming and processing are transparent and takeplace in a web server.

What’s so Great About Web Services?The real value of web services is that its benefits are

both immediate and long-term. Immediate benefits includerapidly implemented data exchanges, a one-exchange-at-a-

continued on page 10

[ ]“Network-basedintegration usingXML can includea data warehouse,but data persis-tence is not requ-ired.”

Key Features of XML-Based Integration Key Features of MXL-Based Integration

- COTS and industry standards-based approach tojustice information sharing

- Simpler and more cost-effective than point-to-pointand data warehouses

- Information Exchange from any application ordatabase, on any platform, to any client

- Flexible and scaleable - as standards evolve and projectscopes change

- Full bi-directional access with query, push, pull, publish,and subscribe

- Original and target data can be updated or returned ininitial state

- Synchronous or asynchronous transfer protocolsbased on events or triggers

- Authentication, authorization, and encryption

- Full support for XML, Justice XML, and Web services - Complete consulting, customization, and implementa-tion services available

XAware’s secure network-based information sharing approach

page 10 vol. 1, no. 2

time approach, and reuse data of XML objects. Once anobject is created, it can be added to a library of “create-once, use-many” XML objects, and served to any datasource that can process XML. Objectreuse means that as each successiveexchanges use objects already in thelibrary, the cost to build eachexchange goes down.

Objects are called “loosely-coupled” because the object is inde-pendent of the source. This allowsagencies to easily change vendors ortechnologies by re-mapping the dataobjects to the new source. Sinceprogram logic calls the object—andnot the source—there’s no need to change the object ifthe source changes. If an agency changes its application ordatabase, a simple re-mapping to the new data source isall that’s needed.

Using Web services for data source access rather thanhard-coded logic adds flexibility. The client data source(s)can know less about the system accessing it, and must

only be able to decode the XML stream and use SOAPmessages. Modifications are much easier than developingapplication-specific interfaces.

Alaska Creates MAJIC In July 2002, the State of Alaska organized a team of

criminal justice personnel from the Alaska Court System,Department of Public Safety (DPS), Anchorage Municipal

Prosecutor’s Office, Public Defender Agency, University ofAlaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center and the NationalLaw Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Center–Northwest (NLECT-NW), to look athow to best achieve interagency informationexchanges.The team submitted a charter tothe Criminal Justice Information AdvisoryBoard (CJIAB) for MAJIC (Mapping Alaska’sJustice InterChanges). Alaska Statute12.62.100 requires that the CJIAB advise DPSand other justice agencies on developing andoperating criminal justice information systems.The project obtained approval by the CJIABChair and MAJIC began.

The National Law Enforcementand Corrections Technology Center—Northwest

Law Enforcement and Corrections (LE&C) officers inAlaska and other remote areas of the United States faceunique challenges to crime prevention, investigation, andrehabilitation efforts. NLECT-NW was established toprovide assistance in defining LE&C’s requirements forinformation and operational technology, with specific

attention toward technologies thatsupport law enforcement and cor-rections under the extremeweather conditions and vastdistances of rural Alaska and otherparts of the United States.

A program of the NationalInstitute of Justice, NLECTC-NWwas founded in 2001 in partnershipwith Chenega Technology ServicesCorporation and identifies,evaluates, demonstrates, andassesses technology applications forstate and local law enforcement andcorrections agencies.

Staff at the NLECTC-NWpartnered with MAJIC teammembers to assist in the location oftechnologies, training, and tools toassist in the mission of achieving

criminal justice data integration across the state. Becauseof the far-reaching impact of this mission, NLECTC-NWhas made support of this group a priority since itsinception, both in funding and in providing staff.

After a two-day training session, the team beganmodeling exchanges—identifying the agencies, documents,events, and conditions involved in each exchange. The

“Law Enforcement andCorrections (LE&C)officers in Alaska andother remote areas ofthe United States faceunique challenges tocrime prevention, inves-tigation, and rehabilita-tion efforts.”

integration news page 11

team initially thought that the entire universe of exchangesshould be mapped before implementation, but later decidedthat more value would be achieved by demonstrating theeffectiveness of JIEM by implementing a proof of conceptexchange using XML. Thirty-six exchanges were document-ed for the proof of concept.

The Alaska team decided to use an XML and Webservices-based architecture, which allows bi-directionalexchanges–the ability to select and extract data from oneagency’s database and insert it into another agency’sdatabase.

The Institute for Justice InformationSystems RecommendsXML

IJIS, the Institute forJustice Information Systems, isa non-profit organizationdedicated to helping justiceagencies make the best use oftechnology to share informa-tion. IJIS is part of a projectsponsored by the GlobalJustice Information SharingAdvisory Committee (GAC),under the U.S. Department ofJustice (DOJ). GAC is charged with facilitating standards-based electronic information sharing within justice and lawenforcement. The broad scope is essential, since eventuallyinformation will be shared by a large number of agencies,from police to prosecutors to motor vehicles agencies. InJune 2002, the group produced the Global Justice XML DataDictionary Schema (GJXDDS). The Global Justice XMLData Dictionary (GJXDD) specification includes a DataDictionary, XML Schema and Data Model. This means thateach justice agency–whether law enforcement, courts, pros-ecution, defense, corrections, probation, motor vehicles orany other interacting agency–will utilize a common descrip-tion of data elements.

MAJIC’s Exchange between theCourts and Public Defender

For the proof of concept, the MAJIC teamchose an exchange between the AlaskaCourtView application and the Public DefenderAgency, requiring bi-directional exchangebetween an NT and Novell network andSQLServer 2000 database to Access97. Theproof of concept was for a single location handlingover 2,500 exchanges. When fully implemented, morethan 15,000 paper and manual appointment of counselexchanges that occur each year between these agencies willbe automated.

The MAJIC team had expected to spend hundreds ofthousands of dollars just mapping exchanges. However, JIEMallowed the project team to efficiently accomplish mappingand Alaska hired XAware to implement exchanges for afraction of the estimated project budget.

MAJIC’s future goals include implementing a second,more complex project, perhaps mapping exchanges involvingConditions of Release (bail conditions). Currently, thisprocess is entirely manual, leaving law enforcement andother agencies without online access to critical informationabout release conditions. The Alaska Court system ispoised to automate distribution of this data as part of itscourt application implementation. Once the proof of

concept project is implementedin the initial court location, thePublic Defender Agency andcourts intend to refine andexpand the exchange to othercourt locations.

XML Exchanges: HowDo They Work?

XML drag-and-drop toolscreate on-demand views of manydifferent agency data sources,including bi-directional

exchanges–essentially allowing one to extract from one datasource and insert into another. An XML integration servercan process data from internal systems to any outgoingXML schema and process inbound XML schemas to anynumber of internal systems without the need to write code.Information from many different sources can be aggregatedinto a single XML view.

Connectivity to other agencies, such as Motor Vehiclerecords can be added as needed. XML-enabling legacysystems using traditional custom code can be expensive andrisky.

SecurityThe exchange XAware implemented includes

XAware authentication, authorization andencryption by utilizing the existing capabilitieswithin typical customer application serverenvironments. End-user authentication isprovided by use of an ID and password on thepresentation layer.Authentication is provided

by passing the appropriate credentials in theWeb services request. HTTPS (Hypertext

Transfer Protocol over Secure Socket Layer)provides 128-bit encryption, essential for passing justice

information over the Internet.

continued on page 22

[ ]“XML drag-and-drop tools createon-demand views of many differentagency data sources, including bi-directional exchanges–essentiallyallowing one to extract from onedata source and insert into another.”

page 12 vol. 1, no. 2

A White PaperPrepared Bythe Pegasus Research FoundationDr. Lee Colwell

Dr. Lee Colwell is the Executive Director of thePegasus Research Foundation. He was formerlyAssociate Director of the FBI, and is a nationally recog-nized leader in local, State, and federal law enforce-ment policy development and implementation.

The Pegasus Research Foundation (“PRF”) is a non-profitcorporation created to work in coordination with the Nations’Sheriffs, municipal police, fire departments, first responder, publichealth, and critical infrastructure entities, to facilitate multi-statesharing of essential law enforcement and Homeland Securityinformation.The following piece is a reprint of a report toCongress on the information sharing needs and requirements ofthe Office of the Sheriff. It was prepared by Dr. Lee Colwell, ofPegasus Research Foundation, and submitted to Congress inOctober 2003. It urges Congress to consider the need fornationwide information sharing capabilities for local law enforce-ment and other essential front-lineresponders, and the dramatic impactthat has on homeland security. It alsoaddresses a concern of Congressregarding, “information sharing initia-tives that are being developed inde-pendently, with no apparent plan tointegrate them with other systemsoperated by Federal law enforcementand with RISS and LEO.”

BackgroundThe problem of inadequate

data interoperability—simply stated, computer systems thatare not integrated and, accordingly,“do not talk to eachother”—plagues Sheriffs’ Offices and all other governmentagencies at the local level, just as it plagues the Federal andState governments and corporate America. However, thisproblem is laden with critical policy implications when thesystems at issue are integral to the Nation’s crime fightingand homeland security efforts. While law enforcementagencies primarily investigate crime and provide an ever-increasing array of services to their constituents, lawenforcement agencies now are also central to preventingterrorist activity within the United States. Even so, the vastmajority of our front-line law enforcement personnel havenot yet been engaged in any nationwide information sharingeffort: the Hart-Rudman Report emphasizes that “650,000

local and state police officials continue to operate in avirtual intelligence vacuum.”1 These facts underscore thecritical policy relevance of two indisputable facts which ofnecessity must be central to any nationwide plan for infor-mation sharing: first, the next terrorist act in the UnitedStates will occur within the jurisdiction of a Sheriff; andsecond, Sheriffs have more than their fair share of the samecommunications and data interoperability problems plaguingagencies at all levels of government.

To address these two points, the NSA Pegasus Programhas been planned and developed in coordination with theFBI Law Enforcement OnLine (LEO) and the RegionalInformation Sharing System (RISS) programs. For more thantwo years, executives of NSA Pegasus, LEO and RISS havebeen in constant contact, proceeding with a plan for theaccomplishment of their distinctly different missions. NSAPegasus has committed to utilize existing LEO/RISS commu-nications infrastructure if that is the most economical route.Further, NSA Pegasus and LEO/RISS representatives havebeen coordinating for NSA Pegasus to meet informationsharing needs that LEO/RISS do not plan to meet.

Critical here is the factthat, except for NSAPegasus, no Federal, State orother agency, program orinstitution has as its missiona national plan to addressproblems of inadequate datainteroperability betweenSheriff’s Offices, municipaland tribal police agencies,fire departments, firstresponders, public healthoffices, water and electric

utilities and other critical infrastructure local level govern-ment and private sector entities. In fact, the Nation’sSheriffs, who provide law enforcement and public safetyservices ubiquitously throughout the Nation, believe thatonly the NSA Pegasus Program has precisely this planningvision.

With strong Congressional support in FY02 and FY03,NSA Pegasus has begun integrating and providing access tolocal law enforcement databases throughout the Nation,databases that LEO/RISS do not access and do not plan toaccess. Local agency database integration and access, acrossboth State and local jurisdictional boundaries and multiplesector “stovepipes”, is the principal mission of NSA Pegasus,complemented by efforts to advance nationally-embraced

[ ]“As a representative to South Carolina’sHomeland Security Council, there is oneconstant concern–lack of communica-tions through information sharing.”Sheriff Lee FosterSheriff, Newton County, SCRepresentative, SC Homeland Security Council

A Report to Congress on the Information Sharing Needs &Requirements of the Office of the Sheriff

integration news page 13

information sharing standards built on Federal policies andstandards. The NSA Pegasus Program will continue tocarry out its mission and plan with continued Congressionalsupport in FY04 and beyond.

The Problem-Inadequate DataInteroperability at the LocalLevel

One of the essential elements of ourNation’s structure of government, and one ofthe key components which gives our republicits strength, is that most law enforcement,criminal justice and public safety authority andresponsibility is carried out by local agencies,rather than by Federal or State agencies. Assuch, local agencies have the vast majority ofthe front-line personnel actually involved incritical, structural, frontline law enforcement,criminal justice and public safety responsibili-ties. At the same time, these local agencies,especially small and rural agencies, are alsothe least funded, least equipped and leastprepared to deal with the implications ofrapid technology changes. And, the fact isthat rapid technology changes fundamentally impact localagencies’ conduct of their missions, none more so than theprofound communications and information technology inno-vations that have emerged over the past decade.

In recent years, many of the Nation’s law enforcement,criminal justice and public safety planning efforts have beenFederal or State top-down initiatives, focusing on wholesalesolutions from a Federal or State perspective. These top-down approaches, while important in looking at the problemfrom the Federal or State perspective, do not, and struc-turally cannot, really focus on identifying and responding tothe front-line needs of local agencies. Nor do top-downapproaches empower local agencies: all too often, localagency “buy-in” and commitment, which is so critical to suc-cessful implementation at the local level, is ignored.

Since the events of 9-11, widespread national consensushas emerged over the law enforcement and homelandsecurity need for information sharing. A critical componentof this information sharing is “data interoperability” or “inte-gration”—computers that in fact “talk to each other.”Solving the data interoperability problem is not only vitallyimportant for local law enforcement to carry out its tradi-tional day-to-day operational mission, but has now taken ongrave new significance as local law enforcement, since 9-11,has taken on new homeland security responsibilities.

A variety of law enforcement initiatives are beingadvanced to solve some aspect of the problem of law

enforcement data interoperability. Many of these initiativesare primarily regional in nature, intended to solve theproblem for a designated local region. Additionally, thereare several information sharing initiatives at the nationallevel; however, these national initiatives are primarily data

communications networks that assumethat necessary and accessible localdatabases, and the computers andnetwork connections necessary for thosedatabases to be accessed, exist at thelocal level. Stated differently, even thoughthe need for access to local agencydatabases is an absolute necessity forlocal agency information sharing, it is notthe mission of any other national lawenforcement information system initia-tive, including LEO/RISS, to address thelack of integrated interoperable databasesat the local agency level.

From a policy standpoint, the properrole of the Federal government in solvingcommunications and information sharingproblems in State, local, and tribal

systems is to encourage, support and facilitate the designand implementation of “enterprise-wide” technologysolutions. That is, the Federal role is not to mandate tech-nology design, but rather to offer planning, support andguidance from a national perspective. This kind of meaning-ful Federal coordination and support is critical to the devel-opment of integrated local law enforcement, first responderand critical infrastructure sector information systems withinan “enterprise framework”: a broad, yet defined, set of prin-ciples, standards, and policies for nationwide integration ofinherently local, non-Federal and non-State, systems.

Local level information sharing requirements for lawenforcement, public safety and homeland security extendbeyond government agencies to others, including the privatesector. Many studies and commissions have pointed to theneed for information sharing, not just with and betweengovernment agencies but also with and between thoseprivate sector entities with critical infrastructure assets andresponsibilities. For example, after fifteen months of evalu-ating the Nation’s critical infrastructures, assessing their vul-nerabilities, and deliberating assurance alternatives, thePresident’s Commission on Critical InfrastructureProtection concluded that “information sharing is the mostimmediate need”, reasoning that increasing the sharing ofstrategic information within each infrastructure, acrossdifferent sectors, and between sectors and the government,will greatly assist efforts of owners and operators to identifytheir vulnerabilities and acquire tools needed forprotection.2

“… prior to 9-11, had areal-time data-sharingsystem between rural lawenforcement, state andfederal agencies been inplace–those routinetraffic stops involving theterrorists may haveresulted in theirdetention and perhapsprevented the 9-11tragedy”.Sheriff Wm.T. (Tommy) FerrellSheriff,Adams County, MSChairman, NSA PegasusAdvisory Board

continued on page 14

page 14 vol. 1, no. 2

The Federal Response to Inadequate DataInteroperability

The United States Department of Justice presents acompelling case study of the proactive Federal responsetaken in light of the events of 9/11 and in response to thechallenges presented by the lack of data interoperabilityamong Federal systems. In March 2002, the U.S. AttorneyGeneral named a DOJ Chief Information Officer with astrong mandate to provide leadership in DOJ’s InformationTechnology (IT) planning and implementation. To carry outthe Attorney General’s mandate, the DOJ CIO wasallocated several major responsibilities. Among theseresponsibilities are the promulgation ofDepartmental IT policies, processes, andstandards, and formulation of DOJ IT strategicplans. The still-new DOJ IT Strategic Plan, inturn, identifies eight overarching strategic goalsthat the Department will pursue in support of itsnew post-9/11 mission. In addition to the first goalof protecting America against the threat of terrorism,another DOJ strategic goal is to prevent and reduce crimeand violence by assisting State, tribal, local and community-based programs.

The DOJ IT Strategic Plan acknowledges thatInformation Technology is fundamental to meeting all DOJstrategic goals: that is, IT has become an integral part ofDepartmental mission accomplishment. This is because DOJIT provides an improved capability to identify, apprehend,and prosecute criminal suspects, and will also enhanceDepartmental gathering, analysis, and sharing of intelligenceinformation. In addition, under the DOJ IT Strategic Plan,DOJ IT provides the communications and computing infra-structure that ensures continuity of operations and rapidresponse in times of crisis.

Notwithstanding this kind of proactive Federal responseto integrate Federal databases, work on the complete taskat hand has hardly begun. Information still exists in variousdatabases spread among Federal, State, and local entities. Inmany cases, these computer systems cannot share inform-ation across the same level of government or betweenFederal, State, and local governments.3 Databases used forlaw enforcement, intelligence, and public health are notconnected to recognize information gaps. As a result,agencies storing information, such as a “watch list,” have notbeen able to thoroughly share that information with otheragencies.

Efforts to Achieve Data Interoperability atthe State and Local Levels

Except for the scale of the problem and the resourcesavailable to address it, problems identical to those addressedby the DOJ IT Strategic Plan also exist at the State and local

levels of government. Numerous State and local agenciesmaintain databases that entities in other states cannotaccess. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rec-ognizes these issues and intends to leverage America’sleading-edge information technology to develop an informa-tion architecture that will effectively secure the homeland.4

In addition, many State governments are taking steps to add-ress these problems, having the scale at the State level tomeaningfully do so.

Historically, State and local level responses to this kindof national problem at the State and local level

have been driven by Federal legislative supportfor State and local criminal justice initiatives.Since 1968, Federal legislative initiatives haveaddressed civil uprisings, juvenile justice,multi-jurisdictional drug crime, victims’rights and assistance, violence against

women, and community oriented policing.Funding for information technology equipment,

training and technical assistance is available througha variety of U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) programs,most notably the COPS Program, the Local LawEnforcement Block Grants Program, the Byrne Program, andthe Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program.Traditionally, funding from these programs has been“program-” or purpose-specific, focusing on the problems ofa single information “stovepipe.” The next step, presentlyfacing the Nation, is to integrate these information“stovepipes” at the State and local level, so that the informa-tion, and the investments which have been made in thesesystems, may be extracted and put to work for law enforce-ment, public safety and homeland security.

Consistent with this historical Federal role, the DOJOffice of Justice Programs (OJP) has served as a resourcesupporting the development of information systems thatenable the appropriate sharing of State, local, and tribalagency information. Supporting the endeavors of the justicecommunity to electronically share information is the focusof the Global Justice Information Network AdvisoryCommittee and the OJP and COPS technology initiativesdescribed in this document. In this connection, OJP FiscalYear 2000 and 2001 IT initiatives supported state, local, andtribal integrated justice systems, and in FY 2001 and 2002,OJP supported projects in eight broad areas of concentra-tion:

• State and local government standards to facilitate theappropriate sharing of information across organiza-tional boundaries;

• An IT website to support state and local governmentefforts to build integrated information systems;

integration news page 15

• Privacy initiatives to provide policy guidance, princi-ples, impact assessment capabilities and guidelines forpublic access to justice-related electronic records;

• Strategic planning for accomplishing informationsharing initiatives at state and local governmentlevels;

• Technical assistance and technology assistance tostate, local and tribal agencies of the justicecommunity;

• Project management education and training forproject managers of information sharing initiatives;

• Governance models for state and local governments;

• Shared initiatives with non-tradition-al associates from state and localgovernment and industry, workingtoward common objectives affectingthe justice community.

As a result of Congressional supportcarried out through OJP Programs, OJP hasfunded a significant number of local lawenforcement information sharing regionalclusters, usually contained within State orCongressional districts, and local agenciesthemselves have also funded such regionalclusters. These regional clusters, some inplace and some still under development, now represent thefoundational elements for a national plan for local agencyinformation sharing through local agency database integra-tion. That is, these regional clusters need a commonplatform for sharing their own information beyond theirregional boundaries, both with other regional clusters, withrural agencies that may never be part of such a regionalcluster, and with authorized Federal and State agencies. TheNSA Pegasus Program was designed to build on and enableinformation sharing across State and regional boundaries,across multiple sector “stovepipes,” and with and betweenall levels of government, specifically including small and rurallocal agencies which are least equipped to control their ownIT destinies, but which often serve as the Nation’s front-lineresponders for law enforcement and public safety.

In parallel with the DOJ IT Strategic Plan, the NSAPegasus Program also reflects Sheriffs’ recognition of howInformation Technology must now be applied, a fundamentalreorientation for many Sheriff ’s Offices. That is, Sheriffsrecognize that IT will: no longer be a support service, but an“active catalyst for change and a direct contributor tomission accomplishment;” no longer be decentralized tosupport individual agencies, but an “integrated, cohesive

endeavor that builds on shared mission requirements andfosters a collaborative mission environment;” no longer be“only reactive, matching technology to an identified publicsafety need, but also proactive.” As such, the NSA PegasusProgram has given the Nation’s Sheriffs a strategic founda-tion upon which to build local agency momentum towardachieving local agency data interoperability, nationwide, andacross multiple sectors.

The Underlying CausesWhile there are many causes for the problem of inade-

quate data interoperability at the local level, two factors areunderlying causes. One of these factors is a lack of localagency funding: for a great number of local agencies, therehas long been a lack of sufficient funding, often due to asmall, static tax base. As a result, thousands of local agencieshave for years been unable to create and maintain the

computer systems and databasesinherently required for integratingdatabases. The resulting lack ofequipment, software and trainedpersonnel has been compoundedby the second cause: a lack ofnationally-embraced standards forsuch systems and databases, estab-lished with meaningful input fromtheir ultimate users.

It is highly relevant that morethan 18,000 law enforcementagencies and 35,000 fire and

emergency medical agencies operate in the United States.Of necessity, the vast majority of these agencies purchasecommunications equipment independently of each other,5

and the same is true of IT systems. Due to the lack ofnationally-embraced standards for systems and databases,the ability to share information in real time rarely existsbetween these agencies.

The lack of nationally-embraced standards for linkinglocal agency information systems has also been substantiallyresponsible for the high costs involved with data integrationand has contributed significantly to the associated difficultiesof exchanging data between local agencies. Because anumber of organizations are currently acknowledging theimportance of local agency data integration standards, it isalso becoming critical that the adoption of data integrationstandards take into account emerging technologies, whichwill serve as the basis for automated data exchange. Withcontinued Congressional support, the NSA Pegasus Programwill continue its efforts of advancing nationally-embracedautomated data integration and data exchange standards,built on Federal policies, standards and guidance, driven by“bottom-up” support from local agency users.

continued on page 16

[ ]“Why reinvent a newdatabase when you canutilize the databases eachagency already uses andlikes?”Thomas N. FaustExecutive DirectorNational Sheriffs’Association

page 16 vol. 1, no. 2

The NeedFederal Leadership and Support for InformationSharing Between and Among All Levels of Governmentand the Private Sector, for Homeland Security

Although the nature of American society and thestructure of American governance make it impossible toachieve the goal of a secure homeland through FederalExecutive Branch action alone, theFederal government must lead theNation’s homeland security efforts.The requisite Federal leadershipinvolves shared responsibility andpartnership with the Congress, Stateand local governments, the privatesector, and the American people.

At the same time, Federalsupport of information sharing mustaddress not only information sharingwithin the Federal government, butalso information sharing betweenFederal, State, and local governments,and private sector organizations. ThePresident’s FY04 Budget proposed $722 million forimprovements to information–sharing within the Federalgovernment and between the Federal government and otherState and local governments. Such technology investmentswill improve the performance of agencies in preparing for,detecting, and responding to threats to homeland security.6

It is important to note that, other than the NSA PegasusProgram, no national initiative addresses the need for inter-operable local agency databases. The NSA Pegasus Program,on the other hand, is designed precisely to meet that need.Without the basic building block of the kind of local agency“buy-in” commitment which is represented by the NSAPegasus Program, local agency information sharing cannotoccur, either in support of traditional local operations or insupport of the National response to the terrorist threat.

A Cohesive and Responsive Approach to Local AgencyData Interoperability, Especially Focusing on SmallDepartments and Underserved Rural Areas

How information is to be shared by Sheriffs and otherlocal agencies is impacted by many variables. For instance,Sheriffs, police, courts, and other agencies in rural areaswork together more closely than their counterparts inurban areas. Sharing computer networks may also be amore compelling solution for local law enforcementagencies in rural areas with low tax bases and scarceresources. One size won’t fit all, due often to circum-stances well beyond the control of the Sheriff or localagency, or the community. This point is emphasized by theHart-Rudman Report of an Independent Task Force

sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations7, whichstates,“Given the size and complexity of the Americansociety, there are no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches toaddressing the nation’s most serious homeland vulnerabili-ties.”

Many rural agencies and departments have small taxbases and very scarce resources. Of the 3,088 Sheriffs’

Offices nationwide, approxi-mately 95% use computersfor administrative purposes.However, 2,000 or more ofthese Offices do not havethe IT staff needed tosupport them, and the vastmajority of these Officeseither have no Internetaccess or only insecure andhighly inefficient slow speeddialup access.

The continuing availabili-ty of increasingly powerfulbut less expensive

computers and the still-emerging expanded availability ofhigh-speed Internet access, as well as other related technol-ogy developments, could all have a considerable impact onsmall and rural law enforcement agencies. Informationsharing, remote site training, and improved communicationsacross large jurisdictions, are examples of how technologycould benefit small and underserved rural departments.Further, the falling costs of this technology put it within thereach of more small and rural departments than ever, espe-cially if given Federal fiscal support.

The NSA Pegasus Program is designed to build uponthese technology developments, as well as innovative uses ofnew technology, to bring a cohesive and responsiveapproach to local agency data interoperability, especiallyfocusing on small and underserved rural areas. Thisapproach is entirely supported by Federal studies showingthat computer interoperability enhances the quality ofjustice.8

The SolutionThe NSA Pegasus Program is needed because there is

no other national program that addresses the lack of inter-operable local law enforcement databases. Without supportat the local level of the kind being advanced by the NSAPegasus Program, local agency information sharing cannotoccur to shore up everyday local law enforcement, or insupport of the National response to the terrorist threat.

In FY02, the U.S. Congress authorized $800,000 infunding for the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), for

[ ]“The NSA Pegasus Program willcontinue its efforts to advancenationally-embraced automateddata integration and data exchangestandards, built on Federal policies,standards and guidance, driven by‘bottom-up’ support.”Dr. Lee ColwellExecutive DirectorPegasus Research Foundation

integration news page 17

development of a pilot system for multi-state informationsharing of local law enforcement information. That fundingmade possible a pilot system with a limited purpose: toserve as a demonstration project thatwould identify problems and lessonslearned in creating multi-state informa-tion sharing systems serving localagencies. In FY03, the Congress author-ized an additional $4,750,000 for initialdeployment of the NSA Pegasus System.

In the Summer of 2002, the NationalSheriffs’ Association, with the support ofNSA leaders and members, asked thePegasus Research Foundation to conducta focus group of the Nation’s Sheriffs toanalyze the problems and issues thatcreate barriers, technological, institution-al or political, involved in multi-state orinterstate information sharing by localagencies. In addition, the NSA asked thata model approach be identified for on-going governance, cost minimizationthrough shared infrastructure, andfunding of a multi-state informationsharing system. The NSA mandate wasto focus first on addressing the followinggenerally stated multi-state local lawenforcement information sharing needs:

• “Bottom-up,” local agency driven, information tech-nology solutions.

• Multi-state (or interstate) sharing of local informa-tion.

• Utilizing corporate quality emerging technologies,especially the Internet.

On November 9, 10 & 11, 2002, the NSA PegasusForum Focus Group was conducted in Orlando, Florida withparticipating Sheriffs representing a broad cross-section ofthe Nation’s 3,088 Sheriffs: rural and urban; large and small;self-dispatching and mutually assisted dispatching offices.Representing such a broad spectrum of Sheriff’s Offices, theparticipants presented unique insight into the problems andneeds for information sharing as they, the Sheriff, lives it, notas others might theorize their needs. This insight was con-sidered especially important for the rural Sheriff, a groupthat represents 84% of all Sheriffs. Of the 3,088 Sheriffs’Offices nationwide, 2,596 (or 84%) of these Offices servepopulations of less than 100,000,9 while 2,207 Sheriffs’Offices (or 71% of the total) serve rural populations of lessthan 50,000.10 The following summarizes the deliberations ofthe Pegasus Forum Focus Group.

Sheriffs attending the Focus Group were first briefed onthe problem and provided with a proposed vision for theestablishment of a program to address the problem. They

also were provided a proposed missionstatement, goals, and an organizationaland governance structure. The Sheriffsin attendance first confirmed that theproblem of inadequate data interoper-ability is a significant nationwide problemand that the NSA Pegasus Program isthe vehicle best suited for Sheriffs toaddress the problem. ParticipatingSheriffs acknowledged that informationsharing depends on “data interoperabili-ty”—computers that “talk to eachother”—and that Sheriffs’ Officecomputers often do not “talk to eachother.” The Sheriffs concurred that,despite the national policy of informationsharing, no other national program isdedicated to solving this lack of datainteroperability.

With this consensus, the Sheriffsreviewed, discussed, and gave unanimousagreement to the following NSA PegasusProgram vision statement:“Through theNSA Pegasus Program, Sheriffs willexercise national leadership at the

county level, leading a fundamental reorientation for many inthe Nation’s local law enforcement community of viewingand using IT information sharing as a direct contributor tomission accomplishment by participating agencies nation-wide.”

Next, the Sheriffs came to concurrence on the followingPegasus Program Mission Statement:“It is the Mission of theNSA Pegasus Program to meet the problem of inadequatelocal law enforcement Data Interoperability, by:

Determining what is available to Sheriffs, and whatcomputer systems Sheriffs need, to be able to access andmanage information for information sharing, and

Assuring the availability to Sheriffs of the multi-stateinformation sharing capabilities necessary to meet thoseneeds.”

With the vision and mission established, the Sheriffsnext considered Pegasus Program goals. Following reviewand deliberation, the Pegasus Program’s goals were estab-lished as follows:

continued on page 18

“The objective will be toprove information in sher-iffs’ legacy systems can bemade accessible to otherusers, and also acrosscounty and state lines, tosolve a two-part nationalproblem–computerizedrecords in sheriffs’ officesthat cannot be electron-ically accessed, and sher-iffs’ offices that do nothave the resources for thecomputerization of recordsand the broadband inter-connections needed toshare information.”Sheriff Wm.T. (Tommy) FerrellSheriff,Adams County, MSChairman, NSA Pegasus AdvisoryBoard

page 18 vol. 1, no. 2

• “To enable the nation’s Sheriffs and other localagencies they work with to share informationquickly, easily and appropriately—between andamong local law enforcement; with first respondersand public health; with State and Federal law enforce-ment; with private sector entities having critical infra-structure protection responsibilities; and with thepublic.

• To assist Sheriffs and other local law enforcement insecuring and protecting information.

• To see that IT services provided as part of thePegasus Program are reliable, secure, trusted andcost-effective.

• Ultimately, to enable local law enforcement to useIT and IT training to improve law enforcementeffectiveness and performance.

• To assist Sheriffs in leading efforts toshare local records and informationnationwide.”

Finally, the Sheriffs reviewed and approvedan Organization and Governance structure, thesalient points of which include the following:

• “Sheriffs will identify other local agencies intheir counties that they want to share informa-tion with, such as municipal law enforcement, fire,EMS and public health agencies.

• Each Sheriff will retain complete control over theinformation his/her Office shares, and who hasaccess to specific data of his/her Office.

• Sheriffs, with the support of the NSA, will set theinformation sharing policies and standards that applyto Sheriffs’ Offices.

• The NSA will outsource the Pegasus Program infor-mation-sharing infrastructure.”

Based on the findings of this Focus Group, during theSummer of 2003, the NSA Pegasus Program deployed a PilotSystem Project which demonstrated the consensus for andfeasibility of multi-state or interstate information sharing bylocal agencies. This Pilot System linked four Sheriffs’ Officesin three States, and focused on building consensus for, andthen technically demonstrating, local agency database inter-operability. The Pilot System Project integrated local agencylaw enforcement records across multiple agency platforms,and demonstrated the consensus achieved among Sheriffs asto how they want to share information between and amongthemselves and others with whom they work, and the

technical feasibility of doing so, laying a solid for nationwidedeployment of the NSA Pegasus System.

CONCLUSIONA solid foundation for the NSA Pegasus Program has

been laid. The program is a nonfederal multi-stateimmediate information sharing system designed by and forlocal law enforcement, utilizing COTS technology. It isoperated to meet U.S. Department of Justice approvedNIST standards by the Pegasus Research Foundation, incoordination with and for the National Sheriffs’ Association(NSA). NSA Pegasus is the only local agency driven effortto integrate existing local agency legacy databases nation-wide. To preclude duplication of effort, NSA Pegasus hasbeen developed in coordination with related FederalPrograms, especially LEO and RISS. As such, NSA Pegasus is

a critical part of the Nation’s Plan for HomelandSecurity, to be implemented at the local level in

every county in the Nation.

The DHS white paper entitled TheNational Strategy for Homeland Securityacknowledges the crucial role of state andlocal governments, private institutions, andthe American people in securing ourhomeland. It also recognizes that the

Federal government needs to do a betterjob of utilizing the capabilities of state and

local law enforcement to prevent terrorism bygiving them access, where appropriate, to the infor-

mation in our federal databases, and by utilizing state andlocal information at the Federal level.11

The NSA Pegasus Program will focus on integratingexisting local agency databases using the DOJ Justice XMLData Model and eXtensible Markup Language (XML) tags,making the data in those databases easy to access by allauthorized users. The GAO has encouraged the Congressto require that OMB move quickly to require Federalagencies to use XML. If NSA were not to exercise leader-ship here, it is certainly foreseeable that systems now beingdeployed would later have to be retrofitted, at greatexpense, to accommodate standard XML tags. Thus, NSA’sefforts to advance the DOJ Justice XML Data Model forlocal law enforcement systems is an important part of thesolution to the problem of inadequate data interoperability.

Recognizing the necessity of Federal support for manySheriffs and communities that otherwise lack the resourcesto participate in the NSA Pegasus Program, involvedagencies must also realize that the NSA Pegasus Programmust be a partnership, with no one level of governmenthaving complete autonomous control or policy establish-ment over the system.

integration news page 19

Pegasus Research FoundationNational Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) Pegasus Program

ÒMeeting the information sharing needs of Sheriffs and those they work withÓ

A massive effort is underway to integrate more thantwo dozen criminal and terrorist databanks as part of a newimmigration tracking system. The Department of HomelandSecurity plans to integrate 27 different biographical data-bases and one biometric database this year to make the U.S.Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US- VISIT)program work. US-VISIT requires that most foreign visitorstraveling to the U.S. on a visa have their two index fingersscanned and a digital photograph taken to verify theiridentity at the port of entry.

An issue of concern to some immigration advocates isthe fact that inaccurate information may cause problems forpeople entering the country. Last March, the FBI announcedthat it was exempting databases within its National Crime

Information Center, Central Records System, and NationalCenter for the Analysis of Violent Crime from compliancewith accuracy regulations under the 1974 Privacy Act. Whilethe FBI states it makes every effort to ensure accuracy, itsays,“it is impossible to determine in advance what informa-tion is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.” JudithGolub, a representative from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said visitors to the U.S. mightfind their information being compared with inaccurate FBIdata, causing confusion and unnecessary detentions.

For more information visit the Department ofHomeland Security at: www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3043 or www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0104/010704c1.htm.

Integrated Databanks Cause Concern for Foreign Visitors

The FY04 RequestThe NSA Pegasus Program requested $10 Million in

continuation funding for FY04. Language in the HouseSubcommittee Report, No. 108-221 (p. 39), expressesconcern about “information sharing initiatives that are beingdeveloped independently, with no apparent plan to integratethem with other systems operated by Federal law enforce-

ment and with RISS and LEO.” With continued funding inFY04, the NSA Pegasus Program will begin to connect policeagencies, fire departments, utilities and other governmentaland private sector critical infrastructure organizations andinsure that, where possible, it utilizes existing communica-tions infrastructure and is compatible with LEO and RISS.

1. Ibid.2. Critical Foundations-Protecting America’s Infrastructures: The

Report of the President’s Commission on Critical InfrastructureProtection. October 1997.

3.The National Strategy for Homeland Security, White Paperpublished by the Department of Homeland Security, July 2002.

4. Ibid.5.“Public Safety and the Interoperability Challenge,” by Brenna

Smith; National Institute of Justice Journal; April 2000.6. Statement of Mark A. Forman, Associate Director for

Information Technology and Electronic Government, OMBbefore the Committee on Government Reform Subcommitteeon Technology and Procurement Policy, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, June 7, 2002.

7. Hart-Rudman Report “America Still Unprepared–America Stillin Danger,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 2002.

8. “Crime and Policing in Rural and Small-Town America: AnOverview of the Issues,” NIJ Research Report, September 1995;by Drs. Ralph A.Weisheit, L. Edward Wells and David N.Falcone.

9. Sheriffs’ Offices 1999, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2001,NCJ 186479.

10. Ibid.11. National Strategy for Homeland Security,White Paper published

by the Department of Homeland Security, July, 2002.

page 20 vol. 1, no. 2

Brian LeDuc became Washington State’s JusticeInformation Network Program Director in April 2003.Prior to accepting that position he served as counsel tothe electronic public access program of the federalcourts and as an American Bar Association liaison on alegal reform in Macedonia.

The January/February issue of Integration News discussedthe formation of Washington State’s Justice Information Network,the biggest challenges to implementing a statewide integrationprogram, and six principles for making an effective start. In thisupdate, Mr. LeDuc reports on the responses received toWashington’s RFI and the current status of the project.

In October 2003, the Washington State JusticeInformation Network (JIN) Program Office issued a Requestfor Information (RFI). The RFIexpressed the goal of understand-ing the nature and scope of what itmight mean to develop an integra-tion solution for the state—thetask that the law has essentiallyassigned to the governancestructure for JIN (the IntegratedJustice Information Board).

When the RFI was issued, therewas considerable skepticism as towhat might result. It asked for assis-tance with some complexquestions, as well as a proof-of-concept, to be delivered atno cost to the state. Compounding internal fears of thequestionable desirability of filing a response, many of thesubsequent technical questions asked about what kind ofrequest for proposal (RFP) would follow. In answer, theProgram Office had to admit that an RFP was not acertainty, and that it was dependent on securing funding—ina state already strapped for cash.

While the arrival of the first response on December 19allayed fears that nocompany would be inter-ested, the arrival of theeighth response creatednew fears that theTechnical Advisory Group(TAG) might be over-whelmed by the mountainof information that nowneeded to be reviewed.

The proposals, all extremely well-prepared and brimmingwith both general and specific information, offered a varietyof possible solutions, many of which were already working inother states or local jurisdictions. From data warehouses toenterprise service bus (ESB) technology, an array of choicesand strategic directions were presented for review.

After meeting to discuss the proposals, the TAG agreedto invite four of the respondents to make presentations.For the most part, solutions that were judged as overly pro-prietary or more centralized in nature were seen as lessdesirable than more open, diffused models, which might helpindividual agencies or jurisdictions to work independently ina collaborative environment.

The presentations, which were held on February 3, wereagain, extremely well-doneand informative. Of the fourvendors, two, Equarius1 (inpartnership with Microsoft)and Online Business Systems2

(in partnership with SonicSoftware) were invited tocollaborate on proof-of-concept projects for thestate. Both of thesecompanies are already doingsignificant integration workin the state (Equarius withKing County, Online with the

city of Seattle), and both demonstrated expertise in boththe current environment in Washington and the steps bywhich a statewide integration effort ought to proceed.

The Equarius proposed solution uses Microsoft Biz Talkserver and XML-based technologies to share data betweendiverse systems. Their proof-of-concept developmentefforts, which are just getting underway at this time, proposeto publish data from the State Patrol system as a webservice, which will facilitate its exchange in a variety of wayswith members of the justice community.

The Online system uses ESB technology to develop asuite of exchanges in an open architecture. Their proof-of-concept, which is also still in the planning phase, proposes anexchange of citation data among the Seattle MunicipalCourt, the Administrative Office of the Courts and theDepartment of Licensing.

Both of these projects offer an opportunity to demonst-rate that the technology can work and that integration canbe accomplished in a multifaceted environment with minimal

[ ]“Solutions that were judged as overlyproprietary or more centralized innature were seen as less desirable thanmore open, diffused models, whichmight help individual agencies or juris-dictions to work independently in acollaborative environment.”

Private Sector Responds to WA Call for Educationby Brian LeDuc

“Both of these projectsoffer an opportunity todemonstrate that thetechnology can workand that integration canbe accomplished in amultifaceted environ-ment with minimalimpact on existingsystems.”

integration news page 21

impact on existing systems. The viability of each and thewillingness of the state to embrace and fund a collectivesolution, still remain to be seen. Nevertheless, the JIN hastaken an important step toward turning its vision ofimproving public safety by providing criminal justice practi-tioners with complete, timely and accurate information, andimproving operating efficiency by facilitating the integrationof disparate systems throughout the state into a reality. Andit has done so thus far at no cost to the state.

You can follow the progress of these efforts atwww.jin.wa.gov.

Several departments in four Maryland counties havecreated a shared information system built on real-timeaccess to local, state, and federal crime databases over awireless network called Info-Cop. This is the first timeagencies in Wicomico, Dorchester,Worchester, andSomerset Counties have been able to exchange real-timeinformation between departments.

Spanning several Maryland counties, the Info-Cop systemis rooted in Wicomico County’s Salisbury PoliceDepartment. For seven years, the Salisbury PD has beenusing grant funding from the Local Law Enforcement BlockGrant to invest in technology, with a focus on mobile data.This mobile data technology initiative has resulted in thedepartment’s development and management of the onlymobile data switch on the Eastern Shore to utilize a publiccellular network.

“Our intent in building the wireless network in Salisburywas to expand to our neighboring communities once it wasoperational,” said Chief Allan J.Webster of the SalisburyPolice Department. He also said today they are able to,“communicate over a much larger geographical area, whileproviding data-sharing and rapid-access information toolsthat were never before available to us.”

The Salisbury network now has the ability to make aseamless connection to any potential partner departmentusing any heterogeneous network including CPDP, GRPS,1X, and CDMA, as well as private radio. Maryland’s networkis expected to increase later this year to include sevencounties and a total of 21 agencies covering 3,337 miles anda population of 408,300.

Maryland Counties Create Integrated Network

SUBSCRIBE NOW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL RATE!

1. www.equarius.com.2. www.online-usa.com.

page 22 vol. 1, no. 2

Connecticut recently moved to begin modification ofthe Connecticut On-Line Law Enforcement CommunicationsTeleprocessing (COLLECT) Revision Project, in support ofthe State’s Department of Public Safety, Division of StatePolice.

COLLECT is the law enforcement officer’s link topublic safety information including warrants, protectionorders, motor vehicle registrations, operator history, stolenproperty, criminal history, and offender status information.This information is critical to officers, front-line criminaljustice personnel, and general public safety in a developingcriminal incident or traffic stop. On-the-street officers, dis-patchers, and criminal investigators are dependent upon itsaround-the-clock operation.

Under a newly signed contract, MAXIMUS will replacethe current COLLECT system with a combination of com-mercially available, off-the-shelf products and customproducts based upon public safety and open systemsstandards and architecture. This will provide over 13,000authorized state, federal, and local police and criminal justiceusers access to state and national law enforcement informa-tion.

A partner in the project, Advanced Technology Systems(ATS), provides a web browser and message switch that will

be customized to support Connecticut’s specific require-ments and interfaced with Peak Performance SolutionsnexTEST NCIC and State Certification web-based testingsoftware. MAXIMUS will design, build, and integrate a sup-porting Oracle application and database with the ATSproducts and Connecticut’s existing legacy informationsystems. COLLECT will be the State’s single informationconduit to national law enforcement systems, notably theNational Crime Information Center (NCIC) and theNational Law Enforcement Telecommunications System(NLETS).

The Connecticut COLLECT Revision Project will beamong the first systems in the nation to implement thelatest law enforcement national standards including NLETSXML messaging and rap sheets. As all states update theirlaw enforcement message switching systems, they will adoptthe same web-based technologies and XML justice standardsused in COLLECT to satisfy increasing demands for publicsafety and justice integration. Systems such as COLLECT,that provide connections to nationally linked law enforce-ment systems, will play a significant role in homelandsecurity initiatives and communications within the state andfederal jurisdictions.

For more information visit www.maximus.com.

Connecticut to Improve Officer Access to Information

Network-Centric Approach Leveraging WebServices

A network-based approach allows access to informationon-demand. Information is retrieved, viewed, and only therequired elements are presented to the receiving applica-tion–information isn’t stored in a separate database or datawarehouse. This dramatically reduces complexity, costs, andsecurity exposures as information exchanges are built. Webservices are software components delivered over theInternet using standardized technologies. SOAP is the corestandard for Web services and defines a uniform way ofpassing XML-encoded data. It allows remote procedurecalls using HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), allowingcommunication via the Internet between remote systems.The Internet is the physical network infrastructure, andSOAP is used to communicate XML messages via HTTP. Anetwork-based integration approach using XML allowsagencies to use existing applications and data sources,without adding a repository, servers, or building customapplication interfaces. Standards like JusticeXML andLegalXML provide a common vocabulary and vendor-neutralenvironment.

Alaska’s advice for other states going downthe integration road:

• Document exchanges, so that you understand: Rulesand statutes governing information sharing, businessrules, triggers, timing, and source and target reconcili-ation.

• Don’t get bogged down in modeling: Test it on anactual exchange, and implement exchanges as youmodel them.

• Get detailed information from experts and practition-ers: Build a dedicated, cohesive group committed toresolving issues.

• Have the authority to make decisions: Write a clearcharter signed by all agencies.

The entire MAJIC team is justifiably proud of its accom-plishment, and looks forward to the next successfulexchange. XAware, Inc. is proud and happy to be part ofAlaska’s success.

Case Study . . . continued from page 11

Conferences and Events

Roadmap for Information Sharing:A Seminar for Justice Information Systems Decision Makers and ManagersApril 6-8, Baltimore, MD; May 4-6, Chicago, IL; May 18-20, Phoenix,AZ; June 9-11,Atlanta,GA.The National Criminal Justice Association in cooperation with the IJIS Institute and the Justice Information SharingProfessionals (JISP) is presenting a series of regional seminars exploring useful aspects of a framework for justice informa-tion sharing. Topics covered in the seminar include: governance, security, privacy, measuring project success as well as tech-nology choices along the way. These seminars are designed to help managers who are or may become involved in imple-menting information sharing technology among law enforcement and criminal justice organizations to increase the effective-ness of justice processes and provide greater homeland security. There is no registration fee, but participants are responsi-ble for all costs incurred to attend the seminar. For more information: www.ncja.org.

NCSC’s Planning,Acquiring, and Implementing Court TechnologyApril 26-28, 2004,Williamsburg,VA.Discover how to develop an effective technology budget request, use the National Model RFP, and understand and betternegotiate technology purchase and maintenance contracts. Court managers must have an understanding of how to acquire,implement, and manage court technology effectively. For more information: https://secure.ncsc.dni.us/icm/reg.html.

Government Technology Conference (GTC)May 10-14, 2004, Sacramento, CA.GTC features nationally known speakers, dozens of relevant workshops and seminars and exhibits from hundreds ofcomputer and telecommunications firms featuring information technology solutions for state and local government. Formore information: www.govtech.net.

Developer’s Workshop: Global Justice XML Data ModelMay 11-13, 2004,Atlanta, GA.The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is pleased to offer the first public training workshop onGJXDM version 3.0.This workshop is specifically designed for developers and practitioners in the field to provide the infor-mation needed to bring them up to speed on the newly released 3.0 version.This workshop will be a highly technicalsession and will include: hands on exercises, experienced presenters, and actual case studies.Registration information will be available in March at http://it.ojp.gov/GJXDMregister or visit:www.ncja.org/pdf/GJXDM_Developers_Workshop.pdf.

International Conference on Biometric AuthenticationJuly 15-17, 2004, Hong Kong.The purpose of this conference is to emphasize the design and development of efficient and effective biometric technolo-gies and systems, provide an international forum for researchers, engineers and vendors from different disciplines toexchange ideas, identify problems, evaluate system performance, explore new research directions, and initiate possible col-laborative research and future system developments. This conference will significantly benefit biometric researchers inacademic, government, and industrial sectors. For more information: www4.comp.polyu.edu.hk/~icba/.

From Prison to Home: Supporting Communities, Families, and InmatesNational Criminal Justice Association National Forum 2004.August 7-11, 2004, Chicago, IL.Save the dates for this outstanding upcoming conference. Details soon to come.For more information: www.ncja.org/pdf/savethedates.pdf.

integration news page 23

Special Promotional Offer $95!PromotionalCode 42-A

IntegrationNewsCRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA INTEGRATION

BGL PublishingP.O. Box 68Milbank, SD 57252

BGL PublishingP.O. Box 68Milbank, SD 57252(605) 432-6801IntegrationNews

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA INTEGRATION

Name Title

Agency/Company

Street Address City/State/Zip

E-Mail Phone: Please send me an invoice.

Promotional Price (Code 42-A)One year (6 issues) Electronic Copy $95One year (6 issues) Hard Copy $95

* Feel free to copy and distribute your subscription issues throughout your agency or company.

Regular PriceOne year (6 issues) Electronic Copy $125One year (6 issues) Hard Copy $149

Five Convenient Ways to Subscribe:E-mail: subscribe@integrationnews.com Website: www.integrationnews.comPhone: (605) 432-6801 Fax: (605) 432-9121 OR Mail this form with check to:Integration News P.O. Box 68 Milbank, SD 57252