Post on 28-Dec-2015
1
NYC
D.C Metro
PA
JUSTIS & The SHIELD Pilot
December 12, 2003
Office of Justice Programs
Senior Staff Presentation
2
JUSTIS - Stakeholders• Metropolitan Police Department • Superior Court of the District of Columbia• Office of Corporation Counsel• Pretrial Services Agency• District of Columbia Department of
Corrections• Office of the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia• Public Defender Service• United States Parole Commission• Department of Human Services’ Youth
Services Administration• United States Probation Office (US Dist. Ct)• Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency• Child and Family Services Agency• United States Bureau of Prisons • District of Columbia DMV
City
Federal
Federal Independent
Judicial
4
The Problem
• The information systems maintained by the justice agencies within the Region and the Nation are difficult, if not impossible, to access.
• Information exchanges are labor intensive, time consuming, inconsistent, frequently manual, and often go unprocessed.
5
The SHIELD Pilot
• New York City, Metropolitan Washington DC, Pennsylvania - sharing vital information through a regional pilot.
NYC
D.C Metro
PA
6
SHIELD Pilot Stakeholders
• DC - JUSTIS • PA - JNET• VA – District Courts
Circuit Courts Local Incarceration
• MD – Circuit Court Division of Corrections
• NYC – Corrections
Observers: Ohio, Alabama, Fairfax County PD / County Sheriff / City PD, Georgetown University, New York City PD, Virginia State Police, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, Virginia Department of Corrections, State Department / Diplomatic Security, University of Tennessee, Wisconsin, Upper Midwest Justice Consortium, New York Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure, Colorado State Courts, University of Alabama.
7
Objectives:
• Pilot a Regional Homeland Security and Criminal Justice Model
• Exhibit we have the ability• Prove we have the will
• Learn from the experience
• Use that knowledge as the foundation for the future Regional System
8
Demonstrate the PossibilitiesOF
• Real-time, multi-jurisdictional sharing of data through secure Internet connections
• A medium for secure interoperability, communication and collaboration
• An end of historical barriers to sharing vital information for homeland security
• A basis for a model that can be replicated by jurisdictions throughout the nation
• Utilization of the data by CJ and HS personnel in both Tactical and Investigative situations
9
JUSTIS Provided a SHIELD Foundation
• recognize the primacy of each justice agency mission
• facilitate collaborative solutions to justice information challenges
• commit to the quality and integrity of justice data
• implement effective data and system security
• respect the confidentiality of information and individual privacy
10
Expected SHIELD Benefits
• Provide users with timely information on offender status
• Provide a unified access – a user in one city/state/agency can see all accessible data
• Enable secure collaboration among authorized users • Increase speed in processing, investigation
• Improve quality of public safety decisions
• Enable Homeland Security analysis
• Provide an architecture to support the future
11
Did We Obtain the Expected SHIELD Benefits ?
• Yes - Provide users with timely information on offender status
• Yes / No - Provide a unified access – a user in one city/state/agency can see all accessible data
• Yes - Enable secure collaboration among authorized
users • Yes / No - Increase speed in processing, investigation
• Yes - Improve quality of public safety decisions
• Yes - Enable Homeland Security analysis
• No - Provide an architecture to support the future
12
Yes – Provide users with timely information on offender status
Yes – Improve quality of public safety decisions
Evaluation: Comparison of "Hits" - JUSTIS Augmented by SHIELD
JUSTIS SHIELD
Va Va Va Md Md PaDCDC DCSC MPD PSA USAO USPC CSOSA Circuit District Jails Circuit DOC JNET
Offender1 12 23 1 1 14 1 1 1 15 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 17 1
Totals 2 4 1 4 1 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0
System Total 13 System Total 6
Increase in Knowledge
46.2%
13
Yes – Provide users with timely information on offender status
Yes – Improve quality of public safety decisions
Evaluation: Systems NOT In Play for SHIELD
Typical Record Types SHIELD Participants
DC MD NYC PA VA
Criminal History XIdentification X XArrest Records X XDetention Records X X XPretrial Records X XLower Court Records X X XSuperior Court Records X X X XIncarceration Records X X X XSupervision Records X X
Total Involved 8 2 1 9 3Total Available 9 9 9 9 9
Percent Used 89% 22% 11% 100% 33%
Total Systems Not in Play 49%
14
Yes – Enable Homeland Security analysis
Yes – Enable secure collaboration among authorized users
For Example:
• State Department - Diplomatic Security, participating in a SHIELD demo, made hits advancing a current investigation!
• Pretrial Services made hits on DC offenders in both Maryland and Virginia allowing better input to Superior Court judges.
15
Yes / No - Provide a unified access Yes / No - Increase speed
No - Provide an architecture
“No’s” Become Lessons Learned:
We Learned that:
• Every system had different access methods, controls, input requirements
• Logging off and then logging on, going from IP to 327x emulation took too much time and effort
• No uniformity, all data presented differently, no sense of continuity
• Not all systems are intuitive – training & documentation required
16
We Stopped Talking – We Decided to Do Something
• We Piloted a Regional Homeland Security &Criminal Justice Model
• We Demonstrated we have the ability• We Proved we have the will
• We Learned from the experience
• We Will Use that knowledge as the foundation for the future Regional System
17
SHIELD Next Steps
SHIELDPhase 2
Plan
EvaluationRequirements
AnalysisPartnering
Implementation
SHIELD Statement
of Work
SHIELD Phase Two
Requirements Analysis
SHIELD Pilot
Evaluation
Questionnaire
&
Results
DONE
DONE
Final Draft
19
Requirement Analysis Method
• Seven Joint Application Development Sessions - JAD’s
• Co-Chairs: 1 SHIELD Pilot Participant1 National Participant & Volunteer Participants
• Eight Weeks• Document Policies / Vision Statements• Culminate in a Plan of Action• Endorsed in Two-Day, On-site Conference (?)
• Basis for the SHIELD Blueprint
20
SHIELD Requirements Analysis
Analysis Deliverables
• SHIELD Governance Structure• SHIELD Conceptual Blueprint and Design Policy • SHIELD Partnership Agreement• SHIELD Access Security & Secure Communication• SHIELD User Requirements and External Design• SHIELD Data Descriptions, Foundation, Authority
and Use • SHIELD Short Term and Strategic Funding
Strategy
RESULTING IN The SHIELD Blueprint
21
Specific Working Group Deliverables
“The Working Groups’ deliverable is a policy or vision statement.
The deliverable will have two parts: a) a one to three paragraph policy
statement or vision statement, b) a one to five page description,
explanation or justification for the policy or vision statement.”*
*SHIELD Phase 2 Statement of Work
22
We Can Build A Regional HS and CJ Foundation Through Partnerships
• Partner Lessons Learned with Goals• Partner Policy & Vision with Action Plans• Partner New Communities of Common Interest• Partner Blueprint with Cities, States, Regions• Partner Homeland Security with Justice• Partner Existing Regional Programs
We Will connect the Dots / Fit the pieces of the puzzle together………