Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS):

Transcription

1 Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS): Past, Present and Future June 5, 2008 OVERVIEW The Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS), implemented in 2006 to modernize criminal case management in Palm Beach County, is not meeting the needs of the criminal justice community. Representatives of the justice community, including the Chief Judge, State Attorney, Public Defender, Clerk and Sheriff are members of the county s Justice Information Systems Policy Board (JIS Policy Board) which selected the CJIS system and oversaw management of the project by the county s Information Systems Services department (ISS). According to a draft report of an evaluation conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) the system does not meet the needs of the Palm Beach (County) CJIS community and is not likely to. Concerned with system deficiencies, escalating costs, and an expected reduction in tax revenue needed to fund these costs, the JIS Policy Board contracted with NCSC. The national organization, having conducted over 130 court technologyrelated evaluations, had the expertise necessary to determine the most effective and efficient solution to the problem continue to maintain, modify and update the current system or invest in a new one. After conducting several months of research along with interviews of 50 people from eight different organizations, NCSC s court technology experts found that replacing the system would be the best option. The NCSC report confirms what we suspected, said Clerk & Comptroller Sharon Bock. Now we can use this information to effectively determine the next best steps for all the criminal justice partners and, ultimately, the people of Palm Beach County. While all partner organizations have been adversely affected by the CJIS system, the Clerk & Comptroller s office has perhaps taken the hardest hit. Since the launch of the system, the office has spent over $2 million in overtime and additional staff to overcome system deficiencies and perform its basic constitutional and statutory duties. It is estimated that another $1.8 million will be spent in More time and money are spent every day as employees

2 continue to work nights, weekends and holidays to counteract system deficiencies. A planned upgrade, or technical refresh, for the system will add significantly to overtime costs. While it may update the technology, it will not change or improve how the system functions for the justice partners or the public they serve. The report tells me that even if we continue spending money on the current system, it will never meet the needs of its users, said Clerk Bock. I am not willing to waste taxpayers hard earned dollars by continuing to invest in something that will never work properly. As a member of the JIS Policy Board, the Clerk is committed to carefully considering NCSC s recommendations and making fiscally responsible decisions for the future of the CJIS system. The final report is expected shortly and will be available on the Clerk s Web site, BACKGROUND The Clerk & Comptroller is a constitutional officer having four principal functions: County Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Auditor, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners and County Recorder. Overall, the Clerkʹs office performs more than 1,000 different constitutional and statutory functions or duties. This paper will address only the Clerk & Comptroller s role as Clerk of the Circuit Court (Clerk), and, more specifically, its information management function and role in CJIS. The Clerk s office receives, sorts, stores, retrieves and delivers information ondemand contributing to the efficient functioning of the justice system. On an annual basis, the Clerk s office handles millions of documents. The office receives thousands of documents containing millions of pieces of data every day. In essence, the Clerk s office is a highly complex, high volume, document and information management agency. It can be viewed as the hub of the many agencies that both send data to the Clerk and retrieve data from the Clerk. HISTORY Technology is the primary tool of the Clerk s office in today s environment. As case volumes increased over the years, so did the need to replace the office s cumbersome and slow manual system, which required handwritten notes, 2

3 spreadsheets, checklists and hard copy books. Information was received, transferred and retrieved by mail, at the office, and eventually by facsimile. In 1974, a modern mainframe computer system purchased by Palm Beach County (County) for the storage and retrieval of civil and criminal court case information replaced most of the office s manual recordkeeping processes. Large, difficult and expensive to maintain, the mainframe computer was operated and maintained by ISS, the County s information technology department. The system, written in COBOL computer language, required ISS to retain programmers specially trained in COBOL. As technology advanced, COBOL became dated, limiting the availability of COBOL programmers. In addition, 30 years of legislative changes required continuous new and complex programming. For example, changes such as increased traffic fines, new laws and new penalties for crimes necessitated revisions to a variety of system components. This required an investment of hundreds of programming hours and thousands of dollars to ensure the mainframe was capable of receiving, sorting, storing, retrieving and delivering data as mandated by law. Computer technology evolved over the next 30 years, and eventually systems were developed that were more user friendly than the mainframe and less expensive to operate. Some other justice agencies began purchasing and using smaller, cheaper, faster and more flexible client servers with specifically designed software to meet the agencies unique needs. While the Clerk s office was exploring a similar move seeking more efficient storage and retrieval of criminal case data, the JIS Policy Board initiated the selection of a comprehensive court case management system that would substantially meet the needs of all of the justice partners (Administrative Order /97) with a mandate that implementation and project management be led by the County s ISS Department. The JIS Policy Board includes the Chief Judge, State Attorney, Public Defender, Clerk, Sheriff, a representative from the Board of County Commissioners, Bar Representatives and a member of the Criminal Justice Commission. SELECTING A VENDOR The process of selecting a software vendor first for civil and juvenile court case information and later for criminal required an extensive review of how well the system would meet both technical requirements and operational needs. Because of previous failed attempts to find and implement a case management system, the County and JIS Policy Board carefully administered the vendor selection and procurement process to ensure the selected vendor met all financial, legal and technical requirements. Because of the stringent requirements of the procurement 3

4 process and the extensive software requirements, only two vendors in the nation met the bidding requirements for the civil and juvenile system. Neither was fully compliant with statutory and court requirements necessitating modifications to the software they offered. In 1998, the JIS Policy Board decided to contract with SCT Government [which later became Affiliated Computer Services (ACS)] to provide a new electronic system for Palm Beach County courts called Banner Courts. A civil and juvenile case management system, known as the Civil Information System (CIVIS), was implemented in Upon completion of the CIVIS system, another vendor selection and procurement process ensued, this time for criminal court case management software for the CJIS system. Because of the extensive and necessary modifications to the Banner civil and juvenile system, including several years developing the financial reporting capability for the courts, the JIS Policy Board determined that the selection of ACS would reduce the need to modify a different vendorʹs criminal application, saving time, user resources and money. In addition, due to pending Article V funding changes, it was recognized that completion of the CJIS system by July 1, 2004 would be beneficial. The record shows that on June 12, 2003, the JIS Policy Board unanimously voted 8 0 to approve the contract with ACS for the software and implementation of the CJIS system, also referred to as Banner. The approval came after the recommendation by all the agencies, including the County. In addition, all JIS Policy Board members, with the exception of the South County Bar Association representative, were present for the vote. The Board reviewed and approved all significant system modifications that followed both those required by law and those essential to conduct court business effectively. In addition, the go live date was a joint decision with full knowledge of the data and system limitations. THE CJIS SYSTEM The CJIS system is extremely complex, interfacing with numerous state and local agencies for the receipt, exchange, retrieval and reporting of data. The implementation of CJIS involved the transfer, or conversion of over 30 years of criminal case data, stored in a myriad of formats, into the new system. This conversion of 34 million records was necessary to provide continuity for government agencies that rely on historic case data. However, the conversion of data from the mainframe computer system proved extremely difficult. Data in mainframe programs, written over a 30 year period to accommodate changing 4

5 legislative requirements, had to be sorted and uniformly catalogued so the information would fit into the new system. This was a challenge given that the format of the data in the mainframe system did not match up exactly with the format of the data in the new system. For example, a date format of 01/01/01 would not fit into a data field that requires the date appear as The mainframe also included some incorrect data, as the outdated system included little or no safeguards to ensure data was accurate and consistent. The Clerk s office performed eleven conversion cycles, or tests, to cleanse the data as much as possible prior to converting data from the mainframe to Banner. This took place over a 3 1/2 year period, involved over 100 people and required thousands of hours of manual data inspection. The conversion tests improved with each conversion effort; however, less than one half of one percent of the case data did not convert properly. In 2006, while testing continued, the state legislature enacted several changes that would affect the reporting of criminal justice information, beginning in October of that year. This created a dilemma for the JIS Policy Board and forced a decision to either reprogram the mainframe yet again, despite the impending launch of the new system, or move forward with the new system despite its imperfections. Considering the fact that less than one half of one percent of data were not converting properly from the mainframe to the new system, the JIS Policy Board voted to move from the mainframe to the CJIS Banner system. The Board made this decision fully aware that data conversion issues would hinder the system s reporting abilities until data remediation was complete. The decision to move to the new system while some system deficiencies remained unresolved was communicated to state and local agencies to which the Clerk provided criminal case reports. Nearly 200 software modifications, or change controls, were needed to overcome existing system limitations and to make CJIS capable of meeting statutorily mandated reporting requirements. Many more are presently needed to meet the needs of not just of the Clerk s office, but all justice partners and users of the system. Laborious manual processes, or work arounds, have been implemented while waiting for system modifications by ISS and the software vendor. Users also complain of the multi steps and increased time now required to perform simple tasks. Rather than increase efficiency, the system stalled progress and produced data that has not been reliable. Many have found that the new technology has reduced functionality and usability while negatively 5

6 affecting internal and external customers. The continuing issues prompted the agencies involved to question fixing the existing problems or replacing the system entirely. SOLUTIONS At a meeting on November 7, 2007, the JIS Policy Board voted to hire a consultant to analyze the current system. After approval by the Board of County Commissioners on December 4, 2007, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Court Consulting Services began its evaluation of the CJIS system. The outside consultant, with no stake in the outcome of the findings, was tasked with determining the one question justice partners wanted to know what s the most cost effective and time efficient solution? Continue to pay to maintain, modify and update the current system or embark on a plan to replace it with a new one? Getting answers to these questions was not only fiscally responsible, but also critically important for the effective and efficient administration of justice. Beginning in January 2008, NCSC began its study of the CJIS system by evaluating the overall operation of the courts including business processes, records management issues, needs of the various stakeholders and participants who rely on the case management system, and future court technology plans and initiatives. NCSC ensured that the perspectives of all those who use or are responsible for the support of the current system were considered. Over the course of two months, the consultant met with and interviewed more than 50 people from over eight different organizations including: Administrators, judicial officers and court staff; Clerk & Comptroller staff; Representatives of court related agencies, such as the State Attorney s Office, Public Defender s Office, and Sheriff s Office; Palm Beach County Information Systems Services Department; and Media. Based on the information collected, NCSC prepared a draft report that analyzed the functionality, limitations, usability, and general level of satisfaction with the current system. The final report, expected soon, will provide an assessment of the options and recommendations for the future. The June 2008 draft report stated that the CJIS system does not meet the needs of its users and is not likely to. In fact, the consultant found that the problems 6

7 experienced today might worsen with time. NCSC recommended not proceeding with a proposed technical refresh, or system upgrade. NSCS based this recommendation on several factors including: The already high level of customization of the current system. Reconciling the existing modifications with a newer upgraded version of Banner would be very difficult and time consuming. The existing problems with the system and data conversion issues that cannot be corrected fast enough, contributing to mounting problems. Also, an existing project management and governance structure that may need to change to better meet needs of the justice partners. The final NSCS report will be posted at Get the Facts on the Clerk s Web site at as soon as it is available. CONCLUSION The CJIS system was implemented based on the joint decision of all members of the JIS Policy Board and after careful consideration of the system s deficiencies. As the consultant s report noted, many of the decisions made were reasonable and the best option at the time. Despite our joint efforts, the system simply does not meet the needs of local criminal justice agencies. No organization has been more adversely affected by CJIS than the Clerk & Comptroller s office. Employees have worked nights, weekends and holidays since its 2006 launch to overcome the challenges produced by an imperfect system. As the consultant suggested, members of the JIS Policy Board must consider whether the current management and governance structure should be revised. They suggest that sole ownership of a new system may improve accountability, increase the chance for success and better meet the needs of the justice partners. The JIS partners and the public deserve better than this. We need a system that will allow us to do our jobs effectively and efficiently. The accuracy and integrity of public records are at stake. The Clerk, along with all other members of the JIS Policy Board, is committed to making fiscally responsible decisions for the future of the CJIS system one that will effectively meet the needs of all justice partners and the public they serve. 7