• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

by Heather Morton

Contents

Acknowledgments
About the Author
Introduction
Colorado
Kansas
Minnesota
Resources
Notes

Information is the thread that ties various criminal justice system entities into an effective criminal justice system. An integrated criminal justice information system uses technology to allow the seamless sharing of information at critical decision points throughout the justice system. In many states today, integration efforts are under way.

This report highlights the experiences of three states-Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota-including how the systems were developed, the current status and future promise of integrated criminal justice information, the role of the legislature and funding history.
 

"This is a challenging time for those responsible for coordinating information sharing in the justice system. We must make it a top priority to ensure that leaders at every level of government have the information they need to protect our communities."

Deborah J. Daniels
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs
Department of Justice

"We have spent a lot of time the last eight years focused on legislation to protect people. You can't, for example, be hired as a teacher or work in a nursing home if you have a certain kind of criminal record. But we need timely and accurate information to make that type of legislation be meaningful and work."

Senator Jane Ranum
Chair, Crime Prevention Committee
Minnesota Legislature

---

Acknowledgments

Other NCSL staff contributing to this document were Leann Stelzer, who edited and coordinated printing; and Scott Liddell formatted the document.

The cover was designed by Constance Goetz of the Amphion Group.

Thanks go to the following people for their assistance in researching the state activities for this document.

NCSL's Integrated Justice Technology Project is overseen at the Bureau of Justice Assistance by Robert Greeves, James McCreary and Shevella Wilson. Their continued support and assistance to NCSL and state legislatures is gratefully acknowledged.

For more information about NCSL's Integrated Justice Technology project, please call (303) 364-7700. The project Web site is at www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/intjust/intcrimjust.

---

About the Author

Before joining NCSL in 2000, Ms. Morton worked for an employment law and criminal defense law firm. She earned her law degree from the University of Denver and received an undergraduate degree in history from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
 

---

Introduction

At the most basic level, an integrated criminal justice information system uses technology to allow the seamless sharing of information.  The information shared includes all criminal justice related data, including photographs, fingerprints, DNA identification records, case records, court calendars, electronic messages and documents.  Integration allows a single agency—such as a prosecutor’s office or a police department—to share information within itself and allows multiple agencies to share information with each other.  This may include a court calendaring program that notifies a prison of its prisoners’ court appearances or a prison that notifies a parole officer that an individual is being released on parole.  Integration also occurs when information is shared between local, state and national agencies.  Through an integrated system, criminal justice agencies automate the exchange of information and reengineer processes in order to achieve new capabilities with greater efficiency and effectiveness.  The drive to integrate criminal justice systems derives from the operational needs of the criminal justice agencies and legislative mandates enacted at the federal and state level.¹

Why Is Integration Necessary?

Access to the right information at the right time is critical for the effective operation of criminal justice agencies.  Many of the information systems developed for criminal justice agencies some 20 years ago improved the ability for reporting and analysis, but usually were designed to address single-agency operational needs.  With the growing volume of criminal cases and complexity of the justice system, these agency or department specific computer systems have proven ineffective for sharing and exchanging data between agencies.  Criminal justice practitioners need systems that provide fast, accurate exchange of information among justice agencies in order to proactively address crime.  Information, for example, about prior arrests, convictions, parole, bail, and so forth is crucial to making decisions about disposition options such as sentencing and supervision requirements.  Creating an information infrastructure that provides seamless, timely access to critical information is a key requirement for justice agencies to carry out statutory policy for criminal cases and offenders.

An immediate result of integrating criminal justice information systems is an improvement in the quality of criminal justice data.  This has been a significant motivation for state legislators to support integration efforts.²   In an integrated system, information is entered once and can be accessed from a variety of sources thereafter.  Streamlined data transfer replaces redundant data entry, thereby reducing entry costs and opportunities for error.  Initial data is supplemented with additional information from various agencies, as required, to form a complete record.  Timeliness also is improved via electronic—rather than paper—exchange of information.  Integration gives agencies the ability to share critical information at key decision points throughout the justice process without regard to time or location.

Integrating justice information systems is not expected to result in overall cost savings; the benefit of integrated systems is to improve efficiency and the overall quality of justice operations.  However, integrating systems has the potential for identifying and eliminating redundant computer systems and reassigning staff operations.  In addition, following initial system development and implementation, sharing information can be less labor intensive and expensive.  Coordinating systems development among government justice offices may offer the opportunity to leverage purchasing power, thereby reducing procurement costs.  A report by the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (formerly NASIRE) projected that integration has the long-term ability to lower procurement costs of government information systems.³

Improved quality and timeliness of information provides for more informed decision-making, which enhances the safety of the public and criminal justice system personnel, especially law enforcement officers.  Consider, for example, the case of a police officer called to a house to investigate the report of a domestic disturbance.  Knowing the nature of any previous incidents at the home and who was involved is critical information the officer needs before stepping into the house.  If an officer can access this information from a patrol car, it will maximize his or her ability to assess and control the situation and ensure the officer’s safety as well as that of others involved.  Integrated systems also enhance the collective ability of the criminal justice system to carry out the variety of functions performed.  For example, accurate, complete and timely information is important to a decision to set bail for someone arrested and detained.  If that person posts bail and is released, required notification to the alleged victim is expedited by an integrated system that is capable of swift and accurate information exchange.

It also is important to note that building integrated justice information systems does not mean that all information is shared among all entities, all the time.  Rather, integration is designed to provide access to required information at important “information transaction” points, while also providing appropriate security and privacy depending upon the nature of and need for sensitive information.  Finally, improved criminal justice data and data exchange also empower and hold criminal justice agencies accountable for accomplishing their mandated responsibilities.  Consider, for example, the case of a registered sex offender on parole who, as a condition of parole, is not allowed near minors, but is stopped by a parole or law enforcement officer near a school.  By sharing justice information, the officer can view the court’s orders from his or her vehicle and arrest the offender for violating parole.  If justice information is not shared, then the officer would have no way to know that the parolee was violating parole.  Accurate, complete and timely information is the thread that ties together various entities into an effective criminal justice system.

Fundamentals of Integrated Justice Systems

Planning for integration of justice information requires leadership, commitment and investment by legislators, executive branch agency directors and the judiciary. ⁴   Experts have identified several important responsibilities for all stakeholders—local agencies and jurisdictions, states, and the federal government—to address when building integrated justice systems.⁵   First, it is important to consider the operational information needs of local and state users when building statewide information repositories or systems for criminal history records systems, statewide warrants databases, and correctional information systems.  The operational information needs for non-criminal justice users—such as social services, education and the public—also should be considered.  Second, having sufficient funding to include the active participation of local jurisdictions and agencies is key to the success of an integrated system.  Finally, having the infrastructure to support integration of local agencies statewide (i.e., to share data within their local environment as well as with the state and national systems) is critical.  The technical infrastructure includes, for example, statewide fiber optic lines that permit sharing of information, law enforcement teletype systems, and radio systems that support automation within justice agencies, as well as system standards that lay the foundation for integrating systems at all levels.

State Experiences

This report highlights the experiences of three states in developing integrated criminal justice information systems.  Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota were selected because they are at the forefront of development and included legislative involvement in creating their systems.  For each state, this report describes the system background, the system itself, the role of the system in the future, the role of the legislature and the funding history.

There is no one way to develop an integrated criminal justice information system.  Each state experienced a different motivation to integrate its system.  In Colorado, the Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (CICJIS) developed out of legislative direction following false starts.  The Kansas Criminal Justice Information System (KCJIS) grew out of the need to improve criminal records for background checks and truth in sentencing requirements.  In Minnesota, highly publicized murder-kidnappings illuminated information inadequacies in the state’s criminal justice system and facilitated a public-private partnership to create the integrated “CriMNet” system.  Summaries of the enabling legislation are included in the appendix.

A common feature of successful integration efforts usually is a vision that includes scope, objectives and a funding plan for the project.  It is important that stakeholder agencies have together developed a unified vision that is both sensitive to unique agency functions and also focuses on the broader goals of integration.  In Colorado, the original vision grew out of a statutory commission.  In both Kansas and Minnesota, the vision developed out of an advisory board or task force that included state and local agency representatives.

The integration plan must include a determination of what information is to be shared, at what points, and between what agencies.  Statutory restrictions around privacy and confidentiality must be incorporated into the plan.  Creating an accurate model of the state’s criminal justice information process—including identifying common events that trigger exchanges, the agencies involved, and the nature and content of these exchanges within the overall vision of an integrated system—greatly facilitates the system planning and design.  By defining the project’s scope, the stakeholder agencies identify any legal, policy, administrative, funding and technical requirements and any other obstacles to integration.

Current information technology capabilities in state and local agencies also were considered by each state highlighted in this report.  For instance, police departments and sheriffs’ offices did not uniformly have desktop computers with Internet capabilities.  Often, larger metropolitan areas have information systems that address specific agency needs but do not have the capability to exchange information outside that city or county.  Hardware, software and network capabilities throughout justice agencies were assessed to determine the technological resources that currently were available and those that would be required to provide the necessary exchange and information sharing.  The three states discussed here crafted different approaches to integrating their systems.

Each state’s integrated system is technologically unique, addressing the individual state’s needs.  The Colorado system focused on the primary state agencies so that the system would function as required by statute, by linking the existing information systems.  Colorado connects each agency’s hardware and software through a network.  The Kansas system was developed in coordination with other information technology projects throughout the state.  As new components are developed, agencies must comply with the hardware and software specifications published in the state technology plan.  Minnesota uses an open network that allows individual agencies to acquire and maintain hardware and software that best meets its functional needs.  Existing databases are being used while the state and local agencies in Minnesota develop new information systems, based upon coordinated planning, for their integrated system.

Both government employees and vendors have contributed to the development of integrated systems in the states.  Each state has used its skilled information technology staff to identify solutions when they encountered issues.  Kansas uses Web-based technology for its integrated system, making it easy for all users to access the system and avoiding the need to develop expensive new systems and interfaces.  Employees in the Kansas Bureau of Investigation developed a powerful Internet security system and because of this, Kansas is the only state authorized to access federal databases via the Internet.   In comparison, Minnesota developed a private-public partnership between the criminal justice agencies and the business community.  In Minnesota, the business community serves as technical consultants as well as advocates for the system.

The local role has differed in the efforts of each of the states highlighted in this report.  In Colorado, the system principally connects state-level agencies, while local criminal justice system entities feed information to the state agencies.  In Kansas, local agencies are part of the system’s advisory board.  The counties have the choice of using free KCJIS systems or developing their own systems for daily functions.  Minnesota has included localities in the governance structure.  Five large counties were included in the integration system pilot program; bringing in other counties is part of the ongoing development of the system.

Legislative Roles and Funding

The legislative role for each state has differed, as well.  In Minnesota, the Legislature has been directly involved in the system’s development through funding and policymaking.  Legislators advocate for the system, serve on CriMNet governance committees and review funding requests.  Kansas legislators have predominantly an oversight role, with the governance structure requiring reports to legislative committees.  The Colorado General Assembly created and oversees the Criminal Justice Information Program Task Force, but legislators do not serve on the group.  Funding review is the primary means by which the legislature monitors project progress.
The level of funding for Colorado and Kansas projects is similar, while the Minnesota system has enjoyed considerably more funding over a longer period of time.  In each state, federal funds have supplemented state appropriations.  In Colorado and Kansas, federal funds have provided for about two-thirds of the costs to date.  Colorado has received approximately $9 million in state appropriations, and Kansas has received $12 million.  In contrast, Minnesota has received multi-million dollar state appropriations since 1993, including $27 million during the 2001 session.  Minnesota has supplemented its state funds with federal grants, such as $4.67 million for FY 2001 from the Crime Identification Technology Act.

---

Colorado

Background

Colorado first identified the need to integrate criminal justice information in 1974 when it developed a long-range plan for an automated criminal justice information system.  In 1989, a Commission on Information Management task force was charged with developing a five-year plan.  This task force identified 10 objectives for an integrated system, including providing law enforcement agencies with real-time access to criminal history information; maintaining a complete, current and accurate criminal justice database with adequate security and privacy features; and providing accurate and timely information relative to crime and criminal justice activities within Colorado to criminal justice agencies for operational and statistical purposes.

In 1993, the Criminal Justice Commission created a subcommittee to study how to link the various state criminal justice information systems.  Data quality issues were identified during the commission’s study.  As of July 1994, almost nine of 10 criminal history records were incomplete.¹   In addition, almost 200,000 arrest fingerprint cards had not been processed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI).²   These problems highlighted the need to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice information systems.  However, since the Criminal Justice Commission was allowed to sunset in June 1994, no plan was ever implemented.

In 1995, the General Assembly enacted the Criminal Justice Information System Act.  The act declared that an integrated criminal justice information system, maximizing standardization of data and communications technology among law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, the courts, and state-funded corrections for adult and youth offenders, would improve:

1. Public safety by making more timely, accurate and complete information concerning offenders available statewide to all criminal justice agencies and to individual decision makers in the system, including police officers, judges and corrections officers;
2. Decision making by increasing the availability of statistical measures for evaluating public policy;
3. Productivity of existing staff by working toward eliminating redundant data collection and input efforts among the agencies and by reducing or eliminating paper-based processing;
4. Access to timely, accurate and complete information by both staff from all criminal justice agencies and the public when permitted by Article 72 of Title 24, C.R.S.³

The executive policy board is responsible for maintaining overall business authority over CICJIS.  The chief project manager and task force are responsible and accountable for implementing a uniform policy for an integrated criminal justice information system that maximizes use of existing hardware and software through the use of a virtual database that, in essence, links existing systems in the various state agencies.⁵   The technical work group is responsible for designing and implementing the CICJIS data dictionary, programming all transfers and applications, and building the central index.  The tactical business group determines the processes, screens and programs for on-line users; tests applications upon completion; and educates the CICJIS project staff on current procedures within the CICJIS agencies.

The General Assembly, in recognizing the important role of local law enforcement agencies in criminal justice, directed state criminal justice agencies “ ... where practical, to cooperate with and to encourage local law enforcement agencies to participate in the Colorado integrated criminal justice information system program.”⁶

System Description

In Colorado, an integrated criminal justice information system is defined as “ ... an automated information system capable of tracking the complete life cycle of a criminal case throughout its various stages involving different criminal justice agencies through potentially separate and individual systems and without unnecessary duplication of data collection, data storage, or data entry.”⁷   CICJIS connects the criminal justice information systems in the five state-level criminal justice agencies:  the judiciary’s Integrated Colorado Online Network (ICON) system, law enforcement’s Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC) system, the district attorneys’ system—named Blackstone, adult corrections’ “ISIS” and juvenile corrections’ “Trails.”  At present, information regarding felony cases in state-funded courts, all warrants and all restraining orders issued by state-funded courts are exchanged electronically through CICJIS.  Misdemeanors and domestic and traffic cases are not included at this time.  Criminal justice agencies other than the state-funded agencies, such as local police departments, are not directly linked to CICJIS.

CICJIS began the transfer of data between agencies in May 1998.  CICJIS agencies initiate 15,000 to 20,000 actions that produce data transfers to CICJIS and one or more of the CICJIS agencies.⁸   Table 1 illustrates the information that is exchanged between the judicial branch, the district attorneys (CDAC), the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Division of Youth Corrections (DYC).  The table indicates the sending and receiving agencies.

Source: Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System FY2000-01 Strategic Plan and Budget Request.

Although transferring data from one agency to another may be the backbone of the system, queries are the most visible function that allows users from one system to view information in another system as if it were their own.  The query function became usable in 1999 and, to date, 29 queries are functional in CICJIS.  Table 2 illustrates the kind of information that is available—criminal history records, rap sheets, warrants, etc.—based on exchanges among the judicial branch, the district attorneys (CDAC), the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Division of Youth Corrections (DYC).

Source: Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System FY2000-01 Strategic Plan and Budget Request.

Currently, CICJIS can transfer information regarding warrants approximately 10 minutes after issuance.  Approximately 88 percent of the warrant activity is covered by CICJIS, which works out to approximately half of the counties.  Misdemeanor warrants are valid on their face; officers in the field no longer are required to confirm with the issuing court whether the warrant is valid or canceled.  Felony warrants still must be confirmed with the issuing court.  Matching an arrest record to the corresponding case record, or disposition matching, has improved from 30 percent in 2000 to approximately 70 percent in 2001.⁹

CICJIS does not require that the various agencies run the same, specific hardware and software.  Integration is achieved through “middleware” that connects the agencies.  (Middleware is software that connects two or more different operating systems or programs.)  CICJIS is the “hub” that connects the agency system “spokes” to share common data and to provide a single source of criminal justice information to the criminal justice agencies.  As the agencies change their individual systems, CICJIS also must adapt to continue the connectivity; however, system changes in any department must be approved by all task force member departments.

The CICJIS task force has identified benefits that have accrued through the use of CICJIS.  These include the reduction of staff time spent researching criminal histories through the use of single-point statewide inquiries, the reduction of staff time spent entering redundant data, and the improvement of response times through the use of a new telecommunications network.

CICJIS in the Future

Starting in 2001, CICJIS plans to add data transfers from the sex offender registry, bond information, messaging after contact by law enforcement, general messaging between users at CICJIS agencies, detention holds for juveniles, and escape information.  The queries that remain to be implemented include a central index query and queries within the probation case history, defendant information, detainers, article pawning, wanted vehicles, Department of Corrections (DOC) information and Division of Youth Corrections (DYC) information.  To date, CICJIS has focused on data transfers and queries.  In 2001, CICJIS received a federal grant to create a comprehensive background check system—a Web-based, one-stop shop for state background checks for such uses as employment needs or gun purchase needs.  The system will be built with components that will control who can view what information—for example, an employment background check does not access the same information as a background check for a gun purchase—and will include intelligent filtering.  The system will distinguish a fingerprint record taken for regulatory purpose from a criminal justice purpose.  There will be no public access to this background check system.

The long-term vision for the system, according to operating officers, is that it will become truly integrated, thus eliminating the need for the middleware to connect the existing legacy systems.¹⁰   Existing system replacements will be required to be compatible, so that the CBI can have direct connection to the judicial system, for example.

Role of the Legislature

The Colorado General Assembly primarily has had an oversight role.  Although legislators served on the Criminal Justice Commission when it studied how to link the criminal justice information systems, legislators do not sit on the executive policy board or task force.  The House member who sponsored the enabling legislation, Peggy Kerns, says the Criminal Justice Commission created the opportunity for cooperation and collaboration, fostering agency buy-in for the creation of CICJIS.¹¹   Oversight occurs mostly through the budget process.  For example, legislators have included in the system’s funding recommended targets for disposition matching, requiring specific percentages for matching an arrest record to the corresponding case record.

Funding

Projected development costs were relatively low due to the fact that CICJIS was built on existing computer systems.  The agencies were not required to purchase other, more expensive platforms.  Funding began in 1995, and continues in FY 2002 appropriations.

Because the agencies were not required to replace their existing systems, the total original implementation budget was $4,011,323.  The budget included $1.11 million for hardware and software, $1.54 million for contract services, $55,000 for training and networking costs, and $5,000 for telecommunication services.  The CICJIS $300,000 personnel costs were funded by the CICJIS agencies’ existing budgets.  Funding for system expansion and maintenance expenses were not included in the enabling legislation.  Table 3 illustrates the state and federal funding history for CICJIS.  In addition, in 2001, Colorado was awarded a federal grant of $700,000 to develop a comprehensive Web-based background check system for state agencies.
 
 

Source: Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee FY 2001-02 Staff Budget Briefing: Department of Public Safety.
 

---

Kansas

Background

The Kansas Criminal Justice Information System (KCJIS) grew out of a need to improve criminal history records to comply with sentencing guidelines and the federal Brady Act’s background searches for gun purchases.  The first step was to create a governance structure.  In 1994, the Kansas Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) was formed by statute.¹   The CJCC consists of the governor or a designee, the chief justice of the Supreme Court or a designee, the attorney general or a designee, the secretary of Corrections, the secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services, the commissioner of Juvenile Justice and the director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.²   The CJCC is chaired by the attorney general, and the governor serves as vice-chair.  In addition, the CJCC appoints an advisory group to “ ... consult and advise the council concerning local government criminal justice issues and the impact of state criminal justice policy and decisions on local units of government.”³   The local governmental membership of the advisory board includes the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, the Kansas Sheriffs’ Association, the Kansas County and District Attorneys’ Association, the Kansas District Court Judges’ Association, the Kansas Association of District Court Clerks and Administrators, the Kansas Court Services Advisory Board, the Kansas Community Corrections Association, the Kansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Kansas District Magistrate Judges’ Association.  The state governmental membership includes those agencies represented on the CJCC, as well as the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Kansas Sentencing Commission, the Division of Information Systems and Communications, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Environment.

Starting in 1996, the CJCC approved the strategic plan for building a criminal justice information system.  Through the strategic plan, the council could identify and define the specific tasks that would contribute to the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the criminal history record information.  The plan included both long-term initiatives and short-term projects to build the core criminal justice information system around the central record repository at the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.

In 1997, the system became operable to provide state criminal history information to court services officers (CSOs), community corrections officers and parole officers.  In 1998, the state replaced its Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and installed Live-Scan computers to connect an electronic fingerprint system directly to the new AFIS system.  Instrumental to the success of the integrated system is the central repository, a network infrastructure capable of supporting electronic data reporting, and a network security system for secure and efficient use of the Internet to conduct criminal justice business.  In July 1999, the state upgraded its statewide telecommunications message switch to a high-speed TCP/IP server.  The switch currently routes more than 80,000 transactions from 5,129 criminal justice users, including local police dispatchers, countywide communications centers, and mobile data terminals.  In December 1999, the state of Kansas was authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to access federal databases via the Internet.

System Description

The mission of the Kansas Criminal Justice Information System Project is to “ ... create and maintain an accessible, and appropriately secured, criminal justice information repository with accurate, complete, and timely data on individuals and events for criminal justice and non-criminal justice users that supports effective administration of the criminal justice system, public and officer safety, and public policy management in a cost-effective manner within the state of Kansas.”⁴   Listed below are the project goals to accomplish this mission.

1. Develop and maintain the systems necessary to ensure an accurate, timely, and comprehensive collection of criminal history information that meets local, state, and federal standards for data quality and timeliness.
2. Develop and maintain the system in such a way to ensure that it is compatible with the emerging national criminal justice information environment.
3. Increase utilization of the system by providing on-line access to the appropriate information for the system's primary and secondary customers.
4. Ensure the systems' ability to migrate over time with technology advancements.
5. Increase cost effectiveness of the system by reducing the manpower associated with the inputs and outputs of the system at both the state and local levels.
6. Ensure the state's ability to manage and continue to expand the functionality of the system.
7. Increase public safety by developing and implementing a centralized criminal justice information repository.
8. Maintain an information resource that seamlessly supports the operation of the criminal justice system by providing operational, statistical, and policy data to all authorized members of the criminal justice community.
9. Maintain a CJIS that respects the privacy rights of every citizen in Kansas.⁵

KCJIS is part of a larger electronic government effort for the state of Kansas.  According to the state’s chief information technology architect, by building the system as part of the state enterprise instead of as a single aspect of government, criminal justice information systems can avoid becoming one large system that cannot communicate with the rest of state government.⁶   The state’s enterprise architectural plan determines the acquisition, implementation and management of information technology hardware and software.  Each agency is required to use the guidelines set forth in the architectural plan so that the goals for each agency are in line with and enhance the statewide goal of integration.  The architectural plan tells each agency what hardware and software the agency should purchase to develop networks and security systems and to manage data and the Internet/Intranet.  In Kansas, the information technology governance structure is laid out in statute in detail for all three branches of government.⁷   All branches of government are involved in the policy planning and policy implementation.⁸

KCJIS fits into this overall state information technology structure by complying with the standards, policies and guidelines set through the governance structure.⁹   Being part of the state enterprise architecture also expedited system development.  Because the technical architecture established certain specifications, development of KCJIS could use these specifications when building a network, the security system, and data management.  The overall architecture specifies everything from what wiring to use to build a network to the platform on which to base a handheld device such as a personal digital assistant.¹⁰   Due to its placement within the statewide enterprise architecture, KCJIS also has been able to efficiently manage the move from an original vendor that ceased operations to other vendors.

The second key success for KCJIS was creating a network security system powerful enough to enable safe exchange of criminal justice information via the Internet.  Due to the strength of its network security system, Kansas is the only state approved by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Advisory Policy Board to access the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and other national databases via the Internet.  The NCIC, a computer system maintained by the FBI, contains 17 files with more than 10 million records, plus 24 million criminal history records contained within the Interstate Identification Index (III).  Files also include the Missing Persons File, the Unidentified Persons File, the U.S. Secret Service Protective File and the Violent Gang/Terrorist File.  The Kansas system uses four layers of security with certificates for digital signatures and encryption on every work station, secure ID tokens for users, redundant firewalls, and encryption to protect data transmissions.  These four layers of security allow KCJIS to comply with NCIC security requirements to verify that designated personnel with specific authorization access NCIC from designated computer terminals.  In other words, KCJIS must be able to identify the users who access NCIC, the information they access, the location from which they access it and how users disseminate the information.  In addition, through the Internet browser, criminal justice agencies have direct access to the state’s criminal history records.

Some aspects of KCJIS are still in development.  A criminal history repository has been available since 1998, but disposition data does not come directly from the courts because the courts do not have a statewide case management system in place.  Currently, the adult disposition data comes from the prosecutors and juvenile disposition data comes from the KBI.  To date, each county is required to have at least one designated computer that can access NCIC information and state criminal history information via the state’s network (KANWIN).  Usually, the designated computer is located with the county dispatcher.  Many counties have networks with multiple terminals that have full Internet access.  Local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and court service officers can either use the system that KCJIS provides for free or develop their own system for their normal daily functions.  These agencies can connect to KCJIS through one of three ways:  1) the state-provided KANWIN network, 2) a local system, or 3) Internet access.  According to operating officers, the Internet will be the choice of the future because it is substantially less expensive than KANWIN.¹¹   By using a Web portal as a central pointer index for the system, criminal justice users can link to the information they need without creating large, expensive, central databases.

KCJIS in the Future

A new version of the criminal history repository, with an enhanced Web site, will be available in fall 2001.  At this time, information about adult supervision and confinement from the Kansas Department of Corrections also will be included in the system.

Once the courts implement a statewide case management system, KCJIS will be able to include court dispositions and appellate information from the Office of Judicial Administration.  Planning has begun for the remaining data exchange with the Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority for supervision and confinement information.

Role of the Legislature

In Kansas, the Legislature serves predominantly an oversight role for development and implementation of the integrated criminal justice system.  The Legislature created the backbone for the governance structure and maintains that structure through legislative committees.  Due to the nature of the project and its relationship with information technology, the KCJIS executive director reports to the Kansas Information Technology Office (KITO) every two months and to the Joint Committee on Information Technology periodically to ensure that the project is on target and on budget.  Although the Legislature makes the overall policy regarding integrating criminal justice information systems, legislators are not involved in the day-to-day technical development.  According to Representative Jim Morrison, chair of the Joint Committee on Information Technology, a partnership between KCJIS and the Legislature has developed from the reporting requirement, because the committee can affect the project’s funding without direct veto power over it.¹²

Integrating Kansas’ criminal justice information systems has not been exclusively an executive or judicial branch responsibility.  All branches of government—including state and local agencies—have worked together to develop this system.  A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said the role of the Legislature has been to provide the project’s vision and the policies and tools necessary to carry it out.¹³

Funding

The core project budget for KCJIS has come from a mix of federal, state and local resources.  Federal grant money has covered much of the cost to date, approximately 70 percent.  The project budget originally was set at $10.1 million in 1997; in 1999, the budget was increased to $12 million.  The bulk of the project budget has been spent to develop the central repository, replace the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and develop the network infrastructure to support electronic data.  Of the total budget, the central repository has required $3.6 million, AFIS has required $2.8 million and network infrastructure has required $2.6 million (see figure 1).

Source: Gordon Lansford, interview, Topeka, Kan., July 30, 2001.

Once the system is completely operational, the question of how to fund the system maintenance will have to be addressed.  Ongoing upgrades to the system’s hardware and software are essential to the continued effectiveness of KCJIS.  The state’s chief information technology architect says a priority for criminal justice information system projects must be to generate a revenue stream to fund the system’s maintenance.¹⁴   Public access should be free, but the state can generate revenue, for example, by selling background checks to potential employers across the United States or selling geographic mapping information to real estate agents.  Criminal justice agencies provide a service to both citizens and businesses.  Kansas has developed a subscription service to legislative data that it provides through the legislative Web portal.  A comparable service for public criminal justice information is a means by which the state may sustain KCJIS.

---

Minnesota

Background

The 1999 murder-kidnapping of a woman in Moose Lake, Minn., became the impetus for a more integrated, efficient criminal justice information system.  Incomplete records throughout multiple databases hampered the investigation, including the failure to send the suspect’s fingerprints to the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension when he was arrested in the weeks following the murder.  This case and several others were used to spearhead a publicity campaign that involved the mothers of the victims, which galvanized the criminal justice community to pursue statewide system integration.

In addition to the publicity campaign, the business community became heavily involved in the integration movement.  Minnesota HEALS (Minnesota for Hope, Education And Law and Safety), a consortium of community, corporate, government and law enforcement leaders who focus on crime prevention efforts, has helped lobby for legislation and acted as technological consultants during system development.

Efforts in the early 1990s to identify information-related gaps in the criminal system helped put Minnesota in a position to integrate.  In 1992, legislation sponsored by Senator Jane Ranum created a task force to study and make recommendations on actions necessary to ensure that information maintained in the criminal justice information systems was accurate and up-to-date.¹   The task force reported its findings and recommendations to the Legislature in December 1992, noting that, as a result of the system backlog, almost half of all felonies were not entered on the criminal history system maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.  Based on those findings, the Legislature codified the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Policy Group, with the chair of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the commissioner of Corrections, the commissioner of Public Safety and the state court administrator as members.²   The legislation also created the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Task Force to assist the policy group.  The Legislature has since changed the membership of both the policy group and the task force.  On the policy group, the Legislature replaced the chair of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the state court administrator with the commissioner of Administration, the commissioner of Finance, and four members of the judicial branch appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.³   On the task force, the Legislature reduced the number of legislators from four to two and added two representatives from the business community who have expertise in integrated information systems, the attorney general or a designee, the commissioner of Administration or a designee, an individual recommended by the Minnesota League of Cities, and an individual recommended by the Minnesota Association of Counties.⁴

In 1996, the Legislature directed the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to convene a work group—including the policy group and task force—to study and make recommendations on various criminal justice information issues regarding access, retention and accuracy.⁵   As the state moved toward developing an integrated statewide system, the Legislature made the policy group responsible for reviewing requests from state, county and municipal agencies for state funds to implement criminal justice information systems.⁶

System Description

The vision for CriMNet is to “ ... create integrated, cross-jurisdictional information systems where a common set of accurate, precise, complete, and comprehensive adult and juvenile justice data is collected, processed, shared, and evaluated in a timely manner.”  To achieve that vision, CriMNet has five goals:

1. A commonly understood and shared set of legal and ethical principles that govern information exchange.
2. Quality decision making through effective tracking of individuals and incidents-ensuring that the right data is in the hands of the right people, in the right place, at the right time.
3. Support for quality operational and policy analysis through improved agency-level systems and creation of an integrated, enterprise-wide information architecture.
4. A criminal justice information system that is accountable, credible, seamless and responsive to the victim, the public and the offender.
5. An efficient and cost-effective criminal justice system.⁷

CriMNet will support the exchange of data across existing and developing criminal justice information systems, including biometric identity (fingerprints and photographic images); warrant status; pre-trial release status; current processing status in all counties; domestic and other restraint conditions; conviction status on all offense levels, including serious, if not all, misdemeanors; post conviction restrictive probation conditions and status; detention/incarceration status; weapons prohibition status; restrictions and conditions; and current processing status in all counties.  A total of 450 information exchange points exist in the CriMNet system.

An order of protection system began operating in 1996.  Complete juvenile criminal histories and targeted misdemeanor criminal histories are still in development.  Although an existing juvenile criminal history can be queried, many of the records are missing fingerprints or the identifying names and numbers do not match.  The system includes records of extended jurisdiction juveniles and those certified to adult court.  The decision was made to focus on adult felony records before updating the juvenile and targeted misdemeanor criminal histories.⁸   Until the fingerprints records are matched to arrest records, the information is kept in a suspense file, which contains approximately 550,000 court and custody records.⁹   To improve the juvenile criminal history records, the Legislature mandated that juveniles who commit gross misdemeanors be fingerprinted, as are juveniles who commit felonies.¹⁰   A limited statewide supervision system to track offenders is available to criminal justice professionals.

Hennepin, Anoka, Ramsey, Dakota and St. Louis counties have received local government integration grants as the five pilot counties to date.  These grants assist the counties to plan, develop and implement integration within their jurisdictions using the enterprise architectural standards within a reasonable time frame.  The grants demonstrate the state’s commitment to the integration effort and form a partnership between the state and the county government.

CriMNet in the Future

Once complete, CriMNet will be available to every Minnesota county.  The CriMNet integration effort is not a single project; it incorporates many smaller projects that are being handled by criminal justice organizations throughout Minnesota.¹¹   As part of the integration effort, the Minnesota court system is replacing its existing case management system with the Minnesota Court Information System (MNCIS).  MNCIS will improve the courts’ ability to manage case information statewide and will provide accountability for legislative policy.¹²   The new court system will be the first statewide application to be implemented under the CriMNet enterprise architecture.  In addition, an expanded statewide supervision system is being developed that will include information regarding juveniles and adults who are or have been on probation, in detention, imprisoned or jailed.¹³

The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has several projects under development related to CriMNet, including developing a photograph repository and reducing the numbers of records in the suspense file.  The Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photos (MRAP) will be a central database that will accept digital photographs, including mugshots, composites, scars, marks or tattoos, and the corresponding descriptive and demographic data collected at the time of the arrest.¹⁴   The photograph repository will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing full inquiry and investigation features.  As mandated by legislation, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension must reduce current records in the suspense file by 50 percent by June 30, 2002, and by 90 percent by June 30, 2003.  In addition, the flow of new files entering the suspense file must be reduced to 30 percent by June 30, 2002, to 20 percent by June 30, 2003, and to 10 percent in future years.

The first iteration of CriMNet, CriMNet First Edition (FE), will be an intermediate system that will use the existing state agency resources; it will serve as a pilot program for the security and data exchange issues for the future statewide CriMNet system.¹⁵   When CriMNet FE is released, the system will make a person’s current criminal justice status readily available and provide responses to queries from criminal justice professionals.  CriMNet FE will be the beginning of the integration effort and will provide a framework for uniquely identifying an individual, incident and case and also will accurately link and reference these identification elements across jurisdictions.  As each component from the various criminal justice agencies is developed and comes online, the system will improve; each component will add value to the system.

According to the CriMNet operating officer, the system will not be fully realized until every criminal justice agency is connected.¹⁶   He likens CriMNet to the 911 system, where an individual who calls 911 does not need to know where the call is routed as long as an ambulance arrives quickly.  CriMNet will be a system where everyone has access to the same information; where the information is stored is irrelevant as long as the information is retrievable.¹⁷

Role of the Legislature

The Minnesota Legislature has been active in developing the public policy to support the CriMNet integrated system.  According to Representative Rich Stanek, an important legislative role in developing an integrated criminal justice system is to assist with getting the various agencies to participate and to push for funding.¹⁸   Senator Jane Ranum agrees, noting that achieving integration requires a policy vision and grassroots support to make it happen.¹⁹

Court officials credit legislators who understand and can sell the business practices to other legislators as key to development of an integrated system.²⁰   Ranum, a county prosecutor, and Stanek, a police officer, understand that having quality criminal justice information data available to all criminal justice agencies is necessary for public safety.  The Minnesota Legislature both directed study of criminal justice information systems and followed through with statutory mandates and funding to assist with the implementation of CriMNet.

Two legislators participate on the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Task Force.  Legislators who sit on committees with jurisdiction over criminal justice funding and policy also have an opportunity to review funding and grant requests once funding requests are reviewed by the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Policy Group.

Funding

To date, the state has appropriated approximately $57 million for planning and implementation of the integrated system.  Figure 2 summarizes CriMNet’s funding history.

Initial funding was made in 1993, when the Legislature appropriated $1.83 million for the Criminal Justice and Juvenile Information Policy Group to 1) study the “ ... development of an information system containing criminal justice information on gross misdemeanor-level and felony-level juvenile offenders that is part of the integrated criminal justice framework,” 2) be used for misdemeanors, and 3) be used to develop a tracking system for domestic abuse orders for protection and to eliminate the backlog of felony and gross misdemeanor records not entered on the criminal history system maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.²¹

In 1994, the Legislature appropriated $500,000 for the design work on a juvenile criminal history for felony and gross misdemeanor offenses, a targeted misdemeanor and DWI criminal history, and the domestic abuse order for protection tracking system.²²   Then, a year later, the Legislature appropriated $1.1 million to implement the juvenile and misdemeanor criminal history system and the orders for protection tracking system.²³   In addition, $384,000 was appropriated so that the Supreme Court could place Live-Scan fingerprint capture technology in selected district court locations to support the criminal history initiatives and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was authorized to spend up to $1 million of retained receipts on Live-Scan technology.  Again, in 1997, the Legislature appropriated $11.9 million to fund various information technology projects and the Minnesota Judicial Branch Network, including a $5.1 million base increase for future years.²⁴

In 1999, appropriations began to focus specifically on integration efforts.  The Legislature appropriated $1 million for the development of comprehensive criminal justice information integration plans and outlined the requirements for such plans.²⁵   In addition, the Legislature required that funding and grant requests for criminal justice information systems from state, county and municipal governments be reviewed by the policy group to ensure that the requests were compatible with the statewide criminal justice information system standards.²⁶

During the 2000 session, the Legislature appropriated $9.65 million to be used as grants by the Department of Public Safety to develop and implement a criminal justice information integration plan; fund Bureau of Criminal Apprehension staff positions pertaining to criminal justice information collection; make criminal justice information technology infrastructure improvements, including electronic fingerprint capture technology, electronic photographic identification technology, and additional bandwidth to transfer and access electronic fingerprint and photographic data; and assist government agencies to transfer and access data from the agencies to the statewide hot file probation and pretrial release data system.²⁷

Also in 2000, the Supreme Court received $3.512 million to begin redevelopment of the court information system that will be used by all counties to integrate court information with other criminal justice information.  During the 2001 special session, the Legislature made an appropriation of $27 million—the largest appropriation to date—for CriMNet.²⁸   Of that amount, $15 million will be transferred to the state court administrator to continue redevelopment of the court information system.  The state court administrator must provide the Board of Public Defense $225,000 the first year for upgrades to the public defenders’ information systems.  The Department of Public Safety will receive $10.5 million. Of this amount, $1.5 million is for new CriMNet staff, $4 million is for the CriMNet core system, $2 million is for reducing suspense files, and $3 million is for grants to fund local planning and implementation.  The Department of Corrections will receive $1.5 million for CriMNet.  The appropriation also contains language that addresses the distribution of federal funds, the funds distributed to the state court administrator, and the budget approval by the CriMNet policy group.

Although the majority of CriMNet’s funding derives from state funds, the project has received funds from federal grant programs.  For FY 2001, Minnesota received $4.67 million from the Crime Identification Technology Act (CITA). ²⁹   The funds are divided between the Department of Public Safety and Hennepin County.

---

Resources

Colorado http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/cicjis/
Kansas http://www.kbi.state.ks.us/
Minnesota http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/

Federal Integrated Justice Web sites

http://it.ojp.gov
The Information Technology Initiatives: Justice Integration Web site offers timely and useful information on integration processes, initiatives and technology developments. The site also serves as an electronic portal for members of the justice community who are seeking technology information and assistance from other Office of Justice Programs grantees.

http://it.ojp.gov/fund/sources.html
Designed to assist states and agencies seeking funding, this Web page lists possible federal funding sources for justice information sharing programs and, though not all-inclusive, provides a starting point in the quest for funding.

Reports

For more detailed information regarding integrated criminal justice information systems:

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
Integration in the Context of Justice Information Systems: A Common Understanding
http://www.search.org/integration/pdf/integration%20definition.pdf
Designed to help define justice information systems integration and provide a common framework and vernacular to assist practitioners, developers and other stakeholders who are involved in planning efforts.

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
Integrated Justice Information Systems Planning and Implementation: Organizing for Change
http://www.search.org/conferences/1999symposium/PDFs/roberts.pdf
Remarks by David J. Roberts, Deputy Executive Director at the 1999 BJA/SEARCH Symposium on Integrated Justice Information Systems.

National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO)
National Information Architecture: Toward National Sharing of Governmental Information
http://www.nascio.org/hotIssues/justice/Fullrept.pdf
Argues for the development of a system to allow nationwide sharing of information collected by all governmental agencies.

Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York
And Justice for All: Designing Your Business Case for Integrating Justice Information
http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/abstract/abdoj_justice.html
This guide offers a series of lessons and tools justice officials can use to build business cases to win support and funding for integrated justice information systems. The guide appendices contain useful tools, references, examples and resources.

Selected State Statutes Regarding Integrated Criminal Justice

Colorado

16-20.5-102 Defines "Integrated Criminal Justice Information System" as an automated information system capable of tracking the complete life cycle of a criminal case throughout its various stages, involving different criminal justice agencies through potentially separate and individual systems and without unnecessary duplication of data collection, data storage or data entry.

16-20.5-103 Establishes the "Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Program" as a joint effort of various criminal justice agencies and implemented by the "Criminal Justice Information Program Task Force." The task force, along with the chief criminal justice information system officer, shall be " ... responsible and accountable for the implementation of a uniform policy for an integrated criminal justice information system." The uniform policy must include " ... a system or systems to enable the criminal justice agencies to share data stored in each other's information system. Initially, the uniform policy shall maximize the use of existing databases and platforms through the use of a virtual database created by a network linking existing databases and platforms among the various departments. The uniform policy shall also develop plans for new open system platforms when the existing platforms become obsolete."

16-20.5-107 Mandates that " ... any future state-funded expenditures by a criminal justice agency for computer platforms in support of criminal justice applications shall be reviewed by the task force."

Kansas

74-9501 Subdivision e Establishes the duties and responsibilities for the Kansas Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The council must " ... oversee development and management of a criminal justice database including assuming the designation and functions of the state statistical analysis center currently assigned to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation pursuant to K.S.A. 75-712a and amendments thereto. All criminal justice agencies as defined in subsection (c) of K.S.A. 22-4701 and amendments thereto and the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services shall provide any data or information, including juvenile offender information which is requested by the council, in a form and manner established by the council, in order to facilitate the development and management of the criminal justice council database."

74-9501 Subdivision f Requires the council to appoint " ... a standing local government advisory group to consult and advise the council concerning local government criminal justice issues and the impact of state criminal justice policy and decisions on local units of government."

299C.65 Subdivision 1 Establishes the Criminal and Juvenile Information Policy Group and requires the policy group to make recommendations to the governor, the Supreme Court, and the Legislature on issues such as: "a framework for integrated criminal justice information systems;" "criminal justice agency responsibilities concerning collection, maintenance, dissemination, and sharing of criminal justice information with one another;" "actions necessary to ensure information is current and accurate;" and "processes for expungement, correction of inaccurate records, destruction of records, and other matters relating to the privacy interests of individuals."

299C.65 Subdivision 2(b) Establishes the "Criminal and Juvenile Information Task Force" whose members have expertise in integrated data systems or best practices.

299C.65 Subdivision 5 Requires the policy group to "review the funding requests for criminal justice information systems from state, county, and municipal government agencies." The policy group is to review the requests for "compatibility to statewide criminal justice information system standards."

---

Notes

1. See, for example, the National Child Protection Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-159, codified in 42 U.S.C. §§5119 et seq.; the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 State. 1536, codified in 18 U.S.C. §922; the Lautenberg Amendment, Pub. L. 104-208 (contained in the 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act), codified in 18 U.S.C. §922(g); INS Alien Conviction Notification, 42 U.S.C. §3753(a)(11); Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (including Megan’s Law), Pub. L. 103-322, §170101, codified in 42 U.S.C. §14071; National Protection Order File, Pub. L. 104-236, codified in 42 U.S.C. §14072; Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-20.5-103 (1997); Ky. Rev. Stat. §15A.040 (1998); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §15:1228 (1999); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 16 §631 (1993); Md. Ann. Code 27 §744 (1976); N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-661 (1996); and Or. Rev. Stat. §181-725 (1993).

2. Senator Jane Ranum, interview, Minneapolis, Minn., July 23, 2001; Senator Steve Kelley, interview, St. Paul, Minn., July 24, 2001; Representative Rich Stanek, interview, St. Paul, Minn., July 24, 2001; Representative Jim Morrison, telephone conversation with author, July 31, 2001; and House Majority Leader Shari Weber, interview, Topeka, Kan., August 1, 2001.

3. National Association of State Chief Information Officers, National Information Architecture:  Toward National Sharing of Governmental Information (Lexington, Ky.:  NASCIO, 2000).

4. David J. Roberts, e-mail to author, October 18, 2001.

5. See SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Integration in the Context of Justice Information Systems:  A Common Understanding (Sacramento, Calif.:  SEARCH, 2001).

Chapter 2.  Colorado

1. Report of the State Auditor, Colorado Criminal Justice Information System, September 1994.

2. Ibid.

3. C.R.S. §16-20.5-101.5(2).

4. C.R.S. §16-20.5-103(1).

5. C.R.S. §16-20.5-103(2).

6. C.R.S. §16-20.5-101.5(3).

7. C.R.S. §16-20.5-102(3).

8. See Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System FY2000-01 Strategic Plan and Budget Request.

9. See http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/cicjis/reports/dispomatch/monthlydisporeports04-01-01.html.

10. Brian Mouty, interview, Denver, Colo., Oct. 2, 2001.

11. Peggy Kerns, interview, Denver, Colo., Sept. 26, 2001.

Chapter 3.  Kansas

1. K.S.A. §74-9501.

2. K.S.A. §74-9501(b).

3. K.S.A. §74-9501(f).

4. See http://www.kbi.state.ks.us.

5. Ibid.

6. Don Heiman, interview, Topeka, Kan., Aug. 2, 2001.

7. K.S.A. §§75-7201 – 75-7212.

8. See http://da.state.ks.us/ksit/admin.htm.

9. See http://da.state.ks.us/ksit/admin.htm.

10. See http://da.state.ks.us/itec/ITECKSTAMain.htm.

11. Gordon Lansford, interview, Topeka, Kan., July 30, 2001.

12. Representative Jim Morrison, telephone conversation with author, July 31, 2001.

13. Neil Woerman, interview, Topeka, Kan., July 31, 2001.

14. Don Heiman, interview.

Chapter 4.  Minnesota

1. Minn. Laws 1992, Chap. 571, Art. 13, §5.

2. Minn. Laws 1993, Chap. 266, §33, codified as Minn. Stat. §299C.65.

3. Minn. Laws 2000, Chap. 311, Art. 5.

4. Minn. Laws 1999, Chap. 216, Art. 2, §14.

5. Minn. Laws 1996, Chap. 408, Art. 1, §4, Sub. 3.

6. Minn. Laws 1997, Chap. 239, Art. 1, §17, Sub. 5.

7. See http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/.

8. Dale Good, interview, St. Paul, Minn., July 26, 2001.

9. See http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/suspense/ArticleListing2.asp.

10. Ibid., Art. 4, §10.

11. See http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/projects.htm.

12. See http://criminal.justice.state.mn.us/mncis.

13. See http://www.doc.state.mn.us/organization/mgmtadult/statewidesupervision/supervision.htm.

14. See http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/mrap/documents/index.html.

15. See http://crimnet.state.mn.us/crimnetfe.htm.

16. Tom Kooy, interview, St. Paul, Minn., July 25, 2001.

17. Tom Kooy, interview.

18. Representative Rich Stanek, interview, St. Paul, Minn., July 24, 2001.

19. Senator Jane Ranum, interview, St. Paul, Minn., July 23, 2001.

20. Dale Good, interview.

21. Minn. Laws 1993, Chap. 266, §33, codified as Minn. Stat. §299C.65.

22. Minn. Laws 1994, Chap. 576, §67.

23. Minn. Laws 1995, Chap. 226, Art. 1.

24. Minn. Laws 1997, Chap. 239, Art. 8 and 10.

25. Minn. Laws 1999, Chap. 216, Art. 2, §16.

26. Minn. Laws 1999, Chap. 216, Art. 2, §15.

27. Minn. Laws 2000, Chap. 311, Art. 1.

28. Minn. Laws 2001 Special Session, Chap. 8, Art. 6.

29. Pub.L. 105-251; 42 U.S.C. §14601.