• 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

Effective crime control relies on accurate, complete and current information, as well as systems capable of sharing information. As budgets continue to shrink, states are looking at alternatives to fund the integration of crime information systems. State legislative appropriations and federal grants provide the bulk of money for integration efforts, but alternative funding combined with these sources can be used to upgrade and maintain systems.

Federal Grants. Federal grants provide the largest part of crime information integration budgets, according to the National Criminal Justice Association. The two biggest sources are the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the National Criminal History Improvement Program. Other grants are available through the National Sex Offender Registry Identification Assistance Program, Statewide Identification Systems Formula Grant Program, local law enforcement block grants, Community Oriented Policing Services Technology Program and the SEARCH National Technical Assistance and Training Program.

The U.S. Department of Justice has re-instituted a grant program that allows the National Governors Association (NGA) to offer justice information planning grants to states. The initial grants will provide $25,000 to help states develop plans and identify performance measures for integrating their information sharing networks. NGA is working with 26 states that received additional funds following the last round of awards. Grants for these awards ranged from $40,000 to $1 million, providing $16.3 million total. The Pennsylvania Justice Network is using the money to create policy boards to develop integration plans at the county level. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation is transforming its Total Offender Activity Documentation System into a Web page so it can be used by other criminal justice agencies.

Legislative Appropriations. Appropriations to specific programs have funded several integration plans in recent years. Minnesota has spent more than $57 million on CrimNet, a system many in the crime information field point to as a pioneering model for the exchange of data. Colorado has created a special task force to ensure that certain state-funded expenditures are consistent with integration efforts. Several states have developed procedures in order to sustain adequate funding. For example, Minnesota requires a policy group to review funding requests and make recommendations to the governor, the state Supreme Court and the Legislature. Minnesota also requires that funding requests for criminal justice information systems involve a plan for integration. Other states have similar groups that advise agencies on matters pertaining to the development and operation of criminal justice information systems within their budgets. These structures have helped states make decisions that provide efficient allocation of resources.

Innovative Approaches. Funding integration projects by means other than appropriations is emerging as a way to start and maintain projects. The most popular approaches include fees, fines, taxes and bond sales. In recent years, states have created special accounts, funded through fees for services or fines. Several have authorized an increase in those assessments, and others have given entities the authority to charge reasonable amounts to offset the cost of the integration programs.

Last year, Arizona created a county jail excise tax to fund an integrated criminal justice information system. Florida authorized the use of civil penalties to pay for local law enforcement automation. Louisiana now requires fees for civil applicants to be paid to an information fund. New Mexico authorized the Department of Public Safety in 2000 to charge local, state and federal law enforcement agencies access fees to the department's telecommunication systems. Revenues from these fees will be used to operate and maintain the system.

The Kansas Legislature created the Information Network of Kansas in 1990, which is a self-funding public/private partnership providing electronic access to public information. The vast majority of the services are accessible for free. However, premium services require a $75 subscription fee and a $60 annual renewal fee.

Nebraska has diverted 2 cents from the state's existing cigarette tax since 1996 to the Information Technology Infrastructure Fund. This amount, estimated to be about $2.6 million per year, has helped fund Nebraska's Criminal Justice Information System, which provides secure, cost effective access to a variety of information.

Massachusetts has pioneered the use of technology bonds to pay for information technology investments. The legislature issued a $109 million bond in 1992, marking the first time a state financed an information technology project with long-term borrowing. The legislature approved the sale of more than $300 million in bonds in 2002 to fund such initiatives. The bonds, which don't have to be approved by voters in Massachusetts, give the state agencies authorization to spend for five years, instead of the more typical one year. The bonds have provided funds to automate many state government operations, including district attorney and state police offices.

Innovative information technology funding is a significant new trend that will enable governments to leverage dwindling resources. Combined with traditional means, such as general fund appropriations and federal grants, they can help integrate government crime information and contribute to public safety.

Selected References

Intergovernmental Advisory Board. Innovative Funding Approaches for Information Technology Initiatives-Federal State and Local Government Experiences. Washington D.C., January 1998.

http://it.ojp.gov/fund/files/Innovative-Funding.pdf

National Conference of State Legislatures. "Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems." Denver, Colo., November 2001. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/intjust/report01.htm

National Criminal Justice Association. "Who Decides? An overview of how states are addressing delegation of authority and decision making in managing integrated justice information systems." Washington, D.C., March 2001.

Office of Justice Programs. Information Technology Initiative. http://it.ojp.gov/index.jsp

Contacts for More Information