History, Mistakes, Progress and Lessons Learned

1. CriMNet – A Case Study in Criminal Justice Integration History, Mistakes, Progress and Lessons Learned

2. Presentation Outline • Early Integration Efforts in Minnesota • Recognizing the Gaps • Gaining Policymaker Buy-in • Going Off-track • Regrouping and Moving Ahead • What’s Next?

3. Early Integration Efforts in Minnesota • Issues initially raised surrounding criminal history records and notification of domestic abuse orders for protection • Justice agency personnel were unaware of “big picture” issues • Changes in business practices were necessary • Importance of “enterprise” view became apparent • Need for technical and data sharing standards • Understanding that multiple technologies existed • Recognizing enterprise-wide business process changes

4. Early Integration Efforts in Minnesota • Legislature creates two governing bodies to oversee policy related to criminal and juvenile justice information (1992!!) • Policy Group • Initially four executive and judicial branch members • Now 10 members • Task Force • Larger group, representing criminal justice interests, the public, policymakers

5. 1996 - 2000: Tragic Cases/Crime Rates • Minneapolis was coined “Murderopolis” in 1996, where there was a record set for homicides • Wide media attention drawn as a result of tragic murder cases that illustrated information sharing issues (Katie Poirier, Cally Jo Larson) • Interest from private sector • HEALS – community and corporate leaders • $1 million for larger county integration planning • Support from Target Corporation, Minnesota Business Partnership

6. Public Expectations/Perceptions • Even back in the late 1990s, the public expected key pieces of information to be available to criminal justice agencies through technology. • Today’s crime-themed television shows have only increased public expectations for the use of technology by criminal justice.

7. What the Public Thinks We Have criMNet SEX OFFENDER: YES WEAPONS PROHIBITED NAME: DOB: Jon Lee Beasley 12/8/52 WARRANTS Dakota County Felony 1/1/99 Hennepin County Misdemeanor 2/5/99 Carver County Gross Msdr 5/5/99 MISDEMEANORS Domestic Assault 3/3/97 Assault 2/15/94 DWI 7/4/93 DWI 9/15/92 PRE-TRIAL RELEASE Ramsey 11/99 Hennepin 6/99 Dakota 5/99 FELONY CONVICTION RECORD Crim Sex Conduct 1 12/98 Assault with Weapon 3/96 Burglary Occupied 6/94 PROBATION & DETENTION Hennepin Scott Dakota JUVENILE FELONY RECORD YES DomesticRestraining Orders: Y

8. What We Had in 1999 All Paper and Mailed to BCA – 3 months to learn identity criMNet SEX OFFENDER: YES WEAPONS PROHIBITED NAME: DOB: Jon Lee Beasley 12/8/52 WARRANTS Dakota County Felony 1/1/99 Hennepin County Misdemeanor 2/5/99 Carver County Gross Msdr 5/5/99 MISDEMEANORS Domestic Assault 3/3/97 Assault 2/15/94 DWI 7/4/93 DWI 9/15/92 PRE-TRIAL RELEASE Ramsey 11/99 Hennepin 6/99 Dakota 5/99 FELONY CONVICTION RECORD Crim Sex Conduct 1 12/98 Assault with Weapon 3/96 Burglary Occupied 6/94 PROBATION & DETENTION Hennepin Scott Dakota JUVENILE FELONY RECORD YES “Suspense” Conviction Records Not Visible to Criminal Justice Agencies DomesticRestraining Orders: Y

9. Recognizing/Filling Gaps • Key examples showed significant gaps in the information available • Suspense • No electronic fingerprint capture • Lack of technology infrastructure to collect and deliver information electronically • These issues became the initial focus for Minnesota efforts • Work began to help policymakers understand issues and needs

10. Aliases Kerry Dean Geller Keith Allen Brummer Bob Stevenson Robert Mark Geller James Heidelberg Richard Lee Olson Bob Geller Robert James Stevenson Eric Allen Johnson Kerry Dean StevensonDate of Birth: 04/29/58 Alias Dates of Birth: • 03/29/55 •05/11/58 •01/24/61 •05/05/55 •04/29/55 •03/27/48 •04/24/54

11. Year Convicted of: County Status: Crt file # 1983 Indecent Conduct Hennepin CCH CAG# 83080022 1984 DWI Hennepin CCH 1535155 1985 Indecent Conduct Anoka Not in CCH K1-85-1172 1986 Indecent Conduct Hennepin CCH CAG# 86109522 1986 Indecent Conduct Ramsey Suspense Pre-TCIS? 1986 DWI Hennepin Suspense CAG# 86121271 1987 Indecent conduct Anoka Suspense KX-87-7525 1987 Indecent conduct Anoka Suspense K9-87-7967 1988 Indecent Exposure Hennepin CCH CAG# 87151375 1989 Indecent Exposure Hennepin CCH 89056658 1989 Gross Misd DWI Pine Suspense K8-89-534 1991 Agg Viol – DL Susp Hennepin CCH 91040704 1992 Indecent Conduct Anoka Suspense K8-92-8512 1993 Indecent Conduct Ramsey Suspense KX-93-759 1993 Indecent Conduct Ramsey Suspense K6-93-757 1993 Indecent Exposure Hennepin Suspense CAG # 93022196 1993 Escape from custody Hennepin Suspense CAG# 93511838 1994 Theft by check Ramsey Not in CCH K7-94-82 1997 Crim Sex Conduct 5th Ramsey Suspense K2-97-2658 1998 Crim Sex Conduct 5th Hennepin Suspense CAG# 97208852 2000 Crim Sex Conduct 5th Anoka Found Guilty – Sentencing scheduled KX-00-6209 Total Offenses: 21 On State Criminal History Data Base: 6

12. 2000-01 - Gaining Policymaker Buy-in • Legislature appropriates funding ($40 million in 2000-01) for system improvement to fill existing gaps • Electronic fingerprint capture (livescan devices), arrest/booking photo database, predatory offender database, statewide probation/detention/release database, initial funding for new court records system, and additional local grant funding. • State-level Program Office (CriMNet) created to assist with these efforts

13. 2002- CriMNet Program Goes Off Track • Exclusive focus on building technology (building a thing - “backbone) with little stakeholder involvement or input • No strategic plan – no plan of any kind • Oversimplification and over-promised results and time to deliver • Limited understanding or interest in criminal justice business practice issues or needs Result: Destined for failure yet very high expectations of stakeholders and the public

14. More Challenges! • Legislative audit criticizes program, but is generally supportive of vision/mission • Suggests stronger controls on program goals, outcomes, budget accountability • Suggests specific communications plan and stakeholder input/involvement • State law enforcement database with insufficient data policy and security experiences an access breach, resulting in legislative scrutiny and eventual shutdown

15. Regrouping and Moving Ahead • 2003-2004 • New CriMNet Program leadership • Program shifts to focus on business needs and stakeholder involvement – emphasizing collaboration • Comprehensive strategic plan created, vetted with stakeholders, and adopted • Strong project and program management andcontrols put in place

16. Regrouping and Moving Ahead • 2005-2006 • CriMNet Program hires permanent long-term staff • Progress made toward developing process, data, and technical standards • Framework document details future vision for integration (collaborative effort of Task Force, Policy Group and Program Office)

17. Integration Activities - Progress • Policy Analysis (background checks/expungements) • Standards – process, data and technical, and, data policy (development and vetting) • Security Architecture Plan • New statewide law enforcement Incident database • Identification Roadmap (biometric-linked index) • Direct Assistance to Local Agencies • Court Information System (MNCIS) Rollout (continued) • Statewide Supervision System (upgraded) • Integrated Search Service • MN Criminal Justice Statute Service

18. What We Had in 1999 criMNet SEX OFFENDER: YES WEAPONS PROHIBITED NAME: DOB: Jon Lee Beasley 12/8/52 All Paper and Mailed to BCA – 3 months to learn identity WARRANTS Dakota County Felony 1/1/99 Hennepin County Misdemeanor 2/5/99 Carver County Gross Msdr 5/5/99 MISDEMEANORS Domestic Assault 3/3/97 Assault 2/15/94 DWI 7/4/93 DWI 9/15/92 PRE-TRIAL RELEASE Ramsey 11/99 Hennepin 6/99 Dakota 5/99 FELONY CONVICTION RECORD Crim Sex Conduct 1 12/98 Assault with Weapon 3/96 Burglary Occupied 6/94 PROBATION & DETENTION Hennepin Scott Dakota JUVENILE FELONY RECORD YES DomesticRestraining Orders: Y Suspense Records Not Visible to Criminal Justice Agencies

19. What We Have Today All electronically Captured and sent to BCA – identity returned in hours, soon to be in minutes criMNet SEX OFFENDER: YES WEAPONS PROHIBITED NAME: DOB: Jon Lee Beasley 12/8/52 WARRANTS Dakota County Felony 1/1/99 Hennepin County Misdemeanor 2/5/99 Carver County Gross Msdr 5/5/99 MISDEMEANORS Domestic Assault 3/3/97 Assault 2/15/99 Viol Retrain’g Order 7/4/98 DWI 9/15/02 PRE-TRIAL RELEASE Ramsey 11/03 Hennepin 6/02 Dakota 5/04 FELONY CONVICTION RECORD Crim Sex Conduct 1 12/98 Assault with Weapon 3/96 Burglary Occupied 6/94 PROBATION & DETENTION Hennepin Scott Dakota JUVENILE FELONY RECORD YES DomesticRestraining Orders: Y Suspense Records Visible to Criminal Justice Agencies

20. Lessons Learned Along the Way • Most of the challenges were completely uncharted territory • Strategic planning/mission development with involvement of all aspects of criminal justice at the state and local level • Creation of a comprehensive communications plan for this effort, intended to solicit feedback from and involvement of criminal justice constituent groups • Providing the proper policy foundation – particularly with data practices (PIA)

21. Lessons Learned Along the Way • Creating a statewide vision for filling information gaps and for integration across the criminal justice enterprise • Creating a process for establishing standards • Reaching out to vendors to communicate the future vision/ongoing projects/needs of users • Working within the established governance structure in a way that is effective and meaningful - transparency

22. Lessons Learned Along the Way • Keeping policymakers and constituent groups engaged through a long-term, ongoing effort especially after set backs • Understanding situations will change – allowing for flexibility as efforts move ahead • Learning to assess when something isn’t within the scope of your program and how to prioritize goals and expectations

23. Creating the Framework for Integration • Began with priorities discussion in the Task Force and with their constituents • Strengthened with work of Program Office in assessing needs defined by users and confirming those through Task Force; and, with comprehensive portfolio planning and project management • Affirmed by Policy Group as the high-level “end state vision” moving forward for Minnesota criminal justice enterprise integration

24. The Enterprise View DELIVERY ENABLING ACHIEVE THE VISION Actual information systems that provide data to justice agency practitioners ACHIEVE THE VISION Facilitates the delivery of data but is not usually tangible (unless not done!) POLICY Foundation for all activities STRATEGIES

25. Fitting Projects into the Framework Integrated Search Services CIBRS New AFIS S3 MNCIS NEIS nCCH eCharging ENABLING DELIVERY • Blueprint • Business Improvement • And Stds • Technical Stds • Security Arch Stds • Direct Assistance to - • local agencies • Grants • Vendor Outreach POLICY Data Policy - Chap 13 Privacy Impact Assessment Background Checks Expungement Fingerprinting Reqs Security Policy M.S.299C.65 Criminal History Definition

26. Keeping Constituents Engaged • Task Force provides venue for constituent groups to provide feedback • Program Office reaches out to local agencies to provide feedback and communicate progress • State must provide context to progress/expenditures to create better understanding of the issues/needs

27. Creating the Context • The total annual cost of justice and public safety in MN (2004)* • Cities under 2500 $59,100,000 • Cities over 2500 $832,600,000 • Counties $710,300,000 • State$715,700,000 • TOTAL $2,317,700,000 • This excludes some capital investment, federal funds and other grants *Source: “Summary Budget Information for Minnesota Cities; 2004 Budget Data Together with 2003 Revised Budget Data”, and “2003 and 2004 County Budget Summary”, Office of the State Auditor for cities and counties, rounded to nearest $100,000 .

28. What’s Next? • Implementing the Framework – priorities identified by the Task Force and affirmed by the Policy Group • Consolidating information in a way that’s more helpful to users • Linking more information back to the individual – eventually to a biometric (fingerprint) • Delivering information based on the users role and the event (officer in squad car, judge at arraignment), with appropriate security

29. CriMNet’s Role • Focusing on the Enterprise • Recommending core investments for greatest benefit to the state as a whole • Helping maintain project momentum and interest of policymakers and constituents • Providing resources to help local agencies engage in enterprise initiatives and be involved

30. dale.good@state.mn.us deb.kerschner@state.mn.us General Program Info at: www.crimnet.state.mn.us Integration Repository at: www.crimnet.state.mn.us/cjir