government information sharing :

C A L L S T O A C T I O N

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SHARING :

National Association of State Chief Information Officers

PP EE RR SS PP EE CC TT II VV EE SS

VOL 1: JUSTICE

PERSPECTIVES

Government Information

Sharing: Calls to Action

Volume 1: JUSTICE

March 2005

Representing Cheif InformationOfficers of the States

2 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SHARING: CALLS TO ACTION - JUSTICE PERSPECTIVES

This report and the NASCIO EnterpriseArchitecture Program are funded by a grantfrom the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Officeof Justice Programs, U.S. Department ofJustice.

The opinions, findings, conclusions, andrecommendations contained in this publi-cation are those of the contributors, and donot necessarily reflect the official positionsor policies of the Department of Justice.

NASCIO represents the state chief information officers from the 50states, six U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. Membersinclude cabinet and senior level state officials responsible for infor-mation resource management. Other IT officials participate asassociate members and private sector representatives may

become corporate members.

AMR Management Services provides NASCIO’s executive staff.

© Copyright National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), March 2005.All rights reserved. This work cannot be published or otherwise distributed without theexpress written permission of NASCIO.

3GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SHARING: CALLS TO ACTION - JUSTICE PERSPECTIVES

table of contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................5Background............................................................................................................................................5A Changing World..................................................................................................................................6Enterprise Architecture Value Chain.......................................................................................................6Government Information Sharing: Calls to Action...................................................................................8

JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE.......................................................................................................................10Information Exchange Modeling: Understanding the Enterprise and Creating a Blueprint for Success....10

Understanding the Enterprise: A Complex Problem.........................................................................10Modeling Business Process and Analyzing Information Exchanges Reveals the Enterprise...........12Creating a Blueprint for Information Sharing....................................................................................12The Benefits to Analyzing Business Process and Information Sharing............................................13Justice Information Exchange Model (JIEM)...................................................................................14Common Exchanges Create a Reference Model for Others to Use.................................................15What is JIEM?..................................................................................................................................16Who Uses JIEM?............................................................................................................................16JIEM Benefits...................................................................................................................................17What is the Future of JIEM?.............................................................................................................17Case Study: Alaska....................................................................................................................18Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................18

Developing Law Enforcement and Justice IT Standards for Information Exchange..............................19The Promise of XML........................................................................................................................19The Promise of GJXDM...................................................................................................................20Standards........................................................................................................................................21

Governance and Stakeholders.............................................................................................................23Trust—A Level Playing Field............................................................................................................24JISP Pre-RFP Toolkit.......................................................................................................................25Contributing Initiatives.....................................................................................................................26

Restorative Justice and Project Management Issues...........................................................................27Vision...............................................................................................................................................27Cross Agency Collaboration............................................................................................................27


Potential Barriers ............................................................................................................................28Metrics.............................................................................................................................................28Tools................................................................................................................................................29

Enabling Information Sharing through Service Oriented Architecture..................................................30Global's Vision.................................................................................................................................30Justice Service Oriented Architecture..............................................................................................31Global’s Action Agenda....................................................................................................................31Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................32

Barriers to Re-engineering Justice Related Business Processes.........................................................33Barriers............................................................................................................................................33Role of Organizational Dynamics.....................................................................................................34Team Formation...............................................................................................................................34Data Quality.....................................................................................................................................35Organizational Deficiencies.............................................................................................................35Fiscal Crisis May Drive Cooperation................................................................................................36Level Playing Field...........................................................................................................................36

Conclusion: Making a Difference........................................................................................................38Calls to Action......................................................................................................................................38

APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................39Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................39Organizations of Interest......................................................................................................................44References...........................................................................................................................................52


introduction

Background

In 2000, NASCIO (formerly NASIRE, TheNational Association of State InformationResource Executives) published a report titled,"Toward National Sharing of GovernmentInformation." The report focused on the justicecommunity and provided detailed discussion ofthe characteristics of shared information, thedefinitions of significant information manage-ment issues and terms, and brought to lightimportant "calls to action" necessary to institutechange in information sharing. Among themany recommendations and topics coveredwas the need for common vocabularies and anational telecommunications infrastructure.

The report served as the impetus for major sub-sequent activities including the publishing of"Concept for Operations For Integrated JusticeInformation Sharing" in 2003. Another subse-quent activity was the development ofNASCIO's Enterprise Architecture Program.

The significance of "Toward National Sharing ofGovernment Information" cannot be overemphasized given the subsequent proliferationof products and services within NASCIO'sEnterprise Architecture Program.

In the fall of 2004, NASCIO's ArchitectureWorking Group decided that the report shouldbe revisited to assess progress to date, and thata new set of "calls to actions" be established.This follow-up report is just that. It takes a dif-ferent approach in that it covers a variety of linesof business and levels of government. Theintention here is to look at the current state ofinformation sharing, identify and discuss themajor issues and outline the "calls to action"required to move forward.

Doug ElkinsCo-ChairNASCIO Architecture Working GroupChief Information OfficerState of Arkansas

Larry JohnsonCo-ChairNASCIO Architecture Working GroupChief Information OfficerState of South Carolina


A Changing World

In today's world, managing change has becomethe most important dimension of management.Charles Kettering once stated, "If you havealways done it that way, it is probably wrong."Government must change in order to effectivelyrespond to the current dynamics in today'sworld. There must be an operating discipline inplace that both anticipates change and fullyleverages that change for the benefit of theenterprise, and its constituents. NASCIObelieves that operating discipline is enterprisearchitecture. Enterprise architecture providesan enterprise view—a comprehensive, holisticview of the enterprise that includes environmen-tal understanding, explicit strategic intent, andthe organization, business processes, and tech-nologies that enable that intent. Enablers arecapabilities that must be evaluated, and priori-

Figure 1

tized. Capabilities are delivered or further lever-aged through management initiatives, programsand projects.

Enterprise Architecture Value Chain

Enterprise architecture provides the means formanaging the complexities inherent in anyenterprise. Enterprise architecture also pro-vides the necessary operating discipline formanaging the changing enterprise. The enter-prise must be seen as an organism thatchanges and adapts—and even causeschange. However, change must be seen as acontinual process. NASCIO created theEnterprise Architecture Value Chain todescribe an ongoing, iterative operating disci-pline for managing the enterprise as a fluid that iscontinually changing through time. This holistic

Observethe

ContextualEnvironment

Fiscal CircumstancesMacroeconomics

Customer ExpectationsCustomer Behavior

RegulationsNew Technology

CompetitionMandates

Observethe

Needor

Opportunity(Market)

SWOT AnalysisRisks AnalysisAssumptionsPolicies

StakeholdersSupply / Demand

EconomicsAccess

EnableStrategicBusiness

Intent

BusinessRelationships

ProcessesInformation

OrganizationsValue

ChainsManagement Initiatives

Balanced ScorecardGeospatial Capabilities

Capabilities

DetermineStrategicBusiness

Intent

MissionVision

GoalsObjectivesStrategies

Performance

Decisions


view just described goes beyond the immediate.An enterprise perspective is needed that under-stands the importance and complexities of inter-enterprise relationships. Quickly, this enterpriseperspective looks beyond traditional boundariesand conceives of value chains that move acrossthese boundaries. These greater clusters ofenterprises may be termed communities of inter-est. Further inquiry uncovers that the borders ofthese communities of interest are also becomingfuzzy as the need for interaction becomes moreand more apparent. These interactions materi-alize into inter-enterprise architectures involvinginter-enterprise business processes and infor-mation exchanges. Information sharing and col-laboration between state governments for lawenforcement is an example.

Information exchanges, or information shar-ing—these are different terms referring to thesame concept. Others may use different terms.The point is that information is flowing morethan ever, and it is flowing over traditionalboundaries as decision makers become moreand more sophisticated in their understanding ofevents and the interactions of influences thatdrive primary, secondary and tertiary effects.This sharing has become complex as will bedescribed in this document. Changes includecross jurisdictional and cross line of businessinformation exchanges. Changes also includedelegated information exchanges to the com-puter involving machine to machine automatedexchanges. These machine to machineexchanges include the necessary logic toreview content for sensitive information andautomatically assign the proper security classifi-cation. These automated exchanges also eval-uate the requester to determine authority andauthenticity before allowing the exchange to

occur. Emerging technologies, such as ServiceOriented Architectures (SOA), enable the con-nectivity of various automated functions thatallow applications to trigger other applications.For example, this occurs when an applicationtriggers an identity management system toauthenticate an automated request for informa-tion from yet another application.

As we begin to look at information exchanges,we find there are new information exchanges asour culture sees more and more necessity andbenefit from sharing information. Nowhere isthe need for these types of exchanges moreapparent than in homeland security. Homelandsecurity touches any number of lines of busi-ness depending on the event. These includeintegrated justice, public health, environmentalprotection, national defense, internationalalliances, and even commerce. Certainly, itappears homeland security will be the primarydeveloper of information sharing capabilities aswe move into the future and an area that willbenefit most from an enterprise perspective.

In the recent Final Report of the NationalCommission on Terrorist Attacks Upon theUnited States1 the lack of information sharing isfrequently cited as a primary factor leading up to9/11, and the lack of comprehensive coordina-tion during 9/11. One of the key recommenda-tions going forward is the imperative for a unityof effort in information sharing both nationallyand internationally. Information sharing capabil-ities are absolutely necessary for intelligenceand justice agencies to be able to "connect thedots" in order to prevent future terrorist attacks.In the event of a future terrorist attack, informa-tion sharing is again one of the key imperativesfor responding to the aftermath.1 The recent

1 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/


intelligence reform bill which implements recom-mendations from the 9/11 commission is repletewith requirements for information sharing.Information sharing is indeed one of the keycapabilities in transforming the intelligence com-munity.2 Other examples can be drawn frommedical records, hazard alerts, and integratedjustice. Again, the capability to share informa-tion is critical in all government lines of businessin government.

As stated, government is never done exercisingthe ongoing "Enterprise Architecture ValueChain." We must continually monitor the worldaround us as we identify needs and markets,anticipate market and political disruptions,establish explicit strategic intent, and deliver thecapabilities to enable that intent. As we moveinto the future, one of those capabilities is infor-mation sharing across jurisdictions, and acrosslines of business. As we explore this topic, weurge the reader to maintain an "enterprise per-spective" of the world. This perspective mayalso be termed a "global perspective." If infor-mation sharing as a necessary capability is tobe effectively developed, it will be necessary forall involved to maintain this "enterprise view" inorder to avoid point solutions, and stovepipedapplications.

Government Information Sharing:Calls to Action

"Calls to Action" seemed appropriate as thisreport and those who participated in its creationare convinced that all must participate in theoverall call to address this issue of information

sharing. This must truly be a mission in which weall participate. For as the reader will see, this isnot a technology problem—it is an organizationalproblem, and a human problem. It is critical thatbarriers to information sharing be understood inthis way if we are ever to truly conquer this issue.

If information is to be shared, there is the nec-essary establishment of standards for sharing.Exchange partners must agree on the contentof the information and the protocols for how thatinformation will be represented and transmitted.For instance, the justice community has facedthe issues of standards during a long history ofinformation sharing initiatives.

If information is to be shared, then the rules forsharing must be well understood by all involved,and those rules must be consistently and effec-tively applied.

If information is to be shared, then people mustbegin thinking with an enterprise view. They mustput the enterprise and its constituents ahead oftheir own career, and personal ambitions.

If information is to be shared, people mustaccept and embrace the changing of bound-aries, job scope, and business processes. Ifgovernment is to be truly transformed, than oldparadigms must be abandoned. There will needto be a new type of manager. One that adaptsroles and responsibilities to best serve thechanging needs and requirements of the citizen.Government must be seen as an institution forthe citizen, not for the career public administra-tor. The same change must occur with all gov-ernment personnel. Change should not bemerely tolerated. It should be embraced. What

2 S.2845, "Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004." http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2845enr.txt.pdf

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2845enr.txt.pdf


is proposed in that change in mindset is a viewof government service as a commitment to pub-lic service—i.e., one of high calling.

If information is to be shared, then it cannot bewithheld. This seems too obvious. The manydynamics involved in organizational behaviorbecome most relevant in this issue. Dynamicsinclude power, prestige, control, personal secu-rity, and even fear of change. Information that iswithheld will serve limited purpose in govern-ment. Notwithstanding this admonition, infor-mation must be properly protected and treatedas an asset.

If information is to be shared, it must be properlymanaged. This includes the appropriate securi-ty to ensure information assets are protected.However, properly managed information isshared with those who are authorized to use it.This requires that information is properly andconsistently classified. This also requires thatinformation stewards are properly trained. And,requesters of information are properly authenti-cated to have the proper authority, and thenecessary clearances to access information.

NASCIO is exploring the subject of informationsharing from this enterprise perspective. Aspart of this initiative, NASCIO recently publisheda video on information sharing titled "In HotPursuit: Achieving Interoperability ThroughXML"3, which presents some of the barriers andsolutions. Additionally, NASCIO has conducteda survey of opinions from a variety of individu-als, and expertise centers regarding the conceptof information sharing—barriers and calls toaction. This report, presented in two volumes,

offers a variety of perspectives and a variety ofmodes of delivery. Included are interviews, writ-ten submissions, and summaries of existing tes-timonials and literature. Interviews are present-ed that involved both individuals and panelsfrom various recognized expertise centers oninformation sharing. In all cases, NASCIO wasmotivated to present expert opinions. Theseopinions are honest and frank—but all areoffered in the spirit of continual improvement. Ifwe can be honest, and provide a candid assess-ment of the "as is", then there is true potentialfor making things better.

This survey of opinions included representa-tives from integrated justice, state government,public health, homeland security, environmentalprotection, and transportation. This report ispresented in two major sections: Volume One isdevoted to the justice community, and VolumeTwo is covers the broader topic of "govern-ment." This compilation is not exhaustive.However, it is believed that it successfully out-lines the major barriers to information sharingthat are prevalent throughout government. Theend game is to objectively identify these barrierswith the intent of rationalizing the relevant solu-tions for overcoming or mitigating these barri-ers. These solutions and recommendations aretermed "calls to action" in the context of thisreport.

NASCIO recognize the valued contributions ofall who participated in the making of this report.

Eric Sweden, EditorEnterprise ArchitectNASCIO

3 See, https://www.nascio.org/publications/index.cfm#xml

https://www.nascio.org/publications/index.cfm#xml


The barriers facing those who are trying to fos-ter collaboration, information sharing and inte-gration are not new or unique. Indeed, the ageold challenges of politics, personalities, turf andownership continue to surface as the most diffi-cult to overcome, yet also the most criticalissues to address for jurisdictions to furtherinformation sharing.

What has changed in recent years, however, isthat justice and public safety practitioners real-ize that these historical barriers must be kickeddown, hurdled over, or blasted completely out ofthe way. There is simply no choice. Mandatesand directives, from Executive Orders to con-gressional legislation, to after-action reports thatinvestigate the handling of major public safetyevents (especially the 9/11 Commission Report)demand information be shared—immediately,effectively and securely. And if that's notenough, perhaps the biggest driver is anincreasingly vocal and sophisticated publicexpectation. The public—which is becomingacutely aware of the power of technology andthe obstacles to government information shar-ing—will not tolerate excuses of politics, per-sonalities and battles over turf for failing toshare needed public safety information.

And so, in the past several years, there hasbeen a great deal of nationwide activity to buildtools that will help overcome, or at least miti-gate, these challenges and get us on our way tosuccessful information sharing. Best practiceshave been identified, tools have been created,

methodologies have been adopted, standardsare being developed and the justice informationsharing industry is taking an unprecedentedleadership role to make integration happen.

Understanding the Enterprise: AComplex Problem

The justice enterprise alone includes numerousjustice and nonjustice agencies that operate amyriad of systems for collecting, maintaining,analyzing and sharing data and information crit-ical to carrying out their respective missions.Creating the capacity to share information anddata among and between agencies, levels ofgovernment and a variety of disciplines—indeed, creating an enterprise approach—means overcoming established barriers to dataexchange. It involves understanding cross-jurisdictional information needs and the dataand information exchanges that cross some-times radically different lines of business.

Interoperability is the ability of agencies to worktogether toward common ends. It depends on avision of what those ends are and how separatecapabilities are combined to serve them.Representatives of the various agencies, disci-plines and levels of government, therefore,must come together to formulate and agree to aunified strategy for achieving interoperability.These are not exclusively technical issues thatcan be addressed by programmers and data

justice perspective

Information Exchange Modeling: Understanding the Enterprise andCreating a Blueprint for SuccessKelly J. Harris, SEARCH Deputy Executive Director

4 See "Governance Structures, Roles and Responsibilities," published in Information Systems Integration: A Library ofSEARCH Resources for Justice and Public Safety Practitioners, 2004. Available to download at:http://www.search.org/files/pdf/IntegrationLibrary.pdf 5 See Concept of Operations for Integrated Justice Information Sharing, July 2003, V1.0, National Association of State ChiefInformation Officers. This publication is available online at: https://www.nascio.org/publications/index.cfm#conops.


processing managers. To the contrary, planningfor and implementing information sharing sys-tems is a complicated business that involves amultifaceted array of political, organizational,legal, technical, security, cultural and personalissues that must be addressed and upon whichdecisions must be made. Because of the inher-ent complexity of these issues and the constitu-tional separation of powers that is also present,decision makers, stakeholders and other usersmust be intimately involved in effectively design-ing an enterprise information sharing capability.4

The difficulty in planning for information sharinginitiatives (e.g., getting business leaders andpractitioners to the table to talk, establishing astrategic plan, developing an information archi-tecture, adopting appropriate standards, etc.) inmany instances is associated with the lack ofunderstanding about how the enterprise actuallyoperates.

During day-to-day business, for example, a lawenforcement agency's activities have enormousimpact on its partner organizations throughoutthe justice system. But on a daily basis, lawenforcement administrators are not necessarilyexamining that impact. For example, when apolice officer makes an arrest, numerous activi-ties are set in motion. The officer may use amobile computer to query, access and send crit-ical information about an incident. The officermay request information about an individual'scorrectional, probation, or parole status; infor-mation regarding wants and warrants, hot filesand information from the National CrimeInformation Center (NCIC); and/or information

from local, regional and state records manage-ment systems. Each of these requestsdemands the responding organization provideaccurate, timely and complete information whileprotecting the confidentiality of certain data, andensuring distribution to only authorized users.5

Meanwhile, information generated by the arresttriggers numerous activities internal to the lawenforcement agency, while simultaneously gen-erating external activity at locations such as thejail, the prosecutor's office, sometimes the courthouse, social services and potentially many oth-ers. Indeed, many activities have been set inmotion by this single event, and thousands ofsuch events and transactions occur daily withintens of thousands of justice agencies alone. Itis even more daunting to envision when youconsider that this example merely considers asingle, one-way push of information out to mul-tiple partners. In reality, at the same time thisone-way push is occurring, this agency is alsoreceiving multiple information queries and push-es from other partners.

Law enforcement agency administrators, like allother administrators within the enterprise, areresponsible for the daily operational activities oftheir agency, and that leaves little time to con-sider the details of how each organization'spartners within the justice enterprise (no matterhow critical their role) conduct their business.

But the challenge is getting all participantorganizations thinking as an enterprise. As theintroduction to this report noted, "Enterprisearchitecture provides an enterprise view—a

http://www.search.org/files/pdf/IntegrationLibrary.pdf

https://www.nascio.org/publications/index.cfm#conops


comprehensive, holistic view of the enterprisethat includes environmental understanding,explicit strategic intent, and the organization,business processes and technologies thatenable that intent." Viewing justice as an enter-prise means each participating organizationunderstands its role in the overall process ofadministering justice, the dependencies it cre-ates and the interdependencies that are criticalto the overall success of the enterprise. Thosedependencies and interdependencies are cen-tered around information, and how participantsshare, process and use it.

A fundamental part of achieving integration andinformation sharing is understanding how theenterprise works, how information isexchanged, and how daily business processesenable or inhibit information sharing.

Modeling Business Process andAnalyzing Information ExchangesReveals the Enterprise

When organizations come together to under-stand how they are currently doing business,and how they can improve operations anddevelop efficient and streamlined businessprocesses, something else happens. A detailedunderstanding of information flow among andbetween agencies affords participants theopportunity to visualize the individual compo-nents operating (or not operating) as a whole,and this, in turn, underscores the enterprisenature of information exchange.

There is no great secret in conducting a reviewof business processes and informationexchanges. Analyzing information exchangebetween agencies has been a recognized andimportant part of IT planning for justice agen-cies. Historically, however, it often took an

agency-centric approach, looking at informationexchanges between a single agency and itsclosest business partners. But to make infor-mation exchange modeling effective, the recipe´demands getting the right people involved andproviding the right tools for analysis. To clearlyenvision the enterprise, the business processesmust be understood. This is not a technical exer-cise, but one that relates to the group's vision andmission. To do this effectively, decision makersfrom participating organizations must be activelyinvolved and they must represent all of the con-stituent agencies. They come together to ana-lyze how they collectively do business and dis-cussions will center on the needs each partnerhas for information, policy and legal constraints,security concerns and priorities, maintenanceand dissemination procedures and many otherpolicy level considerations.

In addition to getting the right people around thetable, it's also important to establish and agreeupon a methodology for capturing and analyz-ing detailed information about businessprocesses and the data and information that isand/or needs to be exchanged among the part-ners. By following a consistently appliedmethodology, participating organizations exposecurrent business processes, and from there canmodel new processes. They can also investi-gate the impact to those processes created bychanges in systems and business practices.

Creating a Blueprint for InformationSharing

Once practitioners understand the enterpriseand how it conducts business, they can begin tobuild a blueprint for a more effective enterprise.Information sharing analyses will expose ineffi-ciencies, redundancies, gaps and opportunitiesin the current system. Once the systems' cur-rent operations are clear to decision makers,


they can make decisions about how they wantto work together in the future and construct ablueprint or "to-be" plan.

The Benefits to Analyzing BusinessProcess and Information Sharing

Throughout this document and in many otherwritings, the challenges to information sharinghave been articulated and are strikingly simi-lar—most have to do with people and personal-ities, concerns over "turf" and struggles overpolicy-related issues and decisions. Some ofthe ancillary benefits of business process andinformation sharing analysis can help addressthese issues.

Conquering Personality Conflicts andBringing People TogetherConducting a business process/informationexchange analysis is critical for more than justanalyzing information exchange. It is one of thefew opportunities to bring all the different part-ners together to take a holistic view of an oper-ation. It assists in breaking down barriersbetween people and turf. It is a mechanism thatbrings people together on common ground witha common purpose and goal. As such, con-ducting business review exercises has, in manycases, helped jurisdictions overcome one of thebiggest challenges to successful integration andinformation sharing: getting people to worktogether.

Analyzing business processes and the informa-tion shared provides a look at how the enterpriseoperates, rather than merely focusing on a sin-gle participant's operations. It illustrates howeach agency operates and its responsibilities,challenges and obstacles, while highlighting howits operations impact the effectiveness of theenterprise as a whole. The methodology allowsfor all partners to specify their information-sharing

requirements within the context of the enter-prise. Because all partners are heard and thebusiness needs are commonly presented,mutual understanding of each partner's roles,responsibilities and burdens are revealed.Partners can then begin to develop solutionsthat help one another, creating a synergy, andthereby improve the enterprise.

As partners uncover the way their enterpriseconducts business, they begin to recognize howthe enterprise could change for the better andthey begin to overcome the fear of change,which is often associated with a feeling of lossof control and subsequent turf issues. Throughthis review, partners gain an understanding ofand empathy for one another's challenges andinsight into why business may be done a specif-ic way. In many instances, one agency's chal-lenges have easily been overcome by a partneragency offering a solution, but that solutioncould only have come with a knowledge of thecurrent process.

Adopting StandardsInformation exchange and business processanalysis also builds the foundation for success-ful standards implementation. It identifies whatinformation is needed by participant agencies;determines when and under what circumstancesto share information; highlights the differencebetween agencies regarding a) whether the infor-mation is even captured, and b) how the infor-mation is captured, stored and available fortransfer. With the emergence of contemporarytechnologies (e.g., eXtensible Markup Language,or XML), agencies do not necessarily need to sig-nificantly reprogram their existing informationsystems, but they can use integration hubs, bro-ker technologies and practitioner-based data dic-tionaries and data models to transform data foreffective exchange. With the "as-is" businessprocesses and information exchanges under-stood, and the "to-be" models built, enterprises


can then settle on standards for operation andimplement them for re-engineered businesspractices.

Making Funding DecisionsFunding for information sharing is sporadic, atbest, primarily because few funding streams arestructured to recognize the enterprise nature ofthese efforts. Instead, funding streams areoften developed and targeted directly for part-ners within the enterprise. In justice, for exam-ple, there are numerous funding streams thatprovide needed monies to law enforcement andpublic safety agencies via the Departments ofJustice and Homeland Security. Courts oftenhave revenue bases that are driven by fines andfees, but that are obviously pumped back intothe court's operating budget. But because ofthe nature of the "stovepipes" that have beendeveloped within jurisdictions over time, fewfunding streams are specifically designed toencompass an enterprise approach.

Developing the blueprint for how an enterprisedesires to operate will clarify for each of thepartners where enhancements are needed, andcan illuminate business processes with the mostneed for reform. That, in turn, can assist jurisdic-tions with making decisions about priority proj-ects and efforts. It can foster agreement amongpartners so that when a funding stream becomesavailable to one partner, it may also be leveragedto enhance the efforts of the enterprise.

Security and Privacy EffortsAs enterprise partners examine what types ofdata and information is/should be exchanged,

with which partners and how it is used, this infor-mation can give them very real understandingabout data security, and direction concerninghow to make policy decisions about the privacy ofdata and information. Concerns over which datais made available and what happens to the datawhen it is shared are always paramount in aninformation-sharing environment. Demystifyingthe process and detailing the information sharedhelps policymakers make appropriate decisionsabout critical privacy and security issues.

Justice Information Exchange Model©(JIEM)

One of the most promising tools for analyzingbusiness processes and associated informationexchanges, and, thereby, addressing some ofthese more pervasive barriers to integration is theJustice Information Exchange Model © (JIEM). Itis rapidly expanding to public safety, homelandsecurity and has great potential for other infor-mation sharing efforts.

JIEM is a vital information sharing modeling tooland methodology that has been developed bySEARCH6 with funding by the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, U.S. Department of Justice. JIEMwas initially designed to research and analyzethe information exchanges that occur within thejustice system and to prove a theory: that mostof those exchanges were common across theentire U.S. justice system. Proving the theorybegan to take shape as the business processesand information exchanges of five participatingstates were analyzed. It immediately became

6 SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, provides onsite, no-cost assistance to state andlocal jurisdictions under several grant programs administered within the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department ofJustice. See www.search.org. Information about the Justice Information Exchange Model© is available athttp://www.search.org/programs/technology/jiem.asp.

http://www.search.org/programs/technology/jiem.asp.


clear that a large percentage of exchangeswere common across these initial researchsites. As JIEM expanded to include more andmore state and local jurisdictions, the researchcontinued to build, and the automated tool thatresulted became a critical asset in facilitatingjustice information sharing systems planningand implementation throughout the nation.

Justice information sharing refers to the abilityto access and electronically share critical infor-mation at key decision points throughout thejustice process. Through identification of thesekey decision points, and the information thatflows between various justice entities at thesecritical exchange points, state and local practi-tioners are provided with an enterprise-wideview of information sharing priorities.

JIEM provides a conceptual framework to rep-resent the flow of information between justiceagencies; defines the key events that trigger theneed to share information; identifies the agen-cies involved in the exchange; and describesthe nature of the information exchange, down tothe data element level. Most importantly, theinformation exchanges captured in JIEM can bemapped to the Global Justice XML Data Model(GJXDM),7 the XML standard for justice infor-mation sharing.

JIEM is in use by over 45 jurisdictions across thecountry to analyze, document and re-engineertheir information sharing processes and has beengroundbreaking in establishing a standardizedmethodology for justice information exchanges.

JIEM allows an enterprise to map both the cur-rent "as-is" information exchanges, and then,through analysis and business process align-

ment and reengineering, to model enhancedprocesses in the "to-be" or future exchanges.This is how JIEM contributes to the develop-ment of a blueprint for information sharing.

Common Exchanges Create aReference Model for Others to Use

Of particular importance is that the state andlocal jurisdictions using JIEM have createddatabases that contain their detailed justiceinformation exchanges. JIEM was designed toallow administrators to review, compare, con-trast and find commonalities with exchangesentered by other jurisdictions. That researchhas led to the development of a universal set ofcommon exchanges for justice integration.

The "Justice Reference Model" is comprised ofnearly 700 common justice exchanges nation-wide. With the Reference Model, sites that arejust beginning their integration efforts can incor-porate those exchanges contained in the model,rather than starting with a blank sheet of paperto create their own. They can download thoseexchanges into a new database that can thenbe tailored, added to and adapted to reflect theunique needs of their jurisdiction. TheReference Model enables justice agencies tobuild exchanges that reflect their individual busi-ness practices, but in a manner that is consis-tent with national activities and initiatives.Moreover, it saves jurisdictions a great deal oftime by enabling them to leverage the work ofother jurisdictions, and build on the commonexchanges that research has demonstrated aretruly universal. Most importantly, this essentialcapability of JIEM was developed by and for the

7 The Global Justice XML Data Model is accessible online at: http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=43.

http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=43

practitioners who use the tool to model actual,operational exchanges in their jurisdictions.

While JIEM was developed to target justice sys-tem integration, the JIEM concepts and projectmethodology are transferable to any domainfacing similar information sharing businessproblems. Indeed, efforts are presently underwayto extend the benefits of JIEM analysis and mod-eling to tribal justice, juvenile justice, first respon-ders, emergency management, and similar typesof information exchange business models. TheJIEM conceptual framework documents the flowof information between agencies and describesthe nature of the information exchange, irre-spective of whether one is analyzing justice ornon-justice system exchanges of information.

The JIEM methodology and tool have direct rel-evance and can be used by any enterpriseseeking to analyze its business processes,understand its information exchanges, and re-engineer the way it does business.


What is JIEM?

The Justice Information Exchange Model(JIEM) is a tool to assist justice system lead-ers to analyze and document existing infor-mation exchange at the enterprise level, todesign new electronic exchange processes asa part of an integrated justice initiative, and toadopt and implement national business, data,and technology models to save time, effort,and money.

JIEM has four components:� A conceptual framework for understand-

ing justice information exchange� A methodology for analyzing current

information exchange and for reengi-neering information exchange in aninformation sharing environment

� The JIEM Modeling Tool©, a Web-basedsoftware package to assist justice sys-tem practitioners in applying JIEM

� The JIEM Reference Model, a set ofinformation exchange descriptions thatare common to most jurisdictions

Who Uses JIEM?

JIEM can be used by justice—or any—practi-tioners during the strategic planning phase ofan information sharing initiative, or later bydevelopers during the design of specific inter-faces between applications. Using JIEM, asite can accomplish the following:

� Document existing business processesand information flow among andbetween partners with a variety of textand graphical outputs

� Analyze the effectiveness and economyof existing practices

� Model improved information exchange,creating blueprints for the integration ini-tiative

� Analyze existing data transfers to deter-mine which provide the most favorablecost/benefit ratios for automation

� Use JIEM outputs as inputs to otherdeveloper tools to enhance justice appli-cations and to develop interfacesbetween systems

� Access, import, and extend nationalmodels, such as the JIEM ReferenceModel, the Global Justice XML DataModel, and reference exchange docu-ments and implementation specificationsfrom the developing Global Justice XMLRegistry/Repository

� Register locally developed XML imple-mentation specifications for documents inthe national repository for use by others


� Provide data to support national effortsto develop and improve models, method-ologies, and tools to support integratedjustice.

JIEM Benefits

The JIEM analysis requires the active partici-pation of stakeholders from all participatingorganizations. It delivers a number of benefitsto local, state, and regional integrated justiceefforts that go beyond the specific productsprovided by the system, including:

� An opportunity to bring staff from diverse butinterdependent justice disciplines togetherwith a common language and methodol-ogy to focus on business practices ofmutual concern at the enterprise level

� Access to best practices from around thenation to avoid reinventing the wheel

� Free software and support to preservescarce resources; a personal computerand internet access are the only require-ments to access JIEM

� Participation in national efforts toimprove the integration of justice infor-mation resources.

What is the Future of JIEM?

Since the release of version 3.0 of the JIEMModeling Tool© in February 2004, 325 individ-uals have been trained and 168 have beencertified to use the software in 25 training pro-grams held throughout the nation. 14,599exchanges have been documented in 65 pro-duction databases. A link has been createdbetween JIEM and the Global Justice XMLData Model (GJXDM), providing the capabilityto search and import elements from the

GJXDM directly into JIEM. A business refer-ence model has been created, which savestime and effort in using JIEM, and helpsensure results that are more consistent acrossjurisdictional boundaries.

The principles upon which JIEM is based arenot specific to the Justice enterprise. As such,using JIEM for other government informationsharing initiatives in emergency management,transportation, and intelligence are alreadybeing explored. Those domains will also ben-efit from reference models comprised of com-mon exchanges for their constituent agencies.

In the coming year, new tools will be added toJIEM to assist developers, including UniversalModeling Language (UML) and ExtensibleMarkup Language (XML) outputs to speed theimplementation of JIEM and the GJXDM. TheJIEM/GJXDM interface will become a webservice, ensuring that the latest data modelchanges will be instantly available to JIEMusers. A search wizard and mapping wizardwill be added to JIEM to improve access to theGJXDM and to allow the creation of GJXDM-compliant documents within the JIEMModeling Tool. Users will be able to createwant lists and conformance, constraint, andextension schemas within JIEM. They also willbe able to search and download referenceexchange documents and implementationspecifications from the Global Registry/Repository when it becomes available. Finally,JIEM users will be able to register their ownversions of reference exchange documents asimplementation specifications in the registry.

JIEM is an essential tool for information sharing.When used in conjunction with the GJXDM, itprovides help through the entire developmentspectrum: business processes, the data layer,and the technical tiers of the architecture.


ConclusionBusiness process modeling and informationexchange analysis are critical parts of planningfor information sharing. The obvious benefitsare in solving operational inefficiencies andbusiness challenges, and creating a blueprintfor streamlined and efficient operations. Ofequal—if not greater—importance are the ancil-lary benefits this exercise generates.Overcoming barriers by creating bonds betweeninformation-sharing partners through the under-standing of common challenges and needs;developing a clear link between re-engineeredprocesses and adopting information sharingstandards; prioritizing funding challenges; andmaking informed policy decisions about dataand information security and privacy are someof the most important results of this exercise.

JIEM is a tool that has been created to facilitatethis analysis and modeling from an enterpriseperspective, and it's proven effective in count-less jurisdictions around the nation. In additionto documenting information exchange, the toolhas enabled jurisdictions to model businesspractices and reengineer business processes tofacilitate greater and more effective informationexchange. It has also served as a critical cata-lyst for change by bringing decision makers andpractitioners together to examine how they worktogether and how their coordinated efforts canbuild an effective information sharing enterprise.It has worked in the justice domain. JIEM's prin-ciples, practices and methodology can work inother domains as well. For more information onJIEM, please visit www.search.org.

Case Study: Alaska

Alaska had a six-month backlog of 17,000 citations, totaling about $1 million, awaiting default judg-ment at the court. The old citation handling process required that each citation be manually enteredin three different locations: the Anchorage Police Department, the court, and the state repository.The data entry backlog at the court increased the difficulty of collecting on the citations, because ofpeople moving, etc. It also kept the state from attaching funds paid from the permanent fund divi-dend, Alaska's equivalent of a tax intercept program. After mapping out the business processescarefully with JIEM, both the current "as-is" and the desired "to-be" procedures, they developed thedesign for an interface to pass the citation electronically from the police system to the court andrepository. Once the interface had been designed from a business perspective, they were able touse the GJXDM and a private-sector XML middleware product to implement the exchange of cita-tions between the Anchorage Police Department and the court, instantly eliminating redundant dataentry and 12,000 of the 17,000 citations in the backlog. Now default judgments are processed imme-diately, which increases the amount of money collected and helps ensure better compliance with thelaw. JIEM played a critical role in solving this justice system problem in Alaska.


selected Federal agencies. Global is not anoperational entity, but adopts by consensus poli-cies and positions that result in recommenda-tions to the Attorney General regarding informa-tion system advances.

Based on the premise that information technol-ogy standards would have to be developed andthen fully adopted by the companies who makemost of the software applications employed inlaw enforcement and justice agencies, theAttorney General urged OJP to invite input fromthese companies collectively and OJP invitedcompanies to participate in the IntegratedJustice Information Systems Industry WorkingGroup (IJIS IWG). These companies laterfounded the Integrated Justice InformationSharing (IJIS) Institute, a non-profit organizationdesigned to provide technology assistance andtraining in the use of advanced technologies tostate and local governments through grants fromthe Bureau of Justice Assistance in the OJP.The IJIS Institute also participates in the devel-opment of standards for information sharing.

The Promise of XML

Around the time that OJP began to address thisproblem, a new technology was emerging thatoffered significant potential for building standardsand reducing the cost of interoperability betweencomputer systems. The broad adoption of aninternationally recognized open standard called

justice perspective

Developing Law Enforcement and Justice IT Standards for InformationExchange by Paul Wormeli, Executive Director, Integrated Justice Information Sharing (IJIS) Institute

Effective and timely information sharing hasbeen a challenge for some time in the justicecommunity. In 1998, the Office of JusticePrograms (OJP) of the U.S. Department ofJustice convened a series of focus groupsaround the country to discuss issues of infor-mation sharing and to identify the impedimentsto information system interoperability. Therewere a number of conclusions reached fromthese meetings, but a primary theme was thatthe lack of standards for exchanging informationbetween computer systems was at the heart ofthe reason "stovepipe" systems continued toproliferate. As a direct result of practitioner rec-ommendations made in these meetings, OJPundertook an initiative to improve automatedinformation sharing in the law enforcement andjustice world.

In addition to funding studies by theInternational Association of Chiefs of Police(IACP), the National Center for State Courts andother agencies to document the state of infor-mation sharing and integrated justice informa-tion systems, the Office of Justice Programs(OJP) initiative led to the formation of the GlobalInformation Sharing Advisory Committee,Global, which is a formal Federal AdvisoryCommittee (subject to Federal law such asrequiring all meetings to be open to the public)appointed by the Attorney General. Global, as itis referred to in shorthand notation, is essential-ly a consortium of 28 organizations that repre-sent the leadership of law enforcement and jus-tice agencies throughout the country, as well as


the eXtensible Mark-up Language (XML) wasseen as the basic mechanism around which lawenforcement and justice agencies could auto-mate the exchange of information betweencomputer systems. XML is basically a set ofrules and procedures for creating electronic rep-resentations of the kind of documents that lawenforcement and justice agencies exchangeevery day to conduct their business. A series ofstandards for creating and sending electronicdocuments were adopted by international stan-dards organizations and by all the major tech-nology companies to allow computer basedinformation exchange.

The members of Global clearly saw the poten-tial of using XML as a standard in the justiceworld, and quickly adopted a policy endorsingthe use of XML across justice disciplines.However, the effective use of this exciting newtechnology required the development of avocabulary of terms and definitions that wouldbe interpretable by any stakeholder agency indeveloping automated exchanges. Global thenrecommended to the Attorney General the cre-ation of an XML Structure Task Force (XSTF) todefine a standard data dictionary and to definethe relationship between data elements in astructured model that could form the basis ofnational information exchanges between lawenforcement and justice agencies.

The Promise of GJXDM

The XSTF is primarily a practitioner drivenorganization, augmented by technologists fromindustry and academia, which has defined thecontent and structure of a national model calledthe Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM).It took input from many individual organizationsfrom around the country and relied heavily onthe research that had been conducted bySEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics, regarding the natureof information exchanges between justice agen-cies. The engineering work to develop themodel as defined by the XSTF was assigned tothe computer scientists of the GeorgiaTechnology Research Institute.

Over twenty-one state and local law enforce-ment and justice organizations saw the potentialof using the GJXDM as a basis for informationexchange. Among those involved were thestates of Pennsylvania, Arizona, New Mexico,Kentucky, Colorado, and Minnesota; countiesincluding Maricopa County, Arizona, and OrangeCounty, Florida; and over nine hundred policedepartments in the state of Ohio. These organ-izations came together and began to implementthe first production release of the GJXDM whichwas issued in January, 2004. However, it is acomplicated and sophisticated model, involvingvery modern concepts such as object orientingmodeling, and few technologists in the public orprivate sector were prepared for the adoption ofthis model. In response to this situation, OJPcreated an adhocracy called the GJXDMTraining and Technology Assistance Committee(GTTAC) as a consortium of organizationsengaged in technical assistance and trainingrelated to technology in the justice field, andGTTAC has been delivering training and techni-cal assistance programs since May of 2004.GTTAC members include the Law EnforcementInformation Technology Standards Council(LEITSC), the IJIS Institute, SEARCH, theNational Center for State Courts, the NationalLaw Enforcement and Corrections TechnologyCenters, the Georgia Technology ResearchInstitute (GTRI), the XSTF, the RegionalInformation Sharing Systems Program (RISS),and others who offer help in understanding andapplying this model.

In addition to training on the implementation ofthe GJXDM, GTTAC has recognized the need


for models that state and local agencies coulduse to implement, document or exchange spe-cific implementations. The member organiza-tions have divided up the work of creating whatare called reference documents to be guidesthat give examples of specific documentexchanges, such as an arrest report or sen-tencing order, so that implementers can have astarting point for adopting the GJXDM in theirsystems. This is the major focus of GTTAC for2005, along with the creation of a national virtu-al help desk centered on the GJXDM.

In addition, efforts are underway to extend theGJXDM to incorporate other needs. The IJISInstitute is working under a grant funded by theDepartment of Justice Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA) to extend the model to handlejuvenile justice exchanges, and there will be aneffort to incorporate transportation systemexchanges particularly between transportationcenters and first responder CAD systems.

The GJXDM continues to increase in its appli-cation, as the FBI has now adopted the GJXDMas the standard on which its new National DataExchange (NDEx) incident reporting programwill be built, and future Uniform Crime Reports(UCR), National Incident-Based ReportingSystem (NIBRS) and other incident sharing forinvestigative purposes will operate. The nation-al exchange of terrorist information will also bebased on the GJXDM, and many states havealready fully adopted this standard for informa-tion exchange among justice agencies in thestate. In the fall of 2004, OJP created a spe-cial condition to apply to all Federal grants thathad any aspect of automated information shar-ing. As a part of the grant requirements, therecipient must agree to base such exchangeson the GJXDM.

Standards

There are actually three levels of standards thathave to be put in place for all of this work toresult in true interoperability among computersystems. The technical standards have beenand are being developed around XML by suchbodies as the world wide web consortium (w3c),the International Standards Organization (ISO)and other standard setting bodies. The datastandards are being presented in the GJXDMand continue to develop under the guidance ofthe XSTF and GTRI. What remain to be estab-lished are the functional standards calling forthe use of the technical and data standards inimplementation. It is generally recognized thatthe development of functional standards shouldcome from the individual disciplines engaged inlaw enforcement and the administration of jus-tice. As an example, the National Center forState Courts has for several years been devel-oping the functional standards for the variouskinds of court systems (criminal, civil, etc.).

In the law enforcement field, there is one spe-cific consortium tasked and funded to developfunctional standards—Law EnforcementInformation Technology Standards Council(LEITSC). With the active participation of IACP,the National Organization of Black LawEnforcement Executives (NOBLE), the NationalSheriffs Association (NSA), and the PoliceExecutive Research Forum (PERF), this bodywill define functional standards for the IT func-tions needed to serve law enforcement. Theresearch resulting from the LEITSC Council andits subcommittees will then be vetted throughappropriate committees of each participatingorganization in an effort to define and adoptnational standards.

When this work is complete, there will be fullydefined consensual standards that can beapplied to ease the work of information sharing


throughout the nation. However, standards cannever be allowed to stagnate, and each partici-pating organization will have to ensure thatthere are programs and projects to review andrevise the standards or they will die from lack ofuse. The challenge to stakeholder organiza-tions is to create an ongoing refreshment of allof the standards as technology changes, and asthe nature of the business changes.


In the mid-1990's, a lot of momentum was cre-ated around a process for developing informa-tion technology solutions within the justiceenterprise. The planning models prescribedincluded the following:

� Identify stakeholders� Establish governance� Do an assessment of what you have� Conduct a capability and needs assess-

ment� Establish a visionary process for describ-

ing the future enterprise� Conduct a gap analysis� Develop integration projects/plans.

This is basically the high-level process thatevolved and was propagated. The justice com-munity started to use it and followed thatprocess logic as dogma. However, has therebeen any real evidence to say that this works?Those who developed and presented thisapproach had no best practices to draw upon. Itappears logical, but is it applicable and man-ageable to a level of detail that can guaranteeoutcomes for success? There were never anyspecific details, definitions or examples thatwere truly useable. For example, "Gather yourStakeholders." What does that really mean?Have we truly gathered our stakeholders?Project managers need to ask that questionand, determine whether they have establishedan adequate governance that can function effec-tively, and make the kinds of decisions neces-sary for their enterprise. One governance mech-anism may have worked in one jurisdiction, but

that does not mean that the same mechanismwill work in others.

The level of success of these complicated proj-ects is often measured by the politics. That is,what has been presented and demonstrated inorder to justify an investment, versus true out-come and performance measures. These for-mer measures of success are often a political orcommercial hyperbole that comes out of thecommunication machine of the invested politi-cians or vendors, and not fact.

Much of this issue lies in the overwhelmingcomplexity and immense amount of detailrequired in the planning of enterprise informa-tion sharing projects. Within a governancemechanism, leadership (and delegated authori-ty given to committee and work teams) must beable to drill down to this kind of detail. So thequestion remains: have the necessary stake-holders been engaged to accomplish this, andis there the necessary organizational will todeliver that due diligence?

Projects fail, and in trying to determine why theyfailed project managers identify other issueswhen the problem was caused by a lack of clearand effective governance. The reality is, toooften project managers gather the stakeholdersthat they are most comfortable working with.The highest-level leaders will either not beengaged, leaving those middle-managers andusers in their agencies powerless to fully partic-ipate and execute, or these same policy-makerstake too much control and micro-manage a

justice perspective

Governance and StakeholdersInterview with Thomas Kooy, President, Justice Information Sharing Professionals


process they do not understand—frequently outof need to protect their turf, their budgets, or thecontrol of the project as a whole.

Trust—A Level Playing Field

In applying an enterprise view, we have to fos-ter and facilitate a network of trust. However,this issue of governance and stakeholder partic-ipation begins and ends with an ability to changehow entities of government interact and the truelevel of trust that actually exists. It's aboutpower, control, and budget. And there are limitsas to how far agency heads are willing to go withintegration and information sharing projects.

Many stakeholders can agree that the processoutlined earlier is conceptually good, and theyknow they should participate politically.However, when the rubber hits the road, whenmoney gets dispersed, or decisions are made todetermine what projects will get funded, the out-comes are dependant on who will reap the mostbenefit. Leaders, realizing that they may be onthe short end of a decision, will back away orundermine the project.

So, what is the acid test for proper stakeholderinvolvement, and what is the model for gover-nance that will insure success of a project?That needs to be determined through a legiti-mate strategic planning and project definitionprocess. And once determined, it needs to beapplied within a framework of sound projectmanagement discipline.

This issue of trust is also critical, and one of thestruggles in identifying stakeholders and estab-lishing governance structures and membership.We have trouble with governance because gov-ernance positions are often not filled with the

highest-level people who can "make things hap-pen." Often they are not "engaged" and "at thetable." The existing governance and stakehold-er positions are filled with middle managers whobring forth excellent recommendations, but"nothing happens" because their superiors arenot engaged.

Another problem is putting people in the gover-nance positions that are at too high a level com-pared with other positions. This creates anenvironment that isn't fair from the start. Thiscan happen when incorporating representativesfrom counties and municipalities. These juris-dictions must feel they have an equal voicealong with larger jurisdictions. Further, theappropriate "roles and responsibilities" of anenterprise project need to be matched to theappropriate level of the governance body. Forexample, executives should not be engaged indetails about technology, project management,process review, etc. But they should establishdirection and visioning.

So, how is the right governance established,and how are the right stakeholders identifiedand brought into the project so that the initiativecan commence, funding can be obtained, andthe initiative moves forward? Rules must beestablished that reach down to the right level ofdetail. There must be a methodology that isexecutable and can be repeated. Examplesmust be presented that demonstrate what hasworked, and how it works on a day-to-day basis.Examples can be very effective in gaining com-mitment, understanding and appreciation of theenterprise perspective. But it's hard to findexamples where such a process has worked, orhas been well documented. There are a hand-ful of states that have had broad success in jus-tice information sharing, yet all examples havesome shortcoming in one aspect or anotheracross the spectrum of projects.


JISP Pre-RFP Toolkit

The Justice Information Sharing Professionals(JISP)8 has worked with the IJIS Institute todevelop a Pre-RFP Toolkit that provides exam-ples of strategic plans, needs assessments,standards guidelines, etc.9 In the first (current)edition a framework was developed, but goodand consistent content was difficult to come by.There continues to be a struggle today (as the2nd edition is being developed) to collect andcull these examples and demonstrate any stan-dardization between the outputs. It was felt thatit was important to emphasize that projectteams should not simply copy the samples.They need to go through the enterprise devel-opment process for themselves with the rightstakeholders. It is fundamental that these proj-ect teams define the problem for their jurisdic-tion, generate the calls to action and the busi-ness case, then develop their approach andexecute on their plan. Simply copying and past-ing an example from another project and declar-ing it a "best practice" is not how to do a projectplan, or develop any documentation relating to aunique enterprise architecture. The examplesin the Pre-RFP Toolkit are intended as guides toassist and "jump-start" an initiative. To prevent,as much as possible, teams from having to "re-invent the wheel." However, it is still imperativefor them to go through the due diligence ofdefining themselves and their direction.

With respect to technology, there has been a lotof lip service toward embracing an enterpriseperspective, and growing excitement about theemerging open architecture standards, andinternet standards (e.g., XML). And it is impor-tant for teams to understand and embrace these

things. But in a world where technology cansolve the physical problems of integration, thewhole paradigm shift falls back on governmentto develop the means for establishing trustwhen it comes to actually sharing information,establishing security policy and practices,establishing access control, and dealing withmistrust in sharing data. Agencies must beproactive in defining what information theyhave, what they can and are willing to share,and what they are willing to relegate to a cen-tralized service model. In the end, if the entitiesinvolved and their respective leaders are notwilling or able to sit down and agree to a frame-work of policies for the sharing and acceptableuse of their collective data, they cannot expecttechnology to solve their problems.

It's often hard for agencies to move to this para-digm. Many agencies are still grossly stovepipedand even though agency heads will cometogether in forums, they continue to work inde-pendently. They need to move toward workingcollaboratively with a common purpose and acommon galvanizing point.

There is significant challenge in these projectsboth from an enterprise perspective and a tech-nology perspective. Often we are dealing withpeople who are working in 20 year old tech-nologies for doing summary reporting, whilemanaging antiquated data repositories and com-munication switches. If they are moving forwardat all, in most cases they are putting web-enabled front-ends on these systems. Inessence, they are one full wave behind theemerging technology. The reality is they are notbeing pushed forward by their leadership or theircurrent environment. Enterprise architecture

8 see OJP/JISP, http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=519 see OJP/JISP/RFP, http://it.ojp.gov/procurement/files/Applying_IT.pdf


http://it.ojp.gov/procurement/files/Applying_IT.pdf


projects simply can not be led by this group. Itis imperative that projects like this involve inno-vators, forward thinkers, and a strategicapproach to lead these types of efforts.

Contributing Initiatives

Some initiatives that are contributing significantlyto the necessary paradigm shift include NationalLaw Enforcement Telecommunication System(NLETS)10 in their recent upgrades to TCP/IPand in beginning to move some of their inter-state messaging to XML and the Global JusticeXML Data Model (GJXDM). The Global XMLinitiative, as a whole, is also beginning to con-tribute to what is a slow evolution into new stan-dards and enterprise components and conceptsfor affected agencies. These initiatives are pos-itively influencing state agencies to move intonew technologies. Another influencer is theFBI. In law enforcement, wherever the FBICriminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)chooses to raise the bar, the state agencies willbe forced to follow (e.g., the National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) 2000). Without thisinfluence, most agencies will remain in theframework of 20 year old technology which can-not effectively reflect current and emerging busi-ness needs and practices. These efforts willeven begin to merge in their impacts, as in theFBI National Data Exchange (N-DEx) projectand their adoption of the GJXDM for the pro-ject's data specifications. Forward and strategicplanning state agencies will recognize the ben-efit of moving ahead of this curve.

Unfortunately, the majority will lag behind it formany years. When it comes to the full range ofservices and technologies encompassed withinthe Service-Oriented Architecture, along withthe shifting business and managementapproach for IT inherent in that architecturaldesign pattern, Gartner Group (and severalother researchers) have observed that an entiregeneration of IT managers will have to beretired before this paradigm truly transforms ourtechnologies and business approaches to infor-mation sharing.

10 see NLETS, http://www.nlets.org/general.html

http://www.nlets.org/general.html


Today it is a foregone conclusion that improvedinformation sharing is critical to delivering effec-tive justice programs and ensuring our home-land security. But when it's all said and done,information sharing needs to demonstrate anincrease in public safety and reflect sound pub-lic policies. We must ask ourselves, as trustedpolicy makers, stewards of public resources, cit-izens, and taxpayers involved in informationsharing: As a result of our work, are our familiesand friends any safer than they were yesterday?What about a year ago? If not, why not? And,what will be the long-term impact of our efforts?

Restorative justice is defined as a systematicresponse to wrongdoing that emphasizes heal-ing the wounds of victims, offenders and com-munities caused or revealed by crime. Thisconcept has a complete set of principles, val-ues, goals, and stakeholders.11

Policymakers cannot be comfortable with thestatus quo or govern their agencies in theabsence of clear policies and measurable pro-grams. Action and results are expected by ourconstituents and, further, the consequences of afailure to plan are tantamount to a failure to act.That action needs to be planned and executedusing best practice tools and resources nowavailable to the field.

Vision

The vision for community safety and justice inKalamazoo County is: "Kalamazoo Countyseeks to be the safest, most just and restorativecommunity in the nation." In keeping with thatvision, the community has developed a"Community Safety and Justice ServiceContinuum" inclusive of prevention, interven-tion, rehabilitation, corrections, and reentryservices. This requires the use of data-drivenapproaches, assessing risk, strengths andneeds, applying "evidence-based" strategies,and measuring and evaluating "what works."All require good data and resulting information.Kalamazoo County is not unlike most jurisdic-tions: it struggles to obtain the information itneeds for good decision-making, it does thebest it can with the information it has, and isworking to address the gaps using the tools andresources that are now available to advancedata collection and information sharing.

Cross Agency Collaboration

People using the services along the continuum(from prevention through reentry) typicallyrequire the services of multiple other agencies.For example, a child involved in the county's

justice perspective

Restorative Justice and Project Management IssuesInterview with Tammy Woodhams, Executive Director, Kalamazoo Criminal Justice Council,Kalamazoo County, Michigan

11 See, http://www.restorativejustice.org/rj3/RJ_City/01-03/rjcity_defetc.htm

http://www.restorativejustice.org/rj3/RJ_City/01-03/rjcity_defetc.htm


local family services program may have anunemployed non-custodial parent who is incar-cerated, who is enrolled in community treatmentor under alternative forms of supervision, and isbehind in child support. There is an increasingdemand for cross agency collaboration and anemphasis for sharing information outside tradi-tional agency boundaries to bring about a moreholistic approach to dealing with families.

There must be a balance maintained in informa-tion sharing with clear and thoughtful policies forthe "need to know" regarding the informationbeing shared. There must be the establishmentof a culture of understanding around what thatinformation means and in the end, how it'sgoing to be used and its impact on the safetyand security of citizens. Many times, informa-tion sharing can actually work against estab-lished goals in certain lines of business.

Potential Barriers

Regarding restorative justice, information canbecome a barrier to forgiveness and communityreconciliation. This is not to say that pertinentinformation should not be shared—rather thatthere is a responsibility to understand and pre-pare for how that information is going to beused. Examine, as a case in point, the reentryof ex-offenders from prison. This year there willbe around 650,000 people across the countryreturning to our local communities—in Michiganthat number is over 10,000—in KalamazooCounty that number is about 300, or 25 to 30 amonth. Based on historical data, without appro-priate community interventions and services, wecan expect half of them to return to prison with-in 24 months. Many of these ex-offenders willface multiple barriers upon release includingtheir basic survival needs: food, clothing, andshelter. Additionally, issues of substance abuseand mental health, community connectivity, and

employment make successful reentry problem-atic for the majority of ex-offenders.

There are many legal barriers and restrictionswith regard to ex-offenders being eligible forlow-income housing subsidies and vocationalopportunities. There are additional barriers toobtaining employment: If an ex-offender sharesinformation with a potential employer that theyare, in fact, an ex-offender, they are much lesslikely to obtain a job. If they can't work, theycan't support themselves and their family, theycan't successfully reintegrate back into society,and they will likely return to what they know.Ultimately, this has implications for public safe-ty, for the taxpayers who foot the bill for their re-incarceration, and to the other domains (suchas education) that vie for their share of limitedstate funding. The point is, society needs to thinkthrough what actions it should take to mitigate therisks associated with information sharing.

Anytime information sharing is driven by the intentof the agency or organization, it is based on abelief that the agency objectives can be betterachieved through information sharing. That intentneeds to be understood and should be drivingthe development of any capabilities to enablethat intent. It cannot be assumed that collabo-ration and information sharing will automaticallylead to more effective delivery of services orhigher quality of life.

Metrics

Incorporating performance measures into jus-tice information sharing initiatives is critical toeffectively monitoring project implementationand demonstrating success toward achievinglong-term goals and outcomes. Performancemeasures should be used to:

� Establish a baseline for demonstratingresults;


� Align project goals with policy strategies;� Make project goals operational;� Provide for benchmarking; and � Ensure cost effective returns on invest-

ment.

Tools

The Center for Society, Law and Justice(through the Bureau of Justice Assistance-grantnumber 2002LD-BX K002) has designed a setof tools to assist in the development of perform-ance measures for justice information technolo-gy projects tied to "public safety" and "reducedcrime." The Logic Model Framework is a usefultool that can help planners make the linksbetween process improvements and desiredoutcomes.

In addition to resources available throughNASCIO, there are a number of other tools andstandards being developed that can expeditethe implementation of successful informationsharing projects (referenced throughout thisdocument). Technical assistance and toolsaround performance measures, facilitatedstrategic planning, project management train-ing, emerging technologies and standards,capability assessments, and the JusticeInformation Exchange Model (JIEM) are avail-able in the public domain. Further, the JusticeInformation Sharing Professionals group (JISP)is also a good resource for sharing best prac-tices and lessons learned. All of this assistanceis in place to help expedite the sharing of infor-mation and bring this knowledge to the states.In the end, it is crucial to the health and safetyof our country.


Global's concept of justice information sharing isan ambitious vision of a justice community that isdefined in the broadest terms possible, reachingacross disciplines, levels of government, andbranches of government. Global has decided touse enterprise architecture to support the visionof the organization. This can be found in a reporttitled "A Framework for Justice InformationSharing: Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)"12

produced by the Global Infrastructure/StandardsWorking Group and published on December9th, 2004, on the Global website.

Global's Vision

This report presents six requirements for anarchitecture that will support Global's vision forthe sharing of data:

1. The architecture must recognize innumer-able independent agencies and fundingbodies from local, state, tribal, and federalgovernments.

2. Information sharing must occur acrossagencies that represent divergent disci-plines, branches of government, and oper-ating assumptions.

3. The infrastructure must be able to accom-modate an infinite range of scales, from

small operations with few participants in arural county to national processes thatreach across local, state, tribal, federal,and even international boundaries.

4. Information sharing must occur amongdata sources that differ widely in software,hardware, structure, and design.

5. Public sector technology investment mustreflect and incorporate the lessons anddevelopments of the private sector.

6. The infrastructure design must be dynam-ic, capable of evolving as the informationsharing requirements change and thetechnology is transformed.

The Global Justice Architecture work group rec-ommends leveraging Service-OrientedArchitecture (SOA) to accomplish these sixrequirements. These six requirements presenta formidable landscape for an infrastructure thatwill support justice information sharing on alocal, state, tribal, and national level. It isGlobal's contention that the technologies arenow maturing for meeting the technical require-ments and that a conceptual framework is avail-able to exploit these technologies for the justicecommunity. These technologies consist of thestandards, specifications, and protocols thathave been developed to support the Internet,specifically the Web. The conceptual framework

justice perspective

Enabling Information Sharing through Service-Oriented ArchitectureMike Ryan, Enterprise Architect for the State of Minnesota, and member of the GlobalArchitecture Working Group representing NASCIO and the State of Minnesota

12 See http://it.ojp.gov/documents/20041209_SOA_Report.pdf

http://it.ojp.gov/documents/20041209_SOA_Report.pdf


that has emerged to apply these technologies toinformation sharing is Service-OrientedArchitecture (SOA).

Justice Service-Oriented Architecture

Justice SOA is an approach to the design anddevelopment of an information system. Theassumption is that a system should be designedand developed around the basic components ofthe operational procedures or, in the languageof the software literature, the business practicesof an agency. These components are then com-bined into a loosely related larger structure that,in turn, can be combined into an even largerentity. It assumes that the design of a systembegins with a concept of the business practicesof an enterprise (e.g., case-flow management,investigations, or trial preparation), which identi-fies the critical components (e.g., personal iden-tification, sentencing document, or arrestreport), that define the parameters of stand-alone pieces of software (i.e., services).

The effect is to permit the evolutionary develop-ment of a system. Software can be written toserve specific purposes (e.g., define the identityof an individual) and shared on an approvedbasis with other programs (e.g., borrow the iden-tity definition software of the postal service in ajudicial case management system). Lessonslearned from development of the componentscan be used to revise the business practicesthat, in turn, can guide the development of addi-tional components. It then follows that a systemcan begin small—organized around specificoperations—and evolve into a larger, more com-prehensive system as the parts are linkedtogether. This approach to design, develop-ment, and implementation is possible becauseof the technology developed for the Web.

The ability of these Internet-based technologies

to support exchanges of messages and search-es for information across a seemingly infinitenumber of participants has become all too famil-iar. The focus is upon the message and its utili-ty to the user rather than on the underlying datasource. The technology allows a search acrossa crazy quilt of hardware and software systemsfor information that is relevant to the user. SOAexploits those attributes in architectural design,whether the problem involves a single, smallagency working on a dedicated network or a far-flung operation involving numerous agencies,databases, and operational requirements. SOAand "Web services" are often used interchange-ably, but strictly speaking, Web services is justone—if the most viable—way to realize the ben-efits of SOA.

The second breakthrough was the advent ofopen standards for sharing information acrossnetworks without regard for the underlying tech-nologies or applications. This is what an SOAenables. At one stroke, the need for centralizedcoordination of technology or application disap-peared and an economical means of communi-cating became possible because many vendorssupport the open standards around which SOAis built.

Global's Action Agenda

If SOA is to be used successfully as the frame-work for justice information sharing architecture,Global must play a proactive leadership role inseveral areas.

First, Global has formally, actively embracedSOA as the recommended framework for anational infrastructure to support justice infor-mation sharing and will integrate its require-ments into all of its activities.

Second, Global will take steps to encourage the


creation of a mechanism for drawing togetherthe experiences and lessons from the field.Global is looking for a process and refers totheir XML Standards Task Force (XSTF).

Third, Global will reach out to existing nationalsystems to incorporate their efforts into thedesign of an overall strategy. The pipes for mov-ing this information across the country alreadyexist in the National Law EnforcementTelecommunication System (NLETS), theAmerican Association of Motor VehicleAdministrators network (AAMVAnet), RegionalInformation Sharing Systems (RISS), etc.Global wants to take advantage of these exist-ing pipes, not supplant them.

Fourth, the six issues identified in the aforemen-tioned report—services, standards, interagencyagreements, registries, security, and privacyand data quality—will be a major part of theagenda for the next set of activities of Global.Global understands that the first roadblock isthe private data issues. Therefore, there is acommittee to work on service level agreementssuch as information resource planning (IRP)agreements for interstate trucking.

Fifth, Global will develop a multi-tiered strategyfor the public sector to influence standards. Itwill include encouraging the creation of a publicprocess as it did with XML; taking part in indus-try groups developing standards that are rele-vant to justice (e.g., World Wide WebConsortium [W3C]); and developing partnershipprocesses with industry and other public enti-ties. There is a standards committee to addressthis issue.

ConclusionGlobal is uniquely situated to provide the lead-ership required. There is no other entity at thenational level that can command agreement bylocal and state governments, agencies, orbranches of government. This is exemplified bythe on-going collaborative relationship Globalmaintains with NASCIO and other communitiesof interest. There are national entities that are ina position to structure the debate within specificsubject areas, but no other body exists for thejustice community. National standards and prac-tices that are to serve the justice communityrequire a group that holds enough stature in allof the several disciplines to give immediate cre-dence to its products. Global brings that credi-bility to the process.


Barriers

The major barriers to re-engineering justiceprocesses to facilitate information sharing arenot technological in nature. Technological capa-bilities have been in place from some time andadditional technologies are being invented andimplemented everyday. The major barriers tojustice process re-engineering instead have todo with the people side of managing changeand the difficulties inherent in multi-stakeholdercollaborations.

While there are many people in criminal justice,both technical and non-technical, who are work-ing with older legacy systems and are unable toreap the advantages of new technologies, this isbecoming less and less the case. Through ini-tiatives such as JIEM and GJXDM the benefitsthat current technologies offer to informationsharing is quickly spreading across the justicelandscape.

With technology becoming less of a majorobstacle, the remaining major hurdles involvethe inability of criminal justice agencies to effec-tively collaborate. This difficulty goes beyondprojects seeking to facilitate information shar-ing. In fact, many people can embrace and par-

ticipate in information sharing initiatives, butbecome resistant to business process re-engi-neering initiatives that involve cross-agencybusiness processes. The re-engineering andstreamlining of justice business processes arekey to enabling improved performance onagency missions and effectuating improve-ments in core outcomes such as public safety.

Information technology is a tool that enablesinformation sharing and cooperation amongdiverse agencies. A major barrier is motivatingpeople at the local level to participate. Therehas been great progress in some areas, but,there are still problems. Some of the challeng-ing organizational dynamics in the justice com-munity are described in a research paper titled,"Reengineering Justice Business Processes:Identifying and Overcoming Barriers toChange." This paper is available through TheCenter for Society, Law and Justice (CSLJ).

The nature of electoral politics, and the funda-mental power struggles that go on in these gov-ernment offices, often make cooperation and col-laboration difficult. Understanding some of thekey foundations for how and why agencies andorganizations behave is critical for successfullynavigating a business process re-engineering

justice perspective

Barriers to Re-engineering Justice Related Business ProcessesPanel interview withDr. Peter Scharf, Executive Director, Center for Society, Law and JusticeDr. Heidi Unter, Associate Director of Research, Center for Society, Law and JusticeDr. Mike Geerken, Chief Information Officer, Attorney General’s Office, State of LouisianaSteve Prisoc, CIO and Director, Judicial Information Division, State of New MexicoMark Myrent, Assistant Director, Illinois Information AuthorityLt. Lon Ramlan, San Francisco Police Department


effort designed to promote information sharingamong justice agencies.

One of the issues in managing projects for suc-cess is ensuring there is proper representationat the table. You need representatives frombusiness, management, operations, technology,and policy level leadership. However, in manyprojects only one or two of these interests arerepresented.

The CSLJ paper states: An effective design team requires a wide rangeof authority, knowledge, and skills, including:

1. Executive authority with complete commit-ment to change and to the design/imple-mentation process

2. Management skill: what can be done andhow to do it

3. Knowledge—technical (existing systems,possible systems)

4. Knowledge—criminal justice (business)13

Information sharing projects incorporate a highlydiverse mix of stakeholders and team members.These types of projects bring together businesspeople and technology people. These twogroups often fail to effectively communicate witheach other, which can lead to breakdowns inproject plans and schedules. Exacerbating thischallenge is the fact that it is difficult to conveythe technical aspects of integration to peoplewithout a technical background, or who lackexpertise in that particular aspect of technology.

Role of Organizational Dynamics

There is a neglected area of study and that is

the area of inter-organizational relations. Whatis interesting is that there has been significantsuccess in the corporate world in completingprojects that involve many departments andorganizations. Yet, we have not seen that kindof success in government. Why?

Part of the answer lies in the nature of govern-ment and the underlying organizational dynam-ics that drive behavior in the government con-text. Often in government bureaucracies, thereis a high propensity to promulgate the statusquo. In contrast, the business process changesassociated with successful collaboration in thecorporate world is necessary for their survival.Cross organizational collaboration is also desir-able in government and the justice community.However, there are times when it appears thatgovernment agencies can survive year afteryear and even be "rewarded" for seeminglydoing nothing. Some of this is due to an aver-sion to risk on the part of entrenched civil serv-ice employees. Some of this behavior is due tothe power basis of government which is vestedin elected and appointed officials. These offi-cials are at times not necessarily the most qual-ified for the job, nor are they necessarily avail-able for business transformation kinds of proj-ects. Their planning horizon is too short—look-ing only to the next election and not beyond. Inshort, they lack an enterprise perspective.

Team Formation

We are talking about inter-organizational rela-tions and the motivations for forming, cultivatingand sustaining these fundamental relationships.This aspect of program and project management

13 "Reengineering Justice Business Processes: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Change", by Dr. Michael Geerken,Center for Society, Law & Justice, New Orleans, Louisiana. See http://www.cslj.net/

http://www.cslj.net/


must be understood if projects are going to beproperly planned and framed, project teamsproperly assembled, and projects are to sustainthrough completion, delivering the outcomesestablished in the business case. It is extreme-ly difficult to maintain continued participationfrom the respective parties understanding thatthe project teams are adhoc assemblies, andthe team members have full time commitmentsthat compete and win over any demands fromsuch projects.

Additionally, the process for assembling teamsis typically not effective. An effective approachis to establish a formal process for assemblingproject teams. This begins with establishing agoverning board and the definition of what work-ing committees should exist and their composi-tion regarding knowledge, skills and experience.Board members should decide who will partici-pate. It is important to recognize that decisionmaking in government is often based on politicalself-interest. This behavior has to be mitigated ifsuccessful project teams are to be assembledand projects are to be properly managed to deliv-er the outcomes they are intended to deliver.

Data Quality

Once a project is launched, the discovery andanalysis phases of the project can uncover aplethora of data quality problems that have beenpreviously hidden or only understood by peoplevery close to the associated processes that haveused that data. As discovery continues, analysismay uncover additional conflicts related to riskmanagement in a highly political environment.With cross-agency initiatives, various informa-tion protections are suddenly challenged. Suchprotections were in place as part of the politicaldynamics, but in an information sharing environ-ment they create barriers to developing andimplementing collaborative solutions.

Some of the barriers to information sharing thatarise in such initiatives are due to the disparity inthe level of granularity required by the newly part-nered agencies. For example, if the informationsteward is the clerk of court, and the informationconsumer is the prosecutor's office, there is aproblem. So, some information is re-enteredredundantly because the different functions injustice store and use information differently. Theprosecutor will need significantly more granular-ity in the information that the clerk of court.

Another barrier to information sharing is theconcept of unique identifiers. Often, there is alack of agreement on what constitutes a uniqueidentifier and what the unique identifier shouldbe. Some states have actually done this quitewell. Most have not.

Organizational Deficiencies

Sometimes the biggest problem is ignoranceamong the CIO, agency directors, and policymakers. These roles often obscure key issuesand hide deficiencies within their own agencies.This inability or unwillingness to admit deficien-cies is a barrier to identifying root causes, anddeveloping solutions that will enable informationsharing. Information sharing initiatives quicklymake these deficiencies apparent.

In addition, there is often a covert resistancefrom the rank and file. People are often reluctantto embrace change. Often people are motivatedto simply wait for retirement. Change is seen asonly complicating their lives. So, there is nomotivation to embrace change, and so there is nomotivation to productively participate in changemanagement projects. Change managementprojects require innovation, creativity, and excite-ment about the future. What is needed is anentrepreneurial spirit. However, those with thiskind of motivation are frequently sidetracked or


"downsized" out of the organization. This antic-ipated outcome stifles those who are innovative.So, there is no freedom to act, no freedom totruly change the organization, processes, orinformation sharing capabilities.

Fiscal Crisis May Drive Cooperation

There is another dynamic juxtaposed to thedynamics described. Scarcity of resources.David Osborne presented at the NASCIO 2004Annual Conference, and has co-authored abook with Peter Hutchinson on the subject ofpermanent fiscal crisis that faces government.14

This permanent fiscal crisis should provide sig-nificant leverage in changing motivations and inovercoming these behaviors. Fiscal crisis willforce agencies to cooperate, pool resources,and even consolidate common functions andapplications. So, out of this crisis can comenew behaviors that promote the common good.

Level Playing Field

Agencies that have worked together in the pasthave developed institutional memory that willhopefully serve them well in future collaborativeefforts. Of course, if past working relationshipswere not healthy, this can work against collabo-ration. However, we are now in an age where awide diversity of stakeholders need to be at thetable. These stakeholders represent a variety offunctions and expertise. Bringing together mul-tiple agencies in a collaborative ventureinvolves overcoming great disparities in cultureand mission. Experts often present the con-cepts of collaboration, integration, information

sharing, and project management as processesthat can and should be implemented with allstakeholders maintaining an equal participationin such efforts. This is idealistic and often notthe reality.

The reality is that agencies are often beingbrought together on such projects with otheragencies. And, this is the first time they haveworked together. They have had no previousrelationship, or they don't have a healthy rela-tionship. Initiatives and decisions tend to bedriven by one or two agencies that dominate thediscussions, leaving the remaining participatingagencies frustrated and resentful. Typically,these dominant agencies are those that con-tribute most of the investment, or have more ofa presence in national policy making. Thesemore powerful organizations can steer informa-tion sharing discussions and planning in a waythat is predominantly self serving and not con-sonant with the real aim of information sharing.

Even if the larger and more dominant agenciesare generous in inviting and supporting true par-ticipation, the smaller agencies may resent the"benefactor" and may even spawn resistancefrom other agency members. So, again, thereal aim of the initiative is not achieved. Bothbehaviors are irrational organizational patholo-gies. Dominating agencies on the one hand,and small agency saboteurs on the other. Thesmall agency pathology is the result of a historyof a general feeling of exploitation by the largeragencies in previous multi-agency initiatives.Past experiences breed resentment.

How are these pathologies overcome? The keyis the establishment of a level playing field.

14 The Price of Government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent fiscal crisis, by David Osborne and PeterHutchinson, Basic Books Inc., Cambridge, MA. ISBN 0-465-05363-7


Power must be dispersed. This can be accom-plished by setting up statutory veto power.Altruism on the part of the larger agencies cannot be relied upon. It will either not exist, or bemisinterpreted by the smaller agencies.However, providing veto power to all agenciesgives even the smaller agencies real power.And, the establishment of equality is a mosteffective message regarding the true intent ofthe initiative and goes a long way to establish-ing trust and agreement. When projects aremanaged with this kind of preliminary gover-nance, success is highly predictable. Projectsthat are successful should be well publicized todemonstrate what is truly possible in a collabo-rative environment that embraces equality, andmaintains project management discipline. Theend result is successful initiatives that improvepublic safety and the quality of life. Again, thistype of behavior and the results it brings can beattributed to achieving an enterprise perspective.

The need for this perspective has been recog-nized within the justice community. Agencydirectors need to understand the fundamentalprinciples of enterprise architecture asdescribed in the beginning of this document.Without this enterprise perspective, agencies

will easily misapply technology to the wrongbusiness issue. Are we looking at solving animmediate problem, or are we thinking aboutbusiness transformation? Every issue andproblem is an opportunity to rethink how some-thing is done.

What is required are initiatives that will prolifer-ate this enterprise perspective. Leadership aswell as all other staff need some level of under-standing of what enterprise architecture is.Often the organizational dynamics in govern-ment are comprised of political fiefdoms.Planning large information sharing initiativesmust recognize this dynamic. Motivations andincentives for participation must be defined thattake this dynamic into account.

Part of the motivation definition must acknowl-edge that technology planning windows mustrelate to political planning windows. Timingmust be established in sync with the politicalcycle. If the support of an elected official isrequired, then the timing of the project musttake into account where that official is on theirterm timeline. If an initiative will not be sub-stantially completed by the end of that term,there may be little support.


The contributors to this report touched on anumber of issues and initiatives regarding infor-mation sharing within multiple lines of businesswithin government. The interviews that wereconducted involved people who are dealing withthese issues on a daily basis. Their experience,knowledge and resilience is impressive. Theywere also willing to participate in the creation ofthis document with the intention of makingthings better.

There are a number of themes and solutionsthat have come out of these interviews.

� Enterprise Architecture� Organizational Dynamics� Identity Management� Privacy� Sponsorship� Funding� Incentives� Methodology� Tools� Common Vocabularies

Calls to Action

The recommendations from this list of contribu-tors can make a difference, but only if they areused. The people interviewed are dedicatedprofessionals who have stepped up to the plateas change agents who are willing to provide therest of us with the benefit of their expertise andexperience. This benefit won't be realizedunless everyone works to overcome barriers toinformation sharing and respond to the calls toaction outlined in this report. It will take thecombined effort of everyone to make a differ-ence. NASCIO encourages the readers of thisreport to respond to these Calls to Action withinthe limitations and opportunities of their own cir-cumstances.

Please submit any inquiries to Eric Sweden,NASCIO, [email protected], 859-514-9189.

conclusion: making a difference


appendix

AcknowledgementsNASCIO expresses its sincere appreciation to those who participated in interviews and contributedarticles. These individual contributed candid remarks that present not only the real barriers, but alsoproductive suggestions on how to move forward with information sharing—and establish an enterpriseview within government.

Pete Bailey Chief of Health and DemographicsBudget and Control BoardOffice of Research and Statistics State of South Carolina

Anthony M. CresswellDeputy DirectorCenter for Technology in Government

John ClarkProgram DirectorIntergovernmental SolutionsU.S. General Services Administration

Pat CummensDirector, State and Local GovernmentSolutionsESRI

Tom Christoffel, AICPSenior PlannerNorthern Shenandoah Valley DisabilityServices Board and Regional Commission

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Otto DollChief Information Officer State of South Dakota

Dr. Mike GeerkenChief Information OfficerAttorney General's OfficeState of Louisiana

Kelly HarrisDeputy Executive DirectorSEARCHNational Consortium for JusticeInformation and Statistics

Terry Marie Hastings, MACommunications DirectorPublic Health Informatics Institute

Larry JohnsonChief Information OfficerState of South Carolina

John Kiely Communications ManagerPublic Health Informatics Institute

Thomas KooyPresidentJustice Information Sharing Professionals

Mark MyrentAssistant Director Illinois Information Authority

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Mary McCafferySenior AdvisorAssistant AdministratorOffice of Environmental InformationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ben NelsonChief Information Officer / Bureau ChiefBureau of Computer ServicesKansas Department of Transportation

Kimberly T. NelsonAssistant Administrator for the Office ofEnvironmental Information& Chief Information OfficerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Co-ChairArchitecture and Infrastructure CommitteeFederal CIO Council

Steve PrisocDirector and Chief Information OfficerJudicial Information DivisionState of New Mexico

Bill RothChief Enterprise ArchitectState of Kansas

Dave RossExecutive DirectorPublic Health Informatics Institute

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Lt. Lon RamlanSan Francisco Police Department

Mike RyanEnterprise ArchitectState of Minnesota

Chaed SmithSenior Technology OfficerState of West Virginia

Martin SmithChief Information OfficerU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Dr. Peter ScharfExecutive DirectorCenter for Society, Law and Justice

Steve SchaferManager of IT Financial SolutionsThe Office of the CIOState of Nebraska

Dr. Heidi UnterAssociate Director of ResearchCenter for Society, Law and Justice

Paul Wormeli Executive DirectorIJIS Institute

Tammy WoodhamsExecutive DirectorKalamazoo Criminal Justice CouncilKalamazoo County, Michigan

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

202-401-1109 [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Doug RobinsonExecutive DirectorNASCIO

Jack GalltAssistant DirectorNASCIO

Eric SwedenEditor Enterprise ArchitectNASCIO

Vince HavensProgram ManagerNASCIO

Nancy HowardMarketing & Creative Services DirectorAMR Management Services

Chris WallsSenior Publications & WebsiteCoordinatorAMR Management Services

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

NASCIO recognizes the contributions of the following staff members toward the compilation and pub-lishing of this report.


appendix

Organizations of Interest

American MedicalInformaticsAssociation

Association ofPublic HealthLaboratories

http://www.amia.org/

The American Medical Informatics Association is a non-profit 501(c)(3)membership organization of individuals, institutions, and corporations ded-icated to developing and using information technologies to improve healthcare.

AMIA was formed in 1990 by the merger of three organizations - theAmerican Association for Medical Systems and Informatics (AAMSI), theAmerican College of Medical Informatics (ACMI), and the Symposium onComputer Applications in Medical Care (SCAMC). The 3,200 members ofAMIA include physicians, nurses, computer and information scientists, bio-medical engineers, medical librarians, and academic researchers and edu-cators. AMIA is the official United States representative organization to theInternational Medical Informatics Association.

http://www.aphl.org/

The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) works to safeguardthe public's health by strengthening public health laboratories in the UnitedStates and across the world. In collaboration with members, APHLadvances laboratory systems and practices, and promotes policies thatsupport healthy communities. The association's founding members aredirectors of state and territorial public health laboratories. Others includestate laboratory staff, city and county laboratory directors, and internation-al representatives. APHL is a non-profit, 501(C3) organization with a his-tory of over fifty years.

The LIMS initiative is described athttp://www.aphl.org/Informatics/index.cfm

http://www.amia.org/

http://www.aphl.org/

http://www.aphl.org/Informatics/index.cfm


Bureau of JusticeAssistance

ComCARE Alliance

Center for Society,Law and Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is a component of the Office ofJustice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, which also includes theBureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims ofCrime.

The mission of BJA is to provide leadership and assistance in support oflocal criminal justice strategies to achieve safe communities. BJA's overallgoals are to (1) reduce and prevent crime, violence, and drug abuse and(2) improve the functioning of the criminal justice system. To achieve thesegoals, BJA programs emphasize enhanced coordination and cooperation offederal, state, and local efforts.

http://www.comcare.org

ComCARE stands for Communications for Coordinated Assistance andResponse to Emergencies. ComCARE's goal is to promote an integrated,coordinated approach to emergency communications and support thedevelopment of a comprehensive "end-to-end system" to link the public toemergency agencies, and to link those agencies together. ComCAREseeks to enhance the ability to respond to individual and mass emergen-cies of all types by creating a network of survival which links existing tech-nologies in homes and businesses, smart cars and trucks equipped withtelematics, warning devices, wireless telecommunications, intelligenttransportation systems, and advanced emergency care. Introducing 21stCentury information and communications technologies to the often-anti-quated communications infrastructure of emergency agencies will savethousands of lives each year, substantially reduce the severity of injuriesand enhance homeland security.


CSLJ at the University of New Orleans, provides technical assistance,research, and training to criminal justice managers and other law enforce-ment personnel in cooperation with the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/

http://www.comcare.org



Center forTechnology inGovernment

Department ofHomeland Security

Department ofJustice

Federal EnterpriseArchitectureProgramManagement Office

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/about/

The Center for Technology in Government works with government to developinformation strategies that foster innovation and enhance the quality and coor-dination of public services.

The Center carries out this mission through applied research and partner-ship projects that address the policy, management, and technology dimen-sions of information use in the public sector.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp

DHS leads the unified national effort to secure America. DHS will preventand deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats andhazards to the nation. DHS will ensure safe and secure borders, welcomelawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.

http://www.usdoj.gov/

The mission of the Department of Justice is to enforce the law and defend theinterests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safetyagainst threats foreign and domestic; to provide Federal leadership in pre-venting and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty ofunlawful behavior; to administer and enforce the Nation's immigration lawsfairly and effectively; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justicefor all Americans.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/

The Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA-PMO) was established on February 6, 2002, in accordance with directionissued by the Associate Director for Information (IT) and E-Government,Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The lack of a Federal EnterpriseArchitecture had been cited by the 2001 Quicksilver E-Government TaskForce as a key barrier to the success of the 24 Presidential Priority E-Government initiatives approved by the President's Management Council inOctober 2001.

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/about/

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp

http://www.usdoj.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/


Global JusticeInformation SharingInitiative

Global Justice XMLData Model

http://it.ojp.gov/global/childTopic.jsp?topic_id=59&parent_id=2

The efforts of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global)Advisory Committee (GAC) have direct impact on the work of more than 1.2million justice professionals. The importance of the organization's mission,however, positions Global to impact citizens of the U.S., Canada, andbeyond. Global's mission—the efficient sharing of data among justice enti-ties—is at the very heart of modern public safety and law enforcement.

Global is a ''group of groups,'' representing more than thirty independentorganizations spanning the spectrum of law enforcement, judicial, correc-tional, and related bodies. Member organizations participate in Global outof shared responsibility and shared belief that, together, they can bring aboutpositive change in inter-organizational communication and data sharing.

The GAC advises the nation's highest-ranking law enforcement officer, theU.S. Attorney General. Global aids its member organizations and the peo-ple they serve through a series of important initiatives. These include thefacilitation of the Global working groups; development of technology stan-dards, such as the Global Justice XML Data Model, Version 3.0; creation ofwhite papers on data sharing issues, such as the National CriminalIntelligence Sharing Plan; and the dissemination of information via theGlobal Web site.

The work of the GAC has implications of the highest importance—makingit the foremost voice for justice information sharing.


The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), together with the Global JusticeInformation Sharing Initiative (Global), has officially issued a newer versionof the Global Justice Extensible Markup Language (XML) Data Model(Global JXDM) to the justice community—Version 3.0.2. This latest releaseof the Version 3.0 Global JXDM series is enhanced to increase the abilityof justice and public safety communities to share justice information at alllevels—laying the foundation for local, state, and national justice interoper-ability.

http://it.ojp.gov/global/childTopic.jsp?topic_id=59&parent_id=2



George WashingtonUniversity HomelandSecurity PoliceInstitute

Integrated JusticeInformation SystemsInstitute(IJIS)

Justice InformationExchange Model(JIEM)

Justice InformationSharingProfessionals(JISP)

http://www.homelandsecurity.gwu.edu/dhs/programs/policy/

The Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) draws on the expertise ofThe George Washington University and its partners from the academic,non-profit, policy and private sectors for a common goal of better preparingthe nation for the threat of terrorism. HSPI frames the debate, discussespolicy implications and alternatives and recommends solutions to issuesfacing America's homeland security policymakers. By linking academiciansand scientists to decision makers at all levels of government, the privatesector and the communities we live in, HSPI is working to build a bridgebetween theory and practice in the homeland security arena.

http://www.ijis.org/

The mission of the IJIS Institute is to apply the expertise of industry to assistjustice agencies in the innovative use of advanced technologies to bettershare information in a way that benefits industry, the public sector, and soci-ety as a whole.

http://www.search.org/programs/technology/jiem.asp

This project, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Departmentof Justice, is designed to facilitate the development of integrated justiceinformation systems planning and implementation throughout the nation.Integration of justice information systems refers to the justice community'sability to access and share critical information at key decision pointsthroughout the justice process. It is through identification of these key deci-sion points and development of information exchange models thatSEARCH will further nationwide integration efforts.

http://www.jisp.us

JISP is a National Network of state and local justice and public safety inte-grators responsible for the facilitation, collaboration, and advocacy of infor-mation sharing.

http://www.homelandsecurity.gwu.edu/dhs/programs/policy/

http://www.ijis.org/


http://www.jisp.us


Kalamazoo CriminalJustice Council(KCJC)

National Associationof State ChiefInformation Officers(NASCIO)

http://www.kcjc.org/

The Kalamazoo Criminal Justice Council (KCJC) is a multi-disciplinary, col-laborative organization of countywide justice system and community lead-ers, who encourage local planning activities, enhance interagency cooper-ation, efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation.

The KCJC's vision is "to become and continue to be the best criminal jus-tice system in America" by:

� Ensuring a safe community for all, � Fostering fair and impartial treatment of all involved in the justice sys-

tem, � Effectively holding offenders accountable and restoring victims, � Guiding offenders toward being responsible, contributing, and valued

citizens, � Initiating and supporting crime control and prevention efforts, and � Serving as responsible stewards of public resources.

http://www.nascio.org

NASCIO represents state chief information officers and informationresource executives and managers from the 50 states, six U. S. territories,and the District of Columbia. State members are senior officials from any ofthe three branches of state government who have executive-level andstatewide responsibility for information resource management.Representatives from federal, municipal, and international governmentsand state officials who are involved in information resource managementbut do not have chief responsibility for that function participate in the organ-ization as associate members. Private-sector firms and non-profit organi-zations may join as corporate members.

http://www.kcjc.org/

http://www.nascio.org


National LawEnforcementTelecommunicationsSystem (NLETS)

Public HealthInformatics Institute(PHII)

Public HealthInformation Network(PHIN)

http://www.nlets.org

The National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS) wascreated by the principal law enforcement agencies of the states nearly 35years ago. Since the founding, NLETS role has evolved from being prima-rily an interstate telecommunications service for law enforcement to a morebroad-based network servicing the justice community at the local, state,and federal levels. It is now the pre-eminent interstate law enforcementnetwork in the nation for the exchange of law enforcement and related jus-tice information.

The mission of NLETS is to provide, within a secure environment, an inter-national justice telecommunications capability and information services thatwill benefit to the highest degree, the safety, the security, and the preser-vation of human life and the protection of property. NLETS will assist thosenational and international governmental agencies and other organizationswith similar missions that enforce or aid in enforcing local, state, or inter-national laws or ordinances.

http://www.phii.org/about.html

Through fostering collaboration, innovation and action, the institute willadvance the public health practitioners' ability to strategically apply andmanage information systems. The institute provides service, educatesstakeholders, informs policy, and conducts research on appropriate use ofpublic health information systems.

http://www.cdc.gov/phin/

The Public Health Information Network (PHIN) is this framework. Throughdefined data and vocabulary standards and strong collaborative relation-ships, the Public Health Information Network will enable consistentexchange of response, health, and disease tracking data between publichealth partners. Ensuring the security of this information is also critical asis the ability of the network to work reliably in times of national crisis. PHINis composed of five key components: detection and monitoring, data analy-sis, knowledge management, alerting and response.

Creating a strong network that continues to define shared data standardsto support the exchange of key health data is critical for a more effectiveand response-oriented public health system. The Public Health InformationNetwork will serve as the framework supporting this new system, a systembetter positioned to respond to the changing needs of public health andconsequently the nation.

http://www.nlets.org

http://www.phii.org/about.html

http://www.cdc.gov/phin/


The NationalConsortium forJustice Informationand Statistics(SEARCH)

http://www.search.org/

SEARCH helps state and local justice agencies with their information andidentification technology needs through effective planning and implementa-tion assistance, high tech crimes investigation training, and criminal historypolicy. SEARCH developed the Justice Information Exchange Model(JIEM) tool for modeling information exchanges. JIEM has dynamic refer-ence capability to the Global Justice XML Data Dictionary. To learn moreabout JIEM see http://www.search.org/programs/technology/jiem.asp

http://www.search.org/



appendix

References

NASCIO ReportInformation Privacy:A Spotlight on KeyIssues

Principles forManaging Privacy

NASCIO EnterpriseArchitecture Tool-Kit

https://www.nascio.org/publications/index.cfm#privacyguide

This publication, produced by the NASCIO Privacy Committee, serves asa resource for states developing privacy policies that protect citizen infor-mation and are compliant with federal and state legal requirements. Thispublication highlights key issues in the following areas of privacy:

� Children's Information � Drivers' Information � Health Information � Financial Information � Education Information � Social Security Numbers � Homeland Security-Related Information � Website Privacy Policies � Government Data Matching Activities and Agreements.

In addition, the publication includes state examples for many of theseareas of information privacy, an overview of recent privacy events at thefederal level and a glossary of privacy related terms.

http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html

The office of the federal privacy commissioner has extracted principlesfrom the Privacy Act of 2000.

https://www.nascio.org/publications/shoppingCart/

NASCIO has published version 3 of its Enterprise Architecture Tool-Kit.This document presents approaches to governance, business architec-ture, process architecture, data architecture, and technology architecture.

https://www.nascio.org/publications/index.cfm#privacyguide

http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html

https://www.nascio.org/publications/shoppingCart/

government information sharing :

Documents

information exchanges

government information

department of justice

cheif information officers

information exchange

restorative justice

action justice perspectives

office of justice programs