by

Slide show summary of this report

Introduction

Over the past three decades a number of national, state and local efforts have sought to improve the performance of the criminal justice system. Most typically, the police agencies, courts and correctional institutions have attempted to separately improve their own efficiency. But criminal justice agencies cannot study and hope to increase efficiency in a vacuum. There is a plethora of research indicating that changes made in one component of the system impact on the other components (see DiIulio et al. 1993). For example, the popular "three strikes and you’re out" laws may impact on crowding in prisons and more violence by offenders against police (Schichor, 1997; Schmertmann, Amankwaa and Long, 1998).

Additionally, efficiency alone cannot be studied without also investigating whether the system continues to be effective and fair. "Efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness are central goals for the administration of criminal justice in the United States" (DiIulio et al. 1993, p. v). Efficiency, as used here, is the economical application of resources. Effectiveness means a proper regard for equity, constitutional protections, and public safety. And fairness is the assurance of equal weight in legally relevant factors in the treatment, handling, and sentencing of like offenders.

In searching for alternative methods to increase efficiency in these agencies we recognize that our criminal justice system has been stretched beyond the capabilities of their core components. The present increases in the demands placed on this system, without a commensurate increase in resources, have led to serious consequences. Depending upon the jurisdiction, it may mean that services are being strained, rights and liberties are being violated, agency personnel are facing low morale, and public safety is being compromised. A more efficient system provides a significant method to counter these problems within the monetary constraints presently provided.

Issues of improving the efficiency, nonetheless, must be understood within the context within which our criminal justice system operates. That is, to protect the rights and liberties of defendants while simultaneously protecting the public. However, the fear has always been that a more efficient system would necessarily be less fair to individual defendants being processed through it, and less effective in determining truth and therefore seeing that justice is done. "Assembly-line justice" (see Neubauer, 1988) was one pejorative term used to describe the results of an efficient system.

In fact, there is recent research indicating that more efficient criminal justice systems may also be ones that are fairer and more effective (Ostrom and Hanson, 1999). Though at first counter-intuitive, the research indicates that localities which look to do their jobs more efficiently are also more likely to ensure that the job is done more fairly and more effectively (Ostrom and Hanson, 1999). As such, we no longer need to choose between increasing effectiveness or ensuring that criminal defendants receive their due procedural safeguards. Or decide whether we want a more efficient criminal justice system instead of one that strives to be equitable and fair.

This literature review identifies programs used by criminal justice agencies seeking to improve their activities or the system as a whole. In particular, this review focuses on activities occurring from the time of arrest to pre-trial. Trial and post-trial correctional activities are not included in this review. Specifically, activity areas include but are not limited to:

• Arrest activities
• Transportation of prisoners to the jail facility
• Processing of prisoners into the jail facility
• Pre-trial activities
• Case management
• Court operations/management
• Performance measures for the system as a whole

For each area, we provide a brief overview of initiatives that have been used or are currently being used to improve efficiency, effectiveness and fairness. Within each area we identify a number of basic goals, expected outcomes and recommendations for planning and implementation of Justice and Public Safety programs in Memphis and Shelby County. However, we believe that it is critical for criminal justice managers to continually be evaluating the effectiveness of the programs, policies and procedures they implement within the context of achieving their desired goals. As such, program evaluation needs to be an on-going process at each stage. We therefore include performance measures as the last section of this report. These measures can tell an administrator how close they are to achieving that which they set out to accomplish. In that manner, implementing performance measures on an on-going basis provides continual feedback to the criminal justice manager and his or her staff.

This report relies upon published sources about practices in the criminal justice system. Though an extensive literature review was conducted, the researchers failed to find much located in the more prestigious refereed professional journals.¹ Instead, most of the information came from practitioner journals, government publications and the Internet. As such, the validity of information is dependent upon the accuracy of information self-reported by agencies, practitioners, and academics reporting in these sources.

This report will provide use-based examples (as opposed to theoretical expectations) of management practices implemented at various sites across the nation and even the world. This report cannot state definitively an opinion on which programs offer the best alternative to that which is presently utilized in Memphis and Shelby County. However, it can and does identify strengths and weaknesses of competing practices, measures, and models. These potential directions are presented as recommendations at the end of this report.

DiIulio, John J., Jr. and Associates. 1993. Performance measures for the Criminal Justice System: Discussion Papers from the BJS-Princeton Project. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 143505.

Grayson, Matt. 1997. Laying down the law: study claims mandatory minimums cost maximum dollars. Spectrum 70: 2-4.

Neubauer, David W. 1988. America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Ostrom, Brian and Roger, Hanson. 1999. Efficiency, Timeliness and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine Criminal Trial Courts. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice/State Justice Institute.

Schmertmann, Carl P., Adansi A. Armankwaa and Robert D. Long. Three strikes and you’re out: Demographic analysis of mandatory prison sentences. Demography 35(4): 445-63.

Schichor, David 1997. Three strikes as a public policy: the convergence of the new penology and the McDonaldization of punishment. Crime & Delinquency. 43:470-92.

An important strategy for improving the performance of all criminal justice agencies can be found in using the many advances occurring in technology. This may mean improving access, specification of data elements, or an entire integration of the system.

Improved access can be achieved by making technology available and applicable to the job that police do (Couret 1999). Using mobile data computers (MDCs) or mobile computer terminals (MCTs) in their patrol cars, officers can have access to records from their police stations. Presently this is the job of dispatch. However, many officers complain that dispatch gets busy during periods of high activity making it impossible for them to get necessary information (such as criminal histories) quickly (that is, before leaving their patrol cars). Though not frequently recognized as an advantage, these computers also provide this information with greater confidentiality than would be provided through a call to dispatch. Finally, these MDCs and MCTs also allow for wireless access to national records such as the National Criminal Information Computer (NCIC) and in that way can provide more accurate and more complete information more quickly. Important and accurate information delivered immediately and securely increases officers’ effectiveness in fighting crime while simultaneously keeping them safer.

This technology can also help officers achieve greater efficiency. For instance, some departments are now using mobile data computers to submit electronic reports. This saves officers the time of writing or typing the report once they return to the precinct. Just as beneficial, reports written immediately after the incident, when the information is still fresh in the officer’s mind, will necessarily be more complete and more accurate (Couret, 1999). And where the officer has forgotten a detail, he is still in the field and can easily rectify the omission (Couret, 1999). Additionally, with the report written and electronically submitted, the officer now is saved a trip to the precinct. To the extent that officers can spend more time in the community patrolling, we have reason to believe that it increases community safety. Finally, this method allows departments to cut down on paper reports and create more efficient record management and analysis (Couret 1999).

Naturally, any information system is only as good as the data that is in it. Academics, practitioners, and managers alike are in agreement that most crime information systems have a limited amount of information available for law enforcement. In part, the issue is restricting access to confidential information. More often, though, it is a problem of outdated or poorly designed technology. There are a number of new information systems that are currently available for managing criminal justice data (Department of Justice 1999).

Guidelines have been developed in the United States for the development of records management systems (RMS) in law enforcement agencies (Drescher 1996). Drescher (1996:10) suggests that a RMS will improve efficiency by:

• Reducing the costs of records management.
• Integrating all departmental records to reduce duplication of data entry.
• Improve the accuracy and utility of information.
• Minimize data handling.
• Develop consistent chain of reporting and analysis.

Drescher’s article outlines goals and expected benefits of a RMS. Several jurisdictions have begun to implement RMS or RMS-like systems. We discuss three: The Integrated Justice Project, the City of Mobile Police Information System (COMPIS), and the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.

The Integrated Justice Project in Canada is undoubtedly the most ambitious RMS project in the world seeking to improve information processes for police, prosecution, courts, and corrections. Starting with a recognition of the problems of the Paul Bernardo rape case, where information about Paul Bernardo was in several separate files but not tied together over a long period of time, the Integrated Justice Project seeks to proactively streamline the justice system for all agencies’ benefit. It began in 1997 involving 22,000 Ontario employees, police, judges, private lawyers, and the general public.

The core goals of the project focus on seamless information sharing, increased safety for the public and police officers, and integrated case management in the courts, judiciary, and policing. To achieve integrated justice, the project is looking to improve information management.

The police management project seeks to increase the time that officers spend in their communities by reducing repetitive paperwork, better scheduling court appearances, and by providing better information on offenders through "common positive identification." Police effectiveness is also enhanced through 24 hour access to information like court orders, judgments, and replacement of out-dated dispatch and court orders.

Closer to the proposed research site, Janet Reno, the United States Attorney General, has recently taken the lead insisting that the criminal justice system be analyzed from a process engineering and cost-benefit analysis perspective (Stewart, 1995). Her goal is to streamline data collection, justice decision making and prisoner management while ensuring greater integration of data between local, state and federal officials. Generally referred to as an integrated justice information system, the desired end result will be the ability of criminal justice officials to perform their jobs more efficiently and more effectively. Towards these ends, the Office of Justice Programs, under the Department of Justice, has been charged with facilitating integrated information sharing technology at the state and local levels. This effort is part of Vice-President Gore’s initiative to create a Global Criminal Justice Information Network (Machis, 1999).

Writing about her vision in the McGeorge Law Review, Janet Reno noted, "We must make sure that we do not duplicate efforts with expensive systems that only serve one criminal justice component. This equipment is going to be too expensive to afford this luxury. We must plan ahead to ensure that we use taxpayers’ dollars as wisely as possible. We must balance privacy interests with the need to catch the bad guys. . . One way is to work together to build an effective, responsible, integrated information sharing capability between all law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. This includes information-sharing architectures between law enforcement, courts, prosecution, public defense, corrections, probation and parole officers. It also means the ability to share the information between state and local jurisdictions and with the Federal Government" (Reno, 1998: 6).

While the precise amount of funding is unknown, the Department of Justice recently established a multimillion-dollar research center, the National Integration Resource Center, to promote information sharing amongst criminal justice agencies (LeSueur, 2000). This integrated justice system is just beginning to be developed at demonstration sites across the country. As such, it starts with the police officer writing his report in the field just after he has completed taking care of the incident.² Instead of subsequent criminal justice officials duplicating these efforts, this information would than flow into every other application used by criminal justice officials. As noted by Kelso, "Beginning with the police report completed in the field on a laptop, and all the way through the system to corrections, probation and parole, all information will be stored and shared electronically among all criminal justice system agencies, taking into account an agency’s need-to-know and privacy concerns" (Kelso, 1998: 1).

Mobile, Alabama has recently developed the COMPIS (City of Mobile Police Information System) database when remodeling their system. Those working on the project set the following criteria for the new system, "It had to retain all data currently in the system and integrate it with the municipal court computer system; it needed to use client/server system technology with an open-system architecture; it had to be compatible with the communications used by the police department and be non-proprietary; it had to be based on the current database management system; and it had to employ graphical user interface (point and click) technology" (Nelson, 1996: 10). The system developed met all their expectations.

Another example comes from Colorado where they just completed a $2.7 million system linking five criminal justice agencies into one statewide system. The system will provide users with the ability to access any database from any point in the system. And, changes in a record made by one agency will be updated automatically throughout all other databases (Thibodeau, 1997).

The clear advantage of the integrated justice information system is the tremendous amount of information that would be available to all criminal justice officials. Additionally, it would mean less duplication of effort as staff from one agency could use the information provided by the previous agency, only needing to submit additional data that their agency had. The savings in manpower hours and paperwork would be staggering. The disadvantages, however, are significant and should not be lightly dismissed. An integrated justice information system will require an extraordinary commitment to resources (both staff and money) if the project is to succeed in building a complex and fluid database. It will also require a common computer architecture and protection of this information from attack and misuse (Reno, 1998). As noted by several persons working in the field, "The primary barrier to integration has never been technology. It is people, politics and turf" (LeSueur, 2000: 36).

Because of the problems in getting and maintaining inter-agency support for integrated justice information systems, some have decided that the best way to proceed is to avoid a centralized database plan. Instead, as John Ridgeway from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has noted, these jurisdictions are working towards developing a, "network that gives you the ability to integrate various databases and let the owners of those databases manage them" (Thibodeau, 1997).

Unfortunately, these ideas are so current that information is not yet available on outcome measures assessing which provides the better alternative (integrated versus centralized databases). The Integrated Justice Project is currently in a test phase. The request for proposals for software and hardware vendors has closed. While the Department of Justice continues in their support of an integrated justice information system (as indicated by their soliciting jurisdictions willing to serve as demonstration sites), outcome measures on this approach’s efficacy, efficiency and fairness are not yet available. Still, the idea has much merit. It uses technology to give police officers access to immediate, accurate and secure data. And than it continues to build upon this technology by ensuring that the data police collect can be utilized as easily by all other criminal justice officials who follow-up on that initial police decision. In all, such a system makes intuitive sense. As envisioned it can save manpower while simultaneously providing more accurate information more quickly. As to the latter point, that would prove a definite benefit to those individuals being processed through the system.

A less ambitious but operational MRS is working for the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, United Kingdom. Devon and Cornwall policing a population of 1,450,000 in 1998 has its operations fully computerized. The facilities management system, adopted in 1993, was the first UK police force to do so. Their report describes three main applications. The command and control system which records incident based information and dispatch records. The crime information system contains information about crimes and subsequent investigation. The custody system tracks the suspect through the judicial system. They boast of having a fast and efficient system with integrated IS applications between territorial and headquarters divisions and departments. They share common platforms for all three applications. They mention an increased demand for more terminals as "user confidence has increased," and smooth running of the technology describing fail safe procedures when machines fail. The primary advantage of this system is freedom from paper burden and immediate linking of information from the line officer to tracking and arrest of offenders. The disadvantages are potential problems of access to private information, short-term training costs, and cost of equipment.

Couret, Christina. 1999. Police and technology: The silent partnership. American City & County 114: 31-40.

Department of Justice. 1999. Office of Information Resources Management: Major Information Systems Initiatives. www.usdoj.gov/jmd/orginfo/irm/irm_misi.htm

Drescher, Charles. 1996. The Law Enforcement Performance Measures Project: Guidelines for Records Management Systems. The Police Chief February: 9-10.

Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. 1998. Case Study for Police: Devon & Cornwall Constabulary Leads the Way. Members.tripod.com/echovictor/main_cs_1.htm

Integrated Justice Project. 1998. Integrated Justice Project: The Project. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer. www.integratedjustice.gov.on.ca

Kelso, J. Clark. 1998. Integrated Criminal Justice Technologies: An Introduction. McGeorge Law Review 30: 1-4.

LeSueur, Steve. 2000. New Center to Aid Integrated Justice. Washington Technology 14: 1 & 36.

Machis, Sharon. 1999. Gore Outline Online Proposal. Computerworld. www.computerword.com/home/online9697.nsf/all/970214gore

Nelson, Susan. 1996: In-House System Saves Time, Money. American City & County 3: 10.

Reno, Janet. 1998. Justice and Public Safety in the Twenty-First Century. McGeorge Law Review 30: 5-8.

Strandberg, Keith. 1998. Law Enforcement Computers. Law Enforcement Technology, 25: 30-34.

Thibodeau, Patrick. 1997. System Links Could Aid Crime Fighting. Computerworld. www.computerword.com/home/online9697.nsf/all/970425system

Most of the literature on transporting prisoners deals with the actual transfer of the inmate from one location to another (see for instance Block, 1994; Gonzalez, 1994). As such, these articles focus on officer and offender safety rather than issues of efficiency, efficacy or fairness. Recently, however, there have been increasing numbers of jurisdictions noting a common complaint. Specifically, that police officers’ time is largely squandered in this process. The waste occurring is not an outcome of the actual time to transport the prisoner to the jail facility. Rather, several jurisdictions have noted that the lost time occurs when police officers have to wait in line for several hours while the jail books the offender. While the FedEx Cycle Time Research Project indicated officers waiting for up to two to three hours, the literature speaks of delays of up to twenty-four hours (Larson, Cahn and Shell, 1993).

In response to this problem, several jurisdictions have implemented studies to assess alternative methods. For instance, in New York City, there had been a constant debate amongst criminal justice officials as to what caused the excessively lengthy time needed for a defendant to travel from arrest to arraignment (ATA). As the researchers noted, each agency blamed every other agency for the failure. Early in the study, one of the researchers observed a complaint room with more than 150 police officers waiting in line to be interviewed or for a complaint to be typed. Many of these officers were being paid overtime. Additionally, standing in line necessarily meant that the officers could not be on the streets providing protection for the community. The researchers’ solution flowed from this imbalance, "It became clear that the marginal cost of increasing the number of "servers" (that is, complaint writers and typists) would be modest compared to prospective savings in police overtime costs from shortening the complaint room queue" (Larson et al., 1993).

Equally interesting was Baltimore’s response to this problem. Police used to encounter delays of up to six hours when processing bookings. Using software that was developed by IBM in cooperation with local criminal justice agencies (the Arrest Booking System, ABS), they now process bookings in a central intake center where police bring offenders. According to the IBM website, "A bar-coded band is placed on suspects’ wrists. This band is scanned by booking staff using handheld, wireless barcode scanning terminals to track and control suspects as they pass through the booking process. This includes taking live scan fingerprints and digital video mug shots for positive identification. On average, within an hour of arrival, all the arrest data has been collected at an ABS workstation, criminal charges have been prepared by the arresting officer, the suspect has been positively identified, and the arresting officer is back on patrol (IBM, 1998).

And, of course, there continues to be a third option being implemented by various jurisdictions. To the extent that a jurisdiction adopted an integrated justice information system, the data collected by the police in their report would already be stored and electronically accessible to the next criminal justice process (in this case the correctional officer). As such, police officers could more easily and more quickly write out their charges and correctional staff could more easily and more quickly book defendants into their jail. San Jose Police Department is considered a technological leader amongst the nation’s law enforcement departments and serves as an example of this option (Strandberg, 1998).

Block, Sherman. 1994. Inmate Transportation Poses Unique Security Challenges. Corrections Today 56: 88-93.

Gonzalez, Eduardo. 1994. Transporting Prisoners: Support Available from the US Marshals Service. Sheriff 46: 14-17.

IBM. 1998. Due Process: Streamlining Procedures. www:ibm.com/news/ls/1998/04.cc_2.phtml

Larson, Richard, Michael Cahn, and Martin Shell. 1993. Improving the New York City Arrest-to-Arraignment System. INTERFACES 23: 79-96.

Stewart, James K. 1995. Reinventing the Booking Process. Corrections Today July:86-87.

Strandberg, Keith. 1998. Law Enforcement Computers. Law Enforcement Technology, 25: 30-34.

Booking of new arrivals at a typical jail facility has generally taken a long period of time from when inmates arrived at the jail to their processing into a facility. In part, the length of time has been essential because there are constitutional rights to be safeguarded. Moreover, though, the length of time is a consequence of there being many administrative burdens. Information to be gathered includes fingerprints, mug-shots, personal histories, medical histories, sentencing information, and assessment of risk (for the inmate and other inmates). All of these administrative procedures are required by the law.

Traditionally, corrections administrators have considered duplicating tasks as a way to double-check procedures (Stewart, 1995). Nonetheless, corrections administrators also have acknowledged that virtually all of this information is duplicate data from some other criminal justice information database (Stewart, 1995). The situation in Memphis and Shelby County is not unusual, as a lack of an integrated information system requires jail personnel at the Criminal Justice Center to check multiple information systems during the booking process.

It is important to verify information, but lack of an integrated information system can lead to errors in one or more parts of the Criminal Justice System. The Department of Justice piloted efforts to improve the booking process in the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1991 using an information system. The DEA reduced their processing time for booking from one hour to 15 minutes. Additionally, pre-automation had involved 30-40 percent of fingerprints and photographs that were rejected because of quality. The automated system has far fewer errors in collection.

But the results from the DEA indicate that it is not enough to merely automate the processes. Instead, coordination between the systems must also be part of the plan. For instance, a pilot program seeking to integrate these systems found that federal agents, prison administrators, corrections professionals, and decision-makers were often unaware of relevant data collected by other agencies – such as an offender’s gang affiliation, and health risks (Stewart, 1995). Prior to the integrated system, an agency could have fingerprints, photos, and full reports on an offender but only that agency would have access to the information. With an integrated system, each agency may access the information.

One drawback noted by Stewart (1995) was the need to integrate a positive identification feature in all shared databases in order to integrate the systems. Without a positive identification, the agents or correctional officers could not be certain the files they were reading involved the same person. Today, five federal agencies – the Bureau of Prisons, Drug Enforcement Agency, United States Marshals Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service – have consolidated booking procedures. The advantages are more efficient processing and, with positive identification procedures in place, there is an assurance of constitutional requirements of verifying inmate information at intake.

The federal agencies discussed above implemented their system in 1995. A number of state level jurisdictions are also using integrated information systems. For example, Frederick, Maryland reports that they use a central booking system that allows police officers to return to the street in 18 minutes (60% faster than previously following an arrest) and the average time for a correctional officer to complete a booking into a jail is 12 minutes. Michigan (no date) reports that it will be the first state to fully automate the identification and latent print match capabilities building a paperless, accurate, and timely central registry for use at the time of booking to improve the efficiency of the booking process.

Frederick County, Maryland. 1998. Security Operations Division: Overview of Security Operations Division. www.co.frederick.md.us/govt/sheriff_dept/security.html

IBM. 1998. Due Process Streamlining Procedures. www.ibm.com/news/ls/1998/04/cc_2.phtml

Michigan (no date). AFIS: Automated Fingerprint Identification System. www.msp.state.mi.us/new/afis.html

Stewart, James K. 1995. Reinventing the Booking Process. Corrections Today July:86-87.

As already discussed, police and corrections are facing increased demands in service without a commensurate increase in resources. In a similar vein, court personnel are experiencing large increases in the demand for their services without provisions for additional manpower or resources to meet this increased demand. While this situation would seem insolvable, the development of technology to handle cases more efficiently could provide an answer to this problem.

And yet, technological advances that would assist court personnel seem to be slower in development than those for the other two branches (e.g., police and corrections) of the criminal justice system. Perhaps because our legal system is rooted in history, courts may have been perceived as reluctant to accept technology as quickly as the other agencies within the criminal justice system. New York State’s Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, discussing how courts may be the most backwardly managed component of the criminal justice system noted, "We sit in Greek Buildings, wear medieval robes, speak Latin and value precedent. We’re not that comfortable with change" (Maggs, 1999).

Despite this, there are developments occurring in both civil and criminal courts across the United States. Courts can be seen as moving towards incorporating technology as a way to meet increased demands (efficiency) without decreasing due procedural safeguards for defendants (fairness) or their effectiveness in pursuing truth and justice.

For instance, Microsoft Corporation is working to help establish a pilot system for internet court filings. In Brooklyn, New York, at one of the four pilot programs presently running, more than 1500 complete cases were electronically filed in 1999 (Leibowitz, Bossert and Amon, 1999). In fact, state courts offering electronic filing of documents are growing exponentially. According to James McMillan, director of the court technology laboratory at the National Center for State Courts, while only 5 of the nation’s approximately 17000 courts accepted electronic documents in 1997, by the end of 1999 the number was closer to 100 state courts (Leibowitz et al., 1999).

Courtroom 21, a high-tech test facility, provides judges and lawyers with a view of the courtroom of the future. Fredric Lederer directs the project, housed in William and Mary Law School. Though Courtroom 21 has been used only twice for actual trial proceedings, Professor Lederer estimates that by 1999 there were 30 to 35 high-tech federal courtrooms and approximately 10 high-tech state courtrooms (Savikas and Silverman, 1999). These courtrooms offer technological advances like evidence display systems, large-screen displays and real-time transcription (Savikas and Silverman, 1999).

In fact, these technological advances are being implemented in selected jurisdictions throughout the United States. New York City’s Center for Court Innovation serves as a model for high-tech courtrooms and demonstrates what the marriage of technology to law can accomplish in terms of efficiency. Though New York City used to be plagued by court delays, the Community Courts started by the Center’s director, John Feinblatt, has reduced the time from arrest to arraignment from 36 hours to 18 hours (Babcock, 1995). Pre-arraignment interviews are conducted by officials using hand held computers. Defendants provide answers to questions on, "their backgrounds, previous offenses, drug dependencies, job status and housing needs. The data is put on-line to 45 PC workstations for the judge, court workers, lawyers and social service referral agents" (Babcock, 1995:1).

In the courtroom, judges rely on a computer monitor, called "The Judge’s Screen," to supply information from many different city agencies on the defendant (Maggs, 1999). Instantly available to the judges is information on the defendant’s prior arrest record, drug abuse history, homelessness and health problems among other things. In fact, the judge can, "click on a beaker icon to get the results of a urinanalysis test. If the beaker is green, the judge knows that the test was negative" (Babcock, 1995).

Previously, judges had to rely on mountains of paperwork. And if one paper deemed crucial was missing, the process had to be stopped thereby adding further delays to an all ready slow system. Now, however, there is always an abundance of up-to-date and accurate information available immediately at the judge’s fingertips. The computer even provides software that is known as "The Predictor." This program allows for the instantaneous analysis of historical data on sentencing options and predicts the likelihood of success for various sentencing options that the judge has at their disposal (Maggs, 1999).

Perhaps what is most interesting about New York City’s Community Courts is that they have had an impact not just on efficiency but too on the effectiveness and fairness of the court process. Specifically, the new Community Courts were begun with a hope of dealing with New York City’s massive caseloads that seemed to grow exponentially every year (Maggs, 1999). It was thought that technology would provide a method to more efficiently handle the increasing demands placed on the court. In the process, though, researchers have found that it has been accompanied by unintended benefits. Specifically, the computer system supplies arresting officers with the outcome of the case, providing the kind of immediate feedback that is typically only found in small towns (Babcock, 1995). It is thought that providing quick feedback to officers on the outcome of their cases would help in developing higher police morale. And the Community Courts are able to deliver swift justice. For instance, if the defendant is convicted and sentenced, he usually begins serving his sentence the very same day (Babcock, 1995). Perhaps this has gotten the attention of the defendants and explains why arrests for certain offenses has decreased by as much as 63% in areas with Community Courts (Maggs, 1999).

Technology is also being used to allow for videoconferencing of defendants at bail hearings (IBM, 1998) and preliminary hearings (Walla, 1993). Videoconferencing offers the advantage of cutting out the need to transfer the inmate from the jail to the courthouse – a step that can mean additional risk to the officer and added delays for the defendant. As Walla notes, "When this system is functioning correctly, downsizing of personnel can be accomplished plus a reduction of inventory, i.e., vans and buses, chains and handcuffs…." (Walla, 1993: 67). Generally the courts have been accepting of videoconferencing. In Thomas v. State (574 So.2d 323, Fla. 4^thDCA 1991), the court held that, "a defendant may be considered present in the discretion of the trial judge for purposes of arraignment and first appearance" (Walla, 1996: 68). And in Williams v. State (578 So.2d 846, Fla. 4^thDCA 1991), the court held that there was, "No error to sentence the defendant where he was present by means of a video and had waived in writing his right to be personally present" (Walla, 1996: 68).

Again, this technology offers the advantage of increasing efficiency, effectiveness and fairness. Professor Lederer from Courtroom 21 estimates that trials that use technology may be as much as one-third shorter than the traditional paper-intensive proceedings (Liebowitz et al., 1999). And again, quicker turnaround for court proceedings can have beneficial effects for the system and the defendants. For the system it means that court personnel will be more efficient in their handling of cases (Savikas and Silverman, 1999).

For defendants, a quicker turnaround time means swifter justice. Delays in court typically mean multiple preparations along with the need of preserving testimony and evidence (Janofsky, 1983). When the legal system uses technology, they can not only make better informed decisions (because they have more information available to them), they can do this at a quicker pace without sacrificing a defendant’s due procedural safeguards. Since research indicates that shorter case processing typically translates into savings in cost for defendants who must hire attorneys (Chapper and Hanson, 1983), the increased efficiency will probably be viewed by courts as helpful, rather than as a hindrance, to defendants. Additionally, the courts have always held that timeliness is intrinsic to the American scheme of justice (Ostrom and Hanson, 1999). As such, justice delayed may be seen as justice denied. Given this approach, one would assume that courts and defendants alike would look favorably upon mechanisms to quicken the pace of justice in America.

Again, we return to the recent groundbreaking work of Ostrom and Hanson (1999) and their study of nine state criminal trial courts. Though different courtrooms have their own ideas of the time that it takes to "do justice" (Janofsky, 1983), Ostrom and Hanson’s study indicated that efficiently run courtrooms were also well performing ones. As they noted, "What is strikingly different from traditional thinking is our proposition that as judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys become more efficient, they create the opportunity to increase timeliness and quality simultaneously" (Ostrom and Hanson, 1999: XIV).

Babcock, Charles. 1995. PC System Helps Court Defy Odds, Gives Offenders a Second Chance. Computerworld www.computerworld.com/home/print9497.nsf/all/SL27mid

Chapper, Joy and Roger Hanson. 1983. The Attorney Time Savings/Litigant Cost-Savings Hypothesis: Does Time Equal Money? The Justice System Journal 8: 258-270.

IBM. 1998. Due Process Streamlining Procedures. www.ibm.com/news/ls/1998/04/cc_2.phtml

Janofsky, Leonard. 1983. Reducing Court Costs and Delay: An Overview. Journal of Law Reform 16: 467-469.

Larson, Richard, Michael Cahn, and Martin Shell. 1993. Improving the New York City Arrest-to-Arraignment System. INTERFACES 23: 79-96.

Leibowitz, Wendy, Rex Bossert and Elizabeth Amon. 1999. High-Tech Courts Will Ease Crunch in 21^st Century. The National Law Journal 21: A13-A14.

Maggs, John. 1999. An R&D Lab for New York’s Courts. National Journal 33: 901-902.

Ostrom, Brian and Roger Hanson. 1999. Efficiency, Timeliness and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine Criminal Trial Courts. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice/State Justice Institute.

Savikas, Victor and David Silverman. 1999. Courtroom of the Future Still Has Some Glitches to Iron Out. The National Law Journal 21: C1-C2.

Walla, Robert. 1996. Video-Conferencing. American Jails 10: 66-69.

Case management by prosecutors and public defenders is a controversial issue. While many court caseloads are backed up, people cannot agree on who or what is responsible for the problem. For example, a Cityspan (1996) report on San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System described an "adversarial environment which … is manifested in such negative practices as risk aversion, game playing, and under-utilization of current technological information tools. The result was revolving door discharges, jail overcrowding, a flawed re-booking process, and built in conflicts of interest."

Cityspan suggests this problem is unique to San Francisco. Unfortunately, it is not. Many other published examples were found using an Internet search for case management in courts. It seems somewhat common for disagreements to occur in case management. A newspaper report from Fayetteville, North Carolina has the judge, district attorney and public defender agreeing that their court system is clogged though they disagree as to why (Horne, 1999).

There are dozens of studies that suggest that case management problems have occurred because of difficulties in record accessibility and tracking of cases. Over the past ten years a large number of jurisdictions have looked to technology to provide an integrated criminal justice information system. Colorado (Court Technology Bulletin, 1998), for example, has implemented an integrated information system that allows organizations to:

• Maintain their own information system;
• Access information from other agencies in real time;
• Query other databases directly;
• Write data to other databases;
• Perform updates on other databases; and
• Use a unique State Identification Number (SID) throughout the system.

The advantages of an integrated system are:

• Improved case tracking;
• Ensure fingerprinting is done before passing sentence (if fingerprinting has not been done earlier in the system);
• Current information is available on a client’s location (jail, probation, etc.);
• Up to date information on charges, restraining orders and warrants; and
• Court scheduled events.

An integrated case management can screen out double bookings and other conflicts in case management. A Washington State (Court Technology Bulletin, 1998) project clearly specifies the objectives of their justice information network as:

• Minimize current and future operating costs for courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies;
• Improve access for courts and their business partners; and
• Enable information exchange between courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies.

The court system component of their project is operational. They are also beginning web-based applications for juvenile and appellate courts. A web-based application, operating on an Intranet will ensure security of information to meet privacy concerns about information sharing.

Technology can also improve indigent defense as clients have better access to attorneys and attorneys have better access to information. A recent study by Spangenberg and associates (1999) surveyed the use of technology in Public Defender Offices in the United States. They found that information systems provided better information management, allowed stronger presentation of evidence in court and facilitated attorney’s access to routine pleadings in court. Unfortunately, they suggest that it is not possible to evaluate the current situation on how information management is affecting the broader issue of case management.

Studies from specific jurisdictions, however, suggest that integrated information systems can be effective tools for case management. Ferrell (1999) reports that continuances were most of the problem contributing to court overload. With an integrated system, the Washington State model suggests judges can take the lead on case management by following fundamental elements:

• Provide court leadership
• Consult with the local bar
• Supervise case progress
• Set clear standards and goals
• Install monitoring and information systems
• Set credible trial dates
• Control continuances
• Create a shared vision and systems approach; and
• Pay attention to detail.

The fundamentals are said to be relatively simple. They suggest that the program is not just new technology, but a need for agreement on the steps involved in the change and that the process should be implemented incrementally. Commitment to a shared vision is said to be critical. Retired Judge Gish, commenting on the Washington State project, says "There has to be a shared vision of how we’re all going to work together to actually achieve those goals."

Looking at Memphis and Shelby County, Janikowski (1999) discusses the Tennessee Supreme Court case of State v. Huddleston noting that detention of a defendant longer than 48 hours in order to conduct an investigation constitutes an "unnecessary delay" except where the government can demonstrate extreme circumstances. Janikowski describes the problem of case management in Memphis, to meet the 48 hour requirement with a number of delays moving from arrest to arraignment. He notes how delays in court case management spill over to create additional problems in the system. These may include jail overcrowding as well as low police morale as officers perceive a loss of legitimacy of their arrest in the eyes of the public. According to the Court Technology Bulletin (1997), Shelby County (Memphis) has an integrated Jail Management System and Justice Support System. If so, it is a matter for standards to be developed for case management coordinated with the District Attorney.

Mays and Taggert (1986) discuss problems of conflict in setting standards for case management. Each side sees itself as responsible for their own actions instead of working for the system as a whole. Cityspan (1996) reported clear problems of conflict between groups in San Francisco. Cityspan’s recommendations highlighted an innovative solution to this conflict. In San Francisco, the personnel in different departments did not have a clear understanding of each other’s role (police, prosecutor). Their solution was to have people from one office interact and work within another office. So, for instance, they encouraged assistant district attorneys to ride-along with police officers and police sergeants to work in the Inspections Bureau. The point of the exercise was to develop an appreciation amongst employees in one agency for the other agencies that they dealt with regularly.

A 1992 Study by the Police Executive Research Forum (as cited in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, no date) makes a similar point about lack of communication between groups where police did not understand prosecution decisions. They recommended that prosecutors provide police with a written statement on prosecution policies. While there would be written prosecution policies, it was still recognized that prosecutors needed to use their discretion. In those situations, they recommended that prosecutors provide a written explanation to police about decisions that were contrary to this written policy.

Shelton (1997) reiterates problems of lack of understanding among agencies about the entire criminal justice process. Shelton discusses three factors for confronting politics in implementing an information system:

1. Project managers should train key professionals who implement and work with) the justice information system about how to identify problems in case flow;
2. An advisory group (composed of a team member from each agency) should work on developing standards for case management. A project leader would be appointed – ideally a person from outside any of the agencies - to moderate, remain neutral and to be non-voting.
3. Team leaders should establish a mechanism to provide feedback on case flow. Some possible mechanisms include a monthly newsletter, e-mail list, or periodic system-wide meeting. All would keep future users of the system informed about types of problems and current issues.

Greasley and Barlow (1998) suggest that simulations are a useful technique for estimating possibilities in case management. The technique simply looks to identify case flow in its current form, to change particular components, and to simulate what may happen. As a planning tool, this would allow managers from each part of the system to see what would happen in other parts of the system as changes occurred.

References

Bonnyman, Claudia. 1997. The Experience of Automation Implementation in the Chancery Court for Davidson County Tennessee. www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/bonny.htm

City and County of San Francisco. 1997. Criminal Justice System: District Attorney and Police Department. www.ci.sf.ca.us/courts/grndjury/1996/crim.htm

Court Technology Bulletin. 1998. Washington State Justice Information Network. www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/Bulletin/V10n05.htm

Court Technology Bulletin. 1998. Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System. www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/tis/tis99/Casemgmt/Casemgt2.htm

Court Technology Bulletin. 1997. Integrated Case Management System: Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee. www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/CASEMGMT/CSMGT8.HTM

Ferrell, Wendy K. 1999. Efficiency Via Caseflow Management. Washington State Courts. www.courts.wa.gov/press/990419cm.htm

Greasley, Andrew and Stuart Barlow. 1998. Using simulation modelling for BPR: resource allocation in a police custody process. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 18: 978-988.

Horne, Bob. 1999. Clogged courts at issue: Robeson officials disagree on who is to blame. Fayetteville Online Local News. www.fayettevillenc.com/foto/news/content/1999/tx99aug/n28broo4.htm

Janikowski, Richard. 1999. A Review of Police Detention Practices. White Paper 1, Memphis / Shelby Crime Commission, Memphis Tennessee. www.memphiscrime.org/research/whitepapers/wp1.html

Mays, Larry G. and William A. Taggart. 1986. Court Clerks, Court Administrators, and Judges: Conflict in Managing the Courts. Journal of Criminal Justice 14(1): 1-7.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (no date). A Comprehensive Youth DUI Enforcement Strategy. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/juveniledui/part1/page5.html

Shelton, Christopher M. 1997. Implementing a Criminal Justice Information System: The Political Factors. Court Technology Bulletin. www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/TIS99/CASEMGMT/Cjis3.htm

Spagenberg, Robert L. and Associates. 1999. Indigent Defense and Technology: A Progress Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. NCJ 179003.

Thibodeau, Patrick. 1999. System links could aid crime fighting. Computerworld 04/28/97 www.computerworld.com/home/online9697.nsf/all/970425system

Cases cited

State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d666 (Tennessee 1996).

In 1987 the Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice, and the National Center for State Courts initiated a Trial Court Performance Standards Project. "The program’s objective was to increase the capacity of the Nation’s trial courts to provide fair and efficient adjudication and disposition of cases" (1997:1). Twelve courts in four states participated in the project. The program summary describes goals, performance measures, a seven-step process to implementing performance standards and measurement and discusses the importance of systematic implementation and feedback. They provide an excellent summary of effectiveness, efficiency and fairness in trial court performance and standards.

Regarding efficiency, the biggest issue in court reform over the past decade has been reducing delays in case processing (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997: 4). The standards of this national project suggest that the trial courts must recognize that

"…the manner in which a trial court fulfills its responsibilities affects not only the litigants but all individuals and organizations involved with the judicial system – including jurors, attorneys, witnesses, criminal justice and social service agencies, and the public" (1997: 4)

The legal requirements for a timely handling of adjudication necessitate a timely handling of all court services. The Trial Court Performance Standards Project recommends:

• Establish and comply with recognized guidelines for timely case processing while, at the same time, remaining current with its incoming case load.
• Disburse its funds promptly, provide reports and information according to required schedules, and respond to requests for information and other services on an established schedule that ensures their effective use.
• Promptly implement changes in law and procedure. (1997: 4).

Mays and Taggert (1986) report that conflicts in the courtroom may be a product of confusion over who has the primary responsibility for carrying out a particular set of tasks. Judges may think that they run the court but they have to be sensitive to persons throughout the system (Ferrell, 1999).

Consider the example where a prisoner arrives late from transportation to the jail for a hearing in court and his case is continued over to another day. While a judge may have scheduled a court appearance time for his court, a prisoner may actually have been scheduled to appear in two courts at the same time for different offenses. Clearly, there is confusion about where the prisoner is, and where he is to go. Mead (1997) reports that more than one-quarter of inmates transported to court in the 1990s arrived late leading to missed hearings and increased numbers of trips to court. All of this contributed to lengthened time spent in jail. Ferrell (1999) reports that some of the problem in efficiency is that judges are unaware of court’s caseflow figures and they do not understand how computer systems work within the courts. Washington States’ solution to this problem was to implement an integrated case management system that allowed courts to create milestone measurements for cases and to track their progress. Integrated case management systems can identify inconsistencies in cases (double bookings) and ensure that transportation is planned for prisoners scheduled to be in court (IBM, 1998). Given the high costs of transporting prisoners, this issue should be considered (Mead, 1997).

A number of jurisdictions have also looked into introducing video teleconferencing into the courts. Matthias and Twedt (1997) present a matrix of TeleJustice Applications and Participants that was created and submitted prior to the Fifth National Court Technology Conference. Essentially, a judge is in a courtroom, a defendant is in jail, an inmate is in prison and a prosecutor is in the courtroom. Defense counsel may be in the courtroom, jail or prison. Several jurisdictions report that Video-conferencing is more efficient saving on transportation costs, security costs (see National Sheriffs’ Association 1997), and time to transport (Tandberg No date; Mead 1997; Note that dozens of Internet sites were found showing that teleconferencing is being used in courts).³ Some jursidictions are reluctant to fully implement the teleconferencing system over in-person hearings fearing constitutional challenges. For example, Connecticut is using it presently only for uncontested matters brought by inmates, such as a legal change of name (Case Reports, 1996). Others have it fully implemented for arraignment hearings (misdemeanors and felonies) using it as a means to cut down on trips to court.

Another approach in coping with increased caseloads in courts was to introduce "night" court. The Cook County Drug Night Court was the only one in the Nation operating in 1989. Smith and Associates (1993) report on the feasibility of establishing night courts for narcotics charges. Narcotics cases in Cook County are part of a general felony calendar, but they "… do not compete well with violent crimes for the court’s attention." As a result, there were a large number of continuances in cases. The night operations were described as "quite efficient" because of dramatic reductions in processing time for narcotics cases. The average number of court dates per case dropped from 11 to 6.2 (1993: 12). Smith et al (1993) suggest that the segregation of narcotics cases, rather than evening operations per se led to increased productivity, more lenient sentences, fewer trials, and a lower rate of representation by private attorneys.

Jurisdictions that are considering night courts must be vigilant to ensure that quality of justice (fairness) is not compromised. For instance, the public defender’s office may need additional staff if fewer defendants utilize private attorneys. Smith et al. (1993) reported no difficulties in finding motivated people to staff night courts. However, they caution that in order to maintain high morale and efficiency, jurisdictions must be aware of special problems that staff may encounter when working at night. Courtroom issues included fatigue, security, a slower pace in the courtroom and problems accessing information (since records closed at 4:30pm). Other personnel issues included breaks (because the snack shop was closed) and transportation and child care problems (because these units were limited or closed at night).

Specialized courts have been introduced in a large number of jurisdictions for several types of issues. Sherin and Mahoney (1996) discuss the difficulties of implementing drug courts in terms of integration of court processing and treatment services. A big issue is screening cases and early policy decisions such as selecting the target population. Karan, Keilitz, and Denaro (1999), looking at domestic violence courts, describe problems for case management and efficiency in the courts because of jurisdictional limitations, lack of capacity to track cases, and the need to coordinate court operations with initiatives from other areas. The potential benefits of drug courts for more efficient processing of offenders and reduced recidivism rates are still being studied.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997. Trial Court Performance Standards (Program Brief). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. NCJ 161569

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1999. Court Technology and Information Systems. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. NCJ 177601

Case Reports 1996. Communication: Court Date on Tape. Vol 11(3). www.ctcase.org/11_3/Augbriefs.html

Essex, David. 1998. Hop on the Bandwidth Wagon. Healthcare informatics. www.healthcare-informatics.com/issues/1998/11_98/telemed.htm

Ferrell, Wendy K. 1999. Efficiency Via Caseflow Management. Washington State Courts. www.courts.wa.gov/press/990419cm.htm

Karan, Amy, Susan Keilitz, and Sharon Denaro. 1999. Domestic Violence Courts: What Are They and How Should We Manage Them? Juvenile and Family Court Journal 50(2): 75-86.

IBM. 1998.Due Process Streamlining Procedures. www.ibm.com/news/ls/1998/04/cc_2.phtml

Matthias, John T. and James C. Twedt. 1997. TeleJustice – Videoconferencing for the 21^st Century. Fifth National Court Technology Conference (CTC5): National Center for State Courts. www.ncsc.dni.us/ncsc/tis/CT5/208.HTM

Mays, Larry G. and William A. Taggart. 1986. Court Clerks, Court Administrators, and Judges: Conflict in Managing the Courts. Journal of Criminal Justice 14(1): 1-7.

Mead, Dean Michael 1997. Report on the New York Department of Correction. New York: Citizen Budget Commission. www.cbcny.org/0624.html

National Sheriffs’ Association. 1997. Court Security and the Transportation of Prisoners. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. NCJ FS 000165.

Sherin, Kevin M. and Barry Mahoney. 1996. Treatment Drug Courts: Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment with Legal Case Processing. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. NCJ 179825.

Smith, Barbara E., Robert C. Davis, Sharon R. Goretsky, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Susan J. Popkin. 1993. Assessment of the Feasability of Drug Night Courts. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Tanberg Company. No date. New Hampshire Courts Save Time and Money with TANDBERG Videoconferencing Solutions. www.tandbergusa.com/new/case_hampshire.html

Performance Measurements

As we noted when we began this report, performance measures must be an integral part of any plan of change. This is necessary in order to ensure that the change had its intended impact. More than that, we believe administrators should continuously utilize performance measures to ascertain whether programs they implement continue to stay viable. Performance measures provide a wonderful method for continuous feedback so that policies and programs can be developed, implemented and revised. Given our commitment to this endeavor, below we describe multiple performance measures for each component of the criminal justice system. Measures speaking to specific intended goals can be developed through a collaborative process between agency personnel and researchers. For now, what is presented below is more generic though they remain some of the best ways to assess an agency’s impact.

Police

Crime Rate: The most familiar measure of police performance is whether the crime rate in a jurisdiction goes up or down (Brady 1996). But crime may have less to do with society’s ability to react to it and more to do with opportunity, demographics and other variables that could never be controlled by police. As such, crime rates may not be the best measure of police effectiveness.

Research and practice over the past thirty years has shown that there are other ways to measure the performance of police. Policing is a costly and complex practice activity because police officers and staff work 24 hours a day and tasks may vary from police investigation of a murder to nuisance abatement because of a noisy party. There are multiple visions of policing: aggressive control of crime; community partner holding a neighborhood together; and officers as innovative problem solvers. The activities of police departments in fact cover one or more visions of policing. Unlike other businesses, though, police departments do not go out of business when they fail to stay within budget and achieve efficiency.

A large number of studies have been conducted on how to measure success in the performance of police. Figure 1 shows the major goals that police departments are asked to achieve through investigation. These can be used develop measures assessing whether the stated goals were achieved.

Clearance Rates: An increase in the rate of resolving reported crimes is a common indicator of police performance. The outcome measure is easily estimated based on a percentage of crimes "cleared." A crime is cleared where one or more individuals is arrested for the crime and turned over to the prosecutor’s office. The information is already collected and reported within the Uniform Crime Reporting system. Some suggest caution in the use of clearance rates saying that they should be used for comparative purposes only (Petersilia and Associates, 1987). However, there is no evidence that clearance rates vary with defendant characteristics such as age, race or socio-economic status. This suggests that clearance rates may be equally inefficient (and therefore fair) across groups.

Even though research indicates that clearance rates may not reflect discriminatory processing by police, there are some researchers who continue to view this measure as an

Figure 1. Defining Objectives and Strategies in Policing

Adapted from Justice and Public Safety Program, North Carolina 1996: page 4-104

inadequate measure of the effectiveness of police investigation (Reidel and Jarvis, 1998). To the extent that clearance rates correlate with crime rates (e.g., clearance rates are lower in jurisdictions with higher crime rates and with low per-arrest expenditures), it may be that they are dependent upon many things beyond simply police performance (Welford and Cronin, 1999).

Police Performance as Percentage of Property Recovered: The percentage of property recovered has also been used as an estimate of the effectiveness of policing. Performance information is already collected by police on property recovered and property where the owner is identified. The validity of this measure, however, is questionable. In many ways it is the actions of the public – not the police - that are being evaluated. Some examples are provided below to illustrate how property recovery requires police action and public action.

First, for example, private companies are using computerized systems to place electronic markers on high-end cost items such as cars (e.g. LoJack Corporation 1999). A radio beacon will signal the police that the car is stolen. The police have successfully recovered some vehicles using the LoJack system (Oliver 1995). Without this system, the vehicle would simply look like any other on the street. Installation of the equipment requires the owner to bear additional expense, and most owners have chosen not to do so.

Second, regarding property identification, police departments recover a large amount of "unidentified" property that is potentially "identifiable." Property marker identification programs (such as inscribing social security numbers on property) have been used for many years. Surveys suggest that these programs are popular with the general public. Unfortunately, marker identification programs and home inventories have been ineffective in assisting with property recovery (Sutton 1998). New methods of computer aided evidence collection, however, may lead to improvements in the rate of property recovered. Doran (1998) reports on more "efficient" management of property for handing, storage, evidence, and property recovery and legal requirements for handing of evidence are significantly enhanced by using a bar coding and computer aided control system. These systems have the potential to save departments a great deal of time and money as a number of police jurisdictions are also using the Internet to allow the general public to search for their own missing items using serial numbers of items. Of course, searches are limited to complete matches on serial identification numbers.

Third, a number of new Internet sites such as "Alert All" have been developed by private companies where police departments, the public, auction houses, and pawn shops may search a centralized database to see if an item offered for sale has been stolen. These databases appear to be geared more toward high end-cost items such as unique art works and jewelry.

The existence of programs to enhance property recovery, thus, are biased estimates of police performance in property recovery. At the same time, a department that is able to garner cooperation from the public should be able to achieve a higher rate of property recovery and be graded as having a higher performance.

Education. A long-standing debate in Criminal Justice is whether the education level of police officers is a performance measure. Whether it is or not, it has been used as one. The argument is that education is a criterion (predictive) valid measure of officer compliance with formal codes and standards.

Many studies have examined whether college-educated police officers perform better than police officers without a college degree. For example, Krimmel (1996) reports how college educated officers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania scored better on self-rated performance on knowledge of the law, preparation for court, level of problem-solving ability, level of arrest analysis, and a number of other indicators.

In addition to college education, it may be relevant to measure continuing education programs in departments. Many jurisdictions are implementing in-service training seminars to achieve higher performance. The Mid-South Training Institute at the University of Memphis, and the Institute for Public Safety Partnerships at the University of Illinois are two examples of continuing education centers. Measures of success in these centers include officers’ satisfaction with training to meet current standards in areas of domestic violence, community policing, and such. These types of programs undergo regular certification to ensure the programs meet educational objectives.

Police misconduct. Another measure of the effectiveness of law enforcement is the number of investigations of police misconduct. The issue of police misconduct and brutality is discussed in great detail in the United States by various Task Forces or Commission reviews of police brutality. The primary issues for effectiveness is public safety and police accountability. For example, a Human Right's Watch (1998) report examined major cases in fourteen US cities looking for problems of abuse and common obstacles to accountability. This issue of abuse is important for case management because police departments need to understand the relationship between accountability and effective performance. An accountable department will be an effective department. Allowing external scrutiny of cases does not necessarily mean interference and inefficiency. In most cities where municipal governments end up having to pay out large settlements to complainants, the Human Right's Watch report argues that their associated police departments had not truly investigated an incident and their citizen review agencies had failed to track civil lawsuits. The critical issue is that information about cases is lost because of a failure to share information across agencies. Human Right's Watch suggests that there was a lack of linkage among agencies overseeing the police. This ultimately may have lead to continued abuses as police officers continued to break the law as the system continued to fail to prosecute them. They recommended that police departments train officers on what constitutes abuse and that departments develop a use of force policy.

The advantage for a police department in enacting these recommendations would be potentially lower rates of abuse, potential improvements in information technology and the ability to prevent problems that may result in costly litigation and lessened community credibility. The disadvantages are increased scrutiny of departmental actions and possibly strained relationships between police managers and prosecutors if there are additional complaints against police and audits. While it is clear that a manager would not wish to be an obstacle to justice, the problems of investigation and discipline, and issues of public accountability and transparency may be perceived as a threat to police managers.

External review boards to review accountability are relatively common in United States law enforcement. Their effectiveness, nonetheless, depends upon the accuracy of information that is provided to them. There are several initiatives under way within this county to develop information systems to track police effectiveness. We would recommend that such efforts be supported at all levels.

Balancing efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness of policing. Improving police performance is a complex issue because of the need to balance efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness. The above discussion has highlighted some measures that police can use to assess their performance and establish whether they are meeting their goals of providing effective and efficient services within the context of being perceived as fair and just by the community within which they work. A recent conference coordinated by the National Institute of Justice sought to open the debate on "Measuring what matters" in policing (Brady 1996, 1997). The proceedings from the conference are interesting in that perspectives of academics and practitioners are presented.

This report suggests that police departments are getting better in terms of effectiveness. Notably, the report discusses citizen surveys as the barometer of whether an organization is doing its job. An external benchmark is being used to assess how well the community and police are getting along. In fact, the community satisfaction survey is a major benchmark for assessing police departments. Police administrators, however, are reluctant to live with "public indicators" of policing. At issue, for them, is whether these reflect the pulse of the community or simply a few disgruntled persons. Keep in mind that many community surveys do not use scientific sampling methods and they may not truly represent community attitudes.

The collection of law enforcement data is also discussed. Practitioners talk about how data is often lost because while 80 percent of departments have computerized dispatch only 50 percent of them work. A large amount of data is collected and it can be used in many forms.

This conference explicitly discussed exploring policing using the language of business and industry. Jack Greene reports that "police agencies have been reluctant to get into a market place analysis; more often police are driven by market dynamics rather than trying to predict or affect them" (cited in Brady 1997: 8). Issues of costs are extremely important for assessing efficiency. The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Survey (Reaves and Goldberg 1999) reports on the second tri-annual survey of police administration and expenditure. Police and academics, nonetheless, report on the difficulties of comparing costs in one jurisdiction with another because of intended, unintended, and opportunity costs invested in other things in a particular department.

Issues of product improvement are being evaluated in different departments. Mostly, the problem oriented policing (POP) efforts and situational crime prevention research and development is helping to shape new methods of policing. New interventions for responses other than arrest and threat of arrest are being explored. These kinds of investments in POP are substantial.

Issues of test marketing and quality are also being explored in POP projects. Product information can be assessed if we know more about the product. In order to do this, the conference proceedings report a need for better information systems. It’s not so much new information as it is different ways to work with the information we currently have available.

References

Alert All 2000. The Stolen Property Guide. www.alert-all.se/about.html

Brady, Thomas V. December, 1996. Measuring what matters. Part One: Measures of Crime, Fear and Disorder. National Institute of Justice. NCJ 162205. Washington, DC: GPO.

Brady, Thomas V. November, 1997. Measuring what matters. Part Two: Developing Measures of What Police Do. National Institute of Justice. NCJ 167255. Washington, DC: GPO.

Doran, Robert A. 1998. Evidence and Recovered Property: The Police Property Control Function. Arlington, Heights, IL: Public Management Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Annual. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States. Washington, DC: GPO.

Human Rights Watch. 1998. Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States. www.law.nyu.edu/mirskyc/uspohtml/

Krimmel, J.T. 1996. "Performance of College-Educated Police: A Study of Self-Rated Police Performance Measures." American Journal of Police 15(1): 85-96.

LoJack Corporation 1999. LoJack Stolen Vehicle Recovery Network. www.lojack.com/company/history.htm

Metro-Nashville Police Department 1999. Metro-Nashville Community Police Access. www.police.nashville.org

Oliver, W. 1995. Tracking Stolen Cars With LoJack. Law Enforcement Technology 22(2):50-52

Petersilia, JM, AM Abrahamse, and JQ Wilson. 1987. Police Performance and Case Attrition. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Reaves, Brian A. and Andrew L. Goldberg. 1999. Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1997: Data from Individual State and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers. NCJ 171681. Washington, DC: GPO.

Reidel, Marc and John Jarvis. 1998. Decline of Arrest Clearances for Criminal Homicide: Causes, Correlates and Third Parties. Criminal Justice Policy Review 9:279-306.

Sutton, M. 1998. Handling Stolen Goods and Theft: A Market Reduction Approach. London, England: Home Office.

Welford, Charles and James Cronin. 1999. Analysis of Variables Affecting the Clearance of Homicides: A Multisite Study. Final Report for National Institute of Justice (Grant 99-IJ-CX-0047).

Associations:

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. www.acjs.org
American Society of Criminology. www.asc41.com
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C. www.perf.org

Periodicals

Criminology
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Justice Quarterly
Journal of Criminal Justice
Policing
The Police
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
The Police Chief

Courts

Performance measures for courts include efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness with the emphasis being on the latter. One of the classic arguments in criminal justice was made by Herbert Packer (1968) emphasizing that courts must operate based on law, but it is not enough that the law be fair; it must be seen as fair.

George Cole (Pp 87-108 in DiIulio et al., 1993) discusses the genesis of performance measures for courts in the United States, particularly the efforts from 1970 to the early 1990s. He ends his discussion by introducing a project from the National Center for State Courts to develop a set of performance standards for trial courts. This project is now complete and the standards have been published (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997).
Figure 2 shows five basic areas from the National Center for State Courts project for assessing the performance of the courts. The areas are relatively straight-forward whereas setting actual performance measures in each area is still controversial. Fairness in access to justice is usually measured by looking at the openness of hearings, understanding of the court calendar, perceptions of the courthouse security, litigant treatment, and alternatives for the financially disadvantaged (Cole, 1993: 108).

Issues of efficiency and timeliness are aspects of caseflow. To the extent that a courtroom is able to measure caseflow, and handle problems that arise, it can work towards efficiency.

Issues of effectiveness in the pursuit of equality, fairness and integrity have generally been self-examined by attorneys and court employees. With the advent of integrated justice systems, other measuring tools can be used to count and assess the use

and maintenance of criminal justice records. An integrated system, not only increases efficiency in the use of records, it may enhance effectiveness as criminal justice records will be available for less cost to all persons in the criminal justice system.

Issues of independence of the courts have traditionally insulated the courts from other agencies. However, the State Courts project suggested that the courts must recognize that they are a public institution that has to maintain working relationships with other branches of government, and other organizations (1997: 5). It is important to recognize judicial independence, but at the same time the courts must inform the public about its programs. Anticipation of new conditions and emergent events means that courts must adjust their operations as necessary. Drug courts and domestic violence courts are but two examples of changes in public sentiment on the purpose of the courts.

Source: Adapted from Bureau of Justice Assistance (1997)

The courts are adjusting to the realization that their role has expanded beyond simply being responsible for punishing offenders.

The final performance area identified in the State Courts project suggests that the legitimacy of the courts – its power and fairness -- will vary by the type and extent of contact that different groups in the community have with the criminal justice system. Two measures of fairness are public perceptions of the fairness of the court, and community leaders’ perceptions of the court. This information can be collected using surveys and/or focus groups.

In closing, we return to the work of Ostrom and Hanson (1999). Their extensive review of nine state courts nationally indicated that efficiency, effectiveness and fairness need not be thought of as mutually exclusive goals in the courts. Countering this long held and widely prevalent view, they found that courts that were more efficient were also more effective and fairer. They provided a number of different measures to assess each of these criteria. Given that their project was funded by a federal granting source (National Institute of Justice), it is likely that their survey and measuring instruments will be available through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan in the not too distant future.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997. Trial Court Performance Standards (Program Brief). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. NCJ 161569

DiIulio, John J., Jr. and Associates. 1993. Performance measures for the Criminal Justice System: Discussion Papers from the BJS-Princton Project. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 143505.

Ostrom, Brian and Roger, Hanson. 1999. Efficiency, Timeliness and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine Criminal Trial Courts. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice/State Justice Institute.

Packer, Herbert L. 1968. The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Corrections: Pretrial:

Performance measures for corrections may look at everything from intake at arrest, to jails, to community corrections, to prison. Given the scope of the first part of this project, we will restrict our discussion in this report to performance measures in corrections from arrest to pre-trial.

Jail volume. The traditional measures of the performance of jails have been the number of jails, the number of people under supervision, jail capacity, and days in detention. It is relatively straight forward to estimate the number of person days spent in jail, and to calculate the extent to which a jail is overcrowded based on capacity. Comparing figures from past years, however, doesn’t take into account that court sentencing practices may have changed with more people spending less time in jail. Additionally, correctional facilities have greater volume of persons coming through the system and hence greater responsibilities for management.

Total correctional expenditures. Another traditional measure of correctional performance is the dollar amount of correctional expenditures per inmate. This measure also suffers when seeking to compare information from earlier time periods because correctional responsibilities have shifted.

Figure 3 shows a basic configuration of areas for performance in corrections – pretrial. The issues of efficiency focus on coordination of transportation of inmates, and ensuring that staff are educated, trained, satisfied, and available for a higher volume of inmates. Earlier we discussed the need for an integrated information system. Memphis and Shelby County has an information system for correctional use. The question for efficiency is the degree to which it is coordinated with other parts of the criminal justice system. A coordinated information justice system would mean that correctional information is built upon data from other criminal justice components and, alternately, would provide other components with their data on any given offender.

Issues regarding correctional effectiveness focus on security, safety of the inmate, and order in the jail. Several recent studies examine how best to secure courts and increase efficiency transportation (Bosarge, 1995; Thieme, 1995), to integrate technology into inmate transportation (Topham, 1999) taking into account inmate safety (Reay, 1996) and civil liabilities (Postill, and Rowan, 1998). It is relatively easy to measure effectiveness in these areas when there is a case management system. For example, indicators may include the number and rate of safe trips from the jail to courthouse, and the number of complaints against correctional staff.

Quality of care is also an important issue. Constitutional rights and protections, and public advocates are such that poor conditions in jails will not to be tolerated in the United States. The Federal Government conducts a regular census of conditions in jails and prisons using a survey research methodology (Beck, 1999; 2000). Fairness is also monitored through civil procedures for monitoring of grievances within the jails, and provisions for access to legal counsel (see Beck, 1999; Thieme, 1995). Local researchers can also work with correctional administrators to design and implement performance measures that better address the specific questions that any one jurisdiction may have.

Beck, A.J. 1999. Planning for the 1999 Census of Jail is Underway. American Jails 12(6): 9-11, 14.

Beck, A.J. 2000. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. NCJ 181643.

Bosarge, B.B. 1995. Court Security and the Transportation of Prisoners: A National Study, Executive Summary. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. NCJ 161710.

Postill, F.J. and J.R. Rowan. 1998. Managing Use of Restraints Liability. American Jails 12(3): 29-34.

Reay, D.T. 1996. Suspect Restraint and Sudden Death. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 65(5): 22-25.

Thieme, J. 1995. Evaluation of Inmate Transportation: Department of Corrections. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau.

Topham, J. 1999. Complete Guide to Inmate Transport. Corrections Technology and Management 3(6): 44-48.

Webb, D. and S. Alicie. 1997. High Risk Transports: An Introduction. American Jails 11(5): 59-62.

Figure 3. Performance Standards in Corrections - Pretrial

This review has examined use-based initiatives that have attempted to improve performance in the criminal justice system. Specifically, we examined projects seeking to improve performance from the time of arrest of an offender through pre-trial activities. In reading these materials we were struck by the large number of initiatives seeking to address an incredible array of problems occurring throughout the system. We also noted how many of the problems that Memphis is experiencing are similar to those from other jurisdictions across the nation and even the world.

The majority of the literature came from practitioner journals and government publications (often posted on the Internet). While these publications do not undergo the same level of scrutiny for scientific methodology and accuracy as the more prestigious peer reviewed academic journals, it seemed to us that there were very candid discussions of problems and solutions.

We’d like to close this literature review by noting three common themes that were clearly evident across the areas. Each of these areas gives rise to a specific recommendation. We’ll identify each theme and discuss its importance.

It seems that being asked to do more and more with less and less resources is a common experience for criminal justice agencies nationally. While this position would seem untenable, a few progressive jurisdictions are turning to technology to try to help them through these difficult times. Undeniably, the most common theme for improving efficiency in the criminal justice system is to rely upon technology using an integrated justice information system.

We therefore strongly recommend that Memphis/Shelby County look toward implementing an integrated justice information system to enhance efficiency. In the process, we believe that such a system would also increase effectiveness and fairness.

Whether looking at police access to information on outstanding warrants, planning the docket for arraignment in court, or determining when and where to transport a prisoner, it was evident that an integrated justice information system will enhance efficiency of the criminal justice system. Interestingly, efficiency in the criminal justice system can also enhance effectiveness. Specifically, police officers will be safer if they know more about a situation they are about to face. For instance, knowing about an outstanding warrant before approaching a motorist or that this is a repeat domestic violence call before entering a home. Additionally, defendants will be safer because they can be located anywhere in the system drawing in information from a variety of sources. Finally, courts will have more information and this will be available to them more quickly available. The result should be their ability to make better decisions. Additionally, an integrated justice information system can also provide greater protections to the defendant. For instance, increased information at the court level can insure stronger constitutional protections such as equal access to information for indigent defense.

Recommending something which requires such an extensive outlay of resources in terms of expertise and funding would be unrealistic and even cruel if there were no way for the county to implement such a recommendation. However, in this case there are avenues that can assist in achieving this goal if administrators in Memphis/Shelby County were committed to this endeavor. Specifically, the Department of Justice is presently seeking sites to work with on developing and implementing an integrated justice information system. In the past, such solicitations have offered both the expertise and the funding necessary to accomplish the project. We would therefore strongly recommend that this jurisdiction work towards being considered as a possible test site for the Department of Justice solicitation.

While we believe that this jurisdiction must begin to move towards an integrated justice information system, many innovative programs in this review noted that technology is important but that its use must be communicated to all persons throughout the system in order for this to be an effective solution.

We therefore also recommend that there be increased inter-agency communication on an on-going basis. This will be essential if an integrated justice information system is to have a chance to effectively meet the demands and expectations being placed upon it.

Innovative technology by itself is not enough to increase efficiency. The users in an organization must know how to use it and how to share it. There were multiple instances where one criminal justice agency had a problem, knew how to identify it as a problem yet did not share the information with another agency because they had conflicting ideas about the source of the problem. In the literature we found overt examples of name calling on whose problem it was, as well as instances where there were poor communication channels between groups.

Descriptions of ventures into the use of innovative technology in cooperation with a system for formal and informal interagency communication were evident in the jurisdictions that seemed to be better at meeting the demands being placed on criminal justice organizations. Those jurisdictions that were actively working on both issues were the ones who were more likely to be succeeding.

Interestingly, those who were doing the above were also more likely to be using performance measures to test, on an ongoing basis, whether the programs and policies they were implementing were achieving their intended results.

We view it as essential, and therefore strongly recommend, that criminal justice administrators develop and implement performance measures. This will ensure that there is a continual feedback loop linked to program and policy development.

A good evaluation method is an important to establish whether any particular policy or program is achieving its intended results. Without performance measures, agencies will not understand, let alone be able to communicate to other groups, where their agency is in the process. Without performance measures, agencies will not have a sense of how well their programs are working (or failing to work) and therefore what they need to be doing to better tailor the programs and policies that they have adopted. Implementing a system that provides continuous feedback to guide administrators as their agencies respond to the changing demands inherent within our present day criminal justice system will greatly help in increasing system efficiency. It also has the unintended benefit that knowing how a program fared within your agency goes far in being able to share that information with other components of your system.

Of course there are barriers to success in implementing these kinds of partnerships. Strikingly, though, a good number of jurisdictions have taken significant strides to implement technology into their criminal justice systems and they are working toward developing effective community partnerships. A great deal of information is already collected in criminal justice agencies. And while there are obstacles to merging data elements, the technological barriers do not appear to be as difficult as breaking territorial notions about whose data it is and where the problem is coming from. Test projects in several jurisdictions are suggesting that agency cultures, goals, and activities can be brought together, particularly when a neutral third party is used to facilitate this process.

In closing, there is no doubt that the problems within the Memphis/Shelby County criminal justice system are large and seemingly overwhelming. However, other jurisdictions have faced similar problems and have overcome them. They have done it through using technology to compensate for lacking resources, making sure that there are on-going paths of communication between agencies and, within their particular agencies, implementing procedures to ensure continual feedback that administrators use to ensure that their programs are achieving their intended results. In all, there are tremendous problems. But these challenges merely provide us with an even larger opportunity.

Notes

1. We suspect that this is due to the fact that refereed journals are mainly the publication outlet for academics who probably are more interested in theoretical rather than applied studies.

2. Though not typically noted, there has even been discussion of beginning this system with the call from dispatch and having that information flow to every other application (Strandberg, 1998).

3. In fact, teleconferencing has become so successful that correctional facilities are now using it as a method to provide telemedicine where doctors consult via videoconferencing and remote monitoring systems (Essex, 1998).

Appendix

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) maintains a large list of Internet web sites. Excerpts of NCJRS law enforcement, courts, and corrections sites are shown below.

 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service www.ncjrs.org

 

 

Law Enforcement Sites

 

Airborne Law Enforcement Association http://www.alea.org/

American Police Association http://www.apai.org

American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET) http://www.aslet.org

America's Most Wanted http://www.amw.com

America's Most Wanted Criminals http://cpcug.org/user/jlacombe/wanted.html

APBNews.com http://www.apbnews.com

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. http://www.apcointl.org

Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction (ACSR) http://www.acsr.com/

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms http://www.atf.treas.gov/

Calibre Press http://www.calibrepress.com

Center for Sex Offender Management http://www.csom.org

Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) http://www.calea.org/

Community Oriented Policing Services http://www.usdoj/cops

Community Policing Consortium http://www.communitypolicing.org

Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS) http://www.nationalcops.org/

CopNet http://www.copnet.org

Cybercrime http://www.cybercrime.gov/

Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) with the Department of Justice

Department of the Solicitor General of Canada http://www.sgc.gc.ca/

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/

Federal Bureau of Investigation http://www.fbi.gov

Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/tenlist.htm

Federal Bureau of Investigation's Fugitive Publicity http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/fugitive/fpphome.htm

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center http://www.ustreas.gov/fletc/

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network http://www.ustreas.gov/fincen/

Florida Department of Law Enforcement http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/

Gang Prevention, Inc. http://www.gangpreventioninc.com

Genetic Technologies, Inc. http://www.genetictechnologies.com

International Association of Chiefs of Police http://www.theiacp.org

International Association of Law Enforcement Planners http://www.dps.state.ak.us/ialep

International Fellowship of Police Chaplains http://www.ifoc.org/ifpc.htm

International Police Mountain Bike Association (IPMBA) http://www.ipmba.org/

International Web Police http://www.web-police.org/

Just 4 Cops http://www.cgclaw.com/Just4Cops.htm

Law Enforcement Agency Listings http://www.officer.com/agencies.htm

Including a link to every law enforcement agency in the world that has a home page. Agencies are listed geographically.

Law Enforcement Agencies on the Web by Florida State University Associate Professor of Criminology Cecil Greek. http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj.html

Law Enforcement Training Database http://bjatraining.aspensys.com/

National Association of School Resource Officers http://www.nasro.org

National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. http://www.napo.org/

National Center for Women & Policing http://www.feminist.org/police/ncwp.html

National Drug Enforcement Officers Association http://www.ndeoa.org

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center http://www.nlectc.org

National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial http://www.nleomf.com/

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) http://www.noblenatl.org/

National Sheriffs' Association http://www.sheriffs.org

Office of International Affairs Fugitive Homepage http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/oiafug/fugitives.htm

Police Executive Research Forum http://www.policeforum.org/

Police Foundation http://www.policefoundation.org

"Police Magazine" http://www.policemag.com

The Police Officer's Internet Directory http://www.officer.com/

Police Officers and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder http://pw1.netcom.com/~jpmock/ptsd.htm

PoliceOne.com http://www.policeone.com

Police Stress Links http://www.policeworld.net/user/links/index.html

The Polly Klaas Foundation http://www.pollyklaas.org

Royal Canadian Mounted Police http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/frames/rcmp-grc1.htm

United States Customs Service http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/

United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General http://www.usdoj.gov/oig

United States Immigration and Naturalization Service http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/

United States Marshals Service http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/

United States National Central Bureau (INTERPOL) http://www.usdoj.gov/usncb

United States Postal Inspection Service: Wanted Posters http://www.usps.gov/websites/depart/inspect/wantmenu.htm

United States Secret Service http://www.treas.gov/usss

"The World's Most Wanted" Fugitives and Unsolved Crimes http://www.mostwanted.org

Zeno's Forensic Page http://users.bart.nl/~geradts/forensic.html

Wen sites linked to Courts

American Bar Association http://www.abanet.org

American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org

American Judicature Society http://www.ajs.org

American Law Sources On-Line http://www.lawsource.com/also/

American Probation and Parole Association http://www.appa-net.org/

communitycourts.org http://www.communitycourts.org/

Court TV Online http://www.courttv.com/

Death Penalty Information Center http://www.essential.org/dpic/

Department of Justice Canada http://canada.justice.gc.ca/index_en.html

Drug Courts Program Office http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/

Federal Judicial Center http://www.fjc.gov

The Federal Judiciary Homepage http://www.uscourts.gov/

Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center http://fjsrc.urban.org

FindLaw Supreme Court Opinions http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

Indigent Defense Information http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/indigentdefense/

Justice Management Institute http://members.aol.com/jmidenver/

Los Angeles Municipal Court, California http://www.lamuni.org/

National Association of Drug Court Professionals http://www.drugcourt.org

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies http://www.napsa.org

National Association of Sentencing Advocates http://www.sproject.com/nasa.htm

National Center for State Courts http://www.ncsc.dni.us

National Clearinghouse for Judicial Education Information http://jeritt.msu.edu

National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org
National District Attorneys' Association http://www.ndaa.org
National Judicial College http://www.judges.org
National Sheriffs' Association http://www.sheriffs.org
The Sentencing Project http://sproject.com
State Justice Institute http://www.statejustice.org
Supreme Court - Legal Information Institute http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/
Supreme Court of Canada http://www.droit.umontreal.ca/doc/csc-scc/en/
U.S. Federal Courts Finder http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDCTS/
U.S. Federal Courts Homepage http://www.uscourts.gov
U.S. Sentencing Commission http://www.ussc.gov
Understanding the Federal Courts http://www.uscourts.gov/understanding_courts/8996.htm

Corrections

AFSCME Corrections United http://www.afscme.org/acu/index.html

Allvest Information Services, Inc. http://www.allvest.com

American Correctional Association http://www.corrections.com/aca/

American Correctional Food Service Association (ACFSA) http://www.corrections.com/acfsa/

American Correctional Health Services Association http://www.corrections.com/achsa/

American Jail Association http://www.corrections.com/aja/

American Mobil Surgical Services, Inc. http://www.amssi.com

American Probation and Parole Association http://www.appa-net.org/

ARAMARK Correctional Services http://www.aramarkcorrectional.com

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers http://www.atsa.com/

Barringer Instruments Inc. http://www.barringer.com

Carter Goble Associates, Inc. http://www.cartergoble.com

Center for Sex Offender Management http://www.csom.org

CiviGenics, Inc. http://www.civigenics.com

Cornell Companies, Inc. http://www.cornellcorrections.com

Correctional Education Association http://sunsite.unc.edu/icea

Correctional Health Resources http://www.corrections.com/chr

Correctional HIV Consortium http://www.silcom.com/~chc/

Correctional Industries Association http://www.corrections.com/industries

Correctional Marketplace http://www.correctional.com/

Correctional Medical Services (CMS) http://www.prisons.com/cms

Correctional News Online http://www.correctionalnews.com

Correctional Peace Officers Foundation http://www.cpof.org

Correctional Physicians Services http://www.corrections.com/cps/

Correctional Services Corporation http://www.correctionalservices.com

Correctional Services of Canada http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/

Correctional Systems, Inc. http://www.crxs.com

Corrections Connection Network http://www.corrections.com/

Corrections Program Office http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo/

CorrLogic, Inc. http://www.corrlogic.com

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/

Court TV Library: Death Penalty http://www.courttv.com
Provides current information on high profile, civil right, Supreme court, and death penalty cases.

CURE http://www.pkdata.com/cure/

Death Penalty Information Center http://www.essential.org/dpic/

Durrant Group, Inc. http://www.durrant.com

Edwards System Technology http://www.est.net

Family and Corrections Network http://www.fcnetwork.org/

Federal Bureau of Prisons http://www.bop.gov

Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Information http://www.bop.gov/inmate.html

Federal Judicial Center http://www.fjc.gov/

The Florida Department of Corrections http://www.dc.state.fl.us/

HDR Architecture, Inc. http://www.hdrinc.com

International Association of Correctional Officers http://www.acsp.uic.edu/iaco/about.htm

ION Track Instruments http://www.iontrack.com

The Justice Net Prison Issues Desk http://www.igc.apc.org/prisons/

Management & Training Corporation http://www.mtctrains.com

Mental Health in Corrections Consortium http://www.mhcca.org/

National Center on Institutions and Alternatives http://www.ncianet.org/ncia

National Commission on Correctional Health Care http://www.corrections.com/ncchc/

National Criminal Justice Association http://www.sso.org/ncja/

National GAINS Center http://www.prainc.com/gains/

National Institute of Corrections http://www.nicic.org/inst

National Institute of Corrections (NIC), Community Corrections Division http://www.nicic.org/inst/nicccd.htm

National Sheriffs' Association http://www.sheriffs.org/

NIC Information Center http://www.nicic.org/

Office of Correctional Education http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/OCE/

The Penal Lexicon http://www.penlex.org.uk/

Phillips Swager Associates http://www.psa-ae.com

ParoleWatch http://www.parolewatch.org
Posts information about violent felons in the U.S. who are set for parole hearings, by State, and by offense.

Pretrial Services Resource Center http://www.pretrial.org/

Prison Activist Resource Center (PARC) http://www.prisonactivist.org

Prisons.com http://www.prisons.com/

Professional Bail Agents of the United States http://www.pbus.com

Rand Corporation http://www.rand.org

R.R. Brink Locking Systems, Inc. http://www.rrbrinks.com

The Sentencing Project http://www.sentencingproject.org/

State Juvenile Services http://ncjrs.org/corrstat.htm

State Departments of Correction - Links http://www.corrections.com/state.html#state DOC online

U.S. International Prisoner Transfer Unit http://travel.state.gov/transfer.html

U.S. Parole Commission http://www.usdoj.gov/uspc/parole.htm

U.S. Sentencing Commission http://www.ussc.gov

Vera Institute of Justice http://www.vera.org

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D