1 / 47

Paul F. Kendall General Counsel Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice

Defense @ E-Business Executive Summit ”Distributed Networked Computing for a Secure Defense” Presentation by The Office of Justice Programs Information Technology Integration Initiative. Paul F. Kendall General Counsel Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice

lita
Download Presentation

Paul F. Kendall General Counsel Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Defense @ E-Business Executive Summit”Distributed Networked Computing for a Secure Defense”Presentation byThe Office of Justice ProgramsInformation Technology Integration Initiative Paul F. Kendall General Counsel Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice Crystal City Hilton Arlington, Virginia April 24, 2000

  2. Integrated Information Sharing Development of an Intergovernmental Justice Information Architecture

  3. Four Topics • Importance of criminal justice leaders in integration • Importance for Industry • Department of Justice’s integration and privacy initiative • Challenges, recommendations, and possibilities for collaboration

  4. Can America’s Justice Enterprise Be Integrated?

  5. YESWhy?

  6. Crime and Conflict Prevention Response Resolution Reentry Data/Information/Knowledge

  7. “Community Knowledge Management” “Information for Safe Communities”

  8. What is “Integration?” • What is “integration?” • A series of functions designed to enable the timely and efficient sharing of information within and between agencies. • Generally, the ability to input and seamlessly access and share critical information at key decision points throughout the justice (or government) process.

  9. What is “Integration?” • “Integration” encompasses: • horizontal information sharing between justice and public safety agencies within a jurisdiction or at a certain level of government (I.e. county to county) and • vertical information sharing between justice and public safety agencies at the local level, state level, and federal level.

  10. What can Integration Do? • Examples from state and local leaders: • Eliminate redundant data entry by entering information, once, at the point of origin and sharing this information • Increase accuracy and timeliness of available information • Ensure access to information needed to perform their jobs • Resource allocation and management • Treatment assessment and provision • Integrated sanctions • Research for crime prevention • Crime mapping

  11. Why Is Integration Important? • To improve justice officials’ access to information necessary to respond to criminal activity • To improve the operation and efficiency of the justice process; Law enforcement, prosecution, defense, courts, corrections, probation and parole to resolve the consequences of criminal activity

  12. Practical Goal • Mitigate any advantage or disadvantage resulting from inefficiencies in the flow information throughout the justice system.

  13. “Community Knowledge Management” “Information for Safe Communities”

  14. Criminal Justice Leaders • State and local criminal justice leaders are positioned to impact the level of information sharing • In the wake of Y2K, integration is the focus of technology planning and funding • It is essential for all component leaders to engage in a nation-wide integration effort

  15. Importance to Industry • DOJ encouraging broad collaboration • Federal support will become more targeted for interoperable systems • Federal emphasis on enterprise wide systems will be standards based • Markets will be less fractured as broad based integration becomes more common

  16. Industry Input • Industry input is critical to demonstrating technological possibilities • Industry is key to developing enterprise wide solutions • Industry ultimately will drive standards development

  17. Department of JusticeInitiativeJustice Integration Development of an Intergovernmental Justice Information Architecture Integrated Information Sharing Interoperability

  18. Department of Justice Initiative • To propel the criminal justice system into the 21st Century, there must be greater cooperation between all participants, all levels of government and between government and private industry

  19. Information Technology Investment • 5 years ago: $10 million dollars out of a $600 million dollar budget • Today: $750 million dollars out of a $4 billion dollar budget

  20. Attorney General’s Focus • Cooperation between federal, state, and local government and private industry • An end to smokestack development • Protection of privacy and security

  21. OJP’s Vision • To improve the effectiveness and fairness of the criminal justice enterprise through better information sharing among all its components By • Leveraging use of grant dollars • Developing strategies for development of intergovernmental information architectures

  22. Vision to RealityDevelopment of Policy Goals • Bottom up approach • Listen • Careful attention to state and local needs • Incorporate “what is going on” • Highlight innovation

  23. To Attain Objectives • Use funding streams as a lever • Build on existing efforts • Maximize collaboration, provide information on best practices • Mobilize the Department of Justice • Greater autonomy • Minimize federal mandates

  24. What OJP Did • Outreach to state and local governments and to industry and national organizations • How--series of conferences as well as additional forums for state and local input • Building broad based consensus on this collaborative approach toward achieving integration and identifying specific actions needed to facilitate integration.

  25. OJP’s Response • Develop a strategic plan to facilitate integration through grant funding guidelines • Develop targeted technical assistance • Develop a national clearinghouse for integrated justice information • Support standards establishment • Develop guidelines and tools to address information privacy issues associated with integrated systems

  26. Current OJP Projects • National Integration Resource Center • Industry Working Group • Interoperability Standards • Collaboration between OJP, the Global Criminal Justice Information Network, NIJ, NIST, PSWN • Identifying the IJIS Market • Privacy Initiative

  27. National Information Resource Center • Key component of Integration Initiative • Centerpiece for information on best practices and virtual community for supporting integration • Communication foundation for project collaboration • Start-up anticipated Summer 2000

  28. Industry Working Group • Initiated in 1999 - Headed by Mr. Paul Wormeli of Viking Technology, Inc. • Projects: • Industry presentation on how to design an integrated justice system • White paper on improving procurement process • Participation in standards initiative and NASIRE architecture project implementation • Development of an IJIS Institute

  29. Standards Initiative • Focus is to identify current interoperability standards and develop consensus within the justice and public safety communities around wireless and information technology standards

  30. Standards Initiative • Related Standards Projects • NCSC/COSCA/NACM Functional Standards Initiative • Court XML Initiative - COSCA/NACM/Legal XML partnership to develop XML standard for e-filing • Global Criminal Justice Information Network Infrastructure Subgroup • NASIRE Architecture Template

  31. Identifying the IJIS Market • National Conferences • solidifying “niche” markets, e.g., NAJIS conference for prosecutors, NCSC Court Technology Conference • OJP’s National Associations Conference • 28+ justice and affiliated associations all with integrated information systems as a top priority • Governance Structure Survey & Follow-on • Look into state and local government to determine level of planning and organization

  32. OJP Privacy Initiative • When encouraging the integration of justice systems and sharing of justice information, it is necessary to consider information privacy policy

  33. Can America’s Justice Enterprise Be Integrated? From a Privacy Perspective Should it?

  34. Answer YES

  35. Technology has Created a Tension • Between • The needs of the justice system • The new capabilities of interoperability • The current rules governing collection and sharing of information • And • The privacy concerns of citizens and organizations

  36. Privacy Initiative • Integrated Justice is creating a new climate of information collection, use, and sharing. • The information privacy discussion must be broadened to address the capabilities of today’s (and tomorrow’s) information technology.

  37. Privacy Initiative • Traditionally, justice information privacy policy has focused on the criminal history record, intelligence information, and juvenile justice information • There are existing laws and policies that govern these types of information and traditional methods of its use

  38. OJP Privacy Initiative • Collaborative Effort: • OJP Integrated Justice Privacy Initiative • Office of the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner • National Criminal Justice Association • Center for Society, Law and Justice (UNO) • FBI • Global Criminal Justice Information Network Advisory Committee Privacy Subgroup.

  39. OJP Privacy Initiative • GOAL: • to provide tools to the field to facilitate the successful implementation of privacy principles in new and ongoing justice information systems in state, local, federal, and tribal government [FIELD PRODUCTS] • to initiate a national and international debate on justice information privacy [NATIONAL DIALOGUE]

  40. OJP Privacy Initiative 2000 Projects • Field Products: • Privacy Design Principles for Integrated Justice [available - comments welcome] • Integrated Justice System Privacy Impact Assessment [Workshop 6/8&9] • Justice and Public Safety Public Access Guideline [Workshop Fall, 2000]

  41. OJP Privacy Initiative 2000 Projects • National Dialogue Projects: • Ethical and Privacy Implications for Integrated Justice - Think Tank • Justice Anecdotes - Marketing Integrated Justice and Privacy.

  42. Security Concerns • State and local governments do not fully recognize security risks • State and local governments tend to operate in denial • lack of resources to cope with security • State and local governments need to plan for security and privacy protections up front • More education is needed on these technology solutions

  43. Currently Available Products • Business Case for Integration • NASIRE Architecture Design • State and Local Governance Structure Survey [May 2000] • Privacy Design Principles for Integrated Justice

  44. Challenges to Achieving Integrated Justice • Institute appropriate representative bodies to govern integrated justice • Develop enterprise plans • Partner with other components to develop strategic plans • Pay close attention to regional strategic plans and architectural approaches when choosing products

  45. Challenges • Seek and obtain active participation from the user community • Training • “Buy-in” • Plan for the future of integrated Justice • Funding • Policy, including privacy and security

  46. So? Can it be Done? • Focus on the needs of the users • Focus on the needs of the users • Craft leadership as support and facilitation • Pay close attention to issues of Security and Privacy • Collaboration on enterprise wide information architectures

  47. get IT together AskOGC@OJP.USDOJ.GOV

More Related