Strategic Planning

1. Strategic Planning Concepts and Considerations for Criminal Justice Integrators Implementing Criminal Justice Technologies in the 21st Century Seminar

2. Stratagem – a cunning method of achieving something, a piece of trickery Strategic – giving an advantage, a strategic position Strategy – 1) the planning and directing of the whole operation of a campaign or war. 2) a plan or policy of this kind, or to achieve something, our economic strategy Consider these definitions

3. Question • How is strategic planning different from project planning?

4. Some differences are… Project Planning • Develops a sequence of steps for project planning • Creates the budget • Develops implementation plan • Keeps all stakeholders on task • Develops training timelines including the costs of training Strategic Planning • High-level attempt to manage complexity and change • Long Term – involves phase planning • Designed to gain a strategic advantage • Used to create strategies to help an organization exist in an uncertain and changing environment

5. Question • If you choose not to develop and use strategic planning, what are the alternatives?

6. Alternatives to Strategic Planning include… • Continue with business as usual • Maintain reactive response to events • Use “intuitive” approach to management • Manage from the “gut” • Encourage manageable simplicity (eliminate all computers!)

7. Benefits of Strategic Planning • Opens communication channels • Serves as integration training for all who participate • Provides a sense of ownership to participants • Encourages agency buy-in • Even if the plan gets extensively modified over time, the planning process itself is valuable

8. Question What is different about strategic planning as applied to Integrated Justice?

9. Integration Strategic Plan Law Enforcement CHRI Repository Prosecution Courts DOC Integration strategic planning provides a mechanism for coordinating the interrelated parts of an enterprise, thereby avoiding fragmented, agency-centric business processes that compromise the efficient functioning of the enterprise as a whole.

10. Mission, Vision, Values Strategic Issues Goals Objectives Performance Measures and Indicators Sample Integration Plan Format

11. Mission, Vision, Values Strategic Issues Goals Objectives Performance Measures/Indicators Vision • A clear, compelling picture of the desired future state • Vision for integration should be driven by stakeholders

12. Mission, Vision, Values Strategic Issues Goals Objectives Performance Measures/Indicators Mission • A brief, clear statement of organizational intent and possibly the methods that it will use to fulfill its purpose • Brings clarity of purpose to participants and stakeholders and lets them know how what they do contributes to the greater good

15. Mission, Vision, Values Strategic Issues Goals Objectives Performance Measures/Indicators Strategic Issues • Identification and resolution of strategic issues are at the heart of the plan • Strategic issues are fundamental policy questions or critical challenges that affect mission, values, services, mandates, users

17. Mission, Vision, Values Strategic Issues Goals Objectives Performance Measures/Indicators Goals • Broad statements of intent to address and resolve strategic issues • Form the foundation for objectives, implementation strategies and action plans

18. Mission, Vision, Values Strategic Issues Goals Objectives Performance Measures/Indicators Objectives • Clear tactical, measurable statements of intent • Flow directly from each goal • Less general in nature than goals • Should be quantifiable and time bound

19. Mission, Vision, Values Strategic Issues Goals Objectives Performance Measures /Indicators Outcomes and Performance Measures • Outcomes are the benefits or results gained by reaching goals, achieving objectives and resolving strategic issues • Performance Measures are specific, measurable, time-bound expressions of future accomplishment that relate to goals, objectives and strategic issues

21. Using the “Scenario” Approach to Justice Systems Strategic Planning • Bring stakeholders together to develop a criminal justice scenario • Reach consensus on the desired state of integration • Define the current state of integration (baseline) • Quantify gap between current state and desired state • Use gap to initially define intermediate outcomes and develop outputs

22. Scenario Strategic vision Measure gaps between vision and current state Close the gaps

23. Scenario for Information Sharing • Defines the information sharing need from a participant/stakeholder perspective • Describes an ideal information sharing environment • Includes response time and information concurrency requirements

24. Appendix 2 Scenario for Information Sharing in Illinois This scenario identifies the future functions, range of information exchanges, and interactions needed among primary entities throughout the justice enterprise for information sharing in Illinois. The current technology for justice information systems was validated against this scenario to identify the gaps which exist today (Appendix 3). All members of the IIJIS Planning Committee, practitioners from a variety of justice disciplines, collaborated on the creation of this scenario. 1. Subject Not Present: A police officer preparing to conduct a traffic stop or when given an assignment prior to contact with any person, will submit a query to state warrant system (LEADS) and Secretary of State (SOS) to return information on persons and vehicles. The police officer will receive SOS and warrant data, digital photo(s) and officer protection information (i.e., field notification program, etc.) within less than 10 seconds within 24 hour currency. Additionally the officer should be notified that information exists from a variety of other sources such as: Criminal History Record Information (CHRI), Firearms Owners Identification (FOID), Automated Victim Notification (AVN), Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), bond status/conditions, probation/parole status and conditions, etc. within 1 minute within 24 hour currency. The information should be concise and uniform.

25. 2. First Subject Contact: Upon contact with a driver, or in cases other than traffic where a police officer’s contact begins with a person, the primary objective is to identify the individual, check the state warrant system (LEADS) and provide officer protection information. The officer submits an inquiry containing biometric and demographic (alpha-numeric) identifiers in order to verify the subject’s identity, and query the state warrant system (LEADS) and SOS. The police officer will receive SOS and warrant data, digital photo(s) and officer protection information (i.e., field notification program, etc.) within less than 10 seconds and 24 hour currency. Additionally the officer should receive a response that information exists from a variety of other sources such as: CHRI, FOID, AVN, IDOC, DCFS, INS, bond status/conditions, probation/parole status and conditions etc. within 1 minute and 24 hour currency. The information should be concise and uniform. 3. A. Non-Custodial Situation: In cases where direct filing is permitted in compliance with local rules on charge screening, the following applies. In a non-custodial situation where an officer effects an arrest, issues a summons, or notice to appear, the officer biometrically verifies the subject’s identity, the n digitally signs and electronically pushes the arrest/complaint (including a synopsis of facts) and/or crash report to the police information system, prosecutor information system, circuit clerk information system, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), probation, parole and INS information systems and any agency subscribing to the information.

26. Potential Downsides to “Scenario” Approach to Developing the Plan • Scenario develops “blue sky” view of integration that may never be realized • Expectations may be raised to unrealistic levels • Participants may have difficulty assigning priorities • Achievement of all scenario objectives may take years • Link between process improvements as described by scenario developers and end outcomes can be tenuous

27. The Gap Analysis – A Reality Check • Active process of examining the distance between the current state and the desired state • Answers whether skills and resources at hand are sufficient to close the gap • Determines if gap can be closed within the prescribed time period • No integration strategic plan can be complete without a thorough gap analysis

28. Scenario Validation Activities • Scenario validation focus groups • Analysis of state-level justice data systems • Analysis of state data communications infrastructure • Justice information exchange points model (JIEM)

29. Subject history and status shouldn’t require separate inquiries Inquiry from field should return only officer safety info Criminal history info is not current Police need access to incident report databases Digital photos needed Parole and probation conditions needed for street stops Live-scan is cost-prohibitive for small jurisdictions Checking immigrant status requires phone query Many warrants and most civil OP’s not entered into LEADS Many prosecutors and probation departments lack access to criminal history files Judiciary reluctant to use digital signatures and e-filing Video bond court expansion needed Sample Focus Group Findings

30. Infrastructure and Data Sharing Survey of Justice Agencies • Sent to a sampling of 450 police departments, sheriffs, state’s attorneys, court clerks, probation departments • Selected rural, collar and urban agencies (stratified regional sample) • Results indicate that while systems exist, electronic sharing is uncommon • Current information systems infrastructure in rural areas is behind that of urban counties

31. Scenario Strategic vision Measure gaps between vision and current state Close the gaps