Arizona Records Improvement and
Information Sharing Strategic Plan
Progress, Challenges and
Recommendations 2011

March 23, 2011

Table of Contents

Overview of this Document ....................................................................................................................... 1
Agenda ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Disposition Reporting................................................................................................................................ 2
Law Enforcement‐Related Information Sharing ....................................................................................... 3
Priorities for the Future ............................................................................................................................. 5
Challenges ................................................................................................................................................ 10
ACJC Role ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 12
Year I ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Year II ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Year III ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Year IV ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Year V ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

Overview of this Document
In October 2010, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) solicited a facilitator to assist in leading
a group of state and local criminal justice stakeholders “to update and expand current long‐term
strategic vision for criminal justice records improvement and information sharing.” The outcome of the
one‐day strategic planning session was to provide the ACJC and its criminal justice partners with a
summary of proceedings and recommendations for short‐ and long‐term action to enable the state to
continue down its path of improving the quality of the criminal history records within the state, as well
as to promote cross‐agency information sharing among the justice enterprise.
This document comprises that summary and recommendations. It provides detailed information of
what the session facilitators – URL Integration – documented as the proceedings that day, as well as
recommendations based on best practices in the justice technology sector as to how the ACJC and its
project partners can continue making progress toward justice technology and information sharing goals,
notwithstanding the challenging budgetary climate the state is facing.
Specifically, this document reviews the information that was presented during the strategic planning
session, including the progress to date that the state has made in facilitating record improvements and
information sharing within the criminal justice enterprise, including the area of law enforcement‐related
information sharing via the state’s law enforcement information sharing program, which includes many
important initiatives such as a rapid response identification effort, a Justice Web Interface that connects
a number of agency law enforcement systems, and AZ LINK, which allows for the query of a number of
agencies’ information sharing systems. The document will describe participant goals and objectives for
record improvements and information sharing, based on their role and agency priority, as well as
challenges they face in doing so.
The second part of the document will focus on implementation steps and strategies that the criminal
justice community in Arizona can make to continue its success in facilitating criminal justice information
sharing, and to create a platform for facilitating workflow driven information exchanges between law
enforcement, prosecution, the courts, corrections, and other criminal justice agencies.

Agenda
The strategic planning session was held in Phoenix on Tuesday, November 9, 2010. The day’s agenda is
listed below.
AGENDA
Welcome

J.R. Blackburn, ACJC Executive
Director
1

Agenda and Meeting Objectives Review
Introductions & Discussion of
Participant Expectations for Session
Review of 2005 Plan and Progress to
Date
Identification of Priorities and Direction
for the Future
BREAK
Identification of Priorities and Direction
for the Future, cont.
Identification of Today’s Challenges
‐Identification of Criminal Justice
Agencies & ACJC Role
‐Process for Completion of the Strategic
Plan
‐Wrap Up
‐Next Steps
‐Meeting Evaluation

Rick McCoy and Liz Pearson, URL
Integration Facilitators
Group
Pat Nelson, ACJC Program
Manager
Bill Kalaf, ACJC CIO
Group

Group
Group
Group

Group

After the introductions and review of the agenda, an overview was presented of ACJC’s activities to date
in supporting criminal justice information sharing.

Disposition Reporting
The first presentation began by reviewing the criminal justice landscape in Arizona and discussed the
initial and current information sharing priority of improving the quality and timeliness of criminal history
records through the Arizona Disposition Reporting System (ADRS). The ADRS is a multi‐year, multi‐
agency initiative which has had dedicated funding from federal grants, individual agency, municipal and
county contributions. ADRS is part of the strategic integrated justice plan for the state to improve the
reporting of disposition and sentencing information from law enforcement and justice agencies by
expanding automation for reporting.
The ADRS was piloted in Maricopa County in 2005, providing a medium for the Maricopa County
Attorney and Maricopa County Clerk of the Court to enter disposition information via a web interface
directly to the ADRS program. Currently, testing is underway for an XML interface between the pilot
agencies, General Jurisdiction and Limited Jurisdiction Case Management Systems (AJACS) and the
ADRS.
The ADRS, which is housed at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), is currently being rewritten
to allow the state to support and maintain the system internally. With ACJC support, the vision is to
continue to roll out the ADRS system to all criminal justice users statewide.

2

The current ACJC governance structure that supports the direction and decision making for records
improvements and information sharing was reviewed as well as the various work groups established to
identify and address specific issues.

Arizona Records Improvement & Information Sharing
GOVERNANCE

State of Arizona
Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission

Strategic Planning
Work Group

Criminal Justice
Systems Improvement
Sub-Committee

Policy Team
Disposition Business
Process
Work Group

Funding Team

Technical Team

A large workgroup was established in 2008 with representatives from law enforcement, prosecution,
courts, pre‐trial services, probation, corrections and the state repository to concentrate on business
process improvements for fingerprinting, warrant processing and disposition reporting. It was noted
that the Disposition Business Process Work Group had been instrumental in providing critical business
process information to the criminal justice legislative liaisons as legislation to improve the fingerprint
process was crafted. The workgroup’s current activities focus on the warrant process and reporting of
failure to appear charges.

Law Enforcement‐Related Information Sharing
Next, a presentation was provided describing the state’s law enforcement information sharing program,
which includes a rapid response identification initiative as well as systems that support query and
information sharing among law enforcement professionals. The program addresses three strategies
identified in the Arizona Records Improvement and Information Sharing Plan to address the state’s
records improvement and information sharing goals, which was approved by the Arizona Criminal

3

Justice Commission in 20081. The strategies are: expand the subject identification capability to track
data across systems; deliver an integrated information sharing capability across justice systems; and
extend federal initiatives for statewide records improvement and information sharing. The cross‐agency
information sharing programs , AZ LINK projects, are governed by four separate regional consortia,
which share information among agencies within their regions, law enforcement agencies outside the
state, and federal law enforcement partners within the Department of Justice and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
From these four regions, an AZLink Oversight Committee was developed in order to ensure consistency
in the manner in which the regions move forward with priorities and to encourage the use of
standardized approaches among the regions. ACJC, working with the Oversight Committee, can
leverage the existing ACJC Policy and Technical Team infrastructure to implement and standardize
changes in policy and technology. The following graphic demonstrates these relationships regarding
strategic direction and decision making regarding these important law enforcement sharing programs:

1

The plan may be found on the ACJC web site at
http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/RcdsImpandInfoSharingPlan2008.pdf

4

Priorities for the Future
Participants spent most of the session discussing their information sharing and records improvement priorities. The following summarizes their discussions and priorities.

5

Continue the Momentum Begun with the AZLink Initiative and Improve Law Enforcement’s Ability to
Accurately Identify Suspects in the Field
There were several comments regarding expanding the successful AZ Link program, including:









Integrating greatest number of agencies possible into the AZLink program
Resolving business process issues around rapid identification and the ability to provide accurate
information to officers in the field. This includes exploring technologies to expand the ability to
make a rapid identification using biometric subject identifiers such as fingerprints and facial
recognition software
Expanding officer training as to why expanded biometric subject identifiers are relevant and
important to law enforcement officers as well as “downstream” justice agencies
Completing implementation of the rapid response identifier effort adopted by the ACJC in 2005;
this entails the ability to associate multiple identifiers with an individual and to be able to cross
check these identifiers with suspects as cases move through the criminal justice process
Ensuring that rapid identification occurs on a transactional basis in real time
Overcoming the disparities in resources among local law enforcement agencies for
fingerprinting and Livescan technologies.

Addressing Cross‐Agency Business Process‐Related Issues
The group discussed the importance of ensuring that the workflow of the criminal justice enterprise in
Arizona needs to be the primary driver of technology and automation. They discussed a number of ways
to support that concept:









Information sharing should be designed for the greatest number of common situations, not
exceptions.
There needs to be a forum/venue for discussing cross‐agency business processes and
information sharing issues. The group discussed the existing ACJC governance structure and
committees as a prospective venue for business process re‐engineering. This includes
developing an understanding of the information that should be shared, and the conditions
under which information should be shared, in an automated environment.
Arizona state statutes need to be updated to reflect the opportunities for information sharing as
supported by current and emerging technologies. The current statutes were written for oral
and paper‐based information exchange. The group discussed the fact that a comprehensive
review of these regulations should be undertaken to bring authorizing language into compliance
with an automated information sharing environment.
State agencies such as the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections, as
well as the judicial branch, would benefit from more uniformity in the business process among
local law enforcement, sheriffs, and prosecutors.
Policy, security, and privacy issues should be addressed at the forefront when establishing an
architecture and approach for statewide criminal justice information sharing.

6

Developing the Business Case in Support of Cross‐Agency Information Sharing
While there are currently state and local information sharing efforts underway in Arizona, participants
articulated the importance of developing a shared vision for information sharing in support of a
comprehensive statewide approach that incorporates local innovation but also standards and best
practices in justice technology. Specific ideas in this regard include:












Creating a baseline level of comfort concerning the use of relevant technologies. Practitioners
must have their concerns about information sharing addressed in understandable terms. One
way to create a comfort level for using technology, especially among agency leadership, is to
create peer‐to‐peer opportunities for exposure to effective information sharing programs.
Developing a “business case” for integration, as suggested above, for all criminal justice
disciplines at all levels, ranging from system users to agency leaders. The business case should
address concerns but should also describe in detail the benefits of information sharing
programs, as well as the tools – such as justice standards and an incremental approach to
implementation – that can be leveraged to make the job more manageable and less resource
intensive.
As part of the business case, developing a common definition of the criminal justice information
sharing process – from law enforcement through the court process and on to post‐disposition –
is critical to ensuring that all criminal justice practitioners and agency leaders understand the
importance of information sharing between agencies and how it benefits the entire criminal
justice system. This definition should be broad enough to address similar roles (police
investigators as well as the investigative function supported by prosecutors, the courts, and
corrections) across the criminal justice enterprise.
Making information sharing a component of day‐to‐day agency workflow and, therefore, a
mandatory part of the agency business process is the most effective way to ensuring that
information sharing is occurring and all of the benefits of technology are realized.
Quantifying the return on investment (ROI) that includes technology costs (one‐time and
ongoing operational costs), as well as the savings that are expected due to increased efficiencies
should be undertaken to help make the business case for information sharing and justify the
investment in these programs. Typically, these studies demonstrate what justice practitioners
intuitively understand – that technology is essential because inefficiencies of paper processes
are just too great. The efficiencies identified in an ROI can be a key selling point in adopting
technologies in difficult budgetary times, as the increased efficiencies and effectiveness that
technology brings is critical when doing more with less.
Document success stories based on using new technologies across criminal justice agencies.
Success stories can be found with the various integration efforts that are going on at the county
level in Arizona, as well as by looking to other jurisdictions across the county.

7

Moving Toward Electronic Filing of Criminal Cases
The Arizona courts are moving toward electronic filing. The group discussed the impact of that direction
in detail, agreeing that it presents an opportunity to broaden the use of technology and information
sharing throughout the criminal justice enterprise.






Innovation and technology investment in the Arizona courts will result in increased use of
technology around court processes, such as filing and sharing information about motions and
orders. One of the many benefits of a centralized court case management system (CMS),
coupled with the judicial branch’s autonomy, is that court administration can set and enforce
standard approaches for electronic filing with law enforcement and county attorneys by defining
specifically the information necessary for criminal filings and the mechanisms by which the court
will accept the filing information. This momentum can help demonstrate the value of
technology‐supported information exchange and set the stage for broader adoption of
workflow‐driven information sharing.
The court’s effort will require some uniformity in the use of data among court clerks and judges.
Coming to agreement about what data and forms are required will help encourage uniformity in
filing processes, which is an important first step in records improvement and information
sharing efforts.
The process of identifying requirements for and implementing criminal e‐filing will quickly cull
out information sharing gaps earlier in the process, between law enforcement and county
attorneys, as the e‐filing process will require robust information collection and quality of the
criminal record during investigation. For example, at filing, the court will likely be flagged if
fingerprints for the defendant are not part of the file. Identifying gaps of this nature will provide
the impetus for these other groups to identify inefficiencies in their processes.

Focusing on the Accuracy and Completeness of Criminal Records
Several aspects of the discussion focused on data quality issues and how to improve the accuracy and
timeliness of the information on which all criminal justice partners depend.
 Participants discussed placing a strong focus on creating an accurate and complete criminal history
record at case initiation (law enforcement) and using that information – collected once – to send on to
other criminal justice partners, such as the County Attorney, courts, and corrections. To do this
consistently, a strong emphasis must be placed on staff education and training that focuses on the
importance of information gathering and how that data is used by other representatives of the
criminal justice enterprise. Criminal justice practitioners need to understand that they play a very
important role in preserving accuracy related to the specific incident or case as they gather and record
information.
 Other components of records accuracy and completeness focus on the timeliness of data entry and
the use of valid and consistently used identifiers among criminal justice partners. The State of Arizona
has made a considerable investment in rapid response identification and ensuring law enforcement
have access to conclusive biometric identifiers. Not only do these biometric identifiers need to be
8

consistently included and preserved as part of the law enforcement record, decisions need to be
made about other identifiers, such as the State Identification number (SID), court case number, and
others, that must be included as a part of the criminal record so that information from system‐to‐
system can be linked based on these primary keys.
 The Department of Correction’s representative discussed in detail how important all of this focus on
records quality and completeness is for her agency. Corrections data is the culmination of all other
information gathering throughout the criminal justice process; corrections professionals need
accurate identifiers to ensure that the person they are incarcerating is indeed the person who was
charged, tried, and sentenced for the crime outlined in the record. Any business process review and
standardization efforts regarding key identifiers must include corrections representation.
 Finally, all criminal justice agencies have a growing need to be responsive to public records requests
and to be publicly accountable in their operations. This requires all criminal justice agencies to have
complete and accurate data in their systems of record, which makes the case for entering the critical
case or subject information a single time and letting the technology handle the information sharing,
which will reduce errors in critical case information.
Overcoming Disparities in Technology Among Criminal Justice Partners
A statewide approach to information sharing works if all participants have access to a baseline of
technology applications and infrastructure. Overcoming disparities is a significant issue; the group
discussed many strategies to try to address the problem.
In order for a complete and fully integrated information sharing effort to be successful, all involved
agencies need to have access to basic information systems, at a minimum. The group noted that many
county attorneys are not using technology at all, and several that do have information systems are using
outdated case management systems. This lends itself to workflow and business processes that likely
differ among all 15 county attorney agencies as well as city prosecutors in Arizona. For example, the
disposition information within ADRS would be very beneficial for county attorneys to receive, but there
currently is no interface from ADRS to county attorneys because of the disparities in the information
systems in use by those agencies.
The Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS) is a crash reporting and e‐citation system that DPS plans to roll
out for citation purposes and for automating the exchange of citation information to the courts. This
represents another opportunity to standardize business practice and create uniformity in data collection
and submission of citation information to the courts. TraCS was developed by the state of Iowa with
public funds, and therefore is a cost‐effective solution for other state and local governments. Using
TraCS should keep costs to a minimum and help smaller local agencies that may not have funds for a
commercial field reporting solution.


Conversely, larger law enforcement agencies may be using other solutions for field reporting
and related transmission of information to county attorneys and the courts. In Arizona, many of
these agencies use the Spillman field reporting and records management system (RMS). These
privately provided solutions will need to be integrated within any information sharing initiative
9

undertaken by the state, and specifically for any e‐citation exchange developed by the courts.
Similarly, many law enforcement agencies vary in older systems for record keeping and these
systems are not integrated across jurisdictions or other criminal justice agencies.

Challenges
Participants noted several challenges that impede the state’s ability to implement comprehensive, cross‐
agency information sharing in Arizona.
Forum for Addressing Business Process Issues that Cross Agency Lines
The group was unaware of any forum in which representatives from agencies that cross disciplines and
from the state and local level to come together to address business process issues, such as the
responsibility of fingerprinting for every crime. As an example, in the current business process, it is
unclear who is conducting fingerprinting and at what point in the process it does and should occur. As
such, there are times when a case/defendant progresses through the process without a fingerprint for
the specific offense having been collected. The current records improvement and information sharing
governance structure at ACJC may be able to meet this need by broadening or creating a new
committee to review a specific business process.
Lack of Standardization in Business Process and Forms
Similarly, the group noted that there is a significant amount of local autonomy in the creation and use of
forms, resulting in similar data being collected in a variety of different ways statewide. The group
discussed the imminent court electronic filing project and how this effort will be a vehicle to begin
standardizing filing‐related activities among county attorneys and local law enforcement. The group
agreed that this effort toward standardization (specific examples discussed include citations,
fingerprinting processes, and vehicle impounds) among law enforcement, jails, and non‐filing related
county attorney documents would be an important platform on which automation could be based.
Lack of Funding
The group discussed the lack of state money that has been available to support justice information
sharing. While included in several budget requests, the legislature has not provided funding to the state
to support records improvement and information sharing programs. And, while the influx of American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding helped support information technology related projects,
that one‐time influx of new funds will not continue. The ACJC, however, will continue to set aside
funding from existing federal formula grant programs – from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant program (Byrne/JAG) set‐aside and the National Criminal History Improvement
Program (NCHIP) specifically ‐ for records improvement and information sharing initiatives.
Quantifying the Benefit is Difficult
While ROIs are a powerful statement to justify the cost of a technology investment, quantifying the
benefits are challenging. For example, while new technologies improve law enforcement’s ability to
access the right information at the right time, it can be challenging to put a numeric value on public and
10

officer safety, especially when it comes to crimes prevented. However, borrowing measures from
other disciplines (such as the insurance industry) coupled with documenting successes using new
technology may be appropriate in justifying information sharing initiatives, and can help make the ROI
exercise more manageable.
Technology Disparities Among Local Agencies
The group discussed the fact that there are disparities in the types and levels of technology in use
among local criminal justice professionals in Arizona, especially among prosecutors and local law
enforcement. Overcoming these disparities will be key in ensuring that a comprehensive statewide
information sharing program can be implemented successfully in Arizona.
Need for Ongoing Training
The group discussed the importance of each profession within the criminal justice enterprise in
providing ongoing training to practitioners about the data they collect as part of an investigation or case
management. Specifically, the group noted that these practitioners needed to understand not only how
to collect that information properly but also why it is collected and how important accurate information
is throughout the criminal justice enterprise.
Systematically Address Privacy and Data Quality Issues
Consistent with the issues mentioned by the group around records quality and completeness, there
currently is no mechanism in place by which the state can comprehensively address – through a
statewide policy – the privacy and data quality issues associated with electronically sharing information.
Assessing current practices and developing baseline information practice principles and other baseline
procedures will ensure that all information sharing programs developed by the state occur in
accordance with applicable state and federal constitutional and statutory civil rights provisions.
Existing Statutes and Authorizing Language Needs Updating to Reflect Digital Age
The group noted that many of the existing statutes and regulations that dictate the criminal justice
process in Arizona were created for a paper‐based world.

ACJC Role
Part of the agenda at the strategic planning session was to identify the role that the ACJC could play in
continuing to foster records improvement and information sharing, while at the same time encouraging
event‐driven workflow between criminal justice agencies. The group was enthusiastic about the
leadership that the ACJC could take on in this regard, given its comprehensive view of the criminal
justice enterprise, and its unique ability to pull in all aspects of the criminal justice system, keeping a
comprehensive focus on the performance of the system as a whole (rather than just one aspect of it).
This comprehensive focus positions ACJC for convening and maintaining a governance structure that
includes both state and local criminal justice interests and best positions it to facilitate consensus
building among diverse interests.

11

In addition, ACJC’s involvement in national organizations allows it to bring back to the state information
about emerging standards, best practices and opportunities in the area of justice information sharing, as
well as emerging issues within information sharing that must be addressed, such as information privacy
and data quality. Within the state, the ACJC can help drive uniformity among business processes by
convening groups of state and local justice practitioners, identifying consensus areas, and helping broker
compromise among agencies so that all are willing to use a common document or data fields. This
commonality in business process and data collection will act as a platform for integration.
Finally, the group noted that the ACJC is in a position to take on feasibility studies to help make the
business case for justice information sharing, such as developing a cost/benefit analysis and return on
investment study to justify the investment in technology. In addition, the ACJC is experienced in
coordinating efforts across criminal justice agencies (federal and state) to obtain and manage funding
that promotes shared ownership of information systems.

Recommendations
Given the discussion at the strategic planning session, we have outlined several recommendations for
action that the ACJC could undertake – in conjunction with state and local criminal justice leaders and
practitioners from around the state ‐ to create momentum around records improvement and
information sharing in Arizona. It was clear from the discussion that participants had an overall sense of
enthusiasm regarding the successes that the ACJC has had with its support of AZLink and the disposition
reporting projects, as well as the prospective leadership role that it could play around encouraging
cross‐agency, workflow driven information sharing.
Many of the recommendations we are putting forward could be undertaken with limited monetary
investment. Most of this work could be undertaken with existing staff and/or with limited consulting
engagements working in tandem with state and local criminal justice leaders, agency managers, and
system users. This partnership is critical in ensuring an accurate portrayal of the criminal justice
technology environment in Arizona, which will best position ACJC and its stakeholder partners in
charting a course for information sharing and records improvement over the next several years.
The recommendation is to create a five‐ year strategy integration planning effort, implemented in
partnership with criminal justice stakeholders throughout the state of Arizona. This effort should build
upon the strategic plan approved in 2005. Based on a review of that plan and other governance
documents, as well as the outcomes of the strategic planning meeting in November 2010, we
recommend the following activities to best position the state for a comprehensive integration effort
over the next several years.

Year I
Understand and Document the State of Automation and Information Sharing Currently Happening in
Arizona
We recommend that the ACJC visit agencies and document the local level information sharing initiatives
that have grown organically within the state and review these initiatives using the 2005 Strategic Plan
approved by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission as a baseline for moving forward.
12

What must be understood is what is common among these initiatives, how the initiatives complement
or differ from the 2005 Strategic Plan, what can be leveraged for improving the statewide integration
effort. Furthermore, it is important for ACJC to understand and document the status of technology in
these agencies, especially among local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.
Given the fact that two Arizona counties – Maricopa and Pima – comprise a significant majority of the
criminal filings in the state, it makes sense to start with these two jurisdictions in terms of documenting
current technologies and what infrastructure and tools are needed to share criminal justice information.
In addition, these larger agencies will likely set the standard regarding interfaces with the court case
management system, jail systems, and other criminal justice systems.
Continue the Success of the Existing AZLink , ADRS, and Record Improvement Initiatives
The state of Arizona has had success with the AZLink and ADRS initiatives and should continue on its
current course of expanding and rolling out of those programs. This should be an ongoing activity over
the five years of the plan. AZLink and ADRS are foundations for building information sharing and key to
records improvement.
Partner with the Judicial Branch to Encourage Standardized Business Processes Around Electronic
Filing
The court’s electronic filing initiative will have a significant impact on the administration of justice in
Arizona. This effort provides a unique opportunity to begin conversations around how to make more
uniform the filing‐related processes between law enforcement and the county attorneys to the courts.
This conversation about uniformity in business process can then be expanded to law enforcement‐
related technologies and processes that support the uniform electronic filing effort, which ACJC can be
central in convening and supporting in partnership with the courts. The ACJC can help ensure the entire
criminal justice community fully understands the impact of the courts e‐filing on their workload and
workflow.
Expand Existing Governance Structure to Address Business Process Issues and Find Commonality
Among Local Business Process
The ACJC should convene working groups to assist in the resolution of form, technology and business
process disparities among local agencies in Arizona. The ACJC can help drive this change since its focus
on the criminal justice enterprise as a whole positions it to facilitate consensus building among diverse
interests.
This could be accomplished in a number of ways, leveraging the existing governance structure already
created by the ACJC to support records improvement and disposition reporting projects. The first option
would be to expand the Disposition Business Process Working Group to include other cross‐agency
business process issues. Another idea would be to create a separate Working Group to address each
specific business process issue, dissolving the group after the business process issue had been discussed
and a common agreement about how to proceed developed and was agreed to by participants.

13

The ACJC may be able to create a committee (or multiple committees) to address business process
issues that cross criminal justice functional area boundaries. However, recommended process changes
would need to have a formal approval governance body established (or utilize ACJC’s formal governance
body for formal approval).

Year II
Continue Partnership with the Judicial Branch to Encourage Standardized Business Processes Around
Electronic Filing
The court’s electronic filing initiative will have a significant impact on the administration of justice in
Arizona; we anticipate that the full implementation of criminal electronic filing will be an area of focus at
the end of 2011/early 2012. This effort provides a unique opportunity to begin conversations around
how to make more uniform the filing‐related processes between prosecutors and the courts. This
conversation about uniformity in business process and technology can then be expanded to law
enforcement‐related processes and technology that support the uniform electronic filing effort, which
ACJC can be central in convening and supporting in partnership with the courts. The ACJC can help
ensure the entire criminal justice community fully understands the impact of the courts e‐filing on their
workload and workflow.
Convene a Working Group to Review and Make Recommendations Regarding Statutory Change to
Support an Automated Criminal Justice Environment
The ACJC should leverage its ability to track and recommend legislation to convene a working
group/subcommittee to look specifically at updates to statutes dealing with the criminal justice process
to determine if and how they can be updated to be more technology friendly. This working group could
be a subcommittee of the current ACJC Legislative Committee.
Address Privacy and Information Quality Related Policies to Support Information Sharing
The ACJC should convene a group to discuss how privacy and information quality issues can be
addressed with cross agency information sharing, leveraging innovative policies in place at the local level
in Arizona, as well as national best practices regarding these issues. The results of this assessment may
also impact proposed legislative change.

Year III
Develop the Business Case, Return on Investment, and Messaging to Stakeholders and Elected
Officials Around the Importance of Integrated Justice
In addition, the group discussed the importance of having a shared, baseline understanding of the
current business practices within the state. The process of conducting this assessment and
documenting the findings would allow for all organizations in the state to understand the business
practices currently in place and for the identification of commonalities as well as gaps and challenges
being faced by local communities in Arizona. This understanding would provide a platform from which
specific information sharing strategies could be developed.

14

After the first two years of analysis and documentation, the ACJC, along with stakeholders, will be
positioned to develop documentation that helps make the business case to support a statewide
integrated criminal justice initiative, leveraging the successful programs in place in many Arizona
counties. It should also focus on developing a return on investment document, to justify the investment
in technologies, which will be offset by increased efficiencies in the criminal justice process and
enhanced officer and community safety. Specifically, the ACJC can go about this in a couple of ways,
such as understanding what the information needs are for law enforcement and county attorney
leadership with regard to information technology; developing messaging around these information
needs to assist these leaders in talking to their peers about information technology and sharing as a
priority; and helping set a vision among these leaders about how technology and information sharing
can support their existing ability to administer justice in the state of Arizona.
Present Recommendations Regarding Statutory Change to Support an Automated Criminal Justice
Environment to the Legislature
The ACJC should target the end of Year III as a time to present its findings regarding comprehensive
statutory change to the Arizona legislature.

Year IV
Develop a Statewide Integrated Justice Implementation Plan
After creating the platform for justice information sharing, we recommend developing a specific year‐
by‐year integrated justice implementation plan. This plan should focus on the incremental
implementation of priority justice information sharing capability, and should articulate priority projects
and associated costs, by year. This approach lends itself to a more realistic funding model to support
the integration effort in the long term, rather than relying on a single large appropriation from the
legislature.

Year V
Adopt an Information Sharing Architecture – based on industry standards
The ACJC should convene its technical team for the purpose of reviewing existing state policies and
requirements about information architecture, and adopting a technical architecture as the foundation
for cross‐agency criminal justice information sharing in Arizona. Where appropriate, we recommend
that the state consider the technical architecture set forth by the Global Justice Working Group,
leveraging the Justice Reference Architecture (JRA) and its use of service‐oriented architecture (SOA).
While some disciplines are currently using some of these standards, not all criminal justice disciplines in
Arizona have necessarily been exposed to the broader architecture and may not understand the value,
reuse, and efficiencies associated with these standards.
Establish the Funding Model for Comprehensive Cross‐Agency Information Sharing in Arizona
Once the Strategic Plan and priority information exchanges are outlined and supported by a
comprehensive information architecture, the ACJC and its stakeholder partners should implement a
funding model to support information sharing in Arizona. As suggested above, we recommend an
15

incremental approach to exchange implementation, which lends itself to a funding approach that
cobbles together a variety of funding approaches such as pool appropriations, contributions of operating
dollars from agencies, and grant funds to support commonly agreed upon information exchange
priorities.

16