The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, were awarded a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to identify and address issues affecting the reporting of arrest warrants and criminal dispositions from local and state originating agencies to state and national criminal records databases. Activities of the Warrant and Disposition Management (W&D) project include:
Determine current environmentThere were two surveys developed for this project activity. The first ("Full Survey") was distributed to state criminal records and warrant repositories and asked several questions regarding how effectively warrant and disposition reporting was accomplished in the state. The second ("General Survey") was an abbreviated version of the Full Survey and was distributed to law enforcement, prosecution, and court agencies in each state to collect their perceptions regarding the arrest, disposition, and warrant information received from the repositories. Together, these surveys were designed to gather information that could be used to 1) ascertain the perceived scope and nature of problems related to warrant and disposition reporting; 2) identify common issues that could potentially be addressed through some combination of technology, business process improvements, and legislative/policy changes; and 3) identify common factors among states that are effective (or ineffective) in managing warrant and disposition reporting. For details regarding the survey methodology and responses see W&D 2011 State Survey-Final Report.
Focus GroupsTwo focus groups, one to discuss warrant reporting and one to discuss disposition reporting, were held for this project activity. Each meeting included subject matter experts from a number of states, the FBI NICS Division, the FBI CJIS Division, and BJA. Meeting participants identified challenges regarding existing warrant and disposition reporting practices as well as theorized possible solutions for those issues ranked as "high impact." See below for the list of high impact issues.
|
Focus Group |
High Impact Issue |
Possible Solution |
|
Warrant Reporting |
Duplicate data entry issues and data entry errors during the warrant creation process as the warrant moves from agency to agency to be requested, approved, issued, and entered |
Encourage localities and states to move to an electronic warrant system |
|
Staff have to chase paper as the warrant moves through the creation, approval, entry, and service process |
Encourage localities and states to move to an electronic warrant system |
|
|
Agencies are not always notified in a timely fashion when a warrant is issued when it is a paper-based system |
Encourage localities and states to move to an electronic warrant system |
|
|
Current status of a warrant can be unknown or "out of sync" during the recall, cancellation, issuance process with many activities taking place at the same time |
Encourage localities and states to move to an electronic warrant system |
|
|
Some localities find it challenging to get warrants into NCIC in a timely fashion (if at all) due to limited resources |
Encourage localities and states to move to an electronic warrant system; establish policies and business rules for prioritizing entry of the most significant warrants first |
|
|
The validation rules of NCIC are perceived as cumbersome when resources are limited |
Relax validation rules; redesign validation rules to reflect an electronic enviromnent; make warrants available through NLETS |
|
|
Some states have multiple warrant databases which may create officer safety issues |
Develop a centralized or federated system where NCIC points back to all state databases |
|
|
Some law enforcement agencies are searching paper warrants |
Encourage localities and states to move to an electronic warrant system |
|
|
Local IT systems are not synchronized or integrated; lack of a standard data dictionary |
Encourage localities and states to move to an electronic warrant system |
|
|
Disposition Reporting |
The control number (created by the Livescan machine in most cases) isn't transferred across case management systems (e.g., law enforcement, prosecutors, clerks, court, repository) |
Develop policy that clearly defines the unique identifying number that will be used as a "control" number; this number should be maintained in all key systems |
|
Fingerprints are not collected when only a summons is issued, and defendants frequently do not appear to be fingerprinted at later points in the process |
Place Livescans in courthouses and/or courtrooms; law enforcemnt could use portable fingerprinting devices in the field; order fingerprints at first court appearance |
|
|
Not all localities or states are using a unified statute table, which leads to matching errors at later points in the process |
Encourage localities to map to state codes; automate statute mapping; establish a statute or a court rule that determines which agency is responsible for maintaining the official statute table and ensuring updates are sent to all relevant agencies |
The NCSC and SEARCH assisted several states with projects that addressed a warrant or disposition management issue. The objectives for this project activity were to 1) document current issues with warrant and disposition reporting, 2) develop site-specific information sharing and architecture implementation strategies, and 3) share lessons learned. Projects ranged from the documenting of business processes involved in disposition reporting to the observation of a Livescan implementation plan to the creation of technical specifications for an eWarrant system. The table below provides the title of each project. For complete details see State Initiatives, Warrant Activities, or Disposition Activities.
|
State |
Project Title |
|
Alabama |
|
|
Arizona |
|
|
California |
|
|
Kentucky |
|
|
Maryland |
|
|
Missouri |
|
|
Ohio |
|
|
Pennsylvania |
|
| Wisconsin | Prosecutor Technology for Case Tracking |
Develop Guiding Principles
Guiding Principles are the overarching concepts or values that drive strategies, goals and tactics. In the case of the Warrants and Disposition Management Project, the principles lead to specific recommendations and practical guidance that focus on improving the functionality of these capabilities and the exchange of relevant warrant and disposition data between all justice partners. In this toolkit, these principles decompose into specific actions or recommendations that can be implemented to improve business processes that align one or more of these principles.
- Establish Effective Governance
- Improve Automation
- Increase Situational Awareness to Improve Officer and Public Safety
- Rely on Biometric Identification
- Focus on Data Quality
One of the primary objectives of the Warrant and Disposition Management (W&D) project was to develop a “Toolkit” to provide information and guidance to practitioners for warrant management and disposition reporting to criminal history repositories. Because state court systems vary so much and because their information sharing capabilities also vary significantly, it is not possible to develop one standard action plan or implementation strategy for everyone that is meaningful and practical. The Toolkit was designed to include outcomes of the aforementioned pilot projects and practical guidance relating to the warrant and disposition guiding principles of: establishing effective governance, improving automation, increasing situational awareness, relying on biometric identification, and focusing on data quality.
The Toolkit is organized into three primary sections: Warrant Reporting, Disposition Reporting, and State Initiatives. Within the Warrant Reporting and Disposition Reporting sections there is information on the business processes and business functions related to each type of record as well as descriptions of the criminal justice disciplines that are involved in the reporting of those records. In addition, users can find examples of practical guidance and links to a myriad of technical resources. The State Initiatives section describes the pilot projects conducted by the state participants and offers access to the products and lessons learned from their Warrant and Disposition Management projects. This section also includes case studies and/or relevant information from warrant or disposition reporting improvement projects in other (non-pilot) states.
To introduce the Toolkit, NCSC, SEARCH, and state practitioners held webinars on Criminal Disposition Reporting and Warrant Management in April 2016.