Governance

Sharing and exchanging justice information in an automated fashion is a complicated process. It requires the state to play a leadership role in building the infrastructure that enables statewide information sharing, and to create, adopt and maintain state information systems and standards. Clearly, this is a significant challenge for state and local public policymakers and justice administrators.

The administration of justice includes numerous justice and nonjustice agencies, many of which operate myriad systems for collecting, maintaining, analyzing and sharing data and information critical to carrying out their respective missions. Creating the capacity to share information and data among and between agencies, levels of government and a variety of disciplines means overcoming established barriers to data exchange.Representatives of the various agencies, disciplines and levels of government, therefore, must come together and formulate and agree to a unified strategy for achieving interoperability. Planning for and implementing integrated justice is a complicated business that involves a multifaceted array of technical, political, organizational, legal, technical, cultural and personal issues that must be addressed. Some formal organizational structure is a necessary first step to ensure that the principal participants, stakeholders, and users are intimately involved in the project.

The governing body is the vehicle through which agencies, stakeholders and users participating in integrated justice strategically plan for integrated systems implementation. It:

• Articulates a united vision and determine the scope and focus of integrated justice;
• Identifies legal, policy, administrative, funding and technical requirements and other obstacles to achieving integration;
• Defines and sanctions project objectives, tasks and timetables;
• Garners support from other state decisionmakers;
• Monitors planning, implementation, and management activities;
• Defines integrated justice operational requirements;
• Oversees systems acquisition;
• Resolves obstacles to implementation; and
• Reviews system performance and makes recommendations concerning systems improvements, enhancements and next phases.

Source: Governance Structures, Roles and Responsibilities

Note: This definition applies to enterprise governance rather than a discrete project.

The term “governance” is sometimes used to describe a decision-making structure. Most appropriately, governance is the body or organizational structure guiding a larger interoperability process, as opposed to a specific project. For example, a multijurisdictional region may have an overarching initiative to improve communications interoperability. Or a state may have an interoperability executive committee (SIEC). Within those processes, there may be multiple projects being undertaken by a variety of involved partners.

We use the term “decision-making structure” here specifically for projects that have an identifiable beginning and end. Governance bodies generally serve ongoing initiatives or oversee management of multiagency systems after implementation. Processes to improve interoperability lead to projects and back to processes for managing underlying systems—organizational and technical—over their lifecycles. As systems become long in the tooth, processes to improve them arise again.

Source: Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Communications Interoperability

Ms. Karen Lissy is a Justice Information Services Specialist for the Law and Policy Program of SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. In this position, she provides assistance to state and local justice and public safety agencies to collect, curate, and use National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data and computerized criminal history record (CCH/CHRI) information for policy analysis and development.

She also guides justice and related organizations in how to craft and implement laws, policies, practices, and technology applications to effectively collect and use CCH and related justice/public safety data; address legal, policy, and regulatory issues associated with CCH data; better manage and operate criminal justice information and identification systems; and develop security and privacy policies that protect justice information sharing systems.

Ms. Lissy has nearly two decades of research and data analysis experience, having led projects and tasks in support of two agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (the Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute of Justice), as well as the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, and multiple foundations, including Ford, Annie E. Casey, and Hewlett. Prior to joining SEARCH in October 2020, Ms. Lissy served as a Social Science Researcher at RTI International, as a regional Crime Analyst for the Redmond (WA) Police Department, and as Director of a research program with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Beginning in 2012, Ms. Lissy’s work has focused on improving data in law enforcement to answer policy questions and improve community/police relations.

Ms. Lissy earned a Bachelor’s degree in Public Policy from Duke University, and a Master’s in Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.