LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT ON CORRECTIONAL DATA: AN OVERVIEW OF ACIS AND A REQUEST FOR A PROGRESS REPORT
Prepared for the Correctional Standards and Oversight Committee By Susan Byorth Fox, Legislative Research Analyst April 1998
ACIS stands for the Adult Correctional Information System, which is a computer applicationhoused at the Department of Corrections (DOC) that is designed to track prison inmates,parolees, and probationers from the time the offender is placed under the DOC's supervisionto the termination of the sentence. The Department of Institutions, precursor to the DOC,initiated its own automated database in 1984 and severed its ties to the state central dataprocessing system in July 1985. Information in ACIS includes personal information, criminalhistory and convictions, court orders, sentencing conditions, violations, and present locationin the correctional system.
The Department of Institutions' Corrections Division had published an Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 1988 in January of 1989 and A Report for the Fiscal Years 1989-1991, and a draft report was prepared but never published for fiscal years 1990-1994. The earlyreports included data extracted from ACIS on admissions, population, average length ofstay, average sentence length, county data, data on first incarcerations and convictions,parole data, convictions and trial data, age, race, and marital status data, and populationprojections. The most recent report was a different kind of annual report published in 1997. The 1997 Annual Report was a brief discussion on correctional programs and populations, achievements, security, management, mission and goals, legislation, and funding.
Correctional data and ACIS have been a continual area of interest to the Legislative Branchin the past few years. At a March 14, 1996, Legislative Finance Committee meeting, LisaSmith, Senior Fiscal Analyst, prepared a report, Evaluating Effectiveness of Corrections Programs, that described an initial intent to study whether the available data allowed an analysis of the effectiveness of community corrections facilities (specifically prereleasecenters). The Legislative Fiscal Division (LFD) staff attempted to use available, readilyaccessible data to conduct the analysis of the effectiveness of community correctionsfacilities, but discovered that the information that was available was not useful indetermining effectiveness and concluded that the DOC did not currently have an establishedmeans of evaluating the effectiveness of its programs. The LFD found that the DOC had noreadily accessible information on treatment programs that was recorded and updated on aroutine basis. Any information gathering would have to be by hand, which is time-consuming and labor intensive. By virtue of these conditions, the DOC was not conductingany performance evaluation of its programs. The summary, which remains true today,states:To make informed policy and funding decisions, it is imperative that both thedepartment and the legislature have access to information with which toevaluate these programs. In addition, the legislature must be given theopportunity to establish priorities among funding requests. Withoutperformance results, this opportunity does not exist and the legislature isforced to make decisions with no consideration of program effectiveness. Additionally, the department needs this information to determine how best toprovide these programs.
Without this information, neither the DOC nor the Legislature is capable of making fullyinformed proposals or decisions. ACIS was not specifically mentioned in either Ms. Smith'sreport, nor in Mr. Day's response, although both ACIS and a research unit had been in placesince at least 1985. Mr. Day informed the committee that the DOC had begun the processof program performance evaluation and needed additional resources.
On March 29, 1997, the Legislative Audit Division (LAD) released a Limited ScopePerformance Audit on the Probation and Parole Process. The report identified ACIS as anarea to be considered for further study. The most significant system limitations identifiedwere a:
lack of electronic access to system data by the Probation and Parole Bureaufield staff and the lack of regional or statewide community corrections activityreports to measure program success. Controls over this computer system andthe system development process within the department also appear to belimited.
In a June 13 and 14, 1996, DOC response to the Legislative Finance Committee, the DOCpresented three documents: "Output and Outcome Measures for Department of CorrectionsPrograms", "DOC Preliminary Five Year Information Technology Plan, 6/14/96", and "ACISReview Team List of the Department's Data Needs".
The 1997 Legislative Fiscal Report included the Department of Corrections InformationTechnology Plan in information regarding the Information Technology Bonds that wereeventually authorized in House Bill No. 188 (Ch. 447, L. 1997). The DOC received$1,890,408 for the biennium for a project to develop additional modules for ACIS asrequested by the Legislative Finance Committee and for additional plans that includedimplementation of imaging, bar coding, and digital fingerprinting technology; hardware andsoftware acquisitions to provide an interface between ACIS and the Department of Justice'sCriminal History Record System; installation of additional local area networks and networkupgrades for the DOC, general hardware/software acquisitions and hardware upgrades; andacquisition of equipment to establish a training facility. House Bill No. 2 also containedfunding for the DOC Corrections Automation Plan. The 1997 Legislature provided a total of$2.7 million in funding over the biennium, 80% of the DOC's request.
On November 7, 1997, an Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Audit was presented to theLegislative Audit Committee. In a letter dated December 23, 1997, the LAD requested anupdate of the implementation of recommendations in the EDP audit. The DOC responded onJanuary 5, 1998, with a letter and a document that the DOC is using to trackimplementation of recommendations.
On December 12, 1997, the Private Prisons and Programs Subcommittee's Ad HocCommittee on Sentencing heard presentations on sentencing data-related projects, includingthe DOJ Criminal Justice Information Services Project and the State Court Administrator'sautomation projects to ascertain the level of cooperation and data-sharing that is beingformulated into the new systems and coordinated with the DOC. Projects that werespecifically identified in the legislation funding the DOC information technology planspecifically include coordination with DOJ's Criminal History Record System and the SexOffender Registry. Integration of justice and law enforcement agencies is occurringnationwide and others experience may provide guidance. (For excerpts from a relatedarticle, see Appendix.)
On January 20, 1998, the State Management Systems Committee received informationabout the corrections information technology projects. The current automation projects andthe biennial plan were presented. Questions were asked regarding how data transfer fromprivately operated prisons would be handled. House Bill No. 83 (Ch. 511, L. 1997) requiredthat the contractor meet departmental specifications for transfer of data to the statesystem. The DOC intends to implement a new type of system that is Oracle-based toaddress accuracy problems previously identified in ACIS. The Committee was informed thatACIS contains only adult offender data and that juvenile data was in a separate systemunder DPHHS, the Child and Adult Protective Services or CAPS System. The JuvenileProbation Information System (JPIS) from the Board of Crime Control is being integrated intothe CAPS System as well.
The Correctional Standards and Oversight Committee has made a significant number ofrequests for information over the interim and has not been able to access that information.In some cases, the Committee was informed that specific requests could take from 120 to200 hours of hand tabulation. Areas of interest that either were or potentially should beable to be extracted from ACIS in the future include:
Historical demographic and sentencing data.
Correctional and treatment program information: how many slots; how many inmates; waiting lists; length of programs; effectiveness of programs using measures such as recidivism, how many drop out or complete programs, how many have to repeat programs; success upon parole or probation.
Ability to track inmates by classification status, housing, and movement through system.
Probation or parole recidivism by type of violation.
Medical information: status, expenses.
Good time data for inmates committed prior to January 31, 1997 and effect on population projections.
Based on their experience and the legislative interest in corrections data in the past 2 years,the Correctional Standards and Oversight Committee is seeking an update from the DOC onissues related to corrections data in general and to ACIS in particular. The Committee isinterested not only in basic technical information, but more importantly, in the progress thatis being made toward a reliable, accurate system that can provide the DOC, the Legislature,and other state agencies with information and data that is needed to formulate policy, tomake cost-effective funding decisions, and to provide for the transmission of criminal justiceand corrections data to other authorized users. Areas of specific interest include:
Progress made toward the Legislative Finance Committee's concerns regarding the effectiveness of community correctional programs. The Correctional Standards and Oversight Committee's interest extends beyond prerelease centers to include the Intensive Supervision Program, Boot Camp, probation and parole, and programs within the prison. Are there output or outcome measures for performance being further developed and operationalized and is a method to gather and update data on those performance measures being developed so that data is readily accessible for analysis?
What is the progress of data analysis needs and has the capability to answer legislative requests been taken into consideration?
An update on DOC's plan for information technology and computer automation in a report on the progress of House Bill No. 188 and House Bill No. 2 funds for information technology and computer automation, including:
addition of modules that were of interest to the Legislative Finance Committee and referenced in the 1997 Legislative Fiscal Report;
implementation of imaging, bar coding, and digital fingerprinting technology;
interface with the Department of Justice Criminal History Record System and the transfer of the Sex Offender Registry;
upgrades for DOC; and
acquisition of equipment to establish a training facility.
The progress on data transfer and information sharing between the DOC and regional correctional facilities and private prisons.
Interface between the various state agencies: DOJ and the Criminal History Record System and Sex Offender Registry; and the DOC tracking of youth offenders through the juvenile placement budget and its interface with the CAPS System, and the involvement of DOC financial specialists and juvenile probation officers.
A progress report on the EDP Audit recommendations.
As noted by the LFD, it is imperative that the DOC and the Legislature have access tocurrent and historical information on which to make evaluations of program performanceand to understand trends in corrections in order to make fully informed planning and policydecisions that make the wisest use of limited resources in this state. Decisions made nowwill have an impact far into the future, just as the Legislature and the DOC are dealing withthe consequences of past planning and policy decisions today.
NOTE: Copies of any of the information referenced in this overview are available from SusanFox, Legislative Services Division, or from their original sources.
