Process Evaluation of the PCCD-Funded Offender Processing Technology-Live Scan and CPIN Attachment II

• NCJ Number: 221272
• Author(s): Karen Shastri Ph.D.; Holly Wald Ph.D.; William Nearhoof; Raymond Aull
• Date Published: 2003
• Length: 28 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Technical)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This Technical Infrastructure Assessment provides an evaluation of the CPIN and Live Scan to operate the technologies.

Abstract

Research findings reveal that the technology is suitable for its intended purpose, reliable, and accessible to users for input and query. The equipment appears to be well maintained, and judging by the responses to the contingency plan question, respondents indicated that CPIN and Live Scan are an integral part of the booking process. Very few reliability or performance issues between the sites and Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) headquarters in Harrisburg were reported. Turnaround time on RAP sheet printouts appeared to be acceptable. The cloning process continues to be used to distribute additions, changes, and deletions to keep databases uniform across all sites. There was a reported instance of a database that was different from the others, and some instances of slow coning; however, they appear to be isolated and not part of any widespread systematic problem. To reduce costs by eliminating the need to lease high speed data lines locations are encouraged to take advantage of Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET) connections once they become available in their counties. The CPIN upgrade deployment has brought this technology up to state-of-the-art level. The interface is highly intuitive and conforms to MS Windows standards. Additional built-in logic, particularly in the area of creating lineups, forces users to conform to evidence laws. Equipment specifications appear to be robust and should be able to handle current and future projected workloads. The vendor estimates that the current deployment has a 4 year life expectancy before a major upgrade is required. The results also indicate some system performance and training issues that may need to be addressed. With respect to Live Scan, the equipment continues to perform in a reliable fashion but has an average age of 7 years. Further suggested recommendations are detailed. 1 table, appendices A-D