Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program annual report for July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002 [2002]

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

STATE OF GEORGIA
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program
ANNUAL REPORT
For July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002

L. Gale Buckner Executive Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.

INTRODUCTION

II.

EVALUATION PLAN ACTIVITIES

III.

SUMMARY OR PROGRAMS, PERFORMANCE MEASURES, EVALUATION METHODS, AND

EVALUATION RESULTS

SECTION 1: DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - PURPOSE AREA #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 1.1: Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 1.2: School Resource Officer (S.R.O.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SECTION 2: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES - PURPOSE AREA #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ............................................................................ 4
Section 2.1: Locally Implemented Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Section 2.2: State Drug Task Force (SDTF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 2.3: Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Fugitive Squads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 2.4: Drug Enforcement Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 2.5: K-9 Resource Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

SECTION 3: FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS - PURPOSE AREA #9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

SECTION 4: COURT DELAY REDUCTION - PURPOSE AREA #10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Section 4.1: The Governor's Commission on Certainty in Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Section 4.2: Videoconferencing Links Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Section 4.3: Electronic Warrant Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

SECTION 5: PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE CORRECTIONS SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #11 . . . . . . . . . . 23

SECTION 6: OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS PURPOSE AREA #13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

SECTION 7: DRUG CONTROL TECHNOLOGY - PURPOSE AREA #15A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

SECTION 8: CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #15B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Section 8.1: Live Scan Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Section 8.2: Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

SECTION 9: DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM EVALUATION - PURPOSE AREA #19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

SECTION 10: ALTERNATIVES TO PREVENT DETENTION, JAIL, AND PRISON PURPOSE AREA # 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Section 10.1: Dublin Judicial Circuit Drug Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Section 10.2: Hall County Drug Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Section 10.3: Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts . . . . . . . 36 Section 10.4: Student Transition and Recovery Project (S.T.A.R.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

SECTION 11: ANTI-TERRORISM TRAINING PROGRAMS - PURPOSE AREA #26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Section 11.1: Terrorism Consequence Management Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Section 11.2: GILEE/Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Section 11.3: Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

SECTION 12: ENFORCING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT LAWS -PURPOSE AREA #27 . . . . . . . . . . . 44

IV. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION

APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D:

DARE Culmination Activity Report School Resource Officer Culmination Activity Report Operations Procedures and Case Management Standards for Task Forces CJRI Update

Executive Summary
The State of Georgia is unique when it comes to drug and violent crime problems. For example, it maintains a combination of several large urban populations, with surrounding rural counties. These factors bring many challenges to developing and administering a statewide strategy which will focus on the varied problems of the different regions of the state.
During the 2001 Grant Year, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (Council) acting as the administering agency for this purpose, worked with state, local government, and non-profit organizations to combat the drug and violent crime problem faced in each community throughout the state. As referenced in the multi-year strategy, the Council has engaged affected stakeholders and gathered their input concerning important issues. Over the past year, cooperation from these communities produced results in many areas with the help of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program (Byrne) and other federal and non-federal funding sources.
Planning efforts for this program, as required by BJA, are reviewed by the Council's Crime Control and System Improvement Advisory Committee (CCSIAC), which serves as part of the State's Drug and Violent Crime Control Policy Board. These planning efforts have been furthered in part by the Georgia Statistical Analysis Center (SAC). The SAC has been responsible for research in the past year that has provided needed planning information. Past research projects have focused on a statewide needs assessment of the criminal justice process as well as a survey of crime and justice in Georgia. Previous research has also looked closely at selected local multi-jurisdictional task forces in the state including the State Drug Task Force.
Specific goals have been identified and funding allocations have been established based on the program areas that are considered to have the highest priority. Georgia received a little more than $13.1 million from the Byrne 2001 award to the state and funded more than 70 projects in 11 of the 28 Byrne Purpose Areas.
These included cooperative projects such as multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, fugitive squads, school resource officer programs, regional K-9 projects, and automation of courts and court related agencies. There are seven areas of Georgia's criminal justice system in which improvement has occurred related to the state's ability to combat drug and violent crime:

Law Enforcement
S 6,316 drug arrests responsible for drugs being seized in a value of approximately $56,427,268 from local multi-jurisdictional projects which provide assistance to 89 of Georgia's 159 counties
S More than 1,411 fugitives were arrested by the two regional multijurisdictional fugitive squads in conjunction with local law enforcement
S Three regional K-9 teams conducted more than 17,003 searches for narcotics, firearms/explosives, human scent, and K-9 patrol. These were done for local, state and federal agencies, as well as private organizations such as private schools
Prosecution
S New Prosecutor and Indigent Defense Projects were implemented or enhanced to expedite the prosecution phase of the criminal process with automation equipment such as videoconferencing and case management software
Courts
S Drug Courts throughout Georgia were established and maintained during this grant year. Four Drug Court programs have started and funding was dedicated to the continued support of three others
S The Sentencing Commission continued its operation with a goal of producing guidelines for consideration by December 2002.
Corrections
S Continued funding for a Day Reporting Center Pilot in the Metro-Atlanta area to transition offenders in one or more areas of assistance such as, substance abuse, general educational development diploma, or employment
S A Livescan unit was piloted at the states largest correctional intake and diagnostic prison.
Juvenile Justice System
S 501 students have participated in the Student Transition and Recovery (STAR) Project which has dramatically increased the attendance and grades of

students who have been in trouble with either the school or the courts
Prevention, Education, and Treatment
S School Resource Officers responded to 1,056 complaints, effected 164 arrests, issued 217 traffic citations and 43 trespass warnings, and provided 164 instances of assistance to law enforcement agencies
Criminal Justice Records Improvement
S 433 audits of local law enforcement agencies were conducted to evaluate compliance with the regulations applicable to criminal justice records systems. This effort resulted in the collection of more than 15,281 delinquent criminal dispositions
S An ongoing automation process of all 159 Superior Court Clerk Offices to electronically submit final criminal disposition records, which is projected to be complete by the end of calendar year 2002.
S Livescan units were placed in 5 counties to further automate arrest and identification of offenders in a timely matter.

Introduction
Report Purpose The purpose of this annual report is to provide information to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) on Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program (Byrne) expenditures and project performance. The Byrne Program is designed to increase the effectiveness and enhance the capabilities of state and local criminal justice practitioners in their efforts to control drugs and crime.
Byrne Grant The Byrne Grant is administered by the Governor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Subgrantees are awarded funds on a yearly competitive grant application process in conjunction with areas determined in the previous year's strategy.
Overview of Programs as they link to program priorities articulated in the State strategy The Multi-year Statewide Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy described and prioritized areas of greatest needs. Efforts made during the 2001 Grant Cycle to address these needs are listed below:

Areas of Greatest Need in Georgia

2001 Grant Cycle Efforts

The many and continuous successes of the Multijurisdictional drug task forces in Georgia demonstrate that local authorities can work effectively to combat illegal drugs in Georgia's rural areas, where there is a need for the continued augmentation of law enforcement resources in order to adequately address violent and drug-related crime.

Approximately 67% of Byrne funds were dedicated to multi-jurisdictional drug task forces.

DARE, STAR, and SRO programs are needed in Georgia school districts to assist local law enforcement agencies in initiating school safety projects.

Funding was continued for DARE and SRO projects. Additional funding was provided for the establishment of the Rockdale County STAR program, with two existing STAR programs continuing.

Expansion of the K-9 team, so that more areas of the State can benefit from bomb threat responses, drug and safety searches in public schools, canine tracking of suspects.

Funding was continued for the operation of K-9 Units.

Areas of Greatest Need in Georgia

2001 Grant Cycle Efforts

Diversion programs for drug addicted adult offenders (e.g. drug courts, RSAT, etc.)

Funding was continued for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program (RSAT). Funding was provided for the establishment of a Drug Court in Hall County, and others still in the planning stages.

Improved coordination of law enforcement intelligence among federal, state and local agencies.

Funding was continued for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center. This project permits local, state and federal agencies to participate in a coordinated counter-terrorism intelligence network.

Regional intelligence coordination--resolve conflict and facilitate exchanges.

Funding was continued for the State Drug Task Force. Under the project, GBI's Regional Offices and Regional Drug Enforcement Offices act as a conduit in which information is channeled to remove any confusion concerning appropriate contact regarding the initiation of narcotics investigations.

The accuracy and completeness of criminal justice records, in particular criminal history records indexed to single and multi-state offenders, enhances the capacity of the state to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited persons, properly register and publicly list violent sexual offenders, and protect Georgia's children from child abusers.

Funding of projects under the Council's Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan was continued.

While currently more than 50% of the fingerprint workload of the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) is received electronically, many jurisdictions in the State lack "live scan" devices that permit the electronic transfer of fingerprint images and related data to the State agency responsible for the maintenance of Georgia's computerized criminal history database.

Funding was provided for five live scan projects in Ben Hill, McIntosh, Polk, Wilkes, and Early counties.

The automation of prosecution and judicial disposition reporting is a priority in Georgia. Paper disposition reporting methods do not allow for the identification of significant shortfalls in reporting, such as delinquent dispositions, and preclude expedited updates of important criminal history record information.

Continuation funding was made available to court clerks to automate reporting systems and create electronic interfaces with the Georgia Crime Information Center. It is projected all 159 counties will be submitting electronically by the end of calendar year 2002.

In 1999, Georgia's Governor began the implementation process to form a sentencing commission to assess the need for and to outline the plan for development of guidelines. As proposed by the Commission, the new sentencing guidelines would be voluntary in nature and would apply to all felony crimes in Georgia except the seven deadly sins.

Funding was provided by the Council's administrative funds to complete a 90-Day Study. Administrative staff continued research into the formation of a commission. A new commission was formed, and recommendations of guidelines for consideration are to be released by December 2002.

Areas of Greatest Need in Georgia

2001 Grant Cycle Efforts

Develop and implement effective day treatment centers for probationers and parolees with a history of substance abuse--alcohol and illegal drugs

Continuation funding was provided to the Department of Corrections to continue its Day Reporting Center in the Metro-Atlanta area.

Summary of Program Coordination Efforts and Activities The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (Council) is the central coordinating agency of the majority of federal criminal justice grant funding in the State of Georgia. The Council's formal membership, which is statutorily defined, includes a representative from every facet of the criminal justice arena in addition to its citizen members which are appointed by the Governor. This representation by a 24-member body allows for coordination of criminal justice activities and initiatives in a unique and innovative manner. The representatives from each agency are able to provide insight and direction to Council staff in its efforts to coordinate and update the state's strategic plans for drug control, Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRI), and crime victim services.
The Council has additional means of coordinating efforts by virtue of its membership on many committees and task forces. The Director and/or designee serve as a member of the DARE Board, an advisory member to the Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC), an advisory member to the Georgia Commission on Family Violence, and as a member of the Child Fatality Review Board. These committees and agencies provide invaluable insight to strategic development and the various needs of the state.
The funding set forth in the Multi-Year Strategy and the subsequent updates were made in conjunction with the goals described in the National Drug Control Strategy. Coordination and planning for the multi-year strategy included efforts to obtain input from diverse sources within the criminal justice system. These efforts include advertised public hearings, when a new strategic plan is required, to allow for input into funding priorities. During update years, public input is received at the bi-annual Council Meetings and at various committee meetings throughout the year. In this manner a dialogue can be established between various levels of government and community organizations to determine what programs are most desired and effective. These efforts are continued by providing time for public comment at each of the Council's formal Council meetings.

Evaluation Plan and Activities
The Council utilizes two primary methods to determine whether projects are effectively utilizing federal funds. The first is through a financial review that is conducted on each request for reimbursement processed for each individual project. The second is through quantitative factors that are reported by each project during the grant year. The factors are determined either by the project itself, if it is unique and not easily evaluated, and by standard measurers for more well known projects such as DARE, task forces, and school resource officers. This two part effort allows the Council to assure federal funds are spent in compliance with the grant program abstract and that results are being achieved.
During Fiscal Year 2001, the Council continued to utilize consultants teamed with staff to more effectively monitor Georgia's multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTFs). The results of the earlier site visits convinced the Council's formal members that a more in depth approach was needed to standardize task force operations. To this end, staff and consultants developed and finalized operating procedures in conjunction with Georgia Bureau of Investigation policies. To this end, all local MJTFs were monitored on-site throughout the state. In addition, all financial and operational procedures were documented and when applicable, corrective actions recommended and implemented to assure consistent operation by each local project. All local MJTF Control Boards indicated support for continued operation of drug task forces in rural Georgia where there is scarce additional resources to address enforcement of the drug trade.
Other evaluation efforts were mainly achieved through financial, desk audit, and comparative statistical reporting from the individually funded projects. DARE projects were monitored by the GBI's DARE Training Unit in addition to the submission of quarterly statistical data.
The Council will be partnering with ABT Associates, Inc. in the near future. The agency will be conducting an in-depth evaluation of Byrne funded task forces throughout the state. This initiative is promising, as the Council devotes a significant portion of Byrne grant funds to drug task forces. The Council's Statistical Analysis Center is currently nearing completion of a Crime Mapping study. The results of this study will be used in tandem with the Byrne program. The project will help to identify the areas of the state where concentrations of drug related crime are highest and are in need of greater assistance through the implementation of Byrne funded projects in that geographical area.

SECTION 1: DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION - PURPOSE AREA #1

During the 2001 Grant Cycle, the Council continued its commitment to addressing the issue of school safety through education and training. The Byrne Grant fortified this endeavor by providing the Council with the capability of assisting law enforcement in developing and implementing school based alcohol and drug prevention programs and in challenging the rising tide of violence on campuses. Table 1-A depicts the two types of projects funded and the total amount of funds allocated:

Table 1-A

PROJECT TYPE
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) School Resource Officer (SRO)

TOTAL # OF PROJECTS FUNDED
2
5

TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDS AWARDED
$25,500
$77,654

TOTALS

7

$103,154

(DARE)
Because the Council strives to promote and support strategies to reduce alcohol and other drug related problems among youth, two DARE projects were funded during the 2001 Grant Year. DARE is based on the premise that prevention can be a powerful solution to the nation's drug problem. The program is structured to provide school children with information concerning drug abuse, the negative consequences of abuse, and life skills for combating peer pressure. The most unique feature of this type of project is the utilization of DARE certified uniformed law enforcement officers as instructors. While the officers can be trained to present an instructional curriculum at both the elementary (5th and 6th Grades) and middle school (7th Grade) levels, only the elementary curriculum was funded during the Grant Year.
Goals, Objectives and Activities D.A.R.E.'s primary goal is to teach children how to recognize and resist the direct and subtle pressures that influence them to experiment with alcohol and other drugs. The curriculum strives to develop positive relationships between students, law enforcement officers, teachers, and the community. The objectives of the curriculum are depicted in the following chart:

Assist students in developing skills to recognize and resist social pressures to experiment with tobacco, alcohol, and drugs Increase student's self-esteem Teach positive alternatives to substance use Develop skills in risk assessment and decision making
The above curriculum is comprised of 17 lessons over a 17 week period and culminates in a graduation ceremony for the students.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

1

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods After each class of students graduate, the project is required to submit a Culmination Activity Report. The report is segmented by school, grade targeted, teacher, number of students taught and graduated, and dates of the term. The DARE Officer as well as their immediate supervisor is required to sign the report to attest to its accuracy.
A written narrative must also be submitted by the DARE Officer describing:
Evaluations and/or assessments completed by each student (most students are required to prepare and submit an essay describing what they learned during the term of instruction)
Any forms of informal interaction between the DARE Officer and the students
Any presentations made to the community promoting or providing information about the program
Participation in any enrichment or extracurricular activities
(Appendix A/Exhibit 1) Statistics The DARE Projects experienced a 99 percent completion rate with 613 of the 619 students successfully graduating from the course. The Culmination Activity Reports have been summarized and presented under Appendix A/Exhibit 1.
DARE Students Some of the elementary school students who took part in the DARE Program during the 2001 school year provided the best evaluation through essays written at the completion of their term. The following provides a snapshot of some of the responses students provided:
"I feel great about the D.A.R.E. program because we can learn how to avoid drugs and the people who use them."
"I think the program is a good program for kids because it is telling us about drugs and how to never do drugs."
"People that use drugs aren't bad people, they just made bad choices."
"Now I know not to do drugs."

DARE Officers DARE Officers interaction with students commenced in the morning as students were taken to school by buses or their parents. Considering the current rise of school violence on campuses, parents typically welcomed the presence of a law enforcement officer. As often as possible, officers had lunch with students and participated in physical education classes. To further cultivate a relationship with the students, the officers attended school events such as special holiday assemblies, carnivals, football

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

2

2001 Byrne Annual Report

games, field trips, and other school sponsored activities. Their participation was advantageous as it enabled students to view law enforcement as friendly and approachable. Officers also participated in leadership camps.

All of the DARE Officers made presentations throughout their community. For example, the City of Marietta's DARE Officer took part in numerous events to promote the DARE program. Events included, a Red Cross blood drive and a local nursery donated supplies for gardens to be developed at all three of the DARE Officer's schools as part of the students' culmination requirement.

Section 1.2: School Resource Officer (S.R.O.)
The positioning of law enforcement officers in Georgia School Systems for the specific purpose of deterring violence among students remained a key component of the Council's strategy during the 2001 Grant Cycle. These officers, known as School Resource Officers(SRO), act as liaisons between the law enforcement agency and school system. The officers investigate crimes and activities associated with misbehavior and also serve as counseling resources for students experiencing difficulties.

The Council requires that all Byrne funded SROs complete an 80-hour training course offered by the Georgia Police Academy. This training prepares officers to work in a school setting and teaches them the skills needed for interaction with juveniles and school administrators.

S.R.O. Results1

<

Responded to a total of 1,056 complaints (484 from other agencies and 572 initiated by

the SRO);

<

Effected a total of 164 arrests (29 for felonies and 135 for misdemeanors);

<

Issued a total of 217 traffic and/or citations;

<

Issued a total of 43 trespass warnings and/or citations;

<

Provided 164 instances of assistance to law enforcement and other agencies;

<

Recovered approximately 14.2% of reported stolen and/or lost property;

<

Conducted a total of 528 student conferences;

<

Completed 331 hours of instruction to students, teachers, and parents.

1The activities of the individual S.R.O. Projects are summarized in Appendix B/Exhibit 1

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

3

2001 Byrne Annual Report

In addition to the aforementioned, the following chart illustrates how an S.R.O. transcends the role of the typical law enforcement officer.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0%

SRO Assistance to Victims

Domestic Violence Suicide Intervention Stalking

Sexual Assault Child Abuse Other

SECTION 2: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES - PURPOSE AREA #2
The mission of eliminating violent crime and the illegal trade of drugs through a coordinated multiagency approach represents the core of the Council's commitment to Purpose Area Two. This endeavor, carried out by Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces, forges alliances among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to effectively reduce drug and violent crime in Georgia.

Byrne funding supports four categories of Multi- Jurisdictional
Task Forces in Georgia.

Local Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Fugitive Task Squads Statewide Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force Regional K-9 Multi-Jurisdictional Resource Teams

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

4

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Approximately 67 percent of Byrne funds were allocated to Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces during the 2001 Grant Year. Table 2-A provides insight into the number of projects funded and the total amount of funds allocated to each initiative:

Table 2-A

Task Forces

Total No. of Projects Funded

Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces

26

(Locally Implemented)

State Drug Task Force (State Implemented)

1

Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Fugitive Squads

2

(State Implemented)

Drug Enforcement Training

1

(State Implemented)

Regional K-9 Multi-Jurisdictional Resource

2

Teams (Locally Implemented)

K-9 Resource Team and State Certification

1

Training Task Force (State Implemented)

TOTALS

33

Total Amount of Funds Allocated
$5,759,857
$1,150,000 $324,962
$391,703
$267,000
$500,000
$8,393,522

Section 2.1: Locally Implemented Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces
A Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) leads as Commander of approximately half of the local task forces. The ASAC provides experienced, capable leadership and helps to ensure an organized and cooperative effort between not only GBI and the task forces but also other law enforcement agencies. The remaining half of the task forces are commanded by a local officer from one of the participating jurisdictions. A total of 26 task forces cover a jurisdictional area of approximately 89 of Georgia's 159 counties.
The Council has continued its commitment of providing funding to task forces across Georgia due in large part to the rural demographics of the state. Byrne funding enables drug enforcement in areas of the state that are very rural and do not have the local budgets to support such intitiaties. Additionally, the state's large number of counties adds to this resource problem, and multi jurisdictional task forces are a primary benfit given this unique factor to Georgia, as it breeds cooperation from multiple law enforcement agencies in order to gain financial assistance. This is the only program in Georgia where there are examples of state, county, and city law enforcement working together on a daily basis for a specific goal.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

5

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Cumulatively, the units seized more than $56,427,268 in drugs and resulted in approximately 6,316 (16%)2of the 38,3153drug arrests statewide. Table 3-A continues to underscore the task forces' importance by identifying the value of the different types of drugs seized4.

Table 3-A

Drug Seizures

Cocaine Crack Cocaine Cannabis Methamphetamines Opiates Stimulants Depressants Hallucinogens Counterfeit Prescription Other
TOTAL

$4,754,637 $818,813
$46,737,007 $2,574,387 $53,800 $4,617 $130,085 $341,582 $3,182 $325,932 $683,226
$56,427,268

Note: The amount of drug seizures listed above is particularly large considering that the average drug seizure case is not more than two or three $20 pieces of crack cocaine purchased during an undercover buy from the same offender.

Council's Taskforce Evaluation Process
During the reporting period, Council staff members again continued conducting site visits to the local Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces for the purpose of evaluating operational and financial policy. The visits also presented the task force members a forum to ask questions or address operational concerns. The staff performed audits of the task forces' financial management system, which included verification pertaining to the purchase of evidence and information. In addition, the visits included audits of the

2 This amount represents the majority of drug enfocement in rural areas and is particularly noteworthy considering that

81.5% of task forces lie outside of metropolitan statistical regions and that the remaining 84% of arrests originate primarily from local

task

forces3Tinhims enturompboelirtadnoeasrenaost

that are include

100% locally funded. marjiuana possession

less

than

one

ounce

as

drug

task

forces

do

not

typically

target

this

type

of

mis4dTehme evaanluoer

offense. of the drugs

for

each

task

force

was

calculated

using

a

standard

value

chart

obtained

from

the

Georgia

Bureau

of Investigation, which is shown in Appendix C/Exhibi 2.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

6

2001 Byrne Annual Report

forfeiture and operational accounts, utilized to verify balance and appropriate expenditure. Council staff members conducted surveys of the task forces' evidence room and reviewed grant purchased equipment. Furthermore, staff gauged activity of the unit's effectiveness by the size of the cases worked and/or targeted. The size of the task force (number of employees) was taken into account.
Each visit began with an introductory meeting and question and answer session. The visit was subsequently followed by the auditing of the above mentioned items. At the conclusion of each audit, questions and concerns were addressed between task force members and Council staff. Each site visit was followed up with a letter of compliance.
The Council will be partnering with Abt Associates, Inc. in the near future as the agency will be conducting an in-depth evaluation of Byrne funded task forces throughout the state. This initiative is promising as the Council devotes a significant portion of Byrne grant funds to drug task forces. The process will also serve to address recommendations by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in assessing the impact of task forces. This intitative has been delayed due to the lack of funding. However, BJA is in the process of coordinating state and federal resources to continue this effort in the near future.
Section 2.2: State Drug Task Force (SDTF)5
The Council recognizes that undercover agents are critical to the successful arrest of street-level narcotics dealers and users. It is for this reason that $1,150,000 was allotted to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's State Drug Task Force (STDF) Project. The Project furnished undercover operatives and surveillance units to Georgia law enforcement agencies grappling with narcotics-related and violent crime problems.
Under the project, GBI's Regional Offices and Regional Drug Enforcement Offices acted as a conduit in which information was channeled to remove any confusion concerning appropriate contact regarding the initiation of a narcotics investigation. After receiving information from the offices, Assistant Special Agents In Charge (ASACs) at the local multi-jurisdictional task force coordinated investigations. This effort strengthened the State's edge on the narcotics trade. The task force provided support to law enforcement in 21 counties and conducted 849 undercover operations during this reporting period. Arrests and seizure statistics are not relavent as they are reflected in local task face operations.
Section 2.3: Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Fugitive Squads6
Each year, thousands of individuals are wanted in the State of Georgia for violent and drug related crimes. The majority of these individuals are repeat offenders who maintain extensive criminal histories. Research indicates that many of these offenders travel to Metropolitan Atlanta and Middle Georgia, as the population and socioeconomic structure of these areas are conducive to the individual's attempts at supporting their fugitive status.

5Statistical data is not provided for this project due to the fact that the information is reflected in local arrest numbers and

local

multi-6jSurtaistdisictitcioanl daal ttaasiks

force numbers (depending upon not provided for this project due

the arresting agency). to the fact that the information

is

reflected

in

local

arrest

numbers

and

local multi-jurisdictional task force numbers (depending upon the arresting agency).

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

7

2001 Byrne Annual Report

The Metro Fugitive Squad is comprised of eleven different
agencies.
Five local agencies One federal agency Five state agencies.

The Middle Georgia Fugitive Squad consists of eight different governmental agencies.
One federal agency Three state agencies Four local agencies.

Because the Council is committed to rectifying this problem, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was provided with $420,312 for the continued operation of two drug fugitive squads covering Metropolitan Atlanta and Middle Georgia.
Both squads are based on a multi-jurisdictional approach involving the cooperation and participation of federal, state, and local agencies and required to report statistical and anecdotal data regarding the operational aspect of their specialized units.
The data submitted confirmed that during the grant year, squads apprehended and/or arrested a total of 1,411 offenders. Approximately 42% of the total arrests were drug or gang related. Some of the crimes and/or violations initiating the apprehension of these offenders were as follows:
557 of the offenders arrested were the result of probation/parole violations 473 of the offenders arrested were the result of drug violations
268 of the offenders arrested were the result of theft/robbery violations 65 of the offenders arrested escaped from either a federal or
state correctional facility
124 of the offenders arrested were wanted for the crime of assault/battery 129 of the offenders arrested were wanted for fraud/forgery violations 22 of the offenders arrested were wanted for murder

Numbers are clearly important to assessing the program effectiveness of drug fugitive squads; however, anecdotal data is eqaully as important. The following story is provided to shed light on the scenarios that the agents face each day:
On June 14, 2002, agents initiated a investigation concerning a fugitve who had been on the escape from a correctional facility in South Carolina since

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

8

2001 Byrne Annual Report

1995. The individual had been serving a life sentence plus 30 years for his crime. Through a lengthy and corrdinated effort agents determined the individual had assumed a new identity and was discovered to be working in North Carolina. Through the investigation, agents were able to provide North Carolina law enforcement with a possible location of the fugitive's employment. Just moments after locating his place of employment, he was seen leaving in his vehicle. Law enforcement personnel responded and arrested the fugitive without incident.
Section 2.4: Drug Enforcement Training
The Georgia Public Safety Training Center (GPSTC) administers the State Drug Enforcement Training Program (DET) through its Georgia Police Academy Division. The Council awarded $391,703 to this initiative during the 2001 Grant Year. With GPSTC being a comprehensive training complex for use by all state and local public safety units of government, the Council recognized the agency's unique opportunity of providing narcotics related training to law enforcement officers.
The DET Project provided 119 individual programs to municipal, county, and state officers on-site at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center or one of its academies. While local officers comprised a majority of the students enrolled in the program, application guidelines allowed course coordinators to give preference to drug task force members.
DET courses have been re-visited each year and changed to reflect new information concerning drug trends, techniques in fighting drug crimes, speaking patterns and symbols, gangs and school violence, cultural and language classes (i.e. Spanish I-III), and clandestine drug lab investigation. Table 4-A lists new and updated DET courses presented during the grant year:
Table 4-A
Updated / New Courses Offered Through the DET Program (2001Grant Period)
Georgia Gang Investigator's Course
Intercept of Secure Communications
Domestic Money Laundering
DEA Clandestine Laboratory Re-Certification
Methamphetamine 101
School Violence and Gang Training
Domestic Drug Interdiction
DOJ Investigative Technology
DOJ Investigative Technology for Supervisors

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

9

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Updated / New Courses Offered Through the DET Program (2001Grant Period)
Managing Confidential Informants
Operation Pipeline / Convoy Training
Due to the broad range of specialized courses, the DET Project was able to offer in-service classes to various local jurisdictions in addition to individual courses held at the Training Center. This represented a "holistic" approach to meeting the law enforcement community's needs, as in-service classes enabled entire agencies to benefit from training. Courses were offered at the Center when there was a need for certain specialized equipment. However, other courses that did not require these types of equipment were provided off-site via agency request. These courses were tailored to accommodate the needs of agencies requesting the training.
All of the courses offered under the DET Program were Georgia Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified. The following represented a sample of the courses the program encompassed:
Operation Pipeline / Convoy Training This course was designed for state and local law enforcement officers whose primary duties included drug interdiction and traffic enforcement. It emphasized the legal and practical methods of utilizing traffic stops for the seizure of contraband and/or money. Coordinated through the El Paso Intelligence Center and funded by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the course aimed to coordinate the seizure of contraband/monies into further enforcement activities including controlled deliveries and post seizure analysis. At the conclusion of the training, participants were exposed to the current case law regarding search and seizure as applied to highway interdiction. The course covered issues of consent, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause. The participants were exposed to visual and audio indicators of deception and possible indication of criminal activity as applied to the activity an officer performs during a valid traffic stop. The participants were exposed to concealment methods used by criminals in prior interdictions, and how indicators of deception led the officers to extend their roadside interview during a traffic stop.
Criminal Apprehension for Patrol This course assisted the street officer and supervisor in recognizing and effectively dealing with "traveling criminals." These criminals roam the interstates and secondary roads of Georgia, dealing in stolen vehicles, drugs, and illegal weapons and explosives. The training included drug interdiction traffic stops and placed heavy emphasis on officer safety.
High Risk Warrant Service This course was designed for officers in departments that did not maintain specially trained tactical teams and served felony or drug warrants with existing personnel. Students attending this course were trained in the development of tactical plans, briefing procedures, implementation of the plans, building clearing techniques, and after-action procedures. The course included a mixture of classroom training and practical exercises.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

10

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Technical Surveillance/Body Transmitters
This course was designed to address the law enforcement aspects of body transmitters in covert operations. The purpose was to present participants with the necessary training in RF transmitters and repeaters. It also updated officers on the new technology available and the proper use of existing equipment to aid in undercover operations.
Analytical Investigative Techniques Seminar
This course is intended for law enforcement officers who are involved in criminal and narcotics investigations. Classroom presentations include instruction in techniques used in investigative analyses of complex narcotics cases. Hands-on experience in a series of exercises allows students to become familiar with all techniques. Topics include Sources of Information, The Internet as an Investigative Tool, The Analytical Process & Analyst's Role, Link Analysis, Flow Charting, Telephone Toll Analysis, Computerized Spread Sheet Analysis and Charting and Case Summary Analysis.

Project Impact The subgrantee was required to provide the Council with quarterly reports utilizing such indicators as:

<

The number of courses available at the Training Center and at off-site locations. The Training

Center provided 119 courses on-site relating to drug enforcement to prospective applicants

during the 2001 Grant Period. Twenty-one classes were offered off-site.

<

The number of students attending training sessions. A total of 3,003 students attended these

training courses throughout the grant cycle.

<

The number of students successfully completing courses. A total of 2,943 students successfully

completed the courses offered.

<

The cost per student. During the 2001 Grant Cycle, the Training Center was able to offer 119

DET Courses at a cost of $36.59 per student.7

The Georgia Police Academy, Georgia Public Safety Training Center, network of regional academies, drug task forces, state and local law enforcement agencies, federal agencies, and other criminal justice agencies all worked together in providing the Drug Enforcement Training Project with guest speakers and students.

Section 2.5: K-9 Resource Teams
Beginning in 1997, the Council embarked on a strategy to establish K-9 Resource Teams in which specialized detector dogs were made available to local law enforcement agencies on a regional basis. This provided a success formula that mitigated individual agencies (in the requisite area) of the responsibility of managing, supporting, and training their own canine units.

7The dollar amount noted represents the cost to the grant on a per student basis.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

11

2001 Byrne Annual Report

The mission of the project was to provide quality service to law enforcement agencies by maximizing efforts in the location of specific evidence while reducing the man-hours required to accomplish an investigation. To achieve this mission, teams were centered around the following activities:

<

Safe school searches (narcotics and firearms)

<

Street sweep operations (narcotics and firearms)

<

Neighborhood drug activity suppression (narcotics)

<

Traffic safety checks (narcotics and firearms)

<

Service of search warrants (narcotics, firearms, explosives, human scent)

<

Recovery of evidence (narcotics, firearms, explosives, human scent)

<

Community drug education/detection demonstrations (narcotics)

<

Participation in multi-level narcotics interdiction efforts (narcotics)

<

Narcotics sweeps of correctional facilities (narcotics)

<

Explosive detector (threat response, physical security, VIP protection)

<

Tracking team response (criminal, search and rescue)

<

Cadaver location (criminal)

<

Operational planning and implementation (explosive threat, physical security, VIP

protection); (The K-9 Training Facility provides assistance with this activity)

The Teams may be comprised of one or more of the following components depending on the requirements and available assets of a specific region:

Narcotics K-9 teams for detection of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetmine, etc.
Explosive/firearms K-9 teams for detection of common military and civilian explosives
Human scent discrimination; hard surface tracking, rural tracking, evidence
Cadaver detector; decayed human scent
Patrol dog; (May be in combination with any of the above detector specialties)
Explosive incident specialist/K-9 liaison officer; Explosive threat and physical security planning and training

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

12

2001 Byrne Annual Report

The Regional K-9 Teams located in Chatham8, Dawson, and Richmond Counties have been able to assist local, state, federal, multi-jurisdictional, and private agencies over the course of the projects'
17,003 Total Searches
-15,299 for narcotics -1,704 for firearms/explosives -0 for human scent
8,655 searches conducted (local agency requests) 1,210 searches conducted (state agency requests) 968 searches conducted (federal agency requests) 113 searches conducted (Multi-Jurisdictional drug task force agency requests) 669 misdemeanor arrests 176 searches conducted (private organization requests) 427 felony arrests 132 educational demonstrations for civic, professional, and school settings

existence. This assistance made Byrne funded K-9 projects three of the most successful in the state. Initiatives for the 2001 Grant Year consisted of the following:
As noted above, the Chatham County K-9 program is larger than its counterparts based on the number of handlers. It is also the one state funded program and is manaed by the Georgia State Patrol. In addition, this program maintains a training component which is utilized by numerous task forces and other members of law enforcement. During this grant year, the task force conducted seven basic handler trainings which were attended by 22 total students, and handlers taught three advanced courses that had 11 total students.9

In adddition, to the above noted trainings the Chatham K-9 Task Force presented on the following subjects:

Subjects Taught Bomb Threat Management Ailiner Bomb Threat Scenario Bomb Scene Management Law Enforcement Responsilbilites
Bomb Threat Awareness

Number of Students 209 62 245 62 112

8This project represents a larger initiative and maintains a certification component for the Augusta and Dawson County

Teams.

Te9BnoctehrttihfieedBahsaincdHlearnsdfalellr

under the project. and Advanced Courses

are

divided

into

narcotics

and

explosives

sections.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

13

2001 Byrne Annual Report

SECTION 3: FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS - PURPOSE AREA #9 (1 State Project - $215,000

Unit
Due to the need in Georgia for the support of a statewide investigative unit to respond to the requests of local law enforcement for assistance in the areas of financial and computer investigations, the Council allocated $215,000 to the GBI Financial Investigations Unit (FIU). This Unit maintains personnel with the expertise to assist and train local law enforcement. They are skilled in public record research, the Bank Secrecy Act, financial institution operations, common business and accounting practices, source and expenditure analysis, and laws of forfeiture. The goals and objectives of the project follow:

Goal 1:

Maintain the required knowledge level of each agent and auditor to accomplish the tasks assigned to the unit.

Objective 1: Obtain the training required to assist GBI work units, multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, and other law enforcement agencies in the potential seizure of assets from illegal drug activities.

Objective 2: Maintain the expertise to provide law enforcement agencies in Georgia with a financial analysis of targeted drug violators.

Goal 2:

Provide agents and auditors with the equipment necessary to complete the tasks assigned in drug investigations.

Objective 1: Obtain the necessary computer hardware and software to outfit the agents and auditors to have a laptop computer and analytic software required to conduct financial drug investigations.

Objective 2: Obtain the computer hardware and software needed to conduct computer seizures and data recovery for evidential purposes in drug investigations and in other investigations.

Objective 3: Maintain a level of expertise necessary to process computer related equipment for evidence in drug investigations and other investigations.

Goal 3:

Train other law enforcement personnel in the basics of drug financial investigations and computer seizures.

Objective 1: Expand the ability of law enforcement officers in Georgia to conduct drug financial investigations.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

14

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Goal 4:

Increase the resources of FIU and dedicate a percentage of FIU resources to financial drug investigations.

Objective 1: Expand the ability of GBI's FIU to assist other law enforcement agencies, local drug task forces, and other GBI work units in financial drug investigations and in the seizure of assets either used to facilitate the crime or that are proceeds from the crime.

Goal 5:

Implement a program that evaluates Bank Secrecy Act information in conjunction with other public record databases for potential leads and targets of narcotic investigations.

Objective 1:

Expand the ability of GBI's FIU to assist other law enforcement agencies, local drug task forces, and other GBI work units with leads for potential narcotic investigations from Bank Secrecy Act information and correlate this information with other data available through government databases and commercial databases.

The Unit currently consists of a Special Agent in Charge, an Assistant Special Agent in Charge, a Forensic Auditor Manager, a Chief Forensic Auditor, two (2) Special Agents who work Cybercrime Investigations, seven (7) forensic auditors (two (2) of which are funded by the grant), four (4) Forensic Computer Specialists, a part-time secretary funded with grant funds, and an Investigative Assistant.

Grant funds and state funds have been used to assist in training and equipping four Special Agents from various GBI Regional Offices to conduct computer forensics. The four offices are located in Thomasville, Athens, Calhoun, and Statesboro. In addition, the FIU is in the process of training a Special Agent from the Eastman Office in computer forensics. These examiners are able to assist the Unit in the examination of computers seized in grant-related investigations, as well as other investigations. This has resulted in the state having better and more convenient coverage for computer forensic examinations for both grant funded and non-grant-funded investigations. The Unit continues to assist these field examiners in complex computer forensic examinations. Unit personnel also serve as the help desk for field examiners who come across hardware, software, or other computer examination issues that they have never encountered or are unfamiliar with the application. All of these field examiners have been equipped with hardware and software to conduct forensic examinations using both grant and state funds. Since July 2001, the Unit has opened 152 computer forensic cases providing assistance to 229 agencies and processed more than three terabits of information.

The Unit continues to provide essential support to the CJCC funded drug task forces and other law enforcement agencies in conducting thorough drug investigations by providing services in asset searches, financial analyses, net-worth analyses, and determining sources and amounts of unknown income that are indicative of illegal activity. In addition to the two grant-funded Forensic Auditor positions, other personnel in the unit assist in these investigations as well. Charts, graphs, and link analyses produced with grant-funded equipment and computer software produce investigative leads, as well as visual graphics that aid in the court prosecution of these cases. Due to the complexity of these investigations, many cases initiated in grant year 1999 remain open with members of the unit continuing to support the task forces throughout the case until it reaches final disposition. To date, more than $5.3 million in assets have been seized in connection with cases in which FIU provided assistance. For every dollar spent through this project, $6.25 were seized in assets used by drug dealers to facilitate their drug trade or that were proceeds from their drug trade. Since the grant project began in July 1998, a total of 109 investigations have been approved by the Control Board and worked by Unit personnel.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

15

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Specialized training needed by the unit's personnel continues to remain a high priority for both the Forensic Auditors and the Forensic Computer Specialists. This training is crucial in providing the personnel with the background, knowledge, and expertise needed to become outstanding investigators and the academic credentials to become expert technical witnesses. All training requests continue to be screened by unit supervisors and vetted by the Control Board for approval. Upon the unanimous vote of the Control Board, funds for the training classes are approved. Since the inception of the grant, the Control Board has approved Unit Personnel to attend 179 classes at an approximate cost of $123,713.
In addition to the training that the members of FIU receive, they also conduct numerous specialized training classes for other law enforcement personnel and the community. Since the grant program started in July 1998, Unit personnel have conducted 113 training classes for 4,721 students for a total of 1,026 training hours.
During this reporting period, the Unit SAC taught a class on "Awareness of Computer Crime Units for Police Executives" on behalf of the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies. Unit personnel also taught the Digital Evidence First Responder course for the University System of Georgia's Information Systems Administrators. This course was designed for, and is taught to, Information Systems Administrators, who truly are the first responders of Intrusion and Compromise cases involving computer networks. It is the intent of the Unit to honor these requests and insure that all parts of the state are covered as well. It is the Unit's desire to have this training available accross Georgia so all of the drug task forces can have the opportunity to send personnel.
Another area that the Unit is responding to is Internet Safety. The Unit has provided several classes to various communities on Internet Safety. Schools, civic groups, and concerned citizens are requesting this training. The SAC gave a presentation on Internet Safety for Educators at the Georgia Educator's Technology Conference. In addition, FIU personnel conducted an Internet Safety Train-the-Trainer class at the Georgia Emergency Management Agency, followed by an Identity Theft Investigations and Prevention workshop at the Ninth Annual Victims Conference Sponsored by the Georgia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (Council).
During the next grant year, the Unit plans to present a computer awareness class for executives at the Georgia Chiefs of Police Association Summer Conference in Savannah, Georgia. In addition, the FIU will make a presentation on the Unit's resources including the forensic auditor, asset forfeiture, bank secrecy act, and computer forensics programs at the Prosecuting Attorney's Council Summer Conference in Jekyll Island, Georgia. Each prosecutor at the conference will receive a copy of the CD "Prosecuting Cases That Involve Computers, Basic Information and Important Issues" because of the work by Unit Personnel, and many others at the National Cybercrime Training Partnership (NCTP). This CD was created and produced by the Prosecutor's Subcommittee through the NCTP's State and Local Committee.
The Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) and Western Union Data continue to be important programs handled by the unit. These two sources of information are gathered, screened, collated, and distributed by the FIU to drug task forces and other law enforcement agencies that have requested it to assist in their narcotics-related investigations. Sixty-eight (68) task forces and law enforcement agencies are currently receiving the Western Union data approximately every two-months either electronically or mailed to them on disk or hard copy at no expense to them. The SAR information also continues to be in great demand with virtually every CJCC funded drug task force receiving this information, in addition to a number of other law enforcement agencies. The total number of law enforcement agencies

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

16

2001 Byrne Annual Report

receiving the SAR information is now 41.
The Unit continues to work with the FBI and the Department of Banking and Finance to change the law dealing with wire remitters. In Georgia, wire remitters are required by law to maintain a log of any wire transfer of $3,000 or more. This log is subject to inspection by both the Department of Banking and Finance and law enforcement. The proposed change would require wire remitters to file a report to the Department of Banking and Finance, as well as the GBI, for any wire transfers of $1,000 or more. This proposed change could occur if the Department of Banking and Finance changes their administrative regulations. If the proposed changes occur, the FIU would be responsible for entering the reports into a database for analysis and distribution to other law enforcement agencies, as well as the drug task forces. This information should be very helpful in developing narcotic financial investigations and targets.
In addition, the Unit is working with GCIC and members of the Stop Identity Theft Network to develop a chapter in the Criminal Justice Information System Manual on Identity Theft. The Stop Identity Theft Network is chaired by the Georgia Attorney General's Office and its membership consists of the FBI, Secret Service, Postal Inspector's Office, Federal Trade Commission, the Georgia Office of Consumer Affairs, the GBI, various local law enforcement agencies and corporate entities including Delta, CocaCola, Equifax, Cox Enterprises and many others. The purpose of the Network is to develop training programs related to investigating and prosecuting Identity Theft for the criminal justice community as well as develop a public awareness campaign for the public. The Network is lobbying for a national database that would allow agencies from the criminal justice community, companies, and private entities, which must deal with Identity Theft, to gain information related to the victims and the perpetrators of Identity Theft.
This was the last year of funding for this project; however, the FIU continues to support drug task forces and other law enforcement agencies statewide in investigating drug related crimes. The Unit received a direct federal award to continue money laundering investigations.
SECTION 4: COURT DELAY REDUCTION - PURPOSE AREA #10 3 Projects - Two State Projects and One Local Project ($569,539)
Section 4.1: The Governor's Commission on Certainty in Sentencing ($500,000)
In July of 1999, Governor Barnes called together judges and prosecutors from across Georgia and advised them that he needed a plan to properly prepare for the State's future correctional needs. In August of that year, the Governor announced the formation of a 30-member Commission on Certainty in Sentencing and gave it 90 days to produce a plan. On December 1, 1999, the Commission issued a report to the Governor which proposed a system of sentencing guidelines that would apply to all felony crimes in Georgia, except those known as the "seven deadly sins." The report further recommended the formation of a commission or a similar body that would develop, prototype, implement and monitor the proposed guidelines.
The Governor's Executive Counsel sought funding and technical assistance to support the implementation of the new guidelines. The Governor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council assisted with the provision of Byrne Grant funds to carry out the recommendations proposed in the 90-Day study.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

17

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Project Results Reflected the Following During the 2001Byrne Reporting Period:

Survey of Key Opinion Leaders
The Executive Director of the Commission on Certainity in Sentencing traveled across Georgia for oneon-one discussions with judges, district attorneys, commissioners, and department heads for the purpose of learning the concerns and attitudes of those stakeholders involved and affected by the development of sentencing guidelines.

Establishment of a Research and Data Team

The Research and Data Team10 assisted the Sentencing Commission in setting a proactive research and data analysis agenda. The Team also ensured that timely, accurate, complete, and credible data was provided to Commission members to guide their deliberations. The Team began devising a system of Sentencing System Indicators that paralleled the Commission's main goals with respect to crime rates, truth in sentencing, sentence variation, prison utilization, alternatives to incarceration, budget planning, and public support. Possibly unique among Sentencing Commissions, the indicators will allow the Commission to hold itself accountable for progress, and permit the Governor, General Assembly, judiciary and public to measure the Commission's success.

The Team determined the most appropriate steps necessary for ranking offense classifications. The team decided, for example, the following:



Proposed historical offense severity rankings will be based on a sample of "pure" cases--first

offense, single crime sentences



Analysis will distinguish between trial and plea sentences

Establishment of a Legal Team
So that the Commission might successfully navigate through the complex legal environment in which guidelines will be developed, staff assembled a group of key attorneys capable of identifying and framing legal issues, and forming opinions and advisories useful to the Commission. The Legal Team consists of representatives of the following agencies: Department of Corrections, Council of Superior Court Judges, Governor's Executive Council, Prosecuting Attorneys Council, etc.

Symposium for Judges and Prosecutors
The mission of the Vera Institute of Justice is to help states develop rational and responsible sentencing policies. On August 30-31,2001 a team of seasoned practitioners came to Atlanta to provide technical assistance to the Sentencing Commission staff. Invaluable knowledge was shared by the practitioners regarding state sentencing reform. The Commission took advantage of Vera's expertise by hosting an Informal Breakfast Discussion with Sentencing Experts. Judges, District Attorneys, the Council of Superior Court Judges' staff and the Office of Planning and Budget were all invited to ask questions and share comments with the visiting experts and Vera staff.

10The Research and Development Team consists of members from the following agencies: Georgia Department of Corrections, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia Crime Information Center, Council of Superior Court Judges, Administrative Office of the Courts, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Office of Planning and Budget, and Applied Research Services, Inc.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

18

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Sentencing Commission Members

Governor Roy Barnes swore in Commission members at the Georgia State Capital on December 6, 2001. Commission members included approximately 20 representatives from various levels of the criminal justice process (e.g. judges, legislators, Pardons and Paroles, Department of Corrections, law enforcement officers, victim advocates, district attorneys, solicitor-generals, and public defenders).

The following goals of the Commission were outlined in the Governor's Executive Order:



To establish certainty in sentencing by ensuring that sentences imposed by the courts will

determine the sentences offenders actually serve;



To maintain meaningful judicial discretion in the imposition of sentences and sufficient flexibility

to permit individualized sentenced based on the circumstances of each case;



To concentrate current and planned prison capacity on the incarceration of violent, sex, and

career offenders;



To establish a comprehensive range of correctional options in each region of the state that

ensures offenders receive the most appropriate penalties; and



To ensure that there exist no unwarranted differences in sentences between offenders who have

committed similar offenses and have similar criminal histories

Certainty In Sentencing Commission Member Activities

Established Bylaws, Work Plan, and Meeting Schedule

Established three Committees: Guidelines, Options, Implementation



Guidelines Committee

Classifies offenses, offenders, disposition, and duration



Options Committee

Determines the organizational structure of alternative

sanctions, the target population and placement criteria,

the level of post-prison supervision as well as the

financing structure of alternatives



Implementation Committee

Includes the rules adoption process, potential

legislation, data collection and information systems,

budget issues, training and public education

Community Outreach Activities



National Association of Sentencing Commissions Annual Conference



Fulton County Drug Court Graduation



Atlanta Day Reporting Center



Meetings With The Following Groups:

Georgia Council on Substance Abuse

Office of Legislative Council

Indigent Defense Council

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

19

2001 Byrne Annual Report



Participation in a Day-Long Planning Meeting Regarding Policy-Driven Responses to Parole and

Probation Violations (Sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections)



Tour of Haralson County Jail



Department of Corrections Cognitive Skills Training



Superior Court Judges' Luncheon



Winter Conference of Council of Superior Court Judges



Sentencing Commission staff traveled to the Georgia Public Training Center to attend a

workshop on Cognitive Skills Training.

Research Conducted
Data Inventory Report
The Sentencing Commission staff compiled a Georgia Sentencing Guidelines Data Inventory Report which examined existing and proposed Georgia Criminal Justice Information Systems. The report outlined the data requirements necessary for developing sentencing guidelines.
Operational/Functional Elements
Commission staff researched 16 other states to determine the operational/functional elements relevant in building guideline systems. The data collected from other states is invaluable as Georgia structures its guideline system.
Offense Variables
Most guideline systems rely on the most serious crime of conviction as the basis for measuring the current offense. Commission staff researched the Georgia Code as well as other state guideline systems to determine the relevant elements in broad descriptive crimes such as burglary, drug offenses and aggravated assault.
Supplemental Data Collection
With the assistance of Applied Research Services, Inc. and the Research and Data Team, the Commission staff has developed a Data Collection Form that will be used in the field by volunteer Parole Officers as they collect the missing data needed to determine the factors that judges use to sentence offenders when offenses contain broad descriptions.
State Survey of Inchoate and Unclassified Felony Offense
Commission staff researched 11 other state guideline systems to determine how those states treated criminal attempt and criminal conspiracy crimes.

Key Definitions
The Commission adopted definitions of "conviction" and "sentencing event," which are fundamental building blocks of the guidelines system.

Offense Severity Levels
After reviewing analysis of current (1999-2001) sentencing and release practices, the Commission adopted tentative Offense Severity Levels.

Offender Record Categories
After preparing and reviewing an analysis of the factors other guideline states use to compute offenders' prior criminal history scores, the Commission adopted such tentative elements of Offender Record Categories as the following:

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

20

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Prior felony and misdemeanor convictions (to be weighted by severity) Prior juvenile adjudications (if an offender reached 25 with no adult convictions, juvenile
offenses that were not designated felonies would stop being counted) Prior convictions for similar offenses Prior probation or parole revocations Legal status (probation, parole, pretrial) at time of arrest Most recent prior arrest (to enhance punishment for more frequent offenders)
Population Simulation Methodology The Commission adopted the Population Simulation Methodology developed for the Georgia Department of Corrections by Dr. John Speir of Applied Research Services Inc. The methodology will allow the Commission to test the impact of its recommendations and make adjustments. The methodology is believed to be the most sophisticated of its kind in the nation.
Paperwork Flow and Data Collection Process Working with the Superior Court Clerks' Authority, the Commission drafted a data collection and dissemination process for the collection of sentencing worksheets.
Website Development With assistance from the Georgia Technology Authority (GTA), the Commission has established a state-ofthe-art system to distribute information and background materials for meetings. Replacing a cumbersome system of faxes and emails, the new system allows Commission staff to post materials directly to the Commission's website for downloading by Commission members, allied agency staff and other interested parties.
Section 4.2: Videoconferencing Links Project ($26,643)
In Georgia, all courts are circuit based (a circuit can include anywhere from one to eight counties). In many instances, it is more cost effective to deliver services via circuit rather than by county. However, due to the number of jails within a given circuit, barriers are often encountered concerning the availability of counsel for inmates. In order to begin processing a case, counsel or other staff must make trips to the jail(s). This has proven to be a very inefficient process based on the following:
C Many of the jails are in rural areas and staff members can spend more than half a day commuting back and forth. This is unproductive, because the individual will spend more time traveling than actually interviewing inmates and processing necessary paperwork.
C Secondly, the counties must not only pay the counsel but must also reimburse the individual for travel expenses.
C Additionally, screening, interviewing, and consulting with inmates presents a high security risk for the designated staff member as they are placed in a room with a potentially dangerous inmate or have to be escorted around the jail facility to meet with an inmate. This calls for additional jail personnel to be in place in case an incident occurs.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

21

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Due the above listed barriers, the Council again provided funding to the Georgia Indigent Defense Council to establish videoconferencing links between jails within the Augusta Judicial Circuit and county offices in an effort to provide each inmate with quality representation. Additionally, this technology allows judicial officials and counsel to communicate quickly and easily. The primary focus of installing this equipment is two fold; 1) reduce wasted time and cost for travel, and 2) increase efficiency of the screening and interviewing process, with the crucial goal of heightened productivity of overall case processing. More expedient pre-trial discussions and interviews have and will continue to reduce the overall time taken to process cases and provide more thorough representation for inmates. Each designated location has their own video telephone that allows each party on the line to view each other as they converse. This technology guarantees crystal clear audio and video for all participants. Currently, videoconferencing equipment has been installed in three of the four jails in the circuit, as well as the Augusta Indigent Defense Office and the Georgia Indigent Defense Council. Installing equipment at the Augusta Indigent Defense Office and the Georgia Indigent Defense Council allows the two main centers to correspond with the jails to interview inmates at all times. The videoconferencing equipment is being installed in the fourth jail, the Richmond Joint Legal Law Enforcement Center, and will be operational in the very near future.
The Georgia Indigent Defense Council began using the videoconferencing equipment in July of last year. During the period of July 1, 2001 through October 17, 2002, 990 inmates have been interviewed in the three jails as follows:

Richmond County 475 inmates

Columbia County 329 inmates

Burke County

186 inmates

The Augusta Indigent Defense staff and 26 appointed attorneys utilize this service on a daily basis. Having this equipment in place saves a significant amount of money as the Burke County Jail is 58.8 miles round trip, the Columbia County Jail is 53.2 miles round trip, and the Richmond County Jail is 12 miles round trip from the Augusta Indigent Defense Office.

Section 4.3: Electronic Warrant Interchange ($42,896)
Georgia Counties are experiencing remarkable population growths - these growths have caused increased crime rates, and a large number of the reported crimes are violent in nature, which can make the investigation and prosecution of the offender a lengthy process. Consequently, local government resources, used to combat crime, quickly dwindle, and law enforcement personnel do not have the time nor the means to effectively perform their duties.
Addressing the above described problem, involves a modification in the current Warrant Attainment Process through the implementation of an Electronic Warrant Interchange (EWI) System through the given county's Magistrate Court. Implementation of an EWI System will enable the given County, at a minimum, to:

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

22

2001 Byrne Annual Report



Effectively track and manage all warrants entered into the system;



Reduce officer time involved in initial warrants by eliminating the time associated with

driving from the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) site to the Magistrate Court and the

return trip in order to secure the warrant;

Forsyth County was awarded $42,896 of 2001 Byrne Grant funds to implement an electronic warrant interchange(EWI) system. In addition, the County established a videoconferencing link system that compliments the EWI component. The procurement and installation of needed equipment was a timely process. The program started in April, 2002 and has already shown particular promise in man-hour savings. As of August 29, 200211 the system had processed 789 warrants, with this quantity of warrants the savings can conservatively be equated to the following: average savings per warrant = 25 minutes x 789 warrants/60 minutes/hour = 328.75 man hours saved. Using the enrty level pay of an officer , this equates to a monetary savings of $7,347.89.

It is projected that the videoconferencing equipment and capabilities will provide the County with significant future savings. At this time, it is not possible to provide statistical data on the project due to technical problems that delayed implementation. The installation of the videoconferencing equipment was a slow process due to problems with cable lengths and boosted signal requirements. Officials are still working to make all the equipment operational with other existing set-ups. During the time that the system has been operational the length of the hearings has nearly remained the same because the questions and interplay with the judges remains constant; however, the physical relocation of the inmates is where the time savings is seen.

SECTION 5: PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE CORRECTIONS SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #11
Savannah Impact Program ($40,448)
After several years of declining violent crime in the City of Savannah, the instances increased by 12.7 percent in 1999 and 6.6 percent in 2000. An average of 26 homicides were committed annually in the mid-1990's and followed by 42 homicides in 1999 and 35 in 2000. Robberies increased by 31.8% from 1998 to 2000 and aggravated assaults increased by 6.9%.
Some believe that the increase in violent crime is largely attributed to a small group of repeat offenders. These offenders are often involved in the drug trade and are substance abusers themselves. A survey
of local inmates showed that 74% of violent offenders are drug abusers.
The City of Savannah decided to undertake the challenge of directing its efforts towards high-risk offenders who are on parole or probation as well as youth offenders through implementing the Impact Program. The Council approved funding for this three-year collaborative effort consisting of personnel from the Georgia Department of Corrections, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia Department of Labor, Savannah Police Department and substance abuse counselors who will work in conjunction with a host of community outreach programs.
The strategy of the Savannah Impact Program (SIP) is to take a population of offenders under
11 Because Byrne Grant funding was used to purchase the EWI equipment statistical data is provided through 9/29/02 to demonstrate implementation success.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

23

2001 Byrne Annual Report

community control, i.e., parole, probation, and juvenile probation, who are statistically at high risk of reoffending and do two basic things with them. First, intensely supervise them, using the leverage of their parole or probation to prevent them from having the opportunity to re-offend. Second, while they are under intense supervision, evaluate each client's needs in terms of factors that prevent them from being productive, i.e., education, employment, substance abuse, cognitive skills, and address those needs through appropriate training or treatment. Thus, the credo for SIP is Intense Supervision and Building Better Lives.
SIP is a collaborative partnership of agencies and persons who are committed to the rehabilitation of offenders. The chart below outlines the involved agencies and the staff committed to working with the SIP.

Agency/Vendor
Department of Corrections Board of Pardons and Paroles
Savannah Police Department
Department of Juvenile Justice
Department of Labor Southern Crescent Health Resources Chatham Co. Public Schools Behavior Interventions

Staff Assigned
One Assistant Probation Chief & Four Officers One Parole Chief & Four Officers
One Director, Five Corporals, One Secretary, &One Office Assistant Two JPPS II
One Labor Specialist Two Certified Drug & Alcohol Counselors
Two Adult Literacy Instructors One Juvenile MRT Instructor

Intense Supervision
Personnel assigned to the SIP are required to work and conduct interactions at non-traditional times to include evenings, weekends, holidays, and to be on-call. The evening activities include curfew checks, searches of parolees and probationers residences, monitoring program classes, attending meetings, and conducting late night and early morning warrant sweeps.
With adequate staff and manageable caseloads (program-wide 350 to start), parole, probation, and police officers monitor each offender closely. The SIP staff works with the court system to design and enforce special conditions of parole and probation best suited to keep individuals out of trouble. All offenders receive unannounced home visits from police, parole, and probation officers at a much higher rate than they would outside of the SIP, the most high risk offenders are subject to electronic monitoring, and as appropriate, offenders are required to obtain employment and stay current with any child support payments they may be required to pay. While it is clearly not the objective of SIP to send offenders to jail, offenders are taught to become accountable for themselves and their actions. Minor infractions of SIP often result in graduated sanctions, while more serious or repetitive infractions do result in incarceration.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

24

2001 Byrne Annual Report

SIP staff members are keenly aware that the first step to building better lives for offenders is building personal accountability, and they practice a very no-nonsense approach. Offenders who respond well and demonstrate sincere accountability are rewarded with reductions in sanctions, while offenders with poor attitudes and poor accountability receive increased sanctions. The SIP employs a fundamental approach to behavior modification with a relentless application of the basics. Nevertheless, intensive supervision is used to set the stage for treatment and training in the building better lives portion of the program.
Intense Programing
Equally important as intense supervision is intense programs/treatment aimed at high-risk/high-need offenders. The SIP provides a variety of cognitive, educational, and treatment programs in house. The ability to offer programs in-house allows for better continuity amongst supervising officers and treatment staff as well as immediate feedback. Services provided by the SIP staff include:
Behavior modification counseling Substance abuse counseling Electronic monitoring Adult Literacy Cognitive programing Personal finance counseling Drivers license training Life-skills counseling

SECTION 6: OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS PURPOSE AREA #13
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse maintains 80 percent of the men and women behind barssome 1.4 million individualsare seriously involved with drugs and the crimes it spawns.12 The Center further reports that these inmates number more than the individual population of 12 of the 50 United States.13 The Georgia Department of Corrections asserts that during the 2002 state fiscal year(July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002)that 22 percent (6,879)of persons admitted had a drug abuse problem and 13 percent (4,094) reported abusing alcohol.14
Purpose Area 13 allows the Council to assist the State of Georgia in addressing this problem through projects that have sound rehabilitative potential. Listed below is the one state project that was funded during this grant cycle.
12Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. December 1999. Onl11in34eIFb.isidc.al Year 2002 Inmate Admission Statistics. Georgia Department of Corrections. 2002. Online.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

25

2001 Byrne Annual Report

- 1 State Project ($211,719)
The mission of the newly established Atlanta Day Reporting Center (ADRC) is to offer a structured and effective community alternative to incarceration. The mission is acheved by addressing the specific needs of substance abuse, unemployment or under-employment, along with improving the chances for offenders to successfully integrate back into the community. In addition, the ADRC is working to address the lack of community-based drug intervention programs and will strive to reduce the recidivism rate of participating community corrections offenders. The ADRC is guided by both the Georgia Department of Corrections and the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. In addition, previously nonexistent, interdepartmental working relationships have been formed between employees of both departments.
Services are provided to offenders who appear to be failing under standard supervision. The center staff is responsible for case management including intake, referral for assessment, developing and monitoring the intervention plan, individual case evaluation, and program discharge planning. The center is also responsible for aftercare by providing linkages with community-based treatment/intervention to ensure continuity of services.
The Center strives to target both male and female probationers and parolees. Sex offenders and those with severe mental health and/or mental retardation are excluded from the program. In addition, offenders who have new unadjudicated offenses are not be allowed to participate. The average program length will be between six and nine months.
Offenders begin the program with a week of diagnostics and evaluation to assess specific risks and needs in each of the core areas. A combination of community service, cognitive skills, life skills, adult literacy, GED preparation, basic computer skills, and vocational counseling may also begin in the first week. Substance abusers, however, will enter a three-week psychoeducation course to enhance their motivation for treatment. Upon completion of this pre-treatment phase, those clients are randomly assigned to one of two substance abuse treatment programs.
Program participants may be enrolled in one of two GED classes. One class is taught through a partnership with the Atlanta Public School System. A computer lab has been installed at the ADRC and a University of Georgia professor has volunteered to teach basic adult education, GED preparation, basic computer skills, and a leadership development class. In partnership with the Georgia Department of Labor, The Offender Parolee Probationer State Training Employment Program (TOPPSTEP) will provide employment assessments, job readiness and job retention classes designed specifically to address offender needs. In addition to the above, program participants are required to perform 80 hours of community service. Restorative justice is an important part of the ADRC program. Through community service, offenders can begin making restitution for the damage their crimes caused to the community.
Program Highlights
The Atlanta Day Reporting Center (ADRC) has received 386 referrals since opening on April 3, 2001. Of that number, 82% were probation referrals and 18% were parole referrals. Two-hunderd-sixty-two offenders were accepted into the program and 124 were not accepted for failing to meet criteria eligibility. Of those referred, 68% (83 probationers and one parolee) failed to appear for intake. A total of 136 program participants were unsuccessfully discharged for various program violations. Twentyseven were discharged for continued positive drug screens (67% probation, 33% parole), 82 for

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

26

2001 Byrne Annual Report

absconding (78% probation, 22% parole) and 24 for a new offense (71% probation, 29% parole)15.

Graduation Results
Graduation results from the ADRC program during the Byrne reporting period are represented below (These graduates will be required to complete six-months of aftercare consisting of weekly group counseling sessions and random drug screening at the ADRC):



15 Offenders Graduated in October (35% Success Rate for their Cohort)



11 Offenders Graduated in December (58% Success Rate for their Cohort)



12 Offenders Graduated in March (Represented a 26% Success Rate for their Cohort)



18 Offenders Graduated in May (Represented a 46% Success Rate for their Cohort)

A total of 56 offenders have graduated from the Atlanta Day Reporting center representing $1,008,000 in prison cost avoidance. Those offenders have performed a total of 4,928 hours of community service valued at $25,379.

Drug Testing Results
Drug testing continues to be a critical program component and positive drug screen rates have remained low.

Month

Positive Drug Screen Rate

July

2.69%

August

2.78%

September

3.97%

October

2.74%

November

4.36%

January

2.8%

February

2.7%

March

3.6%

April

3.5%

May

2.8%

The average positive screen rate averages 3.1% in 2002. These rates also include positive alcohol screens.

15 Program participants discharged from the ADRC may have had mulitple infractions that are dualy reported. For example, a participant may have been discharged for a positive drug screen, as well as, for committing a new offense.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

27

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Program Enhancements In an effort to provide the most effective research based treatment for participants, additional components have been added to augment existing programming. Pshycho-education, twelve step study groups and aftercare classes have been added to the ADRC Program. The aftercare phase consists of six months of weekly group counseling and family therapy. Offenders continue to be randomly screened weekly. Two part-time certified addiction counselors were hired in November to coordinate the new programming. Additionally, volunteers, interns and practicum students continue to assume minor program responsibilities while gaining valuable field experience.
SECTION 7: DRUG CONTROL TECHNOLOGY - PURPOSE AREA #15A
Death Investigation Unit - 1 State Project ($300,188)
In today's world of crime and illegal drugs, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's Crime Laboratory must be ready to respond to the scientific needs of criminal justice agencies. The scientific information provided must be accurate and timely to enable these agencies to detect, apprehend, and prosecute criminals.
Services at the State Crime Lab are provided to law enforcement at no charge and are conducted through a series of seven laboratories strategically located throughout the state. The labs analyze questioned documents, trace evidence, latent fingerprints, firearms, alcohol and drug tests, and all human biological samples collected for Serology/DNA, toxicology, and pathology including specimens submitted by the medical examiner from autopsies performed to establish the cause of death.
The laboratories are experiencing an ever increasing caseload. In Calendar Year 1997, for example, requests for services increased from 111,320 to 118,342. The continued growth in caseloads has impeded the turn-around time in laboratory tests far beyond the established goal of 30 days. The GBI recognizes that new and expanded facilities must be built, scientific positions must be added for crime laboratories statewide, and additional equipment must be procured in order to address this problem.
The Byrne Grant provided funds to assist the agency in achieving the following goals to provide relief to the GBI Crime Laboratories:
GBI Crime Lab Goals
Enhance Services by providing equipment and supplies for an on-site drug abuse detection program.
Enhance Branch Laboratory Toxicology Programs.
Acquire and train new laboratory personnel to keep pace with continuing caseload increases in critical areas.

Major accomplishments within the 2001 funding cycle included: I. Pilot Site Activities
A. Problem solving Support continues to be provided to all sites when called upon, and the most frequent problems are instrument related. Assistance was provided via telephone and

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

28

2001 Byrne Annual Report

on-site evaluation. Problems were investigated at the Bartow County Sheriff's Office, Gwinnett, and Lawrenceville Police Departments.

B.

Re-testing Proficiency samples Samples were provided to the trainees that had been

previously tested at the GBI-DOFS toxicology laboratory to ensure accuracy of testing by the

trainees. Fifty samples must be successfully tested per operator in order to receive certification.

C. Updated/revised the written examination used to evaluate trainee ADx operators.
D. Ordering/providing supplies Orders were placed as needed to ensure the presence of all necessary supplies for the pilot sites and the GBI-DOFS Toxicology Section. Supplies were gathered and provided to the pilot sites to pickup/deliver on an as-needed basis. This activity was continued on a regular basis throughout the fiscal year.
II. Training Scientists and Technicians

A. Two firearm trainees attended a gunshot/primer school in Florida. The same trainees took part in a serial number restoration class also held in Florida.

B.

Two ME investigators attended a Death Investigation class in Missouri and Connecticut.

C. Conducted Toolmark Training Class

D. Immunoassays The principles of enzyme and non-enzyme based testing were taught to new DOFS Toxicology section employees. This training included the purpose, methods, and interpretation of analytical results. An examination was given and reviewed to ensure the information was assimilated by the trainees.

E.

Carboxyhemoglobin analysis and interpretation DOFS Toxicology personnel were successfully

trained.

F.

Maintenance and Operation of the IL 482 CO-Oximeter DOFS laboratory assistants

completed required training.

G.

Maintenance and operation of the IL 682 CO-Oximeter DOFS laboratory assistants

completed the required training.

H. Cyanide analysis and interpretation DOFS Toxicology personnel completed the required training.

I.

TDx Maintenance and Operation.

J.

Adx project was terminated. All of the customers were notified and the surplus of equipment

is in progress.

III. Performing Tests and Related Activities

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

29

2001 Byrne Annual Report

A. Carboxyhemoglobin tests Continued the responsibility of performing carboxyhemoglobin (CO service) tests. RUSH cases were processed as requested.

B.

Abbott FPIA Immunoassay Tests Acetaminophen, a drug of importance in medical examiners

cases, is tested utilizing the Abbott ADx or TDx. Tests for this drug were performed in such cases.

C. Performed pipette calibrations for pipettes located in room L2-13. This is an essential part of quality control for the analytical toxicology laboratory.

IV. Performing Analytical Method Validations and Studies

A. Sodium Hydrosulfite Methemoglobin Reduction Utilizing the IL 482 CO-Oximeter The utilization of this technique for improving the quality of CO tests in specimens that are modified due to heat and other decomposition processes has been available, but the methodology had not been incorporated into the procedures of the DOFS Toxicology Section.

B.

Initiated a study of the Palladium Chloride method to quantify CO in blood. A second method

that produces more precise objective data is needed to confirm CO tests. A scientist was

recruited to assist with the study, which is ongoing.

C. Evaluated the Roche TesTikTM field urine test device for potential use in law enforcement agencies.

D. Participated in a labwide study to establish the precision of testing procedures. Collected data and calculated the precision of carboxyhemoglobin and acetaminophen tests.

E.

Plan to purchase seven digital imaging machines. This technology will record the condition of

incoming evidence and technical notes of the scientists.

V. Other Miscellaneous Activities

A. All personnel positions were filled, except for one laboratory technician. The assistant in the Trace Section and Firearms Section located in Savannah, GA continue to perform tasks associated with the processing of evidence in death cases.

B. The ME Investigators and the ME Secreatry handle the flow of death investigations from the time of death to the completion of the ME service. They also schedule the court appearances of the staff to accomodate all of the various subpoenas.

C. Wrote standard operating procedure change requests as needed to update procedures. These requests related to the IL CO-Oximeters and the TDx analyzer.

D. The unit is in the process if converting microfilm records (1952-1980)to CD Rom.

E. Purchased a digital imaging unit for the Firearms Examiner in the Central Regional Laboratory, located in Macon, GA.

SECTION 8: CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS - PURPOSE AREA #15B

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

30

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Criminal Justice Records Improvement - 2 State and 5 Local Projects ($602,400)

Appendix D/Exhibit .
Section 8.1: Live Scan Devices ($727,400)
To hasten automation of record systems, the Council allocated funds to Ben Hill, McIntosh, Polk and Wilkes County Sheriff's Offices as well as the Early County Department of Public Safety. This assisted county law enforcement agencies with the following:
, Converting fingerprint records to digital images which could then be transmitted and stored electronically in computer databases
, Quickly transmitting live scan prints of persons arrested to the state and national repository
On the state level, the Georgia Department of Corrections was awarded funds to install a livescan system at Jackson State Prison. Jackson is the largest of the State's prisons (1785 beds), and serves as the diagnostic and classification center for the majority of inmates admitted to the state prison system. The livescan system is used to fingerprint all incoming inmates, and has made a dramatic difference in streamlining the current process.
Section 8.2: Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) ($425,000)
The GBI Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) is charged with the responsibility of entering data collected from various criminal justice agencies into the central state repository and providing technical assistance to agencies as the agency automates reporting of criminal dispositions through their local records systems.
In 2001, GCIC utilized Byrne funding to continue the audit of local agencies in attaining compliance with the regulations applicable to criminal justice records systems and appropriate reporting of those records. Cumulatively, the project has provided 433 audits of local agencies resulting in the collection of more than 15,281 delinquent criminal dispositions.
GCIC has also provided services utilizing other state and federal funding to accomplish objectives in support of the Byrne Program including, but not limited to:
Partnering with the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Georgia Commission on Family Violence to establish a Temporary Protective Order Registry.
Maintaining the Sexually Violent Offender Registry database and enforcing registration requirements in Georgia.
Developing and maintaining an instant gun check system to comply with requirements of the federal Brady Bill.
Maintaining Georgia AFIS to accept live scan transmission of fingerprints and providing technical support to assist local agencies as they receive and install live scan devices.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

31

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Full automation of Criminal History and Fingerprint Records
Support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Judicial Automation
Computerized Criminal History Redesign
SECTION 9: DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM EVALUATION - PURPOSE AREA #19
Board of Pardons and Paroles Evaluation of the Offender Cognitive Skills Program (Update)
In the last Byrne Annual Report, it was doumented the The State Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) was nearing completion of the University of Cincinnati's evaluation of the Board's Offender Cognitive Skills Program. In early 2002, the Board received a final report that covered the Phase II findings of the process evaluation portion of the study, and was informed that the Criminal Justice and Behavior Journal accepted for publication a paper on the evaluation of Phase I. The article was published in the Summer of 2002.
SECTION 10: ALTERNATIVES TO PREVENT DETENTION, JAIL, AND PRISON PURPOSE AREA # 20 - 12 PROJECTS ($599,688)
Section 10.1: Dublin Judicial Circuit Drug Court ($27,000)
The Dublin Judicial Circuit Drug Court continues to operate as a model for rural drug courts in Georgia. The Court recognizes the benefits of offering treatment to substance abusers ---reduction in case loads, court expenses for grand jury and prosecution, and the amount of jail space used by non-violent offenders. There are also social benefits to this type of program, as abusers are provided the opportunity to seek treatment and become productive members of society. All drug related cases are reviewed for possible involvement in the Special Drug Court Program. The fundamental goal of the Court is to offer treatment to substance abusers and to develop a more efficient and effective system of case management for specified drug related offenses.
The following individuals are eligible to participate in the Drug Court Program:
Adult Men Adult Women Nonviolent Offenders Offenders with Substance Addiction First Time Offenders Probation Violators

The Court operates in three phases and provides detoxification, outpatient, inpatient, individual counseling, and group counseling services. Participants must remain drug free for a specified period of

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

32

2001 Byrne Annual Report

time and cannot be rearrested.

The Dublin Drug Court offered the following statistics during the 2001 Grant Period:

Table 5-A

CLIENTS

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June

Phase I

12 11 19

20

18

7

Phase II 1

12

6

9

6

Phase III 14 12 12

10

9

0

Reffered 7

0 10

5

1

3

to

program

13

10

10

10

13

12

2

2

9

13

13

9

10

8

12

13

17

2

6

4

Grads

1

20

3

1

0

1

3

Sanctions 0

00

0

0

0

0

0

Did not

2

11

0

0

0

1

3

complete

1

0

3

0

0

0

3

0

0

*Dismissals during this time frame were a little higher than usually expected as the Court eliminated a few that were still pending but should have been dismissed during the previous judicial administration.
Section 10.2: Hall County Drug Court ($131,561)
Initial planning of the Hall County Drug Court began in March 2000, and the Honorable John E. Girardeau was appointed as the Presiding Judge. Judge Girardeau appointed a Steering Committee that was composed of representatives from the following entities:
District Attorney's Office Gainesville Police Department Hall County Sheriff's Department Multi-Agency Narcotics Squad (MANS)
Defense Bar Treatment Community
State Probation Pre-Trial Division

The Steering committee met weekly to design the operational procedures for the Drug Court.
Benchmarking: During the concept phase, Judge Girardeau appointed representatives from the DA's office and other court house staff to conduct fact-finding missions to other active Drug Court programs

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

33

2001 Byrne Annual Report

operating in Georgia. Benchmarking trips were made to Drug Courts in Bibb and Glynn counties. The information gathered was used in the planning of the Hall County Drug Court.
Collaboration of Stakeholders: In an attempt to minimize conflict among the various community agencies and to gain complete participation, the major players were invited to attend the annual conference of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). The conference provided awareness of the problem and a Drug Court as a plausible solution. In addition, it provided the buy-in for the Drug Court concept.
Facility Located: A suitable location for the Treatment Center was located, lease negotiated, and the appointed Drug Court Director moved in the facility in September 2000. Shortly thereafter, furniture and supplies were purchased.
Staffing: The steering committee developed a staffing plan that consisted of a Drug Court Director, administrative assistant, 2 case managers, and three counselors. This will facilitate treatment and provide offenders with evening group sessions.
Drug Court Start-up: The first court date was convened on February 7, 2001. On that occasion, two clients were accepted into the program.
Population Selection: Hall County is located in a rural area with a very demographically diverse population. Basically, the participant is very diverse.
Criteria the specific criteria for being offered to participate in the Drug Court are:
1. Possession of a controlled substance
2. Possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (where drug use is a contributing factor)
3. Prescription drug offense
Number of clients As of June 30, 2002, 104 active participants were being supervised in the program
Program Design This is a two-year, 5-phase program that focuses on intensive drug and alcohol treatment. A participant handbook and a policy and procedure manual are now in place. Curriculum and treatment standards are in keeping with future licensing and accreditation. The first possible graduates can complete the program in Feburuary 2003.
A decision on a participant's dismissal from the program is derived from recommendations from the team during weekly staff meetings. Each participant is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and all facts/circumstances are presented to the presiding judge. The judge makes the final decision based on information presented. Twenty-seven people have been dismissed from the program to date.
Treatment is organized in the following five (5) phases:
Phase 1 Attend meetings five nights per week two hours per night for a minimum of two months. In addition, one 12- step support meeting required on the weekend, and at least two drug screens per week.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

34

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Phase 2 Attend meetings three nights per week, two hours per night, for a minimum of four months with two 12- step meetings required, and at least two drug screens per week.
Phase 3 Attend meetings two nights per week, two hours per night, for a minimum of six months with three 12- step meetings required, and at least two drug screens per week.
Phase 4 Attend meetings one night per week, for two hours, for a minimum of 6 months with four 12 step meetings required, and at least one drug screen per week.
Phase 5 For a minimum of six months take part in aftercare/continuing care group, which convenes one - two times per month with a required four 12-step meetings per week. Drug screens are "more" random at this point but will average a minimum of 1 time per week.
Court Appearance: While in treatment, clients are required to report to court weekly in Phases one - three, every other week in phase four, and a minimum of one time per month in phase five.
Group Process: The Group process is used primarily; however, there are individuals who have more specific needs. The program commences with basic education of the disease concept and gradually begins addressing all areas of life including: family, social, health, spiritual, mental/emotional, and educational. Any area that can not be addressed in-house, is directed to a certified treatment provider. Theses providers are used on an as needed basis.
Hall County Drug Court Clients - February 7, 2001 - June 30, 2002

Table 6-A
Totals Race White Black Hispanic Ethnicity Black Hispanic Mexican Puerto Rican None Noted Gender Male

Considered 290
233/76.90% 62/21.38%
5/1.72%
1/0.34% 7/2.41% 4/1.38% 1/0.34% 277/95.52%
201/69.31%

Selected 131/45.17%
113/86.26% 17/12.98%
1/0.76%
0/0% 7/5.34% 4/3.05 1/0.76% 119/90.84%
85/64.89%

Declined 59/20.34%

Not Selected 95/32.76%

46/77.97% 11/18.64%
2/3.39%

58/61.05% 34/35.79%
3/3.16%

0/0% 1/1.69%
0/0% 0/0% 58/98.31%

1/1.055 3/3.16% 4/4.21%
0/0% 87/91.58%

40/67.80%

73/76.84%

Pending 5/1.72%
5/100% 0/0% 0/0%
0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 5/100%
3/60%

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

35

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Female Age 17-18 19-21 22-30 31-40 41 & Older Not Listed

Considered 89/30.69%

Selected 46/35.11%

Declined 19/32.20%

Not Selected 22/23.16%

Pending 2/40%

16/5.52% 69/23.79% 70/24.14% 85/29.31% 48/16.55%
2/0.69%

7/5.34% 28/21.37% 36/27.48% 44/33.59% 15/11.45%
1/0.76%

2/3.39% 10/16.95% 11/18.64% 19/32.20% 17/28.81%
0/0%

7/7.37% 31/32.63% 22/23.16% 20/21.05% 14/14.74%
1/1.05%

0/0% 0/0% 1/20% 2/40% 2/40% 0/0%

Section 10.3: Supreme Court Committee on Substance Abuse and the Courts ($243,750)
The Supreme Court of Georgia applied for and assigned Byrne grant funding to local judicial jurisdictions to assist in the creation of Drug Courts. These were either implementation grants or continuation to be utilized by the Drug Courts within seven jurisdictions.
Clarke County - Athens Area Drug Court The Athens Area Drug Court is a DUI Drug Court that began operation on January 8, 2001. The program directors recognized that a significant number of individuals suffering with substance abuse related issues become involved with the criminal justice system because of their behavior. The Athens-Area Drug Court treatment seeks to identify and intervene with those individuals for whom a court-mandated, comprehensive substance abuse treatment option could be a life-saving and a life-changing event. The program design requires participation for a minimum of one year, and a maximum of two years. Average time in the program is 18 months.
The four phases of the program are:
Phase I - Orientation: Abstinence, education, motivation, and development of recovery skills.
Phase II - Development of recovery and positive community functioning and support.
Phase III - Initial independent functioning and structured supports, enhance recovery behaviors, increase utilization of natural supports.
Phase IV - Use of natural supports, personal accountability, emotional stability.
Fees - Minimum of $88 per month/maximum of $233 per month, based on income.
The Drug Court experienced problems during the initial six-months of implementation, in regards to treatment providers, and officials conducted an evaluationon whether to the continue the project. After careful reevaluation, the Drug Court progam was set to resume full-scale operation on October 1, 2002.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

36

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Chatham County Superior Court While continuing to engage in infrastructure planning for the Drug Court Program, Chatham County submitted an application for a federal grant to the Office of Justice Programs for Drug Court funding in the amount of $500,000. The Drug Court start-up plans were delayed pending a decision on the federal grant. Chatham County officials received notice in July, 2001 that the grant request was denied.
The Chatham County Superior Court moved foward with its Drug Court initiative despite the denial of the funding anticipated from the federal grant. Continuation funding of ($60, 937.50 Byrne funds), along with some local funding, will allow them to proceed with the Drug Court plan. The Drug Court program accepted its first participants on October 1, 2001.
DeKalb County Superior Court
The implementation of the drug court has been significantly delayed due to planning and coordination efforts which the county underwent to assure appropriate participation of all relevant agencies. The County Board of Commissioners has agreed to provide resources to assist in the effort. In December 2001, members of the Drug Court team attended three one-week training sessions to learn more about the implementation of their Drug Court program, with the final session ending in May 2002.
Due to the delay in the start-up of the program, a portion of the funds allocated to the project were forfeited to another drug court program.
Carroll County Superior Court
The Carroll County Drug Court program began operating on July 1, 1999 under the direction of Magistrate Judge Maryellen Simmons. The program receives misdemeanor level, substance abuse related cases referred by the District Attorney for Carroll County in a pre-trial diversion model. A grant was provided to Carroll County to help them enhance their current program.
Cobb County Superior Court
Cobb County Superior Court has received strong support and local funding from their county commissioners, have employed several staff members, and plan to begin operation in January 2003 under the direction of Judge George Kreeger. The Cobb County Drug Court program plans to receive adult felony drug related offenders referred by the District Attorney for Cobb County in a pre-trial diversion model. A grant was given to Cobb County to help them implement a start-up program.
Conasauga Judicial Circuit
The Conasauga Judicial Circuit Drug Court program began operating on February 12, 2002, under the direction of Conasauga Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Jack Partain. The Circuit's Drug Court program receives adult felony drug related offenders referred to the program by the District Attorney for Whitfield and Murray counties in a post-adjudication model. A grant award was given to the Judicial Circuit to help them in implementing a program.
City of Thunderbolt Municipal Court
The City of Thunderbolt Drug Court program began operating in March 2002, under the direction of Municipal Court Judge Kevin Street. They are the first municipality in Georgia to begin a Drug Court program. Like Carroll County, their focus is on alcohol and illegal drug posession related cases in a pretrial diversion model. A grant award was made to the City of Thunderbolt to assist them with their progam implementation efforts.
Section 10.4: Student Transition and Recovery Project (S.T.A.R.) ($197,377)

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

37

2001 Byrne Annual Report

By far one of the most unique projects funded through the Byrne Grant during the reporting period was S.T.A.R. (Student Transition and Recovery). It represents a collaborative effort between the court, school systems, and the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Students ages of 8 to 17 are eligible to be served by S.T.A.R. The overall goal of the program is to increase student success in school through an approach designed to significantly impact juvenile delinquency, school discipline referrals, school drop out rates, academic success, school attendance, parental involvement, and training and support.
The S.T.A.R. Program consists of various individuals from representative agencies and included parents who served in an advisory capacity. S.T.A.R. depended on the school system to perform its function, which was to educate, and it depended on the juvenile justice system to provide appropriate due process. While the program borrows from the "boot camp" philosophy, it isquite different in that the participants live at home rather than in an institutional setting. The project is less expensive than residential programs and encompasses a mandatory parental involvement component.
The student's placement into the program occurs in one of two ways: as part of the school disciplinary process or as an order of the court. Upon referral of a child to the juvenile justice system by the school or a local law enforcement officer, the case is reviewed by a juvenile court staff member. The family enters the program as part of the informal legal process if: (a) it was determined that there was probable cause that the child committed the offense; (b) that the child would benefit from supervision and the services of the program; and (c) that the child and his parent were willing to participate in the program.
During the weekdays, students reported to the S.T.A.R. campus at 5:30 a.m. They participate in closed order drill and exercise programs, shower, eat, and report to their regular school campus. At the end of the school day, the participants report back to the host campus where they complete their homework assignments, study, work on projects, and participate in additional drill activities until their parents picked them up at 6:30 p.m.
On Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, students perform community service work including such activities as cleaning up the school campuses and picking up trash. Parents are required to attend parenting classes and students are enrolled in either S.T.A.R. I (24-week Component in which students are ordered by the court to attend as an alternative to incarceration for detainable, severe offenses), S.T.A.R. II (1-Day Component) in which students are referred for unruly behavior, S.T.A.R. III (30-Day Prevention Program) in which students are referred for serious, continuous rule violations, or S.T.A.R. IV (2-week Component) in which students are referred to the program by parents and school officials for continuous misconduct.
Results S.T.A.R. was explained to students, parents, and the community via Parent Teacher Organization meetings, handouts distributed by teachers, and the local news media. During the 2001 Grant Year the S.T.A.R. program was utilized in three (3) Georgia Counties; Long, Rockdale, and Tattnall. A total of 501 students have been enrolled.
A coordinator, drill instructor, and teacher were employed. Equipment such as computers, uniforms, and televisions were purchased. Additionally, vans from government surplus were used to transport students from the S.T.A.R. facility to their perspective schools and back to the S.T.A.R. facility in the afternoons.
Project evaluation revealed the following statistics:
Number of students attended by Program Component:

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

38

2001 Byrne Annual Report

S.T.A.R. I (10)=1% S.T.A.R. II (350)=69% S.T.A.R. III (75) =14% S.T.A.R. IV (66)=13%

Average recidivism rate: Number of days students absent before S.T.A.R.: Number of days students absent after S.T.A.R.: Average Student G.P.A. (percentile) before S.T.A.R.: Average Student G.P.A. (percentile) after S.T.A.R.:

10.47% 107 21 66.2% 73.2%

Students by age:

Age 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Number 1 25 36 66 162 160 30 17 3 1

Students by race and gender:

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

39

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Black - 267

Male - 394

White - 206

Female - 107

Hispanic - 28

Other - 0

Students provided:

Total Hours of Community Service

1,685

Total Phone Checks:

1,207

Total Surprise Home Visits:

386

Total School Days Saved:

2,339

SECTION 11: ANTI-TERRORISM TRAINING PROGRAMS - PURPOSE AREA #26 Three State Projects ($822,375)

The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 was established as a result of a series of terrorist events in the United States and the recognition that the nation, states, and local governments had inadequate systems in place to combat these events. This Act was cognizant of the fact that comprehensive plans, specialized information, and training is paramount to addressing terrorism. This is a fact the State of Georgia knows all to well, as major incidents (i.e. 1996 Olympic Park Bombing, 19961999 Abortion Clinic Bombings) have left the constant recognition that terrorism can be omnipresent. In addition, the events of September 11, 2001, brought a new awarenesss of terrorism to all Americans. Due to the tragic events, the need for homeland secuirty became paramount, and thus funding was dedicated to these efforts.
The key to mitigating terrorism in Georgia lies in the fusion of local existing capabilities with standardized training, the provision of equipment, and the coordination of command procedures. Consequently, under this purpose area the Council allocated $775,000 to the Georgia Department of Public Safety (DPS) for projects providing a wide spectrum of resources for responding to terrorist incidents. The Excess Property Program and Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and Public Safety Intranet Projects are all initiatives funded under this purpose area.
Section 11.1: Terrorism Consequence Management Project ($35,000)
This project maintains the responsibility of coordinating the public safety community's response to terrorist incidents. This includes mitigation and preparation for response and, in the event of an incident, coordinating response and recovery support activities from state and federal agencies. The project is grounded on raising the level of preparedness of state and local law enforcement agencies to respond to actual terrorist threats.

Objective: Activities:

Maintain an Excess Property Program to distribute excess Department of Defense Property to local and state law enforcement agencies
The Program will search for, inspect, procure, and distribute property to law

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

40

2001 Byrne Annual Report

enforcement agencies which demonstrate a need and use that is related to counter-terrorism initiatives

Results 1122 Program The 1122 Program allows state and local agencies to utilize the purchasing power of the federal government through the Defense Logistics Agency and General Services Administration by purchasing items which cannot be located under the excess property program and supplies.

To better equip law enforcement agencies and assist in reducing costs on purchases, the following results were accomplished by the program:

108 agencies purchased property through the 1122 Program

537 requests for property were made by law enforcement agencies

961 quotes were received from the Defense Logistics Agency and General Services Administration

$2,153,895.66 in property was purchased through the1122 Program

The following represents the level of participation in the program during the grant year:

Agency Type

Amount Purchased

Sheriffs

29

$140,804.00

Police Departments

51

$419,798.34

State Agencies

23

$1,497,653.84

Correctional Institutions

5

$66,215.15

Drug Task Forces

7

$29,423.73

Section 11.2: GILEE/Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange ($12,375)
The Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange Program was developed to promote the international learning experiences of Georgia law enforcement agency executives. A delegation of 11 law enforcement executives from Georgia (see list below) trained in Israel for two weeks (May 21 - June 4, 2002). This was GILEE's 10th delegation to Israel from Georgia. The delegation was hosted by the Israel Police and was provided with unlimited access to valuable sources of excellence in all areas of policing and public safety including bomb disposal, counter-terrorism measures, training, the crime lab, emergency management, homeland security, infra-structure protection, traffic, and communication. Training was offered by peers who were agency, unit, or department heads. The delegation experienced first hand how law enforcement and public safety agencies provide essential services while under constant daily terror attacks. The first hand exposure to the Israeli experience provided the participants with highly valuable understanding and knowledge that is directly relevant and helpful to the responsibilities they have in their own agencies in Georgia.

Members of the 11th delegation:

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

41

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Chief of Investigation, GA Department of Human Resources
Major (Executive Officer) GA Department of Public Safety - Commissioner's Office
Assistant Chief MARTA Police Department
Major Fayetteville Police Department
Director - Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Major - Fulton County Police Department
Chief of Police- Winterville Police Department
Armstrong Atlantic State University - Director of Public Safety
Chief of Police - Lavonia Police Department
Sheriff - Worth County
Major - Georgia State Patrol
Secrtion 11.3: Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center ($775,000)
The Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center (GISAC) was established on October 25, 2001 at the order of the newly formed Georgia Homeland Security Task Force.
The mission of GISAC is to serve as the life line for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information relevant to threats or attacks, of a terrorist nature within and against the State of Georgia, its citizens, or infrastructure. To accomplish this mission, GISAC is currently staffed with nine special agents and two criminal intelligence analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), two critical infrastructure analysts from the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA), one military intelligence analyst from the Georgia National Guard, one information security analyst from the Georgia Technology Authority (GTA), one Department of Public Safety (DPS) criminal investigator, one criminal investigator representing the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, and one criminal investigator representing the Georgia Sheriffs Association. In the near term, an additional criminal intelligence analyst, network administrator, and support personnel will be added to the GISAC staff. GISAC immediately established itself as the state's clearinghouse for terrorism-related information, establishing protocols and relationships to make possible the gathering, analysis, sharing, exchange and dissemination of intelligence information with the federal government, state and local agencies, corporate security, and the private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure. GISAC established a toll-free telephone number and put out a call for assistance to all of Georgia's state and local law enforcement concerns. Utilizing the Georgia Crime information Center (GCIC) networks and partnerships with the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Georgia Sheriffs Association and GEMA furthered GISAC's outreach. As the initial goals and objectives of the unit were defined, GISAC staff sought out specialized training and developed experience in the areas of intelligence operations, critical infrastructure identification, vulnerability assessments and business continuity planning. In addition, GISAC staff members joined both local and national intelligence associations to advance intelligence collection efforts in Georgia.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

42

2001 Byrne Annual Report

As GISAC moved into a fully operational phase, it integrated information sharing across Federal, state, and local governments, private industry and professional associations, in both Georgia and in its bordering states.
To date, GISAC special agents and investigators have conducted some 500 investigations into suspicious activity occurring in or around Georgia, developing and disseminating intelligence concerning such activity to concerned stakeholders, such as local law enforcement agencies or critical infrastructure operators. Because of the ever-present threat of terrorism or political violence posed by domestic groups and extremists, GISAC special agents and investigators also continually monitor extremist activity occurring within Georgia and the United States. GISAC personnel support state and local law enforcement by coordinating and monitoring special events and dignitary movements in Georgia.
A part of its outreach, GISAC has published and disseminated seven periodic intelligence bulletins to the law enforcement community, and is developing a periodic infrastructure intelligence bulletin for dissemination to the public safety community. GISAC has joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation's InfraGuard program and the Southeast Business Continuity Planners Association in order to further expand its outreach to the private sector. GISAC personnel have participated in site visits to critical infrastructure elements and have participated in tabletop exercises that have tested the intelligence gathering, analysis, and dissemination protocols.
GISAC developed tools and systems designed to track intelligence information, and has formed strategic partnerships with the Georgia Data Center at Kennesaw State University, the Georgia Tech Research Institute, the University of Georgia's Information Technology Outreach Service, and others in developing technology to assist GISAC in accomplishing its operational mission, and in identifying and assessing the vulnerabilities of Georgia's critical infrastructure and key assets. GISAC has been successful in obtaining CJCC grant funding to develop and acquire advanced technology to be used in the intelligence analysis and infrastructure protection functions.
Additionally, grant funding was utilized to lease and build out secure space for offices and an operations center. As a new work unit, standard office materials associated with creating a new unit were purchased to furnish the space. A secure computer network system was developed and installed to connect seamlessly with the GBI Intelligence Unit for GISAC operations and investigations. Additionally, an adequate computer network infrastructure was required to support the ongoing projects with the Georgia Tech Research Institute, the Georgia Data Center at Kennesaw State University, and the University of Georgia's Information Technology Outreach Service. In order to maintain the integrity of the network, essential utility items such as secure telephone/computer lines, internal and external security systems, and alternate/back up power sources were installed to ensure secure handling of intelligence information and uninterrupted service during a power outage.
To maximize GISAC's ability to physically collect, monitor and analyze information, the purchase of agent/investigator surveillance equipment such as digital cameras, digital video recording equipment, and secure radios was necessary. The use of digital video/photographs creates an appropriate medium for storage of volumes of photographs and video. The radios enable GISAC personnel to operate securely with each other and communicate with local jurisdictions on operations in their respective areas.
In its infancy, GISAC has made great strides in successfully meeting its short-term goals and objectives. Longterm goals have been established and the unit is well on its way to achieving them.

SECTION 12: ENFORCING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT LAWS -PURPOSE AREA #27

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

43

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Emanuel County/G.B.I. - Crimes Against Children Unit ($250,000)

Establishing the Crimes Against Children Unit in Swainsboro, Georgia provides victims with the aid of professionals who are experts in the investigation of child abuse and sexual assault cases, thus reducing the trauma to the child victim and providing evidence needed for prosecution. Cases of child abuse or sexual assault are referred to an investigative team, consisting of a forensic evaluator and investigator. The investigator is an employee of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and works closely with the distirct attorney's staff in order to prosecute child abuse and sexual assault cases.

Medical exams will be performed by a specially trained nurse practitioner or physician's assistant under the supervision of a local physician who has also received specialized training, and the exam will be conducted in a child-friendly environment. Following the exam, support services, advocacy, and counseling will be available through service personnel.

The goal and objectives of the Crimes Against Children Unit include:

GOAL 1:

Provide a focus of resources and services to child victims of abuse and sexual assault in order to reduce trauma and provide evidence for successful prosecution of offenders.

OBJECTIVE 1:

Provide access to professional training and/or access to skilled professional assistance.

OBJECTIVE 2:

In order to reduce the trauma for the child victim, forensic examination sites will be provided locally and will be staffed by knowledgeable professionals.

OBJECTIVE 3:

An investigation and prosecution team will collaborate in order to attain more child abuse or sexual assault convictions.

The Crimes Against Children Unit implementation was delayed for a period of one year due to staffing of positions and reorganization of the project among state and local agencies. On the state level, the GBI has appointed a Special Agent to the Sunshine House to provide expertise in child abuse investigations throughout the area. The investigation process is slowly changing to be more collaborative and the guidance and leadership of the special agent will continue to enhance this effort.

The medical portion of the program and is now is place, the nurse began conducting exams in July 2002 (this data will be provided in the next annual report). During the past year the nurse has gone through extensive training, including:
Guidance from doctors at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Scottish Rite
Completion of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner course for adults and pediatrics
Completion of direct patient training hours at the Gwinnett Sexual Assault Center
Additional medical training was received at the Crimes Against Children Conference in Dallas, Texas
The Lisengang Colposcope and accompanying computer have been installed and the nurse has worked to master all of the technical skills involved in utilizing these tools.

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

44

2001 Byrne Annual Report

Supplemental Information and Documentation

Appendix A/Exhibit 1
DARE Culmination Activity Report

DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM CULMINATION ACTIVITY REPORT

Project Reporting Period: July 1, 2001 June 30, 2002

School

Grade School System Number of Students Taught

Lyons Elementary School

5th Toombs County

147

Robert Toombs Christ. Academy 5th Private

26

Toombs Central Elementary

5th Toombs County

74

Lockheed Elementary

5th Marietta City

174

West Side Elementary

5th Marietta City

66

Park Street Elementary

5th Marietta City

132

Number of Students Graduated
143 26 74 173 66 132

Dates of Term
2001-2002 2001-2002 2001-2002 2001-2002 2001-2002 2001-2002

TOTAL All Schools/Systems

619

614

Appendix B/Exhibit 1
School Resource Officer Culmination Activity Report

Subgrant Number

Subgrantee

Assigned Officer Complaints Initiated
Complaints

Drug Related Arrests for Felonies

Drug Related Arrests for
Misdemeanors

Drug Seizures

Adults Juveniles Adults Juveniles Amount Seized Dollar Value Type of Drug

B01-8-017 Dade County

53

B01-8-045 City of Kingsland

110

B01-8-049 Lumpkin County

4

B01-8-061 City of Thomasville

260

B01-8-060 Telfair County

84

36

0

0

0

7

40

2

4

0

0

36

1

0

2

0

433

0

0

0

4

31

0

0

1

0

18 pills <1oz <1oz N/A <1oz

$30

Prescription

$0

Cannabis

$20

Cannabis

$0

N/A

$0

N/A

TOTALS

511

576

3

4

3

11

N/A

School Resource Officer Data

$50

N/A

Subsequent Refferrals

Hours Spent on Instruction

Social Service Agency
0 1 8 0 4

School/Agency Law Enforcement Other Criminal Justice Safety Alcohol/Drug Abuse

5

0

0

12

18

33

4

5

0

5

1

4

0

8

0

32

0

130

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

6

4

Teacher Orientation
0 0 1 0 0

Education Evenings
0 0 0 0 0

Community Presentations
0 1 8 0 2

13

9

13

0

53

25

171

1

0

11

Hours Spent on Activities

Campus Crime Prevention Community Drives

0

0

0

0

84

11

0

0

11

0

95

11

Appendix C/Exhibit 1
Operations Procedures and Case Management Standards
for Task Forces

EVIDENCE STORAGE F AGILITY
.All evidence is stored within one centralized, designated, secure evidence room. Arlministrative and physical security pro~edures are mandatory to ensure that all property taken into custody and stored by the agency in any ma!mer is properly controlled and protected while in agencyc1lStody. (Note: This doesnot preclude the MJTF from electing to utilize the centralized evidence storage facility of a single participating law enforcement agencyas the designatedevidenceroom providing that the facility meets the standards set forth by CJCC.)
.Evidence room must beprotected by high-securityI locking devicesand an electronic alarm system monitored on a 24 hour basis. Door should be solid-core wood or metal. The interior should be alarmed with motion detector or passive infrared detectors. .All local and state building and tire .codesshould also be adhered to.
.Consideration should be given to providing enhanced security measures for guns, drogl currency , and items of extraordinary value.
.Consideration should be given to security of items to large for storage in the evidence room such as vehicles, large electronic equipment, etc.
Evidence rooms located at MJTFs must have a designated primary and alternate evidence custodian. Access must be limited to the evidence custodians or MJTF personnel in the company of an authorized custodian.
The directive sets forth guidelines for receiving all ...evidenceobtained by MJTF employees into agency control.
.The directive will require that evidence be submitted to the evidence room as expeditious as possible and should set specific time frames.
.Evidence deposited into the evidence room must be accompanied by properly executed receipts for property and any other documentation required by MJTF Dolicies.
The directive must establish th.e records management system used to track evidence entered into the evidenceroom, maintained ,vithin the evidenceroom, or relinquished from the evidencel-OOm.At a minimum, the evidenceroom records ma~n.gemenst ystem will include: .A copy of the completed evidencereceipt ,vhich reflects the transfer of the evidence
to the evidenceroom, date relinquished, relinquishing officer and purpose of change of custody must be completed on the chain of custody section of the property receipt.
. The evidence room copy of property receIpt will be filed by officer's name or case number in an evidence room "in" file and an evidence room "out" file, as appropriate. .At the discretion of the MJTF Commander or Control Board, a secondary

E-videnceStorage Facility Page 2
computer record may be maintained which tracks MJTF evidence.
.A log should be maintained by the evidence custodian which identifies each authorized officer entering the evidenceroom to include the date and time of the entry. This log book is separate from any other evidenceroom log.
5. The directive will identify a procedure for evidenceroom inspections. At a minim_um the procedure will include:
. On a quarterly basis, a designatedMJTF supervisorwill make an inspectionof the evidence storage fa~ty to ensure adherence to appropriate policies and procedures. The purpose of the quarterly review is to ensure that the evidence room is maintained in a clean and orderly fashion, directives regarding the hand]irlg and/or storage of evidenceare being followed, evidenceis protected from damage and deterioration, accountability procedures are being maintained, and evidence that is no longer neededis being disposedof in a timely fashion.
. MJTF supervisors will conduct semi-annual evidenceroom inventories to ensure that all evidence is accounted for and that all items which are no longer of evidentiary value have been disposed of and properly documented. The Control Board should designate a Control Board member to participate in semi-annual inspections.
6. A complete inventory of evidencewill be conducted wheneverthere is a change in the Commander of the MJTF .
The inventory will be conductedjointly by the outgoing Commanderand the inco~ Commander .
In inciden~ where the outgoing Commander llas been relieved of command or for other reasons is not available to participate in the change of command inventory, a person designated by the Control Board ,vill conduct the inventory ,vith the illcomillg Commander .
7. .At the discretion of the Control Board or C.JCC an unanno\lllced evidence room audit may be conducted.
8. .All inspections must be documented in a memorandum of record and maintained ill the administrative files of the MJTF .
.All inspection memorandums shoualIdd iiddeennttiiffyy pprroobblleemmss ffoouunndd aalnldd aaccttiioonn ttaakkeenll ttoo rectify discrepancies...\ copy of sseemmii--aannnnuuaal l aanndd cchhaannggee ooff ccoolmnmmaanndd iinnssppeeccttioionn

EvidenceStorageFacility Page 3

mAmn~nn1'm~ ~h~11hA t'n~mpn will be forwarded to CJCC .

t.n thp Cnntrnl Bnard Chairman. If reau6ired-.--, a---tr'.Jnnv

9. The directive should establish pprroocceedduureress for the disposition of personal property ,
fir~arm~- and ~ontraband to include drnes. once these items are of no further evidentiary value.

Procedures must be set forth to establish guidelines :regarding property that is turned over to the MJTF or pp~articipating agencybbyy court Iorder .

EVIDENCE HANDLING

1. MJTF must have a directive that establishesguidelines and proceduresfor the preferred method of collec~, markinw1abeling, and packaginWstoring a variety of evidentiary items. These procedures should be consistent with DOFS guidelines for the packaging/submission of evidence.

2. All evidencewhich comes into the possessionof an MJTF officer immediately must
be descnDedand inventoried thoroughly on a MJTF property receipt. At a minimum the property receipt must include: . The identity of the person from whom the property was seized, . Date and time of seizure, . Location of the seizure, . A description of the evidence, . The name of the MJTF officer who takes possessionof the evidence, . A unique receipt number , . A MJTF casenumber, and . A designated section to document chain of custody.

CJCC should approve property receipts used by an MJTF and (4) part form {originB1andthree (3) copies}. .The original remR.in~with the evidence; .One copy is provided to owner of the property; .One copy is left in the MJTF case file; and .One copy remains in the Evidence Room iD/out file.

recommenda four

Special provisions should be established for the handling of currency as evidence: .An currency evidence ,vill be counted immediately by the receiving officer in the
.presence of another officer, 'v ho will verify the count. .Currency seized will be packaged in a tamper proof security bag by the seizing
officer and the officer who verified the count. .When currency is seizedwhich exceedsa specified amount set by MJTF policy, the
MJTF Commander will be notified immediately. .Currency seized \vill be deposited into a seized funds bank account and not
commingled with other funds such as condemned or operating ftmds. .Currency which is requested to be physically maintained will be stored in a safe
deposit box until it is no longer deemed evidence itself, at which time it will be deposited into the seizedfunds account. \Then at all possible,currency which is to be maintained as evidenceshould be photographed or copiedand then depositedinto the seized ftmds account.

INFORMANTS
Each Multi-jurisdictional Task Force (MJTF) ,vill have a written directive to establish a procedure to document activity with informants. The directive will include the following:
.1. S1lpervisor approval must be obtained prior to 1ltilization of an individual .as a
confidential informant (CI) .
22.. An Informant Log Book will be maintained and kept in a secure location by the Commander with accesslimited to the Commander or a designee. The log book will, at a minimum, include tthhee folllloowwiningg infO] .date the informant is opened; .the confidential informant code numbEer; .the crs name; .the name of the control aagegnte; nt; aandnd .the date activity with the informant is closed.

3. The informant will be referred to in case files and other records by the CI code number .

4. A -separate file will be established for each CI and will contain at a minimum;

.CI

profile sheet with biographical, identification and background

information; criminnJ history; driver's history; CI code number; control

agent's name; and a photograph (profile sheet must have Commander's

approval);

.CI

activation/deactivation report;

..DPhoocutomgeranptaht;ion

that reflects each conta~t .w, ith the CI;

.Personal .Criminal

history form; and drivers history;

.Fingerprint .District

card; Attorney cooperation agreement (if applicable);

.MJTF .Oral

cooperation agreement; intercept consent form(s);

.Originals

of statements and debriefings; and

.Copies

of all payment forms and/or documentation pertaining to any other

n~~1~t~n~prpnrl~Tp:n

5. The directive ,vill establish guidelines for quarterly supervisOryreV1ewof the informant file and how records of the qQuuaratertrelyrly reviews,vill be maintained.
6. .The directive ,vill establish procedures to ensure CI file security and restrictiollS on accessto the files.

InformantS

Pa.~

2

The directive will establish criteria for payments to informants and will include the

mandate that payments must be documentedon a confidential sourcepayment receipt.

The directive will require a.

to the CI payment.

.

8. The directive also should establish procedures to be followed when u~
as informants.

juveniles

9. The directive will outline prohibited activities with informants such as:
.
.
.

10. The directive should set forth any guidelines concerning meetings with informants and cover procedures for contacts with informants.

,The directive should addiess special procedures or requirements, if any, prior to utilization of probationers, parolees, or defendants as informants.

CONFIDENTIAL FUNDS (PEPI)

MJTF will have a directive to established policy regarding the expenditure, disbursement, documentation, and accountability of confidential funds (PEP!). The directive will include, at a minimum, the follo~:
1. Designation of the MJTF Commander as the Primary custodian of the flmd. A subordinatecustodianshouldbe designated.

The directive also will identify autholized expenditures of confidential f\lnds: .Purchase of evidence .Payment to documented confidential informants for servicesrendered, expenses,
and/or information. received .Payment of extraordinary miscellaneousexpensesassociatedwith a specific case

directive s which I Ghave Co

'ovide guidelines which establish confidential flmd expenditure authorized by the Task Force Commander and set limits which

..4. The directive will set forth guidelines for the disbursement of confidential funds to

in.clude the following:

.Disbursements

,vill be made only upon preparation and appropriate supervisory

approval of a Confidential Fund Authorization Form.' No disbursements will be

made by the MJTF Commander or subordinate custodian without the completion

of authorization forms (CJCC should provide standardized form) .

.Disbursements

will be made in direct relationship to a specific case or investigative

operation.

.No

disbursements will be made to an officer or supervisor with an outstanding

confidential fund balance until the officer or supervisor accounts for the

n11t.~t.Rnrlinf1h'RIRn~e in ~A..qhOl"vn11ehel~-

5. ~ e."'tpendituresof confidential flmds ,vill be documented on a CJCC approved payment voucher which identifies the e."Cpendituraend explains the relationship to the "gQ&o
6. The directive shall establish mandatory time frames for the submissionof payment vouchers {recommend maximum of five (5) davs).

Guidelines must establish a record keeping system which accounts for all disbursement, e..~enditure or return of all confidential funds. Receipts must be prepared and provided to officers upon the return of colwdential funds (C.JCC should pl"Ovide .Qt.S\n$rl1rrl i !lPrl fm-m )

8. There should be a 48'hour limit on the amount of time confidential funds may be held

.outstanding.

.-\n extension of the 48 hour limit may be granted by the level of

Confidential Page 2

Funds (FE/PI)

management that approved the advance. Factors to consider in granting such an extension are the amount of funds involved, the degree of security under which the ftmds are being held, how long an extension is required, and the significance of the eXDenditure. Such extensions should be limited to 48 hours.
9. The MJTF Commander will reconcile the confidential ftmds on a monthly basis. .Each officer will account for all confidential ftmds disbursed to them.A memorandum of record documenting the reconciliation will be prepared and maintained with the confidential ftmd records. ...Any discrepancy will be immediately reported to the Control Board Chairman.
10. The directive will establish retention guidelines for all confidential ftmd records.
11. The directive ,vill mandate the storage of confidential ftmds in a secure location ,vith access limited to the Task Force Commander and subordinate ct1Stodian. It will .further establish limi~ as to the amount of confidential funds that may be maintained SItthp wnrlc 11n1t.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

MJTF will have a directive to establish policy regarding the procedures for a comprehensive reporting

and records management system to include a11actions taken by agents whether in response to a

reauest for service nr fnr ~O'entinitiRterl actinn~

.

I.

The records management function is the responsibility of the commander. The

commander shall develop policies and procedures as necessary to insure proper report

control, records maintenance, and retrieval. The commander shall conduct case file

reviews, at a minimum, quarterly to assure case files are maintained properly.

2.

The following records, as applicable, shall be maintained in an investigative case fIle:

.Arrest .Photo(s) .Personal .Criminal .Arrest

reports/surveillance reports/incident of subject(s) of investigation history sheet(s) history( s)
booking(s)

reports

.Fingerprint

card(s)

/

.G.S.I.N.

form(s)

.Miranda

waiver form(s)

..SEtvaidteemnceent(s)

receipt(s)

..

.Scientific .Copy(s)
.Expenditure .Seizure .Disposition

report(s) of arrest/search warrant(s)
form(s) report( s)
form

3.

.lTChne ffoillelo:wing records. as applicable. will be ri1ain~.ed in a Confidential Informant

.

CI activation/deactivation report

.

Photograph

.

Personal history foml

.

Criminal and drivers history

.

Fingerprint card

.

Oistrict Attorney cooperation agreement (if applicable)

.

MJTF coopemtion agreement

.

Oral intercept consent tOml(s)

.

Originals of statementsand debriefings

.

Copies of all payment forms and/or documentation pertaining to any other

n~~1~tancreendered-

Records

Management

Page 2

REPORTING PROCEDURES

1.

CASE NUMBERING SYSTEM. Eachinvestigative caseshall berecord~d in a case

log book andthe casemanagementprogram. if oneis used. Eachcasenumber should

be unique in that a different number is assignedto each case. Casenumbers should

be opened based on activity generatedand not individual charges. Casefiles may

contain arrest information on multiple suspects(co-defendantsor conspirators) with

multiple charges.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NUMBERING SYSTEM -Each confidential informant shall be recorded in a confidential informant log book and the case management program, if used. Each CI number is unique in that a different number is assigned to eachCI.

~OMPLETION OF REPORTS-The directive shall establishmandatorytime frames for the submission of reports (recommend maximum of five (5) days).

Reports and other forms will be reviewed by the Commander before the reports are filed. Any report that is not approved will be given back to the reporting agent to correct.
REPORT PROCESSING AND DIS TRIB UTI ON

I.

When reports and other forms are completed and approved by the Commander, they

should be placed into the appropriate file. All information contained in the file should

be entered into the casemanagementprogram if one is used.

2.

A copy of the approved investigative case file will be made and diStributed to the

appropriate prosecutor for review. A receipt for copies received by the prosecutor

shall be maintained in the investigative casefile.

RECORDS CONTROL/MAINTENANCE/RETRIEV AL

It is the responsibility of the Commander to maintain control over all investigative casefiles. Reports and forms should bemaintained in the investigative casefile or CI file. Investigative casefIles andCI files shouldbe filed by year andwill be maintained in a locked file cabinet at the task force office.
All records maintained by the taskforce arethe sole property of the task force and are to remain in the locked file cabinet at the task force office when not in use. No file or copy of any record shall be taken from the task force office by any agent upon the termination ofhis/her assignmentwith the task force. No file or copy of any record shall be removed from the task force office unlessprior approval hasbeengrantedby the Commander.

TRA1NIN G RE Q UIREMENTS

Each MJTF will have a directive to establish policy regarding minimum training requirements for each

position held in the task force. The directive will include at a minimum the following requirements

for the identified position titles:

.

Each agent and Commander must have POST certification prior to active participation as an officer. However, this does not precl.~dethe MJTF from recruiting non-POST certified candidates and paying for their certification with grant funding and/or cashmatch funding.

ffa candidate's POST certification is paid for by the task force, an agreement requiring a minimum time frame of service to recoup this training investment is encouraged. For example, the candidate would receive the POST certification at MJTF expense but be required to work at the MJTF following the POST certification for a minimum period of two years.
Each agent and Commander will attain a minimum of specialized training in narcotics prior to active service with the M1TF .This training at a minimum will be comparable to the' narcotics officer training offered at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center (GPSTC) or the Regional Counter-drug Training Academy (RCT A), Meridian Mississippi. If the training at GPSTC, its academies, or RCT A is not available, then a comparable training may be substituted as approved by CJCC.
Commanders will attain specialized training for their Ipanagementposition as commander prior to or within the first year of their employment asllie MJTF Commander. This training should be specific to train them in their role asCommander and its unique duties. Examples of suitable training arecommandertraining atGPSTC, RCTA, andsimilar coursessponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). CJCC will approve the training requirement and/or any course selected to meet these requirements.
All other positions within the task force shall have established minimum ti"aining suitable for their duties as set by the MJTF Control Board. For example, prosecutor, technician, evidence custodian, administrative assistant. and assistant commander should all have prerequisite requirements prior to active service with the MJTF .
Each agentand Commandershould attendfirearms qualification training at aminimum twice yearly. Each agent and Commander must successfully qualify with every weapon which they are approved to carry while in an official capacity: A directive which addressesapproved weapons will be included in the task force policy manual. No agent or Commander will be allowed to carry , in an official capacity, any weapon which is not approved by the policy. A record of each agents successful qualification and approved weapons should be maintained in the agent's personnel file.

Appendix C/Exhibit 2
Standard Value Chart

MEMORANDUM

Standard Distribution

FROM:

RQy J. Harris

Deputy Director for Investigations

DATE:

June 20, 2002

Standardized Drug Values

Drug values will be calculated as follows beginning with the fiscal year 2003:

MARIJUANA
SINSEMILLA OUNCE POUND
COMMERCIAL
O'UNCE POUND
HASHISH OUNCE POUND

200 2,400
1.25 1,100
200 3,000

CANNABIS POUND/PLANTS(ONE

POUND PER PLANT)

NOTE: Marijuana will be identified

a~ Sin~emilla

or Commercial

COCAINE

POWDER COCAINE .GRAM OUNCE POUND KILO

100 1,000 12,000 23,000

Standard Distribution June 1, 2003 Page 2

Memorandum

CRACK COCAINE

ROCK

GRAM

:;

OUNCE

POUND KILO

HEROIN

GRAM OUNCE POUND KILO

GRAM OUNCE POUND KILO

~
PER DOSAGE

DlLAUDID

PER DOSAGE

BARBITURATE PER DOSAGE

STIMULANTS

PER DOSAGE

ECSTACY(MDMA)

PER

DOSAGE

ROBYPNOL

PER DOSAGE

OXYCONTIN

PER DOSAGE

20 125 1,000 12,500 23,000
400 5,500 60,000 150,000
130 1,200 10,500 15,000
10
50
5
5
20
10
35

Standard Distribution June l' 2002 Page 3

Memorandum

HYDROCODONE

PER DOSAGE

~
PER DOSAGE

PERCOCET

PER DOSAGE

XANAX

PER DOSAGE

The drug value information in the CLERIS Case Management System will reflect these ___1
Thank YOu for your cooperation in this matter .

RJH:

vt

Appendix D/Exhibit 1
Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan

Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRI) Plan

2.0 UPDATE TO PREVIOUS PLAN
I. Introduction
The Georgia Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRI) Plan listed numerous goals within Section 4 of the plan. Several of these goals relate directly to the waiver criteria for the Byrne 5% set-aside requirement. Others are subsequent criteria imposed by the Brady Law and other federal statutes. Activity has occurred in overall record improvement and clear progress toward plan goals can be reported. The goals are divided into seven areas, each with specific targets. This report follows the organization of Section 4 of the primary CJRI Plan with the status of each specific goal following the statement of the goal. The activities listed in the subsequent sections follow very closely the strategies outlined for each goal in the CJRI Plan. Also included in the report is information on the various sub-projects and statistics on disposition reporting. Finally, there is a listing of the current CJRI Subcommittee members in Attachment A.
II. Status on Plan Goals
1. Completeness and Accuracy of Criminal History Records
There are four specific goals to satisfy this criteria. These goals and their status follow:
a. 95% of current felony arrest records and fingerprints are complete. Complete is defined as fully and accurately reflecting criminal justice transactions. For felony arrests comprising the last five years, a reasonable attempt must be made to achieve complete records for 90% of felony arrests. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe the attempts made to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
Status: Significant activity designed to reach this goal was initiated upon plan approval. First, a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) backlog of 300,000 unprocessed criminal fingerprint cards was totally eliminated. These cards, representing one year's worth of criminal arrests are now on the Automated Fingerprint Identification (AFIS) and the Computerized Criminal History (CCH) databases and available to the criminal justice community. The elimination of the criminal card backlog ensures that all criminal fingerprint cards submitted to GCIC are entered onto its databases.
Second, activity within the area of criminal history audits has occurred over the last twelve months. In the law enforcement area, the major goal of the criminal history audit is to ensure that all qualified arrestees are fingerprinted, the records submitted to GCIC, and correct rules followed for access and dissemination of criminal history data. Over 206 local sites (which include both law enforcement and judicial sites) have been audited. In agencies where discrepancies were found, corrective action was initiated. Follow-up audits will be conducted at these sites to ensure compliance.

Third, with the elimination of the criminal fingerprint card backlog and the initiation of an aggressive CCH audit program, cross checks of UCR arrest data with CCH arrest data can be conducted. A benchmark for completeness and accuracy of arrest records will be established. This benchmark will serve as a guide for future measurements of progress towards this goal.
Finally, live scan devices have been installed in local law enforcement agencies throughout the state and funding for this effort over the next year will be continued by multi-grant programs. With this effort, arrests are received at GCIC in real time mode and faster updates of both the AFIS and CCH databases occur. Currently, 73% of all criminal fingerprint cards are submitted to GCIC in an electronic format; further, 100% of all criminal fingerprint cards are submitted to the FBI electronically. Internet protocols are now incorporated with the submission of fingerprints using card scan and live scan devices.
b. 95% of current felony arrest records contain disposition information, if a disposition of the case has been reached. Disposition is defined as case termination by release without charge, prosecutor declination, or court adjudication. For felony arrests comprising the last five years, a reasonable attempt must be made to obtain disposition information for 90% of these felony arrests. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe the attempt made to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
Status: There was also activity in this area. GCIC continues to outsource the processing of dispositions so that adequate processing resources exist to handle current and future workloads in this area. The entry of the backlogged dispositions and the maintenance of current disposition processing helped raise overall disposition levels for years 1995, 1996, 1997,1998,1999, 2000 and 2001.
Second, activity in the area of the local agency audit efforts, specifically the delinquent disposition collection effort, has led to additional disposition reporting. For the last year (2001), 28,986 delinquent dispositions were researched, of these, 10,740 dispositions were processed. These numbers represents a decline from last year due to GCIC staff concentration in Fulton County, which represents the county with the highest number of unreported dispositions remaining for reporting period of 1990 1995.
Third, court disposition automation efforts continued. As a result of these efforts, 124 courts representing 67 counties in Georgia have now automated court disposition reporting capability. In addition, the Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA) is actively working to automate court disposition data from all of the 159 Superior Court Clerk's offices. These automated dispositions reduce the workload on the manual disposition processing efforts and free up resources to help process the delinquent disposition workload. All of these efforts, of course, contribute to increasing the percentage of felony arrests with convictions. At present, a certification test is being conducted to ensure Superior Court Clerks' case management system vendors have met GCIC requirements for transmission of final disposition data as outlined in the

GCIC Automated Disposition Guide. And, to ensure the case management system meets the GCIC security requirements.
Fourth, Fulton County and the City of Atlanta cooperatively created a plan and grant proposal to develop an integrated automated disposition reporting system. Funding for this project was approved and $350,000 was initially awarded to develop the system. This system "ties" all case disposing agencies (i.e. courts, prosecutors and clerks) in the City of Atlanta and Fulton County together and automates a process that is currently manual in nature. Under the conditions of the award, the City of Atlanta and Fulton County must provide 25% matching funds to complete the project. Hitachi Data System (HDS) was chosen as the vendor to implement this system. The automated case disposition system project consists of three phases. Phase 1, which has been completed and is in operation, creates an internal network between the Superior and Municipal courts and an external network for the submission of final disposition data to GCIC. In, Phase 2, Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), were awarded $368,278 in grant funds. Phase 2 linked into the system, the Fulton County District Attorney, the Fulton County Solicitor General, the State Court Clerk, City Court Clerk, and the Solicitors of the City Court and Municipal Court. The integrated system also automated the Offender Base Tracking System (OBTS) and provided browser capability. At present, electronic dispositions are being submitted to GCIC from the Fulton County courts for testing. Further funds will be needed to complete Phase 3.
c. 95% of current sentences to and releases from prison are available. A reasonable attempt must be made to improve the availability of incarceration information in past records with a target of obtaining incarceration information for 90% of the felony arrests over the last five years. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe attempts made to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
Status: One state agency, the Department of Corrections, is responsible for reporting all incarceration information. It submits most incarceration data, as well as release data, to GCIC in an automated fashion. Other data, including probation and parole information, is also reported in a mix of automated and manual means. As the disposition reporting levels approach the target goals over the next two years, cross check programs will be run to compare the number of dispositions with incarceration sentences against the number of incarcerations reported. Release data will be cross-checked by comparing release data in the CCH database against Department of Corrections data base release information.
Second, a contract was signed with Dr. John Speir of Applied Research Services, Inc. to develop an integrated data warehouse for policy and research. This system will comprise of information from the Department of Corrections, Pardons and Parole, and the Georgia Crime Information Center's CCH and UCR files. Government Official, Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice community will have access to this integrated system.

d. 95% of the current arrest records should be flagged as to felony status. A reasonable attempt must be made to improve the flagging of felonies in existing records with a goal of achieving such flagging for 90% of the arrest records over the past five years. If this proves impossible, Georgia must describe attempts to obtain 90% and the reasons why that level could not be reached.
Status: Georgia has already flagged all of its criminal history records with felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction or unknown. As a participant in III, Georgia records have been and remain available through the III. Every effort has been made and will continue to be made to reduce the number of unknown status records. Current dispositions all require the setting of the above mentioned flag for felony or misdemeanor convictions prior to update of the CCH record. Delinquent dispositions also require the setting of this flag prior to update of the CCH record. Georgia also incorporated the new requirement for misdemeanor domestic violence conviction disqualification status. Finally, Georgia was the second state to ratify the Interstate Compact for III data sharing and is far advanced in planning to be a National Fingerprint File (NFF) state.
2. Full Automation of Criminal History and Fingerprint Records
There are four specific criteria to meet this goal.
a. All criminal history records from the past five years must be automated.
Status: This goal has been achieved. All criminal history records within the repository are fully automated.
b. All master name index records from the past five years must be automated.
Status: This goal has been achieved. All master name index records within the repository are fully automated.
c. New records for offenders with prior manual records must be entered into the automated files, including the preexisting manual record.
Status: This goal has been achieved. All new records for offenders are entered into the automated files. Since there are no preexisting manual records for these records that point is moot.
d. Procedures must be established to ensure all records related to felony offenses are entered into the automated system within 30 days of receipt by the central repository and all other records are entered within 90 days.
Status: With the elimination of the arrest fingerprint card backlog, the goal of entering all felony offenses into the automated system within 30 days of receipt by the central repository has been met. In fact, the average time to enter this data into the repository is less than one week from date of receipt for manual submissions. Furthermore, the successful upgrade of the AFIS to

receive electronic fingerprints supports a 24-hours a day, seven-day-a-week operation and electronic submissions account for 73% of the criminal fingerprint card workload. Electronic fingerprints are processed and CCH files are updated on average within 25 minutes of time of receipt. The elimination of the disposition report backlog ensured that reports of final disposition data and other types of documents are updated well within the 30-day time frame for felonies. In fact, all arrests and dispositions are applied to the CCH data base well within 30 days of receipt of document. The ongoing automation effort in disposition reporting allows for update of the CCH database within the same day the disposition is entered at the local site.
3. Increased Reporting to the FBI
There are two specific requirements for this goal.
a. Fingerprints taken at arrest and/or confinement are submitted to the state repository and, when appropriate, to the FBI CJIS Division. The state repository, when appropriate, shall forward such fingerprints to the FBI/CJIS Division within two weeks of receipt.
Status: Georgia has operated under a mandatory reporting law for all documents related to fingerprinting and dispositions for 24 years. The Local Audit Team project has provided the capability to ensure compliance with the provisions of this law. Moreover, because of the elimination of the criminal card backlog and GCIC's electronic interface with the FBI, all fingerprints, which are manually received, are sent to the FBI within hours of receipt by the repository. This is due, in part, to the fact that all manually received prints are scanned into the Georgia AFIS and are, in turn electronically transmitted to the FBI. In addition, electronic fingerprints (currently 73% of the current criminal card workload) are sent from local law enforcement agencies, processed by the Georgia AFIS and sent on to the FBI on average within 15 minutes of receipt of the electronic submission by GCIC. At the present time, all criminal fingerprint cards are transmitted electronically to the FBI's CJIS division.
b. Final dispositions are reported to the state repository and, when appropriate, to the FBI CJIS Division within 90 days after the disposition is known.
Status: The elimination of the disposition backlog during July 1997 ensured that all dispositions were processed within 30 days, well within the 90 day time frame. Presently, the processing of all manual dispositions is outsourced to a private vendor. On average, approximately 1000 dispositions per day are processed by the vendor, with a maximum contractual obligation of 25,000 per month. All dispositions, submitted in paper form, are on the system approximately 1 weeks after receipt by GCIC, with delinquent dispositions receiving top priority. Following the processing of dispositions at the state level, all dispositions are submitted via magnetic tape to the FBI on a monthly basis. In this situation, all dispositions (delinquent and current) are submitted in the same manner. Additionally, a second expungement tape is submitted to the FBI with data regarding first offender completions and records sealed as allowed by O.G.C.A. 35-337(d).

As mentioned earlier in this section, the development of the City of Atlanta/Fulton County automated disposition reporting system serves as a "prototype" to encourage other disposition submitting agencies to automate their processes. This tracking system is one of the major reasons the subcommittee wished to move the prototype test of this system to the current funding cycle. Finally, ongoing efforts to automate court systems, now encompassing 124 courts representing 67 counties ensures automated court disposition updates of the CCH database within a week of adjudication. These automated dispositions reduce the workload on the manual disposition processing efforts and free up resources to help process the delinquent disposition workload. Currently, approximately 38% of all dispositions are submitted electronically.
4. Support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
There is one goal outlined in the U.S. Attorney General's letter to the Governor of Georgia dated May 27, 1994. It involves percentages of complete records within the last five years sharable through the Interstate Identification Index (III).
a. December 1998 - 75% of Georgia Current/Sharable Records Complete. December 1999 - 80% of Georgia Current/Sharable Records Complete. December 2000 - Up to 100% of Georgia Current/Sharable Records Complete.
Status: Presently, Georgia has a 99% acceptance rate for all records that are shareable with III. The reduction and elimination of the disposition backlog, the aggressive delinquent disposition collection project and continued automation of disposition reporting all have led to increased levels of disposition reporting as can be seen in Section IV. Furthermore, the development of the integrated justice system by the City of Atlanta and Fulton County project will increase disposition reporting from the pretrial area as well as provide a "tickler" system to track the status of interim dispositions. Additionally, GCIC serves as the point of contact for NICS in the state of Georgia.

5. Child Protection Law Requirements

This is a tightly focused goal to improve the completeness and accuracy of child abuse records as outlined in the U.S. Attorney General's letter to the Governor of Georgia dated June 20, 1994.

a. Membership in III 80% Complete for Identifiable Child Abuse Records Up to 100% Complete and Available On-Line

X Dec. 96 Dec. 00

Status: As shown by the "X", Georgia is already a member of III. Subsequent to the June 20, 1994 letter, the National Child Protection Task Group recommended to the Attorney General that this specific set of goals be incorporated into the overall Brady and CJRI goals. The Task Group explained there was lack of funding for this Act. Furthermore, the tight focus on specific child abuse crimes left out other child abuse crimes reported as assaults, rapes, etc. As stated in the CJRI Plan, Georgia's overall emphasis on automation, collection of delinquent dispositions, and source agency auditing is designed to increase the overall percentage of complete criminal

history records for the past five years. As reported in other sections, the plan is making significant progress that will help meet the overall goal of this requirement.
6. Stalking, Domestic Violence, and Protection Orders
a. To plan for the collection and entry of data within these categories for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and other authorized parties.
Status: In May 1997, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) installed a National Protection Order file. GCIC implemented the programs to access and update the federal file as required in 1997. During the 2001 session of the Georgia General Assembly, a bill passed the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Roy Barnes. This law, O.C.G.A. 19-13-50, became effective July 1, 2001. This law mandates that GCIC develops and operate the registry.
GBI and the Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation (GTARC)/Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) entered into an agreement for GTRI to develop the Georgia Protective Order Registry (POR). Meetings have been held with the Council of Superior Court Clerks of Georgia, Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA), Georgia Sheriff's Association, Administrative Office of the Courts, Commission on Family Violence and GTRI.
Once operational, the Georgia Protective Order Registry will be a web-based system that tracks protective orders. The registry will be populated with Family Violence Six Month Protective Order, Family Violence Exparte Protective Order, Stalking Permanent Protective Order, Stalking ExParte Temporary Protective Orders and associated images. This information will be provided by the Georgia's Superior Court Clerks. The documents and data are electronically transmitted to the Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA) server, which transfers data to GCIC and then relevant NCIC data will be sent to the national file. Presently, GBI has entered into an Instructor's Agreement to provide an awareness training to all law enforcement agencies on the Protective Order Registry. GBI and GTRI have developed the design document for the POR. Currently, GTRI, GSCCCA and GBI have started conducting Acceptance Testing to ensure the POR meets all GBI and NCIC requirements. The Protective Order Registry will be operational on July 1, 2002.
7. Violent Sexual Offender Registry
a. Georgia must institute a violent sexual offender registry that meets the requirements of the Federal sexual offender statutes.
Status: Georgia has successfully implemented a Violent Sexual Offender Registry containing over 6,061 offenders, which is an 1,161 increase from last year. The Georgia General Assembly has provided state funding to keep this registry in operation. Recent enhancements to the registry include automating the process to allow local and state law enforcement agencies to submit or update records electronically and the ability to capture and store mugshots. Just over 37% of the records in the registry have a mugshot associated with an offender's registry record.

In 1998, BJS announced the National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program (NSOR-AP) which provides funding to states to meet the federal requirements for sex offender registration that were established by the Jacob Wetterling Act, Pam Lychner Act and Megan's Law. Through this program, Georgia was awarded $569,911 to automate the submission of data to the sex offender registry. The GBI collaborated with the Georgia Department of Corrections and the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles to accomplish this goal. These funds were used to automate the submission of information to the registry; it was also used to create the ability to capture a mugshot of each offender on the registry. This information is posted on the GBI's website to supplement the notification efforts that are currently in place throughout the state. Essentially, this project allows the local probation or parole officer to have a direct connection to supply the registration information to the GBI through the placement of a PC and a digital camera in all probation and parole offices in the state. By having this system in place, we dramatically reduced the amount of time that it takes to register an offender and post the appropriate information on the GBI's official website, located at http://www.ganet.org/gbi.
III. Separate Projects Under CJRI Plan
1. Local Audit Team
Award was $311,920 from FY96 funds. Activity in this area includes both activities from previous grant and new grant awards.
311 audits 28,664 delinquent dispositions collected.
During FY97, the amount awarded was $250,000.
330 audits 27,007 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY98, $251,666 was awarded. During this period, continued progress was made in this area.
245 audits 22,899 delinquent dispositions collected.
During FY99, $250,000 was awarded to this program. Due to the personnel turnover, a decline in the number of dispositions collected can be seen.
261 audits 13,822 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY00, $300,000 was awarded to this program. As in previous years, staffing problems arose and due to the transition period allowed for new personnel, a decline in number of

dispositions collected is evident. Currently, the program is back to full staff and should experience greater results with the next cycle.
309 audits 9,424 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY01, $300,000 was awarded to this program. In this period, progress was made in the number of dispositions collected.
433 audits 15,281 delinquent dispositions collected
During FY02, $300,000 was awarded to this program. As in previous years, a decline in the numbers of disposition collected was due to staffing problems. Staff was also used to research and collect delinquent dispositions from Fulton County which is considered to have the highest number of disposition with open felony arrests.
206 audits 10,740 delinquent dispositions collected
2. Judicial Automation
Award was $354,300 from FY96 Funds. Activity in this area includes both activities from previous grant and new grant awards.
Continued installation of court based SUSTAIN package. Development and delivery of the Integrated Justice Windows System for evaluation and testing completed.
During FY97, the amount awarded was $392,043.
Continued installation of court based SUSTAIN package. Development and delivery of the Integrated Justice Windows System for evaluation and testing completed.
During FY98, the amount awarded was $356,550. These funds have been allocated for use in the area of judicial automation; however, at present, these funds have not been expended and have been granted a verbal extension through September 30, 2001. During FY99, the amount awarded was $363,000. Beginning with this fiscal year, all funds were competitively awarded to local court clerks and their authority to fund court automation efforts. However, due to the presence of FY98 funds, FY99 funds have not been expended at this time.
In addition, the Georgia Courts Automation Commission (GCAC) and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) oversee selected large court automation projects for automated disposition

reporting. The prime example of this effort is the current Atlanta/Fulton County Project mentioned earlier in this section.

3. Live Scan Purchases The following new agencies were awarded Byrne 5% set-aside money for the purchase or upgrade of a live scan device to submit fingerprint images and data electronically to GCIC:

Ben Hill County S.O. Liberty County SO

Polk County SO Wilkes County SO

Currently, a total of ten (10) Sheriff Offices have been awarded the Byrne 5% set-aside money for the purchase or upgrade of a live scan device.

4. Other Funds in Addition to 5% Set-Aside Funds
An additional $500,000 was added to 1998 set-aside funds from Byrne for local agencies to purchase live scan devices to submit electronic fingerprints to AFIS. During calendar year 1999, $98,502 was sub-granted to Glynn County to provide for the purchase of an AFIS remote with funds remaining from the FY98 award.
As mentioned previously in the plan, in 1999, $350,000 was awarded to Fulton County for the joint City of Atlanta/Fulton County automated court disposition project these funds are above and beyond the normal 5% set-aside allocations. Additionally, $140,406 in FY99 funds was used to provide livescan devices to Dade, Jones and Peach counties.
During FY00, an additional $368,278 was awarded to AOC for the further development of the City of Atlanta/Fulton County automation project. Further, $100,800 was awarded to Dawson and Greene Counties for the purchase of livescan equipment. Currently, funding remains to provide for one, possibly two additional livescan devices using FY00 funds.

4. NCHIP

Card Scan / Live Scan Sites

As part of the NCHIP 1999 grant $448,528 was awarded to GCIC for the purchase or upgrade of live scan devices for local agencies to submit fingerprint images and data electronically to GCIC.

$301, 240 was awarded to GCIC in the NCHIP 2000 grant for the purchase of upgrade of a live scan device for local agencies to submit fingerprint images and data electronically via the Internet. The following new agencies have been installed with funds from both grants:

Harris Co SO Coffee Co SO

Decatur Co SO Glynn Co SO

Wayne Co SO Cherokee Co SO

Gordon Co SO Paulding Co SO

Currently, 73% of GCIC's existing criminal fingerprint workload is received electronically. GCIC was awarded an additional $79,351.00 in NCHIP funds to purchase one live scan device and host a Live Scan and Card Scan User's conference. The device will provide a prototype site for testing an interface between a live scan device and a digital imaging system.
Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Redesign
GCIC operates a 35-year old Computerized Criminal History (CCH) system. Redesign is essential to move the 35-year old system to a new platform with graphical interfaces and a relational database, in order to increase ease of access and use. This will provide greater flexibility in retrieval and presentation of data, and more effective and efficient processing. A major goal of this redesign is to allow users to retrieve related information on a potential offender/suspect through one inquiry. This inquiry will provide the maximum in flexibility in terms of data requested and use of a graphical user interface. Officers, prosecutors, and judges, among others, will be able to specify what types of information and images they need on suspects/offenders with this inquiry. In addition, warning flags, such as violent felon, under a restraining order, and sex offender status will also be provided based upon the requestor's inquiry.
Due to the complexity of the current CCH database and the age of the system, several incremental steps must be taken to redesign and modernize the system. First, the current Georgia CCH system and database must be fully analyzed, mapped and documented. GBI and Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation (GTARC)/Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) has entered into an agreement for GTRI to analyze and document the CCH current system. GTRI has produced an Interim Review, which describes and document the current CCH System in terms of data definitions and data schema. GBI personnel are currently reviewing the document and will provide their findings in writing to GTRI. The analysis and documentation of the current CCH system will be used as the framework for developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the redesign of the CCH system.
The second phase of this major project includes the upgrade and modernization of the current hardware and software platform for CCH. As part of this phase, web based access to CCH felony convictions will be installed. GBI received approval to utilize 1.8 million from NCHIP to support this phase.
The third phases involves the final rewrite of core components of the CCH system to stream line and modernize the internal operation of the system and its database. This will include transition to a new database schema, graphical interface and implementation of XML as a data transfer standard.

ASAP Program
Both the NCHIP and Byrne 5% set-aside ASAP grant programs focus on the protection order component that support all levels of Georgia's judicial system. The state of Georgia received $249,900 to create a model Temporary Protection Order process. This prototype ensured that standard orders, forms and procedures were developed to support the TPO Registry.
AOC and the Domestic Violence Policy Council worked with the Department of Public Administration and Human Services at Kennesaw State University to prepare an analysis to determine the current number, source, style and content of the orders throughout the state of Georgia. The research provided information on the origin of petitions, the number of petitions and final orders and the content of forms. Kennesaw State University stressed the importance for standardization in areas such as terminology and document formats.
For first phase, which consist of AOC to work with the Georgia Commission on Family Violence to spearhead the prototype development has been completed. The second phase of the project which involve the testing using pilot sites and the following four counties served as pilot sites Cherokee, Douglas, Hall and Wheeler. This project is complete.
Image Archive
The GBI awarded the Image Archive system contract to CBM Archives, Inc. in July 2000 and the system was operational in June 2001. The Image Archive system has the capability to capture, store, retrieve, display and print fingerprint images, mugshot images and disposition data. The system has replaced the current microfilm process and will provide a more rapid (electronic) dissemination of data to Georgia's criminal justice community.
The Image Archive system meets the American National Standard Institute Standard and Technology (ANSI/NIST) Standards data format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial and Scars, Marks & Tattoos. In addition, the Image Archive system is linked to the GBI's Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). Currently there are over 190,000 images stored within the system. In July of 2002, this project was completed.
5. State Funded
Due to the recent change of Georgia law requiring the submission of juvenile fingerprints, an additional $1.1 million was awarded through state funded appropriations for an upgrade to AFIS to accept juvenile submissions. This project has been completed and the Georgia AFIS is now capable of processing and receiving juvenile submissions.

IV. Disposition Reporting Comparison
Following are disposition reporting rates for the years 1990-2002 and comparisons are available. For those years, Set 1 was taken on April 1997, Set 2 was taken February 1998, Set 3 was taken August 1999, Set 4 was taken August 2000, Set 5 was taken April 2001, Set 6 was taken February 2002 and Set 7 was taken September 2002. The comparison reveals substantial increases for several of the years in question.

1990
Arrests w/ dispositions Felonies w/ dispositions 1991
Arrests w/ dispositions Felonies w/ dispositions 1992
Arrests w/ dispositions Felonies w/ dispositions 1993
Arrests w/ dispositions Felonies w/ dispositions 1994
Arrests w/ dispositions Felonies w/ dispositions 1995
Arrests w/ dispositions Felonies w/ dispositions 1996
Arrests w/ dispositions Felonies w/ dispositions

4/97 2/98 8/99 8/00 4/01 2/02 9/02 73% 74% 75% 78% 78% 78% 80% 75% 80% 83% 84% 84% 84% 88%
73% 76% 77% 80% 81% 81% 81% 76% 86% 90% 91% 92% 92% 93%
73% 76% 78% 81% 81% 82% 82% 76% 83% 88% 89% 90% 90% 91%
73% 76% 78% 82% 82% 82% 83% 76% 82% 87% 88% 88% 90% 90%
71% 77% 79% 83% 84% 84% 85% 71% 79% 82% 84% 84% 86% 87%
58% 72% 75% 80% 81% 82% 82% 58% 74% 78% 80% 81% 84% 85%
30% 66% 73% 79% 79% 79% 80% 24% 63% 72% 74% 74% 75% 76%

4/97 2/98 8/99 8/00 4/01 2/02 9/02

1997

Arrests w/ dispositions

-- -- 70% 79% 80% 82% 82%

Felonies w/ dispositions -- -- 67% 72% 74% 76% 77%

1998

Arrests w/ dispositions

-- -- 58% 71% 76% 78% 78%

Felonies w/ dispositions -- -- 47% 65% 69% 71% 72%

1999

Arrests w/ dispositions

-- -- -- 56% 65% 70% 72%

Felonies w/ dispositions -- -- -- 49% 62% 69% 71%

2000

Arrests w/ dispositions

-- -- -- 24% 44% 63% 67%

Felonies w/ dispositions -- -- -- -- 33% 59% 66%

2001

Arrests w/ dispositions

-- -- -- -- 4% 33% 57%

Felonies w/ dispositions -- -- -- -- 2% 24% 49%

2002

Arrests w/ dispositions

-- -- -- -- -- 1% 17%

Felonies w/ dispositions -- -- -- -- -- 0% 9%

Attachment A CJRI Subcommittee Members

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
Criminal Justice Records Improvement Subcommittee

Dr. J. William Holland, Chair Assistant Deputy Director for Plans and Program Development Georgia Crime Information Center
P.O. Box 370748 Decatur, Georgia 30037-0748 404-244-2601/FAX 404-241-5992 e-mail: bill.holland@gbi.state.ga.us

Mr. Richard A. Malone
Director of Prosecuting Attorney Council 3200 Highland Parkway, Suite 420 Smyrna, GA 30082 770-438-2550 / FAX 770-438-6121 e-mail: rmalone@pac.state.ga.us

Mr. David L. Ratley
Director of Administrative Office of the Courts 244 Washington Street, SW, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30334 404-656-5171 / FAX 404-651-6449 e-mail: ratleyd@aoc.courts.state.ga.us

Sheriff Howard Sills
Putnam County Sheriff's Office P.O. Box 3637 Eatonton, GA 30124 706-485-8577/FAX 706-485-4084 e-mail: hsills@inetnow.net

Ms. Jean H. Rogers Crisp County Superior Court Clerk P.O. Box 747 Cordele, GA 31010 912-276-2616/FAX 912-276-2627 e-mail: jean.rogers@gsccca.org

Col. Lynda Coker Chief of Investigations Cobb County Sheriff's Office 185 Roswell Street Marietta, GA 30090-9650 770-499-4651 / FAX 770-499-4681 locker@cobbcounty.org

Mr. Jerry Garland
Administrative Office of the Courts Georgia Courts Automation Commission Suite 414 47 Trinity Avenue, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 651-8165 / FAX 404-651-8181 e-mail: garlandj@gcac.courts.state.ga.us