One of the goals of the study was to identify the benefits, either expected or achieved, of enhanced information integration. What is seen as a benefit depends to some degree on the perspective and the agency involved, but there was a clear pattern in expectations of benefits relative to improved decision making. Reducing risk to officers is a consistent theme among law enforcement agencies. Better and more integrated information provided to officers at the points of critical decisions and dangerous interactions not only enhances their safety, but also reduces risks to others they encounter. This also lowers potential liability for mistakes made due to incomplete or poor quality information. The court systems tend to view better integrated and complete information as a tool for improved court management decisions, as well as for improved case-related decisions. Prosecutors and defense attorneys need the most complete information to make good strategic decisions on charges, plea bargaining, and other tactics. The Harris County Prosecutor’s use of the JIMS system reduced the total number of cases filed by over 40 percent, but greatly increased the successful disposition rate due to better evaluation of cases based on better information. Jail and correction officials need complete and integrated information to make appropriate classification and assignment decisions on inmates. And, parole officers desire information as complete and integrated as possible to manage their cases. The financial benefits from these improved decisions had not been studied or documented in the cases we examined, so there are no estimates of return on investment. But there was clear consensus that justice professionals attach a high value to these benefits.

Another benefit is reduced exposure to liability for mistakes. The possibility of mistakes that are very costly or do severe harm is higher in the criminal justice enterprise than in many other government areas. The potential costs are therefore high and savings from reduced errors can be substantial. Eliminating redundant data entry reduces the possibility of errors and can improve data quality as well. As with improved decisions, estimates of actual savings due to error reduction were not available.

Benefits in terms of administrative efficiency were also reported. Though typically not the primary reason for an integration initiative, cost savings can be substantial in some operational areas. These include reducing or eliminating redundant data entry and paper work, reducing delays in accessing information, reducing costs for searching and retrieving information, and avoiding delays in procedures through better coordination. Comprehensive cost analysis data from a fully integrated system were not available but some selective savings have been estimated for some systems. In the Los Angeles County CHHRS (Consolidated Criminal History Reporting System), retrieval time for criminal histories was reduced from an average of 2-3 hours per query to less than a minute. This represented a savings of substantial magnitude for that process alone. The CCHRS also replaced older, more expensive systems. Estimates of waiting time for a LiveScan fingerprint identification in California show a reduction from as much as 17 days for the previous method down to 2 hours. McLean County (Illinois) reported that their integrated system reduced officer time on booking paper work from an average of one hour for three suspects to eight minutes. For court systems, additional efficiencies are possible. Courts are estimated to incur as much as half of their total costs in processing paper and SEARCH estimates that California’s Attorney General’s office spends as much as 30 percent of its time on paper work. Even small percentage savings in these areas can represent substantial amounts. Efficiency in court administration can also be improved by avoiding the time and costs of aborted meetings when necessary information is unavailable or access is delayed.