l, Tribal, and Border Criminal Justice Agencies
of law enforcement agencies and courts, many of the information and communications needs focused on improving “fragmented” systems of information-sharing among siloed agencies and improved data extracti


oyment training. Kellar, 2001, also identifies the three most-pressing needs of jail administrators: medical service provisions, budget restraints, and employee training. More than a decade later, in Jackson et al., 2015, the authors’ identification


y (90 per- cent) of criminal justice agencies in the United States fit at least one of our SRTB criteria, research into the needs of these agencies and effective solutions to meet those needs is sorely lacking (NIJ, 2004). To address this gap in unde


s mentioned challenges associated with geographic isolation and challenging topography. Specific challenges for courts and corrections facilities included difficulty in getting jurors and defendants to courthouses on trial dates because of long trave


jority of border and rural interviewees expressed at least some concerns about lengthy response times when their officers need backup.
Some agencies also indicated that, because of their expansive geographic jurisdiction, they did not receive radio a


es to outlying satellite offices. Respondents suggested the use of technology to overcome barriers to serving rural clients, including Internet clearinghouses and videoconferencing. For example, in Wyoming, the ABA is funding the implementation of Sk


lients and getting clients to services posed significant challenges. This was especially so in states where community corrections are handled at the state level and supervision districts contain multiple counties. One agency struggling with this issu


nce 9/11, we began building capabilities, across the nation, but specifically at the border, [we built] things like preventive radiological nuclear detection, rapid-response teams, reverse 911 systems, emergency mass communication capabilities. As th


 that are 50 sworn or less. They will all go to larger agencies.
Courts
SRTB courts also reported challenges associated with budget constraints and instability. Some respondents pointed to broad socioeconomic causes for funding deficits, such as the


ficient. As mentioned earlier, 638 facilities receive base funding from the BIA. They also receive a portion of their overall budgets from their governing tribal bodies. One tribe in particular informed us that the portion of funding that its facilit


erviews 47
48 The Justice Innovation Center for Small, Rural, Tribal, and Border Criminal Justice Agencies
(e.g., problem-solving courts) because larger, well-resourced establishments are typically neces- sary to justify the investment for such speci


in telemedicine and remote treatment services but noted large start-up costs, financial and otherwise, that can hinder implementation. Many facilities lack the physical space and funding to purchase the equip- ment required to run that type of progr


th getting clients into treatment as “multifaceted”: “[We] are doing a great job of identifying people at arrest who have significant issues, but one of the big- gest challenges is having easy access to necessary services.”
Other agencies reported an


issue that arises.
Recruiting officers was particularly difficult for SRTB agencies because many applicants are not qualified for the position: “One of the biggest challenges we are facing . . . is the pool of candidates [who] meet the qualifications


roles. Unlike larger departments with specialized units, officers in SRTB agencies must be more self-reliant and must often serve as generalists. Describing this point, one officer stated, “We don’t specialize. I don’t have a guy who [handles] sex of


f stressed that his agency lacked Spanish speakers. Another police chief noted that one- third of the local population in his area are not English speakers. An interviewee from a tribal law enforcement agency explained that, because of financial cons


hoed trends in that state, which are relevant to access to justice in rural areas throughout the country. The ABA’s work in Wyo- ming, mentioned above, is another example of efforts to address access to justice in rural areas.
Institutional Correctio


hey could hire or the amount of overtime officers could incur. Interviewees frequently reported this as a driver for technology acquisition—to increase efficiency and allow small staff levels to provide sufficient client supervision and support.
Gett


n our police cars. As a result, we are unable to implement community policing projects or CompStat projects. Officers have to take notes in the field and then come back to the station to create that report on a computer. It really isn’t cost-effectiv


long with other agencies in its area, in the process of procuring a joint RMS, addressed the same issue.
One police chief based near the U.S.–Mexico border felt that, although border agencies’ technological capabilities had improved substantially in


gencies lack suffi- cient bandwidth to run systems, including RMSs, video visitation, telemedicine, and remote arraignment. These problems lead to increased transportation and contracting costs, as well
Agency Interviews 55
56 The Justice Innovation


ers into smaller categories.” Redundancy and complexity were also common complaints. For example, using one prominent RMS requires users to “type in the same inmate information on six different screens.” Another interviewee reported that, with his ag


re enough to allow officers to access files while in the field.
Many agencies reported limited Wi-Fi access for officers while in the field or could not afford a data plan for all officers’ cell phones or remote devices: “We don’t have the money to d


able to access the data they needed to do their jobs well impeded their ability to carry out their duties.
Law Enforcement
As discussed above, many SRTB law enforcement agencies identified communication in the field as a primary challenge for their d


s lack the scale necessary to afford flexible software license agreements, often asking multiple staff members to share a single computer’s license.
Some courts, owing to their small number of full-time staff, cannot support any opera- tions outside


Innovation Center for Small, Rural, Tribal, and Border Criminal Justice Agencies
One court referred to the inefficiencies that traditional dispute-resolution procedures bring about. Compared with innovative practices that online competitors (e.g., Le


and detained here for a state offense . . . once [that defen- dant is] done with probation, they would be deported. But that is another law enforcement entity that does that. We only take care of the defendant until they get placed in probation and


, often we don’t know exactly what we’re looking for, so when we get it, we’re disappointed. I think that a lot of our smaller agencies have many different vendors. . . . Well, they are not actually going to work together. So we spent a lot of money


al time with these agencies. This creates extra work and risk for us. That is one of those problems that is just waiting for an incident to happen like 9/11 to illustrate how two uniformed individuals couldn’t exchange critical information sponta- ne


ry county in the state can choose its own CMS. Others reported significant frustra- tions with state systems that kept counties in individual silos, preventing an easy flow of infor- mation between different state offices: “[Other agencies] generally


k, including an electronic docket that would allow better notification of hearing dates and times, minimizing officer wait time in court. They also noted electronic filing of paperwork and electronic sig- natures as areas of need. One interviewee rep


014).
Three tribal police chiefs cited high rates of poverty, substance use, and violence in their respective communities as a challenge. Although this issue is not specific to tribal agencies and indeed some small and rural interviewees reported it


cated in border regions expressed an increased need for contraband- and drug-detection technology, but modern technology solutions, such as the full-body scanners that the Transportation Security Administration employs at airports, are too expensive


at need to be protected against for the tech systems.” Many of these facilities also lack adequate security. As noted earlier, some courts, especially those in small or rural areas, lack basic technological infrastructure, such as broadband Internet


ould be several years into the future: “Everything right now hinges on whether we build a new facility or not.” Others reported having to implement technology piecemeal, over time, in order to be able to afford it, such as updating wiring one year an


o further resistance. For example, one respondent noted,
The problem with videoconferencing historically is that it’s not always done well. If not done well, then it’s a bad experience. Judges have low tolerance for bad experiences with technologies


nts. Others were in the process of piloting smartphones, and still others either did not feel that they were necessary
or did not have interest from staff or the budget to support an upgrade to smartphones: “It’s difficult to get older staff to move


ed to governance and tribal sovereignty. For instance, one tribal police chief explained that there was no existing tribal domestic abuse law his agency could enforce. Instead, prosecutable cases were handled as sexual assaults or batteries. One chie


a reservation, is in a Pub. L. 83-280 state, meaning that the state has jurisdiction over criminal prohibitory issues but not enforcement of orders. Law enforcement in this tribe is virtually nonexistent. Another clerk noted that, because her reserv


.
Agencies reported facing greater obstacles in IT management, including antiquated CMSs and JMSs, and less technology across SRTB law enforcement agencies than their urban counterpart agencies. Management and analysis software problems caused by poo


nces, JIC has highlighted key issues that SRTB agencies face, as reported in the previous chapter. We now address the extremely important question of what might be done to address those issues. JIC’s advisory panel, made up of experts and practitione


articipants to prioritize—or rank order—each need identified in the discussion groups by
 73
74 The Justice Innovation Center for Small, Rural, Tribal, and Border Criminal Justice Agencies
importance for their specific agency type. Participants also


, geography, and resourcing. Approximately one-third of all needs focused on IT and one-third on operations. The remaining third was split between funding and geographic issues. Within each agency type, however, different patterns emerged (see Figure


est cut across all the breakout groups’ discussions.
The first is that the majority of issues and needs discussed were not SRTB-specific; they apply to larger agencies as well. The results were broadly consistent with needs identified
76 The Justice


o the meeting and during the sessions.
Law Enforcement Themes
Improving Relationships with the Community
The general need to improve relationships and build trust with the community was a very strong theme in the panelists’ discussions. The top-rated


conditions; note that this idea was somewhat contro- versial with panel members.
Improving Resourcing
Participants recommended assisting agencies in building grant-development capabilities, both in general and specifically through TA centers that wou


ll be shared and how, especially with the public, in developing new CMSs.
Improving Technology Training
There was one top-rated need to increase the use of online training courses for court staff, leveraging existing examples (Utah was identified as


 their operations and on the criminal justice system in general.
Developing Corrections Personnel
The need to improve the capabilities of both agencies and individuals (as well as individ- ual retention) was another top theme from the institutional c


who could provide “role-modeling behavior” in their communities. From a technical perspective, partici- pants asked that performance information from monitoring technologies (e.g., GPS tracking, substance-use tests) be used to provide positive reinf


ing for officer–client visits and the other on videoconferencing for mental health and other service providers’ sessions. There are also requirements for verified security and privacy. Note that participants emphasized that initial meetings with clie


ntrol and network security.
Assisting Agencies with the Procurement and Management of Information-Technology Systems
All groups had needs to assist agencies with procuring and running IT systems. Law enforce- ment and courts both had top-rated needs


t the same time, small agencies and those in rural, tribal, and border settings are less likely to use technologies considered standard in urban areas.
JIC’s work and the findings presented in this volume are designed to contribute to an understandin


en done on tribal agencies or those located in border areas. The JIC literature review also found limited evidence for the effective- ness or utility of technology; few rigorous evaluations of technology have been conducted with SRTB agencies. The li


 to each community of practice and each sector, but there was also significant overlap in some of the most-pressing
challenges of which practitioners spoke in the interviews. These challenges often compromised the agencies’ abilities to provide acces


address mental health concerns among the people they serve, whether that involves training law enforcement or corrections officers to address people in crisis or better reaching people in small and rural areas with needed mental health services via v


at examine the effectiveness or utility of technology in general, and very few rigorous evaluations of technology have been conducted with SRTB agencies. SRTB agencies need better guidance on how to select clear and defensible technology priorities.


ach that emphasizes reha-
bilitation and positive behavioral change, improving information-sharing, addressing geographic
dispersion, and addressing funding shortfalls.
• Key needs across agencies included better information-sharing, assistance with


ighlight JIC work and will be regularly updated with information relevant to SRTB audiences. JIC researchers will continue to attend, present, and network at various conferences of relevance to SRTB criminal justice agencies. Through these conference


y are you interested in them? Who makes the purchasing decisions and how far out do you plan your technology acquisitions?
4. Where do you learn about technology? Is there particular information about technolo- gies that you want, but aren’t getting?


 audio after taking notes. All information will remain completely confidential and will be aggregated when reported. We will never refer to you or your specific agency without your written approval to do so.
We look forward to speaking with you on [d


not designed for or never reach small, rural, tribal, and border (SRTB) justice systems.
SRTB justice systems account for three quarters of all criminal justice agencies nationwide. However, because they are so widespread and have relatively few empl


w Orleans, LA | Cambridge, UK | Brussels, BE | Canberra, AU
CP-811
APPENDIX B
Interview Coding Framework
 Table B.1
Interview Coding Framework
Superordinate
Person-worn, training, and weapons and force
Vehicles
Technology needs and purchases
Basic
We


program manager Assistant chief
Court administrator
Jail administrator
Organization
Madison County Community Corrections (Tennessee)
Small, Rural, Tribal, and Border Regional Center Blaine County Sheriff’s Office (Montana)
Cass County (Nebraska)
Dist


early 150 agencies, attended dozens of conferences, and conducted a literature review to identify major challenges facing small, rural, tribal and border (SRTB) agencies. In this meeting, we would like you to identify ways to help address these needs


 Break Out Group Issues and Technology Solutions
Group Discussion of Cross-Sector Issues and Technologies
Electronic Panelist Assessment of Solutions
Discussion of special topics for the JIC:
• Ongoing panel survey of SRTB practitioners
• What would


fficulties in adopting new technologies.
o Agencies suffer from a general shortfall in IT personnel capable of acquiring, installing, and maintaining core systems.
o Technologies developed for larger departments are not always applicable to smaller a


meras, have put further pressure on budgets.
• Technology funding.
o Funding to acquire or maintain key equipment, including radio communications
systems and other key pieces of technology identified under ‘‘Infrastructure’’ above,
is extremely limit


nglish speaking clients.
o Telephonic translation services may be inappropriate for longer proceedings.
Agency Operations Challenges
• Process innovation.
o Dispute resolution procedures are inefficient compared to innovative practices used
by online


different judges handling the same case, reducing continuity.
o Small courthouses can mean the court shuts down if a single person is sick, at least until someone else can be found to fill in for them (but that person may be an hour or more away at a


kes it difficult to create institutional knowledge about IT systems and
decisions.
o In some states, retaining staff is difficult because being a correctional officer is no
longer considered a stepping stone to becoming a law enforcement officer. In


 among different agencies regarding active clients reduce the ability of officers to determine client risk level.
• Infrastructure challenges.
o Some rural and border agencies struggle to support basic technologies,
considered standard in larger or u


n.
o Inagencieswherehomevisitsarerequired------especiallyamongthosewithhigher-
risk caseloads------ getting to clients and getting clients to services poses significant
challenges.
o Conducting home visits or employment checks and traveling to local


loyment checks and traveling to local courts across large districts reduces the caseload that each staff member can carry, increasing staff needs.
In agencies that require home visits—especially among those with higher-risk caseloads— getting to clie


th the FCC to ensure consistency and provision of needed radio spectrum to SRTB agencies.
Governments with inadequate broadband services should develop improved broadband capabilities even if they must be shared across multiple local and state agenci


ers’ ability to determine client risk level.
Some rural and border agencies struggle to support basic technologies that are considered standard in larger or urban agencies.
Officers sometimes have limited access to mobile devices because of cost and


ute how-to videos in the courthouse and on YouTube explaining procedures.
Provide online training resources for court staff, such as what Utah has developed (short videos and tests).
Provide scholarships for court staff to attend trainings.
Develop o


 and Border Criminal Justice Agencies
Table E.3—Continued
  Agency Type
Community corrections
Issue
Many agencies must rely on local law enforcement to conduct tests using their portable breath testers, which are relatively accurate but prohibitively


encies cannot buy in bulk, procurement costs can be higher per piece of equipment than for larger agencies.
Small courts lack the resources to invest in sophisticated technologies.
Many courts lack basic security measures (e.g., security staff, barri


verify that the data collected are useful.
    Bibliography
 ABA—See American Bar Association. AJA—See American Jail Association.
American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service, and the Center for Pro Bono, Rural Pro Bono


Justice Agencies
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Law Enforcement, “Operations,” last updated March 8, 2013. As of August 22, 2016:
http://bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OJS/DOLE/
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department o


rew F., A. Clinton MacKinney, Timothy D. McBride, Keith J. Mueller, Rebecca T. Slifkin, and Mary K. Wakefield, Choosing Rural Definitions: Implications for Health Policy, Rural Policy Research Institute Health Panel, Issue Brief 2, March 2007. As of


.pdf
Gardner, Jerry, “Improving the Relationship Between Indian Nations, the Federal Government, and State Governments,” Tribal Court Clearinghouse: A Project of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute, undated. As of August 26, 2016:
http://www.tribal-i


a, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-928-NIJ, 2015. As of August 22, 2016:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR928.html
Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute, Project Responder 3: Toward the First Responder of the Future, Washington, D.


Technology Needs Assessment: Future Technologies to Address the Operational Needs of Law Enforcement, Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, January 16, 2009. As of August 22, 2016: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Docu


e Lindsey, R. Brian Colgan, and David J. Melton, “Addressing Responsivity Issues with Criminal Justice–Involved Native Americans,” Federal Probation, Vol. 78, No. 2, September 2014, pp. 24–31. As of August 22, 2016:
http://w w w.uscourts.gov/file/330


c.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Jury/Tribal%20Courts%20Project%20Review.ashx
———, Reengineering Rural Justice in Minnesota’s Eighth Judicial District: A Case Study—Improving Efficiencies, Reducing Costs, and Enhancing Operations in Rural Courts: Final Report


Officers,” Law Enforcement Technology, Vol. 41, August 25, 2014. As of August 22, 2016:
http://w w w.officer.com/article/11535791/law-enforcement-in-alaska
Perry, Steven W., American Indians and Crime, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Of


Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 248677, May 2015. As of August 22, 2016:
http://w w w.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd13ppp.pdf
Rodriguez,


9003.pdf
Stephan, James J., Census of Jails, 1999, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 18633, August 2001. As of August 24, 2016:
http://w w w.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cj99.pdf
St


 Vol. 6, No. 5, 2005, pp. 419–434.
Weisheit, Ralph A., David N. Falcone, and L. Edward Wells, Rural Crime and Rural Policing, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 150223, Septemb


 and Community Safety.
This report summarizes JIC’s research goals and efforts, including a literature review, in-depth interviews with nearly 150 practitioners and topical experts, and focused discussions with an advisory panel of expert-practitione


  CORPORATION
U.S. Consumer Preferences
for Telephone and Internet
Services
Evidence from the RAND American Life Panel
Craig A. Bond, Howard J. Shatz
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1382
 Published by the RAND Corpora


g the preferences of consumers, this report examines the joint revealed and stated preferences of American consumers toward four major categories of services: landline telephone—i.e., fixed voice service; mobile telephone—i.e., mobile voice service;


..............................................
4.3. Multinomial Logit and Mixed Logit Best-Worst Scaling Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4. Latent-Class Logit Best-Worst Scaling Estimation Results . . . . . . . . . . .


hese questions were part of larger pilot study using the RAND American Life Panel, which provides an Internet-based sample of the population of the United States. Unlike much of the data on telecommunications use previously appearing in the literatur


landline telephone service. The remaining class, approximately 20 percent of the population, views landline telephone as the most important service (with mobile voice service second). Nevertheless, this group (which tends to be older, is less likely


nications technol- ogy. Prior to the mass adoption of mobile and Internet communication technologies, real-time voice communication over the telephone was transmitted via copper pair wiring and circuit switching. The introduction and widespread adopt


ct to federal oversight and regulated as utilities by state public utility commissions and the Federal Communications Commis- sion (FCC). With the development of new substitute technologies that blur the lines between
 1
2 U.S. Consumer Preferences f


d over the Internet for
 1
FCC 15-97, August 6, 2015c.
FCC, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Washington, D.C.,
2 Although we focus on the three questions designed by the research team, the full su


local telephone service (including incumbent
3 For more information on the ALP, see RAND Labor and Population, “RAND American Life Panel,” 2016. An expanded discussion of the ALP is provided in the next chapter.
4 See Chapter Two for specific questio


p, and Internet subscriptions, including dial-up and fixed and mobile broadband Internet. Data for Internet subscriptions are at the “population in households” level, meaning that they are a count of persons living in households with a par- ticular s


of such methods in the telecommunications context is a discrete-choice experiment to estimate the willingness to pay for mobile telephone services.12 Another uses a choice experiment to estimate the value of attributes related to broadband Internet.1


erican individuals age 18 and older from several sources of participants over 11 recruitment methods. Surveys are generally distributed through the Internet, access to which in some cases (depending on recruitment method) is provided to panel members


ze the importance of the following services in your life? Please rank from 1 = highest priority to 4 = lowest priority.
• Landline telephone calling at your home
• Mobile wireless telephone calling that you can use away from your home
• Mobile wirele


ble
Age
Gender (=1 if female)
Income class
Highest education class
Married (=1 if yes)
Foreign-born (=1 if yes)
Race
White/Caucasian (=1 if yes)
Black/African American (=1 if yes)
American Indian or Alaskan Native (=1 if yes)
Number of Observations
5


estions provide information about the services actually consumed by American households in the summer of 2015. Because these services are, for the most part, purchased in the marketplace, this information provides a snapshot of consumers’ choices giv


so more likely to be unmarried and to have been born outside of the United States. Those who self- identified as belonging to the Black/African American or Other race categories are also more likely to participate in the programs. Regionally, partici


ignificant differences between participants and nonparticipants at the 5 percent level. These results do not include respondents who marked “Don’t know or don’t remember.” Standard errors are in parentheses. Household income classes are defined as 1


results above are for the entire (weighted) sample. However, the Lifeline program is means-tested, with eligibility determined by the federal poverty level, which depends on household size (and, in the case of Alaska and Hawaii, geography). To limit


2,500–$14,999 $15,000–$19,999 $20,000–$24,999
Highest education class Master’s degree
Race (white/Caucasian = baseline) Other (=1 if yes)
Employed (=1 if yes)
Geography (New England = baseline) East North Central
West North Central South Atlantic
1.2


) of households reporting mobile telephone service. Approximately three-quarters of households have fixed Internet services, and 58 percent report mobile Internet service. Approximately half of households still use landline telephone (fixed voice) se


usive.
22 U.S. Consumer Preferences for Telephone and Internet Services
customers, while an equal 48 percent have both mobile and landline service.9 The remaining 4 percent are landline-only customers. Based on raw percentages within the class of tel


ving along the East Coast are more likely to maintain a landline than those in the West (including the West North Central, West South Central, and Pacific regions). The technological and behavioral mechanisms that are driving these results (e.g., exp


statistically significant at the 10 percent level. These results do not include respondents who marked “Don’t know or don’t remember.” Standard errors are in parentheses. Income and education categories were entered as dummy variables with the basel


rrent situation, how would you prioritize the importance of the following services in your life? Please rank from 1 = highest priority to 4 = lowest priority.
• Landline telephone calling at your home
 25
26 U.S. Consumer Preferences for Telephone an


spondents who rank a particular service as first in importance consuming that service; that is, the revealed preference information should correlate with the stated preference data. Table 4.2 provides the weighted proportion of the subsample consumin


these respondents, 95 percent have a mobile telephone, 74 percent have fixed Internet, 63 percent have mobile Internet, and 37 percent have a landline telephone (shown in the MT Ranked First column). Bold indicates that the service ranked first in im


d as follows for respondents who have ranked the services from 1 to 4:
• Choice Occasion 1: We interpret the rankings such that the most important service is assumed to be ranked first, and the least important service is assumed to be ranked fourth.


e
0.00*** (0.00)
0.83*** (0.03)
0.10*** (0.02)
— — —
  SOURCE: Authors’ calculations from the ALP.
NOTES: *** = statistically significant at the 1 percent level. Standard errors are in parentheses. The baseline service is mobile Internet, with a resi


on- siderably, while the shares for the other three services go down. This implies that at the means of the parameter distributions, the probability of choosing mobile telephone as most important is higher than implied by the multinomial logit model.


an Informa- tion Criterion, across models with increasing numbers of classes. In our application, both of these information criteria were minimized at four classes.
Conditional on the number of classes chosen by the researcher, the latent-class logit


ass membership can be used to assign sample respondents to a class based on the highest predicted probability. We then computed the weighted sample sociodemographic statistics (such as age and gender) conditional on this class assignment to gain insi


jected at the less than 1 percent level of significance using the unweighted sample. Similarly, pairwise comparisons between each class reject the null of equivalence at less than 1 percent. Readers are reminded that the large number of pairwise comp


t service and having distinct preferences among the other three services. Class 2 prioritizes fixed Internet service as most important. Class 3 views mobile telephone service as most important but does not have distinct preferences among the remainin


ors’ calculations from the ALP.
NOTES: The 95 percent confidence interval of the share estimate is indicated by error bars. Class 1 is characterized by a very high probability of choosing mobile telephone as the most important service, with distinct


e is some evidence that this subpopulation may include the more vulnerable members of society. In other words, while the average consumer may prefer new services and capabilities, this is not universal.
A fuller understanding of the preferences and v


“strength of preference” measures over a number of objects on a common measurement scale.1 Based on random utility theory, the method uses responses indicating the “best” (highest- utility) and “worst” (lowest-utility) object from an experimentally


model is
Pr("yes"|x,β)= f (x′β),
where x is a vector of exogenous explanatory variables, b is a vector of coefficients to be estimated via maximum likelihood, f (.) is the logistic function ez/(1 + ez), and x ́b = b1 x1 + b2 x2 + . . . + bK xK , with


s typically estimated through simulated maximum likelihood.
In this report, Chapter Four presents the results of the best-worst preference exercise using a mixed logit model specification with coefficients specified as normally distributed.
Latent-Cl


, “Lifeline Support for Affordable Communications,” last updated August 17, 2016. As of September 30, 2016: https://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers
Gentzkow, M., “Valuing New Goods in a Mode


 A FRAMEWORK FOR EXPLORING CYBERSECURITY POLICY OPTIONS
 CORPORATION
Igor Mikolic-Torreira | Ryan Henry | Don Snyder | Sina Beaghley Stacie L. Pettyjohn | Sarah Harting | Emma Westerman
David A. Shlapak | Megan Bishop | Jenny Oberholtzer
Lauren Skrab


e play and insights from the participants subsequently informed the frame- work for the cyber ecosystem. This framework, when fully developed,
iii
iv A Framework for Exploring Cybersecurity Policy Options
will support debate and decisionmaking on fut


comes of the two day-long, scenario- based games revealed that, when it comes to cyber issues, stakeholders contend or compete with each other to achieve different and some- times opposing goals, acting much like an ecosystem. As we analyzed the resu


rs from a lack of real demand. Although users want it, they are generally not yet willing to pay for it—so security is not a priority in the marketplace—or to make the additional effort to practice cyber hygiene. While this insight derived from the f


ses, and government entities.
Scenario 2: The Erosion of Digital Trust
In this future scenario, trust in the digital operation of financial sys- tems, the marketplace, and commercial transactions has degraded as a result of massive data breaches that


security measures to support the health and prosperity of the IoT over the long term. In contrast, Silicon Valley participants had some concerns about government-driven solutions, especially that government solutions would be suboptimal, would be out


from individual IoT devices to large systems and services). Participants recognized the long history of information-sharing efforts both by the U.S. govern- ment and across the private sector, but they emphasized the need to provide information to us


y—that these goals could be achieved, yet none proposed viable solutions. All three topics deserve further research and study.
Participants shared many ideas and proposals that raised questions amenable to further analysis. It is worth studying how t


rman, for his support and encouragement and, especially, for facilitating connections with others across the cyber community.
Richard Danzig and Justice Mariano-Florentino (“Tino”) Cuéllar officiated the Washington, D.C., and Silicon Valley games, r


ia’s Silicon Valley with participants from government agencies, the technology sector, advocacy organiza- tions, and academic institutions. The objective of these games was to explore opportunities for improving cybersecurity, assess the implica- tio


nd convenient. For all these benefits, there is a trade- off: With so much valuable data moving through servers and rapidly evolving capabilities to access and exploit them, extremists, criminals, hostile groups, and competing nation-states are findi


n able to resolve these ambiguities and address cybersecurity in a holistic way precisely because perspectives, stakeholders, and equities are stovepiped into competing communities of interest. This lack of integration is a direct result of the absen


trust unseen security safeguards to protect private and privileged data.
The goal of this project was to develop a framework for cyberse- curity that considers the roles of government, industry, advocacy orga- nizations, academic institutions, and co


 ing to technology disruptions and generating innovation-friendly incentives
• the weakness (or even outright lack) of a market force favoring security
• the importance of adaptively aligning market forces, based on stakeholders, their equities, and


We identified four general groups of actors representing key stake- holders in the cybersecurity ecosystem: users, developers, exploiters, and securers (see Figure 2.1).
Users are the consumers of cyber capabilities. Their equities include harnessing


ent situation. For example, a search engine company may collect and store massive amounts of user information in a secure manner (such as by using end-to-end encryption, isolated key codes, certificates, or passwords) to enhance end users’ search res


be denied access. The user very rarely has any flexibility to choose terms or conditions. For further examination of problems common to privacy policies and EULAs, see Luger and Rodden (2013) and Hartzog (2013).
 Figure 2.2
Cybersecurity Framework Eq


f- ficient. In the scenarios presented in the games, there was insufficient demand on the part of users for security. Although users clearly wanted security, they wanted increased capability more. They were unwilling to pay for security in the form o


re and breakout session tasks.
5 See Chapter 6 of the National Research Council’s Computers at Risk: Safe Computing in the Information Age (1991) for an early discussion of how market forces fail to reward security.
 16 A Framework for Exploring Cybe


tries.
Rather than offering top-down solutions, it appears that govern- ments are best suited to provide or align incentives for improved cyber- security. A potent incentive available to governments is facilitating multistakeholder processes to addre


on and collaboration among those who otherwise would not
19
20 A Framework for Exploring Cybersecurity Policy Options
interact. A 360° Discovery Game can also explore a specific problem that may be too poorly defined or understood to be probed in oth


tarian regimes can be traced, harassed, and threatened.
A key element of this scenario is how malicious actors could use the IoT to cause both virtual and physical harm. This scenario places players in a world in which malicious exploitation of the I


e state systems for drivers’ licenses and birth records. In the scenario, this has resulted in a kind of authentication spiral. When companies cannot trust that purchasers are who they claim to be, the company will require more information. By 2021,


ve research on the tactics, motivations, and goals of hackers and other malicious actors, as well as the effects and potential evolution of attacks. For more on the former, see Ablon, Libicki, and Golay (2014); Ablon (2015); Libicki, Ablon, and Webb


ing to two of the perspectives. The three themes reflect three macro-level approaches that can be used to deal with cybersecu- rity challenges:
• Deter and defend against malicious activities. For our pur- poses, we separated deter and defend into tw


impediments.
Each team was designed to be multidisciplinary and included participants from each of the ten categories of ecosystem stakeholders. Thus, each team had participants with significant executive, legislative, legal, economic, technology, po


tivities
Denial of
benefits
I
m
m
p
p
o
os
si
i
t
t
i
i
o
on
n
       o
of
fc
co
o
s
st
ts
s
                      Economic vitality
Technological innovation
        I
I
I
n
n
nt
t
t
e
e
e
g
g
gr
r
rated
  p
ective e
p
p
e
e
e
e
r
r
r
s
s
s
p
p
Cultu


ns
for policy development, partnerships, and investment to navigate this complex ecosystem.
CHAPTER FOUR
Washington Beltway Game
 RAND held its first cybersecurity exercise in its Washington, D.C., office on August 30, 2015. In this exercise, the two


ply through its increase in possible secure connections. Several participants suggested expanding the federal Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service (MTIPS) and EINSTEIN intrusion detection system.2 A simple solu- tion suggested by two separate te


and sup- pression systems.) This led to questions about who would be liable in the event of a device failure, how to insure those devices or their users, and whether the current liability structure creates the right incentives for the market to rewar


users seek from IoT devices (and cyber systems more generally) prioritizes performance, capability, and cost over secu- rity. Although users want cybersecurity, they are not yet willing to pay for it by prioritizing security in the marketplace or by


ip code, phone number, mother’s maiden name, favorite pet, and even biometrics. Agencies at the state and national levels have different standards and procedures for securing user infor- mation. When acquiring identity documents, originators rarely e


y declaring one’s iden- tity, whereas authentication involves verifying that the claim is accu- rate. Correctly making this distinction suggests the need for a different mechanism for verifying the age of a person entering a bar than for confirming w


dress this problem.
Themes and Conclusions from the Washington Beltway Game
Both scenarios presented conflicts between maintaining rule of law and civil liberties during a national security crisis that taxes the limits of the U.S. government. The exe


r of the device? Or is the user liable for whatever risks come with accept-
ing the license agreement and deciding to use the device? While the answers to these questions will create incentives or disincentives to improving cybersecurity, it was not


hown in Figure 5.1. A composite list of the organizations that sent representa- tives to the two games can be found in the appendix.
The game’s location adjacent to Silicon Valley attracted partici- pants from think tanks and universities in that reg


Options
individuals or organizations) to increase security, safety, and data
sharing.
• Regulatorypressures.Regulatorymechanismsshouldincentiv-
ize good practices without stifling progress.
Players described the benefits of increased data sharing of


ces that could cause physical harm and death (e.g., autonomous cars) and for those that cannot. They did not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach; rather, they concluded that rules and regulations should vary based on the poten- tial damage an aff


d government requirements for meeting or reporting that information to consumers.
Many groups discussed education as a necessary tool to raise consumers’ and users’ awareness of cybersecurity issues and the consequences of poor security decisions, as


security Policy Options
can be punished and future adversaries can be deterred. Participants acknowledged that this becomes complicated when state sponsors are involved. Players suggested international agreements, such as mutual legal assistance trea


 commerce resumes.) They asked whether rollback mechanisms should be embedded within the cyber infrastructure itself.
Finally, the players questioned how users would establish new dig- ital identities during or after a financial crisis. Any such proc


h those of the federal government.
• There will be costs associated with any changes, and it is unclear who should carry the financial burden. Users do not routinely choose to pay more money for more secure capabilities, which is one reason that ther


a means for generating profit.
Throughout the games, the players’ own perspectives influenced which topics were raised and in what context. When discussion turned to ideas for government regulations, oversight, or enforcement, the Washington particip


e of government in IoT over- sight during both games, and the players identified the following as the key government roles:
• Develop cybersecurity standards, including standards for digital identification mechanisms or credentials.
• Implement a use


ata and conduct forensics that would be accepted by law enforcement as evidence for possible prosecution of the guilty parties. In contrast, Silicon Valley participants saw the government’s role as promulgating, requiring, or even enforcing standards


ighlighted the potentially powerful role that market forces can play in security—and the large role that consumer choice could play in driving those market forces— neither group could see that happening without major actions by gov-
2 This could be a


hose that treat customer information as a means of generating profit. This perspective never came up in the Washington game, but in Silicon Valley it was considered one of the fundamental drivers of IoT insecu- rity. Silicon Valley participants ident


nts strongly emphasized the need for better law enforcement, primarily through public-private partnerships and privatizing or deputizing industry to protect security functions. In the Silicon Valley game, better law enforcement was not seen as an eff


a result of the breach. For this reason, they pushed for government regulations as a way to level the playing field between these two parties.
The principal difference between the two games was that the Washington participants saw privacy concerns as


idea was to catch attackers rather than just protect the victims. The participants saw a role for government here but did not explore the potential privacy barriers.
Silicon Valley participants empha-
sized the need for an ability to “roll over”
cred


h user whose data is held. Such a bill could include requirements that institutions delete, de-identify, or otherwise aggregate “old” data. While the players did not arrive at a definition of personal data, they generally considered relatively broad


xt of the games. In fact, one of the most valuable outputs of a well-designed 360° game is identifying interesting questions for fur- ther analysis. This chapter takes the ideas generated by the games and highlights issues that are most deserving of


eral authorities, as well as international questions. Governments need suf- ficient clarity on jurisdictional questions to enable effective enforce- ment of acceptable cyber behaviors, liability, and accountability. Devel- oping appropriate jurisdict


could extend rights and protections to individual users in cyberspace. Research is needed to define options for a user bill of rights. Cost-benefit analyses for individuals, producers, and govern- ment would also clarify the effects of such a policy


easy-to- compare format a product’s security, data-sharing and privacy protec- tions, and other relevant information for consumers. The first research task would be to determine whether such labeling would improve cybersecurity enough to justify the


lic-private coalition could develop rules for EULAs specifying the
5 For existing research on these topics, see, for example, Edelman (2011) and Listokin (2015).
6 EULAs often contain extremely complicated terms, and users frequently click through wi


mes would also serve to both test the fundamental premises of our cybersecurity framework and provide additional insights on both the consistency and relative strengths of the various relationships essential to the framework we presented in Chapter T


m- plifies their complex relationships to the essential elements (shown in Figure 2.3 in Chapter Two). In this way, the framework captures at the macro level the behaviors and relationships we observed in the cyber- security games. The key observatio


Area Urban Areas Security Initiative
Blueseed
BMNT Partners
Boing Boing
Brookings Institution
Bugcrowd
California Information Security Office
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Strategic and Inte


ta: Hackers’ Bazaar, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-610-JNI, 2014. As of July 26, 2016: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR610.html
Australian Government, Australia’s Cyber Security Strategy, Canberra, 2016. As of July 26, 2016:


., David Senty, and Julia Pollack, Hackers Wanted: An Examination of the Cybersecurity Labor Market, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-430, 2014. As of July 26, 2016: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR430.html
Listokin, Siona Robin


s security challenges. Satisfactory solutions will require building partnerships among public and private organizations, establishing mechanisms and incentives to foster routine information sharing and collective defense, and educating
users about th


 Urban Responses to Climate Change
Framework for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
Debra Knopman, Robert J. Lempert
 CORPORATION
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1144
  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicat


l K. Mehta, Ben Wright, and Grantley Pyke, Developing Robust Strategies for Climate Change and Other Risks: A Water Utility Framework, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-977-WRF, 2014 (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR977.html)
• D


 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. 5 .. 6 .. 9
. 11 . 11 . 15
27
27 . 33 34 44 46 . 53 . 55
. 57
v
vi Urban Responses to Climate Change: Framework for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
Steps Toward Applying the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . .


oping indicators for successful urban action has proven par- ticularly challenging because climate change is intertwined with such a wide range of a city’s activities; because today’s actions may have important longer-term conse- quences; because sig


itude and adapting to the unavoidable impacts of cli- mate change will ultimately involve some level of transformation. Transformation gen- erally requires significant changes by many different actors within a complex system whose future behavior is


ng and change.
RAND RR1144-S.1
the broader social and political context, including, for instance, trust in government, the authority of science, and the degree of civic involvement.
Climate risk management strategies that rest on actions in Tier 1 ar


le S.1
Proposed Categories of Indicators
Indicator Categories Key Attributes
State of the Urban Region (Based on Causal Models)
     Well-being and risk to well-being Capacity to implement the plan Capacity to adapt and transform
Quality of the Plann


y unfold and a capacity to successfully adjust policies that reduce GHG emissions as challenges and opportunities arise in the future. An urban region’s capacity to adapt is limited by many fundamental attributes of the system, including its institut


ese decisions are driven by economic development goals but are also contingent on the cur- rent and projected tax base of the region, as well as external factors, including the rate of sea level rise and risk of damage from major coastal storms and f


anning
Examples of Classes of Indicators
• Regional economic development • Flood risk
• Water quality
• Ecosystem protection
• Financial solvency of public utilities
• Equity of benefits and costs
• Financing/funding available
• Incentives and their


he interplay of science and social issues within their areas by virtue of being part of the affected communities.
Measuring Effectiveness of Processes and Outcomes
In our proposed system of indicators, indicators of well-being represent the top-level


and implementation. This measurement system will be useful for evaluation of the studies and will also enable iterative learning within the decision support processes.
Acknowledgments
 The authors wish to thank Craig Howard, Director of Community and


 increasing resilience to the threats of rising sea level, coastal storms, extreme pre- cipitation events, flooding, or persistent drought (Georgetown Climate Center, 2016).
While urban areas are incurring the consequences of climate change, they als


te change. First, there is a mismatch between established levels and structures of governance and the multiple sectors and geographic scales most appropriate to addressing climate-related challenges. As an example, south- east Florida’s vulnerabiliti


hallenging analyses to conduct, even for sophisticated public agen- cies in large cities, when constituent interests are often in conflict with one another and pressing near-term demands subordinate longer-term needs. Compounding the challenge, analy


ny purposes (cities, development agencies, national plans) and include both process and outcome-based indicators. Some, but not all, of these sys- tems of indicators are embedded in decision support frameworks, but most view adaptation as a linear pr


ccounting of how near-term actions might influence such changes.
Overall, the proposed decision-centric approach to indicators aims to improve communications and engagement with stakeholders and enhance the ability of public agencies and other organi


stal and hydrologic system?
Case 3: Shifting Land Use and Transportation to Reduce Emissions
Imagine a sprawling metropolitan region committed to significant reductions in GHG, much of which emanate from its transportation sector, land use patterns,


t is quantified against a standard.” The standard could be in terms of dollars, tons of emissions, acres, or other similar units (Viggh, 2015, p. 73). A metric is “a calculated or composite measure or quantitative indicator based upon two or more ind


ard. The standard could be in terms of dollars, tons of emissions, acres, or other similar units (Viggh, 2015, p. 73).
Calculated or composite measures or quantitative indicators based upon two or more indicators or measures (Viggh, 2015, p. 73)
Obse


inue. Bours et al. (2013) suggests instead that responses may need to be transformative and encompass “the ability to adjust to potentially radical changes in context, not just withstand shocks” (Bours et al., p. 60). Transformational responses apply


where
the central aim is to maintain the essence and integrity of a system or process at a given scale” (Park et al., 2012). Transformational adaptation refers to “[a]daptation that changes the fundamental attributes of a system in response to climat


ns have been proposed for climate change adaptation and mitigation policies. We review such frameworks in Appen- dix B. In this chapter, we describe a generalized form of risk governance as a particu- larly useful and broad-gauged approach toward dev


jurisdictions seeking to enhance the well-being, opportunities, and quality of life of their residents in the face of climate change and other important stressors. The risk management framework emphasizes a decision-centric view with multiple actors


 to ameliorate the resulting risks. Third, risk governance takes an expansive view of the context in which groups of individuals come to recognize risks and to identify and take actions in response.
This context includes the totality of actors, rules


ment
Communication
Characterization and Evaluation
Appraisal
  SOURCE: IRGC, 2006.
RAND RR1144-2.1
Overall, risk governance encompasses the way in which societies make collec- tive decisions about technologies and activities that have uncertain conse


work for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
technical data alone are insufficient for good decisionmaking (Renn, 2008; Jones et al., 2014). In particular, in the rich decision contexts of urban risk governance, signifi- cant tensions often exis


ers, and too intertwined with diverging values. In addition, people often bring to discussions of risk manage- ment interlocking clusters of values, policy preferences, and expectations about the future. People will tend to prefer policy actions cons


ill work well or poorly. The RDM process, represented in Figure 2.3, shares features with risk governance through its feedback processes and distinctions between processes of understanding and decisionmaking. The process begins with an interactive, p


it their objectives, options, and problem framing influenced by this quantita- tive information (NRC, 2009). When used with MCDA, the RDM process aims to facilitate deliberation among diverse stakeholders by embedding systematic quantita-
Risk Govern


ation models and data that analysts can then use to evaluate proposed adaptation plan(s) over many plausible paths into the future. Different combinations of the uncertainties define these paths. The simulation runs generate a large database of simul


t years have seen a growing interest in formalizing the concepts, methods, and tools for developing and evaluating adaptive decision strategies. Such strategies, which are designed to evolve over time in response to new information, are ideally those


tion of an intended future state which necessarily implies a set of future decisions” (Legey and Kazay, 2001, p. 71). Walker et al. (2001, p. 284) similarly defines adaptive policies as comprising “sequen- tial combinations of policy options. Some op


plies that provide about half of the region’s water. The agency’s 2010 Integrated Resource Plan Update (IRP) describes a preferred mix of alternative water supplies designed to meet the agency’s goals through 2035, including reliability, cost, and en


es take the viewpoint of a single global decisionmaker that can choose GHG
Demand
High growth
24 Urban Responses to Climate Change: Framework for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
emission reduction paths (Stern, 2007). Alternatively, climate


xes might fall in Tier 3. From an adaptation and resilience perspective, a city’s efforts to adapt to a drier climate by incentivizing drought-tolerant landscaping would fall in Tier 1. Facilitating the use of wastewater recycling by revising state h


ate Change: Framework for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
(Step 3) of an RDM decision support process, shown in Figure 2.4, can identify the range of conditions that can be managed and the risks that can be reduced by actions within each of


ble change; and the near-, interme- diate-, and longer-term outcomes of the change and transformation processes. In the next chapter, we present a structure for these indicators to support the risk governance framework and then consider which existin


Framework for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
place, and sector does make a difference, making it difficult to develop meaningful indica- tors that apply equally well in different contexts and across regions and sectors (Bours et al., 2013).


helps organizations move beyond a narrow focus on financial performance to a broader consideration of multiple objectives, such as their environmental and social impacts. Scorecards aim to align an organization’s full set of strategic goals with the


n treated as a gold standard in the general monitoring and evaluation literature, [outcome-based indicators] have not been widely used in an adaptation context, reflecting the difficulty of attributing reduced impact specifically to adap- tation, whe


utional
organization; stakeholder
appropriate use of deci-
ing, technology develop-
involvement; climate
ment, and adaptation
• With regard to adapta-
change information;
research
of key governance
readiness: presence
factors essential
and successful


mework for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
indicators (related to reducing negative effects of climate change) from process-based indicators (related to outputs that may lay a groundwork for eventual achievement of outcomes). Our proposed in


 of Existing Indicator Systems
Measuring adaptation and mitigation progress concerns a variety of institutions and organizations. Governments, NGOs, and academics have developed many frameworks aimed at measuring climate-relevant policies at differen


wed do not make this trade-off between simplicity and richness explicit. Most do not discuss such complexities at all. Preston articulates these concerns with regard to adaptation:
Adaptation plans frequently mention the need to mainstream adaptation


l
2. Case generation
Tier 3
Tier 2
Tier 1
Indicators to Support Climate Risk Governance and Decisionmaking 35
indicator categories related to the former in green boxes and those related to the latter in blue. Figure 3.1 is identical to Figure 2.5 but


ng not only future climate, but also how an urban area may evolve.
Second, to be useful as part of a decision support process that aims to inform the design of urban climate risk management plans, future risk estimates require estimat- ing how today’


ality and flooding in each district of a city under various climate scenarios. In such models, the investments are policy inputs. The resulting projections of pollution loadings and flood depths, when combined with projections of the geographic distr


t and transform involves judgments about how current conditions and actions may affect future capabilities and, in general, requires some type of model. But quantitative, phenomenological models may not often exist for such purposes. In such cases, e


ents and the Metropolitan Transpor- tation Commission [MTC], 2013). This MPO argues that various changes in state law and in the state’s constitution would improve its ability to reduce GHG emissions regionally and produce a better-connected and more


fined to actions possible within Tier 1. Vulnerability maps, such as the one shown in Figure 2.4 and described in Box 2.1, might be used to display the results of such analysis. We could then identify the range of futures over which the region and it


adjusted their performance to produce the social optimum. Helm and Sprinz measure the performance of the existing gover- nance regime in relative terms, in which its actual performance lies between these two extremes. Risk management analysis simulat


ernational Development’s (DfID’s) TAMD Track 1 indicators in Table A.6 also focus on how well climate and other relevant information have been factored into plans. The ability to evolve over time in response to new information will likely be importan


Governance and Decisionmaking 43
     Attributes of context in which plans are developed and implemented
4. Iterative review and continuous learning
5. Multistakeholder deliberation
6. Diversity of approaches
7. Decentralized decisionmaking
Regularly


d Transform
Quality of Planning Process
Quality of Plan
RAND Proposed Indicators
   Health and Well-Being
Economy and Society
Urban System and Services
Leadership and Strategy
SOURCE: Arup,
Minimal human vulnerability
Livelihoods and employment
Safeg


on the current and projected tax base of the region, as well as external factors, including the rate of sea-level rise and risk of damage from major coastal storms and flooding.
The urban area described as Case 2 in Chapter One includes several count


 perceived prob-
lems and challenges • Cost-effectiveness
Approaches to Data-Gathering
• Environmental monitoring and socioeconomic data for current conditions
• Projections of future risk from risk assessment simulations
• Economic assessment of inc


s seeking to improve various infrastructure systems to reduce flood risk, maintain reliable fresh water supplies, restore aquatic and wetlands ecosys- tems, and sustain economic development. As listed in Table 3.8, appropriate well-being indicators m


nications and outreach, definition of roles and responsibili- ties, monitoring, evaluation, and review. In the literature on barriers to adaptation, for instance, the Ford and King (2013) framework for adaptation readiness could also prove useful her


rs and managers)
• Measures that track progress on implementation (yes or no)
• Procedures for formal evaluation by third-party evalua- tors (yes or no)
• Percentage of support by voters as expressed in ballot initiatives, referenda, or public opinio


limate Risk Governance and Decisionmaking 51
an organization. Such an assessment could also survey the community for their views on creating such an organization, evaluate the incentives on various communities that might cause them to view such an or


gy.
In our example, the quality of the planning process would depend on the extent to which all of the relevant stakeholders had an opportunity to engage with the process and the extent to which they found it legitimate, credible, and salient. Evalua


sea-level rise could affect groundwater levels and flooding in an urban coastal region. Another example could be a transportation demand model that helps regional planning authorities relate changes in land use and economic transformation in a region


tion with analysis
• Identify problem/goal
• Scope options
• Analyses
• Implementation
• Relevant stakeholders correctly identified and engaged (e.g., water managers, planners, engineers, natural resource managers at County Planning Office; environme


extend from public awareness to community resilience checklists. In a few places, major problem- focused infrastructure planning is under way to deal with coastal planning or aging storm water systems. California, with its statutory limits on GHG em


cipatory planning and objective analysis to support deliberations. Further, indicators are essential as part of decision support to accurately capture progress toward the desired outcome of risk reduction, as well as the indicators to capture capacit


RA) to cut across its multiple state government departments with responsibilities in coastal Louisiana (CPRA, 2015). CPRA also was intended to address the needs of the entire coastal region, not just New Orleans, Port Charles, and other urban areas a


he future consequences of current actions using some combination of simulation models and qualitative judgments, such esti- mates are unavoidably and often irreducibly uncertain.1 For this reason, it also proves necessary to complement indicators foc


unched three such field studies in the Pittsburgh region, south- east Florida, and the Bay Area megaregion of northern California. The engagement with each area is following a “deliberation with analysis” process. In each, RAND is working with a regi


heir own.
Simulation and visualization tools are critical elements of the deliberative process. Each study is using simulation models drawn from existing models in the region and customized for their specific context. RAND’s previous analytic facilit


aptation refers to adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. It refers to changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate poten- tial damages or


e key factors, concepts, or variables—and the presumed rela- tionships among them” (p. 18).
– A logical framework is a “[m]anagement tool used to improve the design of interventions, most often at the project level. It involves identifying strategic


d, and all can see and agree on the size involved” (Viggh et al., 2015, p. 73).
• Metric
– “A calculated or composite measure or quantitative indicator based upon two
or more indicators or measures. Indicators help put a variable in relation to one o


bsorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 1).
– “Resilience is the capacity of a social-ecological system to absorb or withstand perturbations and other stressors such that the system rem


es of other parts of the system. Within the decision-actor view, one can focus on single actors or on the independently made choices of several actors. These attributes—system versus decision-actor and single or multiactor—prove important for underst


ring vulnerability. Of particular relevance, there exist indicators of social vulnerability that aim to iden- tify the combinations of characteristics—such as income, ethnic diversity, social cohe- sion, and age—most closely correlated with adverse e


nd managing as the basis for its diagnostic process. This under- standing, planning, and managing process is consistent with an iterative process of risk management. Recognizing that the adaptation process does not take place in isolation, the Moser


tors, revealing the varying levels of readiness across the key factors. This framework serves several purposes, as it can be applied to identify areas that could be improved to
Figure B.3
Moser and Ekstrom Barriers to Adaptation
 Temporal
Contemporar


 and grow from a dis- ruptive experience” (Rodin, 2014, p. 3).
The modern concept of resilience builds on insights from three fields: engineer- ing, ecology, and systems thinking. In engineering, structures must be designed to weather disruptive even


change dra- matically with the seasons. The populations of predators and prey might exhibit large swings. Ecologists use the term resilience to mean the property of an ecosystem that, while normally undergoing large changes, is nonetheless able to a


overnance across four broad categories of resilience, 12 performance indica- tors of city resilience, and seven qualities of resilient systems. Da Silva and Morera’s seven qualities of resilient systems —reflective, robust, redundant, flexible, resou


ocess, the particular definition of resil- ience most suitable for this city, stakeholders, and the public at large becomes a subject of deliberation among the broad group of decisionmakers managing the city’s risks.
78 Urban Responses to Climate Cha


or of dynamic systems with appropriately designed monitoring and feedback mechanisms. An automobile’s cruise control system provides a classic example. The car’s controller monitors the vehicle’s instantaneous speed and adjusts the throttle to mainta


isting Climate Adaptation Indicator Systems
 We examine indicators that have been developed for measuring adaptation in cities or that have the potential to inform such measurement. We do so, however, with an eye on general applicability to the full


egionally, or nationally. As such, these indicators hold promise for evaluating cities’ adaptation planning processes in different sectors or agencies and in the city as a whole. Planning processes for mitigation include many similar elements.
Finall


ate impacts are local and it is impossible to have a generic outcome indicator at the moment which is applicable to all areas (Local and Regional Partnership Board, 2010, p. 5).
As such, it “measures progress on assessing and managing climate risks a


ing system to code the data and evidence in the plans, shown in Table C.4. Thus, a plan can receive a maximum of 32 points in each of the three AAA areas, for a total maximum score of 96.
Table C.3
Outcome Criteria for Evaluating Adaptation Plans in


determinants of vulnerability (e.g., population growth), and vulnerability and risk assessments.
Long-term vision of how the community will adapt to climate impacts, including the statement of quantifiable objectives and resource targets in regard to


ces” (IIED, 2013, p. 4). The resulting Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD) Framework is both process- and outcome-based:
TAMD is a “twin-track” framework that evaluates the extent and quality of cli- mate risk management (CRM) proces


2
• Budgeting and finance (for integration and
adaptation)—Indicator 3
• Institutional knowledge (of CC, adaptation,
and integration)—Indicator 4
• Use of climate information (to inform plan-
ning)—Indicator 5
• Planning under uncertainty (using appr


extensive, limited, or lacking) and depth of coverage (detailed, generic, limited but with references to comprehensive studies, or lacking). Based on these criteria, they divide countries into three categories of progress: (1) early to advanced stage


l shocks, terrorism, pandemics, and slow-moving chronic stresses.
The framework recognizes several general qualities of resilient cities, summarized in Table C.9, which it applies to four areas of urban resilience: health and well-being, economy and


forcement of planning regulations.
8. Continuity of critical services. Indicated by diverse provision and active management, maintenance of ecosystems and infrastructure, and contingency planning.
9. Reliable communications and mobility. Indicated by


urban resilience—an outcome of climate change adaptation.
None of the frameworks has been widely used in practice for a number of dif- ferent reasons. The UK National Indicator has been discontinued for political rea- sons, while the frameworks devel


distributors, to produce climate change adaptation reports. The reports are used to assess how climate change impacts the organization’s functions and how the organization proposes to adapt to climate change. Cranfield University developed a framewo


ating adaptation planning processes and applies these criteria to national and international guidance documents (Table C.14). How- ever, the criteria do not include specific indicators, indicators, or thresholds that would help assess whether a parti


l., 2010, p. 21; Crown Copyright, Open Government License v3.0.
the United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme Framework for Climate Adapta- tion, the United Nations Development Program Global Environment Fund’s Adapta- tion Policy Framework, and the W


llocate inputs and resources), and (4) implementation and evaluation (to realize the outcomes). Preston et al. then reviewed 20 guidance documents for adaptation planning to identify the 19 process-based evaluation criteria shown in Table C.15. A sco


 adaptation planning and policy implementation. As such, this stage effectively represents an assessment of adaptive capacity. However, to further discriminate between different components of adaptive capacity, this
stage was conceptualized
as assess


climate, vulnerability or resilience to those changes and the relative importance of climate and nonclimate risks
Transparency about the assumptions made to establish those impacts and risks and the uncertainties involved in their estimation
Identifi


However, they extensively discuss issues concerning risk governance: the need for integrating climate change adaptation planning into more complex institutional, organizational, and governance contexts and the use of evalua- tions of the planning pr


ent and Cooperation (SDC)
 Level
Output 2.2
Activity 2.2.1
Activity 2.2.2
Means of
Description Indicator Verification Assumptions
Community aware of localized climate change information and have access to advisory services
  Activity 2.2.3
Activity 2


 practices/ watershed management
Area of afforestation (m2/ ha)
Impact of flood (no.
of people affected, inundation depth, duration, value of flood damage)
No. and type of DRR instruments (e.g., insurance instruments) promoted
Early warning system in


ive, local, participatory data into quantitative targets in this way” (Bours et al., 2013, pp. 60–61). They further note that while many evaluation frameworks press for process-based indi- cators, more recent frameworks focus on outcome indicators ra


and energy use in commercial and residential buildings, trans- portation, industry, and waste management. Mitigation actions intended to reduce concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere may either reduce sources or enhance sinks.
More recently, growing


rnative conceptual frame- works for thinking about adaptation processes and a system of forward-looking indica- tors in support of adaptive planning and decisionmaking. Looking through the lens of a risk governance conceptual framework, we summarize


GHG emissions through integrated land use and transportation planning. However, there is no requirement that cities and counties adjust local land use plans to reflect these regional plans, nor is state fund- ing contingent on these plans. Instead, t


 2014).
As summarized in Table D.1, national and transnational governance networks have helped support local climate change responses (Bulkeley, 2010, p. 234). One such national network is the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which developed a U.S. Confer-


ip Group
Georgetown Climate Center (2015)
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (2015)
Parent Organization
U.S. Conference of Mayors
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives—Local Governments for Sustainability
Rockefeller Foundati


ry, were motivating factors. Tang et al. (2010) conducted a study analyzing adapta-
112 Urban Responses to Climate Change: Framework for Decisionmaking and Supporting Indicators
tion action plans that were adopted by local governments in the United S


er understand the progress being made globally toward climate change adapta- tion. The survey inquired about the members’ activities related to “(1) experience of changing weather and precipitation patterns; (2) risk and vulnerability assessment;
Ove


Wallis et al.’s 2011 framework.
Conversely, since mitigation-planning efforts have been under way in many cities for a decade or more, mitigation actions have produced measurable reductions in GHG emissions in several areas. As a complement to Carmin


eral studies indicate that local governments are engag- ing in partnerships to help design and implement climate change responses (Carmin et al., 2012; Wallis et al., 2011; Aylett, 2014). In Carmin et al.’s 2012 survey, U.S. respon- dents cited partn


izens with bachelor’s degrees or higher were positively correlated with milestone completion in mayoral cities. In cities with managers, metropolitan fragmentation, defined as “the number of general purpose municipal governments and counties existing


ate and local governments (HUD, 2014a). This competition was developed in response to demand from state, local, and tribal leaders for assis- tance in helping make their communities safer, more secure, and more resilient against future disasters (HUD


fective Response to Climate Change, 2010.
Arctic Council, “Glossary of Terms,” Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2013.
Argyris, C., and D. Schön, Organizational


erability, Risk and Societal Responses: The MOVE Framework,” Natural Hazards, Vol. 67, No. 2, 2013, pp. 193–211.
Bloom, Evan, Changing Midstream: Providing Decision Support for Adaptive Strategies Using Robust Decision Making: Applications in the Col


ts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1, 2007, pp. 33–171.
Center for Climate and Energy So


vironment, Food and Rural Affairs, Adaptation Reporting Power: Received Reports, London: UK Government, 2012. As of October 16, 2016: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adaptation-reporting-power-received-reports
Department for International


tation by Federal Agencies, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-841-DHS, 2014. As of October 16, 2016:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR841.html
Fischbach, Jordan R., Robert J. Lempert, Edmundo Molina-Perez, Abdul Ahad Tariq, Meliss


. Klein, “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking,” Climatic Change, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2006, pp. 301–329.
Gagnon-Lebrun, Frédéric, and Shardul Agrawala, “Implementing Adaptation in Developed Countries: An Analysi


Deeply Uncertain World,” Global Environmental Change, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2013, pp. 485–498.
Hallegatte, S., A. Shah, R. Lempert, C. Brown, and S. Gill, Investment Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty: Application to Climate Change, Washington, D.C.: W


mental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Annex III: Glossary,” in Climate Change 2013:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to th


. Vardavas, “The Effect of Near-Term Policy Choices on Long-Term Greenhouse Gas Transformation Pathways,” Global Environment Change, Vol. 34, September 2015, pp. 147–158.
Jabareen, Y. R., “Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and


ffice, 2015.
Leclerc, Liza, Background Document and Workshop Report: Measuring Progress on Adaptation in Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 2012.
Legey, L. F. L., and H. F. Kazay, “Fuzzy Robustness Analysis,” EUSLFAT Conference, 2001, pp. 71–74. As of


 A., Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 2013.
McCray, L. E., K. A. Oye, and A. C. Petersen, “Planned Adaptation in Risk Regulation: An Initial Survey of U.S. Environmental, Health, an


 26, 2015:
https://www.nccarf.edu.au/content/adaptation
National Implementation Research Network, “Implementation Defined,” 2016. As of June 26, 2016: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation/implementation-defined
National Research Council, Info


 2012, pp. 115–126.
Parker, A. M., S. Srinivasan, R. J. Lempert, and S. Berry, “Evaluating Simulation-Derived Scenarios for Effective Decision Support,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 91, 2015,
pp. 64–77.
Pelling, M., C. High, J. D


amin, “Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change,” in M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, eds., Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability—Contribution of Working


tern Review, Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Sussman, Fran, Nisha Krishnan, Kathryn Maher, Rawlings Miller, Charlotte Mack, Paul Stewart, and Bill Perkins, “Climate Change Adaptation Cost in the US: What Do We Know?” Cl


mework Convention on Climate Change, 20th Conference of the Parties, Paris Agreement, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) as Communicated by the Parties, 2015. As of October 17, 2016: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submissio


ber 26, 2015: https://www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/climate-adaptation-training/ module-iterative-risk-management
Wheeler, Stephen M., “State and Municipal Climate Change Plans: The First Generation,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vo


 Fostering Innovation in Community
and Institutional Corrections
Identifying High-Priority Technology and
Other Needs for the U.S. Corrections Sector
       Brian A. Jackson, Joe Russo, John S. Hollywood, Dulani Woods, Richard Silberglitt, George B.


d is intended to support innovation in criminal justice.
This report is one product of that effort, completed as a joint effort of the RAND Corpo- ration and the University of Denver. It presents the results of the Corrections Advisory Panel, a group


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identifying the Building Blocks of the Innovation Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous Efforts to Identify Corrections Needs . . . . . . .


otential Additional Low-Hanging Fruit Needs in Community Corrections . . . . . . . . . . .. 59
5.3. Top-Tier Needs for Institutional Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
5.4.


lved are staggering. The United States has among the highest incar- ceration rate in the world, with nearly one out of every 100 adults in prison or jail (Glaze and Herberman, 2013). The corresponding rate for community supervision is even higher, wi


ails reported being sexually assaulted by a member of their facility’s staff (Beck et al., 2013, p. 6).1
• Pooroutcomesonkeycorrectionsmeasuresofeffectiveness,notablyoffenderrecidivism.Broad measures of recidivism across the country paint a troubling


dership, practitioners, and specialists; policy and legal innovation; and training technologies.
Figure S.1 shows these main categories and the first level of subcategories within the
taxonomy. (The full taxonomies for both community and institutiona


ity Needs
  Officer/practitioner knowledge development and training
mediated training tools
Ground
Information collection
Doctrine, tactics, management, and behavioral knowledge development and training
Vehicles
communications Information and
and wea


anomalies in case management, such as signs of risk- score manipulation and anomalous churn.
Develop simple risk models using easily observed indicators known to be correlated with recidivism that corrections officers can use in the field to assess o


ppropriate to use in which settings, and warn agencies against using risk instruments that were not developed for the intended purpose, are out of date, or were never validated.
Assign increased and more-targeted resources to address changes in the p


s to access records that can help guide supervision and service delivery. The current state was described as fragmented, with much data not being routinely tracked, problems transferring data from agency to agency, and basic information system limita


iltering for the corrections environment to address security and other concerns. For this need, solutions are
Summary xvii
xviii Fostering Innovation in Community and Institutional Corrections: Identifying High-Priority Needs
Table S.2
Top-Tier Needs


tterns (e.g., in medical cases, complaints, or inmate grievances)
Contraband coming into facilities by employees
Contraband coming into facilities at fence lines
Contraband coming into facilities
through logistics systems
Contraband coming into facil


lop comprehensive video-based training (updated regularly) to train staff on needs, medication, and other requirements to manage inmate mental health issues.
Develop policies and practices to identify early the requirements for inmates’ education, he


ealth needs (similar to needs identified in community corrections) and prac- tices to better manage inmates across multifacility systems. Unlike community corrections, the institutional corrections working group highlighted several broader societal o


 highest-priority training needs.
• Both groups identified a need for speech-to-speech and text-to-speech translation tools for supervision.
• A top-tier need in institutional corrections focused on monitoring social media; a similar need was identif


tools
Deception detection
Information- sharing
Contraband detection
Social media monitoring
Surveillance and analysis tools
Preparedness tools and activities
Staff training
Automated translation
Alternatives to incarceration
NOTE: Horizontal placemen


 Collaborative Innovation for U.S. Corrections
The corrections sector, encompassing both the institutions charged with separating offenders from society as they serve their sentences and the organizations supervising parolees and proba- tioners as th


shot in time and is intended to be a jumping-off point for more and greater interaction with the corrections community as a part of the larger national goal of improving performance of the U.S. criminal justice enterprise.
Though assembling needs int


d to contribute to the thinking of all the organizations and entities active in the corrections innovation system. Improving corrections performance will come out of the sum of their efforts, whether operating independently or in concert. The agenda


Center NIEM National Information Exchange Model
NIJ National Institute of Justice
NIMS National Incident Management System
PREA Prison Rape Elimination Act
RFID radio-frequency identification
TWG Technology Working Group
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle
x


aluation efforts that measure performance, identify problems, and discover emerging challenges or opportunities.
 1
2 Fostering Innovation in Community and Institutional Corrections: Identifying High-Priority Needs
This need for innovation has been r


cies may elect to tackle the same problem using different combinations. For example, a multiagency information-sharing problem might be approached as a technology issue requiring new information technology systems, as an organi- zational policy and p


ologies and commercialize prototype products of others’ research into a form that can be broadly disseminated and adopted
• practitioner and other organizations, which define and disseminate practices and develop standards that help disparate organiz


ation agenda is needed, given the range of organizations and entities involved in promoting change in this sector, and it provides a way for different entities—researchers, large technology firms, small businesses active in related markets, trainers,


nities in the correc- tions sector. Our goal to provide information to such a broad range of organizations means that the innovation agenda, as the name implies, is only a starting point and does not include everything necessary to fully inform their


tial for mobile devices to play a role in supervising released offenders).
Introduction 5
 6 Fostering Innovation in Community and Institutional Corrections: Identifying High-Priority Needs
challenges for corrections going forward. Appendixes to the


evitably reshape the nature of corrections. The most notable shift occurred in the 1970s, when the strong emphasis on rehabilitation that existed for several decades was dis- placed in favor of a crime-control model. Combined with concerns about cont


6,937,600 adults in the United States were under some form of correctional supervision. Of that number, an estimated 4,781,300 were supervised in the community serving a probation or parole sentence. Another 2,228,400 were estimated to be incarcerate


hird of the systems had populations exceeding 100 percent of their reported capacity, and space in systems that were not technically overcrowded was scarce (Figure 2.2). Mean- while, increasing populations in community corrections have led to increas


 States have become the primary mental health institutions in the nation” (Adams and Ferrandino, 2008, p. 913).
It is estimated that 1 million people with mental illness enter or reenter the criminal jus- tice system every year (Morrissey, Meyer, and


its for dying inmates (ASCA, 2013b; Reimer, 2008).
The operational and budgetary implications associated with this trend are significant, including fueling the rising cost of prison health care. Not surprisingly, older prisoners are responsible for a


sexual or physical abuse and are more likely to have been addicted to drugs and to have a mental illness (Morash, Bynum, and Koons, 1998). Different management approaches and gender-specific programming are essential to achieving desired outcomes wit


reporting systems, the data for the 45 reporting correctional systems indicated that the largest expense categories are: custody/security costs (41.7%), inmate healthcare costs (14.2%), and administration costs (7.2%). Other categories were institut


ity and Institutional Corrections: Identifying High-Priority Needs
American juveniles in the system for similar offenses (Iguchi et al., 2005, p. 51). For example, “Bridges and Steen [1998] found that probation officers’ recommendations to courts wer


d treatment and programing.
Corrections Agency Size and Capability Diversity
Because of differences in size, location, population served, and other characteristics, there is great diversity among corrections agencies. However, unlike in the law enfor


ele (2007) carried out a survey of probation and parole agencies via dissemination through the American Probation and Parole Association membership lists and
Figure 2.3
Distribution of Facility Size for State and Federal Institutional Corrections, 20


5). These directorial transitions can be driven by changes in political leadership, making some turnover an unavoidable effect of the democratic process. Attracting and keeping talented individuals is difficult, due to low wages in the sector, stress


hough there are often differences in how jurisdictions and agencies measure their recidivism rate,19 broad measures of recidivism across the country paint a troubling picture.
For example, Durose, Cooper, and Snyder (2014) tracked more than 400,000 s


responding to public records requests) can stress older paper-based systems or information technology infrastructure that is on the cutting edge of obsolescence (e.g., issue highlighted in ASCA, 2013b) and provide a driver to innovate.
Some novel tec


s have increased as crime rates have fallen over the past decades, and there is uncertainty regarding the link between the two, emphasizing the need to reexamine the role and methods of corrections. This rate dis- parity also warrants asking fundamen


rison construction and design. The transition moved many prison functions from being personnel-intensive to technology-enabled. From a period when corrections insti- tutions were relatively basic facilities, the technology surveys in the 1980s and 19


o help deliver that training cost-effectively. Innovation could be driven by using alternative technologies to perform specific tasks better or easier, such as replacing old-school keys and locks with increasingly sophisticated biometric and other ac


e Corrections Advisory Panel.3
Figure 3.2 provides a sample section of the complete taxonomy (populated with institu- tional corrections technologies), showing both the scope of the taxonomy and detail for one of the simpler portions. The full taxono


hicles
communications Information and
and weapons/force Person-worn equipment
Facility operations and
population services
Societal/legal knowledge development
Aircraft
management Information (including sharing)
Weapons and
force
Specialist/technologi


Cellular telephone managed access systems
Health care delivery
Inmate worker management
  Proximity card/ RFID access systems Wristbands Cards
Access control technologies Inmate identification
Organizational logistics
Mobile incident command post veh


nd training
Product delivery
Delivering services to population
Health care delivery Telemedicine Aexutteormnalted defibrillators Electronic health records systems Infectious disease
Apparel
Inmate recreation equipment (portable)
Food service
Suicide


em
access control
Authentication, access management
Watercraft
Inmate worker management
Gas masks
Self contained breathing apparatus Evacuation/
escape hoods Respiratory protection
Personnel clothing, protection or augmentation
Infrastructure
Public


reduce costs. Such technologies include: Bio[metric]- Identification Technologies (Administration/Security), Drug and Alcohol Community Monitoring (Security), and Inmate/Staff Radio-frequency Identification (RFID) Monitor- ing (Security). (Stone and


ideo cameras with motion detectors are also used to assess alarms.
Towers are common to older institutions and beneficial for providing excellent views of the perimeter in multiple directions. Towers are expensive to staff, however, so many agencies


es and strategies that reduce cost and increase efficiency of resource use. Many jurisdictions have set energy and water use reduction objectives and are implementing initiatives with great success (Feldbaum et al., 2011). Some low-tech approaches in


ples include web filtering and moderated communications.
Organizational Logistics and Population Services
Extending the analogy of corrections facilities as small cities, managing internal logistics and the services delivered to the citizens of those


ases of sudden cardiac arrest (National Commission on Correctional Healthcare, 1998).
Inmate health needs also shape logistical and service choices. For example, some products to prevent inmate suicide and self-harm are widely available, including sm


ers, and during inmate transports. Community corrections officers, depending on their agency regulations and their peace-officer status, may carry firearms in the course of their duties. Generally speaking, parole officers are more likely to be autho


ghout the corrections sector, information and communications have been central areas for innovation in the past decades, with technology and practices to collect (e.g., sensors, labo- ratory tests, and data systems), analyze, manage, and deliver info


for a check-in (Klein, 2011). Emerging trends include Internet-based reporting and interviews via video teleconfer- encing, which can be particularly useful in supervising offenders in remote and rural parts of the country (Zastany, 2013).
One of the


ns: Identifying High-Priority Needs
and saliva. Prescreening methods have also emerged as a way to identify offenders who may be impaired and should therefore be targeted for urinalysis. The primary methods in use today include pupillometry (measurin


ASCA, 2013a). When agencies recover contraband cell phones, they employ forensics tools for investigative purposes (Fox and Fox, 2011). Inmate communications on approved systems are also routinely monitored, with telephone systems generally having bu


ance, several agencies have sought to adapt the New York City Police Department’s CompStat model for the corrections environment (Jannetta, 2006). CompStat uses routine tracking of key agency performance sta- tistics (e.g., in the case of police depa


ic factors (such as recent drug tests and missed appointments) into a more continuous assessment process (Goldkamp et al., 2009)
Information Management (Including Sharing)
Offender management systems are critical to operating a corrections agency and


fic information-sharing modules focus on areas such as criminal intelligence and investigations, officer safety, and gang activity. Plans are under way
6 According to the most recent performance data that could be located for N-DEx to assess the exte


aska Judicial Branch, 2014).
For institutional corrections, using video technology to connect staff and inmates with external resources offers many advantages and is also particularly useful in rural areas. Video visitation is gaining traction in pri


sion of transient offenders in urban settings (Mirk, 2010).
Institutional corrections agencies use a wide variety of vehicles and associated technolo- gies. Many agencies operate a fleet of specially constructed, secure inmate transportation buses an


including use of relevant assessment tools and such techniques as motivational interview- ing, positive reinforcement, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (White, 2004). Treatment and supervision resources should be prioritized according to risk, with h


ical and psychological screening, help assess potential candidates and eliminate those unfit for the job. A growing trend is to use interactive, video-based testing in the hiring process (ASCA, 2013c). Such tests put the candidate in realistic correc


ER FOUR
From Corrections Today to Corrections Tomorrow: Identifying Needs in Community and Institutional Corrections
In considering the potential to improve corrections performance through innovations in tech- nology, policy, practice, or training, t


4. Protect the public
5. Save money and/or time
6. Improve correctional
competencies
7. Improve officer/ offender health
8. Reduce officer/ offender casual-
ties and injuries
Definition
Reduce recidivism by providing the • services necessary to succe


fying Needs in Corrections 41
roles efficiently (Objective 5),1 to maintain the effectiveness and skills of their workforce (Objective 6), and to protect the health (Objective 7) and safety (Objective 8) of both correc- tions officers and the offende


ement, cor- rections, and courts.
3 Because this effort to develop an innovation agenda for corrections is part of a larger effort covering the entire criminal justice community, we seek to maintain consistency in the measures used for each sector (l


n of best practices in Massachusetts and else- where, work to create a continuous innovation norm for all components of the criminal justice system, and provide technical assistance in the areas of problem analysis and crime analysis and other areas


operations).7 Because members of these TWGs also participated as members of the Corrections Advisory Panel, the needs and priorities described in this report reflect the majority of those developed in the most recent TWGs.
Generating Corrections Need