skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 221423 Find in a Library
Title: Process Evaluation of the PCCD-Funded Offender Processing Technology: Live Scan and CPIN, Final Report
Author(s): Karen Shastri Ph.D.; Holly Wald Ph.D.; William Nearhoof; Raymond Aull
Date Published: 2003
Page Count: 36
Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1167
Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
P. O. Box 1167
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1167
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Program/Project Description
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The study presents a descriptive analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, benefits, and impact of Live Scan and the Commonwealth Photo Imaging Network (CPIN), two offender processing technology programs.
Abstract: The finding indicates that the technology is being accessed at the both local and State level, but not to its fullest potential. In terms of public safety, there is no evidence to suggest that arrest rates have changed as a result of having the technology in place. Benefits related to public safety include: faster turnaround time in receiving the RAP sheet from the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Central Repository; faster turnaround time from apprehension to the time of preliminary arraignment; faster identification of suspects; and reduction in duplication of records, in particular, when booking arrestees with multiple offenses. Time savings exist when police are able to drop off a suspect for processing and return to patrol. However, for police employed in communities where they must travel to a booking site, there is a trade-off between the time saved using the electronic process and the travel time consumed. Given that one of the aims of this technology is improved public safety, which is achieved by quickly identifying and processing arrestees, it is important to have a more complete statewide database. Secondary police tend to access the equipment more through local police departments than the PSP. Data sources used in this study evaluation were: e-mail surveys completed by primary users and operators, managers of departments with equipment, managers of departments that use the equipment at other sites such as secondary users, district attorneys, district justices/magistrates/bail commissioners; site visits to 10 randomly selected counties distributed by region of the State; technical infrastructure assessment; interviews of State agencies that use the output from the system; and secondary data sources, including fingerprint quality reports generated by the PSP and the Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reports. Maps
Main Term(s): Pennsylvania; Police education; Police information systems; Science and Technology; Technology transfer
Index Term(s): Patrol; Police manpower deployment; Police records; Police Records Units; Police research; State police
Note: Downloaded January 21, 2008
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.