# ACIN Participant and Integration Status Three records supply the package's clearest project-status picture: `STS-201_ACIN_Status_Report_September_2025.docx`, `PLN-201_ACIN_Phase_1_Work_Plan_2026-03-02.pdf`, and `STS-301_ACIN_Agency_Status_2026-07-15.pdf`. They document eligibility, goals, proposed launch timing, a phased vendor scope, and ACIN's own July status labels. They do not include system-generated connection logs, acceptance tests, invoices, or a funding-availability notice. ## September 2025 status and launch projection The September status report says Arkansas federal, state, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the U.S. Attorney's Office are eligible. It describes five operational zones, federal funding "expected by early 2026," MOUs by mid-2026, and a projected launch window of November 2026 through January 1, 2027 (`STS-201_ACIN_Status_Report_September_2025.docx`, sections "Participation Model," "Timeline," and concluding paragraph). Those are prospective project statements. The final custodian email later says the DOJ award package and approved final budget had not issued as of 2026-07-23. ## July 15 agency table The July table reports **21 Phase 1 agencies, 20 Phase 2 agencies, one exploratory agency, and two non-data agencies**, with **29 MOU-signed and 15 not-signed** labels (`STS-301_ACIN_Agency_Status_2026-07-15.pdf`, p. 1). | Agency | Category | MOU label | Project-reported integration status | |---|---|---|---| | Arkansas State Police | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Bella Vista PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Benton PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Bentonville PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating / On-Site | | Cabot PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Blocked — RMS migration / RPS | | Conway PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Fayetteville PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Fort Smith PD | Phase 1 | Not Signed | RMS change / unknown ETA | | Hot Springs PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Vendor / Motorola | | Jacksonville PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Jonesboro PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Establishing technical path / RPS | | Little Rock PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Awaiting data access / LRIT | | North Little Rock PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Paragould PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Blocked — vendor / CentralSquare | | Pulaski County SO | Phase 1 | Signed | Vendor issue / Tyler | | Rogers PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Russellville / Pope County SO | Phase 1 | Signed | RMS change | | Sherwood PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Awaiting data access | | Springdale PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Texarkana PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Awaiting protocol approval | | Van Buren PD | Phase 1 | Signed | Integrating | | Arkadelphia PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Batesville PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Blytheville PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Bryant PD | Phase 2 | Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Crossett PD | Phase 2 | Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | El Dorado PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Farmington PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Harrison PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Hot Springs Village PD | Phase 2 | Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Lake Village PD | Phase 2 | Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Lowell PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Magnolia PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Malvern PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Marion PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Maumelle PD | Phase 2 | Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Monticello PD | Phase 2 | Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Mountain Home PD | Phase 2 | Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Searcy PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Stuttgart PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | West Memphis PD | Phase 2 | Not Signed | Hold until Phase 2 | | Benton County SO | Exploratory | Not Signed | Exploratory — access path | | Prairie Grove PD | Non Data | Signed | No current update | | Arkansas Attorney General's Office | Non Data | Signed | Not applicable — statewide host | The page separately reports Phase 1 as 12 green, three yellow, and six red. These are ACIN's own readiness classifications, not independently verified operational states. ## Peregrine scope versus July table The March Peregrine/Carahsoft scope names **22 data-contributing Phase 1 agencies plus Prairie Grove as access-only**, and **22 Phase 2 agencies** (`CON-002_Peregrine_Carahsoft_Executed_Contract_2026-03-17.pdf`, pp. 2-3). Compared with the July table: - The contract includes Pine Bluff Police Department in Phase 1 and Forrest City and Helena police departments in Phase 2; none appears in the July table. - The July table adds Benton County Sheriff's Office as exploratory and the Arkansas Attorney General's Office as non-data; neither appears in the contract scope. - Prairie Grove is access-only in the contract and "Non Data" in the July table. - The contract assigns data-source products to the 22 Phase 1 contributors, but the July table describes several as blocked, awaiting access, or facing vendor/protocol issues. > [!contradiction] Rosters and execution status do not align > The March contract scope, July status table, and agreement folder are materially different snapshots. The most direct conflict is El Dorado: `AGR-201_El_Dorado_PD_MOU_EXECUTED_2026-05-15.pdf` carries a May execution, while `STS-301_ACIN_Agency_Status_2026-07-15.pdf` calls El Dorado "Not Signed." See [[T032 - ACIN Participation Rosters and Agreement Status]]. ## Work-plan measurement conflict The March work plan opens with a target of 22 priority datasets across 21 agencies and "an estimated 2,000,000 cases," but later defines success as demonstrated value across "the estimated 200,000 integrated cases" (`PLN-201_ACIN_Phase_1_Work_Plan_2026-03-02.pdf`, p. 1). The tenfold difference is internal to the same page and is not reconciled elsewhere in the package. The work plan defers advanced or experimental analytics, predictive modeling, and broad non-CJIS or sensor/hardware integrations until after core proof (p. 2). That boundary coexists with standard AI/ML capabilities in the Peregrine scope and digital/cellular analytical services in the LeadsOnline contract; it should not be read as a claim that the contracts lack those capabilities. ## Operational boundary > [!contradiction] Integration labels versus funding contingency > The July table uses "Integrating" and "Integrating / On-Site" for multiple agencies (`STS-301_ACIN_Agency_Status_2026-07-15.pdf`, p. 1). The Peregrine contract requires written notice that funds are available before kickoff, and the final custodian email says no federal award or final approved budget existed ([[Peregrine and Carahsoft Executed Contract]], `CON-002_Peregrine_Carahsoft_Executed_Contract_2026-03-17.pdf`, p. 3; Gmail message `19f93fc1866e1bee`). Without the notice, kickoff, payment, acceptance, or system logs, the status labels do not prove a funded production integration. See [[T029 - ACIN Funding Obtained Language vs No Federal Award]]. ## Open questions / follow-ups - Obtain the dated funding-availability notice, kickoff record, project plan, integration tickets, acceptance tests, and go-live record. - Reconcile the 45-agency contract scope, 44-row July table, and 27-unit agreement set. - Identify what "Integrating," "On-Site," and each color mean and who assigned those labels. - Reconcile the 2,000,000-case and 200,000-case Phase 1 estimates. - Produce the promised Phase 1 Playbook and technical-readiness records.