02.03.2013
Budget, congress, criminal justice, Data, data sharing, Information sharing, justice, law enforcement, Law enforcement information sharing, leadership, LEIS, N-DEx, NIEM
If you want law enforcement agencies to share information, go to the source and help the Chiefs and Sheriffs to push their data in the FBI’s National Data Exchange N-DEx. Trying to impose information sharing with unfunded standards mandates will not work.
As someone who has been in the standards business since 1995, history has proven to me that:
- The business need must drive standards, standards can NEVER drive the business; and
- Trying to SELL the business on standards is a losing strategy.
Hi Congressman Reichert,
You won’t remember me, but a long time ago we were in meetings together in Seattle with the likes of John McKay, Dave Brandt, Scott Jacobs, Dale Watson, and others working on building the Law Enforcement Information Exchange (LInX); I was the technical guy on the project, working with Chief Pat Lee and our very dear lost friend Julie Fisher (may she rest-in-peace, I sure miss her).
A hell of a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then–it’s been nearly TWELVE YEARS. If we look back over this time, we have had so many bills, laws, strategies, policies, papers, speeches, conferences, proclamations, and other assorted attempts to prod law enforcement data loose from the nearly 18,000 agencies across our country. While we are far better off than we were back then, I think we can agree that we still have a long way to go.
Where we differ, I’m afraid, is in the approach to get there – a few days ago, you proposed legislation, the Department of Justice Global Advisory Committee Authorization Act of 2013, as a means to improve information sharing among law enforcement agencies – do we really believe another “stick” will work to get agencies to share information? Do we really believe it’s a technology or data standards problem that’s preventing law enforcement data from being shared? As a technologist for 34 years, and someone who has been involved in law enforcement information sharing since the Gateway Project in St. Louis, MO in 1999, I can tell you it is neither.
While I applaud the work of the GAC, and I have many colleagues who participate in its work, I’m afraid having more meetings about information sharing, developing more standards, approving more legislation, and printing more paper will NOT help to reach the level of information sharing we all want.
Instead, I want to propose to you a solution aimed at capturing the commitment of the men and women who can actually make law enforcement information sharing happen, and virtually overnight (metaphorically speaking) – namely, the great men and women who lead our police and sheriffs departments across America.
Now to be fair, many of these agencies are already contributing their records to a system I am sure you are familiar with called the National Data Exchange (N-DEx). Built by the FBI CJIS Division, this system has matured into a pretty respectable platform for not only sharing law enforcement information, but also for helping cops and analysts to do their respective investigative and analytic work.
Now, in case you are wondering, I do not own stock in any of the companies that built N-DEx, nor has the FBI signed me up as a paid informant to market N-DEx. I write to you on my own volition as a result of my nearly six years of volunteer work as a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) Committee.
About two years ago I volunteered to lead a small sub-group of the committee who have either built, led, or managed municipal, state, federal, or regional information sharing systems. Our charge was (and still is) to help CJIS take a look under the hood of N-DEx to see what’s in there (data wise) and to help figure out what needs to be done to make it a more effective tool to help cops across America catch more criminals, and maybe, just maybe, even prevent criminals from acting in the first place.
While our work is far from done, I can tell you that one thing we need is more data – as you well know, be it N-DEx, LInX, RAIN, or any other information sharing system, it is only as good as the data that’s put into it.
Believe it or not we already have the data standards in-place to get the data into N-DEx. CJIS has developed two Information Exchange Packet Descriptions (IEPDs) that tells agencies exactly what to do and how to format and package up their data so it can get to N-DEx. Additionally, CJIS has an extensive team ready to assist and my colleagues over at the IJIS Institute hold training sessions sponsored by BJA, to help agencies along the process (NIEM training).
These two IEPDs can help law enforcement agencies today to share the following law enforcement records:
- Service Call
- Incident
- Arrest
- Missing Person
- Warrant Investigation
- Booking
- Holding
- Incarceration
- Pre-Trial Investigation
- Pre-Sent Investigation
- Supervised Release
So what’s the hold up? Speaking only for myself, and I will be very straight with you, I believe the root cause for not getting more law enforcement data into N-DEx is the current piecemeal, politically charged, hit and miss grant funding process that the Act you propose, if passed, will burden even further – see page 3, lines 17-25 and page 4, lines 1-6.
Instead, I ask that you please answer the following question…
If law enforcement information sharing is important enough to push though a Public Act, where is the nationwide project, with funding, to get all shareable law enforcement data loaded into the one system that would give ALL law enforcement officers and analysts access to collective knowledge of the nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies?
The immediate answer might be “we already have one; N-DEx;” however, N-DEx is only a piece of the answer…it’s as they say, “one hand clapping.” And in all fairness to my friends and colleagues at the FBI CJIS Division, that program was only charged and funded to build the N-DEx bucket, they were never funded to actually go get the data to fill the bucket.
The strategy, for whatever reason back then, was relegated to a “build it and they will come” approach, that IMHO has not worked very well so far and may take another 5-10 years to work. I should also note that the bucket isn’t totally empty…there are quite a number of agencies and regional projects, like LInX, that have stepped up and are helping to fill the bucket – however, if we want to expedite filling up the bucket, focusing on mandating more standards is not the answer
What I submit is the “other hand clapping” is the need for a shift focus, away from policy, standards, and technology, and establish a funded nationwide project that will offer a menu of choices and support packages to the Chiefs and Sheriffs that will enable them to start sending as many of their shareable records as possible to N-DEx.
Some of the options/support packages could include:
- Provide direct funding to agencies and regional information sharing systems to develop N-DEx conformant data feeds to N-DEx;
- Grant direct funding to RMS and CAD system providers to develop N-DEx conformant data feeds from their software, with the stipulation they must offer the capability at no additional cost to agencies that use their products;
- Establish a law enforcement data mapping assistance center, either bolted on to IJIS NIEM Help Desk, as an extension of NLETS menu of services, or through funding support at an existing information sharing project like the Law Enforcement Technology, Training, & Research Center who works in partnership with the University of Central Florida.
At the end of the day, we all know that the safety and effectiveness of law enforcement is greatly affected by the information he or she has at their fingertips when responding to that call.
Do you really want to leave it to chance that that officer’s life is taken, or a criminal or terrorist is let go because his or her agency wasn’t “lucky enough” to win the grant lottery that year?
So, let’s empower the single most powerful force that can make sure the information is available – the Sheriff or Chief leading that agency. Let’s stop with the unfunded mandates, laws, standards, studies, point papers, etc., and let’s finally put a project in-place with the funding necessary to make it happen.
v/r
Chuck Georgo,
Executive Director
NOWHERETOHIDE.ORG
chuck@nowheretohide.org
15.02.2013
corrections, criminal justice, drug abuse, mental health, public safety, substance abuse
I had the opportunity to participate in a webinar on Wednesday (January 23) on the subject of Addressing the Intersection between Behavioral Health and Criminal Justice Systems. The three speakers were:
- Patricia A. Griffin, PhD, a senior consultant in Pennsylvania Mental Health and Justice Centre of Excellence;
- Bob Mann, RN, LSW, an Administrator of Mental Health Operations in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; and
- Donna Bond, LPC, Manager of Correctional Criminal Justice and Re-Entry Services, Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.
Speaker #1
The webinar began with Patricia Griffin; she opened with some statistics:
- 16.9% of all jail admissions have a serious mental illness;
- Of this, 14.5% are male and 31.0% are female.
These numbers surprised me, in particular the fact that there were twice as many females with mental disorders than males. Patricia also spoke about the high rates of co-occurring substance abuse disorders and other challenges involving trauma, medical problems, and homelessness. When arrested and convicted, these people convicted face long stays in jail.
Patricia then informed us of a collaborative effort by the state of Pennsylvania (PA) to have an impact on this issue – they wanted to do something about the high number of inmates with mental issues. It’s called The Sequential Intercept Model, a framework for understanding how people with mental illness interact with the criminal justice system.
- The term Sequential is meant to illustrate how people move through the criminal justice system in predictable ways;
- And, Intercept refers to the desire to examine the process to identify ways to intercept persons with severe mental illness.
The Westmoreland County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Program and multiple other local stakeholders requested the Pennsylvania (PA) Center of Excellence (CoE), Cross-Systems Mapping and Taking Action for Change workshops to promote progress in addressing criminal justice diversion and treatment needs of adults with mental illness in contact with the criminal justice system. They also wanted the CoE to provide additional information to help guide the implementation of newly received Day Reporting Center and Criminal Justice Liaison grants.
Mapping workshops were set up across the country to help communities address the problems; 27 counties in PA completed the workshops. The attendees were Judges, Law Enforcement, Social Services and local families whose members have been through this system. They serve as a springboard for counties to move forward and to improve their local services within their communities and to try to build better collaborative efforts.
Workshop participants got to understand what is happening at local level and begin to get a clear picture of what resources are available and how people work together. They learned from the workshops sessions that there was a clear pattern showing a lack of sobering service, detox facilities, medical assistance, and housing—this last one was a major concern for people who offend and re-offend. The workshop also found that there should be:
- More collaboration and communications;
- More training for staff; and
- Cross training between systems and expanding housing opportunities.
The workshops were a great success; participant evaluations showed that 94% of the participants would recommend the workshops to other counties.
Speaker #2
The second speaker was Bob Mann who talked about the Oklahoma Collaborative Health Program which started in 2007. This program is a collaboration of several Mental Health partners including: The Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, The Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health & Substance abuse, The Dept. of Human Services, The Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Social Security Administration and the Dept. of Rehabilitation Services – Disability Determination Division. The key elements contributing to the success of this program were:
- Benefit Planning – this helps people with high risk return in making sure that their benefits are in place to help them on release from prison; and
- Focus Groups – Looking at gaps causing people who return to prison.
About 50% of offenders have a history of, or are exhibiting some form of mental illness and 26% exhibit serious mental health problems. Also of note was the massive increase in people on psychotropic medication – from 1998 – 2006, there was an increase of 289%.
Speaker #3
The third speaker was Donna Bond. She explained how her inter-agency mental health re-entry program is unique in that the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health has taken ownership for the continuity of Mental Health services for offenders with the highest level of Mental Health need.
Discharge Managers (boundary spanners) receive considerable training and serve as part of the treatment team. The goal is for the individual to leave prison with Social Security benefits in place, a Medicare entitlement aligned so funding is in place for medical and mental health services following release. This process starts 120 days prior to offenders scheduled discharge.
Re-entry Intensive Care Co-ordination Teams (RICCT) meet with offenders a minimum of 90 days before the release date from prison, and they work with the offender in the community, until the offender has adjusted to life following incarceration. RICCT teams also work at helping getting the offender housed immediately on release, and also taking care of the offenders clothing and hygiene, and generally getting them a good start back into the community. Bob Mann said that 46.3% of most re-offenders return to prison within 36 months – the program has shown very good results – only 25.2% of offenders processed through the RICCT teams return.
My Thoughts
This is a subject that I am very interested in, and I’m curious why there are there more offenders today who have mental health problems, compared with thirty to forty years ago? A lot of these problems may stem from the natural percentage of the population who suffer mental illness and secondly from health problems connected to serious substance (drug) abuse.
The latter is a real and ongoing problem. From reading the stories in the newspapers we can see that drug abuse generally cause more crimes to be committed. There have been many recent news stories about crime committed by people with drug related addictions. A few examples below:
- Thomas Ashcroft, a homeless burglar in the U.K., started fires at hospitals so he could steal money to buy drugs. The fires caused a distraction so he could steal from the tills to help fund his drug addiction. He has been sentenced to eight years in prison.
- James Holmes the gunman who massacred 12 people in a cinema in Aurora, Colorado, was hooked on prescription painkillers. He started out life as a bright, quite brilliant young boy.
- In Sundays Irish Times, Jan 27th 2012, a story showed that Crime Figures for the Republic show a sharp rise in the number of sexual offences, kidnappings and drug related crimes between 2006 and 2010, according to Central Statistics Office figures recently published. Sadly, drugs are available everywhere in Ireland; young people have easy access to them, there is never a problem buying them or knowing where to find them.
It also seems like mental health problems are on the increase. We only have to open our newspapers each day to see tragic stories of people who have taken their own life, or have killed loved ones and themselves. Some were probably receiving treatment from mental health services, and then may have stopped attending clinics or they ran out of money to pay for treatment. We need to come up with better ways to take care of people with mental health problems. Not to “control” them, but to ensure they are getting appropriate treatment and to make sure they are taking their medicine.
People with mental health illnesses need care and attention, and people in their family and local community should be aware of their problem and “look out” for them. If they should need help, families and people in the community should know who to contact if they feel something is not quite right.
The Oklahoma program is a good example of this, and the statistics show that this is a successful approach. The hard work of people like Patricia Griffin, Bob Mann and Donna Bond is crucial in the success of such program. They are committed and passionate about their work in helping to re-habilitate people, to keep them from a life of crime, and help them to adjust to a happier life without re-offending. It’s important for everyone to become more aware and supportive of community efforts like this, and to help, where we can.
until next time…Is fhearr fheuchainn na bhith san duil
Mary
