02.12.2014
Community engagement, community policing, justice, law enforcement, leadership, public safety, Sir Robert Peel, Uncategorized
Repost from LinkedIn on November 28, 2014.
Wow, if you don’t think that cops really care about their communities, please watch this video – Here’s two different sources:
Unfortunately, what Milwaukee Police Department Chief Flynn said is true (and very sad):
80 percent of my homicide victims every year are African-American. 80 percent of our aggravated assault victims are African-American. 80 percent of our shooting victims who survive their shooting are African-American.
Now they know all about the last three people who have been killed by the Milwaukee Police Department over the last several years but not one of them can name the last three homicide victims we have had in this city.
The fact is the people out here who have the most to say are absolutely MIA when it comes to the true threats facing this community.
The sentiment Chief Flynn so emotionally communicates in his message is similar with what I have said in other – we need to take better care of each other.
When I was little, I lived in NYC. On the edge of an Italian, Puerto Rican, and Greek community in Queens. Honestly, there was no way I could get away with anything close to what young people are doing today. If I tried to swipe something from the neighborhood candy store, that store owner was on the phone to my parents even before I left the store. On the street, my neighbors, my Aunt down the block, and even the postman was watching me.
I just don’t see evidence that neighborhoods today are like that – what I see are neighborhoods who seem to prefer having police officers to do it all, or worse, they turn a blind eye and hope it doesn’t affect them.
I agree with others in my field who believe that we need those affected communities to step-up and take action. Community leaders (with the support and encouragement of local law enforcement) must take responsibility to address the factors in their communities that lead to crime – violent, or otherwise. After all, if the communities themselves are not engaged, how can we possibly expect the police to be successful trying to turn things around on their own?
And, BTW, this is not anything new. This is really what community policing is supposed to be about – no, it’s NOT about putting little kiosks in 7-Elevens. (IMHO) community policing is all about the COMMUNITY getting involved, with the support of local police – I believe a good part of community policing is about the community policing itself.
This theory actually goes back 185 years, to 1829, when Sir Robert (Bobby) Peel, (considered the father of modern policing) penned nine Principles of Policing instructions that he gave to every new police officer. Specifically principle #3 said:
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
These are VERY powerful words; let me break this down for you:
- In order for police to maintain respect and approval of the public…
- They must secure the willing cooperation of the public…
- To help to ensure that laws are observed.
So, for police to be respected, they must work to get communities to police themselves – a very profound statement.
Sadly, without a significant change in perspective on BOTH sides, the current situation will continue – police will do their best to fight crime, but they will not be successful (to the extent that Pell’s principle #9 calls out below) until communities step fully in the game and work to take better care of each other.
I leave you with the full list of Peel’s principles (yes, with the British spellings), and although I am not a police officer, if I were, I think I would still consider all nine of these principles still valid today – text in parentheses on a couple of them is my interpretation:
- To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. (this is why police forces were formed – interesting that they were formed to PREVENT legal punishment – wow, this could be the subject of another posting)
- To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. (in today’s always on video world, I would counsel every officer to behave as if there’s a camera on them 24/7)
- To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
- To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
- To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
- To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. (I’m not sure getting an MRAP is inline with this principle)
- To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. (Very interesting quote – “police are the only ones paid full-time to do what every citizen is responsible for doing..wow)
- To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
- To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
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
