Technology, Records Management Systems, and Calls for Service

Records Technology

Technology in Law Enforcement

Technology can generally be described as a tool with a purpose. In the twenty-first century, when we use the term, we generally mean an automated or mechanically driven tool. There are many technologies used in law enforcement, including information technology such as records management systems, communication systems such as radios and computer-aided dispatch systems, evidence-based technologies such as DNA, digital photography, closed-circuit television, less-than-lethal force devices, and geographic technologies such as mapping software, global positioning systems, and automated vehicle locator systems.

Information Technology in Law Enforcement

While there are numerous technologies used in law enforcement, perhaps the most readily used are the technologies that transmit, store, sort, compile, and maintain information. While communications technology is used for receiving calls for service, gathering descriptive information from the caller, dispatching police units to the scene, and gathering detailed information about the incidents from the officers themselves, information technology (IT) in policing allows police to recall stored information and use information for daily operations and responsibilities as well as for problem solving, protecting community and officer safety, and providing detailed information to supervisors.

A records management system (RMS), the primary IT system in law enforcement, is an automated system that provides the framework for entering, storing, retrieving, viewing, and analyzing all records, including incident reports, calls-for-service data, personnel data, criminal investigations, and related information. According to Harris and Romesburg (2001), twenty-first-century RMSs go beyond the collection and storage of information by offering robust analytical tools, seamless sharing of information, and complex linkages between different data sources. As such, RMS technology serves as a key component of effective decision making.

Data Inputs and Outputs

Information contained within an RMS is input from officers, call takers, investigators, the personnel office, supervisors, and others connected to daily law enforcement functions in the agency. Once stored, the information can be retrieved, analyzed, and archived (see, for example, Boyd 2001; Dunworth 2000). In turn, various types of information can be made available to agency users, other justice agencies, and the public, where appropriate. Information can be provided to users via various reports and downloads of automated data to other software programs.

Components and Uses of RMSs

The goal of an RMS is to provide a single source for integration of all key law enforcement data in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of operations. There are numerous components and/or modules in an RMS. These include arrest, booking, case management, citations, collisions and related diagrams, complainant demographics, dispatch records, equipment records, evidence, field interviews, field reporting, global positioning system (GPS) integration, investigations, name indexes, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), offender information, pawn, personnel, photos, property lists, sex offender information, training, Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), use of force, victim information, warrants, and more. Often this information is integrated with other existing systems such as computer-aided dispatch (CAD) records, mapping software, case management software, an early warning system, a report writing software package, and more.

A recent national survey supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), was conducted by Amendola (forthcoming). The survey was conducted with all agencies having a hundred or more sworn personnel and a sample of all smaller agencies. The vast majority reported having an RMS (more than 87%), and 66% had purchased the RMS as part of an integrated CAD and RMS system. This likely represents the need for fully integrated communication, record keeping, and analysis systems in order to minimize the need for multiple interfaces. Still, many RMSs can interface with other criminal justice system databases at the local, state, and national levels. For example, many can link to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), and other sources.

Use of RMSs in U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies

Law enforcement agencies vary significantly in the types, amounts, and sources of their information, and therefore the functions and uses of RMSs also vary widely. Some use the RMS for simple data storage, retrieval, and reporting (for example, to assist with the COMPSTAT process), while others use it to aid in complex analysis and decision making, such as in crime analysis, strategic planning, personnel management and supervision, and community policing strategies.

Among the uses reported in the COPS survey, the majority of agencies use the RMS for crime/incident analysis (68%) as well as crime prevention (56%). A number of agencies were also using the RMS for strategic planning (48%), community policing (46%), and mapping (45%), but they reported using it to a much lesser extent for COMPSTAT (29%), personnel/human resources management (26%), and as an early warning system (less than 7%) (Amendola, forthcoming).

Challenges of IT Acquisition and Implementation

The successful design, acquisition, and implementation of complex IT such as an RMS can be very costly and take many months or years to achieve. Indeed, the COPS survey revealed that more than 30% of the chiefs/sheriffs responding said that the total cost of the RMS was more than the originally contracted price. Furthermore, while 22% of agencies implemented their RMSs in less than six months, 35% took up to a year, 28% took between one and two years, and 15% took two to three years or more.

Because the acquisition and implementation of an RMS is so complex, it is essential that such a project be carefully planned. Indeed, chiefs, sheriffs, and IT managers surveyed felt that project management was the most important factor to successful implementation of an RMS and that lack of planning was the thing that most hindered implementation (Amendola, forthcoming). Without proper planning and project management, agencies run the risk of acquiring a system that does not meet its needs and may need to be modified at least or completely redesigned or discarded altogether at worst. All of these prospects are extremely costly in budget dollars and human resources.

The challenge of rapid changes in IT can lead to a number of problems for organizations. In 1994, the Standish Group conducted a survey of 365 IT managers from small, medium, and large organizations across multiple industries (banking, manufacturing, retail, health care, insurance, and government). They also conducted focus groups and numerous personal interviews to provide a qualitative context for the survey results. A successful project was defined as one that was completed on time, on budget, and with the features and functions originally specified. A challenged project was defined as one that was completed and operational but over budget, over original time estimates, and offering fewer features and functions than originally specified. Finally, an impaired project was one that was canceled in the development cycle. Surprisingly, just 16% of projects were successful, 53% were impaired, and fully 31% were canceled due to impairment (Standish Group 1995). Of the challenged or impaired projects, the average cost overrun was 189% of the original cost!

A nationwide survey of a thousand IT managers from various types of organizations (manufacturing, government, education, computer services, insurance, health care, and so forth) provided evidence for nine distinct categories of problems emerging from rapid technological changes. These problems included IT vendor issues, acquisition and support difficulties, technological problems, and organizational problems. The researchers Benamanti and Lederer (2000) defined these as follows:

  1. Vendor neglect. Vendors lack knowledge and experience with the products being sold, as well as having limited ability to assist in the integration of their products with those of other vendors.
  2. Vendor oversell. Vendors release products that are unstable and show excessive enthusiasm for the products being sold.
  3. Acquisition dilemma. Agencies have difficulty keeping up with the various products available and the differences between them and thus making the right choice for their departments.
  4. Support burden. Agencies lack the structure or expertise to adequately support the system or enforce standards.
  5. Resistance. Agencies are unable to use IT to its full extent due to lack of a unified understanding of the new IT product.
  6. Cascading needs. There is an unexpected need for additional IT to fully meet requirements not met in the acquired technology.
  7. New integration. Agencies have difficulty in maintaining the interfaces across various technologies, especially when vendor support and expertise are insufficient.
  8. Error. There are explainable and unexplainable failures of the new IT to perform as expected, often arising out of early release of unstable products or lack of sufficient documentation.
  9. Training demands. Agencies have a need for a wider variety of knowledge and extensive training, especially problematic when turnover of staff is frequent.

Other IT challenges include incompatible hardware and software, widely dispersed data and information throughout an agency, unreliable data sources, poor security systems, and inconsistent interfaces between divergent systems. As a result, it is extremely important that an agency focuses on the planning and project management stages of acquisition and implementation in order to avoid significant problems and challenges after acquisition or implementation.

There are a number of information sources available to guide agencies in acquiring appropriate technology, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police best practices guide entitled ”Acquisition of New Technology” (Deck 2000), A Guide for Applying Information Technology in Law Enforcement (Boyd 2001), and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services’ Law Enforcement Tech Guide (Harris and Romesburg 2001).

See also: Calls for Service; COMPSTAT; Computer-Aided Dispatching (CAD) Sys­tems; Computer Technology; Crime Mapping; Dispatch and Communications Centers; Early Warning Systems; Office of Community-Oriented Police Services, U.S. Department of Justice; Technology and Police Decision Making; Technology and Strategic Planning; Technology and the Police.

References:

  1. Amendola, K. L. Forthcoming. Supporting ac­quisition and implementation ofrecords man­agement systems for community policing: Results ofthe national survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
  2. Boyd, D. G. 2001. A guide for applying infor­mation technology in law enforcement. NCJ 185934. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Ofice of Science and Technology.
  3. Deck, E. F. 2000. Acquisition of new technolo­gy: A best practices guide. In Big ideas for smaller police departments 1 (1) (Spring), 1-14. International Association of Chiefs of Police.
  4. Dunworth, T. 2000. Criminal justice and the IT revolution. In Policies, processes, and deci­sions of the criminal justice system: Criminal justice 2000, 3, 371-426. NCJ 182410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
  5. Foster, R. E. 2005. Police technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
  6. Harris, K. J., and W. H. Romesburg. 2001. Law enforcement tech guide: How to plan, purchase and manage technology (successful­ly!). Sacramento, CA: SEARCH Group, Inc. Supported by U.S. Department of Justice, Ofice of Community Oriented Policing Services (#2001-CK-WX-K064).
  7. Standish Group, International. 1995. The chaos report (1994). http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/chaos_report_1994.pdf.
Scroll to Top