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
- Missing Person
- Warrant Investigation
- 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.
War has been defined as “a state of organized, armed and often prolonged conflict carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and usually high mortality.[Wikipedia]” Cyber Warfare has been defined as “politically motivated hacking to conduct sabotage and espionage. [DOD]”
While some of what we’ve recently can be construed as Cyber Warfare (including the recent hacktivism), the bulk of what’s really going (largely beneath the surface) is a) efforts by organized criminal elements using new technologies and capabilities to do what they have always done—steal money, or b) continued acts by nation states to steal military secrets (espionage) or corporate secrets (economic espionage).
While the latter (b) get the big press, I am worried that that the former (a) is actually the bigger problem of the two. I was personally hit by identity theft a few years ago when a group got access to my credit card details from a retailer I had done business with. This group proceeded to charge 250 rubles (about $9US) twice a month to one of my credit cards. While not a significant amount of money for me, I would guess that they had thousands of victims like me, and together, the monthly booty would add up quite quickly. Two hypotheses…
- More of this type of cyber-crime is occurring today than the stuff showing up on the front page of any newspaper; and
- What we mean when we say “Cyber Warfare” is really just the 21st century version of crime; criminals using cyber means.
I’m also afraid that our law enforcement forces (internationally) are nowhere near being prepared to dealing with crime using cyber technologies—two points from a National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) Forum I recently attended:
- One of the sessions I participated in was entitled “Why Does the Crime Rate Continue to Decline?” The speaker (a well-respected professor) informed us that crime in America is actually down to the levels it was in 1964—this represents a significant drop. I asked the question “Did crime really drop or have criminals begun to use technology to steal rather than a pistol?” His response was “criminals aren’t smart enough to use computers.” I found this very hard to believe. Criminals have always adapted to stay a step ahead of law enforcement, and I fear that they now have a significant upper-hand, especially if law enforcement feels the way the speaker did and they fail to re-tool their ranks to detect, deter, and dismantle the new cyber-oriented criminal threats.
- Another session I attended was entitled “A Clear and Present Threat: A Look at Cybercrime.” In this session, one of the speakers spoke of the growing problem of crime in virtual worlds—people with avatars in virtual worlds are stealing other peoples virtual property and assets, and real lawsuits are being tried in real courts by real people. If you don’t believe me, read this article – Virtual add-ons draw real-world lawsuits – that I found in researching this further. I would submit that today’s criminals are more tech/cyber-savvy and have realized that there are safer (cyber) ways to steal money and property without having to physically point a gun at someone’s face.
Now ask yourself, how many law enforcement officers are prepare to investigate this type of crime, let alone basic identity theft, software piracy, child pornography, and cyber-extortion? And what about their readiness to preserve digital evidence in computers, laptops, routers, firewalls, servers, and handheld devices?
Today these skill sets are confined to special divisions within a police department, segregated from the bulk of the force. I would like to offer that just like the weapon, handcuffs, and radio on their utility belt,it’s time to equip many more, if not all law enforcement officers with the training and tools to understand, detect, and investigate cyber-crime…we’ll never get fully ahead of the problem, but maybe we can catch-up a bit.
your comments and thoughts welcome…r/Chuck
On May 4, 2010, e.Republic’s Center for Digital Government and Emergency Management honored first responders demonstrating measurable improvements in the lives of the people and businesses they serve. Among the recipients of the inaugural Emergency Management Digital Distinction Awards was the Utah Statewide Terrorism and Information Analysis Center (SIAC). Core to SIAC’s capapbilities is the Microsoft Fusion Core Solution technology platform. Here’s a snippet from the Center’s website:
Best Collaboration and Information Sharing
Fusion Center Empowers Utah’s Crime Stoppers, Utah Department of Public Safety, Statewide Information & Analysis Center
The Utah Statewide Information & Analysis Center (SIAC), managed by the Utah Department of Public Safety, is a public safety partnership collaboration with all of the state’s law enforcement and public safety agencies to collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence appropriately for enhanced protection of Utah’s citizens, communities and critical infrastructure. As the state’s intelligence fusion (terrorism and response) center, SIAC replaced a legacy system that lacked effective data management practices and included manual, duplicative efforts. SIAC implemented a new set of technologies which utilized existing assets, integrated domain-specific applications, and improved business processes for information collection and management, and analysis and information sharing with Utah’s 29 county Sheriff’s Offices, 180 law enforcement agencies, and more than 26 specialized task forces.
Fusion Core Solution is an open and extensible information sharing and analysis product, based on the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) and Information Sharing Environment-Suspicious Activity Reporting (ISE-SAR) Functional Standard, developed to help municipal, county, regional, state, and federal intelligence and fusion centers improve operations through workflow management, information sharing, and geospatial intelligence technologies. For more information about Fusion Core Solution see http://www.microsoft.com/fusion
The Poneman Institute, considered the pre-eminent research center dedicated to privacy, data protection and information security policy, released its 2009 Ponemon Institute “Cost of a Data Breach” Study on January 29, 2010.
In the report, they published the results of their fifth annual study on the costs of data breaches for U.S.-based companies. They surveyed 45 companies represnting 15 various industry sectors–significant contributors were financial, retail, services and healthcare companies.
Numbers-wise, the companies they interviewed lost between 5,000 and 101,000 records, at a cost range between $750,000 and $31 million.
What was really interesting was that the average per-record cost of the loss was determined to be $204.00–and how many records does your law enforcement/public safety agency hold?
Some factors they considered in computing the cost of the breach included:
- Direct costs - communications costs, investigations and forensics costs and legal costs
- Indirect costs - lost business, public relations, and new customer acquisition costs
The report also lists a number of causes for the data breaches, such as:
- 82% of all breaches involved organizations that had experienced more than one data breach
- 42% of all breaches studied involved errors made by a third party
- 36% of all breaches studied involved lost, misplaced or stolen laptops or other mobile computing devices
- 24% of all breaches studied involved some sort of criminal or other malicious attack or act (as opposed to mere negligence).
You can download the full report here: http://www.encryptionreports.com/download/Ponemon_COB_2009_US.pdf
Thoughts and comments welcomed…r/Chuck
I just took a look at the OMB Data.Gov Concept of Operations, and while I don’t want to sound like a party pooper, but I am very concerned about the Data.gov effort. We appear to be moving full speed ahead with the technical aspect of making data available on data.gov without really thinking through the policy, politics, resource, and other non-technical aspects of the project that could really hurt what could be a very valuable resource.
A few concerns I have include:
1. None of the Data.gov principles in the CONOP address the “real-world effects” we hope to achieve through data.gov–from an operational programs perspective. All seven principles in the CONOP address “internal” activities (means). We need to address success in terms of what citizens will realize through the Data.gov effort.
2. The entire Data.gov effort appears to be driven out of context from any government performance planning and evaluation process. Shouldn’t the need for data transparency be driven by specific strategic management questions? Where are the links to the President’s Management Agenda? Agency strategic plans?
3. There are more than 200 Congressional Committees with varying degrees of oversight of over a similar number of agencies in the Executive Branch. How will Data.gov impact Congress’ efforts to monitor (oversee) agency performance? What will happen when there is a disparity between a) what an agency says it’s doing, b) what oversight committee(s) say they are doing, and c) how the public views that agency’s performance based on data posted on Data.gov?
4. Transparency, Participation and Collaboration (TPC) are the buzz words of the month, but what does that really mean? The opening sentence of the CONOP states “Data.gov is a flagship Administration initiative intended to allow the public to easily find, access, understand, and use data that are generated by the Federal government.” Do we really expect the general public to access and analyze the data at Data.gov? If so, do we really understand how the public will want to see/access the information? More importantly, are we (agencies) fully prepared to digest and respond to received public feedback?
5. Who will pay the agencies to support data transparency? Do we really understand the burden involved in achieving open government? The last thing federal agencies need is another unfunded mandate.
6. Finally, how do we know the data that’s made accessible via Data.gov is good data (correct)? The GPRA required OIG review and certification of agency data published in annual performance reports. What can we expect in the way of quality from near-real-time access to agency performance data? Will we require the same data quality process for data feeds posted on Data.gov? Will agencies be funded to do it right?
I provide similar commentary on this issue and an analysis of the recent Executive Order in a December 17th blog posting here: http://www.nowheretohide.org/2009/12/17/open-government-directive-another-ambiguous-unfunded-and-edental-mandate/
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for open government, but let’s do it right. Let’s give the techies a couple of days off and let’s take a good hard look at the non-technical issues that could really hurt this effort if they’re not properly addressed.
Your comments and thoughts welcomed.
I don’t usually plug any specific software, but I felt compelled to tell you about something I have been working with Microsoft on for about the last eight months–it’s called the Fusion Core Solution (FCS). What’s different about this project is that FCS isn’t just another application, it is an effort by Microsoft to help fusion centers do more with the many applications they currently own or have plans to invest in. First a bit of background.
Whether you like the idea of a fusion center or not, they are here to stay. At last count, there were about 70 of them, and DHS recently spoke of helping to get even more going. At their core, I believe a fusion center is responsible for doing three basic things:
- Accepting and vetting reports of unusual behavior (criminal or terrorism related);
- Providing intelligence support to major case and tactical law enforcement operations; and
- Proactively supporting federal, state, and local homeland security and community safety objectives.
To do this well, the majority of fusion centers in operation today are required to rely on an assortment of manual processes, a patchwork of incompatible software applications, and dozens of disparate information sources. Walk into the typical fusion center today and you’ll probably find that an analyst answering the phone has to enter the request for their services into one application for management purposes, enter the same information into a second application for sharing purposes, then has to manually bring up and login to anywhere from 5-15 different data sources to search for information related to the service request, then has to open up at least one or more applications to write up and package up the requested response, and then, more than likely, has to either manually fax it to whomever asked for the information or call them back on the telephone to give them the answer–a pretty painful and tedious way to work.
Today though, Microsoft announced release of a project that I have been helping them to develop for quite some time–the Fusion Core Solution. Microsoft hopes, through use of Office, SharePoint and ESRI’s ArcGIS to help ease the pain described above. The FCS uses SharePoint as a horizontal integration and workflow management platform to help an analyst go from taking in a fusion center service request, to searching for information, to analyzing that information, to producing the intelligence product without having to leave the SharePoint environment at all.
At a non-technical level, the FCS will enable fusion centers to do a couple of pretty cool things:
- Provides a common look and feel across multiple analytic tools and business processes.
- Greatly reduces the number of user names and passwords analyst must remember.
- Organizes requests for fusion center services, and tracks progress of fusion center work.
- Helps to better document and comply with 28 CFR Part 23, CUI and PCII requirements.
- Provides multiple analyst-to-analyst and fusion center-to-fusion center collaboration tools
- Helps to keep track of fusion center and extended staff capabilities and availability.
From a technical perspective, FCS fully supports NIEM conformant information exchanges and establishes a framework for supporting the service-oriented principles of the Justice Reference Architecture (JRA) as it applies to information and data sharing.
In a nutshell, “Fusion Core Solution is for a Fusion Center what Microsoft Windows is to a personal computer“–you can think of FCS as the “operating system” for a Fusion Center.
For more info, check out the Fusion Core Solution website, or email me.
Added 8/4/2009: Click HERE to see Joe Rozek, Microsoft’s Executive Director of Homeland Security, and Former Senior Director for Domestic Counterterrorism at The White House Office of Homeland Security talk about Fusion Core Solution
If you haven’t heard about the Department of Health and Human Services Federal Health Architecure and CONNECT project, I suggest you pop over to this website where documentation for version 2.0 of the software resides:
CONNECT is an open source software gateway that connects public and private health orgaizations to the National Health Information Network. Think of it like a giant peer-to-peer N-DEx, but with an open source “front-porch” that drops into each agency and extracts the data from back-end systems.
I’ll be doing more investigation into the CONNECT project to see if we can adapt it for law enforcement information sharing use–the closest thing to this on the LEIS side is the FINDER project in orlando, FL.
as always, comments and thoughts welcomed.
firstname.lastname@example.org - www.nowheretohide.org
Some who read this may take it as a rant against agencies/providers who say we need more money for implementing law enforcement information sharing (LEIS), but in-fact, this post is really about understanding the landscape and influencing the choices and priorities of state and county policymakers and the affected law enforcement executives.
Let me first layout the agency landscape :
- There are about 14,000 state and local law enforcement agencies;
- In roughly 3,000 counties;
- That make up the 50 states of our great nation.
Now let’s layout the funding landscape:
- For 2008 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allocated $3,200,000,000 (billion) for state and local assistance grants;
- In that same year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) made another $2,000,000,000 available;
- For 2008 that’s a total of $4,200,000,000;
- For 2007 that number was $4,500,000,000;
- For 2009, we are hoping that number stays about the same or goes even higher.
- To all these numbers you must add funding from the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human Services, or State funding sources for LEIS.
Finally, let me lay out the cost landscape for LEIS:
- In my eight or so years of experience of building and deploying LEIS, I’ve seen the costs associated with hooking up an agency to vary between $5,000 and $80,000 per record system connection;
- On average though, I feel the safer number is between about $20,000 and $40,000;
- For arguments sake, let’s use the high number of $40,000.
Now comes the fun part…let’s do some math…
- To be realistic, let’s say that 25% of the 14,000 agencies are already sharing information;
- That leaves about 10,000 agencies left to connect;
- At $40,000 an agency, we would need a total of $560,000,000 (Million);
- Divide that by the 3,000 counties, and we will need about $190,000 per county;
- If we do this over three years, that’s only $63,000 per county, per year for three years!
With (on average) every county getting about $1,400,000 every year for law enforcement and public safety (out of the $4.2 Billion allocated annualy), I would like to think that we (collectively) can see the benefits of LEIS enough to spare $63,000 a year for three years to get it done.
Here’s where the issue of choices and priorities comes in. If we can agree that the money IS there, what we really need to work on are ways to convince the policymakers and law enforcement exectutives in those counties that investing a little in LEIS is a better investment than whatever it is their currently spending their part of the $4,200,000,000 on. Do you agree?
I’d also like to know what role youthink the IACP, MCC and NSA would play here?
Thoughts and comments invited…and yes, I used a calculator…;-)
The IJIS Institute announces the appointment of Chuck Georgo, founder of NOWHERETOHIDE.ORG, as the Chairperson of the IJIS Institute’s Security and Privacy Advisory Committee.
The purpose of the IJIS Institute’s Security and Privacy Advisory Committee is to provide advice and counsel to the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP), as well as other national organizations, on issues of information system security and privacy as applied to integrated justice and public safety information systems, and to develop materials and seminars to educate industry and government staffs on security and privacy measures, designs, and related issues.
The Security and Privacy Advisory Committee strives to be vendor agnostic in all activities and work products and to be the authoritative source for establishing effective privacy and security measures throughout the justice, public safety, and homeland security information sharing community. Additionally, the committee’s goals include increasing government and industry awareness and understanding of technical and non-technical privacy and security requirements and improving the privacy and security posture for federal, state, local, and tribal justice information sharing efforts. In order to achieve these goals, the committee performs research, issues white papers, develops and conducts training, participates in advisory working groups, and supports technical assistance projects.
Chuck Georgo, regarding his appointment, noted that, “Successful information sharing requires trust. I believe that to get trust you need two things—honorable motive and reliability. Organizations must know that your motives benefit the social good and that your means to protect shared information from compromise is achievable and durable. While honorable motive is in the hands of law enforcement and justice agency executives, I believe that the IJIS Institute, through the Security and Privacy Advisory Committee, can help government and industry to employ effective ways for achieving the reliable means to protect that information. I look forward to working with my fellow committee members to further advance the cause of information sharing through robust security and privacy principles and practices.”
Chuck Georgo has nearly 28 years of experience in intelligence, national security, defense, and law enforcement arenas. He has served as a strategic planner, business analyst, and technologist supporting the National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Naval Security Group, and many other public and private sector organizations.
# # #
About the IJIS Institute — The IJIS Institute serves as the voice of industry by uniting the private and public sectors to improve mission critical information sharing for those who protect and serve our communities. The IJIS Institute provides training, technical assistance, national scope issue management and program management services to help government fully realize the power of information sharing. Founded in 2001 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation with national headquarters on the George Washington University Virginia Campus in Ashburn, Virginia, the IJIS Institute has grown to more than 240 member and affiliate companies across the United States. For more information visit www.IJIS.org.
About NOWHERETOHIDE.ORG – NOWHERETOHIDE.ORG, LLC, was established to help federal, state, and local law enforcement, justice, and homeland security agencies to better achieve their public safety and national security objectives. As our name implies, we want to help these agencies become so effective that criminal elements have nowhere-to-hide from justice. We offer planning, assessment, and technology consulting services to help law enforcement, justice, and national security agencies identify and resolve the issues that currently stand in the way of achieving high performance standards. For more information visit www.nowheretohide.org.
Doris Girgis | Communications Specialist | IJIS Institute | Ph: 703.726.1096 | www.ijis.org
Realize the power of information.
Support the IJIS Institute by ordering your gifts from one of 700 stores on the iGive portal and selecting the IJIS Institute as your organization of choice.
January 6, 2009
Tom Peters liked to say “what gets measured gets done.” The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) took this advice to heart when they started the federal Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/) to assess and improve federal program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. PART includes a set of criteria in the form of questions that helps an evaluator to identify a program’s strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective.
I think we can take a lesson from Tom and the OMB and begin using a formal framework for evaluating the level of implementation and real-world results of the many Law Enforcement Information Sharing projects around the nation. Not for any punitive purposes, but as a proactive way to ensure that the energy, resources, and political will continues long enough to see these projects achieve what their architects originally envisioned.
I would like to propose that the evaluation framework be based on six “Standards for Law Enforcement Information Sharing” that every LEIS project should strive to comply with; they include:
1. Active Executive Engagement in LEIS Governance and Decision-Making;
2. Robust Privacy and Security Policy and Active Compliance Oversight;
3. Public Safety Priorities Drive Utilization Through Full Integration into Daily Operations;
4. Access and Fusion of the Full Breadth and Depth of Regional Data (law enforcement related);
5. Wide Range of Technical Capabilities to Support Public Safety Business Processes; and
6. Stable Base of Sustainment Funding for Operational and Technical Infrastructure Support.
My next step is to develop scoring criteria for each of these standards; three to five per standard, something simple and easy for project managers and stakeholders to use as a tool to help get LEIS “done.”
I would like to what you think of these standards and if you would like to help me develop the evaluation tool itself…r/Chuck