|
| |
Improving Crime-Fighting Technology in Law Enforcement
From: RAND
| By:
Willam L. Schwabe |
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION |
In 1968 the US federal government launched a major effort through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to provide state and local law enforcement agencies with modern tools to fight crime. LEAA was disestablished in 1982, amid criticism that it had frittered away billions of dollars while crime rates rose.
Years later, there is renewed federal interest in helping state and local law enforcement agencies tap into new technologies and help them share information, solve more crimes and conduct comprehensive crime analysis. Here, RAND researcher William Schwabe analyzes the use of new technologies in crimefighting and discusses the areas in need of technological advancement in America's current law enforcement system. |
 bout 95 percent of a typical law enforcement agency's budget is dedicated to personnel. The scarce resources left over are spent on basic equipment, such as cars, radios, and side arms. There is little money available to purchase the new tools necessary to keep up with criminals. Better efforts to get technology onto the streets is needed to provide modern crime-fighting technologies to the nation's local law enforcement agencies. |
Federal policymakers are considering an increase in federal assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies, to augment their resources to develop, test, integrate, and train in the use of new technological tools needed to fight crime and improve public safety. Although crime rates have declined over the past several years, the public remains fearful and expects its government--at all levels--to do more. Law enforcement is principally a state and local responsibility; yet many jurisdictions lack the revenue base to meet the demands of technological modernization. Additionally, some specialized or expensive technologies needed only occasionally by any one local agency can more economically be provided by technology assistance from the federal level. |
In the report, Needs and Prospects for Crime-Fighting Technology: The Federal Role in Assisting State and Local Law Enforcement, I provide contextual information bearing on four facets of law enforcement technology proposals by the Clinton administration: |
1. technology assistance
2. technology deployment
3. crime lab modernization
4. training |
State and local law enforcement agencies commonly work with and receive technical assistance from a number of federal agencies, including the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others. In addition to this, the National Institute of Justice has established a system of four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers (NLECTCs), four NLECTC Special Offices, and a national center to provide what we are calling "technology assistance" and assistance with technology deployment. Each of these is collocated with technology research and development organizations, such as The Aerospace Corporation, to leverage this federal investment with existing infrastructure. |
These NLECTCs have responded to some 10,000 requests for assistance annually. Examples of technology assistance include: |
- audio enhancement of tape recordings
- still-photo enhancement of surveillance videotapes
- computer file analysis
- metallurgical analysis
- assistance with crime mapping analysis.
|
One of the proposed initiatives would add 10 regional NLECTCs to the 4 currently operating. This would reduce the areas served by each regional center from the current 10-15 states to a more manageable 3-5 states. The intent is to provide better quick-response service to local agencies. |
The NLECTC Special Offices are currently facilitating technology deployment to state and local law enforcement agencies through grants awarded for technology development, testing and evaluation of new technology, and support for technology acquisition. Technology under development ranges from a "smart gun" designed to safeguard officers from being shot by their own weapons, to safer means of handling vehicle pursuits, to a host of counterterrorism technologies. One of these offices tests and evaluates technologies by using an annual mock prison riot. |
In addition, although modern crime labs are an essential part of law enforcement and criminal prosecution, the nation's laboratories vary widely in capability and capacity. The proposed initiative would help state and local laboratories modernize to better meet the need. Local law enforcement officials have also consistently identified training as a major shortfall. Smaller departments, in particular, find it difficult to break away personnel to get the training they need. This cuts across all areas, including crime labs. The proposed initiative would build on a Department of Justice/Department of Defense partnership to make training more accessible through increased use of modern training technology, as well as National Guard and other existing training infrastructure. |
Recommendations
Regarding the technological needs of state and local law enforcement agencies, informed decisions should take into account an overall assessment of what technologies are in use across the nation and how well or poorly they are presently performing. For the most part, that information is lacking. |
Thus, it would be useful to hold federal hearings or commission studies to determine what is happening around the country, as input to policy planning. A well-conceived study would probably more than pay for itself in cost savings and improved public safety. Such a study would probably best include both a broadly based survey of agencies across the nation and more detailed operationally oriented site visits to a representative sample of agencies. It could provide a sound basis for establishing realistic performance goals for each element of the proposed initiative. |
Presently lacking the comprehensive, empirical data we would like, this report has provided a number of anecdotal examples suggestive of broader problems and solutions. |
In summary, our findings and recommendations are these: |
The technology assistance provided by the existing NLECTCs and their partnering organizations appears to be paying high returns on investment, helping law enforcement agencies solve crimes and protect both the public and the police. Although we cannot rigorously quantify it, there appears to be considerably more latent demand for this assistance than can currently be supplied. The pilot effort has proved itself and should be continued on an expanded scale. It would seem sensible and efficient to collocate new NLECTC sites with national laboratories or universities. |
Technology deployment efforts--including technology development, testing, commercialization, and acquisition support--appear to be a much needed and efficient use of federal monies. There may be a role for Department of Energy labs in advancing more-fundamental research efforts. Many technological advances in law enforcement are currently on the drawing board or in development. The need for technology deployment support will continue and will grow. |
Modern crime labs are essential to solving crimes, supporting successful prosecutions, and clearing innocent suspects. If the California Auditor's report is indicative of the condition of labs across the country--and we believe it is--then there are substantial needs for improved facilities, modern equipment, continuing training, and quality control. Accreditation by a central accrediting organization, as is conducted by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board, is a useful adjunct to technology modernization--and sometimes drives modernization.
Training is commonly short-changed in the budgeting process. It is not uncommon for modern equipment to be bought and either to sit unused or misused for lack of trained operators. Failure to provide adequate training is a false economy. The federal government has a role to play in making law enforcement training more accessible and affordable. |
More study is needed, but that should not delay making prudent investments, such as are being proposed by the crime-fighting technology initiative. |
Certain well-publicized instances of police being out-gunned by criminals have heightened awareness of the need to help local agencies acquire better weapons and protective technology. I recommend federal funding in each of these areas, as well as more in-depth study to determine more definitively what law enforcement technologies are currently in use across the nation, how well they are performing, and how the federal government might most effectively and efficiently assist technological modernization. |
|
| |
