Transcript Slide 1

FBI N-DEx Program Update
Ed Waigand - Supervisory Special Agent
FBI/CJIS/Law Enforcement N-DEx
Data Standards Manager
Steve Ambrosini - Director of Operations
IJIS Institute
Bruce Kelling – Committee Chair
IJIS Institute NIBRS/N-DEx Advisory Committee
Law Enforcement
National Data Exchange
IJIS Institute Winter Briefing
January 7-8, 2009
2
N-DEx Concept
Services/Capabilities from Concept of Operations
Information Returned
Data Submitted
Entity Inquiry
Auto Theft
Pickaway, Fairfield, Union, Licking,
2004 - 2005
James Bluefield 04/15/1968
Disposition
Recent Address
Disposition
Entity Relationships
Parole
142 Washburn
Seattle Wa 12345
Recent Phone
123-456-7890
Other Phone #s
Map It
#
Aliases
Data
Time
Name:
Mug
Records
J. Blueman
Incident – Bank Robbery
Jesse Bluefield
John Bluefield
Arrest Report - Tacoma
Arrest Report – Seattle
Jamie Bluefield
Incident - DUI
More
Corruption Case XYZ
2
Associates
Other Addresses
More
Franklin County
Jesse James
02-28-2003
Auto Thefts
More
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Next
John England
SSN:
123-45-6789
Sharing Attributes
Share:
Do Not Share:
OK
Conditional
Share Options: Select
Subscribe:
January
February
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10600- 1000-1400- 1800- 2200- 02001000 1400 1800 2200 0200 0600
0600- 1000-1400- 1800- 2200- 02001000 1400 1800 2200 0200 0600
Crime Characteristics
Next
Offense:
Forcible Rape
Suspect:
Male
Victim:
Race:
Sex:
OR
Age:
White
Female
55 to
65
Height:
Weight:
Hair:
Find Similar:
Subscribe:
Services
N
-DEx
N-DEx
Entity
Resolution
Incident/
Case
Correlation
to
64
to 130
Blonde
Next
Capabilities
Entity
Correlation
Automated
Processing
0
0
Visualization
Catalog/
Index
Collaboration
Search
Notification
Subscription
Analytical/
Reporting
People, Places, Things, Relationships, Characteristics
Entities
3
N-DEx Incremental Deployment
Increment 1 – March 19, 2008
Increment 2 – June 30, 2009
Increment 3 – June 30, 2010
Other Features
• Data Sharing Policies Control
• Role-Based Access Control
• On-Line Training
• * Personalized Settings
• * NIBRS Extract
(Expansion)
Entity
Correlation
Visualization *Notification
(Enhanced)
Leveraged
Systems
• III
Entity
Resolution
Contributors
•
Local,
State, Tribal,
Federal
Catalog/
Index
*Automated
Processing
*Collaboration
(Enhanced)
Search
Incident/
Case Report
Analytical
Reporting
Data Types
 Increment 1 – 50,000 users
 Increment 2 - * - 100, 000 users
 Increment 3 - ( ) – 200,000 users
• Incident/Case/Arrest Reports
•Booking/Incarceration Data
• (Probation/Parole Data)
• NCIC
• * Federated
Search
*Subscription
(Enhanced)
NIBRS Submission + N-DEx Submission
(One Submission)
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
Tribal-City-County-State-Federal
Incident/Arrest Data
Potentially
ViCAP Report
Populated
NIBRS Data
Extracted
(If Eligible)
(If Agency Requests)
NCMEC Report
Populated
(If Eligible)
INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM
Enhanced Capabilities
Visualization (Increment 1)
Increment 1 allows users to view relationships
between entities selected from results set
6
Enhanced Capabilities
Visualization Increment 2
Increment 2 will allow users to view:
• relationships of entities selected from a result set
• locations of entities selected from results set
• locations of entities selected from a link visualization
7
GeoSpatial Search
Allows users to perform geospatial search
• Search for location types:
o
o
o
o
o
o
residence
employment
last seen
arrest
seized (property)
etc.
Populate Search Location
From Visualization
• Specify radius
• Show difference between query point and
location
• Specify geographic region or geographic point
o
o
o
o
Address
Lat/long
Zip code
City, County, State
• Use Boolean combinations
• Import geographic query point locations from a
geo-visualization display
8
New Capabilities
Notification
• Agency Subscribes to Automated
Process
• Agency selects who gets notified
Automated
Process
Recipient decides how/how often
• E-mail
• Portal
Notification
Subscription
• User Subscribes to entity/record/search
• User Selects who gets notified
9
New Capabilities
Collaboration
Increment 2 will provide a collaboration function to enable N-DEx
Users to exchange information with other N-DEx Users.





Share information from user’s desktop
Capability to create folders/share files within workspace
Creation of collaboration groups (e.g. task force)
Capability to send instant messages
Auditing of user actions within the collaboration area
Create Task Force
Create Name: Grand Rapids
Suspect:
Right
Spider
AddHand:
Users:
User# 12345
Tatoos
Unknown
Neck: Maria
User# 12354
User# 23445
User# 34599
Task Force Message Boards
Walker
04/25
Attributes
Drug related robbery in south
Read:
Write:
Task
Force
Work
Space
Suspect:
Right
Hand:
Spider
Tatoos
Grand
Rapids
Unknown
Grand
Rapids
Neck:
Maria
Suspect:
Right
Hand: SpiderIncident
Incident
Incident
Tatoos
Incident
Report
Assault
Unknown
Incident
Report
Assault
Incident
Neck: Maria
Incident
Report
Assault
Submitter:
ReportReport
Assault
8/2/2004
Submitter:
Report
Assault
8/2/2004
Submitter:
Report
Assault
Officer
8/2/2004
Submitter:
Officer
8/2/2004
Submitter:
8/2/2004
Officer
Roberts
Submitter:
Officer
8/2/2004
Roberts
Officer
Submitter:
Roberts
Officer
Roberts
Roberts
Officer
Suspect:
Roberts
Suspect:
Roberts
Suspect:
Doug
Suspect:
Doug
Suspect:
Doug
Montrose
Suspect:
Doug
Montrose
Doug
Suspect:
Montrose
Doug
Montrose
Montrose
Doug
Victims:
Montrose
Victims:
Montrose
Victims:
Homer
Olsen
Victims:
Homer
Olsen
Victims:
Homer
Olsen
Randall
Milton
Victims:
Homer
Olsen
Randall
Milton
Homer
Olsen
Victims:
Randall
Milton
Homer
Olsen
Randall
Milton
Randall
Milton
Homer
Olsen
Randall Milton
Randall Milton
Next
N-DEx Data Standards
Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM)
National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)
Logical Entity Exchange Specification (LEXS)
The N-DEx Information Exchange Package
Documentation (IEPD)
– Available at: www.it.ojp.gov
August 2, 2008
AK
Total Records 1,640,795
Nebraska
Entire
State
NCJIS
New York
Oneida
Indian
Nation
45,051
Oregon
Entire
State
ONIBRS
1
WA
MT
587,234
OR
ND
MN
ID
Sacramento
(ARIES)
WY
SD
WI
CA
UT
NV
Los Angeles
(IRIS)
AZ
107,466
CO
NM
San Diego
(ARJIS)
TX
Increment Two
Increment Three or Beyond
KY
MD
NC
SC
AR
LA
MS
VA
WV
TN
Increment One Ingested
Increment One Pending
OH
IN
MO
OK
AL
GA
FL
FBI -
482,434
BOP -
290,317
Texas Entire
State T-DEx
NH
V
T
MA
RI
CT
NJ
PA
IL
KS
NY
MI
IA
NE
ME
Ohio Entire
State
OLLEISN
DC
DE
Entire State
DELJIS
107,611
VA LInX
Hampton Roads
22,681
Harrison
County WV
AFOSI
January 4, 2009
AK
Total Records 51,161,839
Nebraska
Entire
State
NCJIS
New York
Oneida
Indian
Nation
51,665
Oregon
Entire
State
ONIBRS
4
WA
MT
587,711
OR
ND
MN
ID
Sacramento
(ARIES)
WY
SD
WI
CA
UT
NV
Los Angeles
(IRIS)
AZ
2,577,539
CO
NM
San Diego
(ARJIS)
TX
1,086,449
Increment One Ingested
Increment One Pending
FBI -
LA
Increment Three or Beyond
DEA - 3,086,475
69,566
MS
VA
WV
NC
SC
AR
AL
GA
Texas Entire
State T-DEx
30,789,311
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DC
DE
Entire State
DELJIS
149,868
VA LInX
Hampton Roads
21,256
Harrison
County WV
997
FL
BOP - 12,093,767
ATF -
KY
MD
TN
647,228
Increment Two
OH
IN
MO
OK
NH
V
T
PA
IL
KS
NY
MI
IA
NE
ME
Ohio Entire
State
OLLEISN
AFOSI
N-DEx REGIONAL ASSIGNMENTS
AK
FEDERAL
NORTH CENTRAL
Supervisory LS Brian Edgell
[email protected]
304-625-3551
Supervisory LS Brian Edgell
[email protected]
304-625-3551
LS Beth Wade
[email protected]
304-625-4482
LS Melissa Farrell
[email protected]
304-625-5568
WA
ND
SSA Damon Villella
[email protected]
304-625-2912
LS Belinda Cumpston
[email protected]
304-625-4398
MN
MT
OR
NORTHEASTERN
VT
NY
ID
WI
NE
MI
IA
PA
UT
KS
CO
OH
IN
IL
NV
NH
MA
CT
SD
WY
CA
ME
MO
NJ
MD
WV
RI
DC
DE
VA
KY
AZ
OK
NM
NC
TN
SC
AR
HI
MS
WESTERN
Supervisory LS Ann Hall
[email protected]
304-625-4952
AL
GA
LA
TX
TRIBAL
LS Rita Jo Willis
[email protected]
304-625-4822
SSA Larry Jennings
[email protected]
304-625-3141
LS Christina Keller
[email protected]
304-625-4326
LS Brian Stump
[email protected]
304-625-2958
SOUTHERN
SSA Edward C. Waigand
[email protected]
304-625-4232
FL
LS Debra Louk
[email protected]
304-625-4737
LS Brian Withers
[email protected]
304-625-4860
Case Study:
A National Standard for Sharing
Law Enforcement Incident and
Arrest Information
Standards – Why?
 Improve Communications
 Help Set Expectations
 Enable People and Systems to Talk to
Each Other
 Avoid Errors and Misunderstandings
 Save Time and Money!
16
Standards – Progress…
Justice
XML
GJXDM
NIEM
LEITSC
CAD and
RMS
Standards
IEPD
Process
LEXS
N-DEx
IEPD
SAR IEPD
17
N-DEx - Industry Position
April 2006
 The benefits derived from the use of N-DEx by the
contributing agencies must be commensurate with the
effort necessary to participate
 There must be broad based use of N-DEx from the largest
to the smallest agencies – including local, tribal, state and
federal agencies
 There must be resources available to assist agencies in
building the infrastructure to participate in N-DEx – these
resources must include technical support, training and
funding
 N-DEx participation must be standards based to preclude
the high cost of one-off solutions
 Industry must have current information on the program
to be able to assist client agencies in participating in NDEx
Role of States
 States play a key and critical role in national
reporting
 There are variations in state specific data
elements and codes
 There are variations in state specific controls
for retention and release of information
 There are currently several state-level
versions of incident reporting
 RMS providers support multiple versions of
their products to meet state specific
requirements
Consequence of Having
Several State-Level Versions
 Serves as a cost multiplier
– Larger initial cost to implement N-DEx nationwide
– Higher on-going maintenance costs
 Creates opportunity for delays and errors in
reporting and information sharing
 Limits RMS options in some states
N-DEx IEPD
The N-DEx IEPD has been designed with the
goal of meeting the needs of local, state and
tribal law enforcement agencies. It currently
encompasses hundreds of data elements.
Industry firmly believes that the N-DEx IEPD,
properly configured, can solve the dilemma of
satisfying state needs using a single national
standard.
Industry Recommendation
“It is therefore recommended that all
states (representing their respective
local agencies) adopt the N-DEx IEPD as
the standard to be followed for in-state
as well as national incident reporting.”
Benefits of a National
Standard
Less overall cost for initial system retrofit
Less cost for on-going maintenance
Faster implementation on a national basis
Less confusion when sharing information
using a common standard
 Fewer errors and delays in sharing
information




A Voice in the Process
There must be a process in place to ensure
that state, local and tribal needs are met both
initially and as information sharing needs
evolve.
Therefore…
“It is recommended that the FBI provide a
mechanism for states (on behalf of local
agencies) to review the N-DEx IEPD and submit,
via the APB, requests to add data elements
particular to their state.”
The Suggested Process
 States formally submit request to the
APB to add data elements to the IEPD
 Once approved by the APB, the FBI would
submit the data elements to the justice XML
structure task force (XSTF) for inclusion in
the justice domain of NIEM
The End Result
“Adoption of a single standard for all
states would save law enforcement
agencies in the aggregate many millions of
dollars for future system acquisitions and
upgrades. Perhaps more importantly, the
risk to both agencies and companies
would be radically reduced.”
An Update On The Process:
 Concept developed jointly by IJIS NIBRS/N-DEx
Advisory and IPSTSC committees and submitted to
IJIS Board and membership
 IJIS Board formally supports the process
 Concept presented to APB Information Sharing
Subcommittee
 Presented to LEITSC
 Presented to IACP CJIS Committee
 Presented to and endorsed by all APB Regional
Working Groups (CSOs)
 Presented to APB Information Sharing
Subcommittee with regional endorsement
 Motion supporting concept passed by IACP CJIS
Committee
 APB endorses the concept (December 2008)
NIBRS & N-DEx Committee
Update
Model Data Flow
 Incident submitted to N-DEx
 Flagged Incidents are copied for NIBRS
before being applied to N-DEX
 Incident may be updated and supplemented
as necessary – updates are copied for NIBRS
 NIBRS/UCR Edit and Statistical Programs run
locally to insure data quality
 Incidents may be updated as necessary – all
updates are treated as replacements
 At preset date UCR Division processes
NIBRS/UCR data received via N-DEx
submission
N-DEx – Getting Started
 Be Willing!
 Be Able!
 “Git Er Done”
The Steps:
 Contact FBI CJIS Liaison Specialist
 Contact State CSO – for coordination
 Process MOU with FBI/CJIS
 Agency will need LEO Accounts
 Use Computer Based Training
 Use N-DEx Connectivity Check List to
insure that agency is ready to connect
 Map data to N-DEx IEPD
The Steps:
(continued)
 Request ConTesA Account and Password
 Run test submission through ConTesA and
resolve all error conditions
 Run initial N-DEx load with about 100
records
 After successful initial load – run a large
submission – like 10,000 records
 After successful large submission load,
submit historical data (5 years is a good
goal)
 Submit on regular basis – daily is preferred
Lessons Learned:
 Mapping effort for initial agencies ranged
from 80 to as much as several hundred
hours
 Generally the mapping process will take a
week or two
 The entire process going through planning,
set-up, tests and initial data loads will
probably take 4-6 months
 The process becomes easier and more
streamlined as experienced is gained
N-DEx Cost Model Project
N-DEx Cost Model Project
 Develop a budgetary cost projection for national
deployment
 Develop a budgetary cost projections for local, regional,
and state LEA’s
 Establish a cost model and estimation capability
 Support development of future funding requirements
Project Approach
Guided by the “contract” between CJIS and the
four professional law enforcement associations.
FBI CJIS partnered with IIR and the IJIS
Institute to develop the cost model
In conjunction with the N-DEx program office,
IIR established the Cost Model Task Force – the
voice of LE
Project Status = Complete
 N-DEx Management Review
August 27, 2008
 Review Initial Findings
September 10, 2008
 CM Task Force Update
September 24, 2008
 APB Subcommittee Update
October 21, 2008
 IACP CJIS Update
November 8, 2008
 Model Software to FBI
December 30, 2008
Analysis and Findings
Baseline Estimated Deployment Cost
– Formula – Cost Factors - Surveys
– Statistical Baseline
– Composite Scenarios
Per Agency Scenarios
–
–
–
–
LEA direct life cycle
LEA’s reduced life cycle cost via regional / state reporting
Extended regional / state agency life cycle cost
Other - Remote N-DEx user
Study Methodology
 The Formula
 Fundamental Estimation Building Block = The LEA
 The Cost Factors (LOE / Rates)
 The Surveys
 The Process
 The Model
The Model
 Provides standard basis for modeling multiple cost
scenarios.
 Allows for the input of multiple variables
 Supports the formulation / customization of LEA
estimated costs at all levels
 Supports the extension of averages to national
deployment cost scenarios
 Provides a baseline for assessing “What If” scenarios
 Flexible via configuration management
Q&A From Excited Audience!