FBI N-DEx Program Update

1. FBI N-DEx Program Update Ed Waigand - Supervisory Special AgentFBI/CJIS/Law Enforcement N-DExData Standards Manager Steve Ambrosini - Director of Operations IJIS Institute Bruce Kelling – Committee Chair IJIS Institute NIBRS/N-DEx Advisory Committee

2. Law Enforcement National Data Exchange IJIS Institute Winter Briefing January 7-8, 2009 2

3. N-DEx Concept Services/Capabilities from Concept of Operations 3

4. 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) *Notification (Enhanced) Entity Correlation Visualization • Leveraged Systems • III • NCIC • * Federated Search • Contributors • Local, State, Tribal, Federal Entity Resolution Catalog/ Index *Collaboration (Enhanced) Search Incident/ Case Report *Subscription (Enhanced) *Automated Processing Analytical Reporting • Data Types • Incident/Case/Arrest Reports • Booking/Incarceration Data • (Probation/Parole Data) • Increment 1 – 50,000 users • Increment 2 - * - 100, 000 users • Increment 3 - ( ) – 200,000 users

5. Tribal-City-County-State-Federal LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY Incident/Arrest Data NIBRS Data Extracted ViCAP Report Populated NCMEC Report Populated (If Agency Requests) (If Eligible) (If Eligible) NIBRS Submission + N-DEx Submission(One Submission) Potentially INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM

6. Enhanced Capabilities Visualization (Increment 1) Increment 1 allows users to view relationships between entities selected from results set 6

7. Enhanced Capabilities Visualization Increment 2 Concept Only • 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

8. GeoSpatial Search Allows users to perform geospatial search • Search for location types: • residence • employment • last seen • arrest • seized (property) • etc. • Specify radius • Show difference between query point and location • Specify geographic region or geographic point • Address • Lat/long • Zip code • City, County, State • Use Boolean combinations • Import geographic query point locations from a geo-visualization display Populate Search Location From Visualization Concept Only 8

9. New Capabilities Notification • Agency Subscribes to Automated Process • Agency selects who gets notified Automated Process • Recipient decides how/how often • E-mail • Portal E-Mail Notification Subscription Portal • User Subscribes to entity/record/search • User Selects who gets notified 9

10. Incident Report Incident Report Incident Report Incident Report Incident Report Incident Report Assault 8/2/2004 Assault 8/2/2004 Assault 8/2/2004 Assault 8/2/2004 Assault 8/2/2004 Assault 8/2/2004 Submitter: Officer Roberts Suspect: Doug Montrose Victims: Homer Olsen Randall Milton Submitter: Officer Roberts Suspect: Doug Montrose Victims: Homer Olsen Randall Milton Submitter: Officer Roberts Suspect: Doug Montrose Victims: Homer Olsen Randall Milton Submitter: Officer Roberts Suspect: Doug Montrose Victims: Homer Olsen Randall Milton Submitter: Officer Roberts Suspect: Doug Montrose Victims: Homer Olsen Randall Milton Submitter: Officer Roberts Suspect: Doug Montrose Victims: Homer Olsen Randall Milton Create Task Force Create Name: Grand Rapids Suspect: Unknown Right Hand: Spider Neck: Maria Add Users: User# 12345 User# 12354 User# 23445 User# 34599 Tatoos Attributes Read: Write: Task Force Message Boards Next Walker 04/25 Drug related robbery in south Task Force Work Space Suspect: Unknown Right Hand: Spider Neck: Maria Tatoos Grand Rapids Grand Rapids Suspect: Unknown Incident Report Right Hand: Spider Neck: Maria Tatoos Submitter: Officer Roberts Suspect: Doug Montrose Victims: Homer Olsen Randall Milton 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

11. 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

12. AK August 2, 2008 Total Records 1,640,795 Nebraska Entire State NCJIS 45,051 New York Oneida Indian Nation 1 Oregon Entire State ONIBRS 587,234 WA ME MT ND Ohio Entire State OLLEISN NH MN VT OR ID MA NY SD WI Sacramento (ARIES) RI MI WY CT PA IA DE Entire State DELJIS 107,611 NJ NE OH MD IN IL DC UT CA NV CO WV VA KS MO KY VA LInX Hampton Roads 22,681 NC Los Angeles (IRIS) 107,466 TN OK AZ SC NM AR Harrison County WV GA San Diego (ARJIS) MS AL LA TX AFOSI Increment One Ingested FL Increment One Pending FBI -482,434 BOP - 290,317 Increment Two Texas Entire State T-DEx Increment Three or Beyond

13. AK January 4, 2009 Total Records 51,161,839 Nebraska Entire State NCJIS 51,665 New York Oneida Indian Nation 4 Oregon Entire State ONIBRS 587,711 WA ME MT ND Ohio Entire State OLLEISN NH MN VT OR ID MA NY SD WI Sacramento (ARIES) RI MI WY CT PA IA DE Entire State DELJIS 149,868 NJ NE OH MD IN IL DC UT CA NV CO WV VA KS MO KY VA LInX Hampton Roads 21,256 NC Los Angeles (IRIS) 2,577,539 TN OK AZ SC NM AR Harrison County WV 997 GA San Diego (ARJIS) 1,086,449 MS AL LA TX AFOSI Increment One Ingested FBI -647,228 BOP - 12,093,767 ATF - 69,566 DEA - 3,086,475 FL Increment One Pending Increment Two Texas Entire State T-DEx 30,789,311 Increment Three or Beyond

14. N-DEx REGIONAL ASSIGNMENTS AK WA MT OR ID WY UT CA NV CO WV VA KY AZ NM NC HI TN OK SC AR GA MS AL LA FL FEDERAL Supervisory LS Brian Edgell bedgell@leo.gov 304-625-3551 LS Beth Wade bwade@leo.gov 304-625-4482 NORTH CENTRAL Supervisory LS Brian Edgell bedgell@leo.gov 304-625-3551 LS Melissa Farrell mfarrel1@leo.gov 304-625-5568 NORTHEASTERN SSA Damon Villella dvillell@leo.gov 304-625-2912 LS Belinda Cumpston bcumpsto@leo.gov 304-625-4398 ME ND MN VT NH MA NY CT SD RI WI MI PA NJ NE IA OH MD DE IN IL DC KS MO SOUTHERN SSA Edward C. Waigand ewaigand@leo.gov 304-625-4232 LS Debra Louk dlouk@leo.gov 304-625-4737 LS Brian Withers bwithers@leo.gov 304-625-4860 WESTERN Supervisory LS Ann Hall ehall3@leo.gov 304-625-4952 LS Rita Jo Willis rwillis1@leo.gov 304-625-4822 LS Christina Keller ckeller@leo.gov 304-625-4326 TX TRIBAL SSA Larry Jennings ljenning@leo.gov 304-625-3141 LS Brian Stump bstump@leo.gov 304-625-2958

15. Case Study:A National Standard for Sharing Law Enforcement Incident and Arrest Information

16. 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

17. Standards – Progress… 17

18. 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 N-DEx

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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.”

23. 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

24. 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.”

25. 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

26. 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.”

27. 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)

28. NIBRS & N-DEx Committee Update

29. 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

30. N-DEx – Getting Started Be Willing! Be Able! “Git Er Done”

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. N-DEx Cost Model Project

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. Study Methodology • The Formula • Fundamental Estimation Building Block = The LEA • The Cost Factors (LOE / Rates) • The Surveys • The Process • The Model

40. 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

41. Q&A From Excited Audience!