1. Information Sharing: Challenges, Trends, and Opportunities
San Diego, CA
November 28-30, 2006

2. The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP)
The process of developing the Plan began in December 2002
The GIWG committees addressed specific issues/needs
The GIWG developed 28 recommendations and action items for implementation of the NCISP
Vetting process involved local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies and regional, state, and national organizations
Attorney General Ashcroft accepted and endorsed all 28 recommendations in October 2003
A National Kick-Off Event was held on May 14, 2004, at the Great Hall of Justice. The Plan was endorsed by U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft, FBI Director Mueller, and DHS Undersecretary Libutti. The establishment of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) was announced at this event
The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan is a key tool that law enforcement agencies can employ to support their crime-fighting and public safety efforts.
The Plan is intended to be a “living document” and will be periodically updated. Those charged with developing and implementing the Plan will continue to solicit the involvement of the law enforcement and intelligence communities, national organizations, and other government and public safety entities, in order to ensure that the Plan is responsive to their needs for information and intelligence development and sharing.

3. Sharing information in Public Safety
The concept and need is widely accepted, BUT;
Is misunderstood
Has obstacles and oppositions
Data control is an issue (who sees what)
Can have legislative restraints
No longer discipline specific
Information vs intelligence
Funding can be an issue
Most initiatives are regional and within state boundaries

4. Information Sharing Methods:
Database
Sheriff/Police
Unisys
DA’s Office NT
Corrections
IBM
Other State Systems
Probation
Courts
911 Center
Database
Sheriff/Police
DA’s Office
Corrections
Probation
Courts
911 Center
Desktop integration
and data exchange
powered by JNET
Other State Systems
Central Repository
Point-to-point
Central
Repository
Database
Sheriff/Police
DA’s Office
Corrections
Probation
Courts
911 Center
Desktop integration
and data exchange
powered by JNET
Other State Systems
Message Hub
Other State Systems
Sheriff/Police
Corrections
Courts
Database
DA’s Office
Probation
911 Center
Middleware software
QUERY
SERVICE
INFORMATION
SECURITY
Central Repository
Connector
Message Hub
Middleware

5. Information May Need to Be Classified
Information may be:
Incident based
Intelligence
General information
Obtained from private sources (Lexis-Nexis, Choicepoint, city, county, etc.)
The classification of information will determine who can use it and how it can be used
Not all information will be used by all users

6. Making the Jump Across State Lines
A few national/multi-state projects
NCIC
Triple III
Nlets
NSOPW
The greatest misunderstood project by;
The ACLU
The media
The public
BUT not by agencies using it
RISS
HSIN
EPIC
CISAnet
LEO
N-DEx
ARJIS
CapWIN
MATRIX

7. MATRIX Lessons Learned:
Strong foundation before transitioning into implementation
Projects are bound by an understanding among participants
Although MATRIX understood its mission and goals, the mission was not formalized and articulated to a wide audience
Leadership is extremely critical in the success
Involve private-sector privacy experts to assist in developing and vetting a privacy policy;
If possible, the privacy policy should be available to the public
Describe information collected and how information is stored
Ensure all other policies and internal controls are consistent with the privacy policy

8. Fusion Centers

9. Fusion Center Guidelines— Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and the Private Sector
Global Justice Information
Sharing Initiative (Global)
Homeland Security Advisory
Council (HSAC)
DOJ, through Global, created the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP).
DHS developed the Intelligence and Information Sharing Initiative: Homeland Security Intelligence and Information Fusion.
The purpose of both documents is to create an information sharing environment.
These documents serve as the foundation for the Fusion Center Guidelines.
Guideline Development—a phased approach
Law Enforcement Intelligence: Version 1 of the guidelines, law enforcement intelligence, has been completed and has been distributed to state law enforcement agencies, homeland security advisors, fusion centers, etc.
Public Safety and the Private Sector: Version 2 of the guidelines will incorporate public safety and the private sector. Version 2 is expected to be completed in early 2006.

10. What Is a Fusion Center?
A collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, investigate, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity

11. Why Is the Fusion Process Important?
Supports an all-source, all-crimes, all-hazards, all-threats approach to intelligence
Blends data from different sources, including law enforcement, public safety, and the private sector
Supports risk-based, information-driven prevention, response, and consequence management programs
Supports intelligence-led policing
Fusion is the overarching process of managing the flowing of information and intelligence across all levels and sectors of government and the private sector
For purposes of this initiative, fusion refers to the overarching process of managing the flow of information and intelligence across levels and sectors of government.
Moving to a working implementation involves a number of design considerations, including what information sources to use, what fusion architecture to employ, and communication protocols.
Center personnel will utilize fused and analyzed information to provide value-added intelligence products that support the development of performance-driven, risk-based prevention, response, and consequence management programs.

12. Privacy Policy Development Guide
Geared toward the justice practitioner charged with developing or revising an agency’s privacy policy
A practical, hands-on resource providing sensible guidance to develop a privacy policy
This guide is the next logical step for those justice entities ready to move beyond awareness to actual policy development process
It assists agencies in articulating privacy obligations in a manner that protects the justice agency, the individual, and the public and makes it easier to do what is necessary— share critical justice information
Geared toward the justice practitioner charged with developing or revising an agency’s privacy policy, the Privacy Policy Development Guide is a practical, hands-on resource that provides sensible guidance for developing a privacy policy. Using this Guide is the next logical step for those justice entities that are ready to move beyond awareness into the actual policy development process. It assists agencies in articulating privacy obligations in a manner that protects the justice agency, the individual, and the public and makes it easier to do what is necessary—share critical justice information

13. National Sex Offender Public Registry

14. The Design: The Results: Distributed model
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
Web Services
US DOJ XML
National search engine, local control
The Results:
Connected 22 sites in 60 days
Connected additional 28 sites in 5 months
Over 27 million hits in first 48 hours
Peeked at 977 hits per second
After 63 weeks – over 611 million hits

15. Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website
Search sent to server
Search sent to states’ repositories
Citizen enters data
Internet
Citizen selects name to view data
NSOPR
Web Server
Search results
back to server
Server delivers
results to web page

16. 50 States + District of Columbia + Guam
Current status
50 States + District of Columbia + Guam

17. Best practices: Lessons learned: Identify the stakeholders
Leverage work already completed
Cleary identify the policy decision maker
Cleary identify the technical lead
Adapt to what already exists
Lessons learned:
Keep policy and technology separate
Be open to suggestions from stakeholders
Realize “there is no one solution”
Design tool based on abilities
Federal and state can work together

18. david.p.lewis@usdoj.gov 202-616-7829
Thank you
David P. Lewis Senior Policy Advisor Justice Information Sharing DOJ/OJP/BJA