Description
I want to investigate the coordination and sharing of information between government, justice agencies, and others.
A complete plan for a research project using Interview and Policy analysis research method and design. Set up by the title, keywords, hypothesis, the research plan (with strategy, methodology, and what may be considered controls), the anticipated findings, literature citations, and statement attesting to the originality of this research proposal. have not formulated a research plan. This paper will provide a brief description of the research interest and proposal to conduct research on that topic.
I want to investigate the coordination and sharing of information between government, justice agencies, and others. Having been involved in law enforcement for many years I am aware of a tremendous gap regarding the ability of agencies to access and share information effectively and consistently as organizations. There are organizational, interpersonal as well as technological reasons for this. There is much work that could be done to examine these processes and identify potential means for fundamental change for the agencies and society.
Unit of analysis here is the organization to include organizational culture as well as information systems and information sharing policies.
This focus is on information sharing and collaboration barriers between federal justice agencies, including the department of homeland security, FBI, and others, and between federal justice agencies and state and local enforcement agencies. I anticipate that interviews with personnel from these agencies will be the way to go, and that line officers, supervisors, and those responsible for policy-making would have to be identified and interviewed as well. The interview format could lead to the identification of several issues or themes that could then be examined and even sent back out for comment in a Delphi model format for feedback where the participants would then rate all the responses provided according to their significance or other metric depending on what the data presented at that point.
This focus is on information sharing and collaboration barriers between federal justice agencies, including the department of homeland security, FBI, and others, and between federal justice agencies and state and local enforcement agencies. I anticipate that interviews with personnel from these agencies will be the way to go, and that line officers, supervisors, and those responsible for policy-making would have to be identified and interviewed as well. The interview format could lead to the identification of several issues or themes that could then be examined and even sent back out for comment in a Delphi model format for feedback where the participants would then rate all the responses provided according to their significance or other metric depending on what the data presented at that point.
Introduction
On information sharing and collaboration barriers between federal justice agencies, specifically the department of homeland security, FBI, and others, and between federal justice agencies and state and local enforcement agencies, the lackadaisical if not anachronistic official transactions of government offices prove to be harmful and inept.
This paper shall try to establish and point out ways to improve sharing and speed up information sharing and collaboration barriers between federal justice agencies, specifically the department of homeland security, FBI, and others, and between federal justice agencies and state and local enforcement agencies.
Discussion
There had always been what is traditionally called a bureaucratic communication channel, more known with government agencies or offices as the proper communication channel. Prior to the so-called series of office automation, government offices when needing information or document from another, will put down into formal written request what is needed, stating among others the necessity of the needed document, its use, date or time needed, and a signatory who is usually the department or office head. The letter, with a duplicate copy for originating office file, is either in two copies or more depending on the number of recipient persons or offices. It will then be forwarded to the target office, formally received with the receiver indicating his or her name, date and time received, and signature of the one who received the letter. For more than one recipient, all receiving persons will be noted on the file copy (Tadeja, 2007).
There are also more formal, if not informal ways of communication between government officers or their staff with regards to “official matters” or that pertains to official duties and obligations. For more sensitive issues, heads of offices call the target head office/s phone number or direct line and speak at a more personal and equal level. But most of the time, the officer who needs information, action or material, will personally visit, usually logged and documented as an official or business visit, another officer to discuss matters. Even in instances as official visits, these are logged in office record books, acknowledged, and filed not only for the documentation but for reimbursement of travel and representation allowances (Rivada, 2007). While a phone call may be more practical as well speedy for offices in distance, government procedures seem to favor that which is physically documented, however less practical as well as slower it may be.
Presence of traditional if not bureaucratic officers in a given agency who remain conservative about government official documentation and refuse to acknowledge alternative ways of communication and transaction may sometimes prove to be deterrents to progress and development in information sharing and collaboration between federal justice agencies, specifically the department of homeland security, FBI and others, and between federal justice agencies and state and local enforcement agencies. It becomes a necessity that these kinds of officers are “officially” informed by trainings or seminars, as well as through the use of the more formal “memorandum” issuance in order to comply with changes as well as facilitate speedier means of information sharing (Tadeja, 2007).
With the advent of facsimile or fax machine use, many government agencies took advantage of the speed of document transfer. Documentation became automatic as the machine has a report of its transaction record of contacted phone or fax number, and whether a transmission has been successful. In the age of the internet, electronic mail, short messaging systems, and real-time internet chat, these developments were also used by offices but with complementary documentation (DPC, 2000).
But the most recent development in information sharing which has been adopted by information-sensitive agencies is biometrics technology. This allows personalized verification using iris of the eyes, palm or fingerprints, voice, or signature without having to use identification cards, number codes, and passwords. This has sped up sharing of information among governments and agencies such as the verification of passports among industrialized nations like the United States and its European counterparts, as airports were installed with biometric gadgets to curb terrorism (Heracleus and Wirtz, 2006). This has sped up tracking of information and people as well as sharing of information between and among federal officers and members with the end aim to protect and secure nations.
Conclusion
It is obvious that there are many problems that need to be addressed when it comes to information sharing and collaboration barriers between federal justice agencies, including the department of homeland security, FBI, and others, and between federal justice agencies and state and local enforcement agencies. These are continually being addressed and so far, advances in technology have proven to be of advantage as speed, which has been a big and notorious problem in the bureaucracy is addressed properly.
But as earlier noted, incompatibility of technologies and gadgets may prove to instead hamper the need for information sharing between agencies and offices as a biometric technology at one end may not be available or compatible with the technology used on the other. The minimal recording for personal information for identity verification, however, would prove to be practical and useful at this instance so that between and among officers and members of law enforcement office, sharing and speedy negotiation as well as operation and implementation is realized.
The last to be considered, of course, is the presence of officers who refuse to acknowledge changes in the new information sharing environment; the higher the office, the bigger the obstacle. It is government leaders then that needs to be updated and provided mastery with information sharing and security and speedy devices.
Reference
Diane Publishing Co. Automation of America’s Offices 1985-2000.
Heracleous, Loizos and Jochen Wirtz. (2006). “Biometrics: the next frontier in service excellence, productivity and security in the service sector.” Managing Service Quality 16 (1).
Rivada, Juliet (2007). An Interview with a former executive secretary. (Office anonymity requested).
Tadeja, Marge (2007). An interview with a security researcher. (Office anonymity requested).