

                       NCIC TRAINING:  HIT OR MISS

                                    By

                              Don M. Johnson 
                              Special Agent 
                     FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC


     Today, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
continues to be the best example of law enforcement cooperation.
Information on wanted persons, stolen guns, stolen articles and
securities, unidentified bodies, and computerized criminal
history information is available to virtually every police
agency in the United States.  However, without proper training
on the use of NCIC and State computer systems, law enforcement
agencies could lose their tactical edge and may no longer be
able to ensure that their employees perform their duties as
efficiently and accurately as possible.

NCIC IN BRIEF

     Management of NCIC is shared between the FBI and the
Advisory Policy Board (APB).  The APB consists of 20 elected
State representatives, 6 individuals appointed by the Director
of the FBI, and 4 representatives of national law enforcement
organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs
of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the National
District Attorneys Conference, and the National Probation and
Parole Association.  Together they set policy and procedure for
NCIC's 59,000 users.

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NCIC TRAINING

     Law enforcement training in the 1960s saw an explosion of
minimum standards for police officers nationwide.  From then on,
officers were required to be trained and certified prior to
active duty.  This training included such topics as legal
issues, firearms, mechanics of arrest, report writing, first
aid, and defensive driving.  These minimum standards for police
have greatly increased the quality of law enforcement in the
United States today.

     Prior to 1984, the responsibility for training NCIC and
State terminal operators was left to the discretion of the
various State criminal information system managers.  These
managers decided the amount and type of training given to
terminal operators.  As a result, the APB noted marked
differences in the types and quality of NCIC/State system
training that terminal operators were receiving.

     The APB also recognized that many States limited their
training to terminal operators, and as a result, the training
was very technical in nature.  However, by limiting training to
terminal operators, many states neglected the training needs of
officers, investigators, and administrators, especially in the
areas of data quality and user compliance with policy issues.
For these reasons, the APB mandated that by December 31, 1986,
all 50 states were to have NCIC training programs in place for
the following four separate personnel levels: (1)

     *  Terminal Operators--Must be trained and tested within
        6 months of employment or assignment.  Their proficiency
        must also be retested biennially.

     *  Criminal Justice Practitioners--The daily users of the 
        NCIC/State systems are required to receive entry level
        and inservice training.  They must be taught what
        signifies a "hit," the levels of probable cause needed 
        for arrest, the need for hit confirmation, the 
        idiosyncrasies of soundexing, and the availability and
        searchability of various fields within a record.

     *  Criminal Justice Agency Records Personnel--Individuals
        who control the records management systems in every law 
        enforcement agency are required to be completely
        familiar with all NCIC/State systems policy and
        procedure matters.

     *  Criminal Justice Administrators and Upper-level 
        Managers--Must have a thorough knowledge of NCIC 
        regulations, including training, audits, sanctions, and
        the related civil liability issues to guide them in
        protecting their agencies from law suits.

     Since NCIC's beginning in 1967, one law enforcement agency
in every State has assumed the responsibility for managing that
State's computer system and its relationship with NCIC.  This
agency is known as the Control Terminal Agency (CTA).  Each CTA
has also designated one individual within that agency to assume
the responsibility for complying with NCIC policy and procedure
issues.  This individual is known as the Control Terminal
Officer (CTO).  The CTO in each CTA has training programs
available for all law enforcement agencies within that State.

     The NCIC training policy was made intentionally broad to
allow the CTAs to employ a wide variety of methods.  Under this
policy, each CTA has the flexibility to create its own training
program using available resources.  Since the policy and
procedures mandated by NCIC and the APB apply to all 50 States,
as well as Federal users, each State has incorporated national
policy issues into its training programs.  As a result, the
quality of the data in computerized systems and compliance with
national and State policy issues has become a priority in State
training programs.

     Even though training in one State may be handled
regionally, another State may centralize its training program.
Yet, no matter how a State trains its personnel, all must teach
nationwide policy and procedural issues mandated by the APB.
This provides assurance to the criminal justice community that
terminal operators, police officers, record managers, and
administrators across the country receive adequate and uniform
training on such important issues as hit confirmation,
validation, and the necessity for entering information into NCIC
and the State systems in a timely and accurate manner.

IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATE TRAINING

     Complete and proper use of NCIC/State computer systems can
save the lives of police officers, fugitives, and innocent
citizens.  Tragically, in one recent case, a terminal operator
failed to enter a stolen vehicle into NCIC in a timely fashion.
Instead, the operator waited for additional information before
making the vehicle entry.  A police officer on routine patrol
stopped a car that fit the description of a stolen vehicle,
queried NCIC, and received a negative response.  When the
officer approached the vehicle, the car thief killed the
officer.  This tragedy could have been prevented if the
operator were trained as to the minimum criteria for entering
stolen vehicle records into NCIC.  Unfortunately, many similar
examples exist as a result of improper use or inadequate
training of NCIC and State computer systems.

     Use of available NCIC and State systems will also generate
investigative leads for law enforcement agencies.  Through
training, officers have become more aware of the Interstate
Identification Index, State data bases, public domain data
bases, and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System (NLETS).  For example, when an officer obtains an arrest
warrant, the Interstate Identification Index is queried.  When
positive identification is made, the Index will produce aliases,
fingerprint classifications, places of birth, Social Security
numbers, and a multitude of other descriptive information that
will aid the department in its search for the fugitive.

CONCLUSION

     Just as terminal opeators' adrenaline rises when an NCIC
"hit" appears on the monitor, police administrators' adrenaline
should also rise if they have not provided their employees
with the best available training in NCIC and State computerized
system use.  But, by using the State NCIC training programs
available through each State's Control Terminal Agency, police
administrators can be assured that their employees enter
accurate and complete information into NCIC, know how to
interpret the information accurately in the system, validate
active records, and promptly remove old records from the system.
While doctors can change a prescription and lawyers can
cross-examine witnesses, the law enforcement employee must often
make swift decisions based on the instantaneous results of NCIC
and State system inquiries.  All law enforcement agencies must,
therefore, ensure that law enforcement employees are able to use
the NCIC and State systems.  For someone, there may not be a
second chance.


FOOTNOTE

     (1)  U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, "Minutes National Crime Information Center
Advisory Board," October 17-18, 1984, pp 311-312.
