RE: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-r ace

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Title: Re: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Sect

Thanks, John.  Yes, those are an implementation cost for a public safety

vendor.  When we go into a state or agency, we have to set up the

picklists individually for codelists, and then map it out to NIBRS/UCR

when the reports are created.   The very weak or non-existent

reporting standards for public safety systems are one reason for

their high costs.   The cost of the software/hardware seldom equals

the cost of implementation.   And responding to RFPs for these

is a real pain.

 

To be clear, I work for the Records Management Systems group

of Intergraph Public Safety.   We have several systems in California.

Issues such as what you bring up are one reason why I did not heavily load

the primary with more public safety datatypes and why I chose a

primary/abstract as the base.

BTW:  I've been recommending your incident XSD and XSL designs

to some of our developers as a splendid example of how to do

that right.

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Aerts, John F. [mailto:jfaerts@lasd.org]

Attached for your consideration, in your endevors, are the Codes for Race and Sex that the  CA State (CJIS) and Federal (NCIC) systems use. (Real world)

 

As you can see the Federal Government and the states don't agree. In fact some of the state systems are not the same.

 

I am only sending the state codes from California but it is possible for each state (CJIS) to have its own version and translate to the Federal (NCIC) prior to forwarding to them.

 

Not to mention that local government entities have there records managment system (RMS) with their own codes that they translate for whatever system they report to. That is how you get your National Crime Statistics for/from the FBI.