333 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
333 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
|
||
A LOOK AHEAD:
|
||
VIEWS OF TOMORROW'S FBI
|
||
|
||
By
|
||
|
||
Richard Sonnichsen
|
||
Gail O. Burton
|
||
and
|
||
Thomas Lyons
|
||
|
||
|
||
The law enforcement community of tomorrow will serve a
|
||
society far different than that of today. Indeed, the
|
||
differences may be so dramatic that law enforcement organizations
|
||
which are not prepared for the future may be unable to respond to
|
||
those communities they are sworn to serve. Change is inevitable,
|
||
and it will impact on every facet of society, including its
|
||
social structure, economic policies, demo-graphics, technology,
|
||
and a myriad of other areas. Accordingly, law enforcement should
|
||
commit sufficient resources today to plan for future changes.
|
||
|
||
With this in mind, the Office of Planning, Evaluation and
|
||
Audits (OPEA) was tasked to conduct a study intended to describe
|
||
the FBI's working environment in the year 2000. The study
|
||
entitled ``FBI 2000: A Law Enforcement View'' was developed to
|
||
provide senior FBI management with the perceptions of other
|
||
Federal, State and local law enforcement officers about the
|
||
changing relationships between themselves and the FBI of the
|
||
future. At the outset, OPEA conducted extensive interviews and
|
||
surveys of senior FBI executives to determine issues that will
|
||
face the FBI in the future. Issues pertaining to budget,
|
||
personnel, technology, science, and international investigations
|
||
were among those raised during this preliminary internal
|
||
assessment phase.
|
||
|
||
With this internal view as a framework for the study, OPEA
|
||
began the external data collection phase. The strategy included
|
||
conducting interviews with law enforcement executives,
|
||
academicians, and criminal justice consultants. OPEA selected
|
||
interview sites that provided a geographical cross section of the
|
||
United States and key international areas. Selection of specific
|
||
interviewees was made after consultation with FBI Training
|
||
Academy personnel, respected academicians and FBI field division
|
||
managers. Criteria for interviewee selection relied heavily on a
|
||
consensus perception of the progressiveness each individual
|
||
institution demonstrated. OPEA Special Agents visited, in the
|
||
United States and internationally, 50 different law enforcement
|
||
agencies, 9 colleges/universities, and 4 criminal justice
|
||
consulting firms.
|
||
|
||
The study participants were asked to consider their
|
||
relationship with the FBI in three major areas: (1) Operations
|
||
and investigations, (2) training, and (3) technology and law
|
||
enforcement services. Based on their knowledge and expertise, the
|
||
respondents were asked to predict how their agencies'
|
||
relationships with the FBI may evolve during the next century.
|
||
Further, the interviewees were also asked to comment on any
|
||
issues that they believed would impact the FBI in the future.
|
||
|
||
This article will report the highlights of this qualitative
|
||
study. With the above three areas as a starting point, several
|
||
areas of emphasis for the FBI of the future evolved from the
|
||
study: Operations, training, technology and science, budget,
|
||
legislation, international concerns, and privatization. What
|
||
follows is a compilation of the respondents' opinions and
|
||
suggestions based on what they viewed to be a predictable
|
||
environment for the future FBI.
|
||
|
||
OPERATIONS
|
||
|
||
The future FBI should become an informational repository for
|
||
all categories of reactive crime. In fulfilling this role, the
|
||
FBI should assemble a national clearinghouse of criminal
|
||
information, statistics, and a modus operandi (MO) data base that
|
||
would be available to all members of the law enforcement
|
||
community. Moreover, joint operations between local police
|
||
departments and the FBI were predicted to increase and to target
|
||
specific crimes, such as drug trafficking and street gangs. Those
|
||
respondents supporting the joint operations concept speculated
|
||
that increased efficiency and economy will be a likely result to
|
||
all who participate in such future ventures.
|
||
|
||
TRAINING
|
||
|
||
Based on cost effectiveness and efficiency, the most
|
||
acclaimed training program for local law enforcement, according
|
||
to the study, is the FBI's ``Train the Trainer Program.'' This
|
||
program promotes the development of self-sufficiency in police
|
||
training as officers who receive this initial training become
|
||
organizers of similar training programs within their own
|
||
agencies. This program was also regarded by many responding
|
||
police executives as an effective vehicle to standardize law
|
||
enforcement procedures of the future.
|
||
|
||
According to the data collected, there exists a void in
|
||
senior management training for local law enforcement agencies.
|
||
This training void should be filled by the FBI. Specifically,
|
||
senior managers of local police agencies envision regional
|
||
management training that is shorter in duration and more advanced
|
||
than courses currently provided at the FBI National Academy's
|
||
first-tier training for law enforcement executives.
|
||
|
||
TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
|
||
|
||
The FBI has traditionally been a leader in sophisticated
|
||
technological and scientific research with practical law
|
||
enforcement applications. Local law enforcement, according to the
|
||
results of the study, expects the FBI to continue to conduct
|
||
research and development of future forensic and technological
|
||
advances. The FBI Training Academy initiatives in computer
|
||
science, career criminal research, and offender behavioral
|
||
profiling were frequently cited as successful examples of
|
||
research and development achievements that are in keeping with
|
||
these future expectations and needs of the local law enforcement
|
||
community.
|
||
|
||
Beyond these core issues (operations, training, and
|
||
technology and science), interviewees provided insights about
|
||
such future issues as budget, legislation, international
|
||
concerns, and privatization.
|
||
|
||
BUDGET
|
||
|
||
International, Federal, and local law enforcement executives
|
||
were in consensus that obtaining adequate funding in the future
|
||
will be difficult. In particular, they anticipate that there
|
||
will be increased competition for decreased funding within the
|
||
Federal law enforcement community. On the other hand, some
|
||
respondents from the academic community and private sector
|
||
envision future budgetary increases for Federal law enforcement.
|
||
|
||
Should funding decline, one response suggested by many law
|
||
enforcement executives would be to rely more on technological
|
||
innovation and, where possible, to share expenses with other
|
||
agencies. Also, joint technological development achieved by the
|
||
FBI and other law enforcement agencies could result in reducing
|
||
individual agency research and development outlays, while
|
||
ensuring greater interagency system-and-equipment compatibility.
|
||
|
||
Another suggested response to diminishing budgetary
|
||
resources was to combine forces to more efficiently and cost
|
||
effectively attack mutual crime problems. Merging personnel
|
||
could take several forms, including expanding the existing task
|
||
force concept now employed by Federal, State and local agencies.
|
||
According to many foreign law enforcement executives, more
|
||
complex strategies would include the exchange of FBI Special
|
||
Agents with personnel of international law enforcement agencies.
|
||
This was also viewed as a positive response to growing
|
||
international crime.
|
||
|
||
LEGISLATION
|
||
|
||
To address evolving crime problems, future legislative
|
||
initiatives will be required in order to equip adequately the FBI
|
||
and other Federal, State, local and international law enforcement
|
||
agencies. Respondents believed that the FBI will be expected to
|
||
initiate and secure passage of such future legislation.
|
||
|
||
One specific area that will receive future international
|
||
legislative attention is computer crime. In fact, in a July
|
||
1988, report, the International Chamber of Commerce articulated a
|
||
number of topical issues that needed to be addressed in order to
|
||
combat this growing crime problem. Accordingly, investigation of
|
||
computer crime, as well as the more traditional international
|
||
crimes, including drug trafficking, terrorism and fraud, is most
|
||
difficult due to the incompatibility of legal systems among
|
||
involved countries. For example, a criminal act in one country
|
||
may not be a criminal act in another country. Therefore, efforts
|
||
to standardize laws across international boundaries will remain a
|
||
priority well into the future.
|
||
|
||
Even though compatibility of criminal law among nations is
|
||
not yet a reality, there is reason for optimism. In 1988 the
|
||
United Nations Conference for Narcotics Legislation resulted in a
|
||
draft proposal entitled ``United Nations Convention Against
|
||
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
|
||
Substances.'' This draft provides a strong legal basis for
|
||
resolving many of the compatibility issues now present in the
|
||
international arena.
|
||
|
||
INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
|
||
|
||
Well into the future, law enforcement organizations of
|
||
developed, industrialized nations will find that problems
|
||
associated with increased global immigration will become
|
||
aggravated. People from repressive and developing countries are
|
||
increasingly searching for economic, political, and social
|
||
freedom. Moreover, inexpensive international air travel, an
|
||
increase in multi-national corporations, an expanding base of
|
||
international commerce, and economic interdependence among
|
||
nations are important factors that have influenced increased
|
||
global migration patterns. The challenge posed to law
|
||
enforcement now developing in the host countries is how to
|
||
provide the full range of required law enforcement services to
|
||
diverse communities.
|
||
|
||
Many of the compelling forces compressing the world and its
|
||
peoples into closer personal and business associations are
|
||
similarly pressing members of the international law enforcement
|
||
community into new and innovative relationships. Due to its
|
||
resource base, jurisdictional span, and operational expertise,
|
||
the FBI is increasingly viewed as the U. S. law enforcement
|
||
agency that should achieve and sustain a prominent leadership
|
||
presence in the international law enforcement arena. One such
|
||
force, the increasing international character of crime, will most
|
||
certainly generate the need for more FBI international
|
||
cooperation and stronger liaison programs. Other important
|
||
features of an expanding FBI international leadership role are
|
||
likely to include laboratory assistance, technology sharing,
|
||
information exchanges and reciprocal training initiatives.
|
||
According to respondents, this role should also include FBI
|
||
sponsorship of international symposiums where problems and new
|
||
initiatives can be widely discussed.
|
||
|
||
Another compelling force, the increased investment of
|
||
foreign money into American businesses and properties, could well
|
||
provide the financial basis on which international crime groups
|
||
will expand their foothold in the United States. This force will
|
||
require the FBI to exchange criminal intelligence and criminal
|
||
history information with members of the international law
|
||
enforcement community on an ever- increasing scale.
|
||
|
||
There will also be a parallel need for the foreign law
|
||
enforcement community to establish quid-pro-quo relationships
|
||
with local law enforcement agencies in the United States in order
|
||
to exchange essential criminal intelligence. According to study
|
||
findings, the FBI is in an excellent position to serve as a
|
||
valuable intermediary in this regard because foreign law
|
||
enforcement agencies often find the overlapping character of U.S.
|
||
law enforcement agencies confusing. For example, foreign agencies
|
||
get confused when several U.S. law enforcement agencies, each
|
||
with legitimate and justifiable investigative interests, make
|
||
separate inquiries on the same criminal investigation. Further,
|
||
when a U.S. law enforcement officer visits the headquarters of a
|
||
foreign agency to transact business without advanced notice to
|
||
that agency, additional confusion occurs.
|
||
|
||
From another perspective, the United States has
|
||
traditionally experienced crime trends 5 to 10 years before they
|
||
are encountered in other countries. Accordingly, many believe
|
||
that the FBI should host international discussions on crime
|
||
trends with appropriate foreign and U.S. law enforcement
|
||
officials. The purpose of these discussions would be to provide
|
||
results of crime trend analysis and to share information
|
||
regarding successful and unsuccessful strategies used against
|
||
various crime problems.
|
||
|
||
POLICE PRIVATIZATION
|
||
|
||
One issue that repeatedly surfaced during interviews with
|
||
law enforcement executives worldwide was the trend toward police
|
||
privatization. While some law enforcement executives view this
|
||
trend with great concern, others see much benefit. A number of
|
||
senior police officials speculate that the future police
|
||
community will separate into three distinct strata public,
|
||
private and corporate. This stratification will continue to
|
||
evolve from the present trend toward police privatization.
|
||
|
||
PUBLIC
|
||
|
||
Public police agencies may well be victimized in the future
|
||
by underfunding, understaffing, lack of proper equipment, and
|
||
inadequate training. These conditions will encourage a trend
|
||
toward privatization. It was further speculated by respondents
|
||
that this underfunding of some public police organizations may
|
||
impede their ability to attract or retain well-educated
|
||
applicants, thus diminishing future expectations of high
|
||
performance and professional standards. Moreover, due to the
|
||
growth and effectiveness of private and corporate police
|
||
functions, public police departments will find their services
|
||
relegated more toward the problems of the urban poor.
|
||
|
||
PRIVATE
|
||
|
||
On the other hand, private police departments will be
|
||
organized to service the more affluent segments of our society,
|
||
and officers associated with those departments will be expected
|
||
to adhere to high professional standards. Respondents believed
|
||
that these officers may likely be better educated, trained,
|
||
equipped, and paid than their public counterparts.
|
||
|
||
CORPORATE
|
||
|
||
The growth of corporate policing has established what may be
|
||
regarded as quasi-criminal justice systems in many of our major
|
||
corporations. The expansion of this phenomenon is expected to
|
||
continue well into the future. Corporate security investigators
|
||
and auditors already conduct investigations regarding a wide
|
||
range of financial crimes, including credit card fraud, computer
|
||
fraud, and embezzlement. In many cases, corporations, not the
|
||
courts, decide the disposition of these crimes. For example,
|
||
major corporate embezzlement, reaching into hundreds of thousands
|
||
of dollars, often results only in the forced resignation of the
|
||
offender, not prosecution in a court of law.
|
||
|
||
Corporations lack confidence in the ability of law
|
||
enforcement to address these investigations in a manner that will
|
||
protect sensitive corporate business interests. In recognition of
|
||
these circumstances, the law enforcement community should seek to
|
||
engage in closer and more effective working relationships with
|
||
the major corporations in order to better understand each other's
|
||
values, motivations, and roles. Only through greater
|
||
understanding and mutual trust will essential law enforcement
|
||
relationships with corporate America be built.
|
||
|
||
CONCLUSION
|
||
|
||
What exactly will the working environment of the FBI and law
|
||
enforcement be in the year 2000? No one can be sure; however,
|
||
each member of the law enforcement community must carefully
|
||
contemplate its evolving role and responsibilities.
|
||
Accordingly, each must initiate a comprehensive plan for the
|
||
expected future. Such a plan must address several factors,
|
||
including the development of a clear understanding of the
|
||
community to be served, the potential for change over time, and
|
||
the projection of the future crime trends. Additionally, any plan
|
||
for the future must face the likelihood of dwindling budgets,
|
||
expanding international relationships, and increased police
|
||
privatization. While the future for neither the FBI nor any law
|
||
enforcement agency can be certain, it can be planned for
|
||
responsibly by men and women with courage and vision.
|
||
|
||
|
||
About the authors:
|
||
|
||
Deputy Assistant Director Richard C. Sonnichsen, Unit Chief/
|
||
Special Agent Gail O. Buron, and Special Agent Thomas Lyons
|
||
are assigned to the FBI's Office of Planning, Evaluation and
|
||
Audits at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC.
|
||
|