Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information 

Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

A Guide for Law Enforcement

The Making Officer Redeployment Effective Program

Elizabeth Groff | Tom McEwen
Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information 

Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies

The Making Officer Redeployment Effective Program 

A Guide for Law Enforcement

Elizabeth Groff | Tom McEwen 

April 2008

The project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2003-CK-WX-K039 awarded by the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained 

herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be 

considered an endorsement by the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

Institute for Law and Justice

1018 Duke Street

Alexandria, Virginia

Phone: 703.684.5300

Fax: 703.739.5533

E-Mail: ilj@ilj.org
Letter from the Director | iii |

Letter from the Director

One of the challenges often presented to law enforcement agencies is the need to determine the potential 

effects that result from implementing technologies. Identifying and measuring the benefits of acquiring new 

technologies, or upgrading outdated systems and equipment, enable agencies to justify their expense to local 

government and to community stakeholders. The benefits that technologies provide can assist agencies in 

reaching department goals and objectives.

This guide, one of the many resources that the COPS Office offers to law enforcement, provides information on 

the effects of technologies typically acquired by law enforcement agencies. The guide focuses on the Three 

E’s—efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling—which identify the different ways the technology may affect your 

agency. All three may play a role in assessing the benefits, for example, of acquiring a new automated field 

reporting system or upgrading your records management system.

The guide is based on the results of an assessment of the COPS Office’s 2002 Making Officer Redeployment 

Effective (MORE) grantees; however, the results apply to any agency that is considering or has recently made a 

technology purchase. Including our 2008 grants, the COPS Office has provided more than $2 billion in funding 

for crime-fighting technology and is keenly aware of the challenges of measuring the impact of law enforcement 

technologies. We hope this publication will address your needs as you seek to identify the myriad ways that 

technology purchases can benefit your agency.

In addition to this publication you may also find our series of Law Enforcement Tech Guides useful to your 

agency. They include Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to Plan, Purchase and Manage Technology and Law 

Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures that Work. These guides, and many of our other 

knowledge-based resources can be downloaded from www.cops.usdoj.gov, or they can be ordered free of 

charge by calling the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or by e-mail at askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov. 

I hope that you find this particular guide both informative and helpful, and I encourage you to share it with other 

law enforcement practitioners. 

Carl R. Peed

Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
 | iv | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Chapter1

Measuring the 

Effects of Implementing 

Information Technologies 7

The COPS MORE Program 8

Assessing Information Technologies: 

The Three E’s 11

Highlights of the COPS MORE 2002 

Survey Results 12

Related Publications 15

Organization of the Guide 16

Chapter2 

Automated Field 

Reporting Systems 21

Description of Automated Field Reporting 

Systems 22

Resulting Benefits of Automated Field

Reporting Systems 23

Summary of Responses about Automated 

Field Reporting Systems 28

Outcome Measures for Automated Field 

Reporting Systems 29

Chapter3

Computer Aided 

Dispatch Systems 31

Description of Computer Aided Dispatch 

Systems 32

Resulting Benefits of Computer Aided

Dispatch Systems 33

Summary of Responses about Computer

Aided Dispatch Systems 38

Outcome Measures for Computer Aided 

Dispatch systems 39

Contents

Letter from the Director iii

Acknowledgments vi

Chapter 4

Records Management 

Systems 41

Description of Records Management

Systems 42

Resulting Benefits of Records 

Management Systems 44

Summary of Responses about Records 

Management Systems 47

Outcome Measures for Records 

Management Systems 49

Chapter5

Arrest and Booking Systems 51

Description of Arrest and Booking 

Systems 52

Resulting Benefits of Arrest and Booking 

Systems 53

Summary of Responses about Arrest and 

Booking Systems 55

Outcome Measures for Arrest and 

Booking Systems 55

Chapter6

Automated Fingerprint 

Identification Systems 57

Description of Automated Fingerprint 

Identification Systems 58

Resulting Benefits of Automated 

Fingerprinting Identification Systems 59

Summary of Responses about 

Automated Fingerprint Identification 

Systems 60

Outcome Measures for Automated 

Fingerprint Identification Systems 61
Contents | v |

Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: Information Technologies Acquired in the 2002 COPS MORE Program 12

Exhibit 1-2: Selected Effects and Benefits of Information Technologies 14

Exhibit 1-3: Summary of Effects and Benefits for Personnel Affected 17

Exhibit 2-1: Outcome Measures for Automated Field Reporting Systems 30

Exhibit 3-1: Outcome Measures for Computer Aided Dispatch Systems 40

Exhibit 4-1: Outcome Measures for Records Management Systems 50

Exhibit 5-1: Outcome Measures for Arrest and Booking Systems 56 

Exhibit 6-1: Outcome Measures for Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems 62

Exhibit 7-1: Outcome Measures for Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems 70

Chapter7

Crime Analysis and 

Mapping Systems 63

Description of Crime Analysis and 

Mapping Systems 64

Resulting Benefits of Crime Analysis 

and Mapping Systems 65

Summary of Responses about Crime 

Analysis and Mapping Systems 67

Outcome Measures for Crime Analysis 

and Mapping Systems 69

AppendixA

Information Technology 

in Policing 71

Police Communications Centers 72

Patrol Operations 73

Crime and Intelligence Analysis 74

Problem Solving 75

Investigations 76

Arrest and Booking 77

Summary 78

AppendixB 

Assessing Information 

Technologies 79

Efficiency 80

Effectiveness 80

Enabling Benefits 80

Relationships among the three E’s 81

Outcome Measures to Capture the 

three E’s 81
 | vi | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Acknowledgments

This project received extensive support and guidance from Matthew Lysakowski, 

Social Science Analyst at the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the 

COPS Office). 

Project team members included the following Institute for Law and Justice staff: Tom 

McEwen, Elizabeth Groff, Barbara Webster, and Randall Guynes. 

The project was also assisted by knowledgeable consultants whose participation 

included reviewing the draft guide in detail and providing valuable comments for 

improving it: 

•	 Nancy Leach, Consultant (former Supervisory Social Science Analyst, 

the COPS Office)

•	 Dr. John Eck, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati.

Additionally, we thank all the professionals who gave of their time and expertise to 

provide information for this guide. 
Chapter 1

Measuring the Effects of 

Implementing Information 

Technologies 
 | 8 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

This guide will help police departments measure the effects of implementing the 

information technologies that they have acquired to support community policing 

activities. The guide is relevant to police departments of all sizes and covers a variety 

of applications—automated field reporting systems, computer aided dispatch, 

records management systems, arrest and booking systems, automated fingerprint 

identification, crime analysis and mapping, and others. The intent is to provide 

practical measures for how information technologies contribute to achieving 

department goals.

The COPS MORE Program

Recognizing the potential of information technologies to enhance police operations, 

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) sponsored the 

Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) program between 1995 and 2002 to 

support and encourage police department investments in this area. The overarching 

objective of the COPS MORE program was to increase the time available to police 

personnel for community policing activities by funding technology that enabled a 

department to operate more efficiently. In total, COPS MORE grants helped more than 

4,500 law enforcement agencies acquire and implement technology in support of 

efficient community policing operations. The grants totaled more than $1.3 billion and 

funded crime-fighting technologies that helped redeploy the equivalent of more than 

42,000 full-time law enforcement professionals into community policing activities.1

A primary aim of the COPS MORE program was to increase the ability of patrol 

officers to solve community problems. Installation of mobile digital computers in 

patrol cars, for example, could enable officers to receive information about local crime 

and disorder problems while on patrol, thereby improving their ability to address 

community issues quickly and effectively. The COPS MORE program also provided an 

opportunity for police departments to operate more effectively by providing technology 

to support such tasks as analyzing crime data for trends, mapping crime hot spots, 

analyzing latent fingerprints through automated fingerprint information systems, and 

redeploying patrol officers with computer aided dispatch systems. 

1

See COPS Fact Sheet, Making 

Officer Redeployment Effective 

(MORE) Using Technology to Keep 

America’s Communities Safe. 

U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, 2006.
Measuring the Effects of Implementing Information Technologies | 9 |

During a 2-year period starting in mid-2004, the Institute for Law and Justice, Inc., 

(ILJ) periodically interviewed key personnel in the 290 police agencies that received 

2002 COPS MORE grants. The purpose of the interviews, which were conducted by 

telephone approximately every 6 months, was to assess agencies’ progress toward 

acquiring and implementing information technologies (hardware and applications) 

and, more important, to obtain information about the effects and benefits of these 

technologies. Typical interviews required at least an hour to conduct and, in many 

agencies, several people were interviewed. More than one interview was required 

when different personnel in an agency had responsibilities for different applications. 

Multiple interviews during the 2-year period were needed because agencies were 

experiencing delays in acquiring and installing new systems. Indeed, studies of 

information systems in police departments have found that it can sometimes take 

years to complete installation of applications because of a variety of factors such as 

problems with vendors, changes in policies and procedures, or budgeting funds for 

acquisitions. 

Our telephone interviews determined that the main acquisitions by the 2002 COPS 

MORE grantees were as follows:

Hardware

•	 Mobile digital computers (MDC) for patrol cars

•	 Personal computers and laptops for support and analysis.

Applications

•	 Automated field reporting systems (AFRS) for preparing reports in the field and 

transmitting them to a central repository

•	 Computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems to enhance police communications 

among citizens, dispatchers, and patrol officers

•	 Records management systems (RMS) to expand and improve local capabilities for 

storing and accessing police records 
 | 10 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

•	 Arrest and booking systems for improved operations in local jails

•	 Automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) for obtaining, storing, and 

analyzing fingerprints

•	 Crime analysis and mapping systems to expand a department’s capabilities in 

analysis.

Within the framework of the COPS MORE program, the implementation of 

information technologies was viewed as a way to enhance a department’s capabilities 

that, in turn, would contribute to achieving overall goals. For example, acquisition 

of CAD and RMS applications coupled with MDCs in patrol cars enables officers to 

obtain information in a faster and more efficient manner. Bulletins about crime hot 

spots can be provided to patrol officers, who can then concentrate their available time 

in those areas to reduce crime.

As another example, an AFRS available through MDCs in patrol cars allows officers 

to remain in their patrol areas and complete incident reports more quickly than in the 

past. Time recovered from faster report preparation can be devoted to addressing 

community problems.

The above examples illustrate an important point about measuring the effects of 

information technologies: the link between information technologies and achievement 

of department goals is a two-step process. Implementing information technologies 

is the first step in the process, while the second step is using recovered time 

appropriately to achieve department goals. 

Measuring department goals such as crime reduction, increases in arrests, and 

clearance rates is of paramount importance to a police department. Citizens judge 

the performance of police departments on the basis of changes in these measures. 

As reflected in this guide, police departments should also be interested in developing 

performance measures for information technologies to gauge whether they are 

improving department operations and how they are related to the achievement of 

departmental goals. Measuring the amount of time saved through implementing 

MDCs and an AFRS should be important to a police department because it indicates 
Measuring the Effects of Implementing Information Technologies | 11 |

how much additional time patrol officers have for activities directly related to 

community problems. Further, if department goals such as crime reduction and 

problem alleviation are achieved, then knowing the amount of time saved supports 

the investments made in information technologies.2 

 Another finding from the interviews with grantees was that information technologies 

have different effects on different personnel within a police department. For example, 

while an AFRS has a major impact on patrol officers, it also affects the activities of 

field supervisors, records section personnel, crime scene specialists, and others. 

Field supervisors are affected because they can review incident reports online 

and send messages requesting corrections back to patrol officers. Records section 

personnel are affected because they are relieved of the responsibility for entering 

information into a records management system and may no longer need to manually 

distribute reports to other units in the department. Impact measures of information 

technologies, therefore, should include all affected groups in a department. Our 

interviews confirmed the importance of addressing the effects in a broad fashion. 

Assessing Information Technologies: The Three E’s 

The approach used in this guide for measuring the benefits of information 

technologies is the “Three E’s”—efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling. Briefly, 

efficiency means getting a task done with a minimum expenditure of time and 

effort. An AFRS, for example, might allow an officer to complete an incident report 

in 20 minutes, compared to 40 minutes before the system was installed. The AFRS, 

therefore, is assisting patrol officers to be more efficient in preparing their reports. 

Effectiveness, on the other hand, means doing a better job to produce an intended or 

expected result. An AFRS should improve the accuracy and completeness of reports, 

thereby making the reports more beneficial for investigations, problem solving, crime 

analysis, and other department operations. Finally, technologies often enable police 

to do something they could not do before. An AFIS system, for example, enables 

extensive searches of latent prints that would have been impossible to accomplish 

manually. The result will be an increase in arrests and crime clearances.

2

One caveat is important in this example. 

Some agencies believed that officer time 

for report preparation increased after an 

AFRS was implemented.The usual reason 

given for the increased time was that more 

information was collected and that online 

editing of reports placed an additional 

time burden on officers. In this regard, 

it would be important for an agency to 

determine how the additional information 

was applied in the department and whether 

the improved quality of information led 

to improvements in other department 

operations, such as crime analysis.
 | 12 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

In this guide, we have provided numerous suggestions for measuring the Three E’s 

provided by information technologies, with an emphasis on addressing all personnel 

affected by implementation. The result is a thorough treatment of the impact of 

information technologies on the operations of a police department. We also illustrate 

the relationship between these measures and department goals of crime reduction, 

increased arrests, problem solving, and others.

Highlights of the COPS MORE 2002 Survey Results

In the interviews conducted by ILJ personnel, grantees were asked about the 

technologies acquired, reasons for acquiring the technology, current status of 

implementation, implementation strategies, amount of training provided, changes 

to existing policies and procedures, other information technologies at the agency, 

how the hardware acquisitions fit with the software acquisitions, and the effects and 

benefits of the technologies. 

Exhibit 1-1 summarizes the information technologies that were obtained by the 2002 

COPS MORE grantees. The most frequent hardware technology acquired was the 

laptop or MDC, with 67 percent of agencies acquiring them. The MDCs were almost 

always coupled with the acquisition or expansion of applications such as AFRS, CAD, 

and RMS.

Information Technology Number of Agencies Percent

Laptops or MDCs (average of 30 per agency)

Automated Field Reporting System (AFRS)

Records Management System (RMS)

Personal Computers

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)

Arrest and Booking System

Crime Analysis System

Mapping System

Other Acquisitions

179

79

65

55

45

26

20

13

13

87

67.0

29.6

24.3

20.4

16.9

9.6

7.5

4.9

4.9

32.6

Exhibit 1-1: Information Technologies Acquired in the 2002 COPS MORE Program.
Measuring the Effects of Implementing Information Technologies | 13 |

Almost 30 percent of the agencies surveyed acquired an AFRS, which was the largest 

proportion of application software. RMSs were obtained by 24.3 percent of the 

grantees and CAD systems by 16.9 percent. About 10 percent of the agencies acquired 

AFIS. The fewest acquired systems were computer mapping and crime analysis 

systems—perhaps because most agencies already had these systems in place. 

Other technologies acquired by the grantees included both hardware and software 

technologies (e.g., handheld portable devices, automated outcall notification systems, 

crisis management software, wireless base stations, scanners). 

Other overall findings from the interviews were as follows: 

•	 43.4 percent of respondents (116 agencies) reported having a strategic plan for 

using information technologies.

•	 Respondents offered the following reasons (many gave more than one reason) for 

obtaining information technologies:

» Opportunity arose because grant funds became available: 220 agencies 

(82.4 percent)

» Agency head wanted the technology: 87 agencies (32.6 percent)

» An employee pushed for the technology: 74 agencies (27.7 percent)

» Current technology needed upgrading: 71 agencies (26.6 percent)

» A strategic plan was developed that included the technology: 69 agencies 

(25.8 percent)

» An improved technology came on the market: 35 agencies (13.1 percent)

Of course, an important aspect of the interviews was to measure outcomes from 

the acquisition of the information technologies. Respondents described about 1,400 

potential effects or benefits of the COPS MORE grants. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes 

selected effects or benefits for each information technology along with the 

personnel who were primarily affected, and Exhibit 1-3 expands the list to provide 

a comprehensive overview of all effects and benefits noted by respondents and all 

affected personnel.
 | 14 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Automated Field Reporting Systems 

» Less time needed to complete reports (patrol 

officers)

» Reduced travel time to stations for report 

preparation (patrol officers)

» Easier report approvals (by field supervisors and 

patrol officers)

» More time in community (patrol officers)

» Improved quality of reports (field supervisors and 

patrol officers)

Computer Aided Dispatch Systems

» Faster access to information (patrol officers)

» Decline in voice traffic (dispatchers)

» Easier tracking of officers (field supervisors)

» Improved information from dispatchers (patrol 

officers)

» Ability to record self-initiated activities (patrol 

officers)

» Improved information for investigations 

(detectives)

» Can get call history of location (patrol officers)

Record Management Systems 

» Faster access to information (patrol officers and 

command staff)

» Improved information about crime and calls for 

service (command staff)

» More accurate information (command staff)

» Improved UCR reporting (records section 

personnel)

» Reduced data entry (records section personnel)

» Improved investigative case management 

(command personnel)

Arrest and Booking Systems

» Decreased time to book an arrestee (patrol 

officers)

» More accurate identification of arrestee (patrol 

officers)

» Easier to take and store mug shots (patrol officers 

and booking personnel)

Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems 

» Faster fingerprinting (booking personnel)

» More accurate identification of arrestee (booking 

personnel)

» Improved identification of suspects through latent 

fingerprints (detectives)

Crime Analysis Systems

» Better information for allocation of patrol 

(command staff)

» More complete information on crime patterns 

and trends (command staff)

» Increase in breadth and depth of information 

(command staff)

Mapping Systems

» Improved communication with community (patrol 

officers)

» Better information for patrol allocation (command 

staff)

Exhibit 1-2: Selected Effects and Benefits of Information Technologies.
Measuring the Effects of Implementing Information Technologies | 15 |

The three greatest effects or benefits of technology acquisitions identified in the 

interviews of COPS MORE 2002 grantees were the following: 

1. Increased information available in patrol cars.

2. Faster access to information (usually because officers could obtain it themselves).

3. Easier completion of reports (often involving entry of reports while in the field). 

The mechanism underlying the first two benefits is the presence of some kind of 

computer in the patrol car with wireless access to the National Crime Information 

Center and appropriate local and state-level counterparts. Another benefit was access 

by patrol officers to other police databases from the patrol car (e.g., mug shots, local 

warrants, and call histories of addresses). The investments by law enforcement in 

mobile data computers or terminals and wireless infrastructure provided officers in 

the field with more information, more quickly. These acquisitions not only allowed 

officers to be more efficient (e.g., they could run tags more quickly to identify stolen 

vehicles) but also more effective (e.g., they could make more arrests). Further, they 

enabled officers to fill out crime reports more completely and more legibly than 

before. Improvements in report quality enable crime analysts to be more effective 

in their jobs of identifying crime trends and crime hot spots, as well as making 

recommendations on how to prevent crime.

Related Publications

This guide supplements other publications produced by the COPS Office that provide 

information about the process of acquiring information technologies. Here is a 

sample of related publications.3 

•	 Law Enforcement Tech Guide. How to plan, purchase, and manage technology 

(successfully!) A Guide for Executives, Managers and Technologists. 2002.

•	 Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Information Technology Security. How to Assess 

Risk and Establish Effective Policies. A Guide for Executives, Managers, and 

Technologists. 2007.

3

These publications and others are available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov and can be obtained 

from the COPS Office on a CD entitled 

Tech Docs: Technology Resources for Law

Enforcement, Version 1.3.
 | 16 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

•	 Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Small and Rural Police Agencies. A Guide for 

Executives, Managers, and Technologists. 2007.

•	 Policing Smarter Through IT: Learning from Chicago’s Citizen and Law 

Enforcement Analysis and Reporting (CLEAR) System. 2004.

•	 Policing Smarter Through IT: Lessons in Enterprise Implementation. 2004.

•	 Standard Functional Specifications for Law Enforcement Computer Aided 

Dispatch Systems (produced by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice).

•	 Standard Functional Specifications for Law Enforcement Records Management 

Systems (produced by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice).

•	 Tips for Ensuring Successful Technology Implementation (Fact Sheet). 2006.

Organization of the Guide

The remaining sections of this guide are organized as follows. Chapters 2 through 

7 provide measures of efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling for the following 

information technologies:

•	 Chapter 2: Automated Field Reporting Systems.

•	 Chapter 3: Computer Aided Dispatch Systems.

•	 Chapter 4: Records Management Systems.

•	 Chapter 5: Arrest and Booking Systems.

•	 Chapter 6: Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems.

•	 Chapter 7: Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems.

Readers can proceed to the applications of interest rather than moving through the 

chapters sequentially.

For interested readers, Appendix A provides a summary of information technologies 

in policing with an emphasis on how these technologies support department 

operations such as patrol, crime analysis, problem solving, investigations, and others. 

Appendix B provides additional information on the concepts underlying efficiency, 

effectiveness, and enabling (the Three E’s), and describes the foundation for the 

measurements provided in this guide.
Measuring the Effects of Implementing Information Technologies | 17 |

Exhibit 1-3: Summary of the Effects and Benefits for Personnel Affected.

Dispatchers

/Call Takers

Patrol 

Officers

Field 

Supervisors

Detectives Crime 

Scene 

Technicians

Command 

Staff

Records 

Personnel

Booking 

Personnel

Analysts

Automated Field Reporting 

System (AFRS)

Less time needed to complete reports X X

Less travel time to fill out reports X

Easier report approvals X X X

More time in community X

Improved quality of reports X X X

Better information to support 

proactive policing X X

Reduced workload X X X

Easier to read reports X X X X

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)

Faster access to information X X X X

Decline in voice traffic X

Easier tracking of officers X X

Improved information from 

dispatchers X

Ability to record self-initiated 

activities

X

Easier queries for investigations X X

Can get call history of location X X

Increased information in patrol cars X

Better communication with others X X X

Field access to mug shots X

Improved response time X

Increased officer safety X

Easier entry of citizen and other 

information X

Improved validation of caller’s 

address

X
 | 18 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Dispatchers

/Call Takers

Patrol 

Officers

Field 

Supervisors

Detectives Crime 

Scene 

Technicians

Command 

Staff

Records 

Personnel

Booking 

Personnel

Analysts

Less time to obtain citizen information X

Improved information on call location X

Improved map of call location X

Improved system for call types X

Improved system for unit 

designations X

Capability to stack calls X

Improved information for patrol 

deployment X

Improved information for hot spot 

analysis X

Improved information for community 

policing X

Improved information for mapping X

Improved communication with 

officers X

Record Management System 

Faster access to information X X X X X X

Improved information on crime and 

calls for service X

More accurate information X X X X

Improved UCR reporting X X

Reduced data entry X

Improved investigative case 

management X

Improved tracking of officer activities X

Improved property/evidence 

management X

Improved access to call histories X

Improved information on traffic 

accidents X X

Improved warrant tracking X
Measuring the Effects of Implementing Information Technologies | 19 |

Dispatchers

/Call Takers

Patrol 

Officers

Field 

Supervisors

Detectives Crime 

Scene 

Technicians

Command 

Staff

Records 

Personnel

Booking 

Personnel

Analysts

Improved tracking of gangs X

Better communication with others X

Easier queries to obtain information X X

Improved tracking of crime reports X

Fewer requests for records X

Improved information for community 

policing X

Improved quantity of information X X

Improved access to criminal histories X X

Arrest and Booking Systems 

Decreased time to book an arrestee X X

More accurate identification of 

arrestee X X X

Easier to take, store, and retrieve mug 

shots X X X

Improved tracking of evidence X X

More flexible use of digital photos X

Decrease workload

Automated Fingerprint 

Identification Systems 

Faster fingerprinting X X

More accurate identification of 

arrestee X X

Improved identification of suspects 

through latent fingerprints X X

Elimination of suspect as perpetrator X

Faster identification of suspect X

Verification of suspect as perpetrator X

More flexible use of digital photos X X

Decreased time to book an arrestee X

Easier to take/store mug shots X
 | 20 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Dispatchers

/Call Takers

Patrol 

Officers

Field 

Supervisors

Detectives Crime 

Scene 

Technicians

Command 

Staff

Records 

Personnel

Booking 

Personnel

Analysts

Improved tracking of evidence X

Improved storage of fingerprint 

information X

Better communication with other 

agencies X X

More staff time available due to 

quicker fingerprinting X X

Crime Analysis Systems 

Better information for allocation of 

patrol X

More complete information on crime 

patterns and trends X

Increase in breadth and depth of 

information X

Use of maps for better information on 

patrol allocation X

Faster turnaround on requests X

Improved communication with 

community X

Improved crime-prevention activities X

Increased information on crimes X

Mapping Systems

Improved communication with 

community X

Better information for patrol 

allocation X

Improved crime-prevention activities X

Improved problem-solving capability X

Integration of data from other 

agencies X
Chapter 2

Automated Field 

Reporting Systems
 | 22 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Description of Automated Field Reporting Systems

Basic AFRS Functions 

Until the automated field reporting system (AFRS) was developed and put into use, 

officers completed handwritten incident reports in the field and submitted them 

at the end of a shift to a field supervisor. After reviewing and approving reports, 

field supervisors would send them to a central repository for filing, usually in the 

department’s records section. Personnel in the records section were responsible 

for distributing copies to other units in the department, such as the appropriate 

investigative unit, and entering information from the incident reports into a database. 

Depending on the specific system at a police department, the incident report process 

could take days, or even weeks, from the time the report was written to its availability 

in a database.

An AFRS is intended to reduce the time required to complete incident reports and 

improve the quality of data collected in the reports. An AFRS allows officers to use 

mobile data computers or laptops to fill out incident reports without leaving their 

assigned areas. A complete AFRS provides for the following: 

•	 Data entry in the field through a mobile digital computer

•	 Electronic approval by field supervisors

•	 Electronic transfer of the approved report to a database.

An AFRS has the potential to achieve benefits in efficiency, effectiveness, and 

enabling (the Three E’s) for patrol officers, field supervisors, records section 

personnel, and others.

The additional benefit of an AFRS is that a department’s records management 

system (RMS) has the information more readily available for access by others in the 

department. Detectives can receive crime reports for immediate investigation rather 

than having to wait for a handwritten report to become available. Crime analysts also 

have faster access to incident reports for developing crime trends, identifying hot 

spots, and preparing crime bulletins. Quicker access by command personnel gives 

them a greater awareness of what is happening in their jurisdiction. 
Automated Field Reporting Systems | 23 |

Differences Among Automated Field Reporting Systems

The differences among automated field reporting systems across police departments 

are primarily a function of the completeness of the systems. In some departments, 

the AFRS captures only the information in a mobile digital computer and the reports 

are printed out at a later time for review by supervisors. In other systems, the AFRS 

allows supervisors to electronically approve reports prepared by officers, but does 

not automatically transfer the report to a database. Instead, the report is submitted 

separately either in printed or electronic form for entry into a database.

Of course, there also are significant differences in the amount and types of 

information captured by an AFRS in different departments. Some systems capture 

only a minimum amount of information about an incident, while other systems 

capture detailed information on all aspects of an incident. The amount of time 

required for preparing a report through an AFRS depends to an extent on the detail of 

information that is obtained.

Resulting Benefits of Automated Field Reporting Systems

Time Needed to Complete Reports 

COPS Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) grantees overwhelmingly 

stated that, with the implementation of an AFRS, less time was needed to complete 

incident reports. The largest number of agencies mentioned automated entry and a 

reduction in drive time as the major factors contributing to time savings. Comments 

like this were heard frequently: “Most time savings comes from reduced drive times, 

but some smaller amount of time is saved on report writing.” The greatest savings 

in drive time were reported in jurisdictions where the geographic areas are large. 

Previously, officers either returned to the stations periodically during their shift to 

finish reports or completed their reports at the end of a shift. An AFRS allows patrol 

officers to stay in the community while they complete their reports. 

Sources of Time Savings Leading to 

Greater Efficiency

Survey respondents noted that the most 

important sources of time savings were:

•	 Reduced drive time

•	 Less duplication (i.e., from 

handwritten notes to form to data 

entry)

•	 Digital forms faster to complete.
 | 24 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

A majority of agencies also reported that the overall time to complete reports was 

reduced with AFRS. Most agencies had not measured the time needed to complete a 

paper report compared to completing an automated one, but about 17 reported time 

savings for report generation separately from drive-time savings. Almost 50 percent of 

these agencies indicated that the time to complete a report was reduced by at least half. 

Challenges in Measuring Time Savings

Often, the police agencies surveyed found it difficult to compare report-writing 

time before and after the existence of an AFRS because the amount of information 

collected on new crime reports had changed. As a result, agency responses varied 

considerably. 

•	 One agency reported that the average time to fill out a report decreased from 

45 minutes to 30 minutes (not including drive-time savings) even though the 

new reports collected more information (the agency became compliant with the 

National Incident-Based Reporting System [NIBRS]4 when the system changed). 

•	 Several agencies experienced no difference in the time needed to complete a 

report. 

•	 A small group of agencies found that data entry was initially slower than writing a 

report by hand, but as officers gained experience, AFRS was just as fast or faster.

•	 Generally, most of the time savings (i.e., gains in efficiency) in completing reports 

occurred because of “self-population of fields” (the software automatically 

completes certain fields), and because the need to transcribe from handwritten 

notes to data entry was eliminated. 

4

Compliance with NIBRS requires reporting 

significantly more information than 

was reported under the Uniform Crime 

Reporting (UCR) system.
Automated Field Reporting Systems | 25 |

Faster Approval Process

Electronic approval of reports by supervisors has a variety of efficiency, effectiveness, 

and enabling benefits. Patrol officers receive quicker feedback on reports and 

can address problems while the details of the incident are still relatively easy to 

remember. In addition, reports prepared with an AFRS are generally more accurate 

initially. Accuracy cuts down on the number of times that officers have to correct or 

revise a report and the frequency of face-to-face meetings with supervisors, which 

translates into significant savings for both officers and supervisors. Easier report 

approval for patrol officers was mentioned by 42 agencies in the COPS MORE 

interviews. 

Field supervisors also experience benefits from electronic approval. They are more 

efficient because they do not have to locate officers when there are problems with a 

report (64 mentions). Easier report approval is directly related to the improved quality 

of reports submitted by officers (36 mentions). Reports are easier to read, more 

complete, and can sometimes be reviewed in real time. 

Automated checking reduces the number of errors in reports and speeds up the 

review process. Supervisors, therefore, are more efficient (i.e., they can review the 

reports more quickly) and more effective (i.e., they catch errors the first time, which 

eliminates the back-and-forth between officers and supervisors). 

Faster Report Availability

Because of improvements in the speed 

with which reports can be filed and 

approved, it takes less time for reports to 

become available in a central database. 

This means that the database is more upto-date as is the information that analysts 

use in generating crime alerts and 

preparing for CompStat meetings (see 

sidebar). More timely information enables 

the agency to better react to changes in 

crime patterns and trends. 

AFRS Efficiency Benefits for Field 

Supervisors

“[Field supervisors can] monitor reports 

in real time and review them more 

frequently so there is not the crunch at 

the end of the shift.”

“What used to be 1 to 1.5 hours per day 

looking over reports has dropped down to 

about 10 minutes.”

COPS MORE Survey Respondents 

AFRS Benefits for CompStat 

CompStat is a police management strategy 

that stresses up-to-date information and 

accountability. To be successful, CompStat 

requires that timely information be 

available to both field commanders and 

high-level police management. 

While CompStat meetings are structured 

differently in each agency, typical 

discussions revolve around recent crime 

trends, arrest activity, and often, qualityof-life indicators. 
 | 26 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Finally, records staff do not have to enter the information or make copies of 

reports. This allows them to take on different duties or simply handle their current 

responsibilities. 

Implications for Effectiveness

A patrol officer’s effectiveness is increased by AFRS software features such as prepopulation of fields and spell-check, which improve the quality of the end product. 

Immediate data entry also contributes to effectiveness because details are fresh in the 

officer’s mind, and missing information can be obtained more easily by reinspecting 

the scene or questioning victims and witnesses. Immediate entry has the added 

benefit of making the information available to other police personnel more quickly 

(e.g., investigators or command staff). 

Electronic transfer of files brings additional benefits to officers, command staff, and 

personnel who provide administrative support, such as crime analysts and records 

department staff. Electronic transfer of reports from the car to a main database 

speeds the transfer of reports from the field to headquarters and, as noted earlier, it 

eliminates the need for officers to drive to the station periodically. Eliminating those 

trips allows officers to spend a greater portion of their time in the community. 

Patrol Officers 

Patrol officers noted that the quality of information available to them had improved 

after the agency installed an AFRS because the data entered were more accurate and 

because more information was available in the patrol car, which is where they needed 

it the most. Improved quality of information entered into the system stemmed from 

the automation of forms (i.e., spell-check and validation during data entry) and from 

not having to decipher handwriting. This, in turn, improved the quality of information 

that patrol officers received when they queried CAD and RMS. 
Automated Field Reporting Systems | 27 |

Effective Use of Time Saved

Many respondents also said that time freed by AFRS enabled officers to engage in 

more community policing, problem solving, or proactive policing. Several agencies 

reported that patrol officers spend more time in the community, thereby increasing 

their visibility. One respondent reported a “drastic reduction in response time 

because the officers are already in the field patrolling.” One agency noted that time 

savings from AFRS allowed the agency to sustain service levels without hiring more 

officers. 

Report Review by Field Supervisors

As previously mentioned, the ability to review incident reports while in the field 

was the major benefit to field supervisors. Problems with reports could be resolved 

faster by contacting patrol officers while the incident was fresh in their minds. 

Once an incident report was acceptable, a field supervisor could forward the report 

electronically to a database, making it immediately available for other personnel in 

the department.

Reduced Workload of Records Staff 

Records clerks experienced reduced workloads because they no longer had to 

enter information from reports into a database. This enabled them to take on new 

responsibilities. For example, one agency noted that with AFRS, records staff 

“become the primary contact for nonlaw enforcement duties, which frees police to 

do more proactive policing.”) Members of the records section also gained access 

to information more quickly. They, as well as the rest of the department, reaped the 

benefit of having information from reports move electronically from point of entry to 

a database. 

Service Levels Maintained without 

Increasing Staffing 

“The department has not been able to hire 

officers in the past couple of years due 

to budget cuts so the time savings has 

allowed the department to sustain services 

and community policing programs. The 

extra time they have allows them to 

work more with the community or run 

programs such as doing ‘unlocks’ for cars 

and working with local businesses and 

spending time in the schools. Also they 

have instituted a ‘community log’ book 

that asks officers to record interactions 

with businesses and the community.” 

COPS MORE Survey 
 | 28 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Summary of Responses about 

Automated Field Reporting Systems

AFRS provided many of the benefits noted by COPS MORE 2002 grant recipients, 

regardless of the specific features of the technology. Most of the benefits from AFRS 

accrued to patrol officers and field supervisors, but command staff, dispatchers, 

analysts, and records personnel benefited, as well. 

Listed below are the primary and secondary benefits noted by survey respondents 

in discussing acquisition of an AFRS. The list includes benefits that the agencies 

experienced and expected to see. 

Patrol Officers

•	 Less time needed to complete reports

•	 Were able to spend more time in the community

•	 Prepared reports with improved quality of information

•	 Received easier and faster report approval

•	 Had improved productivity

•	 Recorded more information in reports

Supervisors

•	 Provided easier and faster report approval

•	 Received reports of improved quality

•	 Received reports with more information 

Records Section Personnel

•	 Had reduced workload by no longer entering data from reports

•	 Had quicker access to information

•	 Achieved improved communication with field personnel

Crime Scene Specialists

•	 Required less time to complete reports

•	 Prepared reports that were easier to read
Automated Field Reporting Systems | 29 |

Outcome Measures for Automated Field Reporting Systems

Suggestions for measuring the effects of the AFRS are summarized in Exhibit 2-1. 

The exhibit contains the role or roles expected to be affected by the technology 

acquisition, suggested measures, and the type of effects or benefits expected. It 

is worth noting that a technology acquisition can affect more than one role in the 

same manner. For example, reducing the number of errors on a report increases 

the effectiveness of patrol officers and everyone else who uses that information 

downstream, such as a line supervisor, the command staff, crime analysts, or 

detectives.
 | 30 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Personnel Affected Measure Outcome

Patrol Officers » Time spent filling out paper reports 

vs. automated report

Efficiency

» Elapsed Time—taking of incident 

report to appearance in the database

Efficiency

» Elapsed Time—taking of report 

through supervisor approval

Efficiency

» Number of errors per report Effectiveness

» Number of reports rejected by 

supervisor as illegible

Effectiveness

» Number of reports rejected by 

supervisor for other errors

Effectiveness

Supervisors » Number of errors per report Effectiveness

» Number of reports rejected by 

supervisor as illegible

Effectiveness

» Number of reports rejected by 

supervisor for other errors

Effectiveness

» Faster access to reports Effectiveness

Records Personnel » Faster access to information Effectiveness

» Number of new activities because of 

freed time

Enabling

Crime Scene Specialists » Time spent filling out paper reports 

vs. digital report

Efficiency

» Elapsed Time—taking of incident 

report to appearance in the database

Efficiency

» Elapsed Time—taking of report 

through supervisor approval

Efficiency

» Number of reports rejected by 

supervisor as illegible

Effectiveness

» Number of reports rejected by 

supervisor for other errors

Effectiveness

Exhibit 2-1: Outcome Measures for Automated Field Reporting Systems.
Chapter 3

Computer Aided 

Dispatch Systems
 | 32 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Description of Computer Aided Dispatch Systems

Basic Functions

A computer aided dispatch (CAD) system manages the call taking and dispatching 

functions of a police department. For citizens calling a police department for 

assistance through emergency (911) and nonemergency telephone numbers, the CAD 

system is the starting point for recording information about an incident. Call takers 

enter information from citizens into the CAD system and the system transmits the 

information to the appropriate dispatcher for dispatching patrol units to a scene.5

An agency’s CAD system may also capture information about self-initiated activities 

(e.g., traffic stops, motorist assists, and others) from patrol officers in the field. 

Further, calls may automatically come into a CAD system from alarms, web-based 

applications, and other entry points.

Unlike other information systems, a CAD system is a real-time application that 

operates 24 hours a day in most communities and has been termed the nerve center 

of a communications center. Information typically captured in CAD systems includes 

address of the call, type of call, call priority, patrol unit(s) dispatched, time of arrival 

of units at the scene, time the call was completed, call disposition (report taken, arrest 

made, etc.), incident report number (usually generated by the CAD system), and 

patrol area. A geocoding system within a CAD system will perform several important 

functions, including validating an address, relating common place names (such as a 

bank name) to actual addresses, providing x-y coordinates for mapping incidents, and 

determining police areas (precinct, reporting area, etc.).6

A call for service will be closed when all units at the scene have notified the 

dispatcher that they are clearing the scene and are available for another call. When a 

call is closed, CAD information about the call may be automatically transferred to a 

records management system (RMS). Subsequent reports on the call, such as a crime 

report or arrest report, eventually may be entered into the RMS and merged with 

information from the CAD system. With this approach, complete records about the 

police response can be maintained; however, many law enforcement agencies have 

CAD and RMS systems that do not talk to each other. In these agencies, data in the 

CAD system may have to be entered manually into the RMS system. 

5

In some agencies, the call taker and 

dispatcher may be the same person. He 

or she is still responsible for entering 

information about calls into a CAD system. 

Another variation of response is that the 

information entered by a call taker may be 

transmitted to a telephone report unit for 

taking the report over the phone rather than 

dispatching officers. In these cases, the CAD 

system still records the information about 

the call.

6

A good reference on CAD functionality 

can be found in Standard Functional 

Specifications for Law Enforcement 

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Systems

developed by the Law Enforcement 

Information Technology Standards Council 

(LEITSC). See www.leitsc.org for more 

information.
Computer Aided Dispatch Systems | 33 |

Differences among Computer Aided Dispatch Systems

Police departments acquire CAD systems from commercial vendors that specialize in 

the development of these systems and the specific capabilities of a system differ from 

one vendor to another. For example, in addition to the functions already mentioned, 

a CAD system may support the creation and transmission to the field of BOLO (Be on 

the Lookout) messages about wanted persons. 

Another optional CAD feature is silent dispatching, which refers to the capability 

of some CAD systems to send information to patrol cars without using radio 

frequencies. This is important because silent dispatches cannot be intercepted by 

people using radio scanners. In addition, the CAD systems in some departments form 

the basis for tracking exact locations of patrol units in the field through automatic 

vehicle location (AVL) systems.

Most CAD systems support automatic digital communications for queries on 

car license numbers, drivers’ licenses, names, and other information. These 

communication linkages, via message switches, allow for queries into local, state, and 

federal database systems and can send results back to patrol units within minutes. 

The combination of mobile digital terminals in patrol vehicles and communication 

through CAD systems can lead to significant improvements in the efficiency and 

effectiveness of police departments. The results can include increases in arrests on 

outstanding warrants, and recovery of stolen vehicles, to name a few.

Resulting Benefits of Computer Aided Dispatch Systems

Agencies that acquired CAD systems with support from COPS Making Officer 

Redeployment Effective (MORE) 2002 grants provided comments during the 

interviews that covered the full range of CAD functions from basic voice dispatching 

to silent dispatching, and from systems with no automatic query capabilities to those 

in which querying is completely automated. 
 | 34 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

As would be expected, personnel who receive, assign, and respond to calls for 

service are the primary beneficiaries of CAD systems. The benefits are greatest for 

call takers, dispatchers, and police officers, but respondents listed benefits for other 

positions, including crime analysts, detectives, field supervisors, and command staff. 

Less Time to Process Citizen Calls

Survey respondents identified many benefits of CAD systems for call takers, 

dispatchers, and patrol officers. Call takers were provided with efficient ways to enter 

information from citizens into the CAD system. Dispatchers were able to assign cars 

and transfer information more quickly and easily, which reduced the time needed to 

send officers to calls. One agency noted a 5-to-8-minute improvement in dispatch 

times per call because of the new CAD system. Two other agencies noted overall 

reductions in time spent by dispatchers per call (i.e., 5 to 10 minutes and an average 

of 6 minutes per call).

Improved Information for Patrol Officers

For patrol officers, the primary benefit mentioned was access to more and better 

information in less time. The main mechanism for saving time was a reduction in 

the back-and-forth voice traffic between patrol and dispatchers. Patrol officers also 

experienced gains in the ability to communicate and receive a wider variety of 

information. Several respondents stated that the CAD system freed patrol officers 

from time-consuming and routine communications with dispatchers. Rather than 

contacting the dispatcher by voice communications for making queries, officers could 

query the CAD system directly from the field. 

Better communication for field supervisors and command staff was also mentioned. 

Field supervisors could communicate better with their patrol officers and with 

headquarters and communication personnel. One survey respondent noted that 

commanders “can put out directives to the whole department and be confident they 

will be received.” 

Examples of Communication Benefits:

CAD Systems

“[Officers can now] talk to one another 

directly and to the department of 

transportation without having to call the 

dispatcher.”

“School officers who had not been 

linked before can communicate with 

headquarters and other officers.”

“[The new CAD system] gave officers and 

detectives a much greater ability to share 

information with each other, as well as 

with other departments.”

“Officers can [electronically] chat about 

potential situations and subjects rather 

than having to use the radio to call each 

other.” 

COPS MORE Survey Respondents
Computer Aided Dispatch Systems | 35 |

CAD Benefits for Improved Officer Safety

Survey respondents noted the following 

benefits of a new CAD for officer safety:

•	 Ability to get call history and be 

prepared.

•	 Silent dispatch keeps communications 

secure.

•	 Reduced radio traffic means 

dispatcher can handle true 

emergencies more quickly.

Another way that CAD affects patrol officers’ ability to be 

proactive is by allowing them to see calls in queue on the 

car terminal and take calls as they finish other tasks. As one 

survey respondent explained, this capability “has cleared out 

backups in the CAD queue—officers can scan holding calls and 

self-dispatch.”

Officer Safety

A theme that emerged during the interviews was a deep 

and abiding concern about officer safety and how it could 

be improved through technology. Several respondents 

commented that officer safety was one of the main benefits of 

a new CAD system because officers can get more information 

about an address before answering the call; silent dispatching 

keeps police communication secure; and faster dispatching 

means officers feel less pressure to drive at high speeds when 

responding to calls for service.

Other respondents discussed silent dispatching and car-to-car 

messaging as major advantages of CAD systems in providing 

officer safety. They emphasized that silent communication 

and text messaging through in-car computers thwarts nonlaw 

enforcement individuals, both criminal and noncriminal, who 

monitor police radio frequencies. Others stressed the ability 

to get call history on specific locations and how that related to 

officer safety. As one respondent stated, “[Because] officers 

have information on any previous calls for service at a location, 

they are more prepared when they arrive on the scene.” 
 | 36 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Still others mentioned improved dispatch times with their new CAD systems as a 

contributor to officer safety; that is, officers can drive more safely because they are 

under less pressure to make up time. As one agency explained, the CAD system 

“improved time to dispatch an officer (faster by as much as 5 to 8 minutes) which, in 

turn, made response time faster.” 

Faster Access to Information

Assuming that a department’s patrol units have mobile digital computers (MDC), 

another benefit of a CAD system is that it automatically interfaces with local, state, 

and federal information systems. With this capability, many agencies reported that 

patrol officers experienced faster access to information. For example, one survey 

respondent found that “under the new system, the average time to get information 

back is about 17 seconds, whereas the dispatcher would take anywhere from 35 

seconds to 2 minutes, depending on radio traffic.” In turn, faster response times for 

queries resulted in “officers running more queries, finding more individuals with 

outstanding warrants, writing more tickets, and ultimately making more arrests.” 

As in this example, faster access to information has the benefits of both efficiency 

and effectiveness. Efficiency improves because it takes less time to get information. 

Effectiveness improves because officers can access information quickly enough to 

take productive actions, such as arrests for outstanding warrants.

Proactive Problem Solving

Giving officers a greater quantity of information, more quickly, and while they are still 

in the field, translated into more time for proactive problem solving. One respondent 

summed up the comments of many by saying “Officers have a lot more information 

at their fingertips so they may be more aware of problems in the community than 

they would have been in the past. Can look up data on calls for service, previous 

reports, etc. We can also take a look at hot spots and try to address problems at 

certain locations. Have been better able to educate businesses and the community as 

a whole about crime problems and what they can do about them. Overall, officers are 

able to identify problems more quickly and try to address them.”

Benefits of More Information Available to 

Patrol Officers in their Cars

•	 Ability to communicate car-to-car 

with other officers promotes better 

communication among officers and 

supervisors.

•	 Access to e-mail enables 

uninterrupted communication while 

on patrol.

•	 Direct access to databases translates 

into faster responses to queries about 

identities of people and cars.

•	 Call histories for locations and any 

warnings available are supplied with 

the call itself.

•	 Ability to record a self-initiated act 

(e.g., a traffic stop) frees officers from 

routine voice traffic with dispatchers 

and encourages them to be more 

proactive.

•	 Dispatch is quicker because there 

is no need for voice traffic. All 

the information is automatically 

transferred to the officer’s car.

•	 Field access to mug shots speeds 

positive identification of suspects.
Computer Aided Dispatch Systems | 37 |

Examples of CAD System Benefits for 

Field Supervisors

“Supervisors have much greater control 

of deployment of forces and can track 

where officers are and for how long.” 

“Officers would give information to 

dispatchers [in the past] and now 

commanders can see the information

on officers’ activities in the CAD.” 

Improved Communication with Field Supervisors 

Field supervisors are also affected by the implementation of CAD systems. One major 

benefit is that they can access and send e-mail from their cars, enabling them to stay 

in the field with more time for direct supervision of officers. They can also track the 

activities of their officers more easily. Survey respondents also noted that the ability 

to communicate generally improved, and that field supervisors, like patrol officers, 

obtained much faster access to information through MDCs because of the new CAD. 

Improved Queries from Detectives

Detectives derived benefits from the new CAD system in the form of improved 

queries for investigations while in the field. Some agencies noted that the information 

was of higher quality and more comprehensive. For example:

“CAD gives detectives access to much more information from a wider variety 

of sources.” 

“[Investigators] use it all the time. They can search seven jurisdictions’ 

databases at one time.”

Data for Crime Analysts

When discussing the benefits of technology, the focus usually is on the immediate 

beneficiaries—those who use the system in an operational capacity. That is only part 

of the story. The extent to which crime analysts can provide useful analysis depends 

on the timeliness, comprehensiveness, and overall quality of the data in CAD. An 

upgraded CAD that supplies wide-ranging, high-quality data quickly is a critical 

component of effective problem solving, community policing, and planning. Agencies 

that acquired or upgraded CAD systems reported that analysts used the improved 

data to accomplish the following:

•	 Analyze crime hot spots 

•	 Improve deployment

•	 Create maps of calls for service

•	 Support community policing about problems in an area

•	 Inform problem-solving approaches. 
 | 38 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Summary of Responses about 

Computer Aided Dispatch Systems

Specific primary and secondary benefits of CAD systems for various personnel are 

listed below, as reported by COPS MORE survey respondents. 

Patrol Officers 

•	 Have faster access to information

•	 See more information about calls in their patrol cars

•	 Have better communication with others

•	 Enables officers to record self-initiated activities

•	 Obtain field access to mug shots

•	 Receive call histories for a location

•	 Have decreased response time to calls

•	 Have increased officer safety

Supervisors 

•	 Are able to track activities of officers more easily

•	 Have improved communication with officers

•	 Have faster access to information

Call Takers

•	 Have easier entry of citizen information.

•	 Are enabled to validate caller’s address more easily

•	 Require less time to obtain citizen information
Computer Aided Dispatch Systems | 39 |

 Dispatchers

•	 Have reduced voice traffic

•	 Are able to keep track of officers more easily

•	 Have improved information on call locations

•	 Have automated maps of call locations

•	 Obtain call histories for locations

•	 Have improved system for call types

•	 Have faster access to information

•	 Have easier entry of information

•	 Have improved system for unit designations

•	 Acquire capability to stack calls

Analysts

•	 Have better information for patrol deployment, hot spot analysis, community 

policing, and incident mapping

Outcome Measures for Computer Aided Dispatch Systems

Suggestions for measuring the efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling effects (the 

Three E’s) of CAD systems are summarized in Exhibit 3-1. The exhibit lists the role or 

roles expected to be affected by the technology acquisition, suggested measures, and 

the type of benefit expected. The exhibit reflects measures reported by COPS MORE 

survey respondents and those recommended by the Institute for Law and Justice 

project team. It is worth noting that a technology acquisition can have an impact on 

more than one role in the same manner. For example, when CAD data are readily 

available, both command staff and crime analysts are able to conduct analyses that 

previously were either very time-consuming or impossible. 
 | 40 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Personnel Affected Measure Outcome

Patrol Officers » Elapsed time to run license plates Efficiency

» Elapsed time for identity check Efficiency

» Numbers of citations issued for traffic-related infractions Efficiency

» Access to information about queued calls Efficiency

» Response time to emergency calls Efficiency

» Numbers of arrests made Effectiveness

» Amount of information directly available to officers Effectiveness

» Patrol officer on-duty injuries Effectiveness

» Number of communications with others Enabling

» Number of call history queries Enabling

» Number of arrestees accurately identified in field because of field 

access to digital photos

Enabling

Supervisors » Improved field supervision through availability of call 

information on MDCs

Enabling

Command Staff » Availability of CAD data to enhance analysis capabilities Enabling

» Support for CompStat meetings Enabling

» Improved tracking of incident reports Enabling

» Application of CAD data for analysis of patrol allocation Enabling

Call Takers » Average time to process a call Efficiency

» Number of automatically identified caller addresses Efficiency

Dispatchers » Average time to dispatch patrol units to incidents Efficiency

» Average time spent per call Efficiency

» Number of calls that require additional effort to identify the 

location of the address Efficiency

» Number of emergency calls handled electronically (no voice traffic) Efficiency

Crime Analysts » Increased responsiveness to data requests and routine alerts Effectiveness

» Increased problem analysis (because of more information of higher quality) Effectiveness

» Availability of CAD data to enhance analysis capabilities Enabling

» Ability to create a hot spot analysis from CAD data Enabling

» Ability to create a map of CAD data Enabling

Exhibit 3-1: Outcome Measures for Computer Aided Dispatch Systems.
Chapter 4

Records Management Systems
 | 42 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Description of Records Management Systems

Basic Functions

A police department uses a records management system (RMS) to automate the 

processes of data entry, storage, retrieval, and sharing of information about persons, 

vehicles, wanted persons, and other records. For a crime that has occurred, an 

effective RMS will connect all information about the case, including computer aided 

dispatch (CAD) information, incident report, suspects, arrests, evidence collected, 

and even prosecutorial disposition after arrest. In short, an RMS aims to meet all the 

operational needs of a police department.

A department’s RMS is the primary data system accessed by patrol officers, 

detectives, line supervisors, command staff, crime analysts, and other personnel 

who need information. Many police departments share information from their RMS 

systems with surrounding agencies, thereby creating regional access to data of value 

in investigations, crime-reduction programs, problem-solving initiatives, and other 

applications.

A complete RMS will support the following functions of a police department:7

•	 Calls for service •	 Orders and restraints

•	 Incident reporting •	 Permits and licenses

•	 Investigative case management •	 Equipment and asset management

•	 Traffic accident reporting •	 Fleet management

•	 Citations •	 Personnel

•	 Field contacts •	 Internal affairs

•	 Pawns •	 Crime analysis.

•	 Civil process

7

For more information about these 

functions, see Standard Functional 

Specifications for Law Enforcement Records 

Management Systems (RMS) developed 

by the Law Enforcement Information 

Technology Standards Council (LEITSC) at 

www.leitsc.org.
Records Management Systems | 43 |

Within these functions are several supporting applications such as booking, arrest, 

juvenile, fingerprints, mug shots, and mapping. Because of their importance to the 

COPS Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) program, they are discussed in 

other chapters of this guide.

From an information technology viewpoint, one of the greatest challenges for a police 

department is the acquisition and implementation of an RMS. A complete installation 

requires considerable effort on the part of agency personnel. In addition to the 

functional requirements, an RMS needs to have several master indices for correlating 

and aggregating information such as names, vehicles, property, locations, and 

organizations. The various indices combine to connect records within the RMS.

Differences among Records Management Systems

Most police departments acquire their RMS from private vendors who specialize 

in the development of these systems. The specifications for an RMS differ across 

vendors, depending on what applications their product supports. Almost all vendors 

provide incident reporting, case management, traffic accident management, and 

crime analysis, which are important to police departments because they are core 

operational functions. Vendors may offer other applications, depending on the extent 

to which their products have been developed.

Another complicating factor for police departments is that an entire RMS does not 

have to be acquired at one time. An agency can opt to obtain the core applications 

with the intent of adding other functions at a later date. Funding availability can have 

a great effect on an agency’s decision in this regard. The decisions of the COPS MORE 

grantees were a mixed picture—some acquired complete systems, others acquired 

core applications, and others added modules to existing applications. 

A final difference among COPS MORE grantees was whether the RMS was acquired 

to upgrade a current system, replace a current system through a new vendor, or 

automate a manual process. The situation at a police department and the availability 

of funds dictated the decisions made by the grantee agencies.
 | 44 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Resulting Benefits of Records Managment Systems 

Sixty-five agencies that received COPS MORE 2002 grants acquired an RMS. 

Interviews with personnel at the agencies indicated that these systems affected 

the greatest number of personnel—patrol officers, supervisors, investigators, 

command staff, records personnel, and analysts. As described in the following 

sections, the benefits derived from RMS depended, in part, on the extent to which 

other information technologies have been put in place. For example, patrol officers 

need to have mobile digital computers (MDC) in their patrol units in order to obtain 

information from an RMS in a shorter amount of time. As another example, command 

staff and crime analysts have faster access to crime data only if an automated entry 

system, such as an automated field reporting system (AFRS), has been put in place. 

The interconnectedness of applications must be kept in mind when developing and 

choosing performance measures for an RMS.

Faster Access by Command Staff

The main advantages that command staff experienced with the RMS were faster 

access to records and higher quality information on crime and calls for service. As a 

result, they were better able to answer requests for information from residents, public 

officials, and others. In short, RMS improvements provided efficiency, effectiveness, 

and enabling benefits for commanders, as these comments from survey respondents 

suggest:

 “Faster and more complete access to records has helped the department to 

look up information and do analysis that used to take 4 to 8 hours in just 

minutes.” 

“Previously, to access a record they had to go to a filing cabinet—what once 

took 10 to 20 minutes can now be done automatically.” 

Another benefit was improved case management. Possible measures for this were 

suggested by several survey respondents, such as the following: 

“[We saw] a significant decrease in complaints about turnaround time.” 

“[The RMS] eliminates redundant investigations from being done.” 
Records Management Systems | 45 |

Improved Storage and Access for Records Personnel

For records section personnel, the RMS improved their efficiency through automating 

uniform crime reports (UCR) and data entry by officers. This combination of factors 

meant that information entered the system much faster and automated error checking 

improved the accuracy of records in the system. Agencies that used scanning 

technology also discussed improvements in efficiency. For example: 

“Scanning speeds up access to records and saves time for clerks because they 

do not have to make copies—saves about half a shift per person in copying 

and routing reports.” 

Another agency attributed time savings for records staff to “everyone being able 

to get reports online because of RMS.” This significantly reduced the number of 

requests for information that records staff had to handle. Improved tracking of both 

crime reports and accident reports also benefited records personnel. Finally, records 

personnel saw a significant reduction in the amount of time needed to produce UCRs.

Better Information and Access for Patrol Officers

Most benefits for patrol officers were achieved through faster access to information 

and improved information for community policing and problem solving. 

Improved Safety, Efficiency, and Effectiveness

For patrol officers, faster access to information meant improvements in officer safety, 

efficiency, and effectiveness. Examples from survey respondents included these: 

“Any time we can get information to the officers more quickly we improve 

officer safety because they have a better idea of the reality of the situation.”

 “When officers have access to everyone else’s reports it makes them more 

effective at working across shifts.” 

“A mug shot of an armed robbery suspect was put on the new system and 

sent out to patrol at the start of the day shift. By the end of the shift, that 

person was arrested.” 
 | 46 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Improvements in Community Policing

Improvements in effectively implementing community policing came through the 

ability to link information from a variety of sources. Officers collected a greater 

variety of information and then began linking people and places with one another. 

Perhaps the best example offered by survey respondents was the use of field 

identification cards as a policing tool: 

“Officers went from filling out none to doing 15 to 20 per shift because they 

knew they could access them later.” 

This statement is particularly intriguing because it provides evidence that the fastest 

way to improve data quality is through better data access. 

Access by Investigators

Detectives also benefited from having more information and faster access to it. For 

example, RMS improvements included digital access to previous investigations, pawn 

shop tickets, criminal histories, and crime incidents. One agency described the RMS 

as a “great investigative tool because you can do partial names and get information 

about the identity of people.” Detectives saw faster access to information because 

“reports automatically go to electronic case files.” In other words, they became more 

efficient because reports entered the database more quickly and more effective 

because they could access more information about people. In general, detectives 

received many of the same benefits as patrol officers but applied them in slightly 

different ways.

Access by Field Supervisors

Similar to command staff, field supervisors also benefited from faster access to more 

and more accurate information. For example, one agency made this comment about 

the RMS’s impact on efficiency and effectiveness:

“Supervisors can deploy [their officers] more effectively because they will be getting 

more up-to-date information on crime trends. The reports get into the system twice as 

fast as before. It used to take a day or two, and now [a report] is in there in a couple 

of minutes.” 
Records Management Systems | 47 |

Summary of Responses about Records Management Systems

Specific primary and secondary benefits of RMS acquisitions, as reported by COPS 

MORE 2002 grantees, are listed by the personnel affected. 

Patrol Officers

•	 Have faster access to information

•	 Acquire improved information for community policing

Detectives

•	 Have improved quantity of information

•	 Have faster access to information

•	 Obtain improved access to criminal histories

Field Supervisors

•	 Have faster access to information

•	 Obtain more information

•	 Obtain more accurate information

Command Staff

•	 Have faster access to records

•	 Obtain improved information on crime and calls for service

•	 Obtain more accurate information

•	 Have improved investigative case management

•	 Obtain improved UCR reports

•	 Can track officer activities in a more efficient manner

•	 Have better management over property and evidence

•	 Obtain more information on traffic accidents

•	 Can track status of warrants in a more effective manner

•	 Obtain more information on activities of gangs
 | 48 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Records Personnel

•	 Develop more detailed UCR reports 

•	 Require less data entry on records

•	 Have faster access to records

•	 Develop more accurate information on reports

•	 Have fewer requests for records because of automated distributions

•	 Have better tracking of traffic accidents

•	 Obtain easier access to records

Analysts 

•	 Have faster access to records for analysis

•	 Obtain more accurate information

•	 Have improved access to criminal histories
Records Management Systems | 49 |

Outcome Measures for Records Management Systems

Suggestions for measuring the efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling effects (the 

Three E’s) of an RMS are summarized in Exhibit 4-1. The exhibit lists the role or roles 

expected to be affected by the technology acquisition, suggested measures, and 

type of effect expected. It is worth noting that a technology acquisition can affect 

more than one role in the same manner. For example, increasing the number of data 

items describing incidents provides more information to line supervisors, detectives, 

command staff, and analysts. Doing so enables them to ask and answer questions 

about crime in ways that were impossible before.
 | 50 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Personnel Affected Measure Outcome

Patrol Officers » Average time for an incident report to be accessible in the RMS Effectiveness

Detectives » Average time between incident and start of investigation Efficiency

» Average time for an incident report to be accessible in the RMS Effectiveness

» Availability of information on pawn tickets, field identification 

cards, other items

Enabling

» Number of data items describing incidents Enabling

Supervisors » Average time for an incident report to be accessible in the RMS Effectiveness

» Number of errors in RMS record Effectiveness

» Number of data items describing incidents Enabling

Command Staff » Average time for an incident report to be accessible in the RMS Efficiency

» Average number of errors per incident report Effectiveness

» Number of data items describing incidents Enabling

» Amount of administrative down time because of better resource 

management

Enabling

» Percentage of queries that can be done without assistance Enabling

Records Personnel » Average time for an incident report to be accessible in the RMS Efficiency

» Time necessary to prepare UCR reports Efficiency

» Time required for data entry Efficiency

» Number of requests for records Efficiency

Analysts » Average time for an incident report to be accessible in the RMS Efficiency

» Average number of errors per incident report Effectiveness

» Number of data items describing incidents Enabling

Exhibit 4-1: Outcome Measures for Records Management Systems.
Chapter 5

Arrest and Booking Systems
 | 52 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Description of Arrest and Booking Systems

Basic Functions

An arrest and booking system allows for documentation of the arrest of an individual 

and the subsequent booking of the arrestee in a jail. The arrest may be from an arrest 

warrant issued through an ongoing investigation or from an incident observed by 

patrol officers that led to an on-scene arrest. Arrests and bookings may be made by 

patrol officers, detectives, and other police personnel. 

The arrest portion of the system documents all the steps that lead to an arrest and 

can be useful in the future to defend the probable cause for the arrest. The booking 

portion of the system documents the incarceration of an arrestee at the jail. The 

booking process includes collection of all relevant information about an arrestee, 

verification of the arrestee’s identity, the arrestee’s fingerprints, and photo images 

(mug shot, tattoos, scars, for example). When a subject is released from custody, the 

booking record is updated, where applicable, to record all relevant information about 

the reasons for release along with the date and time of release.

Differences among Arrest and Booking Systems

Arrest and booking systems can be set up as two independent systems (the arrest 

module in the police department and the booking module in the jail), or as one 

integrated system with data linkages. The selected arrangement may be linked to 

the records management system (RMS) of an agency to facilitate linking arrest and 

booking information to other system modules such as the case management system. 

Linkages can be important in preventing errors in making positive identifications.

A booking system is often linked to an automated fingerprint identification system 

(AFIS). Digital fingerprints may also be sent electronically to the FBI’s Integrated 

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Linkages with AFIS and IAFIS 

greatly enhance the capabilities of the system and expand their applications at the 

local level. The submissions may benefit other agencies in the future with subsequent 

arrests of an individual.
Arrest and Booking Systems | 53 |

Resulting Benefits of Arrest and Booking Systems

Twenty agencies acquired arrest and booking systems through COPS Making Officer 

Redeployment Effective (MORE) 2002 grants. Interviews with grantees indicated that 

patrol officers, detectives, and booking personnel were the most direct beneficiaries 

of arrest and booking systems, which reduced the time needed to place an arrestee 

in jail. The systems resulted in increased efficiency for all personnel involved in the 

process. Agency estimates of time savings included these:

•	 Saved 100,000 hours per year for both police and sheriff’s personnel

•	 Saved 30 minutes per arrest (3 agencies)

•	 Reduced processing time from about 30 minutes to 10 minutes (two agencies).

A number of agencies noted that time savings increased as officers became more 

familiar with the process8

 and as the database grew (when a suspect is rearrested, 

information already in the database on that person populates fields on the data entry 

screens).

Automated arrest and booking systems also increase effectiveness, because arrestees 

can be identified more accurately. In addition, some systems are capable of flagging 

fingerprints that are not of high enough quality so they can be redone on the 

spot. Survey respondents frequently commented on the benefits of more accurate 

identifications. For example:

“It is now harder for people who have been arrested to hide their record.” 

“We can now identify John Doe’s or suspects who lie about their identities.” 

“[The automated system prevents] “waste of countless hours changing all the 

paperwork when it was discovered that an arrestees had lied at the time they 

were arrested.”

8

 The exception was one department 

which, at the time of the interview, 

reported that typing in the information 

took about 20 minutes longer than writing 

it by hand.

Major Benefits of Arrest and Booking 

Systems

•	 Efficiency—Less time to book an 

arrestee

•	 Effectiveness—More accurate 

identification of suspects and victims

•	 Enabling—More flexible acquisition 

and use of mug shots
 | 54 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Digital Mug Shot Software

Arrest and booking systems can also make it easier to take and store mug shots.9 

Patrol officers, booking personnel, detectives, and records personnel benefit from this 

capability, depending on their roles in the arrest and booking process. Automation of 

mug shots gives other police personnel instant access. Detectives also benefit from 

the ability to use mug shots in new and more flexible ways. For example, they can 

create lineups or use them to identify suspects and/or victims. One unconventional 

use of the system is to identify homicide victims by comparing their photo with mug 

shots. 

Evidence Management and Other Benefits

Survey respondents also noted that booking personnel and detectives benefited 

from an improved ability to track and manage evidence. One respondent stated 

that booking personnel now “know where evidence is located and when it can be 

discarded. The whole process is better organized.” Another said that detectives 

benefited from a reduction in “duplicate entry of information” that was necessary 

under the agency’s old system. 

In addition, several agencies noted that detectives are now better able to identify 

suspects through latent prints. One respondent reported a dramatic reduction in 

the time necessary to run prints against the state system: response time was 6 to 

8 months when hard copies of prints were sent to the state for processing; today, 

response is almost instantaneous.

Finally, several agencies mentioned that arrest and booking systems convey benefits 

to agencies outside of law enforcement. Court personnel achieve greater efficiency 

because they will eventually have a “direct port between the police (arrest and 

booking) and the judicial system,” which “saves time for courts” because they do not 

have to reenter information or struggle with illegible handwriting.

9

Not all arrest and booking systems 

acquired by the grantees came with 

digital mug shot software.

Effectiveness of Digital Mug Shot 

Software

“Officers can access digital mug shots 

instantly in the field, which helps with 

positive identification of suspects.

COPS MORE Grantee 
Arrest and Booking Systems | 55 |

Summary of Responses about Arrest and Booking Systems

The specific primary and secondary benefits of arrest and booking systems, as 

reported by COPS MORE survey respondents, are listed below by type of personnel 

affected. 

Patrol Officers

•	 Book arrestees in less time 

•	 Obtain more accurate identification of arrestee

•	 Take and store mug shots more easily 

Detectives

•	 Make more flexible use of digital photos

•	 Have improved tracking of evidence

•	 Obtain more accurate identification of suspects and victims

Booking Personnel

•	 Take and store mug shots more easily

•	 Book arrestees in less time 

•	 Obtained more accurate identification of arrestees

•	 Had improved tracking of evidence from arrestees

Records Personnel

•	 Retrieve mug shots more quickly

Outcome Measures for Arrest and Booking Systems

Suggestions for measuring the efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling effects (the 

Three E’s) of arrest and booking systems are summarized in Exhibit 5-1. The exhibit 

lists the role or roles expected affected by the technology acquisition, suggested 

measures, and type of result expected. 
 | 56 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Personnel Affected Measure Outcome

Patrol officers » Time to book an arrestee Efficiency

» Time to retrieve a mug shot Efficiency

» Time to retrieve arrest reports and mug shots from files Efficiency

» Ability to create digital lineups Enabling

» Percentage of the department with access to digital 

photos Enabling

» Percentage of the department with access to digital 

photos in the field Enabling

Detectives » Ability to create digital lineups Enabling

» Percentage of the department with access to digital 

photos Enabling

» Percentage of the department with access to digital 

photos in the field Enabling

Booking personnel » Time to book an arrestee Efficiency

» Incidence of lost evidence Efficiency

» Time to retrieve a mug shot Efficiency

» Time to log evidence Efficiency

» Time to retrieve arrest reports and mug shots from files Efficiency

» Time needed to retrieve evidence from storage Efficiency

» Time elapsed until positive identification of arrestee Efficiency

» Number of evidence items lost or misplaced Effectiveness

» Time elapsed until correct identification of arrestee Effectiveness

» Number of evidence items lost or misplaced Effectiveness

» Percentage of the department with access to digital 

photos Enabling

Records personnel » Time to store arrest reports and mug shots Efficiency

» Time to retrieve arrest reports and mug shots from files Efficiency

Exhibit 5-1: Outcome Measures for Arrest and Booking Systems. 
Chapter 6

Automated Fingerprint 

Identification Systems
 | 58 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Description of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Basic Functions

An automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) uses digital imaging 

technology to obtain, store, and search fingerprint data. An AFIS can develop digitized 

fingerprints in two ways. The first way is to digitize ink-and-roll fingerprint cards into 

the system and the second is to use a live scan device that captures finger images on 

a glass platen and submits the images to AFIS for developing and storing. 

An AFIS has two important applications. The first is the positive identification of an 

individual. Positive identification is facilitated by comparing the digitized fingerprints 

of an individual against fingerprints in the system, a search that can be made in a 

matter of minutes. The second application involves searching an AFIS database with 

digitized latent fingerprints taken from a crime scene. Matches with latent fingerprints 

can provide valuable leads to investigators for solving cases. 

An AFIS does not attempt to make an exact identification of an individual through its 

searches. Instead, it provides a list of candidates with scores that reflect the match 

between the images in question and the records on file. Latent print examiners must 

then manually check the comparisons to make a final determination in identifying a 

specific individual.

Differences among AFIS Versions

Most versions of AFIS are maintained at the state level with police departments 

within the state contributing digitized fingerprints to the database. The FBI maintains 

the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which contains 

fingerprints and corresponding criminal history information for more than 47 million 

subjects in its Criminal Master File. A few large police departments maintain their 

own independent systems.

An emerging application that some states have added to their systems is the 

capability of capturing palm prints in AFIS for storing and subsequent searching. 

The addition of palm prints has the potential to greatly expand latent print searches. 

Finally, some systems are linked to computerized criminal history files, which allow 

users to obtain information quickly on an individual’s past arrests. 

Digital vs. Ink-Based Fingerprinting

While the process is certainly neater 

with digital fingerprinting, the main 

improvements are:

•	 Reduced wait time to positively 

identify a suspect

•	 Fewer erroneous releases 

•	 Less duplication required (no need to 

take multiple fingerprints)

•	 Faster fingerprinting process and 

easier subsequent retrieval of 

information

•	 Ability to check latent and partial 

prints 

•	 Better-quality fingerprints 
Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems | 59 |

Outcome of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems

Twenty-six of the COPS MORE 2002 grantees acquired equipment to support 

automated fingerprint identification systems. With most grantees, the grant funds 

went for the purchase of live scan equipment with links to the state AFIS and to the 

FBI’s IAFIS. A key benefit reported by these agencies was a reduction in the time to 

fingerprint arrestees. One agency reported that the time dropped from 30 minutes to 

10 minutes after AFIS was installed. 

Grantees reported another result: improvements in the positive identification of 

arrestees. Identifications were made quickly and accurately by improving access to 

records in AFIS and IAFIS. As one survey respondent noted, “It is now much easier for 

officers and detectives to positively identify suspects who use aliases.” In short, AFIS 

increases both efficiency (less time to print and identify an arrestee) and effectiveness 

(fewer identification errors).

Another major benefit, especially for investigations, is the matching of latent prints 

from a crime scene against AFIS databases. Latent prints from a crime scene can be 

digitized and submitted to AFIS databases to determine whether they match anyone 

in the system. This procedure has resulted in numerous arrests that would otherwise 

not have occurred because it would be impossible to manually search the fingerprint 

files. Even when a match is not made immediately, the latent print becomes part of 

the system and may be matched in the future from subsequent arrests.

Advantages over Ink-Based Fingerprinting

Digital fingerprinting in AFIS has many advantages over manual, ink-based 

fingerprinting systems. The quality of the fingerprints is quickly determined as a 

part of the scanning process. Several survey respondents reported that the “quality 

of fingerprints has improved.” Another respondent stated that digital filing of 

fingerprints and associated mug shots “reduces errors due to human filing” and 

speeds the retrieval of records. 
 | 60 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

With some grantees, under the previous system, a fingerprint card had to be mailed 

to the state agency for entry into AFIS or for matching against existing records. This 

process was obviously slow, sometimes taking weeks or even months. By having 

live scan capabilities at the local level, the turnaround time was changed to minutes. 

The faster turn-around time meant that arrestees with outstanding warrants are not 

inadvertently released before information became available. Several agencies made 

comments similar to this one: “[We] have had several people who were using aliases, 

and we found out they were wanted when they were fingerprinted.” 

Combining AFIS and Digital Mug Shot Capabilities

Several grantees mentioned the benefits that accrued when digital fingerprinting and 

digital mug shots were available. These agencies saved additional time because the 

electronic photo of an arrestee was easier to store and retrieve at a later date. Once 

in the system, the photos can be used to assist in identification and to create photo 

lineups as an investigative aid. The ability to create photo lineups quickly and easily 

saves time for patrol officers and detectives. 

Summary of Responses about Automated Fingerprint 

Identification Systems

Specific primary and secondary benefits of AFIS, as reported by COPS MORE survey 

respondents, and the personnel affected are listed here. 

Patrol Officers

•	 Improved positive identification of subjects

•	 Faster fingerprinting

•	 Faster identification of suspect

•	 Faster creation of digital lineups

•	 Better communication with other agencies about suspects

Ease of Use = Greater Use

Polaroid mug shots were hard to store and 

retrieve and thus were underused.
Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems | 61 |

Detectives 

•	 Improved identification of suspects through latent prints

•	 Elimination of suspect as perpetrator

•	 Verification of suspect as perpetrator

•	 More flexible use of digital photos

Booking Personnel

•	 More accurate identification of arrestee 

•	 Faster fingerprinting 

•	 Less time to book an arrestee 

•	 Improved tracking of evidence

•	 Easier to take and store mug shots

Records Personnel

•	 Improved storage of fingerprint information

•	 Identification of suspects through latent fingerprints

Outcome Measures for Automated Fingerprint 

Indentification Systems

Suggestions for measuring the efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling effects (the 

Three E’s) of AFIS are summarized in Exhibit 6-1. The exhibit lists the role or roles 

that could be affected by the technology acquisition, suggested measures, and the 

type of outcomes expected. The measures are those reported by COPS MORE survey 

respondents and those recommended by the Institute for Law and Justice project 

team. It is worth noting that a technology acquisition can affect more than one role in 

the same manner. For example, the increased number of hits from latent prints that 

result in identifying a suspect and eventually leading to a prosecution makes police 

officers, booking personnel, and detectives more effective in their jobs. 
 | 62 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Personnel Affected Measure Outcome

Patrol Officer » Time spent taking prints Efficiency

» Time spent transmitting prints Efficiency

» Elapsed time—identity check Efficiency

» Elapsed time—latent check Efficiency

» Proportion of arrestees released who had outstanding 

warrants that were not caught

Effectiveness

» Proportion of arrestees who gave false information 

and were correctly identified through AFIS

Effectiveness

» Proportion of latent prints that identified a suspect 

who was later prosecuted

Effectiveness

» Improved clearance rate because of latent print hits Effectiveness

» Proportion of hits for latent prints Enabling

Detectives » Elapsed time—latent check Efficiency

» Improved clearance rate because of latent print hits Effectiveness

» Proportion of latent prints that identified a suspect 

who was later prosecuted

Effectiveness

» Improved assistance to other departments on 

investigations and identifications

Enabling

» Proportion of hits for latent prints Enabling

Booking personnel » Time spent taking prints Efficiency

» Time spent transmitting prints Efficiency

» Elapsed time—identity check Efficiency

» Elapsed time—latent check Efficiency

» Proportion of arrestees released who had outstanding 

warrants that were not caught

Effectiveness

» Proportion of arrestees who gave false information 

and were correctly identified through AFIS

Effectiveness

» Proportion of latent prints that identified a suspect 

who was later prosecuted

Effectiveness

Exhibit 6-1: Outcome Measures for Automated Fingerprinting Identification Systems.
Chapter 7

Crime Analysis 

and Mapping Systems
 | 64 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Description of Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems

Basic Functions of Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems

Crime analysis has been defined as “the study of police incidents; the identification 

of patterns, trends, and problems; and the dissemination of information that 

helps a police agency develop tactics and strategies to solve patterns, trends, and 

problems.”10 Automated systems support the analytical functions that are necessary 

for crime analysis. Crime analysis systems usually include a mapping capability as 

a way of displaying police incidents in an easily understood manner. Core products 

from crime analysis systems include the following:

•	 Regular bulletins (daily, weekly) about crime in an area

•	 Crime summaries for a particular area and time

•	 Reports on crime trends during an established period (days, weeks, months)

•	 Identification of related crimes (serial crimes)

•	 Comparisons of crime changes

•	 Preparation of annual reports on crime.

Crime analysis systems are greatly dependent on data from computer aided dispatch 

(CAD) and record management systems (RMS). A crime analysis system may be able 

to link directly to CAD and RMS, or data from these systems may be imported for 

analysis. 

The role of mapping systems in conjunction with crime analysis cannot be 

underestimated. Many reports prepared through crime analysis systems include 

maps showing where incidents occurred and the relationships between incidents. 

These maps are invaluable for conveying the results of the analysis and have proven 

beneficial for police personnel and for citizens in understanding crime problems.

Differences among Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems

The differences among crime analysis and mapping systems are due to the broad 

definition of crime analysis. In some departments, crime analysis is restricted to the 

10See Exploring Crime Analysis: 

Readings on Essential Skills by The 

International Association of Crime 

Analysts, p. 411.
Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems | 65 |

analysis of Part I crimes, while in other departments, crime analysis includes analysis 

of all crime types, traffic accidents, and other incidents handled by patrol officers as 

reflected in the department’s CAD system. Crime analysis systems may incorporate 

data from other sources, such as arrest reports, local demographics, field interview 

reports, or criminal histories. The incorporation of data from other sources may be 

especially beneficial for supporting a department’s problem-solving activities.

Computer mapping is especially effective at assisting with problem solving because 

it facilitates the integration of data from a variety of sources based on its geographic 

location. More specifically, using computer mapping, analysts can see information 

about vacant housing (from the housing department), drug arrests, and disturbance 

calls on one map. This enables them to make connections among seemingly 

unrelated pieces of information to solve a problem, rather than continuing to respond 

to calls for service about the same issue. 

Impact of Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems 

Of the grantees interviewed for this project, 13 acquired computer mapping systems 

and 13 acquired crime analysis systems. Interestingly, respondents indicated that 

crime analysis and mapping systems benefited command staff most often, followed 

by patrol officers, crime analysts, and detectives. The major benefit for command 

staff was better information for patrol allocation. They could obtain more information 

about patrol activities and more complete information on crime patterns and trends. 

Crime Information for Command Staff

Some systems allow command staff and other users to generate their own crime 

analysis and mapping through interactive features that let them specify a geographic 

area, crime types, and dates. Command staff with these capabilities expressed a high 

level of satisfaction with the systems that had been installed under the COPS MORE 

grants. By having information more readily available, they became more efficient and 

effective in their patrol allocations. 

Benefits of Mapping Systems

•	 Provide visualization of crime patterns 

and trends

•	 Ensure that community and police are 

operating from the same “map”

•	 Give an ability to integrate nonpolice 

data for problem solving

•	 Enable cross-jurisdiction analysis

•	 Automate creation of pin maps
 | 66 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

In addition, enabling end users to conduct their own analyses improves response 

time tremendously. One respondent reported that “crime analysis is two weeks 

behind and only two people have access to the system.” By opening access to other 

police personnel and the public, they reduced the crime analysts’ workload and the 

response time for analysis. 

Access of Crime Data for Patrol Officers

Most of the reported benefits for patrol officers were related to having better ways 

to communicate with the community in the field (e.g., the ability to create and show 

maps and to display crime information easily). As one respondent stated, crime 

analysis systems provide “one-stop 

shopping for crime information (instead 

of having to look in multiple places).” 

Officers also received more and better 

quality information about crimes. 

Finally, the mapping system improved 

their problem-solving capability by 

allowing them “to conduct their own 

mapping and analysis from their cars.” 

For another agency, this capability had 

an unusual outcome: it helped officers 

quickly apprehend a homicide suspect 

(see sidebar).

Computer Mapping Effectiveness: 

Locating a Homicide Suspect

“[We] had a drug deal that went bad 

resulting in a homicide. One suspect 

left the scene in a car and the other on 

foot. Officers on the scene were able to 

immediately plot a map of the area that 

was used to help locate and arrest the 

suspects within 20 minutes.”

COPS MORE Survey Respondent 

Crime Analysis Systems Provide Broader 

Access: 

•	 Patrol and community policing officers 

can:

» Answer citizen questions 

immediately 

» Conduct problem-solving analysis 

in the field

•	 Command staff can ask and answer 

questions about patrol allocation

•	 Citizens can have direct access to 

crime data
Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems | 67 |

Information for Crime Analysts

Overall, the benefits for analysts reported by survey respondents were improved 

efficiency (less time to produce an analysis) and effectiveness (greater variety of 

reports). This was true whether the agency had acquired a crime analysis system or 

a mapping system. 

Summary of Responses about Crime Analysis Systems

Specific primary and secondary benefits of crime analysis and crime mapping 

systems, as reported by COPS MORE survey respondents, are listed by the personnel 

experiencing the benefits. 

Command Staff 

•	 Better information for allocation of patrol

•	 More complete information about crime patterns and trends 

•	 Increase in breadth and depth of information 

•	 Use of maps for better information on patrol allocation

•	 Quicker turnaround on requests

•	 Mapping: Integration of data from other agencies

Patrol Officers

•	 Improved communication with community 

•	 Increased information on crimes

•	 Mapping: Improved problem-solving capability

•	 Improved crime-prevention activities

•	 Mapping: Improved crime-prevention activities

•	 Mapping: Information about crime patterns across districts
 | 68 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Analysts

•	 Increase in variety of products

•	 Increase in usefulness of products

•	 Less time needed to produce reports

•	 Mapping: Less time needed to produce maps

•	 Mapping: Increase in variety of map products 

Many of these improvements have direct a bearing on the ability to conduct 

community policing and problem-oriented policing. Better information about crimes 

and calls for service is essential for improving response, no matter what the policing 

strategy. Crime analysis systems and crime mapping systems add the ability to 

analyze large amounts of information quickly and in new ways. 
Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems | 69 |

Outcome Measures for Crime Analysis Systems

Suggestions for measuring the efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling effects (the 

Three E’s) that result from computer mapping and crime analysis systems are 

summarized in Exhibit 7-1. The exhibit lists the role or roles expected that can 

be affected by the technology acquisition, suggested measures, and the type of 

outcomes. It is worth noting that a technology acquisition can affect more than one 

role in the same manner. For example, the integration of multiple data sets that is 

achieved through crime analysis and/or geographic information systems makes 

both crime analysts and command staff more effective. Command staff have more 

information with which to make decisions; crime analysts have more information 

with which to identify problems (i.e., serial crimes, repeat calls, and hot spots) and 

crime trends.
 | 70 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Personnel Affected Measure Outcome

Patrol officers » Ability to generate maps “on the fly” 

during community meetings

Enabling

» Ability to answer questions about 

crime during community meetings

Enabling

Command staff » Time to generate reports necessary 

for deployment decisions

Efficiency

» Timeliness and completeness of data 

used for decision-making.

Effectiveness

» Number of data sets available for 

analysis

Effectiveness

» Elapsed time between crime analysis 

request and product delivery

Effectiveness

Crime Analysts » Time needed to generate a report Efficiency

» Time needed to generate a map Efficiency

» Number of reports available to run Effectiveness

» Number of data sets available for 

analysis

Effectiveness

» Number of map analyses available 

for routine creation

Effectiveness

» Ability to identify repeat locations Enabling

» Ability to identify repeat offenders Enabling

» Ability to produce complex analyses 

from multiple data sources

Enabling

Exhibit 7-1: Outcome Measures for Crime Analysis and Mapping Systems.
Appendix A

Information Technology 

in Policing
 | 72 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

This appendix briefly describes the core functions of police operations with the aim 

of illustrating the supportive role of information systems. Information technologies 

directly related to each function are included, along with a sense of how information 

can flow between functions.

As discussed in Chapter 1, an information system can affect many activities in a 

police department. An arrest and booking system, for example, assists patrol officers 

with arrests, provides a means for investigators to generate lineups, and serves 

as a source for analysts to examine arrest patterns. Ideally, information should 

flow directly from one system to another—for example, from a computer aided 

dispatch (CAD) system into a records management system (RMS)—thereby using 

the information to expand support for police operations. When this ideal is not 

achievable, departments sometimes develop ways to export and import data from 

one system to another. 

This overview is organized around the core functions of a police department: 

•	 Call taking in a communications center 

•	 Patrol response to citizen calls

•	 Crime analysis and intelligence

•	 Problem solving

•	 Crime investigations

•	 Arrest and booking. 

Police Communications Centers

The starting point for most police responses is the call that a citizen makes to the 

communications center. The responsibility of a call taker is to record information and 

forward it to a dispatcher. The dispatcher sends one or more patrol units to the scene 

and maintains contact with units in the field throughout the shift. 
Appendix A | 73 |

CAD System Role in Police Operations

The role of a CAD system is to support call takers and dispatchers by recording 

information about each call and tracking the activities of patrol units in the 

field. For dispatched calls, the CAD system also captures details that are useful 

for other purposes, such as analyzing crime, disorder problems, and officer 

workloads. Patrol officers also conduct self-initiated activities, such as traffic 

stops, that can be recorded in a CAD system. The system can provide reports 

on the volume of such activities and the amount of time required on the part of 

patrol officers.

Staff Roles Affected by Communications Centers

Patrol officers and supervisors, as well as call takers and dispatchers, are 

directly involved in, and affected by, the functions of a communications center. 

Patrol officers at a scene conduct preliminary investigations and prepare 

incident reports based in part on information from the CAD system. Supervisory 

personnel, usually sergeants, may have access to CAD information through 

mobile digital computers (MDC) to assist them in overseeing field activities by 

showing lists of calls and assignments to patrol units. 

In addition, a CAD system provides management reports for commanders 

and analysts. Commanders can track the volume and types of calls that patrol 

officers are handling and the amount of time that these calls are consuming. 

Analysts can take advantage of CAD data for problem solving and for 

restructuring patrol beats.

Patrol Operations

Patrol operations are the backbone of a police department, usually accounting 

for at least two-thirds of its personnel and budgetary resources. An important 

role for officers is to respond to citizens’calls for service, especially concerning 

crimes. Response activities include interviewing victims and suspects, 

conducting preliminary investigations, making arrests, preparing incident 

reports, and other activities.

Examples of Information Captured by CAD 

Systems

•	 Address of call

•	 Patrol unit(s) dispatched

•	 Time of arrival at the scene

•	 Time call was completed

•	 Call disposition (report taken, arrest 

made)

•	 Self-initiated activities, such as traffic 

stops
 | 74 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

CAD and RMS provide support to patrol officers during the course of their daily 

activities. The CAD system tracks the activities of all officers in the field, and an RMS 

captures information on incidents and arrests. Once in an RMS, the information is 

available to patrol officers, investigators, commanders, analysts, and others.

Last, an automated field reporting system (AFRS) can be critical to patrol operations. 

A fully implemented AFRS includes the preparation and approval of incident reports. 

Traditionally, officers had completed handwritten reports that were later entered into 

a system by clerks. Using an AFRS, report entry is accomplished either through an 

MDC in the patrol unit or on a computer workstation in a precinct or district station. 

An AFRS also incorporates an approval process for each report, starting when 

an officer sends a report electronically for supervisory review. If approved, the 

supervisor transmits the report into an RMS repository, where it can be made 

available for other functions such as problem solving and investigation. If the 

supervisor disapproves the report, it can be sent back electronically to the officer for 

corrective action. The approval cycle continues until the supervisor is satisfied with 

the report.

Crime and Intelligence Analysis

A crime analysis and intelligence system draws on records from the CAD system, 

crime and arrest records from an RMS, and external data from other agencies and 

consolidates these records for analysis. Depending on the specifics of the system, 

a variety of other software programs—such as the following—may be integrated to 

analyze the data. 

•	 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide spatial analysis (e.g., create 

crime maps and hot spot maps that convey analysis results). 

•	 Social networks can be examined via link analysis (associating arrestees or other 

persons of interest). 

•	 Statistical packages allow time series analysis (e.g., identification of crime 

trends) and pattern analysis (e.g., robberies occurring in an area during the same 

hours of the day). 

Automated Field Reporting Systems 

(AFRS)

Patrol officer enters report via in-car MDC 

or precinct computer and may correct the 

report based on supervisor comments

•	 Supervisor approves report

•	 Approved report enters RMS

•	 Analysts, investigators, others query 

RMS 
Appendix A | 75 |

“What Is Problem-Oriented Policing?”

Problem-oriented policing is an approach 

to policing in which discrete pieces of 

police business (each consisting of a 

cluster of similar incidents, whether 

crime or acts of disorder, that the police 

are expected to handle) are subject 

to microscopic examination (drawing 

on the especially honed skills of crime 

analysts and the accumulated experience 

of operating field personnel) in hopes 

that what is freshly learned about each 

problem will lead to discovering a new 

and more effective strategy for dealing 

with it. 

See www.popcenter.org.

In most police departments, the results are summarized in some form, such as alert 

bulletins, for dissemination to patrol officers, supervisors, and others. Actions such as 

directed patrol may be taken on the basis of the summaries, and the crime analysis 

unit may be asked to provide additional support for these activities.

Problem Solving

The problem-solving process aims at identifying and solving problems in a police 

area of responsibility. One excellent resource for information about problem solving 

is the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (POP Center) which, in conjunction with 

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), produces 

problem-specific guides for police.11 Problem-oriented policing is defined by the 

POP Center as an organizing strategy that clusters similar incidents (which could be 

criminal or noncriminal) for further examination. These sets of incidents are then 

subject to detailed analysis. Experience in dealing with problems is documented so 

that a body of knowledge can be developed for addressing the same set of problems 

in different areas or addressing similar problems. In this way, problem-solving deals 

with problems in the broadest sense rather than limiting police efforts to those 

associated with crime. While this approach has great potential, it also requires large 

amounts of information about people and places.

Problem-Solving Steps

There are several essential steps in the problem-solving process, especially as it 

relates to information technology support. A key step in the process is gaining a 

complete understanding of a problem that has been brought to the attention of the 

police. Information from CAD, RMS, and the community plays an important role in 

this process. 

In this context, “community” is viewed in a broad perspective. The POP Center’s 

problem-specific guide published by the COPS Office, Assaults In and Around Bars, 

for example, suggests that the department obtain information on environment 

characteristics such as the nature of surrounding area and whether the bar is on a 

11See www.popcenter.org

for further information.
 | 76 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

major roadway. CAD and RMS information provides insight into the times of the 

assaults and characteristics of victims and suspects. When combined with community 

information, a complete picture of the problem emerges.

Developing an action plan to address the problem is the next step in the process 

followed by executing the action plan and assessing the results. Revisions to the 

process can be made as the department learns more about the problem and the 

impact that their actions have on it. As with understanding the problem, assessing 

the results will almost always depend on community input and CAD and RMS 

information.

Relationship between Crime Analysis and Problem Analysis

Two important caveats should be considered about the crime analysis and problemsolving processes as we have described them. First, we have separated the two 

processes to assist in describing the roles that information technology can play, 

although in many departments the two processes are intertwined; that is, personnel 

responsible for crime analysis may, either explicitly or implicitly, be doing problem 

analysis with crimes as a part of their total picture. Second, we have greatly 

oversimplified the problem-solving process. Excellent books are available that 

provide much more detail than we can present in this publication. 

Investigations

With investigations, we move into another area in which information technology 

plays an important supporting role. Most RMS applications include a case 

management module (software) that assists in managing the investigators (e.g., 

controlling caseloads) and provides direct support for investigations (e.g., capturing 

supplemental reports and information on physical evidence). Indeed, a case 

management system starts with assignment of a case to an investigator and supports 

the investigation to its judicial conclusion. 
Appendix A | 77 |

An automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) is an integral part of 

investigations because it assists in matching fingerprints against known offenders. 

An AFIS serves investigations in two ways. First, fingerprints from suspects may be 

checked against prints recovered at the scene to determine if there is a match. In this 

regard, an AFIS may provide exculpatory information about a suspect. Second, latent 

prints taken at the scene can be processed by AFIS to determine whether they match 

prints in both local and national systems. 

Arrest and Booking

The arrest process may be initiated either as part of a patrol response or from the 

results of an investigation. In some instances, an arrest warrant may have to be 

obtained. In addition to the arrest of a person, the arrest process may include the 

collection of physical evidence and other property relevant to the incident. 

Information systems play an important role in supporting arrests and jail bookings. 

An RMS assists in these steps by capturing information on arrestees, warrants, 

physical evidence, and other property. Further, an AFIS supports the booking 

process by assisting in the positive identification of the arrestee and storing digital 

fingerprints in the system for future use. The booking process usually takes place at a 

central facility. It has several steps, including but not limited to the following:

•	 Collection of personal property

•	 Positive identification of the arrestee

•	 Fingerprints

•	 Mug shots.

The process ends when all arrest paperwork has been completed and associated 

property has been documented and properly stored.
 | 78 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

Summary

The description provided in this appendix is, of course, an oversimplification of 

patrol operations; however, it offers an overview that emphasizes where information 

technology fits into routine law enforcement processes (e.g., handling citizen calls 

for service, investigating crimes, or making arrests) and discusses the information 

technology infrastructure needed to accomplish those processes. 
Appendix B

Assessing Information 

Technologies 
 | 80 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

The effects of information technologies can be assessed by examining their efficiency, their effectiveness, 

and their enabling benefits (the Three E’s). This appendix defines these concepts and provides some 

examples of how technology outcomes could be measured. 

Efficiency

Efficiency means getting a task done with the least expenditure of resources. It can be measured through 

direct observation of the time required to accomplish a task, or through surveys asking about the amount 

of time required for a task or the number of activities accomplished. As an example, introduction of a 

computer aided dispatch (CAD) system should reduce the amount of time taken to dispatch a patrol unit to 

the site of an incident. Compared to a manual process, the time savings should be considerable. This could 

be determined by observing the call processing time under the manual system before introducing a CAD 

system and repeating the observations after the CAD system has been introduced.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness means getting the job done better (although not necessarily more efficiently). Measures of 

effectiveness include improving the quality of reports, achieving higher clearance rates, and improving the 

flow of information among operational units. Usually, it is more difficult to measure evidence of changes in 

effectiveness. Measures could include determining if the quality of the crime reports resulted in providing 

better information to investigators or assisted in identifying crime patterns to help officers resolve problems 

more quickly. The introduction of an AFRS, for example, should improve the quality of crime reports. That 

improvement could be measured by analyzing a sample of reports before and after the introduction of the 

system. 

Enabling Benefits

Finally, technologies frequently enable a police department to do something that it could not do before. A 

good example is the capability of an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) to conduct openended searches against a database of partial (latent) fingerprints. Such a search would not be possible prior 

to the implementation of an AFIS because of the immense amount of manual effort that would be required 

to compare latent prints against all the prints in a manual filing system. Enabling effects can be measured 

by analyzing the application of the technology after its innovation. 
Appendix B | 81 |

Relationships among the Three E’s 

The relationships among the Three E’s are complex because improvements in one 

area do not necessarily lead to improvements in the others. For example, introduction 

of mobile digital computers in patrol units with an automated field reporting system 

(AFRS) may actually increase the amount of time that officers need to complete 

a crime report because more information may have been captured than on the 

handwritten reports. On the other hand, the quality of information should improve, 

and this might lead to increased apprehensions on the part of offenders. In this 

scenario, efficiency has decreased while effectiveness has increased.

Extending this example, the automation of reports may lead to identifying hot spots 

of crimes and quality-of-life problems that can be addressed through problem solving 

and community policing. Such an analysis may not have been possible by a police 

agency in the past because the reports were not sufficiently automated for analysis. 

The enabling effect in this scenario may lead to a change in patrol officer activities from 

general patrolling during idle time to problem solving or directed patrol activities. This 

ability to undertake more focused policing potentially could increase the effectiveness 

of officers by improving their ability to solve problems or reduce crime. 

Outcome Measures to Capture the Three E’s 

As part of the survey of COPS Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) 

2002 grantees (see Chapter 1), police agencies were asked to identify measures 

they were using to assess the efficiency, effectiveness, and enabling benefits (the 

Three E’s) of the technologies they acquired. Unfortunately, relatively few agencies 

were measuring the effects of technology implementations. The lists of potential 

performance measures for gauging improvements that are listed in this guide were 

compiled from those conversations and their responses about the effects of the 

information technologies that were acquired. 

With CAD systems, for example, key measures would include the average time that 

call takers need for obtaining information from callers and entering the information 

into the CAD system. The average time to dispatch patrol units to incidents, especially 
 | 82 | Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies 

to high-priority incidents, would also be important. These measures address 

improvements in efficiency and the expectation is that the times needed will be 

reduced as a result of the CAD system.

Effectiveness measures would include improved quality of reports, improved 

clearance rates, and improved flow of information among operational units. As 

previously mentioned, a good example of an enabling measure is the number of 

latent print hits after an AFIS has been implemented. 

Other enabling measures, however, depend in part on a department’s capabilities 

before a technology was implemented. For example, a department may not have 

been able to produce hot spot maps of crimes before acquiring a crime analysis 

system. Implementation of the system, therefore, provides a new tool in the arsenal, 

enabling the department to do something it could not do before. On the other hand, 

replacing a system with the same capabilities as the old system simply results in 

continuation of earlier capabilities. In most cases, however, replacement may include 

new capabilities that result in positive changes for efficiency, effectiveness, and 

enabling measures.

Benefits for Officer Safety

Officer safety is one of the underlying threads that run through any acquisition in 

law enforcement. Technology acquisitions have the potential to increase officer 

safety through the mechanisms of increased effectiveness, increased efficiency, and 

improved enabling. Many measures that improve the efficiency of officers also make 

them safer. For example, getting information to officers more quickly translates into 

more time for them to process the information before answering the call so that 

they are better prepared for what they might face. In both cases knowledge is not 

only power, it is increased safety, too. The silent dispatch option that is part of CAD 

systems makes officers safer by keeping police communication secure. Officer safety 

is also affected by improvements in the efficiency of supporting roles such as call 

takers and dispatchers. Making these people more efficient at routine work frees 

them to take more active roles in a crisis. Additional connections between enhanced 
Appendix B | 83 |

officer safety and effectiveness and enabling outcomes from those acquisitions are 

highlighted throughout the technology sections of this document. Even though it 

is extremely difficult to measure improvements to officer safety as outcomes of a 

technology acquisition, the case for the existence of such a relationship is strong. 

Faster Access to More Information

Most agencies reported that an AFRS increased the quantity of information 

available to police officers, as well as the speed with which officers could access 

the information in their patrol cars. Obtaining access to more information improved 

officer effectiveness and often enabled them to be better informed about the people 

and places in their community. 

Benefits for Officer Safety

Getting information more quickly was most often associated with officer safety; 

more specifically, it gave officers a better idea of the situations they were entering. 

Safety benefits of an AFRS were frequently mentioned in the context of traffic stops 

and officers’ ability to more quickly “run people, plates, warrants, etc.,” and identify 

drivers. One respondent saw a decrease in inquiry time from 5 to 10 minutes to 1 to 2 

minutes; another reported saving 5 minutes per inquiry. 

Another important outcome of faster inquiry response time is that officers were 

more willing to run checks when they did not have to wait for a dispatcher to run the 

information and return with an answer. 

AFRS Benefits for Officer Safety

“Officers would have to wait for 

dispatchers to check plates before they 

would know who they were stopping. 

Now an officer can run the plate and 

know, prior to approaching the vehicle, 

who might be driving.” 

“Those officers that are comfortable with 

the system are doing more inquiries.”

Faster Responses to Inquiries Stimulates 

Proactive Policing

After an AFRS was installed, one agency 

found that compared to the same 8-month 

period prior to AFRS, self-initiated activities 

doubled overall while the number of 

offense reports stayed the same.

COPS MORE Survey 


U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

e08084156