Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Unleashing the Full Potential of Organizational Performance
In this seminar, experienced mid-level managers step into the world of dynamic thinking, creativity, and innovative, results-producing performance. The seminar consists of two exciting weeks of sessions that expose managers to new approaches and processes. Participants are shown ways to achieve superior levels of organizational excellence and to deal with the day-to-day challenges of their workplace. Managers bring real problems to the seminar. These "live case studies" are used to develop the skills and knowledge needed to deal more effectively with the rapidly changing Federal environment.
Learning techniques include practical exercises, case studies, experiential activities with facilitated debriefings, and discussions and presentations with real-time feedback. There are also opportunities for the exchange of ideas with colleagues from other agencies. Assessment instruments that provide 360-degree feedback are used to develop information on how the participants are perceived by their customers, peers, employees, and superiors. The assessments and feedback provided throughout the course strengthen the ability of managers to negotiate, exert influence, gain cooperation from others, and create a work environment that values diversity.
Acquire new approaches to managing that can lead to greater organizational efficiency
Learn approaches to increasing accountability within the organization
Prepare to initiate and manage innovation in a team-based environment
Foster originality, flexibility, and reasonable risk taking while remaining accountable for results
Learn to manage technology to enhance organizational performance
Develop concepts and skills for partnering and building more effective teams
Enhance influence and negotiation skills
Examine core value issues and their impact on the Federal manager
Explore ways to promote a culture that supports entrepreneurship and innovation
Who Should AttendMid-level managers typically with two or more years of management experience.
Schedule and Cost
Start/Stop times for EMDC: Arrival - Monday, program starts at 1 p.m.Ends - Thursday at 5 p.m., Friday is a Travel Day
Start/Stop times for WMDC: Arrival - Monday, program starts 1:30 p.m.Ends - Thursday at 5 p.m., Friday is a Travel Day, check out by noon(If Monday Holiday - Arrival - Tuesday, program starts at 1:30 p.m.)
Course includes meals, lodging, tuition and course materials
Jun 5 - Jun 16, 06
$4700 with Individual Coaching
SPACE LIMITED: Call for availability: 1-304-870-8008
Jul 10 - Jul 21, 06
$4700 with Individual Coaching
Jul 24 - Aug 4, 06
$4700 with Individual Coaching
Aug 7 - Aug 18, 06
$4700 with Individual Coaching
Sep 5 - Sep 15, 06
$4700 with Individual Coaching
SPACE LIMITED: Call for availability: 1-304-870-8008
Sep 18 - Sep 29, 06
$4700 with Individual Coaching
Oct 10 - Oct 20, 06
Includes individual coaching
Nov 27 - Dec 8, 06
Includes individual coaching
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Take the first test – watch the National Medical Laboratories autopsy videos!
Criminal Justice Online
There's a CSI in Vegas, NYC and Miami; but did you know about the the CSI agents in the forest? They best tell their own story:
"Way back in 1975, a special agent of the Division of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the name of Terry Grosz managed to get transferred to the Washington Office and assigned to the endangered species desk...which basically meant that he was responsible for coordinating endangered species investigations nationwide.
One of the first things that Terry discovered was that he had no way of getting his evidence identified (we didn't have a crime lab, and the FBI lab didn't work with wildlife parts and products, and museums rarely hire forensic scientists, and....well, you get the picture). So Terry did the proper agent thing, which was to start insisting that the Fish and Wildlife Service needed a crime laboratory to identify wildlife parts and products evidence. Otherwise, wildlife law enforcement officers would have to try to catch the suspects in the act of killing the animals, or in possession the entire (identifiable) carcass.....both of which represent far more difficult and dangerous situations for the investigator.
So, thanks to Terry's persistence, in 1979, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hired Ken Goddard, a police crime laboratory director (that's me, in case you were wondering who was writing this stuff) to set up a forensics program for wildlife law enforcement. I spent the next seven years in Washington D.C. working to get funding for a laboratory facility. Finally, in 1987, thanks to Terry, and Amos Eno [the executive director of the Fish and Wildlife Foundation] and a bunch of other people too numerous to name, and a chiropractor from Eagle Point, Oregon, named Dr. Ralph Wehinger [don't ask, you wouldn't believe it anyway], the following events began to occur:
December, 1985: Funds were allocated to build a wildlife forensics laboratory (to be built somewhere).
June, 1986: Ashland, OR, was selected as the site.
August, 1986: Ground-breaking ceremonies.
September, 1987: Design approved, construction begins.
August, 1988: Construction completed, staff hiring begins.
June, 1989: Dedication"
Visit their lab's homepage
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
This forum, which will be opened to Q&A, assembles a variety of expert perspectives on the sex trafficking problem. The discussion will be moderated by Swanee Hunt, Director of the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and will feature: Ambassador John Miller of the U.S. State Department, and Norma Hotaling, Founder of the SAGE (Standing Against Global Exploitation) Project.
If interested in attending, please visit http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/xchat.html for details.
Criminal Justice Online
Friday, May 19, 2006
The Pros of Using the Criminal Justice System
In the event that a left-behind parent is both unaware of the whereabouts of the child and does not have access to the child, using the criminal justice system may be helpful as a tracking tool. There are a multitude of federal and state agencies that work in conjunction with local law enforcement to help locate a missing child and abductor in foreign countries. The FBI is the primary source of law enforcement assistance and can provide investigative support and coordinate the issuance of federal warrants. The United States Customs Service and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security utilize the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) to simultaneously access and query several federal databases for warrants, and entry or exit restrictions. INTERPOL coordinates activities with foreign law enforcement to trace and locate fugitives and abductors.
What Are the Risks?
Formal resort to the criminal justice system (filing of charges, issuance of an arrest warrant, transmission of an extradition request to a foreign government under an applicable treaty, and criminal prosecution) should be considered carefully. This is especially true if the other country concerned is a party to the Hague Convention. You should be aware that, while you may have a degree of control over the ongoing civil procedures, you may not be able to affect the course of criminal actions once charges are filed. Check with the police and prosecutor to determine if your wishes would be considered in a criminal action. Furthermore, law enforcement authorities in the U.S. and some countries abroad may be valuable sources of information and assistance. However, they may be unfamiliar with international parental child abduction. If this is the case, please call the Office of Children''s Issues (CA/OCS/CI) as soon as possible.
Your decision on whether or not to try to utilize the criminal justice system depends upon the circumstances of your case. You should also realize that neither extradition nor prosecution of the abductor guarantees the return of your child and may in some cases complicate, delay, or ultimately jeopardize return of your child.
Presumably, your primary interest is to obtain the return of your child. That is not the primary responsibility of the prosecutors. When the criminal justice system becomes involved in a case, there are several interests at stake, some of which may be in conflict:
- The interests of the child;
- The interests of each parent/guardian and other immediate family members;
- The interests of the civil justice system in a stable and workable custody arrangement; and
- The interests of the criminal justice system in apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing those who have violated the criminal laws of their jurisdiction in connection with a parental child abduction.
Another factor to consider is the possible reaction of the abductor to the filing of criminal charges and the threat of prosecution and punishment. Although some individuals may be intimidated enough to return the child (with or without an agreement by a prosecutor to the condition that the charges be dropped), others might go deeper into hiding, particularly if they are in a country where they have family or community support. If an abductor is ultimately brought to trial, how far are you willing to go in pursuing criminal prosecution? Unless you are prepared to testify in court against the abductor, you should not pursue criminal prosecution. A final factor to consider is the effect on the child of seeing the abducting parent prosecuted and perhaps incarcerated, with you playing an active role in that process.
Steps to Take in Case You Decide to Use the Criminal Justice System
Once you have decided to pursue criminal remedies, you or your attorney may contact your local prosecutor or law enforcement authorities to request, if provided for by your state law, that the abducting parent be criminally prosecuted and an arrest warrant be issued. In some states, parental child abduction or custodial interference is a misdemeanor; however, under many state laws it may be a crime depending on the circumstances of the removal. If you are able to obtain a state warrant, the local prosecutor can contact the F.B.I. or the United States Attorney to request the issuance of a federal Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution (UFAP) warrant for the arrest of the abductor. The federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 provides for the issuance of this warrant.
Furthermore, the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA) of 1993 (H.R. 3378) makes it a federal offense to remove a child from the United States or retain a child (who has been in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the exercise of parental rights (custody or visitation). An unlawful retention begun after 1993 could violate the statute, even though the actual removal of the child may have occurred before the date of enactment. The F.B.I. is responsible for investigating the abduction.Prosecution of Agents or Accomplices of the Abductor
Find out if your state, through consultation with a lawyer, has laws that allow legal action to be taken against agents or accomplices to an abduction. Consider whether such actions would be useful in learning your child’s whereabouts or compelling the return of your child.
Implications of an Arrest Warrant for a United States Citizen
If the abducting parent is a United States citizen and the subject of a federal arrest warrant, the F.B.I. or United States Attorney’s office can ask the Department of State’s Passport Office to revoke the person’s United States passport. This may or may not be a burden to an abducting parent who is entitled to hold a foreign passport as well as a United States passport. However, an abducting parent who is only a United States citizen becomes an undocumented alien in a foreign country if his or her United States passport is revoked. Some countries may deport undocumented aliens or at least make it difficult for them to remain in the country.
For a United States passport to be revoked, the F.B.I. or United States Attorney must send a request for such action and a copy of the federal warrant to the Department of State’s Office of Passport Policy and Advisory Services (telephone 202-663-2662). The regulatory basis for revocation of passports is found in the Code of Federal Regulations (22 C.F.R. 51.70, et seq.)
In certain circumstances, you may decide that revoking the abducting parent’s passport will not achieve the desired result. For example, if you know the location of the other parent, there may be a possibility of negotiation and a settlement or, at least, the possibility of communication with your child. If the abducting parent is threatened with passport revocation, he or she might choose to flee with your child again.
Implications of a Warrant for a Non-United States Citizen
Even if the abductor is not a United States citizen, the existence of a federal warrant is important. Such a warrant may encourage the abducting parent to return the child voluntarily, especially if he or she has business or other reasons to travel to the United States. The warrant also serves to inform the foreign government that the abduction of the child is a violation of United States law and that the abductor is a federal fugitive. An arrest warrant is also necessary if you wish to have authorities seek extradition of the abductor. Note that the United States does not have an extradition treaty with every country, and even if a treaty exists extradition may not always be possible.
The Possibility of Extradition
The United States Department of Justice, not the United States Department of State, is responsible for pursuing extradition of wanted persons. Through INTERPOL and other international links, national law enforcement authorities in many countries regularly cooperate in the location and apprehension of international fugitives. Extradition, the surrender of a fugitive or prisoner by one jurisdiction for criminal prosecution or service of a sentence in another jurisdiction, is rarely a viable approach in international child abduction cases.
Extradition is utilized only for criminal justice purposes in cases that prosecutors believe can be successfully prosecuted due to the sufficiency of the evidence. Prosecutors may decide not to proceed with a request for extradition for a number of different reasons. Moreover, it must be remembered that extradition does not apply to the abducted or wrongfully retained child, but only to the abductor. There is no guarantee that the child will be returned by foreign authorities in connection with extradition of the alleged wrongdoer. Threatened with impending extradition, abducting parents may hide the child or children with a friend or relative in the foreign country.
Another reason that extradition may not be useful in a given case is that the offenses of parental child abduction or custodial interference are sometimes not included in the U.S. Government’s extradition relationships with some foreign countries. The United States now has extradition treaties now in force at this point with over 120more than 100 foreign countries. Some of these are” dual criminality" treaties while others are” list" treaties. In each case, in order for conduct to be an extraditable offense under a particular treaty, the conduct in question must be (1) be extraditable under a given treaty, the conduct in question must be considered a crime in both countries, and (2) and also included as an extraditable offense under the treaty. In this respect, the United States Government has two kinds of extradition treaties,” dual criminality" and” list" treatiesDual Criminality Treaties: U.S. Government’s Most modern extradition treaties (i.e., generally those concluded after 1980) usually include a” dual criminality" provision. This means that a persons generally may be extradited under the treaty if their conduct is a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment in both countries. Accordingly as a result, if the illegal conduct involved in a particular parental child abduction or custodial interference case is a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment in both the United States and the foreign jurisdiction country concerned, then that conduct would be considered an extraditable offense under most extradition treaties that are based on “dual criminality" extradition treaties. (A small number of the U.S. Government’s dual criminality treaties use periods other than one year as the measure for extraditable offenses.) If the conduct is not criminalized a crime in either the United States or the foreign country, then it will not be an extraditable offense, even if our treaty with that country is a modern “dual criminality" treaty.
List Treaties: The U.S. Government’s older extradition treaties (generally those concluded before 1980) typically contain a list of covered offenses that are extraditable under the treaty. In this respect, nearly all of these older treaties include the word “kidnapping" in their list of covered extraditable offenses. The Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-323) makes clear that the word “kidnapping" as used in these older treaties can encompass parental kidnapping. If, however, the conduct is not a crime criminalized in the United States or the foreign country, then it will not be an extraditable offense even if the word “kidnapping" is included in the relevant list treaty.
Despite the fact that parental child abduction may be covered by certain extradition treaties, you should be aware of potential difficulties in utilizing them. Apart from the possible counterproductive effects already discussed, specifically, most all civil law countries (in contrast with common law countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia) refuse to extradite their own nationals. Nearly all the nations of Latin America and Europe are civil law countries. Whatever the terms of any applicable extradition treaty, experience has also shown that foreign governments are generally reluctant (and often simply unwilling) to extradite anyone (their own citizens, United States citizens, or third country nationals) for parental child abduction. For extradition to be possible, therefore:·
- The local and/or federal prosecutor must decide to file charges and pursue the case, and you should be prepared to testify in any criminal trial;
- There must be an extradition treaty in force between the United States and the country in question;
- The treaty must cover parental child abduction or custodial interference;· If the person sought is a national of the country in question, that country must be willing to extradite its own nationals; and,
- The country in question must be willing to extradite persons for parental child abduction/custodial interference (i.e., not refuse to do so for "humanitarian" or other policy reasons).
The Possibility of Prosecution of an Abductor in a Foreign Country
A final possibility in the area of criminal justice is prosecution of the abductor by the authorities of the foreign country where he or she is found. In many countries (but not the United States), nationals of the country can be prosecuted for acts committed abroad if the same conduct would constitute a criminal offense under local law. United States law enforcement authorities can request such prosecution by forwarding to the foreign country the evidence that would have been used in a United States prosecution. United States witnesses may, of course, have to appear and testify in the foreign proceeding. Like the courses of action discussed above, this approach also risks being counterproductive and will not necessarily result in the return of the child.
US Department of State
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
How does your local agency measure up?
• As of June 2003 local police departments had about 581,000 full-time employees, including about 452,000 sworn personnel. There were about 11,000 more sworn and 4,000 more nonsworn employees than in 2000.
• Racial and ethnic minorities comprised 23.6% of full-time sworn personnel in 2003, up from 22.6% in 2000, and 14.6% in 1987. Women comprised 11.3% of officers in 2003, up from 10.6% in 2000, and 7.6% in 1987.
• From 2000 to 2003 the number of black or African American local police officers increased by 1,500, or 3%; Hispanic or Latino officers by 4,700, or 13%; officers from other minority groups by 850, or 7%, and female officers by 4,400, or 9%.
• Sixty-one percent of departments had officer separations during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2003. Overall, about 32,100 officers separated, including 16,100 resignations, 9,400 retirements, and 2,600 dismissals.
• Sixty percent of departments hired new officers during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2003. Overall, about 34,500 officers were hired, including 28,800 entry-level hires, and 5,300 lateral transfers/hires.
• During the 12-month period ending June 30, 2003, 21% of local police departments had full-time sworn personnel called-up as full-time military reservists. Overall, about 7,500 officers were called up.
Budget and pay
• Departments had total operating budgets of $43.3 billion during fiscal 2003, 10% more than in 2000 after adjusting for inflation. Operating expenditures in 2003 averaged $93,300 per sworn officer, and $200 per resident.
• In 2003 starting salaries for local police officers ranged from an average of about $23,400 in the smallest jurisdictions to about $37,700 in the largest.
• Fifty-nine percent of departments, including more than 75% of those serving 250,000 or more residents, used foot patrol routinely. An estimated 38%, including more than 95% of those serving 500,000 or more residents, used bicycle patrol on a regular basis.
• In 2003, 92% of local police departments, employing 98% of all officers, participated in a 9-1-1 emergency system compared to 32% and 60% in 1987. In 2003, 73% of Departments, employing 90% of all officers, had enhanced 9-1-1, compared to 7% and 26% in 1987.
• Eighteen percent of departments had officers assigned full time to a special unit for drug enforcement, with about 12,000 officers assigned nationwide. Nearly a quarter of departments had officers assigned to a multi-agency drug task force, with about 6,000 officers assigned full time nationwide. • Twenty-seven percent of local police departments were responsible for providing court security, 18% for serving civil process, and 9% for operating a jail.
• Thirty-six percent of departments had drug asset forfeiture receipts during 2002, including more than 80% of those serving 25,000 or more residents. Nationwide, receipts totaled about $298 million, or $642 per officer.
• Fourteen percent of local police departments, employing 44% of all officers, maintained or created a written community policing plan during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2003.
• Nearly half (47%) of departments, employing 73% of all officers, had a mission statement that included some aspect of community policing.
• Fifty-eight percent of all departments, employing 82% of all officers, used fulltime community policing officers during 2003. Collectively, there were about 54,800 local police officers so designated.
• Thirty-one percent of departments, employing 67% of all officers, trained all new officer recruits in community policing. This included more than 3 in 4 departments serving a population of 100,000 or more.
• Sixty percent of departments, including more than 80% of those serving 25,000 or more residents, had problem solving partnerships or written agreements with community groups, local agencies, or others during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2003.
• Forty-three percent of departments, employing 74% of all officers, used fulltime school resource officers in 2003. Collectively, these agencies employed about 14,300 such officers.
• Nearly all departments had a written policy on pursuit driving. Three-fifths restricted vehicle pursuits according to specific criteria such as speed or offense. About a fourth had a policy that left the decision to the officer’s discretion, and 6% discouraged all vehicle pursuits.
• Ninety-five percent of departments, employing 99% of all officers, had a written policy on the use of deadly force. Ninety percent, employing 97% of all officers, had a policy on the use of nonlethal force.
• Sixty-two percent of departments had written policies about racial profiling by officers. This included about 9 in 10 agencies serving populations of 250,000 or more residents.
• Thirty-nine percent of departments had a written plan specifying actions to be taken in the event of a terrorist attack. This included a majority of departments serving 10,000 or more residents.
• Eighty-four percent of departments, employing 95% of officers, had written policies or procedures for handling juveniles; 59%, employing 81% of officers, for responding to the mentally ill; and 27%, employing 42% of officers, for interacting with homeless persons.
• In 2003 the .40-caliber semiautomatic was the most commonly authorized sidearm, with 62% of departments authorizing its use by officers.
• An estimated 99% of departments authorized use of chemical agents such as pepper spray during 2003, up from 51% in 1990.
• In 2003, 74% of local police officers were employed by a department that required at least some field officers to wear protective body armor while on duty, compared to 30% in 1990.
• Nationwide, local police departments in 2003 operated an estimated 242,700 cars, or about 1 car for every 2 officers employed. About a third of these cars were unmarked.
• Nearly 1 in 3 departments used dogs for law enforcement work, including more than 90% of those serving 100,000 or more residents. About 2% used horses, including most of those serving 250,000 or more residents.
• Fifty-five percent of departments regularly used video cameras in police car during 2003, compared to 37% in 2000. There were about 49,000 in-car cameras in use during 2003. Eleven percent of departments operated traffic enforcement cameras during 2003.
Computers and information systems
• From 1990 to 2003 the percentage of local police departments using infield computers increased from 5% to 56%. Departments using infield computers employed 83% of all officers in 2003, up from 30% in 1990.
• From 2000 to 2003 the percent of local police officers employed by a department with infield computer access to vehicle records increased from 67% to 78%. The percent employed by a department with infield computer access to criminal history records rose from 29% to 39%.
• In 2003, 55% of departments used paper reports as the primary means to transmit criminal incident field data to a central information system, down from 86% in 1997. During the same time period, use of computer and data devices increased from 9% to 38%.
You can view the complete report here
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Download the Paper
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Based on an article in our last newsletter feedback was received from a colleague in the United Kingdom. He made us aware that the UK Police National Missing Persons Bureau (PNMPB) is the centre for the exchange of information connected with the search for missing persons both nationally and internationally. The Bureau focuses on cross matching missing persons with unidentified persons. On their website the center has published a downloadable PDF version of Guidance on the management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons.
Although the document was drafted in order to develop national standards in the UK, many of the investigative and supervisory techniques are directly applicable to US investigations. Some of the issues covered in the guide are:
First officer to attend
Responsibilities of first officer attending report of a missing person
Classification of risk and response
Decision making guide
Review of risk
Missing persons process chart
Investigative issues to consider
Search and evidence gathering
Legal powers for search
General principles of searching
Scenario based searching
Full managed search
Volunteer search teams
Members of the public
Family liaison and support
Interview on return from missing
Click here to download a copy of the guide.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Wednesday, May 03, 2006