SpotCrime's testimony on Kansas FOIA law changes
SpotCrime has been asked to submit testimony on an upcoming Kansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) hearing that will be discussing changes to the current FOIA laws, bringing transparency in Kansas into the 21st century. You can read the testimony we submitted below.
This is not our first time providing testimony on access to public information. In 2014, we were asked to provide oral and written testimony on the Maryland Open Data Bill (SB644).
The data SpotCrime collects is public information, so if a police agency is not already openly releasing the data publicly to their website or they don't have some sort of public blotter, we are sometimes directed to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the information.
This has allowed SpotCrime to provide an invaluable case study on how transparency and public access laws are being applied at the the local level. We've found that after we submit the same request to local jurisdictions, each police agency has a different way, different format, and different ideology interpreting the state FOIA law.
We are always happy to submit testimony and share our experience when it comes to transparency with crime data. In our opinion, the approach of requiring a FOIA is not optimal transparency, and we encourage agencies to use a proactive transparency approach instead.
FOIA requests are transparency in the aspect that SpotCrime (or the specific requester) is able to access the information, however, it doesn't make it any easier for the public to obtain the same raw data files for themselves. Sometimes agencies take weeks, months, or even years to respond to a single request.
The files SpotCrime requests is a great step toward open data. So we do ask that if an agency makes a data file available to SpotCrime, they also make it available to their public in an open and unrestricted format as well.
Interested in getting crime data from an agency, but the only place you can find it is only on SpotCrime? Try submitting a FOIA for 'the same data file SpotCrime receives from the department'. And let us know what kind of response you get!
If you are looking for a case study to present to your state FOIA legislation, feel free to reach out to us! We will be happy to provide insight.
This is not our first time providing testimony on access to public information. In 2014, we were asked to provide oral and written testimony on the Maryland Open Data Bill (SB644).
The data SpotCrime collects is public information, so if a police agency is not already openly releasing the data publicly to their website or they don't have some sort of public blotter, we are sometimes directed to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the information.
This has allowed SpotCrime to provide an invaluable case study on how transparency and public access laws are being applied at the the local level. We've found that after we submit the same request to local jurisdictions, each police agency has a different way, different format, and different ideology interpreting the state FOIA law.
We are always happy to submit testimony and share our experience when it comes to transparency with crime data. In our opinion, the approach of requiring a FOIA is not optimal transparency, and we encourage agencies to use a proactive transparency approach instead.
FOIA requests are transparency in the aspect that SpotCrime (or the specific requester) is able to access the information, however, it doesn't make it any easier for the public to obtain the same raw data files for themselves. Sometimes agencies take weeks, months, or even years to respond to a single request.
The files SpotCrime requests is a great step toward open data. So we do ask that if an agency makes a data file available to SpotCrime, they also make it available to their public in an open and unrestricted format as well.
Interested in getting crime data from an agency, but the only place you can find it is only on SpotCrime? Try submitting a FOIA for 'the same data file SpotCrime receives from the department'. And let us know what kind of response you get!
If you are looking for a case study to present to your state FOIA legislation, feel free to reach out to us! We will be happy to provide insight.
SPOTCRIME WRITTEN TESTIMONY - KANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - NOVEMBER 2019
I am with SpotCrime a public facing crime mapping and alert website founded in 2007. We collect and map public crime information and deliver crime alerts for free to the public and police agencies.
We are not a vendor, and instead are an independent news agency that deals solely with crime information. We have never received or accepted funds from any government agency. We are set to deliver 300 million crime alerts to the public this year alone.
In addition to mapping and alerts, SpotCrime advocates for open, equal, and fair access to crime information. The data we collect and re-share is typically called a ‘crime blotter’ or ‘call log’. It has been a staple of modern day policing with a strong focus on supporting community policing. This type of data is being released to the public and in open format by hundreds agencies not only across the US, but in countries like Canada, Mexico, UK, and Australia.
In addition to SpotCrime, I am a military spouse. Transparency is of twofold importance to me. I move across state lines every 2-3 years. Access to this kind of crime information for military service members and their families is imperative to keeping military families safe at home, especially while our service members are deployed abroad. However, the availability of this information varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Police jurisdictions in Kansas have proven to be some of the most difficult to access public crime data.
I believe this is because of the shortfalls of the current Kansas Freedom of Information law. There are loopholes in the current KS open records law that has led to police agencies to disregard transparency and openness, leaving residents in the dark.
I believe this is because of the shortfalls of the current Kansas Freedom of Information law. There are loopholes in the current KS open records law that has led to police agencies to disregard transparency and openness, leaving residents in the dark.
There are police agencies who deem it ok to hinder access to electronically available information.
There are police agencies who are over charging for records.
Finally, there are agencies claiming to champion transparency by outsourcing their public data to private vendors who hold misaligned interests to the public. Private vendors have a monetary incentive to monopolize and silo public information, selling it to industry at a premium while crippling transparency, stifling innovation, and eroding the police community trust quotient.
This current way of operating is not transparent. It does not benefit the communities police are supposed to be serving. It does nothing to help residents become aware of crime in their area. It does not allow the public to take the proper precautions to protect themselves from becoming a victim.
Here are examples of issues we’ve run into when attempting to collect crime data from local Kansas jurisdictions:
Issue 1: There is no specific language in regards to access to electronically available records.
Example: Overland Park, Prairie Village, Emporia
Overland Park and Prairie Village were once transparently publishing crime data to their website. When they experienced an RMS/CAD ‘upgrade’, it upgraded the agency out of transparency. Both agencies have been left with no way to deliver crime data to their public.
Emporia still only physically prints out the crime blotter from an electronic database and requires the public to physically come in to the department to view the blotter. This is a failure on both the police agency and the vendor hired to maintain this database.
Solution: Public right to access to electronically available records (see 5 USC 552, O.C.G.A. §50-18-70 et seq, Fla. Stat. sec. 119.01 et. seq, and TX Govt Code 502 for working examples)
As each agency increases its use of and dependence on electronic record keeping, each agency must provide reasonable public access to records electronically maintained. Agencies should strive to make information available through electronic means wherever practicable, including under the FOIA; public access to agency records and information should be enhanced through electronic means.
If the data is maintained in an electronic database, it shall be made available electronically in machine readable format.
Agencies should make use of electronic information technology in order to most efficiently administer their responsibilities.
Issue 2: No specific language in regards to fees for electronically available files.
Example: Leavenworth
When asked by SpotCrime how they came to the conclusion that an excel file was 149 pages long, Leavenworth stated ‘Per the training, conferences and meetings I have attended held by the League of Kansas Municipalities they have instructed cities that we are allowed to charge per page even on the number of electronic pages’. This is absurd when it comes to electronically available information.
Leavenworth was not printing anything out on paper. They were emailing the files over in excel format. Excel files are not a specific number of pages. The Leavenworth PD, working in accordance with the League of Kansas Municipalities, arbitrarily set a number of pages to an excel file specifically to generate revenue off of the request.
I’m not sure how much revenue this kind of behavior generates, but there is no return on investment on community trust and relationships when these kinds of fees are placed upon the public. A small town in Missouri began looking at its residents as a revenue generator - writing unreasonable amount of tickets, fining them when the tickets went unpaid, placing residents into debt. That town is Ferguson Missouri.
Solution: Stronger definition of fees (see O.C.G.A. §50-18-70 et seq, Fla. Stat. sec. 119.01 et. seq, and TX Govt Code 502 for working examples).
For any records or information made available under the FOIA in the form of electronic products or through electronic services, applicable fees should neither exceed nor be less than the direct costs of providing those products or services.
Agencies shall utilize the most economical means available for producing and providing public records.
Cost for electronically available files will not be determined by a ‘per page’ assessment.
There should be no fee for review of records that take less than a quarter hour to provide. The time it takes for a computer program to find records should not be included in the time it takes to prepare the record.
Inputting range, filter, search information is not “programming” or “creating new record” if using existing programs used by an agency (which most RMS and CAD systems already provide).
Issue 3: Vendor restricted access to public information
Example: Kansas City
Kansas City Police contracted with a crime mapping vendor. When the public requested the same or similar crime data being delivered to the vendor, KCK PD began directing requesters to the vendor’s website to collect the information. Essentially, KCKPD began using the vendor as a way to respond to FOIA requests. However, the vendor was a bad player. The vendor placed a terms of use on the data, preventing the public and press from copying down the data and resharing it. The vendors’ interest to monopolize access to public data in order to sell to industry at a premium misaligns with the interests of the public and transparency laws.
Solution: Access to public info, automation of records, procurement (see Fla. Stat. sec. 119.01 et. seq for working examples)
Agency use of proprietary software must not diminish the right of the public to inspect and copy a public record Automation of public records must not erode the right of access to those records.
Agency may put records on website, but that should not override request for underlying data.
An agency may not enter into a contract for the creation or maintenance of a public records database if that contract impairs the ability of the public to inspect or copy the public records of the agency, including public records that are online or stored in an electronic record keeping system used by the agency. If agency contracts with private vendor, the arrangement shall not impede public record access.
Transparency with crime data creates accountability and trust between agencies and residents. There are studies that show that a more informed public results in a lower crime rate noting a ‘significant reduction in crime’, on average a 16% decrease in communities with neighborhood watch groups. We’ve found in a few cases one SpotCrime alert is forwarded on to 300+ community watch members.
There are also economic incentives to the public and private sector for a stronger transparency law in Kansas.
The private sector including hobbyists, developers, residents, and businesses like SpotCrime will use this information as a building block for their products and create new forms of viewing, sharing, and consuming the information. Open data encourages competition between businesses by removing the proprietary hold some crime mapping vendors currently hold on public information.
For government agencies, stronger transparency will result in a reduction in long term technology costs. The future functionality of technology purchased will be more flexible and portable if it is required by law to allow public data to be easily pulled from the system. This will also will also direct new technology purchases that will lower future costs for the agencies and the public. It will require vendors to be more compliant for 21st century technology and policing.
A current example of this is the reduction of costs of public crime mapping. Because of competition, inexpensive technology, and easier access to data, proprietary crime mapping services now offer crime mapping services for free to police agencies.
These proposed changes will also make it easier and faster for government to respond to requests from the public, significantly reducing overhead costs to comply with the law. Hundreds of police agencies across the country are moving to open data and transparently sharing of crime data because of the benefits not only to policing, but to the relationship with the community police serve.
I would like to leave you with examples of local police jurisdictions in Kansas who are transparent and open with crime data. This data is displayed electronically, is up-to-date, is provided to the public free of charge, and is allowed to be collected, used, and reshared without restrictions.
Garden City, KS: http://p2c.gcpolice.org/dailybulletin.aspx
Thank you for your time and allowing me to submit testimony on the changes to the Kansas open records law. I hope my you find my insight helpful.
Sincerely,
Brittany Suszan, Vice President
Comments