Unlike NCIC, any member of the public may register to use NamUs and  access published case information. NCIC data include criminal justice agency information and access to such  data is restricted by law to only authorized users. Because many users of  NamUs are not authorized to access NCIC, there are no direct links or  data transfers between the systems. As a result, while both NCIC and NamUs contain information on  long-term missing and unidentified persons, they remain separate  systems. Opportunities Exist to More Efficiently Share Missing and Unidentified Persons Information in NCIC and NamUs

DOJ could facilitate more efficient sharing of information on missing and  unidentified persons cases contained in NCIC and NamUs. Further, three key characteristics of NCIC and NamUs—the  systems’ records, registered users, and data validation efforts—are  fragmented or overlapping, creating the risk of duplication. Database Records: NCIC and NamUs contain fragmented information  associated with long-term missing and unidentified persons. NamUs also accepts and maintains records of missing and  unidentified persons cases that are not published on its public  website, in part because they may not meet criteria for entry into  NCIC. Further, the NCIC user base is significantly larger than the NamUs  user base, which likely contributes to the discrepancies in the number  of long-term missing persons cases reported to each system. Additionally, members of the public who do not have access  to NCIC and are not affiliated with any type of agency can report  missing persons cases to NamUs. NamUs also has some ad hoc processes in place,  beyond routine RSA responsibilities, designed to help ensure that  data in selected states on missing and unidentified persons contained  in NCIC are captured by NamUs. However, while intended in part to  minimize fragmentation, these processes introduce additional  inefficiencies caused by overlapping and potentially duplicative  activities. Implementing  mechanisms to share information without fully integrating the systems  could help improve the efficiency of efforts to solve long-term missing  and unidentified persons cases using NCIC and NamUs. Conclusions

Every year, more than 600,000 people are reported missing, and  hundreds of sets of human remains go unidentified. Although  there are statutory differences between the systems, there are potential  options for sharing information—such as a notification to inform NCIC  users if related case data were present in NamUs —that could reduce  inefficiencies between NCIC and NamUs within the existing legal  framework. Recommendation for Executive Action

To allow for more efficient use of data on missing and unidentified  persons contained in the NCIC’s Missing Persons and Unidentified  Persons files and NamUs, the Directors of the FBI and NIJ should  evaluate the feasibility of sharing certain information among authorized  users, document the results of this evaluation, and incorporate, as  appropriate, legally and technically feasible options for sharing the  information. However, this statutory restriction does not preclude  DOJ from exploring options to more efficiently share information within  the confines of the current legal framework. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In response to Senate Report 113-181 (accompanying the Consolidated  and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015) this report addresses  the following objectives:  1. To describe the access to and use of missing and unidentified persons  information contained in NCIC and NamUs, we reviewed and compared  NCIC and NamUs operating and policy manuals and data entry guides. We reviewed laws, policies, and information associated with reporting and  sharing information on missing and unidentified persons, to include  information about the types of users that can access or enter information  into each system within three categories: (1) LEA, (2) non-LEA criminal  justice agency (CJA)—such as a court; and (3) medicolegal investigator— such as a coroner. Appendix II: Comparison of Fragmentation and Overlap in Key Characteristics of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

Appendix II: Comparison of Fragmentation and  Overlap in Key Characteristics of the National  Crime Information Center (NCIC) and National  Missing and Unidentified Persons System  (NamUs)
Purpose  Both systems contain  data designed to be  used to solve long- term missing and  unidentified persons  cases. Specifically, in  fiscal year 2015, 3,170  missing persons cases  were reported to NamUs,  while 84,401 long-term  cases were reported to  NCIC during the same  time period.
Why GAO Did This Study

Every year, more than 600,000 people are reported missing, and hundreds of human remains go unidentified. Two primary federal databases supported by DOJ—NCIC and NamUs—contain data related to missing and unidentified persons to help solve these cases. NCIC contains criminal justice information accessed by authorized agencies to assist with daily investigations. NamUs information can be used by law enforcement, medical examiners, coroners, and the general public to help with long-term missing and unidentified persons cases.
Senate Report 113-181 (accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015) includes a provision for GAO to review NCIC and NamUs. This report describes the access to and use of missing and unidentified persons information contained in NCIC and NamUs, and the extent to which there are opportunities to improve the use of this information. GAO reviewed NCIC and NamUs data, and relevant state and federal statutes. GAO also conducted nongeneralizeable interviews with stakeholders in three states, selected in part on state laws.

What GAO Found

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database includes criminal justice agency information and access to such data is restricted to authorized users. In contrast, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funds and oversees the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs), a database for which the public may register to access published case information. Because many users of NamUs are not authorized to access NCIC, there are no direct links between the systems. As a result, while both NCIC and NamUs contain information on long-term missing and unidentified persons, they remain separate systems.
DOJ could facilitate more efficient sharing of information on missing persons and unidentified remains (referred to as missing and unidentified persons cases) contained in these systems. GAO found, in part, that the following three key characteristics of NCIC and NamUs are fragmented or overlapping, creating the risk of duplication.
Database Records: NCIC and NamUs contain fragmented information associated with long-term missing and unidentified persons (cases open for more than 30 days). For example, in fiscal year 2015, 3,170 long-term missing persons cases were reported to NamUs while 84,401 missing persons records reported to NCIC became long-term cases. NamUs also accepts and maintains records of missing and unidentified persons cases that may not be found in NCIC because, for example, they have not yet been filed with law enforcement. As a result, users relying on only one system may miss information that could be instrumental in solving these types of cases.
Registered Users: The NCIC user base is significantly larger than the NamUs user base, and the types of users vary, which may contribute to the discrepancies in each system's data. For instance, almost all law enforcement agencies use NCIC, with only a small fraction registered to use NamUs. Additionally, members of the public do not have access to NCIC, but can report missing persons cases to NamUs.
Data Validation Efforts: In part to minimize fragmentation, NamUs uses a case validation process and other ad hoc efforts to help ensure that data on missing and unidentified persons contained in NCIC is captured by NamUs. However, these processes introduce additional inefficiencies because they require officials to manually review and enter case data into both systems, resulting in duplicative data entry.
Inefficiencies exist in the use of information on missing and unidentified persons primarily because there is no mechanism to share information between the systems, such as a notifier to inform NCIC users if related case data were present in NamUs. According to FBI officials, federal law precludes full integration of NCIC and NamUs; however, opportunities to share information may exist within the legal framework to address fragmentation and overlap without full system integration. By evaluating the technical and legal feasibility of options to share information, documenting the results, and implementing feasible options, DOJ could better inform those who are helping solve missing and unidentified persons cases and increase the efficiency of solving such cases.

What GAO Recommends

To allow for more efficient use of missing and unidentified persons information, GAO recommends that DOJ evaluate options to share information between NCIC and NamUs. DOJ disagreed because it believes it lacks the necessary legal authority. GAO believes DOJ can study options for sharing information within the confines of its legal framework, and therefore believes the recommendation remains valid.