NIJ Review

NIJ Review

Voice Response Translator

Report

Roger Miller

Tactical/Technical Trainer

North Carolina Justice Academy

[email protected] / (828) 685-3600 ext. 211

mailto:[email protected]


Background

Developed by Integrated Wave Technologies (IWT)

Based on funding originating in 1996 from NIJ

Originally tested by the Oakland Police Dept.

Final grant ended (2004-IJ-CX-K042) in 2006


Description

Uses a unique voice recognition algorithm that is able to recognize an officer’s voice with near 100% accuracy even in high background noise environments

On voice command, produces pre-programmed phrases in various languages

Designed for use in both hostile and non-hostile encounters with non-English speaking persons.


Application

VRT was developed to meet the need of law enforcement and corrections to have an effective audio translation capability

Officers identify the language spoken by a person

Issues emergency commands to the person

Makes inquiries to which a person could respond with head and hand movements.


Costs$3,200.00 a unit5 yr replacement

warrantyFuture upgradesUnlimited on-site

training

IncludesModule w/ megaphonePower chargersBlackhawk duffel bagModule carrying caseTraining discLaminate voice chart


NIJ/IWT partnership with the North Carolina Justice Academy

Three units provided by IWT for evaluation starting December 2006

Purpose

Test the accuracy and reliability of the VRT

Examine the ability for law enforcement and corrections officials to easily use the unit in the day-to-day performance of their duties


Strategy

Determined that three different sized agencies would present the best avenue for evaluation (all volunteers)

Initial sites included

Laurel Park PD (small)

Raleigh Durham Airport Police (medium)

Fayetteville PD (large)

Evaluation period 30 – 45 days


Results of deployment

Smaller agency

Minimal use of the device, even though they have a large population of non-English speaking residents

Agency has a multi-language speaking officer on staff

Inability to deploy the unit due to lack of manpower availability (person having unit was not able to respond to scene)


Results of deployment (cont.)Medium/large sized agencies

Unit was actively deployed in situations involving suspected criminal activity

Alarm calls, vehicle stops, cultural gatherings, public service events, property collection, securing of equipment

Languages used included Spanish, Dari Farsi, Kurdish, Mandarin, Korean and Vietnamese.


Findings

Officers were surprised at how efficient the unit was in loud noise environments

Several officers felt that it was the next best thing to an interpreter

Officers were comforted by knowing they had an outlet to continue their interaction with subjects when no other interpreter options existed


Findings

Two of the units had a unique ‘bug’ or malfunction where the unit wouldn’t power off.

This was resolved by plugging the unit into the power charger and cycling it off/on.

This was replicated more than once (four times total on two different units)


FindingsMost officers agreed that the unit was best

used during times of minimal safety risks.

Attention was diverted on how to properly use the device versus focusing on their suspect / complainant

This can be credited to their lack of familiarity with the VRT

Interviews with officers indicated that in most cases they waited until the last minute to ‘train’ the VRT


Findings

Most officers felt that the VRT took too long to program

Per officers, it took approximately 45 minutes to set it up for one officer

Difficulty getting the unit to recognize voice pattern to change to the desired language


Findings

Reliability in relaying the correct commanded phrase

Officer would say “under arrest” and “Spread legs” phrase would initiate

Officer would have to continually repeat phrases to get an appropriate response

This frustrated officers and led to the unit not being used due to time, and an interpreting being called instead.


Evaluations

All feedback from the unit was gathered through:

Interviews conducted by NCJA with officers

Daily Participant VRT Log (developed by IWT)


Duty Description (traffic, patrol, etc…)

Day of work week

Type of situation/event and language used

Was response to VRT positive, negative, indifferent

Description of environment

Any situation / events and language if the VRT could have been used but wasn’t

Problems with unit

Daily Participant VRT Log(Developed by IWT)


Lessons learned

Based on the first phase of evaluations, the following changes will be made:

When VRT is given to the agency, they will appoint a specific “head trainer” who will be responsible for the unit

Directed to individually train each of the people selected to use the unit

Watch the DVD-ROM provided

Conduct a practical exercise to ensure proper understanding of the equipment


Lessons learned

Instead of varying the amount of people who will use the VRT, specifically train up to eight total officers to use the unit during the 30 day evaluation period.

This can be accomplished by the “head trainer” or when NCJA delivers the unit, the selected individuals and “head trainer” are all present to learn and populate the unit at the same time


Next Step

The second phase will incorporate evaluations from law enforcement and correctional settings.

Agencies to be used include:

Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department

Mecklenburg County Detention Facility

Hendersonville Police Department


Questions?

National Institute of Justicehttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

Integrated Wave Technologieshttp://www.i-w-t.com/

North Carolina Justice Academyhttp://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/

Roger D. MillerTactical/Technical TrainerNorth Carolina Justice Academy

[email protected](828)685-3600 ext. 211

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

http://www.i-w-t.com/

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/

mailto:[email protected]

NIJ Review

Documents

Transcript of NIJ Review