UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE

MURDERED AND MISSING INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND

GIRLS TASK FORCE
Utah State Senate
Utah House of Representatives

November 25, 2020

Senator Keith Grover, Chair
Representative Lee B. Perry, Chair
Members of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee
350 North State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

RE: Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls Task Force Annual Report, Utah Code
Section 36-29-107

Distinguished Chairs and Members,

Pursuant to Utah Code Subsection 36-29-107(9), the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women
and Girls Task Force is required to report by November 30, 2020, to the Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice Interim Committee. The report must address the following:

(b) The report shall include a summary of the task force's findings under Subsection [36-29-
107] (8) and recommendations for improvements in the criminal justice and social
service systems for preventing and addressing crimes involving missing and murdered
indigenous women and girls in Utah.

Please find the statutory report attached herein; we hope this information is helpful. Please reach
out to us with any questions and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Senator David P. Hinkins Representative Angela Romero

Co-Chair Co-Chair
Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women
and Girls Task Force and Girls Task Force

Utah State Senate Utah House of Representatives

Utah State Capitol Complex | 320 State Capitol Utah State Capitol Complex | 350 State Capitol
P.O. BOX 145115 | Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5115 P.O. BOX 145030 | Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5030
Office: (801) 538-1035 | Fax: (801) 538-1414 Office: (801) 538-1029 | Fax: (801) 538-1908
 Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women & Girls
Task Force: 2020 Annual Report

Highlights
• Due to resource constraints
and the inability to visit
various tribal jurisdictions
as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, the MMIWG
Task Force was only able to
hold two meetings
electronically during its
inaugural year.
• The MMIWG Task Force,
the Native American
Legislative Liaison
Committee, and the Law
Enforcement and Criminal
Justice Interim Committee
each voted unanimously to
favorably recommend draft
legislation for the 2021
General Session that
reinstates the MMIWG Task
Force until 2023.
Executive Summary
The Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)
Task Force was enacted by 2020 H.B. 116, Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls Task Force, and codified under Utah
Code Section 36-29-107, to provide “…recommendations for
improvements in the criminal justice and social service systems for
preventing and addressing crimes involving missing and murdered
indigenous women and girls in Utah.” The MMIWG Task Force is
statutorily required to report to the Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice Interim Committee before November 30, 2020. Per this
requirement, the MMIWG Task Force chairs have compiled the
following report, which includes MMIWG Task Force membership
and statutory tasks, an overview of the MMIWG Task Force’s
activities during its inaugural year of 2020, a summary of the
MMIWG Task Force’s preliminary findings, and legislation
recommended by the MMIWG Task Force.
Due to resource constraints and the inability to visit various tribal
jurisdictions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the MMIWG
Task Force was only able to hold two meetings electronically during
2020. Related impacts, and MMIWG Task Force recommendations
as a result of those impacts, are also covered in this report.
Membership, Duties, and Scope
Current Members
The MMIWG Task Force is a mixed task force, consisting of both
legislator and non-legislator members. Per Utah Code Subsection
36-29-107(2): There is created a Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls Task Force consisting of the
following nine members:

(a) one member of the Senate appointed by

Senator David Hinkins (cochair)
the president of the Senate;
(b) one member of the House of
Representatives appointed by the
Representative Angela Romero (cochair)
speaker of the House of
Representatives;

Utah State Legislature | Page 2 of 5

 (c) the following three members, appointed
jointly by the president of the Senate and
the speaker of the House of
Restoring Ancestral Winds (RAW) - Moroni
Representatives:
Benally, Coordinator of Advocacy and
(i) a member of a nonprofit
Public Policy
organization primarily serving
Utah's Native American
Chair Tamra (Tami) Borchardt-Slayton of
community;
the Paiute Indian Tribe
(ii) a representative of a Utah Native
American tribe; and
The Urban Indian Center - Kristina Groves,
(iii) a representative of a victim
LCSW
advocate organization serving
Utah's Native American
population;
(d) the director of the Division of Indian
UDIA Director Dustin Jansen
Affairs, or the director’s designee;
(e) the executive director of the Department
DHS Executive Director Ann Silverberg
of Human Services, or the executive
Williamson
director’s designee;
(f) the attorney general, or the attorney
general's designee; and Assistant Attorney General Daniel Strong

(g) the commissioner of public safety for the

Department of Public Safety, or the Chief Special Agent Brian Redd
commissioner's designee.

Duties and Scope

Per Utah Code Subsection 36-29-107, the MMIWG Task Force is charged with the following
statutory tasks:

(8) The task force shall:

(a) conduct appropriate consultations with tribal governments on the scope and nature
of the issues regarding missing and murdered indigenous women and girls;
(b) develop model protocols and procedures to apply to new and unsolved cases of
missing or murdered indigenous women and girls, including the best practices for:
(i) improving the way law enforcement investigators and prosecutors respond to
the high volume of the cases, and to the investigative challenges that might be
presented in cases involving female victims;
(ii) collecting and sharing data among various jurisdictions and law enforcement
agencies; and
(iii) better use of existing criminal databases;

Utah State Legislature | Page 3 of 5

 (c) seek input from multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional persons, including
representatives from tribal law enforcement and federal agencies, about how to
review cold cases involving missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; and
(d) address the need for greater clarity concerning roles, authorities, and jurisdiction
throughout the lifecycle of cases involving missing and murdered indigenous
women and girls by discussing:
(i) best practices in cases involving missing and murdered indigenous women and
girls, including best practices related to communication with affected families
from initiation of an investigation through case resolution or closure; and
(ii) education and outreach campaigns for communities that are most affected by
crime resulting in missing and murdered indigenous women and girls to identify
and reduce the crime.
(9) (a) On or before November 30, 2020, the task force shall provide a report to the Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee.
(b) The report shall include a summary of the task force's findings under
Subsection (8) and recommendations for improvements in the criminal justice and
social service systems for preventing and addressing crimes involving missing and
murdered indigenous women and girls in Utah.

MMIWG Task Force Activities

Tribal Consultation & Community Listening Session
Utah Code Subsection 36-29-107(8)(a) requires the MMIWG Task Force to “conduct
appropriate consultations with Tribal Governments on the scope and nature of the issues
regarding missing and murdered indigenous women and girls;” of the eight federally-
recognized Tribes in Utah, the MMIWG Task Force engaged in tribal consultation with one
tribe, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. 1 While the MMIWG Task Force received some live
public input during its November community listening session, 2 the MMIWG Task Force also
coordinated an inter-agency communications plan to advertise the community listening
session, 3 which included instructions on how to reach the MMIWG Task Force via email,
mail, pre-recorded phone message, and live testimony.

Data Management Study

The MMIWG Task Force chairs directed MMIWG Task Force staff to survey states with
Murdered and Missing Indigenous Persons (MMIP) initiatives in an effort to ascertain
potential best practices in data management pertaining to the MMIP crisis, whereupon staff
developed and sent a nine-question survey to 17 states. Of those 17 states, staff received
responses from nine. The survey and its findings are included in Addendum A.

1 See Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah’s Tribal Consultation Statement in Conjunction with Restoring Ancestral Winds:
https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00004270.pdf; The Paiute Chairperson is also an appointed member of the MMIWG
Task Force.
2 Public input related to the MMIWG Task Force’s community listening session may be located within the meeting minutes

of the MMIWG Task Force’s webpage: https://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2020&Com=TSKMWG.

3 See: https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00004541.pdf.

Utah State Legislature | Page 4 of 5

Recommended Legislation & Preliminary Findings
COVID-19’s Impact
Due to the resulting resource constraints and public health orders at the state, local, and
Tribal Government levels in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the MMIWG Task Force
was allowed to meet just twice during the 2020 Legislative Interim in an electronic format;
the MMIWG Task Force’s October and November meetings 4 were held at the Utah State
Capitol using the Webex videoconferencing platform. To help fulfill its statutory charge, the
MMIWG Task Force invited Tribal Leaders, Council Members, and authorized Tribal
designees to participate in “tribal consultation” during its October meeting, and urban
indigenous and Tribal members impacted by the MMIWG crisis to participate in a
“community listening session” during its November meeting. The disproportionate impact of
COVID-19 on Utah’s Tribes, 5 combined with inconsistent and intermittent broadband
infrastructure 6 on tribal lands, is likely to have contributed to the low response rate that the
MMIWG Task Force received during these two activities in its October and November
meetings.

Legislation
Because the MMIWG Task Force was only able to meet twice in an electronic format during
2020, the MMIWG Task Force members and chairs have recommended legislation
reinstating the MMIWG Task Force until 2023. 7 This legislation was also favorably
recommended 8 by the Native American Legislative Liaison Committee and the Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee. Considering community listening
sessions are the most common source for state-level MMIP task forces to collect data
pertaining to the MMIP crisis, (see page 3 of Addendum A), the MMIWG Task Force hopes
that securing more time will allow it to fulfil its statutory tasks appropriately and
comprehensively.

4 See the MMIWG Task Force’s October agenda (https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00003975.pdf) and November
agenda (https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00004424.pdf).
5 See Office of American Indian/Alaska Native Health Affairs, Utah Department of Health Update on Activities to Support

Tribal Governments and the Indian Health System (I/T/U) During the COVID-19 Crisis October 15, 2020:
https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00004169.pdf.
6 See Broadband Now research on tribal lands: https://broadbandnow.com/research/tribal-broadband.
7 See 2021 FL0617, “Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls Task Force”:

https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00004015.pdf.
8
See page 14 of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel’s November 2020 Interim Highlights, Vol. 20, No.
5: https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00004675.pdf.

Utah State Legislature | Page 5 of 5

 Addendum A: State Initiatives on the Murdered &
Missing Indigenous Persons Crisis
Data Management Practices | November 18, 2020
The Chairs of the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls Task Force of the Utah State
Legislature (MMIWG Task Force) would like to identify potential best practices in data management
pertaining to state-level Murdered and Missing Indigenous Persons (MMIP) initiatives 1. The MMIWG Task
Force Chairs directed staff to survey states with MMIP initiatives, whereupon staff developed and sent a
nine-question survey to 17 states. Of those 17 states, staff received responses from nine 2.

Survey Questions & Respondent Answers

MMIWG Task Force staff emailed nine questions to 17 states with known 3 MMIP initiatives. In most cases,
state MMIP initiative respondents (“respondents”) answered survey questions with a return email;
however, there were two cases where respondents preferred to share answers with staff over the phone.
When possible, direct quotes from emailed responses have been redacted of identifying information and
shared within this document as italicized language. Answers that have been transcribed by staff (i.e.,
answers that staff acquired through interview-style phone calls) are contained in quotes and further
denoted by listing the researcher that the respondent spoke to (i.e., [researcher 2]).

The below tables break down the nine states’ responses to the survey questions by category. To safeguard
confidentiality, names of states have also been redacted and replaced with generalized terms (e.g., “state
1”).

Question 1: How would you classify your state’s MMIP Initiative?

Task Force Committee Work Group Formal Study
State 1 X
State 2 X 4

State 3
State 4 X
State 5 X
State 6 X
State 7 X
State 8 X
State 9 X

1 “Initiative” is the general term used in this document to broadly describe a state’s efforts in responding to the MMIP crisis, such as through a

task force, committee, working group, or formal study that is state-initiated; for the purposes of this document, “initiative” does not include
Tribal initiatives or Tribal grassroots group initiatives, which are considered separate sovereign movements. The researcher acknowledges that
most, if not all, state MMIP initiatives were created as a result of the organizing efforts of separate sovereign movements.
2 The State 3 respondent did not feel comfortable answering on behalf of their state’s MMIP initiative; staff did not hear back on whether the

respondent felt comfortable facilitating a connection between others who may be able to more appropriately respond on behalf of the state’s
efforts. The researcher acknowledges certain limitations that may impact the interpretation of this report, including, but not limited to, a
relatively small sample size. The respondent rate was 53% (9 states responding /17 surveyed states).
3 Utah MMIWG Task Force staff reached out to Presidential MMIP Task Force staff, also known as Operation Lady Justice, for a list of state

contacts.
4 Legislative “study committee.”

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND GENERAL COUNSEL

 2
Question 2: What is the enabling act for your state’s initiative (if applicable)?
State Legislation/Statute State Executive Other
Order/Proclamation
State 1 X5
State 2 X
State 3
State 4 X
State 5 X
State 6 X
State 7 X
State 8 X
State 9 X

Question 3: What/Who is the presiding entity or officer of your state’s MMIP Initiative (if
applicable)?
State Law Enf/CJ/Victim State Legislature Other
Services Entity
State 1 X6
State 2 X
State 3
State 4 N/A7
State 5 X
State 6 X
State 7 X
State 8 X
State 9 X

5 Presidential Executive Order 13898 prompted State 1 to form its working group (see: https://operationladyjustice.usdoj.gov/about).
6 State 1’s MMIP initiative is facilitated by the appointed MMIP Coordinator housed within the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the state’s federal
district.
7 The respondent for State 4’s MMIP Initiative recognizes no formal entity or person leading/”in charge of” its efforts.
 3
Question 4: Who is responsible for conducting the data collection pertaining to your state
initiative’s efforts?
MMIP Initiative Academic Area Independent Law Enf/CJ/Victim
members/staff Institution Tribe(s) Research Firm Services Agency

State 1 X8
State 2 X X X X
State 3
State 4 X
State 5 X
State 6 X
State 7 X
State 8 X
State 9 X X X X

Question 5: What are the types and sources of data your initiative is collecting?
Interviews or Missing Tribal Community Other 13
Focus Groups9 and/or Crime Consultation 11 Listening
Databases 10 Sessions 12
State 1 X X X
State 2 X X X X
State 3
State 4 X
State 5 X X
State 6 X X X 14 X
State 7 X X
State 8 X X
State 9 X X X X X

8 State 1’s efforts were predominately focused on encouraging Indigenous Tribes and individuals to participate in the Presidential MMIP Task

Force’s listening sessions and tribal consultations; State 1 channeled data gleaned from its own efforts to the Presidential Task Force as well.
9 This category refers to 1:1 interviews and focus groups with Indigenous families and individuals, as well as law enforcement, criminal justice,

and victim services providers.

10 This category refers to the data already collected within the crime reporting databases and missing persons clearinghouses that are

administered by law enforcement, criminal justice, and victim services providers, whether at the federal or state level (in some cases, a state’s
initiative focused on data collected at multiple levels.).
11 Whether convened directly by the state or by the Presidential MMIP Task Force; State 1, for example, encouraged area Tribes to participate

in the Presidential MMIP Task Force’s tribal consultations, as well as its own state-level consultations. In State 1’s case, all of the state’s data
was then forwarded to the Presidential MMIP Task Force for data analysis.
12 Whether convened directly by the state or by the Presidential MMIP Task Force; State 1, for example, encouraged area Tribes to participate

in the Presidential MMIP Task Force’s listening sessions, as well as its own state-level sessions. In State 1’s case, all of the state’s data was
then forwarded to the Presidential MMIP Task Force for data analysis. Some of the states had set up the means for communities to mail,
email, or pre-record statements for listening sessions.
13 To be determined; artistic projects.
14 State 6 held separate listening sessions for law enforcement agencies and community members.
 4
Question 6: Through what mechanism does your state’s initiative conduct data collection?
Statutory or Regulatory15 Contract16 MOU17 Other 18
State 1 X
State 2 X X X
State 3
State 4 X X
State 5 X
State 6 N/A
State 7 X
State 8 N/A
State 9 X X

Question 7: Who is responsible for conducting the data analysis pertaining to your state
initiative’s efforts?
MMIP Initiative Academic Independent Law Enf/CJ/Victim
members/staff Institution Research Firm Services Agency19
State 1 X
State 2 X X
State 3
State 4 X
State 5 X
State 6 X X
State 7 X X
State 8 X
State 9 X X

15 A statewide clearinghouse has been established through statute or rule, or some other means for centralizing all reported crime and

missing persons data.

16 Contracts happen between the state initiative and a partnering entity or multiple partnering entities.
17 MOUs happen between the state initiative and a partnering entity or multiple partnering entities.
18 This category includes one situation where a respondent cited the usage of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) in their state initiative’s

efforts; and, one situation where a respondent cited access to multiple decentralized databases, whether governmental and non-
governmental, and where the researcher was unable to determine whether a formal mechanism is in place pertaining to that access.
19 This category refers to the data already collected within the crime reporting databases and missing persons clearinghouses that are

administered by law enforcement, criminal justice, and victim services providers, whether at the federal or state level (in some cases, a state’s
initiative focused on data collected at multiple levels).
 5
Question 8: Through what mechanism does your state’s initiative conduct data analysis?
Statutory or Regulatory20 Contract21 MOU22 Other
State 1 X
State 2 X X
State 3
State 4 No response
State 5 No response
State 6 X
State 7 N/A
State 8 N/A
State 9 X X

Question 9 23: Do you have any suggestions for a new task force getting off the ground
based on your experience regarding data collection and analysis?
State 1: The Operation Lady Justice Data Analysis working group 24 is just getting started. If there are
specific question [sic] regarding data that you would like access to, please forward those to Brian
Speelman, as he his [sic] can carry your data needs directly to the working group. I would also
encourage you to talk to your law enforcement partners and tribal partners to look at your existing
clearinghouse data and talk about what it represents to them. (For example: % of runaway and
recovered, % of halfway house and other facility escape and recovered. . . . )
State 2: Make sure you have someone on your taskforce who already has deep relationships with your
Tribal governments – this will allow you to move faster through the approval process. We worked very
hard to be transparent and open with the Tribes to ensure they knew that we were honoring their
culture, customs, and practices around the deceased. The research teams presented the project to
each Tribal Council and got permission and signed MOUs prior to interviewing their people. We have
been extremely cautious and have guarded the names of the families that came forward to tell their
stories. All data in our report in anonymized.
States 3 & 4: No response
State 5: The task force has a representation [sic] from all XX tribes here in XX, so they have pretty
significant input into the design and process. That additional layer of tribal consultation has been
helpful as well to get through some of the nuances specific to each tribe here as well. They have also
been conscious about framing this work with both a victim centered, community centered, and Native
lens.
State 6: We did not approach the community listening sessions as a research/data collection project.
We decided that providing a safe atmosphere in which people could give their feedback on their
experiences would be best. We requested that each Tribal representative from the Task Force help

20 A statewide clearinghouse has been established through statute or rule, or some other means for centralizing all reported crime and
missing persons data.
21 Contracts happen between the state initiative and a partnering entity or multiple partnering entities.
22 MOUs happen between the state initiative and a partnering entity or multiple partnering entities.
23 Question 9 is an open-ended question; where applicable, respondents’ direct quotes have been redacted of identifying information and

shared in this document; States 3 and 4 did not respond to this question; States 7 and 8 were transcribed by Researcher 2 and
redacted/shared within this document by Researcher 1 (document author).
24 This is a reference to the Presidential MMIP Task Force; see footnote 3.
 6
facilitate the listening session in their communities which helped foster some buy-in by community
members. COVID has prevented the final three sessions and we feel virtual listening sessions would not
be adequate. We hope to hold in-person listening sessions at some point at the remaining communities
and then return to those we’ve been to for more conversations. We held separate meetings with law
enforcement so that they were able to give positive and critical feedback on their community
experience.
State 7: [researcher 2] “XX stated that the XX report was criticized for not including enough urban
indigenous people in their report, so the XX report tried to incorporate that critique. XX wanted to try and
identify if certain areas were facing their own unique problems and what problems were seen across the
state. This was unfortunately not able to be done due to COVID making the task force stop its meetings.
Engagement from the participants can be a little hard. . . . Make sure to have questions to get the ball
rolling. . . . Some indigenous tribes may not have access to NCIC which can lead to a lack of reporting
from tribes.”
State 8: [researcher 2] “The task force that XX had was not really a task force according to XX, who
[researcher 2] spoke to. The group was not able to visit all of the reservations that XX had; furthermore,
there was some criticism that XX had read regarding the XX group. The criticism was that XX did not
include urban indigenous people in their study enough. XX stated that they reached out to reservations
about the listening sessions and that is where the listening sessions were held. XX stated that it is
important to include all of the reservations that Utah has in the [Utah] study. Some of the things that XX
said that were important to do were to contact the tribal law enforcement first, get ahead of
rumors/news, and to be careful with language.”
State 9: Since getting the TF up and running, I have had a XX Social Work MS student conduct a thesis
on the issue, and she was an invaluable resource! She was able to track down quite a few resources. . .
but she also identified a key barrier to our TF. Because we are XX and housed within a “colonial
government” agency, we are really hindered (and in some cases out-right prohibited) from collaborating
with existing Tribal organizations. I only mention this because to ignore that reality would be naïve. All
that aside, we have been very fortunate to have the buy-in and support of XX tribes’ XX and have been
supported throughout this first year.

Analysis
The following section displays state respondents’ answers in chart format in an effort to enhance visual
interpretation for the reader; each chart is followed by the researcher’s general statement of inference
based on the researcher’s initial interpretation of that chart. This section is intended to facilitate
discussion amongst the members of the Utah Legislative Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and
Girls Task Force. States that did not respond to a particular question (or to any question, as is the case for
State 3) were excluded from the analysis charts.
 7
Question 1
5

0
Task Force Committee Work Group Formal Study
State 1 State 2 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9

Most of the responding states’ MMIP initiatives are classified as task forces; the “formal study”
classification is the second most common classification.

Question 2
7

0
State Legislation/Statute State Executive Other
Order/Proclamation
State 1 State 2 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9
Most of the responding states’ MMIP initiatives were created through state legislative action.
 8
Question 3
6

0
State Law Enf/CJ/Victim State Legislature Other or N/A
Services Entity
State 1 State 2 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9

Most of the responding states’ MMIP initiatives are housed within a state law enforcement,
criminal justice, or victim services entity.

Question 4
7

0
MMIP Initiative Academic Area Tribe(s) Independent Law Enf/CJ/Victim
members/staff Institution Research Firm Services Agency
State 1 State 2 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9

Most of the responding states’ MMIP initiatives have the members and/or staffers of that state’s
initiative conduct the data collection pertaining to the initiative’s efforts, though state initiatives
also partner with other entities for data collection.
 9
Question 5
7

0
Interviews or Missing and/or Tribal Community Other
Focus Groups Crime Databases Consultation Listening Sessions
State 1 State 2 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9

The responding states’ MMIP initiatives collect multiple types of data in multiple ways.

Question 6
5

0
Statutory or Contract MOU Other or N/A
Regulatory
State 1 State 2 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9

The responding states’ MMIP initiatives utilize a variety of mechanisms to facilitate the collection
of data, including statutorily-enacted and/or regulated centralized databases (such as
clearinghouses), contracts and MOUs with data collection partners, and intergovernmental
agreements.
 10
Question 7
5

0
MMIP Initiative Academic Institution Independent Research Law Enf/CJ/Victim
members/staff Firm Services Agency
State 1 State 2 State 4 State 5 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9
Responding states’ MMIP initiatives are mixed in their approaches to conducting the data analysis
pertaining to their initiative’s efforts, ranging from partnerships with academic institutions and
independent research firms for the data analysis, utilizing data already stored in crime reporting
databases and/or missing persons clearinghouses for the analysis, to MMIP initiative
members/staffers analyzing the data themselves.

Question 8
4

0
Statutory or Contract MOU Other or N/A
Regulatory
State 1 State 2 State 6 State 7 State 8 State 9
Responding states’ MMIP initiatives utilize a variety of mechanisms to facilitate the analysis of
data, including statutorily-enacted and/or regulated centralized databases (such as
clearinghouses), and contracts and MOUs with data analysis partners.