Do you still view intelligence as clandestine, gathered from confidential informants, hidden in dossiers in investigator's files? Maybe it's time to change your perspective. Secrecy and silo-ing of information are past practices. Intelligence is the future and not just sensitive knowledge — it is the knowledge derived from careful analysis of the total information-rich environment of policing.
Using the information already existing in policing systems, such as 911 calls for service, crime reports, arrest records, citizens' complaints and field contact reports, combined with maps of crimes, calls, and contacts, orthophotography, is a start. Add other government records, demographics, surveys of the environment, as well as institutional knowledge of people and places, and policing efforts could be extremely well-informed without infringing on citizens' rights. This type of information is generally not called intelligence in U.S. policing. Its use is not yet systematic and integrated as a function in law enforcement.
Law enforcement struggles unknowingly with the concept of intelligence as we gradually move toward the model of 'intelligence-led policing.' The 'intelligence' in the term 'intelligence-led policing' is based on quality analysis of crime events, criminals, criminal organizations, and any other relevant information. Crime analysis and intelligence analysis are central to this process. The free Police Foundation report (sponsored by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services) 'Integrated Intelligence and Crime Analysis: Enhanced Information Analysis for Law Enforcement Leaders' explains this in greater depth.
So, what exactly is intelligence-led policing (ILP)? Jerry Ratcliffe's new book, Intelligence-Led Policing, is the first text dedicated fully this subject. Dr. Ratcliffe, a former Metropolitan London police officer, is a professor at Temple University and has spent years of research on the topic of ILP.
Ratcliffe defines ILP as follows:
Intelligence-led policing is a business model and managerial philosophy where data analysis and crime intelligence are pivotal to an objective, decision-making framework that facilitates crime and problem reduction, disruption and prevention through both strategic management and effective enforcement strategies that target prolific and serious offenders.
ILP combines crime analysis and intelligence analysis to help police managers make the best possible decisions. Ratcliffe calls this "crime intelligence" and does not separate the two types of processes. In fact, it is only in policing in the United States that such a distinction is made, possibly due to the fact we have levels of multiple police agencies with specified roles and missions.
What are some examples of good decision-making influenced by ILP? Targeting prolific offenders, the six percent who commit over 60% of the criminal acts is one broad example. Measuring whether specific police interventions have made an impact on the criminal environment and learning from successes and failures is another.
In an interview, Ratcliffe stressed that ILP depends on an information culture that is absent in the current state of policing in the U.S. In many agencies there is no decision-making system in place for analysts to "feed" their information into — no objective decision-making framework. Without a systematic use of the products produced by quality analysis, there can be no ILP.
You only have to look at the military to realize what a decision-making framework looks like and how it is underdeveloped in policing. No good military commander would go into battle without getting every available piece of information and intelligence before making decision — tactical and strategic decisions — before committing resources. Many police managers do not yet see the value of intelligence that includes both crime and intelligence analysis — they base decision-making on hunches, tradition, and community pressures. Strategic decision-making falls by the wayside as police managers are faced with a constant state of reacting to crises.
Perhaps, Ratcliffe suggests, another obstacle to ILP is that law enforcement agencies are not certain of what intelligence they can share. Awareness of 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 23, the guidelines that govern intelligence databases that receive certain federal funds, can improve that situation. Ratcliffe recommends that law enforcement agencies get the advice of their legal counsel regarding this code to better understand the rules of handling intelligence.
Russ Porter, Intelligence Bureau Chief of the State of Iowa, states, in Ratcliffe's book, that protection of privacy and civil liberties is paramount in developing ILP and calls for increased training in this area .He views ILP as a promising policing and security strategy.
The New Jersey State Police are emerging as leaders in implementing ILP. Their New Jersey State Police Practical Guide to Intelligence-Led Policingdescribes ILP as a fundamental, evolving process and their free guide strives to define the concepts of ILP to facilitate its implementation.
In Ratcliffe's book, Colonel Rick Fuentes, General Chair of the State and Provincial Division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, says that the New Jersey State Police had to move away from traditional investigative practices and techniques to implement ILP. Now all information, including gang surveys, informant information and intelligence is routed to analysis and analysts are integrated into the heart of NJSP decision-making processes.
In many agencies, the lack of clarity about using analyzed crime intelligence as a resource is an obstacle to progress. The criminals use information in new ways — we need to do adapt more quickly than they do. We operate with past practices that are not going to address future needs and opportunities. Knowledge is the future. Analysis is at its center.