Intelligence-led policing
Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is a policing model that has emerged in recent years which is “built around risk assessment and risk management.”[1]
Although there is no universally accepted understanding of what intelligence-led policing entails,[2] the leading definition is that ILP is “a strategic, future-oriented and targeted approach to crime control, focusing upon the identification, analysis and ‘management’ of persisting and developing ‘problems’ or ‘risks.’"[1] In simpler terms, “it is a model of policing in which intelligence serves as a guide to operations, rather than the reverse.[3]
Calls for intelligence-led policing originated in the 1990s, both in Britain and in the United States. In the U.S. Mark Riebling's 1994 book Wedge - The Secret War between the FBI and CIA spotlighted the conflict between law enforcement and intelligence, and urged cops to become "more like spies." Intelligence-led policing gained considerable momentum globally following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. It is now advocated by the leading police associations in North America and the UK.[2]
Although claimed as a policing framework that builds on earlier paradigms, including community policing, problem-oriented policing, and continuous improvement or partnership models of policing, [2] it originated as a rejection of the reactive, crime focus of community policing with calls for police to spend more time employing informants and surveillance to combat recidivist offenders.[4]
Recently, intelligence-led policing has undergone a 'revisionist' [5] expansion to allow incorporation of reassurance and neighbourhood policing.[6]
Contents |
[edit] United Kingdom
Intelligence-led policing in the UK has been applied as a specialized police practice involving the identification and targeting of high-rate, chronic offenders and devising strategic interventions based on that intelligence.[2] ILP originated as a problem-oriented strategy in the Kent and Northumbria Constabularies in combating motor vehicle theft and other property crime.
Kent prioritized its calls for service, placing less priority on minor service calls and referring them to other agencies, which in turn provided police with more time to focus on the property crimes.[7] Rather than reactively responding to individual incidents, a systematic analysis was conducted of offenses that identified a pattern showing that a small number of offenders were responsible for a disproportionately large number of motor vehicle thefts in the area.
Also identified were repeat victims and problem areas. Using this knowledge to formulate a response, police could soon boast a significant drop in the automobile theft rate.[2] Since 2000, ILP has been enshrined in Britain as the philosophy underpinning the National Intelligence Model.
[edit] United States
The post-9/11 environment in the US, the "era of Homeland Security" for American policing,[8] has increased demands for law enforcement to build global partnerships and to work more closely with local agencies to expand the capacity of the state to fight both crime and terrorism. Given the belief that 9/11 and other terrorist attacks could have been prevented if not for intelligence failures, a key difference with intelligence-led policing from earlier strategies is that intelligence is no longer considered a specialized function for crime analysts or intelligence units.
Investigations following bombings of the rail systems in Madrid and London and the arrest of suspected terrorists in Canada, Britain, and Florida suggested that intelligence culled from a variety of sources and through strengthened inter-agency cooperation may be the key to identifying suspects and successfully intervening to prevent attacks.[2]
On March 16, 2005, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff outlined a risk-based approach to homeland security threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences when he said,
"Risk management must guide our decision-making as we examine how we can best organize to prevent, respond, and recover from an attack . . . . Our strategy is, in essence, to manage risk in terms of these three variables – threat, vulnerability, consequence. We seek to prioritize according to these variables, to fashion a series of preventive and protective steps that increase security at multiple levels."[9]
In 2006 Mark Riebling of the Center for Policing Terrorism published a doctrine on Intelligence-Led Policing. Riebling's model leverages both Israeli counter-terrorist tactics, and the NYPD's Broken Windows policing theories. Among the Broken-Windows mechanisms, Riebling's doctrine blends problem solving, environmental design, community policing, and public-private partnerships. Analyzing the operations of the Israeli National Police in Tel Aviv, Riebling notes approvingly that "investigation of the incident, even a traffic accident, is secondary to the number one goal—which is gathering intelligence. "For instance, when they raided a bordello, where the patrons were primarily Arabs from different parts of the region, Israeli police were less concerned about the criminal activity, than with preparing intelligence reports on who these people were, and how they got into Israel."[10]
In its current conceptualization, intelligence-led policing is envisioned as a tool for information sharing both within law enforcement agencies and between all participants in the community, private sector, intelligence community, and public government. The concept aids law enforcement agencies in identifying threats and developing responses to prevent those threats from reaching fruition in America’s communities. There is no universally accepted definition of ILP, although the components of most definitions are the same or at least similar. Carter and Carter (2009) propose an operational definition of ILP: The collection and analysis of information related to crime and conditions that contribute to crime, resulting in an actionable intelligence product intended to aid law enforcement in developing tactical responses to threats and/or strategic planning related to emerging or changing threats [11].
While Carter and Carter (2009) argue the British experience with ILP has provided an important foundation for U.S. initiatives, they note that there are "important differences in legacy and functional responsibilities that limit the wholesale adoption of the British model in the United States. Among those limitations has been the array of post-9/11 federal standards for the American law enforcement intelligence process, including the new dimension of homeland security intelligence. Although the implementation of ILP is expected to be a challenge for most U.S. law enforcement agencies, Carter and Carter (2009) argue that the experiences and foundation of CompStat and community policing serve as important springboards for success. Although there are substantive differences in the concepts, the similarities serve as reliable policy experiences to make implementation of ILP a functional reality" (p.322)
[edit] Canada
In the Canadian context, the lineage of intelligence-led policing can be traced to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s failure to prevent the 1985 bombing of Air India flight 182. Post-event analysis concluded that if the RCMP had had a better relationship with the Sikh community in Vancouver, they might have acquired actionable intelligence alerting them to the plot by extremists looking to establish an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region of India.
This was an impetus for the adoption of community policing, but it was soon realized that the focus on “community” was a distraction in that hardened targets are not easily penetrated through better police-community relations; rather, it is the “mode of information that is important.”[1] Consequently, the RCMP developed its CAPRA model (Clients, Analysis, Partnerships, Response, Assessment), which fits with, and has been re-cast as, intelligence-led policing.[1]
[edit] Issues
Intelligence-led policing is still in its early stages and therefore lacks a universal conceptual framework that can be applied to disparate contexts as the new policing paradigm. Implementation can also be difficult, because it requires police managers to “have faith in the intelligence process and in the judgments and recommendations of their intelligence staff.”[3]
Some have also questioned whether the foundational ingredient – intelligence – has been properly considered, given that: police and security professionals already have to contend with “information overload” from the huge databanks that have been built up in the intelligence process; and increasing raw data is not the same as generating “knowledge” or actionable intelligence.[12]
Finally, intelligence-led policing is part of the larger trend of blurring the distinction between national security and domestic policing, or the state’s military and police functions, and risks the same perils that have tarnished policing in the past, such as political interference, violating civil liberties, and a greater potential for the abuse of police power with the increased secrecy that intelligence work entails.[12][13]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ a b c d Willem de Lint, “Intelligence in Policing and Security: Reflections on Scholarship,” Policing & Society, Vol. 16, no. 1 (March 2006): 1-6.
- ^ a b c d e f Edmund F. McGarrell, Joshua D. Freilich, and Steven Chermak, “Intelligence-led Policing as a Framework for Responding to Terrorism,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 23, no. 2 (May 2007): 142-158.
- ^ a b Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “Intelligence-led policing: A Definition,” RCMP Criminal Intelligence Program. Retrieved 13 June 2007.
- ^ Audit Commission "Helping With Enquiries: Tackling Crime Effectively" (London: HMSO, 1993).
- ^ Hale, C., Heaton, R. and Uglow, S. (2004) "Uniform styles? Aspects of police centralization in England and Wales", Policing and Society, Vol. 14, no. 3 (2004), 291-312.
- ^ Maguire, M. and John, T. "Intelligence led policing, managerialism and community engagement: Competing priorities and the role of the National Intelligence Model in the UK", Policing and Society, Vol. 16 no. 1 (2006): 67-85.
- ^ Peterson, Marilyn (September 2005). Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture. Bureau of Justice Assistance. NCJ 210681. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/210681.pdf.
- ^ Willard M. Oliver, “The Fourth Era of Policing: Homeland Security,” International Review of Law Computers & Technology, Vol. 20, nos. 1&2 (March-July 2006): 49-62.
- ^ DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Prepared Remarks at George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (Mar. 16, 2005
- ^ Mark Riebling, The New Paradigm: Merging Law Enforcement and Intelligence Strategies, Center for Policing Terrorism, January 2006.
- ^ Carter, D. L. & Carter, J. G. (2009). Intelligence Led Policing: Conceptual Considerations for Public Policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(3), 310-325.
- ^ a b Jean-Paul Brodeur and Benoit Dupont, “Knowledge Workers or ‘Knowledge’ Workers?,” Policing & Society, Vol. 16, no. 1 (March 2006): 7-26.
- ^ Sharon Pickering, “Border Terror: Policing, Forced Migration, and Terrorism,” Global Change, Peace & Security, Vol. 16, no. 3 (October 2004): 211-226.
[edit] External links
- “Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture”, United States Department of Justice
- “Practical Guide to Intelligence-led Policing,” New Jersey State Police
- “Intelligence-Led Policing: The Integration of Community Policing and Law Enforcement Intelligence”, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice
- “Guidance on the National Intelligence Model,” Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) – Official business model of ACPO, based on Intelligence-led policing.
- Mark Riebling, The New Paradigm: Merging Law Enforcement and Intelligence Stratgies, Center for Policing Terrorism, January 2006.
- i2 Intelligence-Led Operations Platform
