Intelligence-led policing and police challenges

Intelligence-ledpolicing and police challenges

&nbsp&nbspIntelligence-ledpolicing has its basis on earlier versions of policing ideas wherecommunity policing and problem led policing were the commonly usedstrategies of managing criminal activities. Traditionally, policerelied on responsive strategies of crime investigation andprevention. Great deal of time and resources were used in this methodand it has been touted as weak in cracking down recidivist offenders.

Intelligence-ledpolicing is a new concept in crime management that has its origin inthe UK and the United States. The concept of Intelligence ledpolicing originated in the 1990s in both United Kingdom and theUnited States (NationalCriminal Intelligence Service, 2000:2).In the U.S the concept is attributed to Mark Riebling, in his book,‘Wedge-Secret War between the FBI and CIA led to calls for changeon policing strategies due to constant conflict in operations betweenthe two intelligence and law enforcement bodies(Willem, 2006: 1-6).

Thenew policing concept emerged due to rising cases of terrorism and asan effective way of fighting criminal activities through increaseduse of informants and surveillance. Intelligence-led policingstrategy has its conceptual basis on crime knowledge management as away of managing security risks especially in the wake of recidivistcrimes locally and internationally.

Unlikethe earlier version of policing where police officers relied onoperations to guide intelligence, intelligence-led policing strategyenables police officers to act as guides in police operations basedon gathered information. However, while the need for a paradigm shiftin policing strategies was due in part a way of enhancing moreefficient way of managing crime, the rising global terroristactivities in the wake of the new millennia and especially afterSeptember 11, Intelligence-led policing gained considerableattention. The underlying theory was that the terrorism activities inMadrid, U.S and London could have been prevented had it not been arelapse in intelligence. In this scope, this discussion paper seeksto analyze the notion of intelligence-led policing and policechallenges as a new dimension of policing strategies.

Analysisof intelligence-led policing and policing challenges

Thetraditional community and problem-oriented policing playedsignificant role as a foundation to the intelligence-led policing. In the modern society and due to increasing complexity of crime andsecurity related issues, the problem-oriented policing strategy isweak and cannot be relied upon to address crimes by recidivistoffenders (Goldstein, 1979: 236-258).

Inaddition, in the modern society, there is ever growing cases of crimeincidences that pose a challenge to law enforcement. As such,intelligence-led policing provides an efficient method of combatingcrime in time and within the available policing resources. In theearlier version of the problem-oriented policing (POP), too much timewas spent responding to crime issues a situation that did notimprove crime prevention and tackling the root problem to minimizerecidivism crimes. In this light, the need for increased informants,surveillance and intelligence became a necessity and not an option inefficiently fighting crime(Carter &amp Carter, 2009: 310-325).

Underthe traditional problem-oriented policing, many governments’branches did not share security and crime information this createdan opportunity for criminals to thrive. Empirical reports from theUnited States in the city of Camden, New Jersey and In UK, indicatethat through the Intelligence-led policing, police were able to tonedown numerous drug and car theft gangs.

TheSeptember 11 incident in the United States was an awakening call forincreased intelligence policing and law enforcement through local andinternational partnership (Maguire&amp John, 2006: 67-85).The after attack intelligence reports on terrorism indicates thatimproved intelligence cooperation between various agencies was key inidentifying possible suspects and intervening to avert severe attacks(Tilley, 2003:131).

Accordingto Mark Riebling, intelligence-led policing is a primary goal whileincident investigation is a secondary goal the main purpose ofpolicing work should be spy and surveillance oriented. For instance,police may raid a particular location not with any interests ofmaking arrests but gathering intelligence on the nature of residents.Intelligent-led policing is an important aspect that enhances sharingof information among all participants in the society agencies,government, the public and the private sector (Bacon, 2009: 540–541).

Therefore,intelligence-led policing is concerned with collecting and analyzinginformation to aid the law enforcement in designing tactical measuresto address possible crimes and emerging threats. Ideally,intelligence -led policing is a crime knowledge management toolrather than a crime reduction mechanism and is associated with manybenefits. One is that, ILP enhances a more supportive and informedcommand structure within the law enforcement agencies. It enhancescriminal analysis of integrated crimes by focusing more on recidivistoffenders (Tilley, 2003:132).

Intelligence-ledpolicing enhances data management in influencing decision making toaddress criminal activities. The basis of a strong intelligence-ledpolicing lies with building strong community relationships with thecitizens (Braga, 2002:112). The interplay between community policingand intelligence-led policing provides problem solving approach,effective communications, and reduction of fear in the public,community mobilization and environmental scanning to counter crimeactivities.

Effectivepartnership and sharing of information with the public enhances aflow of new information that is vital in criminal intervention(National Criminal Intelligence Service, 2000:2). The new dimensionin law enforcement and intelligence gathering requires strongcommunity partnerships as a way of promoting an interactive dialoguebetween the law enforcement agencies and the community this iscritical in reducing social tensions (Carter&amp Carter, 2009: 310-325).

Intelligence-ledpolicing strategy should link with community by providing materials,contacts and examples that are necessary for raising alarm when theyperceive certain scenarios, behaviors and actions that are suspicious(Anderson, 1994:5‐8).Intelligence-led policing is a two -way approach police gathersinformation about offenders and this communication provides importantinformation for intelligence in preventing crime incidences.

Insome cases, the police can organize community meetings that emphasizeon vigilance, prevention strategies and general public awareness thegoal is to encourage proactive and close working relationshipsbetween the community and the police in crime prevention. In thislight, intelligence-led policing relies on the community forinformation management this information is useful in defining thestrategies of addressing community crime problems and intelligenceanalysis.

Intelligence-ledpolicing requires effective investment on the organization and thecommunity in which the law enforcement agencies relies on thesymbiotic relationship with the society (Maguire&amp John, 2006: 67-85).The goal should be developing trust between the society and thepolice without trust it is difficult for the public to volunteerauthentic policing information. Effective intelligence-led policing should be enhanced through regular feedbacks to the society on crimeanalysis potential threats and criminal activities that might beencountered. There exists a clear interrelationship between organizedcrime and the larger society based on materials used forsustainability of the social and organization.

Assuch, understanding and monitoring the material flow is an importantaspect in assessing links to criminal activities. Therefore,effective community policing and intelligence-led policing could bemade effective by educating the public on suspicious criminalbehaviors (Tilley, 2003:130). In these public education initiatives,the law enforcement agencies need to provide a framework on the kindof information needed (Goldstein, 1990: 123).

Policechallenges in Intelligence-led policing

Inthe environment of ILP, providing feedback on intelligence reports isimportant, however this is not always the case. Intelligencereporting has been blamed for impeding the civil rights of thecitizens. After, the September 11 attacks, increased intelligencegathering from the community have led to breaching of civilliberties. In fact, majority argue that their liberties have beenintruded by too much personal information gathered.

Itis no secret that most governments and in particular the UnitedStates have engaged in overt spying on communication of its citizensand the international community secretly (Ericson &amp Haggerty1997: 112). Another issue is that, intelligence-led policing has notfound a conceptual footing in many parts of the internationalcommunity this results in slow progress and threatens the efforts oflocal ILP (Anderson, 1994:5‐8).For instance, in the wake of terrorism, drug abuse and increasedtransnational crimes, many governments, the public and other entitiesremain arrogant or in the dark about the importance of intelligencegathering(Maguire &amp John, 2006: 67-85).

Anotherchallenge of ILP is processing overload information currently, theUnited States National Intelligence is contending with vastintelligence information collected abroad and locally (Tilley,2003:132). Countries with less mechanism and resources cannot analyzeand process such information in time to avert criminal activities.Therefore, ILP has more succeeds in developed countries where vastresources have been channeled in devices and personnel of analyzingand collecting intelligence data.

However,local communities remain an important partner in facilitatingeffective Intelligence-led policing. While problem -oriented policingdiffers from Intelligence-led policing in role, origin, rationale andproblem addressed the two have inalienable connection (Clarke,1997:102). The two strategies are involved in the targeting criminalorganization to reduce and prevent crime.

Ingeneral, ILP adopts business model where knowledge and informationare organized to enhance coordination between different policingagencies and making decisions on where to deploy resources to managecrime. As such, just like the problem-oriented policing (POP),Intelligence-led policing facilitates multiagency crime interventionand responses to crime and non-crime issues like social disorders inthe larger context of ‘problem solving’(Edmund, 2007: 142-158).

and Conclusion

Inthe past, community policing and problem-oriented policing hasprovided effective foundation for law enforcement as the communityproactively participates in enhancing a climate of safety. Theemphasis laid down by community processing on problem solving throughcommunity support led to new and effective strategies of addressingsocial disorder and crime in the society.

Intelligence-ledpolicing is a new paradigm that is picking up in most nations as amore efficient law enforcement and crime prevention strategy.Traditionally,police relied on responsive strategies of crime investigation andprevention this method was weak in cracking down recidivists’offenders, much time and resources were used in crime interventionthan solving the root problem(Riebling,2006:121-124).

Thetraditional community and problem-oriented policing played asignificant role as a foundation to the intelligence-led policing.Intelligence-led policing should be concerned with collecting andanalyzing information to aid the law enforcement in designingtactical measures that address possible crimes and emerging threats.ILP enhances a more supportive and informed command structure withinthe law enforcement agencies.

Thebasis of a strong intelligence-led policing lies with building strongcommunity relationships with the citizens. Promoting an interactivedialogue between the law enforcement agencies and the community iscritical in reducing social tensions and raggedness in reciprocatingto crime cases (Flood, 2004: 37‐52).

Intelligence-ledpolicing enhances data management in influencing decision making toaddress criminal activities. ILP strategy should link with communityby providing materials, contacts and examples that are necessary forraising alarm when they perceive certain scenarios, behaviors andactions that are suspicious. The police can organize communitymeetings that emphasize on vigilance, prevention strategies andgeneral public awareness the goal is to encourage proactivepartnership between the community and the police in crime prevention.

Effectiveintelligence-led policing should be enhanced through regularfeedbacks to the society on crime analysis potential threats andcriminal activities that might be encountered. One of the mainchallenges of intelligence-led policing is that, it has not found aconceptual footing in many parts of the international community thisleads to low intelligence data gathering.

Anotherchallenge of ILP is processing overload information, ascertaining theauthenticity of the intelligence and implementing measures to avertpossible crime some information may lead to false social tension ormisdirecting attention. As such, effective intelligence-led policingis enhanced through establishing effective networks with the public,educating people on information required by the police and givingconstant feedback to the society in order to lessen social tensions(Ericson &amp Haggerty, 1997:112).

WorksCited

Anderson,R. ‘Intelligence-led policing: A British perspective, in A. Smith(Ed) Intelligence -Led Policing,’ Lawrenceville, NJ: InternationalAssociation of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts.1994. Pp. 5‐8.

Bacon,M. ‘Intelligence-Led Policing by J. Ratcliffe.’ The HowardJournal of Criminal Justice, (2009). 48: 540–541

Braga,A. ‘Problem-OrientedPolicing and Crime Prevention.’Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 2002.

Carter,D. L. &amp Carter, J. G. ‘Intelligence -Led Policing: ConceptualConsiderations for Public Policy.’ Criminal Justice Policy Review,(2009). 20(3), 310-325.

Clarke,R. ‘SituationalCrime Prevention: Successful Case Studies.’New

York:Harrow and Heston. (ed.) (1997).

EdmundF. McGarrell &amp Steven Chermak Joshua D. Freilich,‘Intelligence-led policing as a Framework for Responding toTerrorism,’ Journalof Contemporary Criminal Justice,Vol. 23, no. 2 (May 2007): 142-158.

Ericson,R.V. &amp Haggerty, K.D. ‘Policing the Risk Society,’ ClarendonPress, Oxford. 1997.

Flood,B. `Strategic aspects of the UK National Intelligence Model,’Sydney: Federation Press, 2004. pp. 37‐52

Goldstein,H. ‘Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach,’ Crimeand Delinquency,(1979) 25: 236-258.

Goldstein,H. ‘Problem-OrientedPolicing.’New York: McGraw-Hill. 1990.

NationalCriminal Intelligence Service, ‘TheNational Intelligence Model.’London: National Criminal Intelligence Service, 2000.

MarkRiebling, ‘TheNew Paradigm: Merging Law Enforcement and Intelligence Strategies,’Centerfor Policing Terrorism,January 2006.

Maguire,M. and John, T. ‘Intelligence-led policing, managerialism andcommunity engagement: Competing priorities and the role of theNational Intelligence Model in the UK,’ Policingand Society,Vol. 16 no. 1 (2006): 67-85.

Tilley,N. ‘Community Policing, Problem-oriented Policing andIntelligence-Led Policing,’ in T. Newburn (ed) Handbookof Policing.Cullompton, Devon: Willan. 2003.

Willemde Lint, ‘Intelligence in Policing and Security: Reflections onScholarship,’ Policing&amp Society,Vol. 16, no. 1 (March 2006): 1-6