Investigative Intelligence- Chapter 7 Lecture Notes
WHO ARE DECISION‐MAKERS?
• POP has been pivotal in advancing the notion that not all crime solutions come from the police. There are a range of other decision‐makers in the criminal justice system, and beyond.
a. Front‐line officers
• The traditional target for tactical analysis and intelligence products.
• Unclear whether front‐line officers are decision‐makers in terms of the 3i model, because there is often a lack of accountability and they can be easily drawn away by emergency and other radio calls.
• Yet, analysts need to maintain a relationship with patrol officers because they are often a source of quality information.
• ‘Tactical intelligence’ can too often deteriorate into case support.
b. Police leadership
• Police leadership are often decision‐makers, but often uninformed as to the latest research on what works and what doesn’t in crime prevention and reduction.
• Much police leadership training assumes that officers know how to reduce crime, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
• This may explain why so many policing strategies are traditional, saturation patrol type affairs.
c. Non‐law enforcement
• Regulatory agencies have the added advantage of drawing on regulation and compliance‐based processes that go beyond simple prosecution.
• Part of the nodal governance idea, whereby police are supplemented by government and the private sector that can provide additional security services.
d. The general public
• The main target for dissemination with community policing
• Intelligence‐led policing and POP take a similar view: Communities are suitable decision‐makers where they can help, but are not essential decision‐makers for every problem.
• Little research evidence suggests that greater dissemination to the public has an impact on crime.
• Security networks
• Additional agencies that are now often incorporated into security networks include Customs and border control, Immigration authorities, Defense agencies, and national security bodies.
• 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (UK) made multiagency crime prevention initiatives a statutory requirement
• GMAC PBM is a good example.
UNDERSTANDING THE CLIENT’S ENVIRONMENT
• When client’s don’t understand the demands of good analysis, they tend to be unforgiving in respect of the time and effort required for good products. As a result, they create a pressure that can cause poor products.
• Other agencies – media, politicians and so on – have their own agenda and try to push decision‐makers to act in their interests.
• The key is the crime intelligence product is likely to be the only objective voice that decision‐maker’s hear.
a. Working with the audience
• Analysts have to liaise and communicate with clients during the development of products so that the final product can be targeted accurately.
• How clients define success is important, because products can be tailored to reflect this need of decision‐makers.
• If analysts produce a good product, they should expect that it will be photocopied, faxed, e‐mailed and referenced by/to clients that they are not aware of and potentially never expected.
MAXIMIZING INFLUENCE
• Analysts should aim to maximize the distribution of their products, rather than work on the need‐to‐know principle.
• Analytical units being close to decision‐makers runs counter to the thinking in many police departments, but having access to street data is meaningless if analysts cannot influence decision‐makers.
