University of Mississippi

eGrove

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

2019

Intelligence-Led Policing: Linking Local and State Policies to

Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd

Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons

Recommended Citation
Prosser, Chad B., "Intelligence-Led Policing: Linking Local and State Policies to Establish a ComDefinition"
(2019). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1669.
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/1669

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
 INTELLIGENCE-LED POLICING:

LINKING LOCAL AND STATE POLICIES TO ESTABLISH A COMMON DEFINITION

A Thesis
presented in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in Criminal Justice
in the Department of Legal Studies
The University of Mississippi

by

CHAD B. PROSSER

May 2019
Copyright Chad B. Prosser 2019
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 ABSTRACT

Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP) has been around for almost two decades now within the

US and over two decades in the UK and Australia. Yet, there has not been a solidified definition

of what it is or what it should be among agencies within or outside of the US. Unlike previous

policing methodologies, ILP was not forced on agencies or researched intensively with trial

agencies participating before it was recommended. Rather, it was a reaction to the terrorist

attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Limited research has been conducted

on ILP since its inception within the US, partially due to restricted access of researchers in the

intelligence field and lack of willingness from agencies’ intelligence personnel. These issues in

turn have created a lack not only in the research but also implementation measures of success for

agencies that have implemented ILP.

This research project studied agencies within local and state levels through their official

policies in order to establish a common definition of ILP while establishing themes that link the

predominate policing methodologies together. A definition could not be generated based on the

data analyzed. Despite this, three themes emerged that link ILP agencies to agencies that

implement other policing philosophies: Intelligence, Community, and Analysis. The majority of

agencies do not implement ILP; however, almost all of the agencies within the sample frame of

this study acknowledge or implement certain portions of the ILP methodology making it a

flexible alternative to implement as a force multiplier to any agency.

ii
 DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this work to my loving and supporting wife, Sabrina, and

children, Ande Lyn, John Alden, and Addy James. Without their love and support, I would not

have had the time or energy to have pursued this project.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I can never thank my committee chair, Dr. Kimberly Kaiser, enough for her

continuous, unrelenting encouragement, patience, and support throughout this process. Without

her support and belief in me, I would have not been able to get this project.

Second, I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Francis Boateng and Dr. David

McElreath for providing guidance along the way as well as continually being extremely flexible

throughout this process.

Third, I would like to thank Dr. Stephen Mallory for sparking my interest in the

Intelligence-Led Policing methodology. Dr. Linda Keena, for working with and assisting me in

becoming apart of this great program at Ole Miss.

Lastly, I would like to thank the entire faculty and staff that I have been fortunate enough

to learn from while being a student here. Further, I would like to thank my fellow students and

friends that have helped me re-integrate back into school, have provide assistance with technical

support, and given encouragement to pursue a thesis.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………ii

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iv

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………...v

CHAPTER 1: Introduction to the Study…………………………………………………………..1

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….2

Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………………3

Chapter 2: A Review of the Related Literature…………………………………………………...4

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….4

Intelligence-Led Policing Defined………………………………………………………..6

Models within Intelligence-Led Policing…………………………………………9

Implementing Intelligence-Led Policing………………………………………………...11

Intelligence-Led Policing Implementation Obstacles……………………………14

Mitigating Obstacles Facing Intelligence-Led Policing…………………………17

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………18

Chapter 3: Current Focus………………………………………..……………………………….20

Research Questions………………………………………………………………………20

Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology………………………………………………….21

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………21

Population and Sample…………………………………………………………………..21

v
Agency Response Rate…………………………………………………………………………..25

Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………………………25

Coding Procedure and Analytic Strategy……………………………………………...…27

Chapter 5: Results………………………………………………………………………………..29

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………29

Findings………………………………………………………………………………….29

Agency Policies of ILP…………………………………………………………..29

Non ILP Agency Policy Comparison……………………………………………31

Agency Policing Strategies………………………………………………………33

Defining ILP: Emerging Themes………………………………………………………...35

Theme 1: Intelligence………………………………………………..…………..36

Theme 2: Community…………………………………………..………….…….39

Theme 3: Analysis…………………………………..…………………….……..40

Summary………………………………………………….……………………….……..42

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion………………………………………………………..…43

Introduction………………………………………………………………….…………...43

Discussion……………………………………………………………………….……….43

Policy Implication………………………………………………………………..46

Recommendations and Future Research………………………………………………....47

References………………………………………………………………………………………..51

Vita……………………………………………………………………………………………….57

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 1: Agency Selection by Region………………………………………………………...24

2. Table 2: Content Analysis Questions………………………………………………………….25

3. Table 3: Policy Coding Results………………………………………………………………..29

vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is an expanding model of policing, with multiple ways of

implementing and sub models to choose from within an agency, which has taken over most of

the Western world over the last few decades. Despite this expanding model taking over the

Western world, a solidified definition on what ILP is or should be has been evaded by many of

the countries implementing it (Ratcliffe, 2016). More specifically, it has brought on a new series

of expanding changes in American policing since the events of September 11, 2001. These

changes are primarily seen with the incorporation of ILP within the current day policing

philosophies, predominately coupled with community-oriented and problem-orientated policing

(Carter & Carter, 2008; McGarrell, Freilich, Chermak, 2007; Ratcliffe & Guidetti, 2008). While

many would argue this is not a new concept of policing in the US, with examples being present

from the mid-1950s (Peterson, 1994; Ratcliffe, 2008). ILP has inherently created a misguided

mindset of interpretation in both the civilian and policing culture (Ratcliffe, 2008).

In addition to the misconceptions, ILP was implemented differently than previous

policing philosophies. It was implemented hastily with little prior research and testing inside of

the US (Carter, Phillips, & Gayadeen, 2014); and it has been only implemented through strong

recommendations versus being a mandated implementation of a philosophy or policing theory

(NCISP, 2003). Though recommended, grants and political pressures have also had an impact on

what agencies implements ILP and what model is chosen to implement (Herchenrader et al,

2015). Further, it remains difficult to research due to a shortfall in researchers being able to

1
access agencies intelligence personnel coupled with intelligence personnel being predominately

unwilling to participate in research projects (Carter et al, 2014); a clear understanding on how

much involvement does each level of law enforcement play into the Department of Homeland

Security role (Ratcliffe & Guidetti, 2008); and a clear definition on what ILP is or means to an

organization (Ratcliffe, 2016).

Regardless the struggles faced, ILP continues to be an integral part of both the US and

the world’s policing culture. Lessons learned derived from ILP policies and produces can be

gathered from around the world and can be analyzed to strengthen police culture and practices

both at home and abroad. Concurrently, ILP can create an efficient and streamlined model of

policing that can break intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing barriers while negating the

assumptions made by police, general public, and public officials.

Statement of Problem

As many researchers have agreed upon, there is not a single solidified definition of ILP

(Alach, 2011; Cater et al, 2008; McGarrell et al, 2007; Ratcliffe, 2008, 2016). Lack of a

solidified definition in turn has allowed for many agencies to adapt and utilize portions of

different ILP models that suit their agency’s vision or mission (DOJ, 2009). Further, there is an

immense difficulty in trying to establish an evaluation of ILP implementation to generate

measures of success (Carter, Phillips, 2013; Ratcliffe, 2002, 2008). Without a solidified

definition and evaluation process for agencies to measure the effects of ILP, it is imperative to

address common factors that link multiple agencies together in their ILP practices regardless of

an agency’s claimed ILP affiliation.

2
 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to analyze agency policies at state and local levels of

government to highlight similarities and differences in agencies utilizing ILP in order to gain an

understanding of how ILP is being implemented. More specifically, the study will conduct a

content analysis of policies guiding different agencies at different levels of law enforcement

implementing the ILP philosophy/ methodology. Crime analysts are continually becoming more

prevalent at each level, yet there are still no systematic or homogeneous standards that are

applied by each agency (Kringen, Sedelmaier, & Elink-Schuurman-Laura, 2017). Factors like

the addition of analysts play a role in how intelligence gathering, recording, and application play

into how agencies process and share information. Looking into these practices and policies that

govern them will help determine what information is then prioritized, gathered, and shared

between agencies to assist in the fight against crime ultimately leading to agencies at each level

efficiently utilizing the ILP model.

3
 CHAPTER 2
A REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

With origins dating back to the ancient Chinese and Biblical times, intelligence,

intelligence gathering, and intelligence analysis methods have been critical factors in many wars

that were fought and won. Despite its vast history of success, intelligence gathering did not make

its way to the United States until the 1920s and 1930s to assist police in collecting information

on anarchist and mobsters (Peterson, 1994). The intelligence record process during this time was

known as the dossier system. This system was nothing more than a collection of data on known

or perceived criminals that were a threat to the immediate community or society (Carter 2009).

The limited system of intelligence gathering and storing took a back seat during the

1930s as the Great Depression swept the US. Despite the lack of emphasis during the

Depression, the dossier system became the go to system as the US focus shifted back to crime

(Carter 2009). Intelligence gathering continued to mature with the police departments after the

1950 Kefauver hearings that brought the term “mafia” to the public’s attention. Later, in the

1960s, the use of analysis became more prevalent in law enforcement agencies after the

Presidential Commission on Organized Crime supported the use of intelligence (Peterson, 1994).

Both Carter (2009) and Ratcliffe (2016) acknowledge the transformation of intelligence during

the 1960s due to the social unrest of the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam Conflict. Each

of these social events bringing new levels of crime that had not been previously seen and opened

a more diverse group of criminal actors. Because of the severity and dramatic changes occurring

4
this time across the US, Basic Elements of Intelligence was established as the guidebook and

foundation for agencies utilizing and restructuring intelligence practices (Peterson, 1994).

By the mid-1970s, major federal agencies were incorporating analysts and analytical

methods in their operations and in 1976; an updated edition of the Basic Intelligence guidebook

was released. The 1980s saw federal funding create the Regional Information Sharing Systems

(RISS) that in turn produced a rapid use of analysis at all levels. This system mitigated many of

the early issues that crime analysts were having with computers and the complicated software

that needed specialized techs to install, operate, and fix. RISS computerized and analyzed all

types of records making sophisticated analytical products readily available to law enforcement

agencies and spurred many agencies to create their own programs to assist with investigations

(Peterson, 1994). Concurrently, the 1980s saw a new strategy of community policing. This new

strategy was implemented in hopes of improving police legitimacy and hopes of rebuilding the

torn relationship between officers and the community that occurred over the last two decades.

This movement along with increasing technological advances began to pave the way for the

development of other policing theories until the adaptation of ILP (Ratcliffe, 2016).

Ratcliffe (2008) expands upon Peterson’s (1994) intelligence history that some law

enforcement agencies will argue that they have been using ILP for many decades. Despite these

arguments made by some agencies, Ratcliffe (2016) provides the nationally recognized timelines

of many English-speaking countries that have implemented ILP in some manner. Examples

provided include: the 2000 adoption by the Royal Canadian Mounted Patrol, 2002 adoption by

New Zealand Police, the 2002 national policing plan conference in the US calling for

implementation of ILP by all states and provided a published list of recommendations, the 2003

5
Australia implementation, and then the 2004 United Kingdom legislation that required the

adoption of ILP by all agencies no later than April of that year.

Intelligence-Led Policing Defined

ILP faces many challenges from basic interpretation, lack of agency enforcement,

multiple models derived, and misconceptions by both agencies and civilians. While the concept

of intelligence, intelligence gathering, and intelligence analysis seem to create easily definable

terms and/or actions to take, placing them within the policing strategy of ILP creates a new

defining factor that must be addressed for implementation success. Ratcliffe (2016) establishes

that agencies in both the US and UK that have created national plans and recommendations on

how to implement ILP. However, both are guilty of not defining what ILP is or what it entails.

First step in defining ILP is defining intelligence within its context of a policing strategy.

Alach (2011) provides multiple “intelligence” definitions ranging from the British National

Intelligence Model, to experts within the intelligence and policing fields, to the multiple

definitions provided by the Department of Defense. Jensen, McElreath, & Graves (2018) expand

on the challenge of defining intelligence among all of the many agencies that rely on it due to

agencies primarily defining intelligence to facilitate their mission and rules by which they must

follow. With the wide spread definitions provided, Alach (2011) reminds the reader that these

definitions must be analyzed through a policing context, which has proven to be more difficult

than expected. Examples provided through his research include Brown’s (2007) definition of

intelligence being, “information which is significant or potentially significant for an enquiry or

potential enquiry,” Cope (2004) definition of intelligence as “information developed to direct

Police action.”

6
 By defining intelligence this way, both Brown and Cope acknowledge the analytical

process that normally is associated with turning information into intelligence. While they both

acknowledge the analytical aspect of intelligence, Brown cautions the reader to not become

encompassed into the mindset that intelligence can only be created through analysis but rather in

some cases, information can be relevant enough without having to be analyzed. Further warnings

are seen in the Department of Justice (2005) definition with the synonymous use of information

and intelligence. To mitigate any confusion of agencies stating that intelligence is simply

information collected, the DOJ labels intelligence as a process. Information is collected then

placed through an analytic process. Only then is intelligence can be produced. A revised

definition is provided by the DOJ in 2009 publishing that defines ILP as being a proactive

application of analysis and analytic functions gathered from a series of lessons learned from

other policing models. Alach (2011) simplifies the definition of intelligence in context with

whom he references as one of the architects of ILP, Sir David Phillips. According to Sir David

Phillips, intelligence is “obtaining an understanding of the capability of one’s enemy.”

With these definitions providing basic understanding of intelligence through a policing

context, it is imperative that we evaluate both the NIM in the UK and the US’s Global

Intelligence Working Group (GIWG) definitions of intelligence as we look to both of these

entities as being the subject matter experts in ILP. Alach (2011) provides the NIM definition of

intelligence as being “information that has been subject to a defined evaluation and risk

assessment process in order to assist with police decision making.” Ratcliffe (2016) provides the

GWIG definition as “the collection and analysis of information to produce an intelligence end

product designed to inform law enforcement decision making at both the tactical and strategic

levels.”

7
 Lastly, Carter (2009) provides one of the most extensive and all encompassing definitions

in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Law Enforcement Intelligence Handbook. Intelligence is

defined as: “the end product of an analytic process that evaluated information collected from

sources; integrates the relevant information into a logical package; and produces a conclusion,

estimate, or forecast about a criminal phenomenon by using the scientific approach to problem

solving (that is, analysis). Intelligence, therefore, is a synergetic product intended to provide

meaningful and trustworthy actionable knowledge to law enforcement decision makers about

complex criminality, criminal enterprises, criminal extremists, and terrorists.”

As each definition is analyzed, commonalities and differences are drawn between them,

thus creating the current issue of a lack of a solidified definition to base a shared understanding.

Rather than solidifying, common assumptions are made on what intelligence means to the

organization or what the organization needs the intelligence to mean in order to facilitate the

organization’s end goal. Furthering the complexity of defining intelligence, Warner (2002)

recognizes the over emphasis of the one-dimensional informational aspects of intelligence when

intelligence can be defined as several things: “It is information, process, and activity and it is

performed by ‘lawful authorities’.”

ILP is most commonly seen by researchers and scholars alike as a continuous model of

utilizing information gathered by officers in the field, which is then analyzed by a designated

analyst with the goal of identifying trends and patterns that lead to preventing crime,

apprehending criminals, and dismantling criminal organizations. Many agencies utilize the ILP

model in conjunction with Community Oriented Policing (COP) and basic problem solving or

Problem Oriented Policing (POP) (McGarrell et al, 2007). Ratcliffe (2008) states that ILP can

now be compared to a business model that ensures agencies are sharing information and

8
enhancing strategic problem-solving skills. It also works as a top-down approach for managers to

control crime. Doing so, ILP compliments agencies utilizing problem- oriented policing

(Ratcliffe, 2008) and Compstat (Carter et al, 2013).

Since ILP can be implemented as an independent strategy or utilized in conjunction with

multiple policing strategies and theories, it is no wonder that there is an array of interpretations

of what “intelligence” can mean. Intelligence, intelligence gathering, and intelligence analysis

continue to be defined off of need and/or agency expectations versus a standardized or

established universal definition. Carter (2009) re-emphasizes this observation in the DOJ

intelligence guide by stating that each level of law enforcement defines intelligence in light of

their current “accepted practices and standards.” These “accepted practices and standards” then

translate to the agency’s collection process and formulates what type of intelligence needs to be

gathered: tactical, or short term immediate need to know information to execute a mission;

strategic, or long term intelligence that drives senior leader decisions and policies; and

operational, a term used for agencies and the DOD that sits between tactical and strategic levels

and function to support both levels (Jensen et al, 2018).

Models within Intelligence-Led Policing

Similar to the way researchers and law enforcement agencies frame their definition of

intelligence, agencies at any and all levels adapting to ILP have many models to choose from.

The primary model is the British National Model that has been morphing in the UK for over 30

years (Carter et al, 2009). While the main model is the British National Model, many agencies

utilize various models according to their size and budget. Additional models follow the National

Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) and a comprehensive guide established by the

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (Carter et al, 2014). Larger departments such as

9
the New Jersey State Police use the 3i Model (NJSP, 2006). With each model sharing

commonalities, each agency that utilizes them tailors them to fit their needs.

The British NIM is a business model of ILP that was created and released by the National

Criminal Intelligence Service in 2000. By 2004, the NIM became the required model of the UK.

This model, though not exactly correlative with ILP, it is designed to work on three levels within

the UK’s law enforcement agencies: local level, cross-border area, and national or international

level involving serious or organized crime. Within the three levels listed, analysts are creating

products that influence leadership that have authority to deploy assets as needed. Further,

intelligence products created feed both strategic and tactical level planning, decision making, and

tasking. Senior leaders within each agency comprise the Strategic Tasking and Coordination

Group. This group in turn, meets every 6 months at a minimum to establish the crime prevention,

enforcement, and intelligence gathering strategies. This group is also responsible for resource

allocations and providing daily priorities within agencies (Ratcliffe, 2008). NIM works for the

UK since the UK, unlike the US, has a national standard that applies to all agencies that includes

training, promotion, operations, and salary (Carter et al, 2013).

The creation of the NCISP came about after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Until the notorious terrorist attack, law enforcement agencies had operated with many barriers

that impeded intelligence sharing. By the spring of 2002, many law enforcement executives and

intelligence experts recognized the importance and need of local, state, tribal, and federal to have

a shared process of collecting and disseminating critical intelligence among each other. The

stage for the collaborating effort was the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

Criminal Intelligence Sharing Conference of 2002. Many of the participants that attended

requested a creation of a national council to develop and oversee the national intelligence plan.

10
From this initiative, the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Intelligence Working

Group (GIWG) was developed and initiated into action. Results from this action can be seen in

the 28 recommendations that were produced to promote an ILP model that can be easily tailored

to any agency regardless of size (NCISP, 2003).

The 3I model, accredited to Dr. Jerry Ratcliffe, can be seen throughout the US in larger

state level agencies. An example agency that has adopted this model is the New Jersey State

Police (NJSP). The NJSP adopted this 3I model, which they see as the foundation for ILP policy

and strategy, in order to take on the ever-demanding role of carrying out both local and state

level policing activities as well as their emergency management responses and homeland security

roles. The 3 “I’s” in the model consist of: Interpret, Influence, and Impact. Information is

collected and analyzed to produce intelligence. This intelligence is then used to “Interpret” the

environment and “Influence” decision makers. Decision makers in turn “Impact” the

environment being analyzed (NJSP, 2006). As with all ILP models, the 3I model is a flexible

model based in a continuous cycle of gathering, analyzing, interpreting, and implementing

strategies to mitigate risk and fight crime. Furthermore, while the 3I model is primarily

associated with the US, New Zealand also primarily utilizes and encourages agencies to

implement it as the standard model of ILP (Darroch & Mazer, 2012).

Implementing Intelligence-Led Policing

The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically affected the policing community at all

levels of law enforcement. Multiple issues were being faced by agencies across the US, as there

has not been a “one size fits all” approach to combating crime, criminals, and criminal

organizations. Additionally, the terrorist attacks now prompted an increased role in state and

local agencies to take on roles in assisting the Department of Homeland Security. Up until the

11
attacks, two common/ standard theoretical approaches to mitigating the threat are: problem-

oriented policing (POP) and community policing (COP) (Carter and Carter, 2009; Ratcliffe et al,

2008). Further pressure to agencies taking on a new role and style of policing came from the

international community. Both the UK and Australia have been using the ILP model with great

success. While crime and crime patterns, customs, and norms might be different in these

countries versus the US, the pressure is placed to use the ILP model as the ongoing war on

terrorism both in the US and abroad affects both countries greatly while serving as allies. Further

pressure can be seen in the US with “bureaucratic enthusiasm for information gathering”

(Ratcliffe 2002).

To address and assist agencies across the US with ILP implementation pressure during

the early stages, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published the National Criminal

Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) in 2003. The NCISP was the bi-product of the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Criminal Intelligence Sharing Conference of 2002.

Many of the participants that attended requested a creation of a national council to develop and

oversee the national intelligence plan. From this initiative, the Global Justice Information

Sharing Initiative Intelligence Working Group (GIWG) was developed and initiated into action.

GIWG since then has developed a model intelligence-sharing plan that can be followed and

tailored to each local and state agencies’ structure. Furthermore, they have established 28

recommendations that promote the premises of ILP and can be tailored to fit any size agency

willing to adopt the model. These 28 recommendations in turn create the essential elements of

the NCISP (DOJ, 2003).

To complement and build upon the 28 recommendations publication, the DOJ published

a more comprehensive overview on why agencies should implement ILP policies in 2005.

12
Further, they expand upon the initial publication demonstrating the prevalent issues facing the

ILP model and how agencies at all levels (local, state, and federal) fit into the model. Planning,

targeting, and crime prevention, areas important to smaller local agencies, are addressed in a

manner that demonstrates the critical need for implementation. Key terms not clarified in the

previous publication along with in-depth discussion in each of the model’s process and how it

compliments both COP and POP is also addressed. Lastly, the DOJ separates the classification

and levels of intelligence by agency type. With Level 1 intelligence, the most ideal level that

supports full time analysts producing tactical and strategic products, being the highest and Level

4 intelligence, comprising of the majority of small local agencies, being the lowest (DOJ, 2005).

Unlike many other theories/philosophies in the criminal justice field, ILP was accepted

with little research being conducted on the philosophy itself, model selection, and levels of

analytical capacities instated. Carter et al (2014) addresses this and provides four factors that are

responsible for this unusual philosophical implementation of ILP. First and foremost, the “do

something” factor of feelings were involved after the attacks of 9/11. All levels of agencies were

anxious to come together in order to protect the US from another devastation of that magnitude.

Second, stemming from the “do something” factor, there was a strong unification message of

agency leadership across the country that wanted to protect their local communities while

assisting the newly founded Department of Homeland Security. Third, agencies that had adopted

ILP were seeing success in ILP mitigating petty crime as well as assisting international threats on

domestic territory. Lastly, ILP was seen as assisting in the targeting and mitigating urban area

violent crimes.

13
Intelligence-Led Policing Implementation Obstacles

Implementing the ILP model of policing has had some setbacks due to the sensitivity of

agencies willingness to provide researchers and other agencies intelligence gathered by their

respective department. Additional hesitation and operational challenges faced by agencies are

presented due to the lack of testing and research associated with ILP across the US, both in rural

and urban settings. Unlike COP and POP, ILP requires agencies to acquire additional resources,

primarily an analytic capability (Carter et al, 2014). This analytic capability brings on a separate

issue with police agencies willingness to implement ILP. Many analysts being utilized are

civilian, not trained law enforcement officers, which in turn brings conflict between professional

cultures and willingness to work harmoniously (Cope, 2004).

Additional concerns over analysts are presented due to many law enforcement agency

leaders and researchers alike not being able to link crime reduction directly to crime analysis

being produced (Santos, 2014). Santos (2014) continues to explain the concern by comparing the

link between crime analysis and crime reduction in medical terms. Crime analysis is pictured as a

MRI, a tool that helps identify the root of the issue. Crime reduction then is the cure that is used

to treat the affected area. Crime analysis does not reduce crime; rather strategies built from the

analysis must be tailored to the environment to become effective. Two factors affect the link;

first, the analyst is interpreting and producing intelligence based off of gathered information.

Prejudice, leadership directives, or individual motivation can influence this information being

gathered to feed the analyst. Second, the strategies and/or method of acting upon the intelligence

produced are influenced in the same way it is gathered. Along with this concern, Carter et al

(2013) provide more concerns faced by agencies implementing ILP due to its focus area. Unlike

many other policing theories or strategies that focus on crimes that have been committed or have

14
occurred, ILP focuses specifically on threats. This can be concerning to some departments that

have immediate concerns that are plaguing their areas of responsibility versus preparing for a

possible threat.

Furthermore, pre-September 11, 2001 implementation of ILP experienced setbacks after

many agencies were sued for violating civil rights of individuals for maintaining intelligence

records, primarily for maintaining records on personnel that had not committed a crime (Carter et

al, 2009). These lawsuits in turn, discouraged smaller agencies, even after September 11, 2001,

from implementing ILP and creating the purview that ILP is only applicable to larger federal

agencies. Jackson & Brown (2007) expand upon the setbacks of ILP by breaking them down

into three specific challenges: Fourth Amendment protections, interagency cooperation and

information sharing among law enforcement, and efficiency. In regard to the Fourth Amendment

challenge, citizens were concerned due to the 9/11 Commission and the Patriot Act granting

authority for law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance and collect information on

citizens while also allowing agencies to detain and/or deport non-citizens. Further, the creation

of the Department of Homeland Security and increasing FBI role in preventing acts of terror

created a fear of being spied on within the US. Military technology and equipment being funded

and acquired by local agencies placed additional fear on civilians now worried with their privacy

rights as well as methods of obtaining information and searching individuals and houses without

the citizens’ acknowledgement of the search being conducted.

The second challenge with the implementation of ILP can be easily seen with the lack of

interagency cooperation and information sharing among law enforcement agencies. This issue

can be easily relatable to many non-law enforcement agency civilians; TV shows, movies, and

even interactions within the courtroom provide a sense of unspoken and spoken rivalries and

15
culture differences between law enforcement agents. Jackson et al (2007) further expand upon

this issue providing results from a study stating that it is not all that uncommon for agencies to

withhold information or intelligence on an event or individual in order to prevent a separate

agency from making “their” arrest or receive credit for it. Additional limiting factors of

cooperation between agencies link back to definitions, specifically the definition of intelligence

and terrorism. The key in this case to cooperation between agencies relies heavily on doctrine

and policies that guide agencies’ actions. However, as Ratcliffe, Strang, & Taylor (2014) point

out that conflicting doctrine, strategies and priorities coupled with poor communication both

horizontally and vertically create “silent killers” to agencies attempting to mitigate cooperation

and information sharing shortfalls.

The third challenge with the implementation of ILP, being a direct result of the first two

challenges, is lack of efficiency. To be efficient, an agency must have valid and appropriate

resources available to them as well as be properly trained to utilize the resources provided.

Streamlined communications between agencies and creating systems of interoperability can be a

rather slow process in the bureaucratic nature of law enforcement agencies. Without these tools,

law enforcement agencies run significant risks on missing out on “actionable intelligence.” This

type of intelligence is simply a specific response shaped from intelligence to mitigate an

identified threat. Going back to the second challenge, efficiency is lost when agencies do not

cooperate between themselves and it is lost in translation of intelligence. Additionally, going

back to the first challenge, efficiency to gather and report intelligence was gained in the

President’s powers, Section 218 of the Patriot Act, which to many non-law enforcement agency

civilians saw as threatening the Fourth Amendment. Likewise, agencies struggle to become

16
more efficient like their civilian counterparts due to the bureaucratic nature of the federal, state,

and local law enforcement agencies (Jackson et al, 2007).

Lastly, and probably the most important issue facing the implementation of ILP is that

ILP does not have a methodology or solid structure for leaders within organizations on how to

make or determine decision-making process (Alach, 2011). As with most bureaucratic

organizations, decision matrices and checklists are implemented to ensure unbiased decisions are

made in accordance with policies and/or doctrine. ILP draws from information gathered in the

field, processed by an analyst, and results given to the leadership. Upon reaching leadership

level, it is solely upon the leader to make a decision based off of recommendations, nothing else

or uniform to guide the decision-making process.

Mitigating Obstacles Facing Intelligence-Led Policing

The creation of fusion centers in the US were a solution created to streamline the

intelligence gathered from local, state, and federal agencies (Carter et al, 2009). Initially

established as a support center to exchange terrorist intelligence, these fusion centers are now

being utilized for all crime. Additionally, fusion centers are designed to support smaller local

agencies that do not have the capacity to support the ILP capability. Fusion centers have

provided a great resource for both local and state agencies that lack the ability to resource

analysts that can provide the needed intelligence processing capability. However, more issues

still arrive due to the lack of standards for analysts (Kringen et al, 2017) and standards for

analytic products (Carter et al, 2009).

Lewandowski & Carter (2017) describe fusion centers as the “lynchpin of information”

within ILP. There are 78 official fusion centers, lynchpins, that are established within the US.

These centers allow private and public sector law enforcement agencies to be connected in a way

17
that had previously been non-existent. Vertical and horizontal information flow processes were

established resulting in agencies now utilizing intelligence products created and collected daily

by these centers. Ratcliffe et al (2014) state that the fusion center concept enforces the thought

that these centers can counteract the previous trends of different levels of law enforcement

agencies conducting business in disorganized and fragmented nature as well as assist in

enforcing the national crime prevention strategies emplaced. Despite this, Lewandowski et al

(2017) is quick to remind that like many things within ILP, there is no standard or example

model for all fusion centers to emulate. While many states have been capitalizing on creating

their own “what right looks like” within their centers, as with anything, perceptions of the

centers among local, additional state, and federal agencies have been mixed on usefulness.

Despite this, fusion centers continue to collect, analyze, and distribute intelligence products to

any agency that requests assistance.

Summary

ILP has been around for many decades. Yet, the US has only begun implementing it after

the 9/11 terrorist attacks; and coincidently, implementation of ILP was not researched before

being recommended and implemented (Carter et al, 2014). Part of the issues surrounding the

ILP philosophy is the inability for agencies to agree or establish a standard definition of

intelligence and mitigating inaccurate perceptions, both with civilian and law enforcement, of

what it entails. Furthermore, the size and diversity of the US coupled with flexibility to use

multiple models of ILP create additional stressors that can lead to extremes of either too much

information or too little information spectrums. On the other hand, ILP can and has shown to be

extremely successful due to the flexibility associated with it. Private, public, local, state, and

federal agencies can be connected unlike any time before the 9/11 attacks. While ILP is still

18
being worked out and barriers are still being broken, ILP is here to stay and will continually be

built upon.

19
 CHAPTER 3

CURRENT FOCUS

Purpose

The objective of this study is to use a content analysis strategy to examine common

themes emerging within Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) policies and agency definitions. While

each agency may use or customize ILP policies and definitions to fit their department, research

has not yet been conducted on which themes within policies and definitions are being used to

provide baseline initiatives, strategies, and/or guiding principles. Further, this study will attempt

to discover themes that link ILP agencies to agencies that utilize different models within ILP.

Research Questions

This study addresses the following questions in order to reach the objective stated above:

1. How many agencies have policy statements relating to ILP strategies?

2. How is ILP defined by law enforcement agencies?

a. Is there a variation at different levels of law enforcement, such as local and state

levels?

3. Are agencies that report using community-oriented policing or problem-oriented policing

strategies, using language consistent with broader ILP definitions?

20
 CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter discusses the data collection approach and methods in which the data was

analyzed to address the specific research questions. This study used data collected from official

agency sources such as public websites and publicly available policy statements. This chapter

discusses the population and sample selection process, data coding procedures, and the analytic

strategy. Data collected and analyzed for this analysis was composed of unclassified official

policy documents from agencies at the local and state levels.

Population and Sample

The sampling frame for this research project consisted of local and state law enforcement

agencies within the United States. The population of law enforcement agencies were defined as

those agencies that report to the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). UCR was used to identify the

size of the law enforcement agencies to create categories of small, medium, or large agencies

based on the city population size. To account for actual agency size of full time sworn officers, a

cross analysis was conducted between the 2016 UCR report and the most recent published, 2013,

Law Enforcement Management and Administration Statistics (LEMAS) survey results. The

LEMAS results provide officer size while the UCR provides servicing community size. While

the LEMAS sample size is less than a quarter of the UCR sample size, it assisted in defining

agency size for this study.

21
 In order to define the local population, the US Census Bureau was used to provide the

definition of a small, medium, or large population. The Census Bureau classifies urbanized areas

as any area with a population of 50,000 or higher. The Census Bureau also provides more in

depth calculations such as total population combined with the density, land use, and land

distance to determine size ratings (Ratcliffe, M., Burd, C., Holder, K., & Fields, A., 2016).

Driven by this methodology, this study defines a small population as 49,999 residents or less. A

medium population will be considered as 50,000 to 99,999 and a large population is anything

over 100,000.

The UCR was selected due to the amount of agency reporting participation and the sheer

amount of data provided through the report while also defining the nine-regions and agency size.

Data from UCR is publicly available through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) website.

While population size is projected within the report, size of law enforcement agency in

comparison to the population size is not included within the report. Since the size of law

enforcement agencies is not present within the UCR, the LEMAS was specifically chosen due to

the level of detail of law enforcement agencies provided in the report. Age, race, gender, sworn

officers, non-sworn officers, full time, part time, and education level are included within the

survey. While the LEMAS has an immense level of detail, sworn officer numbers will be the

only data utilized in order to assist in classifying agency size.

Sharp (2006) presents the argument that agency size can be based off of total numbers of

sworn officers, sworn officers and civilian agency counterparts, and/or be based off of

jurisdiction size or racial composition. Cordner (1989) argues that agency size is solely dictated

22
and based off of investigative effectiveness. Regardless of defining factors and composition of

agencies, agency size is irrelevant with the ILP model due to metrics or fusion centers within the

model that provide actionable intelligence resources to all agencies that request it (Carter et al,

2009).

Despite arguments with defining law enforcement agency size or if it is relevant within

the ILP methodology, this study will define both. In order to define the agency size, Sozer &

Merlo (2013) define it as the number of officers per 1000 local residents and can be broken down

into a small agency serving 50,000 or less and a large agency serving over 50,000. Strom &

Hickman (2010) broke agencies into four categories defined by number of sworn officers versus

size of population: 100 or more officers, 50-99 officers, 25-49 officers, and less than 25 officers.

Therefore, combining both studies, a small agency supporting a small population is defined as

any agency with less than 50 officers serving a population of 49,999 or less. A medium agency is

defined as any agency with 50-99 officers supporting a population of 50,000 to 99,999. Lastly, a

large agency is defined as any agency with 100 or more officers serving a population of 100,000

or more.

This study used the compiled data gathered from the 2016 UCR and the 2013 LEMAS.

According to 2016 UCR data, there were 16,657 agencies that reported to the UCR throughout

the US categorized within nine sub-regions. Sub-regions listed were established by the UCR.

Reference Table 1 for breakdown of the UCR 9 sub-regions and states within each region. All

data regarding the sub-regions and states that compose them are derived from the UCR.

According to the 2013 LEMAS, 2,826 agencies participated in the survey with a total of 2,529

agencies reporting to the UCR. Sub-region breakdown within the LEMAS is consistent with

UCR.

23
 State agencies are defined for this project as the official agency operating for the state in

which it is established. While many agencies are considered state level, this research will only

select the state agency located within the capitol city of the selected state and/or serving as the

official state headquarters. Basis for selection of state and local agencies coupled with nine sub-

region classifications was generated from agencies that report to the UCR.

To obtain the sample, agencies were selected from each level through a stratified random

sampling procedure of each type of agency within the nine regions of the United States.

According to Bachman & Schutt (2018), a stratified random sample procedure creates a more

efficient sampling measure when drawing from a large population that utilizes known data.

Further, it assists the researcher in keeping proportions of the population equally represented. In

this study, local agencies compose of 63% of the total number of agencies reporting, state

agencies compose of 6% of the total number of agencies reporting. In turn, this study will

randomly select 27 local agencies, 69% of the total selected population, and select 9 state

agencies that make up 23% of the total selected population. The remaining 8% accounts for

24
federal agencies that reported to the UCR. While the percentage of relation for state agency

reporting is higher than the actual reporting numbers, a higher percent of state agencies is needed

to accurately assess the sub-regions.

A total of 27 local (9 small, 9 medium, 9 large) and 9 state agencies were selected for

policy review for a total sample size of 36 agencies. To obtain the 27 local agencies, before

randomly selecting using the Google random number generator, each local agency was broken

down into a small, medium, and large agencies in accordance with the defined matrix previously

mention. Each sub-region is represented with a local agency specified as a small, medium, and

large classification. Each policy collected was analyzed twice. First analysis was conducted in

accordance with Table 2. Second analysis was conducted with a qualitative software program,

NVivo 11, in an attempt to establish an agreed upon definition and implementation of ILP.

Agency selection was conducted utilizing a stratified random sampling of the 2016 Uniform

Crime Report (UCR) agency matrix.

25
 Agency Response Rate

A total of 36 agencies were contacted via email and phone over a period of three weeks.

All correspondence utilized email as primary with phone calls as the secondary and/or follow up

means of communication. Of the 36 agencies contacted, a total of 14 agencies (38%) provided

their policies for review, 4 agencies (11%) declined participation, 4 agencies (11%) responded

back as willing and wanting to help but did not have the policies to assist, 13 agencies (36%) did

not respond back, and 2 agencies (4%) were willing to assist but requested payment in order to

process the request with a designated official within the agency before providing any policies. Of

the 14 that participated, 6 had their policies posted on their designated websites. Reference Table

1 for response rate by sub region and agency size.

Data Collection Procedures

Data from the agencies was collected through two stages. First, website information for

each agency was reviewed for ILP language. Each agency’s website was searched for any and all

policies governing their established practices. This process consisted of reviewing the agency

mission and vision statements and searching the websites for statements or policies relating to

several key words. Key words used for search criteria include: intelligence, intelligence led

policing, intelligence gathering, analyst, analysis, intelligence sharing, intelligence cycle, policy.

Key words selected for this study were chosen in order to find articles related to ILP and have

been common themes and words throughout the studies analyzed (Brown, 2007; Carter, 2009;

Carter et al, 2009; Ratcliffe, 2008; Ratcliffe, 2016).

The second stage of data collection was to contact the agencies selected to participate

over a 3-week period beginning February 25, 2019 through March 18, 2019. Initial contact was

made through emailing appropriate agency personnel as found on the agency’s website if the

26
selected agency’s policies are not posted to their website. In the event an agency does not

provide any contact back after 72 hours, the agency was contacted by phone in accordance with

contact numbers provide on their website.

All agencies contacted via phone were followed immediately by an email. The email sent

ensured that each agency had the researcher’s correct email address as well as ensuring that the

request for information was clear. Follow up contact via phone and email was conducted 72-96

hours after contact if no response or confirmation of receipt. Upon receipt of all policies

requested, each policy will be labeled, filed, and categorized according to the agency type.

Risks associated with this research project were minimal due to the nature of the data

collection process. Most data collected is publicly released, unclassified data that will not harm

or hinder any agency. Further, all human interaction has been kept to the script level and does

not require the use, collection, or storage of personally identifiable information that could be

used against the individual or the agency.

Limitations

Limitations of this research method can be seen in the lack of demographic

considerations and policy implementation within selected agencies. Small samples are

representing regions while being randomly chosen versus being analyzed in a manner to equally

distribute age, racial, and gender demographic similarities between each chosen sample.

Additional weaknesses can be seen in that for this research, only the policies are being analyzed

and not how the agency is implementing or enforcing the policy. While the policy can provide a

wealth of knowledge and assist in linking different levels of law enforcement, lack of measuring

policy adherence to make an inference on the quality of the policy for the agency creates an

unknown element in how effective the policy is or can be for the agency (Dane, 2018).

27
Additional limitations were seen as agencies provided policies. Agencies that had multiple

policies only sent what they thought were applicable to the study leaving room for a gap in data

collection. Further, policies that were taken from agency websites might not have been the most

recent or explicit policy that governs that agency.

Coding Procedure and Analytic Strategy

Upon selection of agencies and gathering of policies, a content analysis was conducted

utilizing the selected agencies’ policies that guide them in incorporating ILP. Dane (2018)

defines a content analysis as a method in which “objective and systematic inferences” are

constructed in order to develop a relevant message or theme. This method was selected for this

project due to the need for identifying specific similarities among like and different agencies

utilizing the same policing methodology. Further, a content analysis will assist in order to

establish a better understanding of what ILP agencies are interpreting ILP to mean.

Content analysis has been a proven method of providing law enforcement agencies a

method of testing and measuring theories. Stemler (2015) provides a series of examples in which

the FBI has utilized and employed the use of content analysis to capture patterns in order to link

a multitude of domestic and international crimes. With this in mind, a content analysis of agency

polices should render critical patterns that will improve understanding of how ILP is/or can be

defined. In order to accomplish the analysis, series of questions, reference Table 3, have been

constructed in order to assist in identifying trends in the way agencies have interpreted the ILP

model as well as how they have adapted the model to fit their current crime issues. Each policy

will be weighted in accordance with the matrix and results will be compared between the like

agencies, small through large local across each region as well as with higher-level agencies such

as the state.

28
 In order to examine and code the content from the policies gathered, an inductive

qualitative approach was taken. To assist in providing an empirical coding process, NVivo 11

was used to analyze the policies. NVivo 11 is a software program that is designed specifically for

qualitative research and will organize the content analysis. An inductive approach was selected

due to the need to develop a general observation after observing and analyzing specific words

within the policies. Bachman et al (2018) strengthen the use of this strategy by explaining the

inductive method as a bottom up approach by taking key words and phrases to analyze specific

data with an end result of inducing a general explanation to account for the similarities or

differences throughout the data collection process.

29
 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents the results from the data collection procedures. The purpose of this

study was to implement a content analysis strategy to examine common themes emerging within

ILP policies and agency definitions. After selecting 36 agencies at random utilizing a stratified

random sampling procedure, agencies were contacted for publicly available documents

governing the agency’s policies. Regardless of policies found online, each agency was contacted

for confirmation of any additional or updated policies. A total of 14 agencies participated. Once

collected, policies were analyzed in accordance with the questions presented in Table 3 and then

queried through NVivo 11 in order to capture relevant themes while trying to answer the

established research questions.

Findings

Each agency had a different way of accounting for and naming their policies. Some agencies had

multiple individual policies provided for their agency. Other agencies had one large policy

consisting of multiple chapters and sections. Agencies with multiple policies were combined to

create one policy for this research project in order to assist in finding themes and keeping

consistency when analyzing.

Agency Policies of ILP

30
 The first stage of analysis utilized a deductive quantitative approach by examining what

type of policies agencies had provided. Fourteen of 18 agency policies met the inclusion criteria.

Results of the analysis are presented in Table 1. This section will focus on the results from

questions one, “Does the policy implement the use of ILP?” and two “Does the policy define

ILP?”. The results show that out of the 14 agencies that participated, only 2 agencies (14%) had

an official ILP policy to govern their policing methodology and strategies. The two agencies that

directly mention the ILP methodology were state level agencies that represented the Middle

Atlantic and the Pacific sub-regions.

The Middle Atlantic state agency had “Intelligence-Led Policing” within the title of their

policy and based their entire policy off of the methodology. Furthermore, the Middle Atlantic

state agency was the only agency that defined ILP within their policy. According to the Middle

Atlantic state agency, ILP is defined was follows:

“Intelligence-Led Policing is a collaborative philosophy that starts with information,

gathered at all levels of the organization that is analyzed to create useful intelligence and

an improved understanding of the operational environment. This will assist leadership in

making the best possible decisions with respect to crime control strategies, allocation of

resources, and tactical operations.”

The other state agency to provide an explicit ILP policy, the Pacific state agency, did not

have ILP within the title of their policy. However, they did explicitly have ILP as the basis of

their strategic plan, stating “[Pacific State agency] will co-locate with the state fusion center in

order to improve situational awareness and enhance implementation of an intelligence-led

31
policing philosophy.” The Pacific States agency, while basing their strategic plan off of ILP, only

mentioned that the ILP philosophy was to be implemented in order to assist with the local fusion

center and increase intelligence sharing and gathering techniques. Further, it is to be used as a

tool to assist other agencies and prosecutors in developing evidence against criminals.

Despite only having two agencies explicitly stating their use and implementation of ILP

in their policy statements, only one of the agencies identified what model of ILP they utilized as

well as what intelligence cycle. The Middle Atlantic State explicitly stated that they utilized the

“3i” Model with a five-phase continuous intelligence cycle consisting of “Planning and directing,

Collection, Analysis and Production, Dissemination, and Evaluation.”

Non ILP Agency Policy Comparison

The remaining questions within Table 2 open more into generalized questions that are

relevant to the implementation of the ILP model that may be integrated into other non-ILP

policies. Intelligence gathering, and sharing procedures are seen in more agencies than any other

set of questions. A total of 8 (57%) agencies explicitly mention intelligence gathering

procedures and 11 (78%) agencies mentioning internal sharing procedures. An example of the

intelligence gathering and sharing can be seen in the East North Central large agency policy. A

set of examples from this policy emphasizing the importance of gathering intelligence

“Gathering accurate intelligence can often have a higher law enforcement value than actual

intervention”, to disseminating it “each participating agency will contribute and allow

dissemination of information to all other members of the [East North Central Large agency state]

network.”

The second highest result to the intelligence sharing procedures question was seen in the

mention and use of analysts within agency policies. A total of 10 (71%) agencies explicitly

32
mention the use of analysts within their policies. Mention of analysts being utilized throughout

the policies ranges from their scope of responsibilities [South Atlantic Large Agency] “it is the

practice of the intelligence analysts of the agency to gather information directed toward specific

individuals or organizations reasonably suspected of criminal activity”; duties to their

department [West North Central Medium agency] systematic collection of data, collation of data,

analysis of data, dissemination of data, and evaluation of data; and having authority levels to

[West South Central state agency] “escalate priority levels.”

In addition to the two agencies that explicitly implement an ILP policy, four additional

agencies (2 state and 2 local) were identified as acknowledging their state’s fusion centers and

how they could access intelligence from and/or provide intelligence to the fusion center

answering the last question in Table 2 (“Does the policy mention fusion center interaction/

protocol?”). These agencies all provided instructions within their policies establishing the fusion

centers’ roles and responsibilities along with providing how to request and provide intelligence

products to them. For example, one medium size agency representing the Pacific States sub-

region explicitly list in the officer responsibilities section to ensure any officer witnessing

suspicious activity or has collected information that they feel is critical has the immediate

responsibility of “coordinating with any appropriate agency or fusion center.” A second example

of the intelligence flow process coming from the “boots on ground” to the state fusion center can

be seen in the below example.

“[South Atlantic sub-region] Officer’s Responsibilities

A. In the event that reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity is uncovered by [South

Atlantic sub-region] officers, in addition to fulfilling all other required enforcement

33
 and/or investigation action (i.e. arrest, investigative detention, citation, written warning,

etc.), the officers will perform the following requirements:

e. All relevant information concerning the contact with the violator and the articulable

facts surrounding the suspicious activity will be documented on [South Atlantic sub

region] Incident Report. The Incident Report should be forwarded to the immediate

supervisor.

f. The immediate supervisor will review the report and forward through the respective

chain of command to the troop, district, or division.

g. The troop, district, or division commander will review the report and forward it to the

Intelligence Officer for final action.

h. The Intelligence Officer will review the report and, if necessary, consult with the State

Fusion Center to determine the credibility of the information.”

Analysts and fusion centers are key components of ILP that are becoming integral parts

of older policing methods that are still serving the community. The ability for agencies to

produce, share, or request intelligence products is an essential factor that ILP facilitates. Though

agencies might not claim an ILP methodology, modern strategies are bringing agencies closer to

a reliance or dependency on ILP.

Agency Policing Strategies

The section of analysis continues from Table 2 to identify policies that represent agency

policing strategies in line with ILP. Policies were then entered into NVivo 11 to assist in

generating themes among all of the policies. Results were then cross examined between both in

order to answer the last research question of this study (“Are agencies that report using

34
community-oriented policing or problem-oriented policing strategies, using language consistent

with broader ILP definitions?”).

Of the 14 agencies that participated by providing their policies, 10 agencies provided a

policing philosophy for the department to practice. Five agencies directly implemented

Community Oriented Policing (COP). An example purpose statement from one agency utilizing

COP: “The [Mountain States sub-region Large agency] Police Department is committed through

established Community Oriented Policing initiatives to the Community Relations and Crime

Preventions programs…” An additional 4 agencies indirectly implement the COP philosophy.

An example can be seen in a Pacific State sub-region patrol function section, “Patrol services

include, but are not limited to: (h) Carrying out community oriented policing and problem-

solving activities including the application of resources to improve or resolve specific problems

or situations and contacting or assisting members of the public in a positive way.”

There were no agencies that directly implemented Problem Oriented Policing (POP).

However, there were 4 agencies that indirectly implemented POP, one of which did not mention

any other methodology. The example provided demonstrates the agency allowing discretion and

flexibility of officers to choose what strategy to operate under in order to execute the agency’s

mission.

“The [Pacific State sub-region] Police Department’s Community Outreach function will

be performed by the Community Outreach unit and District Policing section, and will be

responsible to providing the following at a minimum: … The development of problem

oriented or community oriented policing strategies, as needed…”

Lastly, 2 of the 5 agencies that utilized COP as their primary philosophy promote and encourage

the use of POP. The following quote came from a policy that documented what type of policing

35
methods were being utilized in order to understand what strategy should be implemented by case

or crime type. “The crime analyst shall be responsible for collecting, organizing, analyzing, and

disseminating the following types of data as it relates to criminal activity: 9. Problem oriented or

community policing strategies.” Despite the lack of policies promoting ILP in this sample,

language consistent with ILP definitions were seen and explained within the emerging themes.

While ILP is not the most common or dominant form of policing, more and more

verbiage can be seen in policies that closely relate to key ILP themes. Agencies using analyst

from within and resourcing them from higher headquarters is continually bringing agencies

closer to the ILP methodology. Further, state fusion centers are becoming more useful and “user

friendly” which assist in removing barriers in the intelligence sharing bureaucracy previously

created. Themes embedded with common and well-known policing methods such as COP and

POP are slowly bringing familiar policing methodologies to a more standard ILP policing

method.

Defining ILP: Emerging Themes

The policies provided for this study show that agency policies attempt to provide

resources, training and encouragement for officers to utilize whatever legal strategy they need to

ensure their community is protected. This protection is more than just protection from criminals,

rather the protection of basic human rights we as American citizens enjoy. With this in mind, the

most common words found throughout all of the policies are: intelligence, agency, analysis,

community, information, function, enforcement, report, and investigative. When cross-examined

with the current literature review, results provide almost the same frequency of use within the

scope of textual size with the same focus being on: agency, analysis, information, and

intelligence.

36
 Results from the most common words and the cross analysis were narrowed down to

three main themes: Intelligence, Community, and Analysis. Intelligence was selected for the first

theme due to the prevalence of its use in policies as well as its implications to this research being

the main part of the ILP model. The word “information” was also used significantly among the

policies but can be seen as being used at times for other aspects of policing activities such as

filling out basic reports (taken from the East North Central Large Agency policy) “contact

number will be assigned and the constituents name, contact information, the name of the

representative completing the form.” and “the constituent shall be provided the information

necessary to contact the appropriate entity.”

The words agency, function, and enforcement, though used many times in both the

policies and the literature review and have relevancy to ILP, they were not selected as themes

due to the context in which they were used through the policies. Many of the policies utilized

these words broadly and inconsistently with different meaning and purposes behind them versus

having a direct correlation to ILP practices. Two words remained from the most common words

within policies creating the last two themes are: community and analysis. Community was a

relevant theme that unexpectedly emerged as policies were analyzed. Aside from the amount of

times it was used, agencies used the word to describe both the community they served and the

law enforcement community themselves. Intelligence, the main theme, was then gathered from,

disseminated to, and utilized for the well-being of both the civilian community and law

enforcement community.

Lastly, the third theme derived from this study is analysis. Intelligence cannot be derived

without the process or a process of analysis. This word not only supports intelligence, but it also

supports internal functions of self-evaluations, problem-solving skills, and used to define need

37
for resources. From criminal to intelligence analysis, each type of analysis is critical to daily

operations within modern law enforcement agencies.

Theme 1: Intelligence

The first theme came through the use of intelligence. Though only two policies

implemented ILP, the focus on intelligence was a significant portion of the policies collected.

The word “intelligence” was found in 13 of the 14 collected polices and was used 977 times

within these policies. Key words most commonly associated and paired with the word

“intelligence” were: gathering/collection, function, sources, dissemination, report, and criminal.

Gathering and dissemination were the two most frequently used words among all of the policies.

For example, [East South Central Medium agency] “this department will provide and maintain a

section tasked with criminal intelligence gathering and dissemination, beyond the normal law

enforcement practices of the department.” A second example is provided by the medium sized

West North Central region policy with: “Command of Planning Section; responsible for

direction and coordination of all intelligence gathering, analysis, and dissemination. The

intelligence function may involve the following…”

Other key words supporting the ILP methodology were: systems, sharing, relevant, and

timely. First example being “[West North Central medium agency] will facilitate the flow of

timely information relevant to activity..” A second example is provided by the large South

Atlantic sub-region agency: “The Division Commander is responsible for ensuring that files are

maintained in accordance with the goals and objectives of the intelligence authority and include

information that is both timely and relevant.” A third example is provided by the medium

Mountain State agency under the coordination with other agencies section “this may include but

38
is not limited to linkages with prosecuting attorneys; local, state and regional intelligence

systems; and other local and state law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.”

Despite the word “intelligence” being used often, only three policies provided a

definition for what intelligence was or meant to their agency. A medium sized agency in the

West North Central region defined intelligence as:

“Refers to knowledge of past, present or future criminal activity resulting from the

collection of information, which provides the user with a basis for rational decision-

making. The gathering of intelligence information is an on-going process, often pro-

active, and not necessarily in response to a specific crime. Intelligence gathering may be

strategic or tactical.”

The second agency defining “intelligence” was a large agency representing the South Atlantic

region and defined intelligence three different ways: criminal, strategic, and tactical.

“-Criminal Intelligence: Information compiled, analyzed, and/or disseminated in an effort

to anticipate, prevent, or monitor criminal activity.

-Strategic Intelligence: Information concerning patterns or emerging trends of criminal

activity designed to assist in criminal apprehension and crime control strategies, for both

short and long term investigative goals.

-Tactical Intelligence: Information regarding a specific criminal event that can be used

immediately by operational units to further a criminal investigation, plan tactical

operations, and provide for officer safety.”

The third agency that defined intelligence was the state agency that is previously mention as

being the only agency in this research to have implemented an ILP methodology and established

definition which has been stated.

39
 Intelligence is commonly used throughout all of the policies, yet only a select few define

the terms and what it means for their agency. Whether it is not defined due to the complexity of

the term or that it does not need to be defined on the basis that generalized conclusions on what

is being inferred by the term is common knowledge, intelligence is a critical component of all

agencies. With this in mind, the other critical aspect that emerged from all of the policies is in the

second theme of Community. Intelligence drives decisions that directly impact the community

and the community is the key to gathering intelligence to make decisions.

Theme 2: Community

While not traditionally a significant word or term used within ILP, the word

“community” was found in 13 of the 14 policies being used 723 times. With the two agencies

that implemented the ILP methodology, community was used 59 times between the two.

References to this word within those policies differentiated significantly in that in the agency

policy that represented the Middle Atlantic sub-region, used the word within the context of the

law enforcement community at different levels “in which the law enforcement community adopts

a more advanced approach…” the analytical community “in order for the analytical community

to better produce future products…” and the ability for them to provide finished products to the

“public safety” community “generating finished intelligence products to service the public safety

community...”

The agency that represented the Pacific States utilized this word more geared to their officers

seeking community relations “law enforcement officer interacts with members of the community

on a daily basis…” interactions “while engaged in community relations activities” reputation

“thus maintaining a position of respect in the community in which he or she lives and serves” and

serving “the fundamental duties of an officer include serving the community…” with the end

40
result of being able to protect the community with the daily intelligence being collected due to

their involvement from within.

When analyzing the word community within the 5 policies that explicitly implement

COP, key words that emerge with its use are: partnership, role models, improve, relations,

services, awareness, educate, and policing. These policies make it clear to the reader that COP is

not just a policing methodology or strategy. Rather, this type of policing is a commitment to

proactively address immediate and future conditions that hinder public safety such as “crime,

social disorder, and fear of crime.” Lastly, the remaining 6 policies that utilize the word

community display the context in the same manner as the COP agency policies. Creating

partnerships, providing education, and serving the community with accountability consistently

emerge. Despite the trends of this word, none of the policies attempt to define it.

Theme 3: Analysis

The last major theme that emerged when analyzing all of the 14 policies was the use of

the word analysis. This word is used a total of 581 times within 11 policies. Of the policies, the

two ILP agencies use the word a total of 182 times. For ILP agencies, analysis is the key to sort

through a significant amount of data in order to develop intelligence. Defined by the agency

representing the Middle Atlantic sub-region defines analysis in two manners. First definition is:

“Is the transformation of collected data into intelligence codified in intelligence products

such as reports and briefings. First, the raw data is evaluated for its validity and reliability

and then entered into SIMS, which requires assigning a security and handling code. Next,

analysis is performed to derive meaning, make conclusions, and propose

recommendations. Finally, production encompasses the timely presentation of the

41
 analysis, conclusions and recommendations in a format suitable to the consumer for the

purpose of fulfilling different intelligence needs.”

The second definition relates specifically to defining intelligence analysis that can be seen as the

“backbone” of ILP.

“Intelligence analysis is the process of producing intelligence products (briefings, reports,

etc.) based on the evaluation of data and inputs from multiple sources about a specific

area of interest. It involves, but not limited to, the analysis of previously processed

intelligence, for often it requires an analyst to draw upon experiences, context, and other

relevant data points…”

Defined by the ILP agency representing the Pacific State sub-region, analysis is “a system

utilizing regularly collected information on reported crimes and offenders to assist in the

prevention and suppression of crime and to apprehend criminal offenders.” The policy further

defines it by stating, “analysis is a scientific process that employs systematic techniques of

analysis and seeks to determine, for predictive purposes, the frequency with which events occur

and the extent to which they are associated with other events.”

The remaining 9 policies that utilized the word “analysis” primarily related or used in

context with: crime, training, annual, statistical, and use of force. These policies utilize the

analysis function to create products involving crime and law enforcement reactions to situations

that clearly relate back to the higher number of agencies utilizing COP. In the large West North

Central agency policy, analysis is defined as a function. “The primary components of an

effective crime analysis system include the collection, analysis, and distribution of crime data in

useable form, and the subsequent evaluation of the applicability and timeliness of that data.”

Examples of the word utilized in context with other activities: “At least annually, the

42
Professional Standards Sergeant should prepare an analysis report on use of force incidents” and

“The Division Commander designated to coordinate the crisis intervention strategy for this

department should ensure that a thorough review and analysis of the department response to

these incidents is conducted annually.”

Analysis serves in many capacities within a department. From serving as an internal

azimuth check to processing information to use, it is a critical component to each agency

regardless of what policing method they employ. The how and why analysis is used, though

titled differently as intelligence versus criminal, remains consistent between all of the policing

methods seen in the policies reviewed.

Summary

In this chapter, findings from the policies collected and analyzed were presented in a

manner that lead to emerging themes that connected to the previous literature on the subject of

ILP. While ILP is not the predominate policing method, many agencies acknowledge the

methodology and utilize products created by the analysts that ILP require and employ. Further,

key words and the context in which they were used show how agencies prioritize their efforts

and resources in order to carry out their daily mission.

Results from this study show that ILP can be seen as a state level asset or force multiplier

for smaller agencies to utilize. This in turn allows smaller agencies more flexibility to work with

their community while being provided access to higher support if needed without the added

burden of cost to the agency and the town they protect and serve. Intelligence analysts are not a

common theme but designated crime analysts are and their job specifications, description, and

responsibility translate well with intelligence analysts that are critical to the ILP model.

43
 CHAPTER 6

Discussion and Conclusion

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine ILP policies to identify common themes and

work towards the development of a common definition. To accomplish this purpose, this study

used a mixed-methods content analysis approach to examine 14 agency policies from agencies

across the United States. This chapter will discuss the results that emerged from this study and

implications for future research. The first section of this chapter will bring together the finding

with the current literature on ILP as well as provide implications for policies with an emphasis

on future research needed to benefit the ILP methodology. Similarly, to the Carter et al (2014)

study, there is still a significant lack of study involving agencies benefits from using ILP.

Despite this, evidence can be seen in this study on how ILP is becoming more popular within the

US and agencies are reaping benefits from their higher agency’s ability to produce intelligence

products through state fusion centers.

Discussion

Three questions were examined while taking an inductive content analysis approach: (1)

how many agencies have policy statements relating to ILP strategies?; (2) how is ILP defined by

law enforcement agencies? (Is there a variation at different levels of law enforcement, such as

local and state levels?); and (3) are agencies that report using community-oriented policing or

problem-oriented policing strategies, using language consistent with broader ILP definitions?.

44
 The first research question was needed in order to establish a baseline of agencies

actually defining their methodology as an ILP approach. Results from the policy analysis reveled

that only two agencies selected provided ILP as their main methodology. To note, both of these

agencies were state level agencies. The second question was established to decipher if law

enforcement agencies that utilized ILP actually defined it and if the definition varied between

agency size and was not fully answered due to the lack of selecting agencies that implemented

ILP. Lastly, question 3 was established to ensure that agencies that did not claim to implement

ILP were still analyzed in this study to see if the previous literature was accurate in that ILP

compliments and can be integrated with other policing methods or philosophies. It was answered

through the revelation of themes that emerged while cross-examining the policies in NVivo 11.

Three major themes emerged through this study. First, intelligence represents a major

theme in agency policies that directly relates to ILP concepts. Thirteen of the fourteen agencies

mentioned the use and collection of intelligence, yet only three agencies defined intelligence

within their policies. This finding supports the conclusions of Jensen and associates (2018) that

agencies rely on intelligence but struggle to define it and the ones that do define intelligence

tailor the definition to facilitate their mission. On the other hand, with the agencies that did

define intelligence, one theme was clear: information is continually gathered and analyzed to

support leadership in making a decision. This finding is consistent with the definition of

intelligence found in previous studies (Cope (2004), Brown (2007), Alach (2011), Carter (2009)

and Ratcliffe (2016)).

Second, the concept of community emerged as another major theme. Consistent with the

word intelligence, community was used within 13 of the 14 policies. Context in which

community was used varied between agencies. For instance, some agencies emphasized the

45
civilian community, while others focused on the law enforcement community or the analytical

community. Correlations between community and ILP are seen within each context presented.

Within the civilian community, primarily within the 5 policies that explicitly use COP,

intelligence and ILP methods are seen being integrated with COP in order to better serve the

community coinciding with previous literature seen with McGarrell et al. (2007), Ratcliffe

(2008), Carter (2009), Carter et al. (2009), Ratcliffe et al (2008). References to the law

enforcement community relate to ILP through instructions presented in how and what to

communicate between each other when dealing with intelligence (Jackson et al., 2007, Ratcliffe,

2008; Carter et al., 2013). In line with the law enforcement community, the analytical community

seen in policies play an important role within agencies. Similar to the Kringen et al. (2017)

study, many policies do not have outlined standards for analysts yet they are critical components

in how products are created, prioritized, and shared. Further, the analyst community, regardless

of agency policing methodology, are heavily relied on to create products for leaders to make

critical decisions that affect their community (Carter et al, 2013; Santos, 2014; Kringen et al,

2017).

Finally, analysis was the third major theme that emerged as policies were analyzed. From

criminal analysis to intelligence analysis, unlike intelligence, policies defined the word more

often and more similarities were seen between the two ILP agencies and the remaining 12 non-

ILP agencies when defining and implementing analytic processes. Though none of the policies

caution against relying strictly on analysis to generate intelligence like Brown (2007) did, all of

the policies that mentioned analysis did account for the need to “scientifically approach” a

problem or set of problems that can only be influenced through an analytic strategy similar to

previous studies (Carter, 2009; Ratcliffe, 2016).

46
 Additional minor themes that emerged consistent with the literature review can be seen in

that ILP is used in conjunction with COP and POP (Carter et al, 2009; McGarrell et al, 2007;

Ratcliffe, 2008). Fusion centers are being used as force multipliers for smaller agencies and can

be seen as a valid solution to streamlining intelligence from all levels of agencies like Carter et

al. (2009) and Lewandowski et al (2017) suggest in their studies. While not specified in official

policies, all of the small agencies contacted that wanted to participate but had nothing official to

provide, explained that they all utilized their state’s respective fusion center to fill shortfalls and

gaps within their own agency.

Last minor theme to be recognized from this study is that intelligence analysts were not

common in many of the policies. Rather, crime and criminal analysts were and the job

description of responsibilities for these individuals was in relation to that of an analysts working

within an ILP model. This study confirmed the Kringen et al (2017) results that analysts are

becoming more prevalent as we continue to thrive on technological advancements. Further,

systems such as the 1980 Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) introduced by Peterson

(1994), are still being utilized with modern advancements with three agencies having explicit

details in how to use the system and the importance of maintaining the data. Despite only having

2 agencies from this study utilizing this system, both agencies came from different regions

providing that others within their regions use the program as well.

Policy Implications

Overall, findings from this study indicate that agencies are aware of ILP and that ILP

strategies or methods can be seen within agency policies. Whether this is a byproduct of ILP

being more popular or just how agencies evolve policies over time to accommodate new theories

and/or new technology to complement their mission and vision as an agency, more research must

47
be done in order to discern if ILP is the solution for the US as it has been established in countries

such as the UK and Australia. Similar to previous findings, Ratcliffe (2016) emphasizes that ILP

“richly integrates existing strategies” and can be seen as a solution to reduce crime. However,

ILP can only do so if a national strategy is emplaced and training of police leadership in how to

implement ILP is provided at all levels. Until this happens, ILP will continue to struggle as a

dominant policing methodology such as COP or POP.

Additional weaknesses found in this study can be seen in the inability to analyze how

well or efficiently the agencies implement the policies that were collected. Ratcliffe (2002)

raises the same concern with this by questioning the validity of policies when there are no

internal or external evaluations to control or contribute to agencies policy implementation.

Collected policies also only emphasize specific instructions for the agency itself. This is

problematic when studying ILP in that ILP is a consistent flow of intelligence from different

levels of law enforcement agencies to accomplish a common good versus a single agency

capability to gather and utilize intelligence for personal use only. Not being able to analyze how

agencies share data among like agencies within their state or region hinder understanding how

well the model works. Further, this study did not analyze previous policies leading up to the

current one being analyzed. Knowing why or how the agency got to the current policy could be

key in determining influencers that could affect ILP implementation (Department of Justice,

2005).

Despite the weaknesses presented in this study, based on both the findings and previous

literature, I believe that agencies of all sizes should consider adopting an ILP methodology. In

doing so, they would be able to build upon their current strategies without an immediate dramatic

48
change, begin to contribute to the gaps in research by providing lessons learned and begin

providing data on how ILP can or does not change the respective community.

Considerations for this transition should include, but are not limited to, analysis of

current state fusion center products, budget analysis, and willingness or seriousness of agency

change. In looking at the state fusion center, is the center providing daily, weekly, monthly

briefs? If so, are they what you need or are they of value to protect your community. Find out

who or what agencies are providing them information and are they providing products that are

beneficial to the agencies utilizing them. Analyzing this provides assistance when looking at the

budget requirement of having a full time analyst. Does the budget allow for it, can the budget be

re-allocated or increased? Can you afford training and if so, for how many officers? Is there

federal or state incentive funding? Lastly, can you convince your officers within the agency to

transition? If not, are you willing to hire “new blood” and lose valued experience? These

questions dig into the core concepts that will assist in the transition.

Recommendations and Future Research

To enhance this field of study, similar studies should be conducted at a state level

individually. Due to the vast amount of differences seen in this study in how states and regions

classify and name policies, the field would benefit greatly from research being conducted at a

state level in which a researcher became familiar with the policing structure, language, and

formalities of their selected state. This would alleviate loss of data through misinterpretation

from both the researcher and the agencies being analyzed and provide a chain reaction in support

as agencies provide critical information in how they operate and/or depend upon each other.

Further strengthening factors would include an established interview in which the

researcher could gain a better understanding of ILP affects. First, the interview portion would

49
assist in understanding effects of ILP in smaller agencies that do not have established policies.

Second, it would assist in establishing how policies are derived and drive agencies at different

levels within the selected state. Lastly, this interview section could potentially identify additional

resources needed in order to assist in the implementation of ILP or identify that ILP is not the

best method of policing for the state.

Future research could also greatly benefit from looking at policy building factors such as

Lexipol and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Both

organizations are well known among law enforcement agencies and have the ability to provide

critical policy support to agencies. A study focusing on these resources and what they

recommend to agencies could greatly benefit ILP through gathering common requests and

common themes as to what agencies want in their policies as well as agency shortfalls that could

be improved by utilizing ILP and a foundation in their agency.

50
REFERENCES

51
 References

Alach, Z. (2011). The emperor is still naked: how intelligence led policing has

repackaged common sense as transcendental truth. The Police Journal. 84

pp.75-97.

Bachman, R. & Schutt, R. (2018). Fundamentals of Research in Criminology and Criminal

Justice. 4th Edition. Sage Publications.

Brown, S. (2007). The meaning of criminal intelligence. International Journal of Police Science

& Management. 9 (4), pp.336-340.

Carter, D. & Carter, J. (2008). Intelligence-led policing: Conceptual and functional

considerations for public policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 20 (3), pp. 310-325.

Carter, D. L. (2009). Law enforcement intelligence: A guide for state, local, and tribal

law enforcement agencies. Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Carter, D. & Carter, J. (2009). The intelligence fusion process for state, local, and tribal law

enforcement. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 36 (12), pp.1323-1339.

Carter, J. & Phillips, S. (2013). Intelligence-led policing and forces of organizational

change in the United States. Policing & Society.

DOI:10.1080/10439463.2013.865738.

Carter, J. (2016). Institutional pressures and isomorphism: the impact on

intelligence-led policing adoption. Police Quarterly. 19 (4). pp.435-460.

Carter, J., Phillips, S., & Gayadeen, M. (2014). Implementing intelligence-led policing:

52
 an application of loose-coupling theory. Journal of Criminol Justice, 42. pp.

433-442.

Cope, N. (2004). Intelligence led policing or policing led intelligence?. Brit. J.

Criminol, 44 (2), pp. 188-203.

Cordner, G. (1989). Police agency size and investigative effectiveness. Journal of Criminal

Justice. 17. pp. 145-155.

Dane, F. (2018). Evaluating Research: Methodology for People Who Need to Read Research.

Second Edition. Sage Publications.

Darroch, S. & Mazerolle, L. (2012). Intelligence-led policing: a comparative analysis

of organizational factors. Police Quarterly. 16 (1). pp.3-37.

Fraser, A. & Atkinson, C. (2014). Making up gangs: looping, labeling and the new

politics of intelligence-led policing. Youth Justice. 14 (2). pp.154-170.

Herchenrader, N. & Myhill-Jones, S. (2015). GIS supporting intelligence-led policing.

Police Practice and Research, 16 (2). pp.136-147.

Jackson, A. & Brown, M. (2007). Ensuring efficiency, interagency cooperation, and

protection of civil liberties: shifting from a traditional model of policing to an

intelligence-led policing (ILP) paradigm. Criminal Justice Studies. 20 (2).

pp.111-129.

Jensen, C, McElreath, D., & Graves, M. (2018). Introduction to Intelligence Studies. New York,

New York. Routledge. Second Edition.

Kringen, J., Sedelmaier, C., & Elink-Schuurman-Laura, K. (2017). Assessing the relevance of

statistics and crime analysis courses for working crime analysts. Journal of Criminal

Justice Education, 28 (2), pp.155-173.

53
Lewandowski, C. & Carter, J. (2017). End-user perceptions of intelligence

dissemination from a state fusion center. Security Journal. 30 (2) pp.467-486.

McGarrell, E., Freilich, J., & Chermak, S. (2007). Intelligence-led policing as a

framework for responding to terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal

Justice, 23, pp. 142-158. DOI: 10.1177/1043986207301363.

New Jersey State Police, Center for Policing Terrorism at the Manhattan Institute.

(2006). Practical guide to intelligence-led policing.

Peterson, M.B. (1994). Applications in criminal analysis: A sourcebook. Westport, CT: Praeger

Publishers.

Ratcliffe, J.H. (2002). Intelligence-led policing and the problems of turning rhetoric

into practice. Policing and Society, 12 (1), pp. 53-66.

Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-led policing. Environmental Criminology and

Crime Analysis, Chapter 14, pp. 262-282.

Ratcliffe, J.H. (2016). Intelligence-Led Policing. Taylor & Francis Group.

Ratcliffe, J.H. & Guidetti, R. (2008). State police investigative structure and the

adaptation of intelligence-led policing. Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies & Management. 31 (1), pp.109-128.

Ratcliffe, J., Strang, S., & Taylor, R. (2014). Assessing the success factors of organized

crime groups: intelligence challenges for strategic thinking. Policing: an

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. 37 (1). pp.206-227.

Ratcliffe, M., Burd, C., Holder, K., & Fields, A. (2016). Defining rural at the US Census Bureau.

American Community Survey and Geography Brief. US Department of Commerce.

December

54
Santos, R. (2014). The effectiveness of crime analysis for crime reduction: cure or

diagnosis?. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 30 (2). pp.147-168.

Schaible, L. & Sheffield, J. (2012). Intelligence-led policing and change in state law

enforcement agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &

Management. 35 (4), pp.761-784.

Sharp, E. (2006). Policing urban America: a new look at the politics of agency size. Social

Science Quarterly. 87 (2). pp. 291-307.

Sozer, M. & Merlo, A. (2013). The impact of community policing on crime rates: does the effect

of community policing differ in large and small law enforcement agencies?. Police

Practice and Research. 14 (6) pp. 506-521.

Stemler, S. (2015). Content analysis. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

pp.1-14. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

Strom, K. & Hickman, M. (2010). Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies: a national

examination of forensic processing in police departments. Criminology and Public

Policy. 9 (2) pp. 381-404.

United States Department of Justice. (2003). The national criminal intelligence sharing

plan: solutions and approaches for a cohesive plan to improve our nation’s ability to

develop and share criminal intelligence. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

United States Department of Justice. (2005). Intelligence-led policing: the new intelligence

architecture. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

United States, Department of Justice, Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

(2008). Reducing Crime through Intelligence-Led Policing (pp. 1-44).

United States, Department of Justice, Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

55
 (2009). Navigating your agency’s path to intelligence-led policing.

United States, Department of Justice, Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative,

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2012). Law enforcement analytic standards.

Second Edition

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), 2013. Ann

Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor],

2015-09-22. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36164.v2

Warner, M. (2002). Wanted: a definition of intelligence. Defense Technical Information Center.

ADA525816. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525816.pdf

Williams, D. (2017). Intelligence-led policing. The Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement

Management Institute of Texas. pp.1-12.

56
 VITA

Education:

University of Mississippi
August 2017-May 2019
Graduated with a Masters in Criminal Justice

The Citadel
August 2005-May 2009
Graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice

Job Experience:

United States Army

57