Intelligence-Led Policing - Linking Local and State Policies To Es - Important
Intelligence-Led Policing - Linking Local and State Policies To Es - Important
Intelligence-Led Policing - Linking Local and State Policies To Es - Important
eGrove
2019
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………ii
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………...v
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….4
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………18
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………20
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………21
v
Agency Response Rate…………………………………………………………………………..25
Chapter 5: Results………………………………………………………………………………..29
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………29
Findings………………………………………………………………………………….29
Theme 1: Intelligence………………………………………………..…………..36
Theme 2: Community…………………………………………..………….…….39
Theme 3: Analysis…………………………………..…………………….……..40
Summary………………………………………………….……………………….……..42
Introduction………………………………………………………………….…………...43
Discussion……………………………………………………………………….……….43
Policy Implication………………………………………………………………..46
References………………………………………………………………………………………..51
Vita……………………………………………………………………………………………….57
vi
LIST OF TABLES
vii
CHAPTER 1
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
(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).
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
context, it is imperative that we evaluate both the NIM in the UK and the US’s Global
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 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
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
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.
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
identified threat. Going back to the second challenge, efficiency is lost when agencies do not
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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:
a. Is there a variation at different levels of law enforcement, such as local and state
levels?
20
CHAPTER 4
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
Limitations
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
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
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
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
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
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
gathered at all levels of the organization that is analyzed to create useful intelligence and
making the best possible decisions with respect to crime control strategies, allocation of
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
33
and/or investigation action (i.e. arrest, investigative detention, citation, written warning,
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
g. The troop, district, or division commander will review the report and forward it to the
h. The Intelligence Officer will review the report and, if necessary, consult with the State
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
“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-
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.
activity designed to assist in criminal apprehension and crime control strategies, for both
-Tactical Intelligence: Information regarding a specific criminal event that can be used
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
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
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
“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
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,
41
analysis, conclusions and recommendations in a format suitable to the consumer for the
The second definition relates specifically to defining intelligence analysis that can be seen as the
“backbone” of ILP.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
50
REFERENCES
51
References
Alach, Z. (2011). The emperor is still naked: how intelligence led policing has
pp.75-97.
Brown, S. (2007). The meaning of criminal intelligence. International Journal of Police Science
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
Carter, D. & Carter, J. (2009). The intelligence fusion process for state, local, and tribal law
DOI:10.1080/10439463.2013.865738.
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.
Cordner, G. (1989). Police agency size and investigative effectiveness. Journal of Criminal
Dane, F. (2018). Evaluating Research: Methodology for People Who Need to Read Research.
Fraser, A. & Atkinson, C. (2014). Making up gangs: looping, labeling and the new
pp.111-129.
Jensen, C, McElreath, D., & Graves, M. (2018). Introduction to Intelligence Studies. New York,
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
53
Lewandowski, C. & Carter, J. (2017). End-user perceptions of intelligence
New Jersey State Police, Center for Policing Terrorism at the Manhattan Institute.
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
Ratcliffe, J.H. & Guidetti, R. (2008). State police investigative structure and the
Ratcliffe, J., Strang, S., & Taylor, R. (2014). Assessing the success factors of organized
Ratcliffe, M., Burd, C., Holder, K., & Fields, A. (2016). Defining rural at the US Census Bureau.
December
54
Santos, R. (2014). The effectiveness of crime analysis for crime reduction: cure or
Schaible, L. & Sheffield, J. (2012). Intelligence-led policing and change in state law
Sharp, E. (2006). Policing urban America: a new look at the politics of agency size. Social
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
Stemler, S. (2015). Content analysis. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
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
United States Department of Justice. (2005). Intelligence-led policing: the new intelligence
55
(2009). Navigating your agency’s path to intelligence-led policing.
Second Edition
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor],
2015-09-22. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36164.v2
ADA525816. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525816.pdf
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:
57