Intelligence-led policing (ILP)

Traditional approaches to policing use a reactive model in which officers respond to incident reports and crimes after they occur. By contrast, intelligence-led policing (ILP) favors a preventative approach to crime-fighting. It uses crime data, threat assessments, surveillance, known information about habitual offenders and potential crime victims, and other analytical techniques to try to anticipate where and when crimes will occur. Police can then take preemptive action, increasing their physical presence in areas where crimes are deemed likely to occur or seeking to neutralize the imminent threat posed by specific would-be criminals.

ILP overlaps with several other alternative law enforcement models, including predictive policing, problem-oriented policing, disruption policing, and community-oriented policing. The practice of ILP is controversial, with opponents pointing out its potential to be applied in a discriminatory or an arbitrary manner. Other critics note that it can be used not only against dangerous habitual offenders and organized crime syndicates, but also against political dissenters and organized protest groups.

Brief History

Intelligence-led policing (ILP) originated in the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, a policymaking agency operating in England and Wales, led its initial development. The agency codified emerging ideas about ILP in a paradigm known as the National Intelligence Model (NIM), which was officially released in 2000. Initially, the NIM focused primarily on chronic offenders and aimed to develop effective crime-prevention techniques that saved police financial and human resources. Its defining objective was to reduce crime and maintain public order.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, prompted American law enforcement agencies to embrace ILP as part of a new focus on antiterrorism. In 2004, the US federal government passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), which expanded the efforts of American law enforcement agencies to use intelligence strategies to fight not only terrorism, but “all crimes, all threats, [and] all hazards.”

Interagency information-sharing soon emerged as a critical focus of the American ILP archetype. Local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies entered a new era of streamlined cooperation. The United States established a nationwide network of fusion centers, where data and intelligence gathered by tribal, local, state, and federal agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are amalgamated and shared to prevent potential reporting gaps. Local and state police departments also began to employ dedicated intelligence officers and analysts, who became responsible for collating intelligence data, conducting threat assessments, and identifying potentially problematic areas, individuals, and/or groups.

At the same time, continued technological advancements led both US and international law enforcement agencies to make increased use of computerized data collection, organization, and analysis tools. These technology-driven techniques join traditional, on-the-ground approaches including manual surveillance, informant and witness interviewing, and undercover operations in defining prevailing ILP strategies. Today, the scope and mandate of ILP efforts in the United States and other developed countries extends far beyond counterterrorism to impact a wide range of everyday law enforcement issues and challenges.

Overview

Intelligence-led policing (ILP) uses a multitude of informational and data-driven strategies to anticipate where crimes may take place and who might commit them. Police then preemptively respond, aiming to either prevent a crime from ever taking place by maintaining a prominent visible presence or thwart crimes in progress by strategically positioning themselves in problem areas.

In attempting to predict where crimes might take place, police leverage data and information technology to identify tangible patterns and analyze known and theorized contributing factors. These systems look at dynamics including the time of day when particular crimes take place, areas where specific crimes occur at higher-than-normal frequencies, and other influences like geography and weather. Police also consider so-called “aftershock” factors, areas where particular types of crimes have already been successfully committed and are thus more likely to occur again. Advanced computerized modeling tools perform detailed, complex analyses using these types of factors to pinpoint potential crime “hot spots,” allowing police to dedicate more resources to those areas.

ILP also targets potential criminals. The original approach endorsed by the NIM advocates for the profiling of known and suspected criminals, guiding police to generate detailed reports about individuals of interest. These reports document a person’s address, lifestyle and habits, social associations, family tree, and other personal information gathered through previous police encounters, formal and informal interviews with witnesses or associates, undercover operations, and preemptive surveillance. They also assess the level of risk the individual poses and consider the means the individual might use to elude police observation or arrest.

Other models endeavor to preemptively identify potential victims by using data and information generated by previous criminal activity. For example, a mugger may be targeting vulnerable individuals that fit a certain profile or an organized ring of car thieves may be targeting a particular vehicle make or model. Police can then use that information to identify areas that contain a dense concentration of potential victims that match the criminal’s modus operandi and take anticipatory preventative action.

Many law enforcement agencies that have adopted ILP efforts report strong anecdotal claims in support of its effectiveness. However, independent statistical analysis has thus far generated relatively little in the way of persuasive empirical evidence that ILP leads to tangible reductions in crime. The practice has also incited many controversies and concerns, many of which note that law enforcement agencies use ILP with little oversight or accountability. Critics thus argue that has the potential to be applied (or is already being applied) in discriminatory ways, disproportionately targeting certain racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups. Others note that it normalizes the invasive police surveillance of civilians who are not being actively investigated for a specific crime they are suspected of having committed, bringing the paradigm in conflict with constitutional rights and civil liberties. Another criticism centers on ILP’s extended applications to individual activists and organized protest groups, noting its potential for abuse as a form of political suppression. In this sense, some opponents characterize ILP as a novel form of law enforcement intimidation.

Bibliography

Carter, Jeremy. “Intelligence-Led Policing.” Oxford Bibliographies, 27 June 2018, www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0250.xml. Accessed 26 May 2019.

Gundhus, Helene Oppen, Kira Vrist Ronn, and Nick Fyfe. Moral Issues in Intelligence-Led Policing. Abingdon-on-Thames, Routledge, 2017.

“Intelligence-Led Policing.” Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 2017, chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.osce.org/chairmanship/327476?download=true. Accessed 26 May 2019.

LeCates, Rich. “Intelligence-Led Policing: Changing the Face of Crime Prevention.” International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2018, www.policechiefmagazine.org/changing-the-face-crime-prevention/. Accessed 26 May 2019.

Ratcliffe, Jerry H. Intelligence-Led Policing. Abingdon-on-Thames, Routledge, 2016.

Ratcliffe, Jerry H. “Intelligence-Led Policing and the Problems of Turning Rhetoric into Practice.” Policing and Society, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2002): pp. 53–66.

Swain, Val. “Disruption Policing: Surveillance and the Right to Protest.” Open Democracy, 8 Aug. 2013, www.opendemocracy.net/en/opensecurity/disruption-policing-surveillance-and-right-to-protest/. Accessed 26 May 2019.

Wells, Ronald. “Intelligence-Led Policing: A New Paradigm in Law Enforcement.” Public Agency Training Council, www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/intelligence‗policing.shtml. Accessed 26 May 2019.