Intelligence-led Policing and Information Sharing

Throughout its more than hundred year history, the Federal Bureau of Investigations has been a very important agency to the United States. As a threat-based and intelligence-driven national security organization, the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership to federal, state, and international agencies (“A Brief History of the FBI”). The Bureau’s success has always depended on its agility, its willingness to adapt, and the ongoing dedication of its personnel. But in the years since

Intelligence-led policing is one of the main global issues and important factor that the police service are faced with in today’s modern society in particular the Queensland Police Service. Intelligence-led policing is explained through a various different sources in literature, which explain the definition and issues surrounding intelligence-led policing, the main fundamental structures that support and make up intelligence-led policing and the role it has played in information communication technologies, organised crime and transnational organised crime. There is also a link seen between the literature of intelligence-led policing and organisational documents such as annual reports, legislation's and strategic plans which have been put forwards

Intelligence-led Policing (IPL) in its simplest definition is a policing model for crime prevention and reduction focussed on crime ‘hot spots’, recidivism amongst offenders and repeat victimization. However, IPL is ever-changing and is not a clear-cut model and therefore requires a broader definition. IPL models therefore act more as a framework for effective police work Although similar models existed previously, IPL gained momentum in the UK, US, Canada and Australia during and after the 1990s. Since crime is in a constant state of flux, so too is IPL, this in part is due to changes in resources and technology and IPL is not without its strengths and weaknesses as evidenced through examination of its increasingly widespread use throughout law enforcement.

The DNI has modestly more power than the old Directors of Central Intelligence (DCIs), but not enough to give the ODNI/AIS real clout. “Herding cats” remains a decent description of the ODNI’s basic role. The DNI has several duties and responsibilities, but for the subject of improving intelligence information sharing the focus will be directed towards: Improving Analytics, Improving Information Security, Improving Foreign Liaison Relationships, and the end state of Improving Information Sharing.

Emphasis on teamwork is a very important element in organizational behavior in the criminal justice or security agency. Many criminal organization are starting to work together to goal of making a huge profit in illegal activity, which is making it difficult for law enforcement to infiltrate and investigate a criminal organization because most of the criminal organization have knowledge of law enforcement personnel around their local area. Law enforcement agencies have teamed up and used other undercover officer from different local, state, and federal agencies to infiltrate and investigate illegal activity by criminal organizations. The United States may also team with agencies on an international level to help combat international criminal organization, in an effort to stop terrorism, drugs, human trafficking, and etc.

While these foreseeable critical issues certainly pose a set of substantial concerns for and potential threats to policing in the future, many can be dealt with and effectively addressed in the present-day through the implementation of a handful of changes. The first change that can start to take place in the policing world today is to establish

Since 2010, integration has been the vanguard initiative of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). This initiative has been successful in several areas to include: the creation of National Intelligence Managers (NIM) for all primary geographic regions and functional areas; enhanced transparency; and the focus on the negative impacts of over classifying documents. However, not all efforts to integrate the intelligence community (IC) have been successful. For instance, the ODNI did not succeed at creating a comprehensive sharing environment, and has not fully integrated federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Although, these failed areas of integration can be mitigated in the future through the appropriate initiatives taken by the ODNI.

The new aged concept of intelligence-led policing seems to be the ultimate answer for advancing criminal activity leading the United States. Everything new though, comes with its fair share of disadvantages and challenges. Some of the disadvantages argued against using this predicative method of policing includes the argument of limited resources, political pressure, information management, data overload, data quality, and adaptation (Casady, 2011 p. 10). Reporting indicates that there is a growing public need for information. The increasing fragmentation of the community, fear and insecurity and the growth of the risk society have generated a massive requirement for increased security and knowledge contributing to political pressure, along

Since the September 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies across the nation recognized the need to integrate intelligence into their current community policing approach. When intelligence is available, decision-making is more effective and efficient. Intelligence enables law enforcement agencies to implement policies and procedures necessary to combat the concerns of the community.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks was among the agencies that associated the 9/11 attacks with lack of coordination among agencies (Best, 2015). This prompted the Congress to enact a legislation that established a centralized intelligence leadership, popular as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). However, the legislation only helped to increase tension between different agencies, especially on how to approach funding. The legislation was not clear regarding the boundaries between the activities of the DNI, and their interaction with the mainstream intelligence agencies. The congress debated these concerns and later established the framework for the working of the DNI and relationship with different intelligence agencies. Most importantly, this legislation focused on one element of reorganization, which was enhancing coordination of activities between different

In the course of learning these programs, distinguishing the best approach for the department will be difficult at first, but once that portion is articulated, keeping it together and following the rules and regulations are going to be easy, if every individual listens and is willing to be a part of this journey as the unit evolve for the better, and sake of the community. There are many intelligence led approach out there, some only utilize one and others utilized two to three depending on size of the agency. Intelligence led policing, is all about how the police articulates the information or data they found, how they use it, and being able to share data with other

In preparation for my debate on the topics of intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing, I have discovered the many advantages and disadvantages of using intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing. According to Carter & Carter (2009), intelligence-led policing is the collection of and analysis of data relating to crime, used by law enforcement in “developing tactical responses to threats and/or strategic planning related to emerging changing threats” (p. 317). When applied correctly, intelligence-led policing is a tool used for information sharing in identifying threats and developing responses to prevent those threats from reaching fruition (Carter, 2011). One of the advantages of using intelligence-led policing is its incorporation of data analysts. The role of the data analyst in the context of intelligence-led policing allows them to take specially trained analysts to take raw data from information found in reports and translate it into useful information for the officers, allowing the police to deploy resources more effectively and efficiently (Griffiths, 2016). Another advantage is its application through preventative and predictive policing (proactive policing), in which law enforcement take data and identify crucial variables such as terrorism or the emergence of criminal organizations, in hopes of stopping the problem at its roots (Carter, 2011). Terrorism is especially important and emphasized after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers in

Historically, technological innovation has served as the substance for intense changes in the organization of police work and has presented both opportunities and challenges to police and other criminal justice practitioners, according to Janet Chan, a social scientist who has studied how information technology affects the way police do their jobs.1 Noting that .information is the stock-in- trade of policing,. Chan has identified three general imperatives driving law enforcement’s evening investment in information technology. Using information technology in policing has add that more efficiency to the police department. Comparing the old-fashioned way of patrolling the streets to combat crime to then use them of using technology to predict the crime area and patrolling in advance deters crimes from happening. There are many advantages associated with using information technology in policing. Comparative analysis shows that using information technology (IT) to combat crime has save lot of resources and time in the police department. There are a number of other advantages that can be associated with the use of information technology in the police department.

Intelligence collection and apprehension of criminals have occurred for many years; however, with the exception of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, these actions were performed by different organizations. Nonetheless, roles and responsibilities have changed since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Intelligence-led policing and the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing program were incorporated, and fusion centers were established to help gather intelligence from different levels of the government. Although law enforcement at the local, state, and tribal levels aid in intelligence collection, it is important to ensure that intelligence gathered to protect national security and law enforcement

In most cases these INTs community compete among each other to provide needed intelligence information to policy makers to justify their budgetary allocations (Lowenthal, 2014). However, intelligence collection can be divided into five main categories referred to as “intelligence collection disciplines” or the “INTs”. These include Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Signals Intelligence