This has also led to the development of point of view from which the police is viewed as knowledge workers (Ericson and Haggerty 1997). The other development, which has yet to have its full influence, is the idea of network that has been introduced to highlight the fact that policing actually involves a number of participants (Johnston and Shearing 2003). These developments are not restricted to policing but also reflect changes in the social theory, for example, the concern about the knowledge society and network society. These changes in the theory of policing have also led to the alteration of policing practices, giving rise to new methodology of policing in which the knowledge about crime, its causes and other related information is given more importance (Williamson 2008). The knowledge-based policing has found acceptance among the policing organization because of the manufactured risk in the society. The manufactured risks are those which are market by high level of involvement of human agency in both producing and mitigation of risks. Hence, in the literature, it has been argued that for all manufactured risks, it is possible for societies to assess the level of risk which is being produced and hence activities can be planned to mitigate them (Giddens 1999). This concept is applied in knowledge-based policing as gathering intelligence about offenders and other criminals to gauge the level of threat posed by them and hence taking preventive action to mitigate any crime (Ericson and Haggerty 1997).
The ideology that comprises of ideas based on knowledge and networks was integrated with the theory of policing sociology without the consideration of how they would be utilized. Following these concepts is the concept that considers police asknowledge workers which is also used regularly in policing practice nowadays (Williamson 2008). According to Peter Drucker, there are five important features that make up the concepts of knowledge and knowledge workers. A knowledge worker is able to gain access to a jobs as well as a position in society with the help of formal education. However, this reveals a paradox in Ericson and Haggertys work because when considering contemporary police, a large number of police organizations lack the requirement of have a proper degree in order to recruit and train new employees. Peter also specifies that knowledge is only contained in its practice within a knowledge society The knowledge in application is only effective when it is highly specialized. In other words, the core workforce of a knowledge society consists of a large number of highly specialize people (Drucker 1995).
The concept of Intelligence-led policing has this fact as its basis, though the concept itself contradicts the earlier transformation done to the department of policing including community policing and problem-oriented policing (Williamson 2008). The concept of Intelligence-led policing puts less importance on fear of crime (Williamson 2008), one of the major forces that drove the idea of community policing. In a knowledge society, the workers of knowledge are also allowed to gain access to an organization. This fact when applied to policing holds true to large police organization, however, for smaller police departments, intelligence post are usually reserved for those who are least effective in policing or are close to retirement (Williamson 2008).
This fact when applied to policing holds true to large police organization, however, for smaller police departments, intelligence post are usually reserved for those who are least effective in policing or are close to retirement. Management is the core process that drives a knowledge society, since a knowledge society is one with an organization. When this ideology is put into action in the area of policing, it spawns troubles as in reality the police officers who perform field operations have little acceptance for non-uniformed staff sitting above them and telling them what to do (Williamson 2008).
The notion of networks, on the other hand, defines a cluster, hierarchy within the organization of police. Networks refers to a highly coordinated assemblages supported by communication and transportation networks, however, in reality a network can be much more complex (Williamson 2008).
Many of the researchers emphasize the fact that the model of networked policing is much more beneficial than the traditional approach which has severe limitations introduced due to the involvement of bureaucracies as well as selfishness of the markets to take all the advantage for themselves. In the absence of any requirements introduced due to hierarchy or contracts, trust allows the connection between different agencies to be held together (Williamson 2008). Though a high amount of trust is not a requirement for a lot of networks to remain efficient, but with the growth of uncertainty and more put at stake, trust protect the network against damage occurring from mistakes and problems created by members of the network. In addition, with the help of trust, social actors are also able to figure out reasonable expectations for the activities of their colleagues and it also promotes collaboration among them (Tilly 2005).
In networks, trust occurs in the form of an attitude or relationship, attitude themselves being results of multiple relationships to a certain extent. In relationships on the other hand, is far from monolithic, and it is necessary to distinguish between different degrees of trust, which can range for fragile or resilient. While fragile trust may increase the transaction cost as it requires the calculation of risks by both parties, resilient trust increases its chance of survival by making an assumption on commonality of interest and convergence of beliefs (Smith Ring 1996). An example that can be given in this regard to comprehend this concept from the perspective of policing is of a security network, in which police departments as well as local authorities work together to battle crime. This partnership makes use of the fragile trust because of the fact that the collaboration between police and local authorities is heterogeneous in nature and requires a regular dialogue among the bigger and smaller partners to overcome any problems. An example of resilient trust can be a transnational police network, in which various police department fight the same enemy and poses identical occupational traditions (Williamson 2008). The building of trust, also allows the networks to sustain longer as it also increase their ability of gain, convert and spread knowledge as well as information (Williamson 2008). In contrast to traditional policing models, the network allows the information to be acquired directly by the members who have its requirement, thus increasing the speed as well as reach of information dissemination (Williamson 2008). However, when working with sensitive information, the structure of the networks can become a liability (Office of Inspector General 2006).
Intelligence-led policing is one of the applications of knowledge-based policing. This approach is readily gaining importance among the police service, as many police department turn to put this approach at the core of their activities (Ratcliffe 2008). The traditionally used standard model of policing puts much less emphasis on the use of intelligence. Rather, it defines practices that should take place after a crime has been committed rather than before it. Police practice by 1990s, involved the use of intelligence as supporting evidence during the prosecution of offenders, rather than applying it more practically.
However, as the researchers began to investigate the usability and efficiency of this approach, several shortcomings of this model came into light. For example, the spikes in crime all over the US in 1990s were not addressed successfully by the traditional policing model. This led to a total collapse of the justice system through which criminals were prosecuted (Weisburd and Eck 2004). The UK as well, underwent a similar phenomenon, where it saw a tremendous increase in assistance calls to police stations, stretching the resources available to police at that time. A number of solution were devise to overcome this problem which include problem-oriented policing andcommunity policing (Flood 2004).
In addition, as the new public management ideology rose to significance, it forced the British government to proactively regulate the business of policing. With this, the top leadership of the police came under detailed examination, and to avoid any negative repercussion on the department of police, a strategy to manage risk was put into place (Crawford 1997). This strategy made it necessary for top-echelon of police department to do restructuring on a large scale, in order to ensure their access to large amount of information which was a significant requirement of the risk management strategy (Ericson and Haggerty 1997).
In addition, the rise of globalization in the last century, more internationalization of illicit commodities, the creation of an electronic systems for processing financial transaction along with the Internet, led to significant increase in crimes across multiple borders. It required that police departments no longer remain separated from their colleagues in other jurisdiction. As a result, the trust to a more collaborative approach led police departments to think about reorganization their structure in order to seek out new models of policing (Ratcliffe 2008). Furthermore, the development of advanced information technology systems and their adoption by police departments soon led their innovators to believe that these systems along with the large amount of data available to law enforcement agencies can be used to influence police decision-making. Hence, new professions such as crime analyst started cropping up at police stations which utilized this knowledge to tactically support mid-level commanders and to facilitate senior management in seeing the strategic view of crime (Ratcliffe 2008). Furthermore, one of the reports published by UKs Audit Commission in 1993 showed the follow deficiencies in the traditional policing model that was being followed at that time.
- The police roles and the practices of accountability in the traditional policing model lacked a proper integration with other roles and practices as were found to be inefficient.
- The use of resource within police department was very inefficient
- More emphasis was required on tackling criminals instead of just investigating crimes (Ratcliffe 2008).
These factors along with a number of other publications led to the development of intelligence-led policing model in 1997, whose central tenants were
-An eager and full of energy top echelon which backs the concept of intelligence-led policing and facilitates its growth through a Director of Intelligence.
- An available document of strategy that describe a proactive strategy for a force that increasingly made use of intelligence.
- An architecture with crime analysts at the core of police operations for intelligence.
- The effectiveness of the crime intelligence unit as well as the efficiency of the working of operational units to be judged by using a benchmark. And
- The fighting of local felonies and disorderly behaviour through the combination of effective teaming of police with local agencies. (HMIC 1997)
In the theory of intelligence-led policing, the concept is to affect the decision-making capabilities of the top echelon by providing them with intelligence. It involves extension of traditional source of information for police to include a number of other sources which might not be considered by an investigation-oriented analyst (Rafcliffe 2008). The intelligence (Ratcliffe 2008) in intelligence led policing can come from data collected through previous incidents, information passed on to the police by people in the society as well as the information that is available generally in the society (Oakesen, Mockford and Pascoe 2002).
In particular, the business model of intelligence-led policing emphasizes the use of third party or private agencies to deal with the operational aspects of the policing, while officers of the law enforcement agencies are made to concentrate on gathering intelligence (Rafcliffe 2008).
The concept of intelligence-led policing came out in the 1990s as a model that used information and analysis in a strategic way to locate the offenders. However, in those days, practices to ensure that law was followed by offenders were the prime focus of the tactics that were used by the police to fight crime. With the help of intelligence-led policing, the police was able to make use of the information on offenders in a more strategic way. However, recently, the practices followed in the paradigm of intelligence-led policing have reflected that the paradigm is gradually moving to integrate itself with the paradigm of problem-oriented policing (Rafcliffe 2008). It now have matures into a model which put much more significance on sharing of information within all department of a police organization, while also encouraging collaboration with local authorities. Intelligence-led policing considers police as its core while the police practices to stop offending practices are also central to this model. However, the attempts of partners to establish integrated solutions to fight crimes are also considered important in this model. The facts that it uses a top-down management approach and involves not hierarchical changes makes this model a significantly easy for police organizations to adopt. Crime reduction is achieved in this model by setting priorities which themselves are acquired from intelligence and analysis of crime data (Ratcliffe 2008).
The traditional policing model, which is also referred to as push model is not very practical as in this model a crime analyst is required to wait for a response once an information request has been sent out. In addition, the flow of this requirement through the police organization is also restricted by the bureaucratic nature of the structure and culture of police. This implies that a large part of the gather intelligence remains unused instead of being shared with other organizations (Ratcliffe 2008).The intelligence-led policing model, on the other hand, is a three-i model. These are, interpret, influence and impact. In this model, the police have an analytical arm which constantly interprets the crime environment to find out the main players and the significant or emerging dangers (Higgins 2004).
The information from investigation officers and informant handlers is also utilized in the intelligence-led policing model where crime analysts pull information from their own sources as well as members of the police field teams. The top echelon of police then utilizes the information given out by the crime analyst to take a decision accordingly. In addition, the intelligence-led policing model also emphasizes the fact that the best decision maker (Rafcliffe 2008) is determined by the analyst himself. It could be the case that the selected decision makers maybe those who did not commission the intelligence product initially while others may b outside the law enforcement environment (RatCliffe 2008). This is an example of nodal governance where network actors from both law enforcement and from outside share the responsibility of providing security (Wood and Shearing 2007).
In addition, if the practices of intelligence-led policing cannot make an impact on the crimes occurring in the community, then this model cannot be considered as effective. It is also important to note that this model can become ineffective any stage of the three-i mode. However, due to the deficiency of education and training for higher-ranking officers in police, the final phase can be particularly worrying. In addition, past researches have revealed that in the past, the operational commanders have effectively relied on traditional policing practices, despite the fact that the successful use of intelligence-led tactics in the past was done without any use of operational tactics. Furthermore, It is important for the success of intelligence-led policing model that all the three Is in the model happen for sure (Ratcliffe 2008).
In the UK, the NIM has been adopted as a conceptual framework to implement intelligence-based policing. Many law enforcement organizations in England and Wales, have readily adopted the practices to follow an intelligence-based policing model. These organizations include the Serious and Organized Crime Agency (SOCA), various policing services as well collaboration between the policing service and local organization (Ratcliffe 2008).
The approach taken in the NIM involves three levels. At the bottom of this model, neighbourhood teams of police work in local areas to fight crime while also collect intelligence by utilizing their resources. The middle tier of the NIM model specifies practices that can be used to fight offensive activities which span across multiple police jurisdictions. At the top, NIM specifies practices to take care of organized criminals that work in national as well as international arena (Ratcliffe 2008). The NIM specifies special measures and units to more clearly identify and apprehend these criminals. Each of these levels is built operate in a manner similar to each other. The business process model of NIM consists of several components. In this process, analysts are used to create products which provide input to tasking and coordinating processes, product which can influence the thinking of management level officers which are then able to deploy appropriate resource and engage in partnerships (Ratcliffe 2008).
The information that is produced with the help of analysis is then utilized for strategic as well as tactical tasking and coordination activities. The constituent groups of NIM include Strategic Tasking and Coordination Group (Ratcliffe 2008). This group contains top echelon of each of the local police areas along with commanders who are accountable for various police processes. The Tactical Tasking and Coordination Group makes use of the control strategy, which is a document dictating the priorities for allocation of resources. Identification of serial crimes, apprehension of offenders as well as recognition of potential crime spots are some of main duties of this group. The NIM is possibly a first in providing guidance to police officers on how to link the intelligence they gather from various source with the decision that are taken in their department (Ratcliffe 2008).
The certainty of the information as well as the swift movement of the information that would have an effect on the decisions made within a policing organization, are some of most important requirement of NIM mode (Flood 2004). For this purpose, the NIM model specifies the use of strategic assessment to optimize the output of strategic task groups. This report is required to be prepared twice a year. On the other hand, the Tactical Tasking and Coordination Group is influenced by the tactical assessment report. In addition to these two documentation, the target profile is use to guide the law enforcement agencies in fighting crimes. The problem profile, on the other hand, provides description of serial crimes (Ratcliffe 2008).
In the US as well, the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) has also restructured its Investigations department to make it align with a more intelligence-led approach. Originally, the structure of the organization reflected a model of bureaucratic efficiency rather than the criminal environment it was trying to tackle. Individual units, each with its own set of operations, existed (Ratcliffe 2008). This structure encourage information-hoarding and made it difficult to share the intelligence between units (Sheptycki 2004). Through restructuring of the department, Investigations department now follows a new architecture in which commanders have been made responsible for new geographical areas. Each commander is then responsible for units that address street gangs, organized crimes and other types of offensive activities. For each command, an intelligence group allows sharing of intelligence among units in order to identify crimes that fall in multiple categories. In addition, the senior management is also provides with a strategic intelligence group to support their activities (Ratcliffe 2008).
The model in use by the New Jersey State Police for crime fighting is very similar to the NIM model being used in the UK. This model signifies the fact that all problems which are related to the use of specialized knowledge in intelligence-led policing paradigm can be taken care of by changing the structure of the organization. The structure of the New Jersey State Police certainly emphasizes the fact that crime can be fought much better if the information or intelligence is made available to the right people at right time.(Ratcliffe 2008).
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment