Stages of Intelligence Led Policing

I have created a draft model of what I consider to be stages of Intelligence Led Policing, using models of stages of human development as loose guides. I would appreciate suggestions and feedback in the comments section of this blog, or via email.

Stages of Intelligence Led Policing (c) Deborah Osborne 2009

Stage One: Reactive
Many police agencies are in stage one. Run to calls, investigate, do your best. No analytical support. Little understanding of the value of crime intelligence analysis. Impact on the criminal environment is random.

Stage Two: Relies on Gut Feeling
Agencies with unsophisticated or inadequate analytical capacities that may use analytical resources time-to-time, but generally rely on traditional policing based on trusting past experiences at the gut feeling level. Impact on the criminal environment is random.

Stage Three: Develops the Individual
Agencies that allow individual officers and analysts the freedom to study problems and develop responses fit into this category. This stage supports creativity in problem-solving and long-term projects, but only by select individuals. The work is thus more isolated and limited by individual initiative and time/energy constraints.There is some targeted impact on the criminal environment, but it is not recognized as such nor sustained.

Stage Four: Learns and Takes Risks
Agencies that have engaged in some wide-spread problem oriented policing projects and grant-funded initiatives may have developed some broad-based analytical capacities and learned from them. They continue to experiment with innovation on a limited basis, focused on one or two problems. Analysts provide basic analytical products and support as needed. There is some recognized impact on the criminal environment in one or two areas, but this impact may not be sustained.

Stage Five: Identifies with Institutions
Agencies that have implemented Compstat and/or problem oriented policing across their jurisdiction, who meet regularly and analyze current crime problems tactically and/or specifically, fit in this category. Use of intelligence and crime analysis information is embedded in the work, but it is not often strategic. It contained elements of reactivity. More focus is on the immediate problems compared to the chronic problems of a jurisdiction. Analysis may be diluted by adherence to strictly defined procedures/missions. There is recognized impact on the criminal environment tactically, but long term impact strategies are not in place.

Stage Six: Combines Logic and Intuition
Agencies at this stage realize the value of crime intelligence analysis, combining crime analysis with intelligence, quantitative information with qualitative information. They use the street knowledge of officers and investigators and incorporate it with analytical information. Analysis is a valued commodity to inform decision-making at the level of the working officer as well as the top decision-makers. There is recognized impact on the criminal environment, both short-term and long-term.

Stage Seven: Holistic and Adaptive
Agencies at this stage see beyond their jurisdictional boundaries, since crime knows no such boundaries. They are interested in developing and sharing information/intelligence, as well as obtaining information/intelligence, with every relevant source. They form and maintain strategic partnerships to build their analytical capacity. They identify and respond to their chronic problems and their worst offenders, by developing strategies to create lasting change. They continue to respond the daily needs of their community, but with a true focus on crime prevention to improve public safety. Crime intelligence analysis is central to their decision-making processes. They invest in quality analytical staff and provide the technology and training needed to do the job right. Analysts and decision-makers collaborate to develop innovative and lasting solutions. There is significant impact to the criminal environment, both short-term and long-term, with a conscious effort to collaborate in problem-solving with those entities outside the jurisdiction with shared crime and criminal problems.

(c) Deborah Osborne 2009