Assignment 3 Major Essay

679 views
568 views

Published on

10 Measures of Effective Criminal Intelligence

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
679
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assignment 3 Major Essay

  1. 1. STRA 524 Intelligence-Led Enforcement Julie AMBURY, Student ID# 300065471 17B Wood Street GREYTOWN 5712 Phone 04 238 3696 Mobile 027 3244 808 Email Julie.Ambury@police.govt.nzCourse Coordinator: Associate Professor Jim VeitchSchool of GovernmentVictoria University of Wellington, NZ Assignment 3 – Major Essay (due 5pm Friday 17 October 2008, extension arranged to 5pm Friday 24 October 2008) WORD COUNT - 4,118 10 Measures of Effective Criminal Intelligence
  2. 2. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayHow do we know when criminal intelligence in law enforcement has been effective? Thisessay sets out to establish ten measures for effective criminal intelligence. Thesemeasures will be explored within the context of the New Zealand Police (NZP) andconsideration will be given as to whether the measures are unique to the NZP or whetherthey may be transferable to other law enforcement organisations in New Zealand andinternationally. A NZP example of the use of outcomes, goals, outputs and measures willbe provided to establish some understanding of what they are and to provide a frameworkfor consideration of intelligence outcomes, outputs and measures. To do this, somedefinitions and models of intelligence will be explored to establish what intelligenceoutcomes might be. Following that measures are established within a framework of theinterpret and influence components of an intelligence model and intelligence as astructure, a process and a product.The NZP strategic goals and outcomes are community reassurance resulting in confident,safe and secure communities, policing with confidence resulting in less actual crime androad trauma, and fewer victims, and organisational development resulting in a world classPolice service. These goals and outcomes are linked to the NZ Justice Sector goal for asafe and just society, resulting in safer communities and the enjoyment of civil anddemocratic rights. Each NZP strategic goal is supported by activity areas (outputs), whichcontribute to the achievement of the goals and outcomes. Measures are put in place toassess progress against each outcome. Put simply, an outcome is what we hope toachieve, an output is how we intend to do it and a measure is how we demonstratesuccess.1For example, the goal of policing with confidence resulting in the outcome of less actualcrime and road trauma, and fewer victims, is supported by four key output areas. Theseare evidenced based proactive policing, timely and effective response to calls for service,thorough investigations and effective resolutions. Outputs for evidenced based proactivepolicing (one of the key output areas) include execution of court summonses, warrants andorders, and strategic road policing. A range of measures will be used to assess theprogress of the outcome (less actual crime and road trauma, and fewer victims) includingmonitoring crime and vehicle crash rates reported in six-monthly Police statistics,1 New Zealand Police. (2008). Statement of Intent 2008/09 – 2010/11 New Zealand Police. Wellington:New Zealand Police. Page 2 of 18
  3. 3. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major Essaymonitoring crash, death and hospitalisation rates as reported in the Ministry of Transportannual survey and monitoring the level of victimisation as reported in the Ministry ofJustice New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey.2Intelligence has been defined in many ways within the context of law enforcement overrecent years and varies across organisations, both in New Zealand and internationally. In2000, the Australian Customs Service defined intelligence as “a value-added product,derived from the collection and processing of all relevant information relating to clientneeds, which is immediately or potentially significant to client decision-making.”3 In 2003,Ratcliffe stated that “a broader view of intelligence could incorporate the view thatintelligence is a structure, a process and a product.”4 Ratcliffe’s 2007 definition of criminalintelligence was that it “… is the creation of an intelligence product that supports decisionmaking in the areas of law enforcement, crime reduction and crime prevention.”5 In 2008,Ratcliffe goes on to cite de Lint et al. differentiating between knowledge products (thatgenerate understanding) and intelligence products (that generate action).6In 2008, the New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance (MOG) definesintelligence as “the product of an analytic process that evaluates information collected fromdiverse sources, integrates the relevant information into a cohesive package, andproduces a conclusion about a criminal occurrence by using a scientific approach (i.e.analysis).” It goes on to say that intelligence is “a planned product intended to providesignificant direction to Police decision makers about crime and criminals, road trauma andcommunity safety concerns (often referred to as ‘fear of crime’).” The MOG glossaryadopts Ratcliffe’s broader view of intelligence as a structure (the people that make up anintelligence unit), a process (the application of the intelligence cycle) and a product (theend product of the intelligence process) and goes on to define intelligence in short, asprocessed information that can be acted upon.72 New Zealand Police. (2008). Statement of Intent 2008/09 – 2010/11 New Zealand Police. Wellington:New Zealand Police.3 Australian Customs Services (2000). Cited by Ratcliffe, J.H. (2003). Intelligence-led policing. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 248, 6.4 Ratcliffe, J.H. (2003). Intelligence-led policing. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 248, 6.5 Ratcliffe, J.H. (2007). Integrated Intelligence and Crime Analysis: Enhanced Information Management for Law Enforcement Leaders. Washington:Police Foundation. (p. 8).6 de Lint et al. (2007). Cited by Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, Devon:Willan Publishing.7 New Zealand Police. (2008). New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office. Page 3 of 18
  4. 4. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayRatcliffe’s 3-i model8 was first introduced to New Zealand in 2003 following a review ofNZP intelligence undertaken at that time. It was adopted by the NZP and modified toreflect a reciprocal relationship between the intelligence practitioner and the decisionmaker and renamed the New Zealand Crime Reduction Model.9 This was the verybeginning of intelligence-led policing for the NZP and supported the primary operatingstrategy of the Police at that time, known then as Crime and Crash Reduction. The 3-imodel demonstrates the role intelligence has within a law enforcement environment. Thatis, to interpret the criminal environment in order to influence the decision maker, who canthen impact upon the criminal environment. Interpret, influence and impact are the threelaw enforcement activities that make up the 3-i’s of the Model.Just as there are many definitions for intelligence in organisations across New Zealandand internationally, there are also many different versions of intelligence cycles. While the3-i model demonstrates the role of intelligence, the intelligence cycle demonstrates theprocess for intelligence. The NZP Intelligence Cycle10 has been through a recent changefollowing consultation with a working group of intelligence leaders and practitioners. It isset out in the NZP Intelligence MOG and constitutes eight parts: direction, collection,evaluation, collation, analysis, responses, dissemination and review. What is important tonote, is that the intelligence cycle is not a precise, sequential model where the intelligencepractitioner efficiently moves from one stage to the next. In reality, the practitioner canskip, ignore, revisit or merge each part of the cycle depending on time, the requirements ofthe end-user, accepted practice or local knowledge. The intelligence cycle depicts in amost elementary way, how specialist staff members add value to information.11Having explored some definitions of intelligence and models for the role of intelligence andthe intelligence process, consideration must be given to what the outcomes and goalsmight be for intelligence within law enforcement. The 3-i model would suggest that theoutcome of intelligence is to have an impact on the criminal environment, thereby makingour communities safer. While this may be true, what this implies is that if no impact is8 Refer Appendix ‘A’.9 Refer Appendix ‘B’.10 Refer Appendix ‘C’.11 New Zealand Police. (2008). New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office. Page 4 of 18
  5. 5. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major Essaymade on the criminal environment, that intelligence has indeed failed. On this basis, if ananalyst provides intelligence that was never used by the decision maker was it ever reallyintelligence? Yes, it was still intelligence. It just could be that the decision maker eitherdid not understand what he or she should do with the intelligence product or they did notknow how to use that product to implement the best responses to impact on the criminalenvironment. As Mark Evans, the NZP National Manager, Intelligence rightly states, “Nointelligence product, no matter how good it is, to my knowledge has ever arrested anoffender.”Can then, the NZP example of outcomes, goals, outputs and measures be used as amodel to establish ten measures for effective criminal intelligence? Based on thedefinitions and models for intelligence that have been explored it is safe to say that theoutcome for intelligence is clear. Effective intelligence must empower and enable thedecision maker to have an impact on the criminal environment. This in turn, links into theNZP goal of policing with confidence resulting in the outcome of less actual crime and roadtrauma, and fewer victims.12 What is displayed here is that the intelligence outcome linksinto NZP goals and outcomes, just as the NZP goals and outcomes linked into JusticeSector goals and outcomes. The intelligence outcome of empowered and enableddecision makers must be achieved by effective interpretation of the criminal environmentand the capability to influence the decision maker. These two things then, interpretationand influence, must be identified as the key output areas for intelligence. From here,outputs supporting these key activity areas must be decided, along with a way todemonstrate the success of them (measures).To date no measures for effective criminal intelligence have been established despite theNZP Intelligence Cycle (and others) having always accommodated the need for review aspart of the intelligence process. Performance measures such as the volume of reportedcrime, the number of offences cleared, the number of arrests made etc. paint part of thepicture around the success of the decision maker’s impact on the criminal environment,but as previously mentioned do not necessarily demonstrate whether intelligence has beensuccessful. These types of measures are known as quantitative, or hard measures. Anymeasures relying implicitly on quantitative data in a dynamic environment such as law12 Refer Appendix ‘D’. Page 5 of 18
  6. 6. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major Essayenforcement do not provide a complete picture of effectiveness. For example, how can itbe proven that a reduction in burglaries is due completely to the implementation of thedecision maker’s responses? It is probable that other immeasurable factors may havecontributed to the reduction, such as increased personal security measures or adecreased level of reporting to police, which means there may not have actually been areduction.To balance quantitative data, qualitative, or soft data must be taken into consideration.The scientific application of quantitative and qualitative analysis demonstrates clearly thedifference between the two, and can be applied as a concept within law enforcement.Quantitative analysis is the “measurement of the quantities of particular constituentspresent in a substance” and qualitative analysis is the “identification of the constituentspresent in the substance.”13 Without identifying other factors that may be contributing toan increase or a decrease in a particular crime type, as previously mentioned, there is thedanger of only measuring the quantity of a particular crime type which provides littleinformation to the decision maker about effectiveness of implemented responses. In turn,there is likely to be even less information that can be used by the decision maker to informfuture responses.To this end, any measures for effective intelligence must incorporate both quantitative(hard) and qualitative (soft) measures. In establishing the ten measures for effectivecriminal intelligence this approach has been taken. What have also been taken intoaccount are the two key output areas, interpretation and influence, which have beenconsidered within Ratcliffe’s definition of intelligence as a structure, a process and aproduct.14 This framework for measures is underpinned by the NZP Intelligence MOGprinciples of intelligence,15 Evans’ intelligence axioms16 and Ratcliffe’s ten yardsticks forintelligence-led policing17 some of which have been used and adapted as measures.13 Dictionary. (2002). The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English Second Edition. Auckland, New Zealand:Oxford University Press, p. 925.14 Refer Appendix ‘E’.15 New Zealand Police. (2008). New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office.16 Refer Appendix ‘F’.17 Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, Devon:Willan Publishing, pp. 235-237. Page 6 of 18
  7. 7. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayThe initial intention was to collate and articulate the measures in one of three ways: bystructure, process and product, by output (interpret and influence) or by the type ofmeasure (hard or soft). When a matrix was completed to establish what the intelligencemeasures might be it demonstrated that there are numerous factors that crossover. Forexample, one of the measures inside the people-interpret cell also applied inside thepeople-influence cell. To this end, the following paragraphs will begin to set out themeasures in no particular order but will follow the general guide of intelligence as astructure (people), process and product. It must be acknowledged that measures ofsuccess for the development and implementation of the National Intelligence Project havebeen set out in the NZP National Business Plan.18 These are specific to the NationalIntelligence Project where the proposed measures in this essay relate directly to thesuccess of intelligence in law enforcement.The first measure for effective criminal intelligence is whether a centralised control forintelligence within the organisation exists. Without centralised control there is likely to beduplication of effort and gaps in collection of information, no mutual support betweenregions, districts and areas, lack of information security and no technical control of people(structure), processes or products.19 No successful business exists without a centralisedcontrol and a strategy. There is no reason why the business of law enforcement should beany different. Prior to the implementation of the NZP National Intelligence Projectpockets of effective intelligence existed despite the lack of centralised control. However,the development of the NZP National Intelligence Centre will see the improvement ofintelligence, nationwide. It will create an intelligence culture within the organisation bysharing best practice, standardising products and processes, and recognising excellence.The prevalence of an intelligence culture within an organisational culture, particularly oneas staid as the NZP, is a significant indicator of the effectiveness of intelligence. If anintelligence culture were to exist within the NZP that was as robust as the CriminalInvestigation Branch culture, this would be a very clear indicator of its effectiveness.A nationally and internationally recognised career pathway for intelligence practitioners willbe in place, evidenced by a structure incorporating intelligence roles that can be applied to18 New Zealand Police. (2008). Police National Business Plan 2008/2009. PNHQ, Wellington:National Business Planning Group.19 New Zealand Police. (2008) New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office. Page 7 of 18
  8. 8. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major Essayspecialist units across the organisation and which provide clear job descriptions andequality in rates of pay. Recognition of this may be evidenced by the adoption of thispathway into other law enforcement organisations across New Zealand and internationally.The number of intelligence roles at all levels of the organisation must be set and monitoredalong with the quality of job descriptions and remuneration. An increase in the number ofintelligence job descriptions and ambiguity around the role of the intelligence practitionerwill be indicators that an improvement is required. Further evidence that this measure isbeing achieved may take the form of the amount of interest exhibited by individuals bothinternally and externally seeking a career in criminal intelligence.A nationally and internationally recognised standard of professional development will alsobe in place. This links into the previous measure and will be evidenced quantitatively bythe number of general and specialist intelligence courses delivered by the NZP TrainingService Centre, the numbers attending the courses and the results achieved.Recognition may also take the form of acceptance of the training programme as part of theNational Qualifications Framework and the attendance of intelligence practitioners acrosslaw enforcement in New Zealand and internationally. The qualifications and experience ofthose developing and delivering training is likely to be reflected in the quality of it.Therefore a balance of academic and practical experience is likely to require ongoingmonitoring. The level and relevance of education provided by universities must also betaken into consideration as an indicator of the academic and practical balance required.Whether the training provided actually meets the needs of the intelligence requirementwithin the organisation must also be closely monitored and must be aligned with theintelligence career pathway. Analysts who demonstrate the necessary skills, knowledgeand training to interpret the criminal environment and influence the decision maker willprovide a measure of effective intelligence.A committed and challenging command structure is critical to effective intelligence and willbe evidenced by a national, regional, district or area structure that reflects this commitmentand that exists to action intelligence products. Ways that this can be measured includethe physical location of the intelligence unit in relation to the decision maker, who theintelligence unit manager reports to and how far removed this is (or not) from the decisionmaker. Consideration must also be given to whether the intelligence unit is an integralpart of the decision making process (e.g. whether they are consulted in the Tasking and Page 8 of 18
  9. 9. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayCoordination Meetings (TCMs)) and whether informal surveys of intelligence practitionerswould reflect they have a committed and challenging primary decision maker ormanagement team. How well committed management is to intelligence may also bemeasured by their investment in information technology, data collection, management andleadership, while the investment in their own education as well as that of the intelligencepractitioner may be indicative of their capability to challenge intelligence. If the decisionmaker does not know what their intelligence unit is for, what they are capable of providingand how he or she should use the intelligence that is provided, it is detrimental tothemselves and the organisation. Sir David Phillips rightly states that “… unless commanders value and understand ‘intelligence’, recognising its strengths and weakness, and feel confident enough to use it, they are unlikely to set clear requirements. This observation is made because almost every review of intelligence failure, from Pearl Harbour to modern day Iraq, illustrates that the technical failures of intelligence collection and analysis are generally less to blame than the faulty perceptions of those tasking the decisions.”20Each part of the intelligence process benefits from the use of the appropriate analyticaltools. If there is evidence that these have been effectively applied then there is likely to bea much better intelligence product that has the capability to influence the decision maker.Ratcliffe states that “decisions made in the interpret phase dominate the rest of the (3-i)model” and that “analysis and accurate interpretation of the criminal environment areessential to intelligence led policing and crime control.”21 The intelligence practitioner’suse of analytical tools and models such as the intelligence cycle, the SARA problemsolving model,22 the crime triangle23 and numerous others is something that can beconcretely measured. The use of these tools and models should be reflected in soundanalysis and demonstrate the analyst’s capability to interpret the criminal environment andinfluence the decision maker. A checklist confirming the use of these tools, or at the veryleast, the inclusion of them as appendices or availability of them as supporting data may20 Phillips, D. (2008). Police Intelligence Systems as a Strategic Response. In Dr C Harfield et al. (Ed.), The Handbook of Intelligent Policing: Consilience, Crime Control and Community Safety. (pp. 28- 29).21 Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, Devon:Willan Publishing, p. 115.22 Clarke, R.V. & Eck, J. (2003). Become a Problem-Solving Crime Analyst. University College, London:Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.23 Ibid. Page 9 of 18
  10. 10. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major Essaybe a clear way to establish how sound the analysis is and how well it supports or discountswhat is anecdotally accepted.Effective management of data, while it is connected to the previous measure, justifiesbeing a measure on its own. Successful integration of technology with working practices,rather than the amount of money spent on technology alone, may be the best measure ofeffective management of data, and therefore intelligence. Ratcliffe cites the Birchard 24Inquiry Report, which was conducted following the murder of two British 10-year-old girlsin August 2002, as an intelligence failure due to the organisational reliance on informalmethods of communication. This failure occurred as a result of lack of effective audits tocheck that systems were operating properly, inadequate training of police officers, lack ofguidance on record creation, review and deletion, little evidence of sufficient strategicreview of information management systems and no real awareness among seniormanagers of the scale and nature of data management problems.25 The successfulintegration of technology with workplace practices may be measured by the presence ofaudits that check systems are operating properly, the quantity and quality of trainingprovided to police officers for the collection and evaluation of information and for data entrystaff who manage the information. If these checks and balances are in place there is anincreased likelihood of data quality, which in turn will increase the likelihood of relevant,accurate and timely intelligence.The intelligence product must be capable of informing a decision. This might be measuredquantitatively by the existence and frequency of TCMs, the numbers of people who attendthem and whether they are the right people. That is, whether the people who attend havethe capability to be tasked by the decision maker to implement responses. There arenational guidelines that exist for TCMs covering requirements for frequency and guidelinesabout how the meeting should be run and who should attend. How integral the intelligenceproduct is in informing the TCM and how well decisions reflect intelligencerecommendations within that product could also be indicative of how effective theintelligence is. However, if the decision maker does not fully understand the impact24 Bichard, M. (2004). Cited by Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Analytical frameworks: DIKI continuum. In Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, Devon:Willan Publishing, p. 97.25 Ibid. Page 10 of 18
  11. 11. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major Essaycomponent of the 3-i model then no matter how effective the intelligence is, there is thepossibility that inappropriate responses may be tasked.Whether the right intelligence product has been used is another measure of effectivecriminal intelligence. While this links to the previous measure, there a specific ways thismeasure might be considered. The existence of standardised products and terminologymeans management can focus on taking action, instead of conducting analysis in ameeting format where it is not appropriate to do so. How well the product allows thedecision maker to do this is a test of whether the product is the correct one and whetherthe product contains the quality of information it needs to. The frequency of correctlychosen intelligence products may also be an indicator of how effective intelligence isprovided the quality remains intact. That is, there is no use in producing an intelligenceproduct to meet requirements of frequency if the information in it is useless to the decisionmaker. Guidance and monitoring of the appropriate use of intelligence products byintelligence unit managers in consultation with the decision makers is critical to theongoing effectiveness of intelligence.Ratcliffe states that decision makers and intelligence practitioners must “demonstrateleadership, ownership and understanding of the tenets of intelligence-led policing for it tosucceed.”26 Leadership is pivotal in ensuring that processes are adhered to andsupported27 but this is not necessarily just the responsibility of decision makers. Equalresponsibility must sit with intelligence unit managers and intelligence practitioners for allthree elements: leadership, ownership and understanding. While senior decision makersare in the right positions to champion for intelligence, leadership is not just theirresponsibility. Whether the organisation has subject matter experts and providesleadership in intelligence to other organisations, nationally and internationally, may also bea very good indicator of the effectiveness of it. The quality of leadership with anorganisation can be assessed using the likes of a 360-degree feedback tool and others. Acorrelation between effective leadership and effective intelligence may be an indicator thatleadership is indeed a contributing factor, and therefore a measure, of effectiveintelligence.26 Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, Devon:Willan Publishing, p. 237.27 New Zealand Police. (2008). New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office. Page 11 of 18
  12. 12. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayOwnership has been covered in part by the committed and challenging command structuremeasure but a clear indicator of ownership, and the contribution it has to effectiveintelligence, is that the absence of one (or more) significant intelligence or decision makingstaff members, must not see the entire process stall or falter.28 If this does happen, thenclearly lack of ownership, by either the intelligence practitioner and / or the decision makeris an issue and impacts directly on the effectiveness of intelligence. The understandingeach party has of their role in the intelligence process is critical to the effective outcome ofit. The most measure of understanding will be most evident in TCMs.29The level of creativity, integrity and credibility that intelligence practitioners have is criticalto the effectiveness of intelligence. How these attributes can be measured is thechallenge. Evidence of creativity, particularly within a structure that demandsstandardised products, may be difficult to see. However, intelligence unit managers anddecision makers must be able to see the analyst’s capability to think outside the squarereflected in the quality of the intelligence product. Creativity may be more evident in theintelligence process (before it becomes a product) and therefore an assessment of thelevel of creativity may be subjected to the opinion of the assessor or the analyst’s peers.Integrity and credibility are also vital attributes. The measurement of these is also difficult,but again, this will be reflected in the product. What is key to all of these is the presence ofa robust relationship between the practitioner and the decision maker. Understandingeach other, and understanding each other’s business is vital to effective intelligence. Theanalyst’s capability to network with internal and external partners to interpret the criminalenvironment and the analyst’s capability to influence the decision maker will dependlargely on their capability to build relationships and networks.This essay intended to establish ten measures for effective criminal intelligence whichhave been explored within the context of the New Zealand Police (NZP). A test of theirstrength may be in how transferable they are to other law enforcement organisations andbusinesses in New Zealand, and internationally. A NZP example of the use of outcomes,goals, outputs and measures provided a clear basis of understanding for consideration of28 New Zealand Police. (2008). New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office.29 Ibid. Page 12 of 18
  13. 13. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major Essayintelligence outcomes, outputs and measures. Definitions and models of intelligence wereexplored to establish what intelligence outcomes might be, and what the subsequentoutputs and measures might be. The actual implementation (rather than lip service) ofintelligence led policing stands a far greater chance in terms of contribution to effectiveintelligence, than other policing styles. What must be noted is that this is the very firstattempt at compiling a set of measures for intelligence. To this end it must be used as astart point for further discussion and research so that a national, or even international, setof measures may be recognised. Page 13 of 18
  14. 14. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayREFERENCE LISTClarke, R.V. & Eck, J. (2003). Become a Problem-Solving Crime Analyst. University College, London:Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.Dictionary. (2002). The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English Second Edition. Auckland, New Zealand:Oxford University Press.New Zealand Police. (2008). New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office.New Zealand Police. (2008). Police National Business Plan 2008/2009. PNHQ, Wellington:National Business Planning Group.New Zealand Police. (2004). New Zealand Police Statement of Intent 2004/2005. PNHQ, Wellington:New Zealand Police.New Zealand Police. (2008). Statement of Intent 2008/09 – 2010/11 New Zealand Police. Wellington:New Zealand Police.Phillips, D. (2008). Police Intelligence Systems as a Strategic Response. In Dr C Harfield et al. (Ed.), The Handbook of Intelligent Policing: Consilience, Crime Control and Community Safety. (pp. 28-35).Ratcliffe, J.H. (2007). Integrated Intelligence and Crime Analysis: Enhanced Information Management for Law Enforcement Leaders. Washington:Police Foundation.Ratcliffe, J.H. (2003). Intelligence-led policing. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 248, 6.Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, Devon:Willan Publishing. Page 14 of 18
  15. 15. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayAPPENDICESAppendix ‘A’ – Ratcliffe’s 3-i Model30Appendix ‘B’ – New Zealand Crime Reduction Model31(Note the modified ‘influence’ arrow reflecting a reciprocal relationship between intelligence and the decision maker.)30 Ratcliffe, J. H. (2003). Intelligence-led policing. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 248. Retrieved from www.jratcliffe.net on 23/09/08.31 New Zealand Police. (2004). New Zealand Police Statement of Intent 2004/2005. PNHQ, Wellington:New Zealand Police. (p. 13). Page 15 of 18
  16. 16. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayAppendix ‘C’ – NZP Intelligence Cycle32Appendix ‘D’ – Intelligence Outcome and Outputs32 New Zealand Police. (2008). The intelligence cycle. In New Zealand Police Intelligence Manual of Guidance. PNHQ, Wellington:National Intelligence Office. Page 16 of 18
  17. 17. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayAppendix ‘E’ – Intelligence Measures Framework Decision makers who are capable of impacting on the criminal environment Interpret Influence People Hard Intelligence Process Measures Soft Product NZP Principles of Intelligence / Evans’ Intelligence Axioms / Ratcliffe’s 10 YardsticksAppendix ‘F’ – Evans’ 10 Intelligence Axioms33 1. Be prepared to do battle for access to the right information. 2. Trust and confidence take years to develop and can be lost in an instant. 3. Results of the analytical process are of no value unless they are disseminated effectively to those with the power to make decisions. 4. Customers are sceptical and cynical. 5. Be bold, but not foolhardy. 6. Be a creative intelligence analyst. 7. You cannot build a reputation on the basis of what you are going to achieve. 8. Tell the truth. 9. Being an analyst is not a popularity contest. 10. Good analysis will usually make people feel uncomfortable, at least for a while.33 Evans, R.M. (2007). Mark’s 10 Intelligence Axioms. Power point presentation delivered to students of the New Zealand Strategic Intelligence Course, December 2007. Page 17 of 18
  18. 18. Julie AMBURY, Student ID#300065471 STRA 524, Assignment 3 – Major EssayAppendix ‘G’ – 10 Measures of Effective Criminal Intelligence Page 18 of 18

×