2. Community Policing vs ILP
• A philosophy of how intelligence fits into the
operations of a law enforcement organization
• Rather than being an information clearinghouse
added to the organization
• ILP provides strategic mix/blending of intelligence
into the mission of the organization
4. ILP- What Is It?
• ILP is a business model and managerial philosophy
where data analysis and criminal intelligence are
pivotal to an objective. (Carter, 2009)
• It’s an integration of information and intelligence
5. ILP and Sharing information
• How do we get police Agencies to adopt ILP?
Police analysts to interpret involvement;
TO
• Influence decision makers
• Requires decision makers to use intelligence in a
proactive manner
6. The Paradigm from Community Policing to ILP
• Requirements driven
• Collection and analysis
• Multi-jurisdictional
• Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement sharing
• Leads to Pro-Active collaboration
7. Community Policing vs ILP
Community
Policing
ILP
Identify the elements of a crime Identify collection Requirements
Investigative direction Assess the Domain
Gather the evidence
Documentation and Trial prep
Collect information
Report Intelligence
Prosecution Intelligence informed action
8. Commitment
The chief executive must understand the concept of ILP
How does ILP fit into the department’s mission
Commitment to the concept of people and resources
Training and infrastructure development
Commitment must extend throughout the chain
9. In Summary
ILP builds on best practices in Community Policing
ILP has a critical ingredient of information sharing
ILP will be most effective in “all-crimes” perspective
ILP will have meaning when it is integrated across all
systems of the law enforcement
The intent of this section of the course is to provide a practical foundation for implementing intelligence-led policing. Definitions and applications of the process are provided as well as illustrations. It should be noted that while guidance can be provided with respect to concepts and principles, the actual implementation of ILP in a law enforcement agency requires the application of these principles to each individual agency. We can provide a solid roadmap to implementation, but we cannot provide a “plug and play” model.
The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) states, “The primary purpose of intelligence-led policing is to provide public-safety decision makers the information they need to protect the lives of our citizens.” How is this accomplished? There is no “Manual of Practice” for ILP because, and like community policing, it must be tailored to the issue/mission and characteristics of each individual agency (threat based and as an example is there a city/agency which has a maritime/port issue and is the port a threat or potential threat). Thus, the concept of ILP must be created through an inclusive development process to ensure it is integrated with an agency’s goals and functions. Within the development phase there must/needs to be a focus toward the agency’s capabilities, and the characteristics of both the agency and the jurisdiction (people) it serves. It is not an “add on” (or should it be considered) responsibility to the agency but an adaptation to more efficiently and effectively deal with multijurisdictional threats and serious crime that touch communities. There are no shortcuts in the process—it requires creativity, organizational introspection, and a willingness to adapt the organization. The following discussions address critical considerations in this process as well as probable/possible tools that can help a law enforcement agency adopt this philosophy.
The Armenian case; involved an assault within a Las Vegas casino, an assault on a police officer in southern California in 2002, and a kidnapping in a smaller jurisdiction in 2006. Purely reactive policing to these incidents would not have revealed the Armenian organized crime threat crossing these jurisdictions and reaching internationally back to Armenia. It was the intelligence led approach that identified this threat group.When LVMPD recognized the potential for an emerging threat involving Armenian organized crime, it in effect implemented a requirements-driven intelligence process that resulted in additional collection and analysis of information. Initially, this came from sharing of information across law enforcement agencies. This all eventually led to further collection through confidential informants, financial records investigations, pen registers and wiretaps. A cornerstone of ILP is the collaboration across multiple law enforcement jurisdictions. This case study provides an excellent example of how these collaborations evolve in practice.
Without the Chief Executive’s commitment to the concept, ILP will not be effectively developed. Commitmentbegins with the executive’s true understanding of the concept. In some cases, this has occurred after the Chief Executive has attended a training program exclusively developed for the executive’s perspective (such as the BJA program, “Criminal Intelligence for the Chief Executive”). These type programs offer and provide the fundamental concepts as well as value (value added) by implementing Intelligence. These courses/seminars demonstrate how intelligence integrates with the department’s overall mission and permits the chief to interact with others which allows/stimulates an exchange of ideas on how ILP may be used.The Chief Executive should also formally articulate his/her support of the concept in a policy statement. The policy statement provides the organizational parameters of ILP and gives all members of the agency a tangible reference point to understand how ILP is to be implemented and used. Perhaps the best symbol of commitment is the dedication of resources to ILP. When personnel in the agency are properly trained, people are assigned to the agency’s intelligence/mission and functions (combined with adequate funding as well as dedicating an appropriate structure or long term development), plus an execution of ILP, this sends a strong message to the agency’s personnel about the Chief Executive’s commitment.Also, it is critical to gain commitment to the concept by commanders and managers who are by design under the supervision of the Chief Executive. They are and will be ultimately responsible for the implementation and start-up of the execution of ILP. If commanders and managers do not have a clear understanding of how ILP can benefit the agency as well as their responsibilities for directing personnel under their command, then full implementation will not occur and the concept or actual ILP will fail regardless of the Chief Executive’s support. Like in all “types” of organizations there are numerous examples within the management process where middle managers have defeated new initiatives by simply not (totally/thoroughly) ensuring personnel that are under their command perform the duties necessary to make the initiative work. An old saying and concept/principle within management, “Managers may not be able to turn the water on, but they can easily turn it off.” The Chief Executive’s commitment to implement ILP is a critical element. Through his/hers commitment, the command staff must understand the Chief Executive’s vision of how ILP will be used in the agency. This vision will typically vary between agencies for a variety of ‘causes’: resource, political, and ideological reasons. Despite these variables, the concept must be built around his/her vision if ILP is to be successfully implemented. This slide provides a series of questions which will help guide the understanding of the executive’s vision. It is understood that responses to the questions may not be ideologically “pure” to the ILP concept, they provide guidance/direction on how the Chief Executive believes the process should work in his/her agency. As ILP is executed, the Chief Executive’s vision may change, hence there may be a need to revisit the executive’s vision and modify the execution.
The intent of this section of the course is to provide a practical foundation for implementing intelligence-led policing. Definitions and applications of the process are provided as well as illustrations. It should be noted that while guidance can be provided with respect to concepts and principles, the actual implementation of ILP in a law enforcement agency requires the application of these principles to each individual agency. We can provide a solid roadmap to implementation, but we cannot provide a “plug and play” model.
