Abstract:Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is a managerial law enforcement model that seeks to place crime intelligence at the forefront of decision-making. This model has been widely adopted, at least notionally, in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Drawing on interviews with intelligence analysts from two Australian state law enforcement agencies, this article contributes to the relatively small body of literature that has examined ILP in practice. The article identifies three relational themes … Show more
“…The material barriers, such as poor technological interoperability, technological expertise and data literacy skills, are consistent with the broader literature on intelligence analysis (Belur and Johnson, 2016;Burcher and Whelan, 2018;Innes et al, 2005). Our findings further support criticisms regarding the lack of a strategic and standardised approach to analytical training (Walsh, 2011) that have created impediments to the uptake and use of analytic practices in policing.…”
Datafication of social life affects what society regards as knowledge. Jasanoff’s regimes of sight framework provides three ideal-type models of authorised knowing in environmental data practice. This paper applies Jasanoff's framework for analysing intelligence practice through an exploratory empirical study of crime and intelligence practitioners in a selection of police services in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. The paper argues that the ‘view from somewhere’ (VFS) captures the essence of existing police intelligence practices in the four countries but the ‘view from nowhere’ (VFN) is emerging as a possible future for police intelligence – an approach promoted by technology companies and supported mainly by police leaders and managers. The paper investigates the challenges and limits of a shift by police from VFS to VFN in the production of intelligence; the challenges are primarily political, which threaten the dominance of police contextual knowledge over ‘scientific’ knowledge. These political challenges also have symbolic and material implications. The paper concludes that, because of these challenges, a complete shift from VFS to VFN is not likely to happen. At best the two models might co-exist with the latter subordinate to the imperatives of the former, resulting in further tension between sworn officers and civilians, organisational inertia, as well as technologies that may be under-utilised or abandoned.
“…The material barriers, such as poor technological interoperability, technological expertise and data literacy skills, are consistent with the broader literature on intelligence analysis (Belur and Johnson, 2016;Burcher and Whelan, 2018;Innes et al, 2005). Our findings further support criticisms regarding the lack of a strategic and standardised approach to analytical training (Walsh, 2011) that have created impediments to the uptake and use of analytic practices in policing.…”
Datafication of social life affects what society regards as knowledge. Jasanoff’s regimes of sight framework provides three ideal-type models of authorised knowing in environmental data practice. This paper applies Jasanoff's framework for analysing intelligence practice through an exploratory empirical study of crime and intelligence practitioners in a selection of police services in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. The paper argues that the ‘view from somewhere’ (VFS) captures the essence of existing police intelligence practices in the four countries but the ‘view from nowhere’ (VFN) is emerging as a possible future for police intelligence – an approach promoted by technology companies and supported mainly by police leaders and managers. The paper investigates the challenges and limits of a shift by police from VFS to VFN in the production of intelligence; the challenges are primarily political, which threaten the dominance of police contextual knowledge over ‘scientific’ knowledge. These political challenges also have symbolic and material implications. The paper concludes that, because of these challenges, a complete shift from VFS to VFN is not likely to happen. At best the two models might co-exist with the latter subordinate to the imperatives of the former, resulting in further tension between sworn officers and civilians, organisational inertia, as well as technologies that may be under-utilised or abandoned.
“…Considering the improvement in prediction performance when using ambient population, the use of this variable is especially of interest for predictive policing models given that they can reflect micro-spatiotemporal fluctuations and therefore allow for more precise predictions on a micro-scale. Nevertheless, (the implementation of) intelligence-led policing practices still face numerous challenges and preconditions [88][89][90], which should be taken into account. Future research and applications of crime prediction fully exploiting the dynamic nature of ambient population should apply a truly predictive analytical strategy, that uses the ambient population at a previous time point as a predictor of crime.…”
This article assesses whether ambient population is a more suitable population-at-risk measure for crime types with mobile targets than residential population for the purpose of intelligence-led policing applications. Specifically, the potential use of ambient population as a crime rate denominator and predictor for predictive policing models is evaluated, using mobile phone data (with a total of 9,397,473 data points) as a proxy. The results show that ambient population correlates more strongly with crime than residential population. Crime rates based on ambient population designate different problem areas than crime rates based on residential population. The prediction performance of predictive policing models can be improved by using ambient population instead of residential population. These findings support that ambient population is a more suitable population-at-risk measure, as it better reflects the underlying dynamics in spatiotemporal crime trends. Its use has therefore much as-of-yet unused potential not only for criminal research and theory testing, but also for intelligence-led policy and practice.
“…Nonetheless, although civilians were often recognised as different, this is not to suggest they were necessarily viewed as 'outsiders'. Rather, the concerns put forward about civilians may be partly a reflection of the lack of internal training civilians receive about policing and police requirements, as is typical with the roles they perform (Burcher and Whelan, 2019;Western et al, 2019). Furthermore, a better understanding of the types of knowledge and skills required within specialist police cyber-crime units is needed for a fuller appreciation of the opportunities for civilianisation.…”
Civilianisation refers to utilising non-sworn personnel to perform certain roles within police organisations. While the civilianisation of policing has been examined in a variety of contexts, it has generally been in relation to attempts to improve police efficiency. The current literature is much less focused on efforts to intentionally seek out civilians to improve police effectiveness, which, we suggest, is likely to apply in the case of police responses to cyber-crime. Using empirical data collected with three specialist cyber-crime units in Australia, we explore the arguments for and against civilianising cyber-crime units as a strategy to improve police capacity, as reported by police and civilian members of these units. We consider these arguments in relation to a broader debate as to whether it is better to improve police capacity by employing civilian experts or attempt to develop greater expertise on cyber-crime among police.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.